Chemistry - A Test

[sethuel1]

Anecdotally, the two best hockey teams I played on throughout my 10 years of playing hockey were also the two teams where everyone hated each other.

[UK1679666180]

Chemistry is often misused. Most think of it as what goes in the clubhouse and whether or not athletes like each other or not.

 

For me, chemistry on the field is much more important than chemistry in the clubhouse. I like to see how the OF communicates, how the SS and 2B handle the DP, and of course the battery. Of course, that chemistry is built over time, something today's game provides little of. 1 position player of the '03 team remains.

 

The A's of the early 70's could not stand each other off the field, but they were extremely talented and able to forget about their differences once they stepped onto the field.

 

A GM can't build a team around chemistry, chemistry is something that discovered after a team has been built and not before.

 

The Cubs won't make the playoffs b/c of their chemistry and they won't miss the playoffs b/c of it either.

 

Who knows which team has the best chemistry? So many roster transactions per year, it's impossible to tell.

 

there won't likely be a direct relationship between a 1st place with great chemistry compared to overall talent.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Chemistry pretty much takes care of itself as long as you set rules as an organization, be it no jewelry on the field or the clean cut look. Don't make exceptions and make it clear to players what you expect from them. Clear communication.

 

The Braves had loads of egomaniacs over the years and very few of them bucked the system. Even Sheffield didn't dink around while a Brave. Deion did, but he was quickly shown the door. If people are respectful and team oriented (not individuals on the field), chemistry should take care of itself with a decent managerial staff.

[TB_11]

Baseball, as a game, is so dependent on individual performance on each play and game.

 

In football or basketball, you cannot discount team chemistry. A QB might throw to a guy he likes more, or a back may not block for someone he can't stand. A basketball team might freeze out a player. Or, a QB who has an experienced relationship with his backs and recievers will trust them on any given play. Or a basketball team who has played together for 2, 3, or 4 years can do great things with lesser talent based on familiarity with each other.

 

There's essentially two chemistries to consider. One is 'they all get along and are friends' chemistry. I can't imagine this would have an ounce of effect on a team's performance.

 

The other is 'they've played together for years and know each others tendencies' chemistry mentioned by MOJ above in other sports. Possible examples in baseball would be a catcher who knows what call to make in which situation when catching a certain pitcher, or a first basemen who knows when a shortstop goes to his left he tends to the right of the bag, or even a double play combo that can execute well. Regardless I'm not sure these 'chemistries' really have a whole lot of value, and would be able to be measured if they did.

[UBlink]

I thought I would give this a bump one more time to solicit any predictions based on real or perceived differences in team chemistry. You've now got the advantage of one regular season game. Which teams are going to over- or under-achieve their predictions based on cold, heartless statistics due to the presence or lack of genuine, human team chemistry?

 

Again, this isn't a thread for a discussion of the theories about team chemistry, this is the thread attempting to test for the predictive value of observations about team chemistry.

[snoodmonger]

Does something have to have predictive value in order to merit discussion?

[abuck1220]

i think the reds, royals, pirates, rockies and marlins have the best team chemistry. i guess we'll see how they end up!

[UBlink]

Does something have to have predictive value in order to merit discussion?

 

No, but a lot of the criticism of the chemistry concept has centered on it only being observed after the fact - as in, wow, that team really over-achieved. Oh yeah, and everybody seemed to be friendly in the clubhouse, it must have been the chemistry.

 

And some of the criticism from the pro-chemistry side was that just because there's no good objective measure for it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, and that one would know it if you see it.

 

Neither of those arguments will be settled theoretically. So I proposed this experiment to try to get a handle on it empirically. But so far I have no volunteers [edit] I take that back, thanks ABuck :wink:

[CubinNY]

I thought I would give this a bump one more time to solicit any predictions based on real or perceived differences in team chemistry. You've now got the advantage of one regular season game. Which teams are going to over- or under-achieve their predictions based on cold, heartless statistics due to the presence or lack of genuine, human team chemistry?

 

Again, this isn't a thread for a discussion of the theories about team chemistry, this is the thread attempting to test for the predictive value of observations about team chemistry.

 

Big Z is a clubhouse cancer b/c he won't talk to reporters after a bad game (boo hoo Paul Sullivan). That is bad mojo, bad mojo. I predict the Cubs lose their remaining games and go 1-161.

[ConstableRabbit]

Does chemistry/hope among a military squadron have no effect on whether or not they will win the battle?

[UBlink]

Does chemistry/hope among a military squadron have no effect on whether or not they will win the battle?

 

I don't know. What kind of observations would be required to find out? Do some squadrons have better chemistry than others?

[goonys evil twin]

Does chemistry/hope among a military squadron have no effect on whether or not they will win the battle?

 

Whether or not it does, has no ramifications for the baseball discussion. Baseball is nothing like war. You have to trust the man next to you with your life in war, not in baseball.

[ConstableRabbit]

Does chemistry/hope among a military squadron have no effect on whether or not they will win the battle?

 

Whether or not it does, has no ramifications for the baseball discussion. Baseball is nothing like war. You have to trust the man next to you with your life in war, not in baseball.

 

Obviously they aren't the same thing, but you have to work together to win in baseball too. You have to travel together, shower together, and are around each other for long periods of time. Do you not think that if everyone hates each other it can have negative effects on their on-field performance? It's almost like office chemistry. Huge companies spend millions on consulting to resolve this issue.

 

I wouldn't argue that its a huge factor- obviously not bigger than talent, ha. I would also argue that winning solves, or should solve, most clubhouse problems. But I tend to think that the collective team spirit and hope can help a team bounce back from a slump, whereas one who has a bad attitude is less likely to succeed. Assuming each team has the axact same talent. The problem is, its almost a philosophical debate because you can't really have the same talent on each team as a control- there are too many lurking variables to make an accurate statistical experiment. It's a lot easier to do in an office.

[Careless]

I think this would be too hard to do because it really isn't a static thing. Things change all the time and you never know what can upset the "Chemistry" of a team.

 

In other words, there's no such thing as team chemistry affecting play, and we have to wait until the end of the season to see who won to then go back and apply the label of good chemistry or bad chemistry.

 

Someone should consult a social psychologist (not necessarily you, goony). It's certainly not my area of expertise, but I don't doubt the existence of "chemistry" having an impact on performance.

I suspect that, if it exists, it's a multipolar function. That is, good chemistry can make a team perform worse and bad chemistry can make it better. Or, if you want to define "good" as improving performance, guys who don't like each other and guys who do can both result in improved performance

It seems a pretty futile discussion

[goonys evil twin]

Do you not think that if everyone hates each other it can have negative effects on their on-field performance?

 

It could, but several teams with players that hated each other enjoyed great success.

[ConstableRabbit]

Do you not think that if everyone hates each other it can have negative effects on their on-field performance?

 

It could, but several teams with players that hated each other enjoyed great success.

 

That is definately true. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, all talent equal, teams with better chemistry should tend to to better than teams with bad chemistry. Chemistry isn't necessary for success (2002 Giants, for example), but it doesn't hurt.

[Banedon]

I wonder if those people that think that "chemistry" in reference to the entire team doesn't affect team performance, think the same about particular areas of the game...

 

For example, does a pitcher that has chemistry with a catcher pitch better? What about a second baseman and a SS having chemistry? Can they turn the double play better? Or is it purely a matter of talent?

 

Not arguing either way, just trying to get at this differently.

[UBlink]

Assuming each team has the axact same talent. The problem is, its almost a philosophical debate because you can't really have the same talent on each team as a control- there are too many lurking variables to make an accurate statistical experiment. It's a lot easier to do in an office.

 

You don't have to have the same talent. The inspiration for starting this thread was the publication of PECOTA projections for the 2006 season. The idea was to use the objective, quantifiable statistical projections as a control, and then see if layering observations about team chemistry would improve the precision of the predictions.

 

So for the NL Central the PECOTA projections looked like this:

 

NL Central    W      L
Cardinals    86     76   
Cubs         85     77   
Brewers      84     78   
Astros       81     81   
Pirates      79     83   
Reds         78     84   

 

My hope was that somebody would be able to say that, independent of talent, my ranking of the teams chemistry would be

 

(made up ranking)

Brewers

Cardinals

Cubs

Reds

Pirates

Astros

 

Then at the end of the year we could look at the actual results and see if the chemistry observation, layered onto the PECOTA projection, improved the precision of the predicted results. Obviously if the pre-season chemistry rankings match the PECOTA rankings there's no additional information and no test.

 

The only response I've been given, from ABuck, I think is somewhat sarcastic in that he projected the teams with the best chemistry are the ones projected to be the worst in each division. However if, at the end of the season, none of those teams actually came in last place I'd be tempted to say ABuck is on to something.

 

Like I think I've said before, I understand the arguments on both sides. I'm just trying to shine a little empirical light on the subject

[hankp101]

I've played on many teams in many sports, and when we win a lot, we seem to get along (at least on the field of play) and vice versa. Even though I think it has more to do with winning than how you get along to begin with, I'll take a stab at it...

 

1. Brewers

2. Pirates

3. Astros

4. Cubs

5. Cardinals

6. Reds

[Diffusion]

I think that the Reds and Pirates have the least team chemisty, and that therefore they will finish in the bottom two places in the division!

[snoodmonger]

I wonder if those people that think that "chemistry" in reference to the entire team doesn't affect team performance, think the same about particular areas of the game...

 

For example, does a pitcher that has chemistry with a catcher pitch better? What about a second baseman and a SS having chemistry? Can they turn the double play better? Or is it purely a matter of talent?

 

Not arguing either way, just trying to get at this differently.

 

I was thinking the same thing. Take, for example, Maddux and his personal catchers. Is that a chemistry thing?

[UBlink]

I think that the Reds and Pirates have the least team chemisty, and that therefore they will finish in the bottom two places in the division!

 

Obviously if the pre-season chemistry rankings match the PECOTA rankings there's no additional information and no test.

 

But thanks for trying.

[Stu]

I don't doubt the existence of "chemistry" having an impact on performance.

 

I do.

 

Which is why I think someone who may know a social psychologist should get an opinion. Nothing personal, I just don't trust your opinion on this.

 

My problem with the chemistry argument is that probably the two best baseball teams I've seen in my lifetime: the As of the early '70s and the Big Red Machine were both known to have chemistry issues.

 

In fact I've read over the years about how there was a lot of animosity on those teams. But they were just dominant.

[CubinNY]

I think that the Reds and Pirates have the least team chemisty, and that therefore they will finish in the bottom two places in the division!

 

Obviously if the pre-season chemistry rankings match the PECOTA rankings there's no additional information and no test.

 

But thanks for trying.

UBlink, you are making the assumption that the PECOTA values are accurate, in other words that is your objective anchor. That is not necessarily the case. In addition, the Reds and Pirates could still suck and have bad chemistry. If Dunn keeps playing in the OF like he did on Monday I could see a lot of Bad mojo in that clubhouse.

 

On a different note. To me there is a difference between familarity and "chemistry". for example I have known a lot of girls for a long time and they have become good friends. We hang out share likes and dislikes but have never hooked up. That is familiarity. A SS and a 2nd baseman who have played together for a long time don't need to be friends off the field to be a good double play combo. I don't think Lou Whitiker and Alan Trammell swaped Thanksgivings at each others houses but they were one hell of keystone combination for a long time. That is familiarity.

 

Now when I was single I might see a girl I don't know at a bar buy her a drink or five and hook up. That is chemistry. I really have no idea how this sort of thing would help a baseball player to be better. I am not suggesting a lot of homoerotic man love needs to go on in the clubhouse so get your head out of the pee trough. What I am suggesting is, I don't know how exchanging telephonne calls, going on offseason hunting trips, and buying birthday presents for kids could ever affect what goes on on a baseball diamond.

Edited April 5, 2006 by CubinNY

[snoodmonger]

I don't doubt the existence of "chemistry" having an impact on performance.

 

I do.

 

Which is why I think someone who may know a social psychologist should get an opinion. Nothing personal, I just don't trust your opinion on this.

 

My problem with the chemistry argument is that probably the two best baseball teams I've seen in my lifetime: the As of the early '70s and the Big Red Machine were both known to have chemistry issues.

 

In fact I've read over the years about how there was a lot of animosity on those teams. But they were just dominant.

 

I think chemistry proponents might say enough talent can negate bad chemistry, but that doesn't mean it's not a factor. (And likewise, all the chemistry in the world won't make a talentless team win, the Bad News Bears notwithstanding.)

 

But for the average to above-average team, chemistry may play a part.

 

Personally, I have no problem with those ideas. I'm not saying one should make chemistry the main focus when building a team, but I think it can play a role. However, it's impossible to prove that point, so I generally don't waste my time arguing about it. I look at it as the baseball equivalent to a matter of faith. Can't prove it. probably can't disprove it. SO it's up to each individual to make his own decision regarding the idea's validity.