Chemistry - A Test

[Rerisen]

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.

 

Is there such a thing as off the field and on the field chemistry? Really competitive people often dont get along or may get into fights off the field. Sometimes maybe even you get into it with your best friend, but when you get on a team together you play exceptionally well. Even if you motivation is outdoing the guy you hate on the other side of the outfield.

 

Isnt it also possible that when people talk of chemistry they might not just mean social relationships but how well a team is balanced. For example following the NBA this season (where chemistry is probably even more important) you could look at the Knicks this season and see that they actually have alot more talent than teams similar to their record. But its often said they have no chemistry because they have too many redundent skill set players. Francis and Marbury, Crawford and Rose. Too many guys offensively oriented and not enough hustle players. And also their players dont fit into the typical mold of the players their coach usually builds a team around. Yet if you rated each of their players individually on a scale of 1 to 10 you would come up with a much higher total than the other worst teams in the league. In baseball this might be seen as something like when Boston got rid of what many considered superior players for the sake of upgrading their defense.

[neely crenshaw]

chemistry comes with winning! it is certainly easier to except roles and be a good team player when things are going well....not many underacheiving teams have great chemistry.

[ConstableRabbit]

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

 

Yes, but how do you know what teams have good chemistry and which don't? It's a really subjective thing. Additionally, we can't observe each team day to day. Even if we asked the players, who's to say theyd give an accurate depiction of the team's chemistry?

[UBlink]

Yes, but how do you know what teams have good chemistry and which don't? It's a really subjective thing. Additionally, we can't observe each team day to day. Even if we asked the players, who's to say theyd give an accurate depiction of the team's chemistry?

 

OK, I think I have it figured out now. Sometimes rain is caused by rainbows. The problem is that you can't see the rainbow through the clouds and rain while it's raining, but afterwards you see that the rainbow is there and then you know that that rain was caused by a rainbow.

[ConstableRabbit]

Yes, but how do you know what teams have good chemistry and which don't? It's a really subjective thing. Additionally, we can't observe each team day to day. Even if we asked the players, who's to say theyd give an accurate depiction of the team's chemistry?

 

OK, I think I have it figured out now. Sometimes rain is caused by rainbows. The problem is that you can't see the rainbow through the clouds and rain while it's raining, but afterwards you see that the rainbow is there and then you know that that rain was caused by a rainbow.

 

I'm a little confused as to why I was quoted for that statement...