[gflore34]

Why did the Marlins fall apart this past season under the same leadership of Jack McKeon? They had good chemistry in '03 and didn't this year? How can a team like the White Sox win the World Series and have malcontents like Everett, Marte and Pierzynski playing key roles? It seems chemistry is good only when people see them laughing and joking around in the dugout, drinking Jack Daniels before games, or listening to bad '80's hair band music together on team flights. We, as fans, don't really have any insight into what happens behind the scenes in a clubhouse. Numerous players came out in support of LaTroy Hawkins this year after he was traded and said he was a great teammate, but to most fans hear appeared to be aloof. Team chemistry is just added when people are looking for a reason why certain teams are successful.

 

I was thinking along the same lines, should the Cubs win the 2006 WS, no doubt, someone will write of the great Chemistry they had...

[SouthSideRyan]

So I guess the arrival of Mike Mussina has been so destructive to the Yankees clubhouse that they haven't been able to win since. If only he wasn't sitting on the bench maybe Rivera doesn't give up that blooper to Luis Gonzalez.

[CubfaninCA]

Why did the Marlins fall apart this past season under the same leadership of Jack McKeon? They had good chemistry in '03 and didn't this year? How can a team like the White Sox win the World Series and have malcontents like Everett, Marte and Pierzynski playing key roles? It seems chemistry is good only when people see them laughing and joking around in the dugout, drinking Jack Daniels before games, or listening to bad '80's hair band music together on team flights. We, as fans, don't really have any insight into what happens behind the scenes in a clubhouse. Numerous players came out in support of LaTroy Hawkins this year after he was traded and said he was a great teammate, but to most fans he appeared to be aloof. Team chemistry is just added when people are looking for a reason why certain teams are successful.

 

Aren't they tired of McKeon now? Didn't Burnett have a meltdown? Apparently, his way of running things has run thin. He was dang good when hired in 2003 though. That team caught fire under McKeon.

 

Talent + luck + chemistry = level of success

Obviously talent is by far the most important factor, but a team usually needs a little of the other 2 in order to win it all. The media tends to overvalue chemistry tho.

[CubfaninCA]

So I guess the arrival of Mike Mussina has been so destructive to the Yankees clubhouse that they haven't been able to win since. If only he wasn't sitting on the bench maybe Rivera doesn't give up that blooper to Luis Gonzalez.

 

hyperbole.

 

I'm sure Sheffield hasn't been the best teammate tho.

[SouthSideRyan]

So I guess the arrival of Mike Mussina has been so destructive to the Yankees clubhouse that they haven't been able to win since. If only he wasn't sitting on the bench maybe Rivera doesn't give up that blooper to Luis Gonzalez.

 

hyperbole.

 

I'm sure Sheffield hasn't been the best teammate tho.

 

And yet the Marlins in '97 managed to overcome. Along with Alou on that team too. And Kevin Brown. I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence that the past few years WS winners got along so well. Even the Red Sox still had some division with Pedro and Manny seemingly off in their own world. The White Sox sure got alogn when celebrating a championship, but was there really anything else that pointed out that they were best of friends? The fact that they bunted?

[Mark Priors Calves]

Why did the Marlins fall apart this past season under the same leadership of Jack McKeon? They had good chemistry in '03 and didn't this year? How can a team like the White Sox win the World Series and have malcontents like Everett, Marte and Pierzynski playing key roles? It seems chemistry is good only when people see them laughing and joking around in the dugout, drinking Jack Daniels before games, or listening to bad '80's hair band music together on team flights. We, as fans, don't really have any insight into what happens behind the scenes in a clubhouse. Numerous players came out in support of LaTroy Hawkins this year after he was traded and said he was a great teammate, but to most fans he appeared to be aloof. Team chemistry is just added when people are looking for a reason why certain teams are successful.

 

Aren't they tired of McKeon now? Didn't Burnett have a meltdown? Apparently, his way of running things has run thin. He was dang good when hired in 2003 though. That team caught fire under McKeon.

 

Talent + luck + chemistry = level of success

Obviously talent is by far the most important factor, but a team usually needs a little of the other 2 in order to win it all. The media tends to overvalue chemistry tho.

 

Maybe they did tired of McKeon but would it change that much over less than 2 seasons? If it was so successul before, why would it change so quickly? Burnett did have a meltdown and I think a big part of his problem with the organization was with McKeon. I can't argue with the success of the '03 Marlins and McKeon deserves his share of success but to credit him over the abundance of pitching talent on the team is wrong.

 

I agree with the media overvaluing chemistry. It doesn't hurt to have it but I really don't see it having a big effect of the performance of the players on the field.

[CubfaninCA]

Just heard some tidbits on the score and Hendry was talking about the signing and he had to say that he signe dhim because Rusch is a very good clubhouse guy and also, there were nto many options available out there that could do his role. What a bunch of crock. So let's go out there and sign the best cluibhouse guys..World Series here we come. What a crock.

 

Has he learned nothing from last off season? Chemistry is such overrated garbage.

 

Tell the 05 White Sox, 04 Red Sox, 03 Marlins, 02 Angels and the 96-2000 Yankees that.

 

why? do you know for a fact that they had great 'chemistry'?

 

The empirical evidence suggests they got along well, which helped their performance as a team.

 

um...sure.

 

and this year's cub team supposedly got along great (or so empirical evidence suggests), and they sucked big time.

 

They didn't have the talent to compliment the camaraderie.

 

great self-sealing argument.

 

What's that suppose to mean?? Never seen the term "self-sealing."

 

Learn something new everyday....

[CubfaninCA]

Why did the Marlins fall apart this past season under the same leadership of Jack McKeon? They had good chemistry in '03 and didn't this year? How can a team like the White Sox win the World Series and have malcontents like Everett, Marte and Pierzynski playing key roles? It seems chemistry is good only when people see them laughing and joking around in the dugout, drinking Jack Daniels before games, or listening to bad '80's hair band music together on team flights. We, as fans, don't really have any insight into what happens behind the scenes in a clubhouse. Numerous players came out in support of LaTroy Hawkins this year after he was traded and said he was a great teammate, but to most fans he appeared to be aloof. Team chemistry is just added when people are looking for a reason why certain teams are successful.

 

Aren't they tired of McKeon now? Didn't Burnett have a meltdown? Apparently, his way of running things has run thin. He was dang good when hired in 2003 though. That team caught fire under McKeon.

 

Talent + luck + chemistry = level of success

Obviously talent is by far the most important factor, but a team usually needs a little of the other 2 in order to win it all. The media tends to overvalue chemistry tho.

 

Maybe they did tired of McKeon but would it change that much over less than 2 seasons? If it was so successul before, why would it change so quickly? Burnett did have a meltdown and I think a big part of his problem with the organization was with McKeon. I can't argue with the success of the '03 Marlins and McKeon deserves his share of success but to credit him over the abundance of pitching talent on the team is wrong.

 

I agree with the media overvaluing chemistry. It doesn't hurt to have it but I really don't see it having a big effect of the performance of the players on the field.

 

Never did give him more credit than their pitching staff. Talent's the biggest factor by far.

[abuck1220]

Just heard some tidbits on the score and Hendry was talking about the signing and he had to say that he signe dhim because Rusch is a very good clubhouse guy and also, there were nto many options available out there that could do his role. What a bunch of crock. So let's go out there and sign the best cluibhouse guys..World Series here we come. What a crock.

 

Has he learned nothing from last off season? Chemistry is such overrated garbage.

 

Tell the 05 White Sox, 04 Red Sox, 03 Marlins, 02 Angels and the 96-2000 Yankees that.

 

why? do you know for a fact that they had great 'chemistry'?

 

The empirical evidence suggests they got along well, which helped their performance as a team.

 

um...sure.

 

and this year's cub team supposedly got along great (or so empirical evidence suggests), and they sucked big time.

 

They didn't have the talent to compliment the camaraderie.

 

great self-sealing argument.

 

What's that suppose to mean?? Never seen the term "self-sealing."

 

Learn something new everyday....

 

your argument -- those teams won because of great 'chemistry' -- is bullet proof. there's no way for anyone to prove it wrong, but there's also no way for you to prove it correct. in other words, it's not a good argument.

[frostwyrm]

I've heard the term "self-sealing" applied to fuel tanks used in military aircraft and vehicles. They date back to WW2. I'm not exactly sure how they worked, but I know bullets could actually enter the fuel tank and an inner bladder could still prevent a leak if the hole wasn't too big. Maintenance crews would actually fish machine gun slugs out of the bottom of the tanks. I imagine this technology is still in use, but modernized of course.

[abuck1220]

is self-serving better?

[MPrior]

I remember in 2004, there was a big hubbub about the Cardinals' mythic "chemistry." Same for the Red Sox, when they went on their late season- and post season-runs. It's worth pointing out, though, that NO ONE even mentioned "chemistry" until those teams started winning. The Cardinals didn't really heat up until mid-may, if I'm remembering correctly. And once they did, and started winning 75% of their games, everyone talked about "chemistry." Well, I would have a hard time feeling bad if I was winning 75% of my games. Earlier in the 2004 season, when the Red Sox weren't doing as well as they would have hoped, I remember hearing some reports about bad chemistry and malcontent. But then, they went on a tear, clinched the wild card, and staged the most dramatic comeback in baseball postseason history, and everyone's talking about their "chemistry." While chemistry certainly does exist, I think it is much more a function of winning than winning is a function of chemistry.

 

For example, this year's White Sox. Of course, Ozzie's imperative "win or die trying" certainly helped with the chemistry. But what would have happened if they hadn't started out winning? Do you think they would have had good chemistry then? I really doubt it.

[RockTheIvy]

I remember in 2004, there was a big hubbub about the Cardinals' mythic "chemistry." Same for the Red Sox, when they went on their late season- and post season-runs. It's worth pointing out, though, that NO ONE even mentioned "chemistry" until those teams started winning. The Cardinals didn't really heat up until mid-may, if I'm remembering correctly. And once they did, and started winning 75% of their games, everyone talked about "chemistry." Well, I would have a hard time feeling bad if I was winning 75% of my games. Earlier in the 2004 season, when the Red Sox weren't doing as well as they would have hoped, I remember hearing some reports about bad chemistry and malcontent. But then, they went on a tear, clinched the wild card, and staged the most dramatic comeback in baseball postseason history, and everyone's talking about their "chemistry." While chemistry certainly does exist, I think it is much more a function of winning than winning is a function of chemistry.

 

For example, this year's White Sox. Of course, Ozzie's imperative "win or die trying" certainly helped with the chemistry. But what would have happened if they hadn't started out winning? Do you think they would have had good chemistry then? I really doubt it.

 

It's a chicken-egg argument. Did the winning spark the chemistry, or did the chemistry spark the winning. Everyone is having a blast when they are winning, so of course the chemistry is great.

[RynoRules]

"Chemistrty" is an intangible, and therefore, by definition, cannot be measured. Its a philosophy, not a science. Thus, there's no way to measure its true effect. I would submit that it has some effect, though not as great as talent and production.

[UBlink]

"Chemistrty" is an intangible, and therefore, by definition, cannot be measured. Its a philosophy, not a science. Thus, there's no way to measure its true effect. I would submit that it has some effect, though not as great as talent and production.

 

If chemistry can't be measured, how do we know which team has the best chemistry, or even which of two teams has better chemistry?

[CubfaninCA]

"Chemistrty" is an intangible, and therefore, by definition, cannot be measured. Its a philosophy, not a science. Thus, there's no way to measure its true effect. I would submit that it has some effect, though not as great as talent and production.

 

If chemistry can't be measured, how do we know which team has the best chemistry, or even which of two teams has better chemistry?

 

by critical observation. :D Can't just disregard something cause it cannot be measure it w/ some math formula.

[UBlink]

"Chemistrty" is an intangible, and therefore, by definition, cannot be measured. Its a philosophy, not a science. Thus, there's no way to measure its true effect. I would submit that it has some effect, though not as great as talent and production.

 

If chemistry can't be measured, how do we know which team has the best chemistry, or even which of two teams has better chemistry?

 

by critical observation. :D Can't just disregard something cause it cannot be measure it w/ some math formula.

 

The argument was that, by definition, it cannot be measured. That's different from saying measurement is difficult.

[CubinNY]

If something cannot be measured it does not exist.

 

Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road.

 

Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS.

 

Forget chemistry.

[CubfaninCA]

"Chemistrty" is an intangible, and therefore, by definition, cannot be measured. Its a philosophy, not a science. Thus, there's no way to measure its true effect. I would submit that it has some effect, though not as great as talent and production.

 

If chemistry can't be measured, how do we know which team has the best chemistry, or even which of two teams has better chemistry?

 

Actually intangibles falls under social sciences. It's not a hard science. Am guessing the majority of this board has a hard science background, which explains the disdain for intangibles.

[XZero771679666304]

If something cannot be measured it does not exist.

 

Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road.

 

Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS.

 

Forget chemistry.

 

 

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later.

 

Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance.

[CubfaninCA]

If something cannot be measured it does not exist.

 

Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road.

 

Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS.

 

Forget chemistry.

 

How do you measure good parents then? Kid's SAT scores?

[mg420]

“Not everything that can be counted, counts. And not everything that counts can be counted.” Albert Einstein

[Fred Hornkohl]

“Not everything that can be counted, counts. And not everything that counts can be counted.” Albert Einstein

 

Oh, I don't know.... it all sounds relative to me. :wink:

[UBlink]

If something cannot be measured it does not exist.

 

Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road.

 

Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS.

 

Forget chemistry.

 

How do you measure good parents then? Kid's SAT scores?

 

I'll take the other side on that one. First you have to define "good parents". And while you are at it, also give us a definition of "good team chemistry". I will go as far as to say it is very difficult to measure what hasn't been defined.

[CubinNY]

If something cannot be measured it does not exist.

 

Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road.

 

Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS.

 

Forget chemistry.

 

 

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later.

 

Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance.

"It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later."

 

Could you enlighten me? Name three physical things that "people" said cannot be measured.

 

-----------------

 

If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't.

 

There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured.

 

The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent.