[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Once again, no one can answer with precision whether the teams had good chemistry because they won or won because of good chemistry.

 

Are losing teams bad because they don't have chemistry? No, ususally they are bad because they lack talent. And just because you find a bunch of players that really like each other doesn't mean you'll put a winner on the field.

 

Secondly, I find it entirely impossible to build a team for "chemistry." Just because someone was well-liked by one group of people doesn't mean he will similarly be well-liked by another.

 

You build teams according to talent and hope the chemistry is there. Teams can win on talent without chemistry. I doubt you'll see many win on chemistry alone.

 

True, it's not absolute like ops. But it can be backed up w/ various observations... Jeter, Bernie and Paul O'Neill were "great clubhouse guys," the Red Sox have a fun clubhouse," etc., etc., etc.... Thus an opinion can be supported to some extent. If you want to give it a value, perhaps 5-10% of winning a title is based on "chemistry." Sometimes talent and luck can override this though. See the 72-74 A's for more..

 

The problem with saying chemistry is the cause of winning rather than the result is that certain players are at one time, while their team is winning viewed as great guys and then suddenly they aren't when the team struggles.

 

Case in point: Manny Ramirez. He's part of the Red Sox who had such "great chemistry" in 2004, yet is seen as a cancer now.

 

AJ was seen as a cancer in S.F., yet he's such a great guy in the White Sox clubhouse now. What about crazy Carl? Did these guys suddenly become model citezens, or is it just easier to get along when you're winning? I think it's more of the later than the former.

[abuck1220]

Once again, no one can answer with precision whether the teams had good chemistry because they won or won because of good chemistry.

 

Are losing teams bad because they don't have chemistry? No, ususally they are bad because they lack talent. And just because you find a bunch of players that really like each other doesn't mean you'll put a winner on the field.

 

Secondly, I find it entirely impossible to build a team for "chemistry." Just because someone was well-liked by one group of people doesn't mean he will similarly be well-liked by another.

 

You build teams according to talent and hope the chemistry is there. Teams can win on talent without chemistry. I doubt you'll see many win on chemistry alone.

 

True, it's not absolute like ops. But it can be backed up w/ various observations... Jeter, Bernie and Paul O'Neill were "great clubhouse guys," the Red Sox have a fun clubhouse," etc., etc., etc.... Thus an opinion can be supported to some extent. If you want to give it a value, perhaps 5-10% of winning a title is based on "chemistry." Sometimes talent and luck can override this though. See the 72-74 A's for more..

 

exactly. opinion is a hell of a lot different than empirical evidence.

 

you're certainly entitled to have an opinion that chemistry helps winning. but don't act as though it's fact.

[RynoRules]

Once again, no one can answer with precision whether the teams had good chemistry because they won or won because of good chemistry.

 

Are losing teams bad because they don't have chemistry? No, ususally they are bad because they lack talent. And just because you find a bunch of players that really like each other doesn't mean you'll put a winner on the field.

 

Secondly, I find it entirely impossible to build a team for "chemistry." Just because someone was well-liked by one group of people doesn't mean he will similarly be well-liked by another.

 

You build teams according to talent and hope the chemistry is there. Teams can win on talent without chemistry. I doubt you'll see many win on chemistry alone.

 

True, it's not absolute like ops. But it can be backed up w/ various observations... Jeter, Bernie and Paul O'Neill were "great clubhouse guys," the Red Sox have a fun clubhouse," etc., etc., etc.... Thus an opinion can be supported to some extent. If you want to give it a value, perhaps 5-10% of winning a title is based on "chemistry." Sometimes talent and luck can override this though. See the 72-74 A's for more..

 

I think Vance's point is that, in building a team, you can't rely on something as nonquatifiable as "chemistry" to save you. I agree - talent and production are more important. I just don't think chemistry should be completely disregarded as a factor (even if its only 5-10%) just b/c its difficult to quantify by nature.

[XZero771679666304]

As for the actual subject of this thread, the best evidence one could come up with to prove chemistry would be correlational at best. Even then you would have to come up with some criteria to indicate how well players get along, and they would be very loose.

 

Do I believe that how well players get a long contributes to or detracts from a work environment, and therefore has an effect on the whole? Sure. I think most people agree that if you enjoy going to work you are more productive, and less productive if you can't stand it.

 

Do I think that it is in any way a major factor in a teams overall success? No, because I think the effect is moderate-negligible. If you have a great team, bad chemistry will not bring it down. Conversely, if your team is medicore, chemisty will not overcome the lack of talent.

 

Therefore, using chemistry as a determining factor over talent when going after players is completely foolish, IMO.

[CubfaninCA]

Once again, no one can answer with precision whether the teams had good chemistry because they won or won because of good chemistry.

 

Are losing teams bad because they don't have chemistry? No, ususally they are bad because they lack talent. And just because you find a bunch of players that really like each other doesn't mean you'll put a winner on the field.

 

Secondly, I find it entirely impossible to build a team for "chemistry." Just because someone was well-liked by one group of people doesn't mean he will similarly be well-liked by another.

 

You build teams according to talent and hope the chemistry is there. Teams can win on talent without chemistry. I doubt you'll see many win on chemistry alone.

 

True, it's not absolute like ops. But it can be backed up w/ various observations... Jeter, Bernie and Paul O'Neill were "great clubhouse guys," the Red Sox have a fun clubhouse," etc., etc., etc.... Thus an opinion can be supported to some extent. If you want to give it a value, perhaps 5-10% of winning a title is based on "chemistry." Sometimes talent and luck can override this though. See the 72-74 A's for more..

 

The problem with saying chemistry is the cause of winning rather than the result is that certain players are at one time, while their team is winning viewed as great guys and then suddenly they aren't when the team struggles.

 

Case in point: Manny Ramirez. He's part of the Red Sox who had such "great chemistry" in 2004, yet is seen as a cancer now.

 

AJ was seen as a cancer in S.F., yet he's such a great guy in the White Sox clubhouse now. What about crazy Carl? Did these guys suddenly become model citezens, or is it just easier to get along when you're winning? I think it's more of the later than the former.

 

imo it's interrelated. basically, a cause & result. good chemistry helps lead to more wins. more wins leads to more chemistry. blah.

 

the white sox key was getting someone crazier than everett and a.j. to manage them. :)

 

the red sox big prob was losing pedro.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

As for the actual subject of this thread, the best evidence one could come up with to prove chemistry would be correlational at best. Even then you would have to come up with some criteria to indicate how well players get along, and they would be very loose.

 

Do I believe that how well players get a long contributes to or detracts from a work environment, and therefore has an effect on the whole? Sure. I think most people agree that if you enjoy going to work you are more productive, and less productive if you can't stand it.

 

Do I think that it is in any way a major factor in a teams overall success? No, because I think the effect is moderate-negligible. If you have a great team, bad chemistry will not bring it down. Conversely, if your team is medicore, chemisty will not overcome the lack of talent.

 

Therefore, using chemistry as a determining factor over talent when going after players is completely foolish, IMO.

 

Stop trying to hijack the thread.

[CubfaninCA]

Once again, no one can answer with precision whether the teams had good chemistry because they won or won because of good chemistry.

 

Are losing teams bad because they don't have chemistry? No, ususally they are bad because they lack talent. And just because you find a bunch of players that really like each other doesn't mean you'll put a winner on the field.

 

Secondly, I find it entirely impossible to build a team for "chemistry." Just because someone was well-liked by one group of people doesn't mean he will similarly be well-liked by another.

 

You build teams according to talent and hope the chemistry is there. Teams can win on talent without chemistry. I doubt you'll see many win on chemistry alone.

 

True, it's not absolute like ops. But it can be backed up w/ various observations... Jeter, Bernie and Paul O'Neill were "great clubhouse guys," the Red Sox have a fun clubhouse," etc., etc., etc.... Thus an opinion can be supported to some extent. If you want to give it a value, perhaps 5-10% of winning a title is based on "chemistry." Sometimes talent and luck can override this though. See the 72-74 A's for more..

 

exactly. opinion is a hell of a lot different than empirical evidence.

 

you're certainly entitled to have an opinion that chemistry helps winning. but don't act as though it's fact.

 

opinion & empirical evidence tie together. philosophy & ideology, which is essentially opinion, can be supported w/ empirical evidence. Example of an opinion/ideology ~ social security is good for society. empirical evidence shows that poverty rate went from 30some% in 30's to teens in the 60's. empirical evidence shows people live longer. etc., etc.. Of course, a competing ideology disagrees and shows other evidence such as people don't save as much cause they rely more on govt.. etc. etc..

[CubfaninCA]

As for the actual subject of this thread, the best evidence one could come up with to prove chemistry would be correlational at best. Even then you would have to come up with some criteria to indicate how well players get along, and they would be very loose.

 

Do I believe that how well players get a long contributes to or detracts from a work environment, and therefore has an effect on the whole? Sure. I think most people agree that if you enjoy going to work you are more productive, and less productive if you can't stand it.

 

Do I think that it is in any way a major factor in a teams overall success? No, because I think the effect is moderate-negligible. If you have a great team, bad chemistry will not bring it down. Conversely, if your team is medicore, chemisty will not overcome the lack of talent.

 

Therefore, using chemistry as a determining factor over talent when going after players is completely foolish, IMO.

 

That's a good analogy, and I think most can agree that if you work in a good work environment you're likely to produce more. Of course, your company can crash to the ground if you have poor managers. See Dusty for more. :)

[CubfaninCA]

Once again, no one can answer with precision whether the teams had good chemistry because they won or won because of good chemistry.

 

Are losing teams bad because they don't have chemistry? No, ususally they are bad because they lack talent. And just because you find a bunch of players that really like each other doesn't mean you'll put a winner on the field.

 

Secondly, I find it entirely impossible to build a team for "chemistry." Just because someone was well-liked by one group of people doesn't mean he will similarly be well-liked by another.

 

You build teams according to talent and hope the chemistry is there. Teams can win on talent without chemistry. I doubt you'll see many win on chemistry alone.

 

True, it's not absolute like ops. But it can be backed up w/ various observations... Jeter, Bernie and Paul O'Neill were "great clubhouse guys," the Red Sox have a fun clubhouse," etc., etc., etc.... Thus an opinion can be supported to some extent. If you want to give it a value, perhaps 5-10% of winning a title is based on "chemistry." Sometimes talent and luck can override this though. See the 72-74 A's for more..

 

I think Vance's point is that, in building a team, you can't rely on something as nonquatifiable as "chemistry" to save you. I agree - talent and production are more important. I just don't think chemistry should be completely disregarded as a factor (even if its only 5-10%) just b/c its difficult to quantify by nature.

 

It's a valid point. If you're looking for a template for success, it's the Yankees from 96-2000. Good pitching, hitter, managing and clubhouse. Of course, outspending everyone helped. :)

[Diffusion]

Again, if a physical thing cannot (as in impossible to) be measured in some way, shape, or form it a metaphysical sertitude that it does not exist.

 

Except "team chemistry" isn't a physical thing. It's an abstract, in the same mould as "love", "hate", "glory", "shame", "sorrow", "joy". Can you touch "love"? Can you see "hate"? Can you smell "glory"? Can you find "sorrow"? Can you measure "shame"? Can you buy "joy"? The answer to all of those questions is no. Does that mean that none of those abstracts exist? The answer to that question is no too.

[JeffH]

Can you buy "joy"?

 

No, but you can rent it.

[abuck1220]

Once again, no one can answer with precision whether the teams had good chemistry because they won or won because of good chemistry.

 

Are losing teams bad because they don't have chemistry? No, ususally they are bad because they lack talent. And just because you find a bunch of players that really like each other doesn't mean you'll put a winner on the field.

 

Secondly, I find it entirely impossible to build a team for "chemistry." Just because someone was well-liked by one group of people doesn't mean he will similarly be well-liked by another.

 

You build teams according to talent and hope the chemistry is there. Teams can win on talent without chemistry. I doubt you'll see many win on chemistry alone.

 

True, it's not absolute like ops. But it can be backed up w/ various observations... Jeter, Bernie and Paul O'Neill were "great clubhouse guys," the Red Sox have a fun clubhouse," etc., etc., etc.... Thus an opinion can be supported to some extent. If you want to give it a value, perhaps 5-10% of winning a title is based on "chemistry." Sometimes talent and luck can override this though. See the 72-74 A's for more..

 

exactly. opinion is a hell of a lot different than empirical evidence.

 

you're certainly entitled to have an opinion that chemistry helps winning. but don't act as though it's fact.

 

opinion & empirical evidence tie together. philosophy & ideology, which is essentially opinion, can be supported w/ empirical evidence. Example of an opinion/ideology ~ social security is good for society. empirical evidence shows that poverty rate went from 30some% in 30's to teens in the 60's. empirical evidence shows people live longer. etc., etc.. Of course, a competing ideology disagrees and shows other evidence such as people don't save as much cause they rely more on govt.. etc. etc..

 

and you don't have any 'empirical evidence' about chemistry. end of story.

[Careless]

Except "team chemistry" isn't a physical thing. It's an abstract, in the same mould as "love", "hate", "glory", "shame", "sorrow", "joy". Can you touch "love"? Can you see "hate"? Can you smell "glory"? Can you find "sorrow"? Can you measure "shame"? Can you buy "joy"? The answer to all of those questions is no. Does that mean that none of those abstracts exist? The answer to that question is no too.

We can already detect signs of many off these in the brain, yes

that'll be my last hijack

unless I can't help myself

[fromthestretch]

Good parents have a good kid or kids..

 

Of course, it all depends on what's considered "good" though.

 

There are also plenty of good parents who have bad kids. And bad parents who have good kids. Probably more of the former and less of the latter though.

 

Now back to the chemistry argument.

[ConstableRabbit]

Again, if a physical thing cannot (as in impossible to) be measured in some way, shape, or form it a metaphysical sertitude that it does not exist.

 

Except "team chemistry" isn't a physical thing. It's an abstract, in the same mould as "love", "hate", "glory", "shame", "sorrow", "joy". Can you touch "love"? Can you see "hate"? Can you smell "glory"? Can you find "sorrow"? Can you measure "shame"? Can you buy "joy"? The answer to all of those questions is no. Does that mean that none of those abstracts exist? The answer to that question is no too.

 

No, but this postseason you can feel drama.. on FOX.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

As for chemistry, I'd have to agree with what Vance alluded to earlier: Winning solves all (if not most) of team problems. Winning is the best team chemistry.

 

I'll now let you get back to the debate.

[fromthestretch]

 

Sure, but other teams had strong pitching or strong hitting too. Those teams just had an extra something that got them over the top.

 

Chemistry may not be essential, but it can help.

 

I'm of the opinion that winning breeds chemistry more often than chemistry breeds winning. Players don't go 0-for-4 because they don't get along with one of the starting outfielders. Pitchers don't lose the ability to spot a fastball because they didn't like the music someone was playing in the clubhouse.

 

I've been on some lousy teams that had great chemistry. I've been on a championship team that had guys that didn't get along well at all.

 

I've also been on a team that had average talent but everyone got along great. It was a team that should have been around .500. Instead, we lost quite a few one-run games and finished in dead last. If chemistry really makes a difference, you'd think we would have done better with the roster we had.

 

The media overhypes chemistry, which you said earlier. But they overhype chemistry because people eat that crap up. For some unknown reason, it sells papers. No one wants to read about the winning teammates that hate each other, and no one cares enough about the losing team to want to know anything about their chemistry.

 

As long as guys aren't getting into frequent shouting matches and physical altercations or sleeping with each other's wives, chemistry shouldn't be an issue.

[MPrior]

Even if we are to acknowledge that chemistry does have some effect on winning (obviously we haven't come to this consensus at all, but just for the sake of argument), I think 5-10% is a ludicrously high estimate of its impact on winning. To say that chemistry can account for 1 tenth of a team's wins is ridiculous.

[RynoRules]

Even if we are to acknowledge that chemistry does have some effect on winning (obviously we haven't come to this consensus at all, but just for the sake of argument), I think 5-10% is a ludicrously high estimate of its impact on winning. To say that chemistry can account for 1 tenth of a team's wins is ridiculous.

 

Hmm. Tell that to Andy Reid, Donovan McNabb and the rest of the Philadelphia Eagles.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Even if we are to acknowledge that chemistry does have some effect on winning (obviously we haven't come to this consensus at all, but just for the sake of argument), I think 5-10% is a ludicrously high estimate of its impact on winning. To say that chemistry can account for 1 tenth of a team's wins is ridiculous.

 

Hmm. Tell that to Andy Reid, Donovan McNabb and the rest of the Philadelphia Eagles.

 

Football is very very very different from baseball.

[UK1679666180]

Chemistry is only as good as the production that surrounds it.

[badger1679666666]

buck, what's ridiculous??

 

If it's disagreeing w/ people who typically strike a condescending tone, then perhaps you have something. :)

 

there you go with your 'me against the world' stuff again...

 

anyway, your argument was that chemistry is important to winning. for some reason, you cited to past ws winners and said that they had good chemistry. thus, chemistry is important in winning. your 'argument' is unbeatable because all anyone can say is 'the white sox didn't have good chemistry' or 'they didn't win because they had good chemistry' and you'll say 'prove it'...which, obviously, is impossible to do. of course, this ignores the fact that you can't prove that they did have good chemistry or that this is why they won. thus, your argument is beyond weak. in fact, i hesitate to call it an argument.

 

Basically the word you are looking for is falsifiability. Cubfan's claims of the importance of chemistry are NOT falsifiable, therefore have no scientific or empirical base to them. The number one rule of any scientific or mathematic posit is falsifiability - that is the claim CAN be proven false in some manner of science. Hence gravity is a falsifiable scientific phenomenon because the attempt to prove it false, can be made, but would fail scientifically.

 

Make sense?

 

8)

[RynoRules]

Even if we are to acknowledge that chemistry does have some effect on winning (obviously we haven't come to this consensus at all, but just for the sake of argument), I think 5-10% is a ludicrously high estimate of its impact on winning. To say that chemistry can account for 1 tenth of a team's wins is ridiculous.

 

Hmm. Tell that to Andy Reid, Donovan McNabb and the rest of the Philadelphia Eagles.

 

Football is very very very different from baseball.

 

How so?

[UK1679666180]

In baseball, it is the most individualistic sport of all the major sports.

 

If a pitcher pitches well, he'll likely give his team a much better chance of winning even the offense doesn't show up compared to if a QB has a strong game throwing the ball, but can't get enough time to throw or his WRs can't get open. Even Jordan in his prime couldn't carry the Bulls if the other 4 guys beside him were having an off night.

 

In Baseball, you rely less on your teammates than any other sport besides individual sports (golf, singles tennis) obviously.

 

Also, the game is decided when two players confront each other (pitcher/batter) not 11/11 or 5/5, separate circumstances as far as lumping football and baseball together in this regard.

[CubinNY]

Football, hockey, & socer are cooperative sports baseball is not.

 

However, the troubles with Philly have as much to do with the lack of a running game, an inaccurate passer, bad 2 and 3 wide recievers, and injuries as it does with any mythical chemistry.

 

Back when Farve was a good QB if a reciever missed an easy ball, he might not see another pass for the entire game.

 

Once again and for the last time, "team chemistry" is an empty phrase that is used to make excuses for poor performance. There is no evidence that team chemistry exists.

[RynoRules]

Football, hockey, & socer are cooperative sports baseball is not.

 

However, the troubles with Philly have as much to do with the lack of a running game, an inaccurate passer, bad 2 and 3 wide recievers, and injuries as it does with any mythical chemistry.

 

Back when Farve was a good QB if a reciever missed an easy ball, he might not see another pass for the entire game.

 

Once again and for the last time, "team chemistry" is an empty phrase that is used to make excuses for poor performance. There is no evidence that team chemistry exists.

 

I disagree, buy hey, that's the beauty of this country and this bd.