More often, when chemistry is talked about, it’s when things are bad for a team and I believe the impact of chemistry is drastically overstated.

anyway, enough nonsense. let’s start winning some games so this isn’t an issue.

Your last comment is a non-sequitor, I said nothing about practice, concentration, focus, knowledge being irrelevant. These things are not chemistry, of course they are relevant. Are you suggesting that chemistry impacts the amount of talent a player has or how much he gets out of it? To me, it’s a really fuzzy line between a player not caring about putting effort into the above because of bad chemistry in the clubhouse and a player not caring because he’s generally a spoiled or lazy individual.

unquote

That, coupled with my previous post, I’m inferring a connection between the two, in that, chemistry in inextricably connected to all of those elements. In other words, the level of focus one maintains, how often and how well one practices, one’s level of concentration, the choice of bat one uses, the choice of which glove someone uses, the amount of knowledge one has about certain pitchers, etc. etc. etc., all of these things depend on a multitude of factors and influences. One of which, is chemistry. There are countless cases in which chemistry will have no effect, and there are countless cases in which chemistry will have a profound effect. Just as our parents mold, shape and influence the character of their children, friends inluence other friends, peers influence other peers, teammates influence other teammates.

For the sake of relative brevity, I’ll use just one more illustration.

Group A – these individuals will take extra batting practice and put extra time weight room no matter what. Chemistry will not effect them in this instance.

Group B – these individuals will always do the bare minimum no matter what, no extra batting practice, no extra time in the weight room. Chemistry will not effect them in this instance.

Group C – these individuals are on the fence, they could go either way, depending on chemistry.

Hey Joe, I’m wanna stay late tonight and lift, I need a spotter, I’ll show you this ab exercise on the such and such machine, its really helped me with (fill in the blank). So Joe does because work doesn’t seem like work when they hang out. They click. They start to do this regularly, it becomes a habit, a few months later, from all the extra condictioning, Joe’s batspeed is noticeably improved and he displays more power. His Slugging % and HR’s go up.

I can hear someone say, ‘They should be putting in extra work anyway’. Please, we’re talking about humans here. Not golems that obey your every command, wish, or desire.

quote:

But we’re 18-27 because they aren’t playing up to their capabilities, not because they have bad chemistry.

unquote

But their capabilities are a product of a number of things, and chemistry is one element among many that defines, shapes, and molds whatever capabilities are on display at any given point in time.

…well written post Mark, even if we have different takes on this topic.

Ruth, Gehrig and the rest of the team won games while not getting along. The implication is that the negative connotation of their relationship did not effect the performance on the field. It doesn’t “disprove” anything, it is merely an example how you can have success with poor chemistry, i.e., good chemistry is not a prerequisite for success. To speculate that their numbers would be better if they talked is a cute statement but of course, impossible to prove or disprove.

Ruth and Gehrig both had other teammates, and for all I know the other relationships were fine. But even some of the Tigers players get along fine inside and outside the clubhouse, and yet we are discussing their “bad chemistry”. Bad chemistry does not imply the absolute that all players hate each other or hate one particular individual. Groups can exist that get along fine, but are segregated from one another. I would point to Barry Bonds in this regard. He is a cancer and most of his teammates hated him. He fought with Jeff Kent in the dugout in 2002 and they won 95 games and went to the World Series. He’s no longer there, presumably “curing the cancer”, so the team should be better than last year, yes? It’s not like they lost a bunch of other players. But they are bad because they lost Barry’s talent as well, even though the chemistry improved.

I agre with your point about good chemistry deosn’t always express itself as players liking each other, althought that’s the most likely way it manifests itself. I did not, however, suggest that chemistry was “irrelevant”, as you suggest. I said it did not play that crucial of a role. There are just too many examples of successful teams that had “bad chemistry” to indicate that it makes that much difference.

Miggy’s bad numbers vis a vis Inge was simply an example, not a reference to anything in particular anyone said. I maintain that a batter won’t fail to hit a ground ball to the right side to advance a runner because he has bad chemistry in the lockeroom with certain players. And I agree with Leyland that to blame the lack of execution on bad chemistry is a cop-out.

Your last comment is a non-sequitor, I said nothing about practice, concentration, focus, knowledge being irrelevant. These things are not chemistry, of course they are relevant. Are you suggesting that chemistry impacts the amount of talent a player has or how much he gets out of it? To me, it’s a really fuzzy line between a player not caring about putting effort into the above because of bad chemistry in the clubhouse and a player not caring because he’s generally a spoiled or lazy individual. I am not smart enough to make that distinction.

I’m not saying chemistry makes no difference or has no impact. I am saying that good chemistry does not mean the difference between winning and losing on a daily basis. Players have the responsibility to do what is necessary to win games, and if they do not do so when given the opportunity, they have nobody to blame but themselves. If a team is not talented enough that’s one thing. But with the Tigers, there is clearly talent there that isn’t firing. Whether it’s “grinding out ABs”, or just executing fundamentals, or some combo, I don’t know. But we’re 18-27 because they aren’t playing up to their capabilities, not because they have bad chemistry.

a) maybe if they did talk more their numbers would be even better.

b) Didn’t Ruth have other teammates? Didn’t he talk to at least some of them? Are you really so certain that he never talked to any other teammate about a baseball related topic his entire career?

c) Who said winning chemistry always has to express itself with guys liking each other? I’ve played on numerous teams where one player has physically threatened to injur another player if they did change some aspect of play. Sometimes, there was a noticeable change after that. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Some guys would practice more as a result out of fear, some, their play deteriorated because their focus had noticably changed. But not a player on those teams would suggest it was irrelevant.

d) Someone else must have suggested that Miggy is putting up bad numbers because of Inge. I never said that. I must have missed that one.

quote:

Either your talent performs and does what is needed to win or it doesn’t.

unquote..

ah, so practice, concentration, focus, knowledge, all that, its irrelevant?

Interesting take.

Mark, Ruth and Gehrig communicated with subtle hand gestures and eye movements, part of a secret friendship whose story has yet to be fully told.

If players don’t like each other, it is most definitely enhanced when the team is losing. But I don’t buy the argument that Miguel Cabrera is putting up subpar numbers (for him) and making errors because he’s somehow pissed at Brandon Inge.

Yeah .. I think your four arguments are solid. I’m with you. The only interesting thing about the article was the distraction angle .. which I hadn’t heard before — especially given what’s going on in the clubhouse and in the press right now — that coupled with the angle of how Bonds might actually take some psi off the others … at the end of the day, though, that’s just theory that really has nothing to do with baseball — who knows how Bonds would really effect the others and the team — and there are certainly more than 4 reasons why he shouldn’t become a Tiger.

But I like your argument number 4 the best.

to be honest, i can live with this

lol, anyone know what our magic number is yet?

That makes sense, Ryan, given the score. I guess he didn’t do so well, though.

I read the article. Matt Joyce is my first argument against acquiring Bonds. All of a sudden, the Tigers have a lefty bat with some pop in LF, and one with a future here, maybe. I say roll with it. It’s a breath of fresh air, a simple and straightforward here-you-go, as opposed to the Cabrera-Guillen-Sheffield circus of try this and that.

My second argument is that the Tigers problem is not offensive potential, but offensive execution. Bonds isn’t going to get the first 45 games back for the Tigers. It’s done. I don’t see lack of power being a problem for 45 more games.

My third argument is that it’s just such a desperate, wrong-headed move. The Tigers put their WIN NOW team together during the off-season, and the problem has been execution, not a big talent hole at any particular position. They don’t have a crying need for another single-purpose position player. It’s like pouring more coal on top of a fire that’s barely smoldering as it is. If there’s a crucial addition to be made, I think it’s something less dramatic than Bonds.

My fourth argument is that I just don’t like it.

Joyce had a pretty uneventful game until his uncharacteristic error.

http://www.bleacherreport.com/.....fect-Match

Not sure I want Barry Bonds on the team, but I have to say the argument has some weight.