In your experience, how important is "team chemistry"?

 

Ah yes, the team chemistry question. Loved and hated by media members everywhere, and thoroughly hated by people who use stats as their sole basis for evaluating players. People don't like to give credit to intangible things, like team chemistry, you can't actually see it on paper.

Team chemistry, IMO, means different things to different people. See, again IMO, people think that players, due to the money we make, should be ecstatic to even be allowed to show up for work, and that things like chemistry should be non factors in players performance. Hell we get paid enormous amounts of money, we should shut up and play. Problem is it just doesn't work that way. The two teams I have been on that have gone to the World Series, the Junior College team I played on that went to the world series, those three teams are the only three teams I been on that had a different feel, they had chemistry. What it boils down to is good team chemistry combines winning on the field, with the right people and personalities off it. A team with good chemistry is a group of guys that cannot wait to get to the park every single day, because they know something good is gonna happen. A team with good chemistry has bench players, and bullpen guys, who are completely happy with their limited roles because they understand the big picture, they understand how important even their limited roles are to the team ending up on top. From what I have heard and read about this team last year there was some awesome team chemistry. The city adds to the teams chemistry, good and bad. In 1993 the city of Philadelphia was in love with the team that was put together there, and as players you feel that on the field during games. It's not because they cheereed all the time, because they didn't, but they were smart enough to know that what we had was something special, and they added to the mix by how they treated us, and how they were during games, they made it hard as hell on visiting teams. One thing I have found in the past is that teams that move alot of players together up through the minor leagues and then do the same with those players in getting to the major leagues have problems. I want the rookies to come up, alone, I want them to be scared, nervous, excited. When they come up with "buddies" they tend to draw to each other, none of them wanting to act too impressed, and they all want to act like they belong. That's the worst thing in the world for a young player to do I think, act like you belong, you have to earn your spot with the front office first, and then earn that same spot with your teammates, prove to us that winning the game that day is the most important thing in the world to you. That doesn't happen with alot of young guys because they are too wrapped up in all the new stuff, and themselves. That's where the veteran players step in and walk him along the path to being a major league player. What and where you should be during BP, what to work on, how to dress, how do you tip the clubhouse guys, how to conduct yourself on the road, how to take care of yourself. I have always felt the talent jump for A ball to AA is the largest leap you make in the minors, but the jump from AAA to the Big leagues is something you cannot be ready for, it's two completely different worlds and with the game and the money today it's even harder to keep young players looking in the right direction.

 

Does it lead to more wins, or a more desirable working environment?

 

Yes

 

How does a team gel?

 

Combination of winning and good people

 

Is it solely by winning games, or is it more based on the personalities of the veterans on the team?

 

Both

 

Do teams that are composed of players that came up through the same system together have an advantage in this regard?

 

I think it's a disadvantage

 

Do you think it is common for a team to underachieve b/c they lack a good clubhouse environment?

 

Absolutely

link

Curt Schilling posts as user Gehrig38 on that site

 

he moves up my favorite players list everyday....

Schilling = MAN

I never really liked or disliked Curt, but he really is becoming one of my favorite non-Marlins because it seems that he is a genuine person. Much respect :thumbup

Chemistry is definitely a factor. Not to go all "yankees" on you guys, but the 98 yankees had no real superstars or super-sluggers, yet we had one of the best seasons in baseball history. Chemistry means a lot, I totally side with schilling. When you watched the marlins or the red sox, they really looked like they were having fun out there, that they were working really hard together.

 

The yankee team appears very distant. It is just a look to it. They seem more bent on individual accomplishments and business as usually. Additions like Sheffield and such can be on paper good, but i don't see these guys at great clubhouse contributors. I think schilling will be for the sox.

I just feel lucky to be a Marlin fan. This team has more chemistry and is more exciting than any other in the game today, and watching them day in and day out during the season is an absolute pleasure.

I just feel lucky to be a Marlin fan. This team has more chemistry and is more exciting than any other in the game today, and watching them day in and day out during the season is an absolute pleasure.

Amen.

Couldn't have said it better.

Oh yeah, huge payroll+ no chemistry= 2001-2003 NY Mets

Oh yeah, huge payroll+ no chemistry= 2001-2003 NY Mets

Don't you mean 2001-2004 Mets?

 

:shifty

I have yet to find a SorianoFan post that doesn't mention something related to New York or his website.

of course chemistry matters ... how can u be in a succesful team if theres no chemistry, so unless your paying for a championship i dont think a team can actually win without good chemistry in the clubhouse.

 

hmmm or ... u can buy chemistry like BOSTON ... now thats the perfect combination ... lol

It will be interesting to see what kind of team chemistry the Marlins have in 2004. Jack McKeon will set the tone! But I can't help but feel that the loss of Ozzie, and his ability to keep everyone lighthearted, will be sorely missed in this department.

I have yet to find a SorianoFan post that doesn't mention something related to New York or his website.

ha ha, you are so funny, good for you.

 

from the recent choi topic:

 

That was one of the best trades made this offseason. I think Choi is going to do awesome, look at his obp.

 

your argument is already faulty.

Chemistry is definitely a factor. Not to go all "yankees" on you guys, but the 98 yankees had no real superstars or super-sluggers, yet we had one of the best seasons in baseball history. Chemistry means a lot, I totally side with schilling. When you watched the marlins or the red sox, they really looked like they were having fun out there, that they were working really hard together.

 

The yankee team appears very distant. It is just a look to it. They seem more bent on individual accomplishments and business as usually. Additions like Sheffield and such can be on paper good, but i don't see these guys at great clubhouse contributors. I think schilling will be for the sox.

Soriano, I found the post where you praised The Red Sox chemistry, Yet you call me a liar!?

 

:laugh :laugh :laugh

 

Don't call someone names if you can't back it up...

Read that quote "were."

 

This was before nomar manny trade talk, todd walker comments, manny ramirez being put on waiver wire, and generally whoring around the team. Pedro Martinez on his contract year talking crap isn't going to help neither.

 

But in 2003, the cemistry was seemingly good. 2004, I don't think so.