Besides you, that is? So, you are saying Parker, Ginobili, Finley, Horry, and Duncan are technically deficient and low talent players who get by on chemistry with each other? Seriously?

is about Chemistry in Baseball. You should read it.

but they also have talent.

they may not have the top talent, but they got a good mix of excellent talent and ability to go with the chemistry and experience.

tim duncan. arguably the top player at his position. all nba 2nd team. always on the 1st or second team.
parker is one of the top point guards. he’s been on the all nba 2nd or 3rd team before i’m sure
ginobli just made the all nba 3rd team.
bruce bowan is an evil mofo but sure plays the D pretty well. great 3 shooter too.

i said i’d take talent and ability over experience and chemistry. there’s always gonna be a mix, you have to find the right mix. but if you pick player by player, you take the talented one over the old glue guy. unless it’s robert horry

Seemed you didn’t catch on.

As long as we could have gotten him to a one-year contract. The thought is that, if we’re going to compete, we have a great hitter. If we’re not (and I assumed we wouldn’t be able to), then in July when he’s putting up a 1,000 OPS, we could flip him to get prospects from a contender that thinks his bat can put them over the hump.

If somehow none of that works out, he’s off the books at the end of the season anyway. I didn’t really see player development being set back too much by having Bonds for a short perdiod of time. It would seem that, most likely, this would have been at Brandon Boggs’s extent. I don’t think that would be the end of the world.

I may be misremembering the article here, but it seems like the only parts covered were how outsiders perceive player relationships, rather than how players perceive their relationships with each other.

This really delves into the realm of the ridiculous, but I would be interested to see if young players led by sourpuss veterans develop in a measurably different way than the same young players led by classy veterans. I often get beaten down by co-workers who just pile on at the worst times, and I also have to wonder if this would affect young players as well.

I know the article covers this angle to a degree when the author says that players easily influenced by others usually get weeded out, but I have to wonder.

that I think someone who needs an extra bat will be able to look past the 4 three things you have listed, and give him a contract in July. I think that if someone had signed him in the offseason, and were out of contention, they could have picked up a useful prospect by flipping him.

that I don’t really think 3 or 4 really impact anything in the long run.

All this public relations stuff is secondary. Winning puts butts in seat.

If Adolph Hitler had five tools and could strike people out, you’d be better off signing him from an attendance standpoint than not as long as he could help you win.

You might not need the Kosher Hot Dog stands though.

number four as part of the definition of “chemistry”. Do more people come out to see a likable team that loses (such as the Cubs, being called the lovable losers)? On the flip-side, do fans avoid winning teams that have jerks who ignore the media and revile the fanbase (obviously this is less applicable in a major media market, but I considered it for a small market team)?