Team Chemistry...how important is it?

by pro82 on Jan 3, 2009 10:12 PM CST Comment 10 comments

After reading the Fanpost on the Cowboy coaching conundrum, I thought I would try and find someting about team chemistry in sports. Lo and behold the first article I spotted was by a collegiate baseball coach. I have always been of the mind that chemistry breeds success, but this article has bufferred my thinking. This is my favorite point he makes...

So you might say the relationship between team chemistry and team success is circular. As team chemistry improves, so does the team’s record, and as the team’s record improves, it becomes more and more cohesive.

I don't know whether this should be a Fanpost or a Fanshot, but I thought it might crete some conversation. Anyway, here is the link. It is a pretty good read and perhaps will offer something for those on either side of the issue.

Team Chemistry

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Judging by the rangers

not very.

the preceding post was a great success.

by DSheppard on Jan 3, 2009 10:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Judging by the Cowboys

Extremely vital

by TRanger on Jan 3, 2009 10:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Ding...Ding...Ding...

Not to start a huge saber/scouting debate, but this years Cowboys are an example of why I have never been a believer in PURE statistical analysis (I do however believe statistical analysis is probably the most important factor). Maybe baseball and football are apples and oranges, but baseball is not played in a vacuum, so it shouldn’t be treated like it is. That’s why I generally disagree with people on this board who believe everything is quantifiable.

by Topgun22 on Jan 3, 2009 10:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It is apples and oranges

There really is very little in baseball that isn’t all on one individual at a time. When hitting, its just the one guy up there by himself. Same with pitching. All the chemistry in the world won’t make that guy hit any better or pitch any better because he is good friends with the entire team. On the defensive side of things, each player is pretty much responsible for his own area. There are some times when the ball comes between 2 OFs or the IFs and pitcher needs to know who is covering the bag, but you don’t really have to be great friends to accomplish that. The pitcher-catcher duo is kind of important, but again, they just have to be on the same page for the most part and even then, talent always wins out by a mile.

By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw

by Gdawg on Jan 4, 2009 12:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the Cowboys problem

has more to do with crappy coaching. You get Wade Phillips, and you get what you get.

Nolan Ryan is the Greatest Pitcher ever, because Google says so.

"BTW I’m officially welching ab03. Yeah I planned too all along, but I figured I’d try to get off the hook with double or nothing first."- Sharky

by DJCahill on Jan 4, 2009 5:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

In depends on the sport

Baseball is, primarily, a group of individuals whose individual actions/accomplishments are done independent of interactions with their teammates.

There are a few exceptions — pitcher/catcher gamecalling, turning a DP — but really, teamwork on the playing field in baseball isn’t a big thing.

Certainly not like it is in, say, football or basketball.

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 3, 2009 11:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

If it is important...

…to the exceptions you list, and those exceptions are, in particular pitcher/catcher, integral parts of the beginning of each play in a game, then one might postulate that it is very important in every play during a game? Given that, then chemisry might be more important than some allow…

"The path you choose, you also choose its destination..."

by pro82 on Jan 3, 2009 11:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Is the question only about on-the-field chemistry?

by Jamey Newberg on Jan 4, 2009 10:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Thinking back to the early '70s

I remember hearing that the World Series Champion Oakland A’s were known for not getting along too well. Clubhouse arguments and fights were fairly common. However, their play was good enough to win the championship 3 years in a row. I generally think that any psychological construct related to sports performance is overrated by the average fan and sports reporter. I’ll list a few that are mostly meaningless to me: Being team of destiny (2001 and the Yankees were supposed to win after the Twin Towers imploded), playoff experience ( the Patriots miss Tom Brady even though the rest of the team has been there many times), the curse (Red Sox and the Bambino) , wanting it more (hard to measure that) , having God on your side (America’s Team – Dallas Cowboys), power of the underdog (Texas Tech football this year – don’t tell Jevan Snead), being loose in the locker room (not sure how you would define that). I could go on, but you get the idea.

"Evolution happened, now get over it." Michael Shermer

by rodcarew on Jan 4, 2009 3:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think it's pretty simple...

To me there is only such thing as bad chemistry effecting play. I think as long as no one is super pissed or out of control, basically as long as everyone is on somewhat of an even keel, they are playing to their utmost abilities, injuries and others things aside.

On the other hand I believe winning creates good chemistry but not the other way around. There’s no substitute for talent.

Jerry Jones tiptoes around this and I think he understands this as much as anyone. A team can take a couple a-holes just to take on the talent. As long as those guys don’t bring the team down far enough, the talent will surely outweigh the negatives.

In the case of the Cowboys, I find that the media created the bad chemistry. Granted, it probably wouldn’t have happened if TO had kept totally quiet but they definitely stirred things up by having anonymous players talking to the media.

by slimshadty12 on Jan 4, 2009 5:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs