Team Chemistry: Does It Matter?

[JTWood]

Saw this discussion rear its head in the DePodesta thread and thought it would make for a good off-season thread topic.

Team chemistry: Do you believe it matters?

Obviously, there are nuances to that answer. It probably starts with how do you define team chemistry? I certainly don't believe it's a good-guy, bad-guy thing. I believe chemistry exists when guys share certain basic qualities that allow them to relate to each other in a manner beyond how they interact on the field. They're not necessarily friends, but they definitely get along with each other, and this cohesion is what's leads to the term "chemistry..." IMO.

[slomo007]

Anyone who answers no to this question after seeing the White Sox win the WS needs to rethink things. Chicago was most definitely not even close to the most talented team, but what they did, they did well and team chemistry played a role. Everyone knew why they were there, and each player knew the others' weaknesses. Iguchi doesn't come up to the plate trying to smack HRs when he's got Konerko behind him, and so on. Team chemistry goes a long way, IMO.

[RynMan]

Yeah, I think team chemistry is important. The main reason is that I have been on championship teams that haven't been as good as others, however the mutual respect and friendship within the team goes a long way. Speaking from experience, it is important - to a degree.

[BronXBombers51]

Anyone who answers no to this question after seeing the White Sox win the WS needs to rethink things. Chicago was most definitely not even close to the most talented team, but what they did, they did well and team chemistry played a role. Everyone knew why they were there, and each player knew the others' weaknesses. Iguchi doesn't come up to the plate trying to smack HRs when he's got Konerko behind him, and so on. Team chemistry goes a long way, IMO.

There's two sides to every story though. There are teams with great chemistry like the '05 White Sox, '02 Angels, '96 Yankees. But then there are teams with bad chemistry like the '78 Yankees or the '70s Oakland Athletics.

I really don't know. I guess it depends on what type of players you have. Pitching is the key though. You can have all the chemistry in the world but if you don't have pitching...you lose. You can have the worst chemistry in the world but if you have the best pitching, you've got the best shot to win.

That's my take anyway.

[BronXBombers51]

I also think that in most cases, chemistry can be built. If you're team wins continuously, chemistry is built. You aren't going to have a team of 25 good guys. There are always going to be a few rotten eggs. If the team succeeds though, you look past the differences.

[HOOTIE]

Does it matter? I think winning brings team chemistry. I'm sure it matters some, but how much? People think teams win because of it. SF count in bb, but only 1% as a example. Chicago played well as a team, but a 2.55 post season era generally gets you a ring. Doesn't Chicago have bad boys like Everett, Jenks, AJ (hated everywhere he's played in past), to name a few. Dominent pitching goes a long way.

Manny isn't from what i have seen, a so called chemistry guy. Boston won in 04. 86 Mets, 97 Marlins, 77/78 NYY, to name a few who weren't the best of clubhouses. So both wins imo, so both matter some. I will take talent over chemistry any day though. Seattle has had as good as chemistry teams as you can get. Nice guys, lots of winners of Roberto Clemente awards, yet have won zippo. Chicago bought into Ozzie, and they played well.

[davidmarver]

If you had the exact same team, but the difference was chemistry, I think the team with the better chemistry would win.

[JTWood]

Does it matter? I think winning brings team chemistry. I'm sure it matters some, but how much? People think teams win because of it. SF count in bb, but only 1% as a example. Chicago played well as a team, but a 2.55 post season era generally gets you a ring. Doesn't Chicago have bad boys like Everett, Jenks, AJ (hated everywhere he's played in past), to name a few. Dominent pitching goes a long way.

Manny isn't from what i have seen, a so called chemistry guy. Boston won in 04. 86 Mets, 97 Marlins, 77/78 NYY, to name a few who weren't the best of clubhouses. So both wins imo, so both matter some. I will take talent over chemistry any day though. Seattle has had as good as chemistry teams as you can get. Nice guys, lots of winners of Roberto Clemente awards, yet have won zippo. Chicago bought into Ozzie, and they played well.

I was getting at this in my first post. I don't think chemistry necessarily denotes a good-guy, bad-guy thing. If you have a whole team of bad guys who all happen to agree on one important thing, then you have team chemistry with a bad-guy team. On the other hand, a team of good guys can all disagree with each other and lack the chemistry needed to gel as a team.

[slomo007]

If you had the exact same team, but the difference was chemistry, I think the team with the better chemistry would win.

I think that's what it comes down to. Of course pitching wins championships....but the point of this poll was IF chemistry matters. It obviously does, I don't even see how that's disputable.

[bleach168]

I don't think the Astros come from 15 games below .500 to win the NLCS without team chemistry.