Team Chemistry: Does It Matter?

[JTWood]

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.

Not to put words in Hootie's mouth, but it sounds to me like he would actually argue this point.

[BronXBombers51]

All things equal, yeah, chemistry is an advantage. If you offered me a team of chemistry like the White Sox vs. a team of bad boys that had more talent, I'd agree with HOOTIE and take the talent.

Chemistry matters, but I don't think it wins championships. It all comes down to the talent, as many crazy clubhouses have proven.

[HOOTIE]

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.

It matters, but to what extent? We all know sac flies matter (1%) of all outs. But because it matters some, doesn't mean it's necessarily a big factor. All things equal, sure why not take the chemistry guy. But i think it's crazy to build a team with chemistry as your basis.

[Half Massed]

Chemistry can help bring out the best in your players, but won't create talent that isn't there. That's my stance on it. Chemistry should come secondary to talent. If money's tight and you can't afford talent, looking for good chemistry isn't the worst thing you could do.

[wrveres]

Seems to me that the Yankees have all the talent in the world, and look what it has gotten them .. ?

The Phillies were much more talented than the Braves this year, look what it got them ...

The Cardinals had much better talent than anybody in the NL .. what did it get them ..

The WS was represented by the White Sox and he Astros, two teams with little talent and a ton of chemistry ..

As for good v bad ... if you have a mix, your chemistry is bound to horrible, but if you have a team of Bad Boys, there is a great chance of them having good chemistry and functioning well together

[RAmst23]

Seems to me that the Yankees have all the talent in the world, and look what it has gotten them .. ?

The Phillies were much more talented than the Braves this year, look what it got them ...

The Cardinals had much better talent than anybody in the NL .. what did it get them ..

The WS was represented by the White Sox and he Astros, two teams with little talent and a ton of chemistry ..

As for good v bad ... if you have a mix, your chemistry is bound to horrible, but if you have a team of Bad Boys, there is a great chance of them having good chemistry and functioning well together

A little talent on the Astros and Sox? An ERA under 3.00 for the Sox and the Astros were tossing Pettite and Oswalt out there to start (I'd add Clemens, but not much from him.)

Also, the Braves didn't have any chemistry on their team? I voted for chemistry being a factor for a team, but a team doesn't need it to take the title.

[wrveres]

I never said the Braves didn't have chemistry ... I said the Phillies had more Talent.

and Oswalt and Pettite does not a team make.

[HOOTIE]

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.

Not to put words in Hootie's mouth, but it sounds to me like he would actually argue this point.

Hey JT, trying to get me in a fight lol?

All things equal, take the chemistry guy. I won't say it doesn't matter. But i'm not on the chemistry is needed to win train. Anything that happens on the field, matters to a degree. But how much? There's probably not a way to prove it. SB matter to a degree, but there is no correlation between wins, or runs using sb. But they do matter some.

As far as the comment Chicago/Houston were not that talented, i disagree. Houston was 2nd in era, Chicago 4th out of 30 teams. Chicago hit 200 hrs, 5th out of 30. These weren't a team of Jose Valentins that won. Chicago had the 2nd most wins 99. Good pitching, and enough hitting, can take a 7 game series.

[BronXBombers51]

Seems to me that the Yankees have all the talent in the world, and look what it has gotten them .. ?

The Phillies were much more talented than the Braves this year, look what it got them ...

The Cardinals had much better talent than anybody in the NL .. what did it get them ..

The WS was represented by the White Sox and he Astros, two teams with little talent and a ton of chemistry ..

As for good v bad ... if you have a mix, your chemistry is bound to horrible, but if you have a team of Bad Boys, there is a great chance of them having good chemistry and functioning well together

The Yankees haven't had the pitching talent required to win. I guarentee if the Yankees offensive stars were replaced with pitching stars they'd have won at least one more championship. If the Yankee payroll was made up of Johan Santana, Roy Oswalt, Roy Halladay, Andy Pettitte and Mark Buehrle instead of Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Gary Sheffield and Jason Giambi, they'd probably have a ring.

Instead, the money was spent on offense and overrated pitching like Pavano, Wright and Brown.

You won't find many World Series champions that didn't have a very good pitching staff. Teams packed with offesne (New York, Philadelphia, Texas, Baltimore, etc.) usually don't go very far.

I'll agree with the other about Chicago and Houston as well. They had plenty of talent. They didn't have many name players, but they were amazingly talented none the less. Each team's pitching was absolutely amazing. Further proof that you don't need to spend all of your money on offense to win. Pitching is the most vital aspect of a team.

[wrveres]

Not to hi-jack but ...

Kevin Brown was good before he went to New York.
Carl Pavono was good until he went to New York.
Jared Wright had a solid season before he went to New York
Randy Johnson was a pitching God before he went to New York
Jeff Weaver was good before he went to New York
Javier Vasquez was good before he went to New York ..

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

Why do you think that is?