One of the arguments coming from Around the Horn against moneyball has to do with the opinion that moneyball doesn't take team chemistry into consideration. Here is my take on how moneyball DOES take chemistry into consideration:
- The players are brought up together. As players are taken from the comfort of school and thrown into their new career, they develop bonds with the guys who they're living with, riding the bus with, and developing with. These bonds carry over into the majors. Those teams with the most homegrown players have an advantage in team chemistry.
- Winning. Funny how a team's chemistry is lifted by winning.
- No superstars. Superstars often breed discontent. When you aren't bringing in superstars from the outside, it eliminates this risk.
- Drafting college players. 21-22 year olds are more mature than 18-19 year olds. They have more life experience. This also likely improves chemistry.
- Team roles. This, in my opinion, is the most important. By finding players who fit as a TEAM instead of piecing together the best homerun hitters (see NYY), you are able to define roles. For example, Bradford knew he was the groundballer. Duke knows he's a setup man but can be called on for multiple innings. I just think that building a complete team builds chemistry, regardless of who is in the dugout.