Don't Know Much About History...

by Nico on Jan 21, 2006 6:20 PM PST in News

Chemistry in the clubhouse: this issue was the centerpiece of an article in today's S.F. Chronicle. How important is chemistry? (Apparently not important enough to convince Cindi to study for her last midterm, but that's another diary.) Some of the quotes in today's Chronicle story raise some interesting questions...

According to the article, newly acquired starter Matt Morris insists that the rah-rah stuff is not overrated, and is quoted as saying, "When the team is out there trying to win, you don't want to be in the clubhouse having cookies and milk. Some guys on this team are not going to allow this to happen. I'm going to be sitting on the bench, and if some guys need to be slapped on the butt, I know some guys are going to do it." Many members of AN may wonder, "Does Matt need some volunteers to help with Noah Lowry?" and "Has Barry Bonds been seen walking around with a milk moustache?"

But it also begs many other questions...Will Matt Morris' value be determined by his stats, or is a player's part in enhancing, destroying, or facilitating chemistry significantly relevant to his value, his overall performance, and his overall worth? Will the A's performance on the field, and in the win column, be a little worse for losing the glue known as Scott Hatteberg, or will the A's performance on the field, and in the win column, be improved for losing the aging singles-machine-without-so-many-singles known as Scott Hatteberg? Will Jason Kendall be the weak link on the team if he repeats his .271 average, .321 slugging percentage, and "once per blue moon" percentage of throwing-out-baserunners, or will he still be a valuable piece for his ability to lead the league in "grit and determination"? Are the Angels wise to keep Darin Erstad, who has started an offensive decline known as Hatteberg Syndrome, because in Steve Finley's words, Erstad was a substantial part of the Angels' "unbelievable chemistry...Darin Erstad, the way he went about his work on a daily basis, it just overflowed to everybody"? Is this contagious enough that Erstad should remain in the everyday lineup even if he hits only .260? .245? .220? Am I asking too many questions?

Tweet Comment 46 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'd be happy to help with Noah!!!

I think chemistry is important, but just as much as offense, defense, pitching, and all that are important. I don't think any one factors in the equation more, each one needs to be equally present to be a GREAT team. In some cases, something will cover for a weak spot, and that's usual.

So yeah, chemistry is great, and without it, things go wrong, but it's not the most important thing.

by Squeaky on Jan 21, 2006 6:35 PM PST reply actions

Bonds knows what the most important thing is.

And it's not milk.

He prefers the 'cream'.

by Ozzz on Jan 22, 2006 1:28 AM PST up reply actions

Got milk?

"Has Barry Bonds been seen walking around with a milk moustache?", Nico asks.

You retort, "He prefers the 'cream'."

I think both of you are close. I think it's from the Canseco Milkshake.

You can find me on other blogs too. I sometimes post as Sassy Sarah and I've had quite a bit of free time lately.

by LowcountryJoe on Jan 22, 2006 5:04 AM PST up reply actions

Chemistry

Here is the deal with chemistry. Chemistry is not overated but we have to look at in the correct manner. Chemistry is a by-product of winning. You have no chemistry if you're not winning. Think about it...your team is winning on a nightly basis, aren't you going to be excited to come to the park everyday because you know you have a legitimate chance of winning. This type of behavior increases the positive morale of all in the organization. Conversely, if you lose all of the time, how excited are you going to be to come to the park and see the guys in the clubhouse.

Billy Beane has long argued this.

by ChickWalker on Jan 23, 2006 7:53 AM PST up reply actions

The problem

with this definition of chemistry is that it doesn't account for the 2005 A's, and teams like them. They totally sucked in April and May, and yet, no one blew up in the clubhouse or on the field. No one ever said that they were losing because the chemsitry wasn't there, or that because they were losing, they didn't have the right chemistry.

Some of the discussion below is enlightening I think. We need to move to a broader definition of chemistry that takes into account both on the field chemistry and clubhouse/off the field chemistry.

by timed exposure on Jan 24, 2006 12:41 PM PST up reply actions

Chemistry is overrated

Nico, too many questions.

Winning creates/fosters chemistry. Losing destroys it.

When Boston was winning the World Series, Kevin Millar was the toast of the City. When Boston struggled last year, everyone in the City was ready to find a bus under which to throw Millar. The decline in his stats was far less than the change in his perceived value.

Chicago had great Ozzie-chem last year. What were the major changes in the White Sox (except for Iguchi?)? Even cancerous Frank Thomas was still hanging around the clubhouse and dugout.

Gimme talent and twenty-five taxi cabs over a team bus filled with AA-level rah-rah guys.

Just my thoughts.

by soxFan on Jan 21, 2006 6:41 PM PST reply actions

Winning = Chemistry

As A's fans, we should harken back to our most successful runs: the early to mid 70's and late 80's to early 90's. There was some genuine tension on the 70's championship teams and at least one certified self-centered a-hole (Canseco anyone) on the 1989 team. They were also talented and dedicated baseball players, all playing their designated role at a high level.

So, I guess you can lump me in with the "statheads" on the chemistry debate.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great to get along and the most recent incarnations of the A's talk a lot about how well they fit together (and they certainly have been pretty successful, playoffs notwithstanding). And everyone likes coming to work a lot better when they enjoy the company of their co-workers. However, getting that ring miraculously turns jerks, underachievers and getting one timely hit, pitch, or streak into "winners" and "clutch" players, despite whatever they have done over the course of their entire careers.

by Cy Norris 1980 on Jan 21, 2006 6:43 PM PST reply actions

Something tells me..

more than a few ANers would be willing to help the A's out when "butt slaps" are needed.

"Put a Milo on him." -Billy Beane

by kaweahkaweah on Jan 21, 2006 6:47 PM PST reply actions

Production matters most

but intangibles matter as well. Work ethic, character and study (and talent) lead to production, production leads to wins, wins reinforce success thus encouraging people to continue doing the things (work ethic/study/Margarita Night) that helped you produce.

But production is key, especially from the frontline players. The Erstad question is a poor one Nico, because Erstad doesn't have to do much to outproduce Finley's 2005 contributions.

Why yes. I am a ray of Fucking sunshine.

by grover on Jan 21, 2006 6:57 PM PST reply actions

True, grover,

but the standard doesn't have to be set at out-producing Finley. If Erstad hits .237, he'll outproduce Finley but won't help the team on offense. Other options (through FA, trades, minor league system) exist, especially since Figgins can move around so adding a 3Bman could in fact replace Erstad.

But the reason I brought up Erstad is that he was specifically mentioned in the quote. His potential similarities to Hatty are also interesting, in that he is a veteran lefty hitter who will need to sustain a decent average as he loses power, or else he will become a real liability where he used to be an asset.

by Nico on Jan 21, 2006 7:19 PM PST up reply actions

alfonzo?

3B-man? Where does Edgardo Alfonzo fit into the mix?

"...and in Joe [Blanton]'s case, it's almost like he crammed the whole rookie year in a month, then became a veteran." --Billy Beane

by rungood on Jan 22, 2006 4:38 AM PST up reply actions

I agree with Grover

Winning = good chemistry
Losing = bad chemistry

Also of note, If a team is constantly in the tank and they have great chemistry, is that a good thing? That would be looked on as a team that is content in losing and needs to be shaken up. If the shaking up involved bringing in a player with bad chemistry and the team began winning as a result, then what of the whole chemistry debate. A good team is going to win. A bad team is going to lose. Simple as that.

www.oaklandoaks.tripod.com

by haren4prez on Jan 21, 2006 7:13 PM PST reply actions

Agree

Neat way of saying it.

by Squeaky on Jan 21, 2006 7:17 PM PST up reply actions

Disagree

Let's look to a different sport for an analogy. In the NBA, over the last several years, the Kings were noted for having very good team chemistry (at least until the summer when Chris Webber called out Peja Stojakovich). They were consistent winners (though without a championship).

The Lakers on the other hand were reputed to have had horrible chemistry, especially between Shaq and Kobe. Yet they won. And won championships.

I think chemistry is important, but probably doesn't make or break a team.

by timed exposure on Jan 21, 2006 7:35 PM PST up reply actions

Good Chemistry Kings, Bad chemistry Lakers

but what they both had, was talent, and the year when Shaq and Kobe couldn't stand each other was the year they didn't win the title. The more there disdain for each other the worst the team got. Therefore Shaq went to Miami.

by theblackpearl on Jan 21, 2006 8:26 PM PST up reply actions

Is that actually true?

Everything I've read says Shaq and Kobe really hated each other in 2001 but they won anyways. Things gradually got better in 02 (when they won) and 03 (when they lost) and then blew up again right before the 04 season.

And anyways, the Kings always had good chemistry until last year and they always lost. You can have all the chemistry you want but none of that matters if Mike Bibby and Brad Miller are the only guys on your team who aren't gutless.

by reni on Jan 23, 2006 1:03 AM PST up reply actions

Not so fast

I'm glad you brought up the NBA. Lets look at the Detroit Pistons of a few years ago. They were just kind of spinning their wheels with a team that had great chemistry. Then they brought in Bad Boy Rasheed Wallace and he put them over the top. Don't fool yourself in believing that Wallace is a different guy than he was in Portland. He may have stayed out of trouble, but he's just as nasty on the court and complains just as much as he ever has. A different setting changed it. He probably worsened the chemistry of the pistons, but he made them a hell of a better basketball team.

www.oaklandoaks.tripod.com

by haren4prez on Jan 21, 2006 8:37 PM PST up reply actions

Wallace

His problems have always been with the suits and the zebras, never with teammates. This might improve chemistry among the players.

by MT Head on Jan 22, 2006 1:26 AM PST up reply actions

If chemistry wasn't important . . .

. . . Bradley would still be an Indian, let alone a Dodger. I guess it all depends on how you define chemistry. If one player is not supporting his team mates and and does not appear to be giving the extra effort to win, it may have a negative effect on the rest of the team. Some players can become a cancer in the clubhouse. The A's, always being a young team, seems like a college frat. I Bradley cannot relate to that atmosphere, he may not fit in. Will it hurt the team?

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Jan 21, 2006 7:20 PM PST reply actions

Yeah, I think it may be

a more interesting question that some will be inclined to think. You can win without chemistry, but it can also become harder or less likely.

I think 2005 was a great example, because on a team with poor chemistry, losing breeds an amplification of the poor chemistry that may otherwise have lay dormant. I think the A's ability to recover from a 17-32 start can be related pretty strongly to their clubhouse chemistry. Not every team would have "hung in there" until healthy following such a disastrous start--it would have been easy to start packing, mentally, for the off-season in May, rather than "hanging in there" as a team--which is what I think they did.

by Nico on Jan 21, 2006 7:28 PM PST up reply actions

The A's of the early 70's...

Apparently had horrible team chemistry, nobody got along at all and there was frequent fighting in the clubhouse from what i've heard.

I think for the most part team chemistry has very little effect on how a club performs on the field. Players have enough incentive to give their all on the field without veterans having to "slap them on the butt."

There may be isolated instances of guys really and truly becoming cancers in the clubhouse to the point that it SLIGHTLY effects a team, but for the most part I see it as a myth.

Sports like Football and Basketball are another story entirely. But baseball is such an individual game, I can't see the attitudes of a few other players hurting or helping a guys ability to turn around on fastball or lay off the slider away...

by Little Rickey on Jan 21, 2006 7:56 PM PST reply actions

On the flip side, however,

baseball includes the most time together, including 81 away games spent in pretty close quarters overall.

by Nico on Jan 21, 2006 8:07 PM PST up reply actions

Respect of playing ability the key

You are right about the A's championship teams of the 70's. They did not have what I think most here would describe as team chemistry. They did not have 25 guys going bowling every night. Many just did not like each other. Fights (fists) were not uncommon.

What they did have was respect for each others playing ability. They put everything else aside when thet crossed that white line. They wanted to win and knew the players around them gave them the best chance. They put aside differences.

I think this is the same in all of our work lives. We do not have to "be friends" with all of out coworkers to make the business successful. But we do have to respect each others abilities to help.

So a baseball GM does not need to mix and match players in a chemical solution. Instead like all other business leaders he (or she somday)will have to employ mature professionals who have enough self esteem to respect his teamates abilities even if he dislikes his politics clothes, choice of friends or whatever. We call those players that cannot "cancers."

By the way, some people believe the A's teams of the 70's were united by a common hate of Charles Finley. Although the owner had very unique and unpleasent ways of motivating his players this wasn't the common thread.

Thomas Walker

by Thomas Walker on Jan 21, 2006 8:33 PM PST up reply actions

Let's go beyond

chemistry defined as, "Good clubhouse relations." When we talk about players having good chemistry in other sports, we talk about backs that block for a scrambling QB or a guard who knows when to unselfishly feed the ball.

What I mean to say is, how important is on-field chemistry in baseball? Do Payton and Kotsay have good chemistry when they are both chasing down a flyball? Does Johnson know when Chavez is going to bounce a throw? I have a hard time believing two guys going out to dinner every night will play better as a result. But it's not such a stretch to think that players who get along on the field will have enhanced production.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Jan 21, 2006 8:35 PM PST reply actions

Good comment Sal

Payton was a cancer in boston, so much so that they traded him for Bradford, a submariner with a bad back. Payton in Green and Gold was a savior and a choir boy down the stretch. I don't think it was so much team chemistry as it was that the A's were white hot and he was playing every day. Also, the Red Sox went from having great team chemistry to a team of guys that hated each other, WITH BASICALLY THE SAME TEAM. Hows that for team chemistry. I don't believe that the A's have some amazing chemistry. I believe they're sucessful because BB knows how to put together a ballclub and there is virtually no media or fan pressure in Oakland. Maybe that is the recipe for success.

www.oaklandoaks.tripod.com

by haren4prez on Jan 21, 2006 8:44 PM PST up reply actions

Isn't a cancer everyday? From day 1

to the day he leaves?

Boston didn't have a spot for JP at the time he had healed and was ready to play.

After this continued a good while JayPay couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel and pressed the issue in a way that is not diplomatic.

Journalists made a stink about JP being a "problem".

Journalists CREATE stories where none exist.
You bought in on that one.

Who wants players that are happy sitting on the bench?

JayPay is not a cancer

by Billy Ball 2005 on Jan 23, 2006 11:18 AM PST up reply actions

well then I guess the same could be said

about Milton Bradley. I've seen it posted here hundreds of times that he is a cancer, thats why he's been shown the door so many times. Same with Jose Guillen. I dont believe it with Jay Payton or any of those guys. I also don't believe in clubhouse cancers. Some people are just jerks or grouchy all of the time. You just leave them alone and let them do their thing. The media hypes up chemistry too, and were ALL buying that, otherwise this would have never been posted.

www.oaklandoaks.tripod.com

by haren4prez on Jan 23, 2006 12:49 PM PST up reply actions

Except that many

players themselves say the "importance of chemistry" concept is not overrated. That has to be factored in at least a little.

by Nico on Jan 23, 2006 6:14 PM PST up reply actions

The way I see it,

most of us can agree that family problems--a dying parent, a bitter divorce, etc.--can impact a player's on the field performance. A baseball team is a player's second family--not his first but also not his 100th. So if a player is on a team where he feels alienation, unappreciation, disrespect, or bitterness, towards his teammates, then it is reasonable to think his performance on the field could be affected--less than if he were having the same problems with his first family, but more than if he were having problems with his Thursday night bowling buddies.

by Nico on Jan 21, 2006 8:46 PM PST up reply actions

Three cases of chemistry

The year Kevin Appier was with the club,
the team went to a party at his ranch near KC.
The team started to win shortly thereafter led by clubhouse leader Jason Giambi. Giambi helped create the success of the A's play-off teams. Also, I believe the golf outing in Napa has always earmarked an in season function that jump starts the team to their thromping of the National league. If chemistry wasn't important, Jose Guillen would be our left fielder.

by Graybeard on Jan 21, 2006 11:19 PM PST reply actions

Chemistry = <smiley face>?

I was thinking about those teams from the 70's and got to wondering... Where exactly is it written that "chemistry" means everyone is HAPPY?

Seems that whatever relationships the A's had going for them in the early 70's really worked for them. Maybe that should be our definition of "chemistry."

Thank You Bill...

Go A's

by NomAd on Jan 22, 2006 12:31 AM PST reply actions

Finley was their "Common hate"

The team united to spite it's owner

by Billy Ball 2005 on Jan 23, 2006 11:27 AM PST up reply actions

The misunderstood 70's A's

There seems to be some clarification of the 'chemistry' of the 70's A's. They'd fight in the clubhouse, they'd fight in the 'plane, heck they'd fight eachother anywhere, except for one place, the field of play! Once they left the dugout to play agame, it was (mostly) 'one for all and all for one'.

Me and my siblings used to fight like cat and dog, but god help any outsider who picked on any one of us! Pretty typical family in my experience, the 70's A's where much like that. They had two common enemies, Charlie O, and any team foolish enough to challenge them. When confronted by an oponent, internal wranglings were cast aside, and everyone focussed on their common desire, to win! Once the game was ove, then it was back to 'normality', and god help any player heard singing 'Sugar in the morning, sugar in the evening, sugar at suppertime ...........'!

by galraen @ Athletics Nation on Jan 22, 2006 7:29 AM PST reply actions

Better living through chemistry?

The A's of the 70's had chemistry. It was just explosive....some of the best chemistry of all. I like your analogy....gotta practice if your gonna open a can of whup ass on a regular basis.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Jan 22, 2006 3:53 PM PST up reply actions

maybe there's something to chemistry...

the '76 Reds had maybe the best lineup of any team in the last 50 years (Rose, Morgan, Bench, Griffey, Foster) and one 34 year old first baseman named Perez whose best years were behind him. They didn't lose a game in the playoffs or series. They figured they could do without Perez the next year because Dan Driessen was ready for a spot in the lineup -- and the fell apart in APRIL.

by vk on Jan 22, 2006 9:56 AM PST reply actions

Icing on the cake

Chemistry isn't the reason for winning, but it can put you over the top, if your talent is there. Chemistry is not a replacement for talent but for World Championship teams, it sure seems to be requisite.

Were the 00-03 postseason A's lacking in talent or chemistry? Can good chemistry prevent a team from self-destructing? Does leadership require the ability to calm his teammates down and focus on closing out a series? I hope that is a by-product of chemistry. Everyone steps up when the chips are on the line because the team leader knows how to communicate with everyone.

Yo La Tengo! hey, I got it! -Richie Ashburn

by Dig the Long Ball on Jan 22, 2006 10:22 AM PST reply actions

I think one or two role model type players

are improtant to success of a ballclub, but that still doesn't equal good chemistry. Two examples. The '86 Mets. Those guys HATED each other. They were just like, or maybe worse, than the early 70's swingin A's. Plus, they were all coked out of their minds to boot. But, there were a couple of guys that kind of made the peace and the team was a success. Second example was Joe Dimaggio. Everyone hated him because he kept to himself and I guess was kind of an a-hole when he did open his mouth. But, he had fellow North Bay product Lefty Gomez to soothe him over with the team and keep Joe happy too. Is that good team chemistry? I dunno. If it is, then I guess it's important. I hate to compare sports to real life, but in the millitary, you learn to work with different people. You may hate someones guts, but you still help them because that helps you, and you still watch their ass, because someday you may need them to watch your ass. You don't have to like them. You don't have to go out to dinner with them. You just learn to work with them to get the job done. Thats the bottom line.

www.oaklandoaks.tripod.com

by haren4prez on Jan 22, 2006 10:40 AM PST reply actions

Are you watching my ass?

by Nico on Jan 22, 2006 3:27 PM PST up reply actions

You betcha!

www.oaklandoaks.tripod.com

by haren4prez on Jan 23, 2006 1:38 AM PST up reply actions

Are you watching mine?

www.oaklandoaks.tripod.com

by haren4prez on Jan 23, 2006 1:39 AM PST up reply actions

A little

by Nico on Jan 23, 2006 8:37 AM PST up reply actions

Most athletes think of themselves as soldiers

already, so I think that these rules apply to them too.

www.oaklandoaks.tripod.com

by haren4prez on Jan 22, 2006 10:42 AM PST reply actions

Finley

Erstad's chemistry couldn't have worked that well if Steven Finley is claiming the effects of it. What'd he hit last year?

by doctawojo on Jan 22, 2006 4:02 PM PST reply actions

team chemistry

We're not selling the ingredients to yellow #7 here!

"If you throw at someone's head, it's very dangerous, because in the head is the brain." -- Pudge Rodriguez

by niallmack on Jan 23, 2006 3:09 PM PST reply actions

chemistry

Funny how no one said anything about Erstad's amazing leadership abilities or his hustle when the Angels blew in 1999-2001 and 2003. It seems he magically becomes this Tony Robbins-esque motivator when the team wins.

I think chemistry is obviously important, but not necessarily integral to success. Examples of winning teams with bad chemistry are just as plentiful throughout history as champions with strong camaraderie. The A's and Yanks of the '70s have been brought up as an example. Also, the Giants of 2002 were about the most polarized bunch in the league (Bonds and his lounge chair??) yet still made it to the World Series.

As an example on the other side, I just read Mike Shropshire's great "Seasons In Hell", about the hideous Rangers of 1973. Those guys all got along, hung out and drank together, but still they were among the worst teams to ever set foot on a baseball diamond.

More often than not, I think it's just pure ol' talent that seperates the winners from the losers.

by Swishermania55 on Jan 25, 2006 11:40 AM PST reply actions

Chemistry...

I'm a G's fan, absolutely frustrated with the Morris signing, I was pulling for Weaver myself.

Anyways, I think one guy with a multi-million dollar personality(who you pay pittances to) couldn't hurt to have--you don't want a roster compiled with 25 Milton Bradleys, Jeff Kents, Barry Bonds--well maybe 25 Barrys' with a 1.000+ OPS would be OK no matter, lol. Anyways, the last time the G's made the WS was the 02 season when Bonds and Kent fought in the clubhouse. So much for chemistry.

The bottom line is, there may be some chemistry issues with performance. And if it's obvious that there is a correlation between certain players behaviors and a decline in output, then there needs to be change. But overall, chemistry is overrated; what you need is one good veteran leader to keep those young punks in line.

'It was just another win.' --Billy Beane

by balldood on Jan 25, 2006 11:00 PM PST reply actions