Loading ...(Ed.: I wrote this last weekend, and never got around to publishing it. I decided to go ahead and post it today to see what you guys thought.)
Whether we’re talking high school or baseball, I despise chemistry. Baseball fans have always claimed that some teams win with lesser talent, simply because they have great “chemistry.” Hogwash, I would say (yes, I say things like that). There’s no such thing, I would insist.
That skepticism about team chemistry began to erode this weekend at Great American Ballpark.
There is a mountain of evidence against the notion of chemistry. Take the A’s and Yankees teams of the 1970s, for example. Those clubs had terrible chemistry, but they won big. Or look at the 1991 Pirates, who began the campaign with an altercation between manager Jim Leyland and slugger Barry Bonds. Leyland dismissed questions about the team’s chemistry: “Chemistry is a .300 batting average, 30 home runs and 30 stolen bases.” Those Pirates, of course, won 98 games.
Baseball analysts have long maintained that team chemistry is a fiction. University studies into the psychology of chemistry have shown that there is no identifiable link between group performance and strong personal bonds or communication within the group. In the baseball context, it seems that claims of great chemistry are only applied to winning teams. Isn’t it more likely that winning breeds good chemistry, rather than the other way around?
That’s what I thought, until I ventured down to the ballpark this weekend. On Sunday, the Reds lost a heart-breaker, but I saw something that day that I hadn’t seen before. Could great chemistry be responsible for the Reds’ recent success?
I’m beginning to believe. Exhibit one: Adam Rosales. I was very disappointed when “Pete” Rosales didn’t make the Reds out of spring training, not because of his never-ending hustle, but rather because he can play several infield positions adequately and, more importantly, because the kid’s bat has been pretty good in the minors.
Since Rosales’ 2009 debut, the Reds are 7-4 and playing with a new-found joy and enthusiasm. Did you see Rosales hit the home run that tied Sunday’s game at 4? Rosales sprinted around the bases at full speed. Immediately, the energy in the stadium increased ten-fold. That energy has clearly infected the Reds roster.
Exhibit two: ninth inning. Even before Micah Owings hit his improbable homer to tie the game, there was a fascinating scene in the Reds dugout. The two best everyday players on this team, Joey Votto and Jay Bruce, were on the top step of the dugout, leaning over the railing, cheering on their teammates like Little Leaguers. After the Owings homer, Bruce jumped around in the dugout as if he were imitating my four-year old son. You won’t see that scene in any other major league city these days.
Call it the Rosales Effect, or call it good chemistry; it’s fun to watch. Something special is happening here. The Reds are playing harder than ever before; even Brandon Phillips has been running out ground balls since Rosales showed up. It appears that a rookie, along with two guys (Bruce and Votto) who play hard every single play of every single game, have taught a lesson to the veterans. The Reds have been outscored by their opponents this season, yet they have a winning record. Can we give chemistry some of the credit?
I’m not willing to go that far yet, but my mind is changing fast. The Reds still have holes, primarily in left field. In addition, don’t be fooled into thinking Adam Rosales is the next Pete Rose, or even the next Chris Sabo. Frankly, he won’t out-produce Edwin Encarnacion offensively; I’d let him be a super-sub, playing 5-6 times a week at different positions.
Wherever he’s playing, his impact will be felt. Rosales brought something extra to this team when he arrived. Combine his boundless energy with Votto’s single-minded purpose and Bruce’s otherworldly talent, and you have a group of youngsters who are desperate to win, and confident enough not to listen to those who say they can’t win.
Ultimately, the Reds may not contend this season, but they’re a fun ballclub. Maybe it’s the chemistry after all.
Chemistry…shemistry…hogwash for the masses, IMO.
Tell me what you really think, Bill.
I don’t know if I would call it Chemistry right now, more like “energy”. Rosales, no doubt, brings SO much energy to the game that it is infectious. I don’t think that it can last for a full season, but it can go in small spurts like we saw the last two weeks.
Overall, more times that not great talent trumps high energy teams with great “chemistry”. However, there are times when teams just seem to click and go on a heck of a run. A recent example was the Rockies two years ago…they were certainly NOT the most talented team, but hit a great streak that carried them to the World Series. Was that chemistry, or just a good run?
I also want to add, I would rather have a guy like Rosales with high energy that gives everything he has with average numbers rather than a veteran like Gonzalez living off a reputation from years past (great defense) and not producing a single thing. It is simply more fun for me watching guys having fun, getting excited, and busting tail. But that is my opinion. I just want the Reds to be relevant again in the baseball world.
If a player can provide “energy” to a ball club, is it then possible for a player to suck “energy” from a club?
Yes Jim I do think that is entirely possible.
I don’t think chemistry alone can win a championship, but it is important. Chemistry can’t make a bad team good or make a great team bad, but often times it can be the difference between two good teams.
Exhibit A – The New York Yankees – $$$ is the reason why they are usually contenders but lack of chemistry is the reason why they haven’t won a World Series since 2000.
I am not so sure I would go as far as Deaner, but I think chemistry is certainly a factor, though it is absolutely no replacement for and not particularly close in value to talent. These guys have to play a 162 games over the course of months. If there are major issues between players, or even that lack of energy, over the course of a season that long if adversity hits it will cost you. That having been said, I don’t think it is anything near as important as it is in a sport like basketball, where the nature of the game makes chemistry critical.
All that having been said, I have been more excited about the games this season than I have been for at least 3-4 years. Not sure it is “chemistry” but the fun to watch part is certainly there.
I’d say a component of ‘chemistry’ is getting results from a whole roster, not just the idea of a few guys carrying the load. The Yanks clubs from 2002-present have been much more star laden than the clubs 96-01. I’d also say their depth of talent was less, as the Yanks won a bunch of playoff games with their bench (Vizcaino, Leyritz, heck Wade Boggs in 96). NY built up this roto-roster that looks good on paper, but has some severe weaknesses that get exposed by better pitching in short series i.e. they strike out like mad, cannot create runs other than by 3 run HRs and then they haven’t had guys that could get hits off the bench. Of course it hasn’t helped that they have went out and did the new century version of stupid free agent pitching signings like they did in the 80s.
Personally I don’t mind, hopefully the Reds can get the Yanks to flip us the next Fred McGriff or Doug Drabek or Mike Lowell or some other prospect they threw away for some dumb vet stretch trade like they have done in the past.
GRF, Earl-Agree with both of you. I do think that chemistry is probably less important in baseball than basketball and football. Those are more team oriented sports (not that baseball isn’t a team sport but you know what I mean.).
I personally think chemistry matters, but I also think it’s a motivator and doesn’t carry a team. Usually, it’s a change in managers which changes a team’s chemistry.
What I’m saying is this….momentum matters in all things that we do, no matter what tasks you are completing. A sense of accomplishments get the endorphines flowing and we want to do it again….thus momentum begins….or ends if we’re aren’t succeeding in what we’re doing.
It’s easier for this happen to basketball or football where pure athleticism can make a difference in a game. Deion Sanders once said that if he made a mistake in football, he could take it out on an opposing player on the next play and work through the emotion. In baseball, he’d have to sit out there in leftfield and think about it over and over, making him crazy. Now, this isn’t the very same thing, but the dynamics are similar.
When Rosales or young blood comes to a team it can be invigorating. Greg Vaughn brought energy to the team in 1999 in a different, disciplined way. Like all things, chemistry can be developed in different ways.
However, I strongly believe this is a short term help. It’s like saying a team that wins one-run games wins the close ones because they’re a better team, has better clutch hitters, or has a better bullpen. It seems those things would be the cause, and may be those things are all true, but studies have shown that teams that win the one-run games one year will probably lose them the next year. It’s not because I listed changed, it’s because the talent base in baseball is so similar, that it evens over time. Theoretically, the better teams in baseball would be 11-9 in one-run games, and the lesser teams 9-11 if measuring 20 one-run games. But, those two won-loss records are so close any degree of randomness or luck could easily flip the results.
So…it’s usually the manager that makes this change. When Davey Johnson managed the Reds, it was a looser atmosphere…so the Reds brought in Ray Knight to tighten the ship….then we got too tight, so we brought in grandpa Jack McKeon. Then McKeon seemed so disengaged, we brought in Bob Boone, the micromanager. Then, things were so tightly controlled, we brought in the organizational soldier Dave Miley, then a bit of an outsider unknown in Jerry Narron…now we have a name brand in Dusty Baker.
In the long run, I firmly believe that .300, 30 homers, 100 rbi and wins do dictate chemistry…but, I do think we need to shake things up every now and then to give the team a nudge.