All these players want to win and they all pretty much try their hardest. Chemistry will not make a player play any closer or further than their max ability.

One thing I think chemistry ‘may’ do, although this really isn’t chemistry…I think one player can increase their ability of another through teaching. This is quite often masked in chemistry, but Barry Bonds has taught quite a few things to hitters and he isn’t the best chemistry guy. Even still the impact of that is small and probably insignificant.

Everyone likes to hear about players having fun and working together. How they push each other to succeed. It’s positive and makes people look past the notion that it’s just a bunch of players making tons of money because they are really really good. We still like to believe that unity and hard work will trump talent.

It’s all fluff. It’s why BJ gets booed and makes headlines for not hustling. It’s why BJ’s great catch is dismissed and Floyd legging out Tex’s bad toss grabs attention. People and the media don’t want to believe that talent means a lot more than heart and hustle.

it is not really measurable. But we can look anecdotally through baseball history to discover many teams that had conflicts in the clubhouse yet won. The most obvious example is the Tinker/Evers split. Another is the Ruth/Gehrig falling out (although in their first few years together they were very friendly). Then there are the famously disfunctional late 60s/early 70s As. Oh yes, and those 3 consecutive years the Tigers won the pennant Cobb was apparently despised by most of his teammates. (Is that why they did not win the World Series?) The late 70s Yankees were notoriously riven by internal conflicts and jealousies, but they still made up a 14 game deficit one year and won consecutive World Series.

I don’t have any lovey-dovey clubhouses in mind who lost, but it is interesting to note that teams that win one year and then flop the next, often with the same personnel, are often described as having lost the spark or chemistry that sustained them before. Why would that happen, unless it is the losing that preyed on them and destroyed the chemistry.

If I had to rank the top 5 teams in terms of chemistry(as of this morning):
1)ANgels-unreal chemistry
2)Rays-get the slight edge because of a loving manager
3)close to the Rays, but not quite. Still incredible chemistry
4)White Sox-Ozzie Guillen is the master of chemistry
5)Mets-Randolph was awful for chemistry

Brewers just miss out. Chemistry isnt quite good enough to be in first.

pretty much disagrees with much of your thread

he feels the rays adding veterans like Floyd, Hinske and Percy, while dealing away Young and Dukes have played a large part in their success

ala YES, NESN and STO?

I’m tired of them being 2nd class to <arlins on FSN (few ganes in HD) and the worst when they;re on ION, with no pre game

I have Directva nd they don’t pick up HD feed of the games, so i only get them in regular format

Without a doubt, chemistry makes a big difference, not just in baseball, but in any team situation. That said, I cannot statistically support its value. In fact, as pointed out by others, there are many examples of winning teams with “lousy” chemistry, if chemistry is defined as getting along. And losing teams that get along just fine.

And, in any sample of data, there is always something to support any perspective, as all good attorneys and baseball anaysts know.

But chemistry is something very elusive, impossible to quantify. And it totally depends on the types of personalities you have on the team. Let’s analyze this.

First off, chemistry does not mean “getting along”. What it means is being internally on the same page as to approach to what you are trying to accomplish. A team, of course, is only effective as a team if it has good leadership. And how is leadership conveyed? Through management, and key team leaders on the field. If a team is managed by Billy Martin, and has Reggie Jackson in the clubhouse, you might call it dysfunctional, but it might also be considered “good chemistry” because the style of the way the team approaches things is consistent with management practices. You either get on the same page—get in sync with the chemistry—or you get out. And once a team is on the same page as how they are being led—whether it means swaggering, fighting, or harmony—then you’ve got the seeds of success. That’s chemistry. It’s not about getting along—it’s about being on the same page about how you approach the game.

On the Rays. Maddon sets the tone. He is thoughtful, quietly demanding, open to creative approaches, sets up a collaborative teaching environment, accepts physical mistakes, does not tolerate hustle. Be believes that team leaders take responsibilty for setting the tone, teaching, and leading by example. He wants to emplower players. In short, he runs his team like a well-organized successful business management team. So in this case, good chemistry means getting the right parts for such a team. That includes Cliff Floyd, Percival, and others. It also means Barry Bonds may not be a good fit for the Rays. (Whereas Barry may have been perfect for the ’78 Yanks.)

Maddon projects harmony, but that is only a style—one blueprint for good chemistry. And it works with the Rays. Billy Martin had another model for chemistry—which worked great for the Yanks.

And when you look at it this way, chemistry is indeed everything—makes people pull in the same direction, leads to better effort, which in turn can only help the team win.

I manage an office. That’s exactly how I think of team chemistry…and it makes a big difference on the bottom line in my organization…I can’t see why it should be any different in baseball.

only to those who have not been paying attention since 2006. For anyone looking at the reality instead of the stereotyping, he has always been a tough minded, intelligent, creative and somewhat daring manager with a great eye for detail and a sophisticated grasp of the personalities he had to deal with.

Many saw his optimistic public pronouncements as pollyannaism, not recognizing the enormous self control and fortitude it represented. Many took it to mean he was out of touch with reality rather than seeing it as extraordinary self confidence that he was on the right track.

When Maddon was first hired, California posted on another site that the Rays were lucky to have him, and he went on to describe the many talents he brought to the team. Once you began with that perspective, all the interpretations of what he said and did fell into place.

it seemed to me that Maddon and the Rays’ management were entirely at one regarding how to build a consistent contender. I doubt they ever had any hesitation about renewing him despite the terrible record. This is a group with real courage, the sort that plans and trusts its decisions. Having picked Joe, they knew he was the right man and intended to give him a full opportunity to prove them right.

if you listened carefully to the comments, most of the time there was substance. In a sense he was responding as R.J. and others have commented here before, that is he was more interested in process than results. When young players did things the right way, he wanted to provide public reinforcement. I am pretty sure the criticism occurred but behind closed doors.

One of the early signs that he was the right man was the precision of many of his observations. On the surface his comments might have seemed like pap, but they usually were predicated on praise for very specific skills or actions.