Boly -- Chemistry is an intangible that occurs whether the players like each other or not. It's what brings out the "best" in each of them at a subliminal level; a level often over looked in sports.
Rog -- Are you saying it would be worth having players trained subliminally?
Maybe I'm being naive here, but when I played, I just went out and played as hard and as well as I could -- regardless of who my teammates were. With millions of dollars at stake why would major league players do less?
I don't know that chemistry exists, and I don't know that it doesn't. Worse, if it DOES exist, I don't know how to value it. And I have yet to find anyone who does.
I'm open to having anyone -- anyone at all -- show me how much chemistry is worth.
Here's the problem if someone can't. He is asking me to believe in something that could be worth anywhere from virtually nothing to a considerable amount. If I agree with him, the difference still might be so negligible that it almost doesn't matter if I DO agree or not.
It's kind of like saying that chemistry is worth something between nothing and everything, but we just don't know where on that spectrum it lies. That would be kind of like drafting unseen a player who may be barely able to stand on his feet all the way to the greatest player ever, wouldn't it?
We know the player exists, but we don't know how much value he has. How much would you be willing to pay that player?
That's about how much we should be willing to "pay" for chemistry, isn't it?
It's kind of like saying that I have in my hand something between a penny and a certified check for $10 million and asking you how much you would pay for it, right? Of course, that's more or less what the lottery is, and people DO pay.
Randy says the Giants wouldn't have come back to beat the Reds and Cards in last year's playoffs if they didn't have chemistry. But I don't believe he can point to even one instance in any of the games they won and said that came about because of chemistry.
If chemistry has a big value, it has to show up SOMEWHERE that can be identified, doesn't it? If we simply define it as an intangible, we have no idea how to value it, do we?
How much better does a team without chemistry have to be for us to bet our house on it instead of a lesser team with more chemistry? If we had to bet our life on it, how much faith would we put in chemistry?
I'm not scoffing here. I'm trying to ask legitimate questions. How much faith do we put in chemistry if we're betting our life on it?
I think we put a lot of faith in talent. I think we look at how hot a team has been. I think we look at injuries. I think we look more closely at top players than at depth, since the playoffs doesn't reward depth as much as the regular season does. I think we look at matchups. I think we look at the parks involved. I even think we look at the weather forecast, since rainouts will place even LESS benefit on depth.
But just how do we look at chemistry, and how highly do we value it?
Combining two threads, is chemistry or luck more important in which team wins a short series? I really don't know the answer here. We don't know how much luck will become involved, and we don't know how to value chemistry.
I'm looking for guidance here. I'm looking for someone who can truly provide answers.
Read more:
sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2041#ixzz2iSEl463M