|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 26, 2014 9:46:24 GMT -5
We have often asked the age-old question here: How many games is good team chemistry worth? ESPN the Magazine has attempted to take a scientific look at the question.
If their research is right, the Giants will benefit by two games from their team chemistry this season. The Dodgers will suffer by two games. The top two NL West contenders are ranked at the top and near the bottom of the chemistry factor. That's a four-game swing, which isn't insignificant.
The Dodgers are rated as having considerably more (or more consistent) talent. ESPN still expects them to win the NL West. But they also think the slight advantage in chemistry will put the Giants in the playoffs, which could make them poised to make it 3 out of 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 26, 2014 9:57:10 GMT -5
Combining the last two threads a bit, ESPN is predicting a down season from Juan Uribe. I wonder which team would then become the favorite to land Pablo Sandoval as its third baseman if Pablo hits the free agent market?
In 2010, the Giants claimed Cody Ross to keep the outfielder from joining the Padres. Will they re-sign Pablo in part to keep him away from the Evil Spenders? The Dollar Dogs? The Ravine-ous Spenders?
|
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Mar 26, 2014 14:12:37 GMT -5
If their research is right, the Giants will benefit by two games from their team chemistry this season. The Dodgers will suffer by two games. The top two NL West contenders are ranked at the top and near the bottom of the chemistry factor. That's a four-game swing, which isn't insignificant.
Boagie- Now that some stat geeks put a random number on chemistry you admit it's significant?
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 26, 2014 14:46:32 GMT -5
I don't think team chemistry can be measured by a scientific formula. There are many factors to a team's success, chemistry being just one. I think where chemistry comes most into play is when the team is under adversity or in the penant race/playoffs. It may or may not translate into specific wins, per say, but chemistry definitely gives a team a better chance at success than it might otherwise have.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 26, 2014 16:28:57 GMT -5
---Randy---I don't think team chemistry can be measured by a scientific formula. There are many factors to a team's success, chemistry being just one. I think where chemistry comes most into play is when the team is under adversity or in the penant race/playoffs. It may or may not translate into specific wins, per say, but chemistry definitely gives a team a better chance at success than it might otherwise have
---boly says---
I agree, Randy, it can't be measured, and only if you've played on teams that have benefited by it, or been hurt by it can one really understand its value.
Personally, I will testify by experience that it DOES translate into some wins; wins in games you have no business winning.
But how many over a 162 game marathon?
Five?
Ten?
I would lean towards the 10.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 27, 2014 9:17:05 GMT -5
Rog -- If their research is right, the Giants will benefit by two games from their team chemistry this season. The Dodgers will suffer by two games. The top two NL West contenders are ranked at the top and near the bottom of the chemistry factor. That's a four-game swing, which isn't insignificant. Boagie- Now that some stat geeks put a random number on chemistry you admit it's significant? Rog -- I think you're showing your bias here in several ways, Boagie: . You assume it was one person. . You assume that person was a stats geek (presumably only). . You call it a random number. . You seem to assume that I suddenly consider chemistry to be significant. I would say ESPN carries some sports credibility, wouldn't you? Was their study accurate? I have very little idea. But it would seem to be a step in the right direction, since it is the first time I have seen anyone make a scientific (not necessarily right) estimate of how many games chemistry means. How many times have I asked that question on the board here, only to be greeted with a silence that seemed to speak volumes. At least ESPN attempted to shed some light on the question. And right or wrong, they did so in a somewhat scientific manner. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2209/science-chemistry#ixzz2xAk6jh2T |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 27, 2014 9:18:01 GMT -5
By the way, after studying team chemistry for nearly four decades, you don't think I was delighted to see an analysis giving an estimate of how much it means?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 27, 2014 9:21:47 GMT -5
Randy -- I don't think team chemistry can be measured by a scientific formula. Rog -- I was a little surprised myself. But I was happy someone at least TRIED in a reasonable manner. Randy -- There are many factors to a team's success, chemistry being just one. Rog -- Makes sense. Randy -- I think where chemistry comes most into play is when the team is under adversity or in the penant race/playoffs. Rog -- I would think that to the extent it exists, it would show up consistently. You could be right though that it could help offset pressure, which would show up at the times you mention. Randy -- It may or may not translate into specific wins, per say, but chemistry definitely gives a team a better chance at success than it might otherwise have. Rog -- If team chemistry doesn't translate into specific wins, it isn't helping much. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2209/science-chemistry?page=1&scrollTo=19306#ixzz2xAm464BS |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 27, 2014 9:31:17 GMT -5
Boly -- I agree, Randy, it can't be measured, and only if you've played on teams that have benefited by it, or been hurt by it can one really understand its value. Personally, I will testify by experience that it DOES translate into some wins; wins in games you have no business winning. But how many over a 162 game marathon? Five? Ten? I would lean towards the 10. Rog -- I don't know how many wins chemistry would contribute, and we would certainly expect it to vary from situation to situation. But 10 seems a lot. That would mean that one out of every 8 wins could be attributed to chemistry. According to WAR, less one major league player per season (on average) contributes 10 wins over a replacement player. I would ask these questions, which we should be able to answer fairly well if chemistry means an 10 extra wins: . Which games were the ten? , HOW did chemistry win the game? . How certain can we be in answering the first two questions? Sometimes a team seems to show great chemistry by winning a high percentage of close games. Often times the team that seems to show chemistry by winning close games in the first half of the season fares far less well as the sample size grows. I don't know how many games chemistry means to a team. I do know that ESPN's study that showed the Giants had the best chemistry in the majors while the Dodgers had some of the worst was based on regression analysis, which seems more meaningful to me than just a SWAG. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2209/science-chemistry#ixzz2xAn4Xp7X |
|
