Chemistry?

[Rog]

Batting second with one out in the game

is Yasiel Puig, possibly the best player on the field for the Dodgers, but quite possibly the worst for its chemistry.  The Giants don't get him out, but it's not one of Puig's booming drives but rather a routine single up the middle.

Or at least it's a routine single until Angel Pagan "realizes" it is a routine single and takes his time getting to the innocent single.  What? the nonchalant Pagan seems to say as he hesitantly realizes Puig is using his surprising speed to try to stretch a common single into an uncommon double.  And sure enough Puig is in just ahead of the tag, or at least too close for a challenge.

Pagan is a player many think is key to the Giants' chemistry, sort of their ignitor out of the leadoff spot.  Indeed, the Giants' record the past two seasons is FAR better with Pagan than without him.  Surely he must be a huge contributor to their league-leading chemistry.

Adrian Gonzalez grounds out for the second out of the inning, and up comes Matt Kemp, the malingerer.  Except that Kemp doubles to right, plating the Dodgers' first run.  Not to be outdone, fellow chem-disturber Carl Crawford singles home Kemp, and the second of four runs the Dodgers will score in the inning comes home.

Suddenly it dawns on me.  Chemistry is simply being blown out of the water.

Not to worry though.  The Giants have been a scrappy bunch, a team with great chemistry that just doesn't give up.  13 Dodger runs later I am left to ponder just how much that chemistry means.

Puig is incendiary, a player who threatens a team's chemistry on a moment's notice.  Not an ignitor like Pagan.  Yet is Puig who hustles and Pagan who is caught with his pants down.  Being caught with his pants down is strangely prophetic for how the game will turn out. The Dodgers wind up with 17 runs; the Giants, with 5 hits.  There appears to be an imbalance there.  A free radical of sorts.

Somehow chemistry today has been blown out of the water by physics.  Physics tell us that for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction.  Apparently chemistry can't overcome good physics.  On this night, the Dodgers' action is so strong that the Giants' chemistry can't over come it.  Not even close.

Later in the game, the rookie Matt Duffy, part of the youth movement which coupled with the grizzled veteran hurler Jake Peavy has given the Giants a spark (a chemical reaction) hits a pop up into shallow left.  Duffy, the scrappy type of player so great for a team's chemistry, trots out of the box, rather than run his butt off as a rookie trying to stay on the team should.  Puig, the antithesis of chemistry, ran hard and turned a single into a double.  Duffy nonchalanted his way out of the box, head hanging figuratively if not literally.  Matt turned a double into a single.

And so it went all night long.  The Dodgers had the physics, the team who played better.  The Giants had the chemistry, but the reaction failed.

It's as hard to evaluate the effects of team chemistry as it is to understand just how it comes about.  Clearly the Giants had the chemistry.  Look at how they blew the Dodgers out of the water Friday.  But if team chemistry had a positive effect on last night's game, I would have hated to see how it would have turned out for the Giants if they didn't have it.

Heck, I hated to see it even WITH the chemistry.  My fiance asked my why I tortured myself.  I guess I just wanted to see if chemistry could bounce back against physics.  But apparently the Big Bang Theory says that physics outdoes chemistry -- at least on the playing field.  Somehow the team with the better talent, not the better chemistry, usually wins.

Perhaps that is why we can evaluate and analyze a team's and its players' results six ways from Sunday -- unless, of course, there is a Sunday double header, adding a seventh way that week, offsetting the day off on Thursday.  But we still have no idea what the effect of chemistry is on that performance.

It is easy to calculate a player's OPS.  We simply add on-base percentage to slugging percentage.  But it is oh, so hard to calculate the OPS of chemistry.  Is that a combination of oxygen, potassium and sulphur?  More importantly, how much impact does it have on how a team plays?

None of us can deny its existence, but none of us can prove its impact, either.  We can make up a hypothesis that chemistry affects a team's performance.  We just can't prove that hypothesis.  If the game were decided by chemistry, how could the Giants have lost 17-0?

Let me ask one last question:  Can anyone remember a worse thrashing suffered by the Giants?

[rxmeister]

The Giants had a terrible season last year, yet they beat the NL west champion Dodgers 19-3 in a September game. Did we talk about science that night or recognize it as one isolated game? This was one bad game, Rog, coming off a 9-0 thrashing of them the night before. In fact, watching the Dodgers on Friday hit against Juan Gutierrez, I was thinking that the Dodgers had given up. And they had. For that night only. So did the Giants last night after falling way behind. Was it an important loss? Yes, especially with Kershaw pitching tonight. But don't overthink it, Rog, it was one game out of 162. I'll take a blowout where you can pull your regulars and rest them over a heartbreaking ninth inning loss anytime.

[klaiggeb]

Roger, I think you struggle with the Chemistry concept because you can't put it into numerical terms.

It can't be evaluated that way, and you're a numbers guy.

Like Mark says, last night is one of 162. It means nothing more than that.

Heck if you're going to get beat, get your fanny handed to you so you can't blame it on one play, the umpire, or bad luck.

For one night, you stunk.


Chemistry is what good marriages have.

It's what good friendships have, and both have off days.

It's as simple as that, and as complicated as that

boly

[islandboagie]

I think I would have been more upset by a 2-1 loss. By the 3rd inning I had swept that game under the rug.

As far as that game proving or disproving chemistry, I don't see it.
Did it prove the Dodgers are 17 times more talented? Or that the Giants were 9 times more talented the first game? I'm not sure I understand your point.

Chemistry is a feeling you establish with another or within a group.

The Giants are said by many to have good chemistry. But I don't think you clearly see it during a game.

The chemistry that sticks out to me is within the comments you hear during interviews. As an example, it seems like all of them refer to Bochy as some sort of wise father figure. Secondly, whatever the player being interviewed just accomplished, they always give praise to the other players.

It reminds me of the interview I saw with the Nationals closer at the time, Soriano. It was after a game with the Giants where he blew a save and Soriano blamed Harper for misplaying a fly ball. Not surprising to see their record at the end of the season.

That kind of comment after a game is something Bochy would not accept.

Team chemistry exists. If you have ever played organized sports, you know it does, and you know it has an effect. How great of an effect is hard to say.

[islandboagie]

Speaking of Puig's "double," I thought he was out. I would have liked to see a challenge on that. The game could have gone much differently if it was reversed.

[rxmeister]

Unfortunately our chemistry is very bad whenever Clayton Kershaw pitches. Starting to look like a wildcard team unless we sweep LA down there.

[Rog]

I do indeed struggle with the concept of chemistry because it can't be quantified. I've been studying it for 40 years, and I still don't how much difference it makes. And neither does anyone else, which makes the concept rather nebulous.

No question it is better to have good chemistry than bad -- but how much better. ESPN did attempt to quantify it through the efforts of some college professors, using certain criteria that would presumably develop good or bad chemistry. But who knows how accurate any of that analysis is?

And certainly it was criticized heavily here when I brought it up. My feeling was that at least someone TRIED to quantify what may not be quantifiable. I myself usually don't criticize something unless I have a better way.

The one thing I do remember is that the ESPN analysis said that the Giants have the best chemistry in the NL and that the Dodgers have the worst. I think that at least fits with what many think.

But let's say the Giants do have the best chemistry and the Dodgers have the worst. How many more wins and losses does that translate to?

Based on a player's performance, we can estimate how many games he was worth to his team. But how many games does it win if his chemistry is good? How many does it lose if he team chemistry is bad?

So, yeah, despite studying chemistry for four decades, I do struggle with the concept. Let's say for instance that Barry Bonds were still playing and that I believe he would be horrible for team chemistry if my team added him. I know that he would be likely to be worth something like 10 wins through his performance. Would the bad chemistry he was likely to cause COST that many games? Would it cost HALF that many games?

If I am a GM, I should take this into consideration. But how do I take into consideration something that can't be quantified, and something (the effect of a player on team chemistry) I can't measure to begin with. Is a player tough on the chemistry of one team, whereas the mix of players on another team wouldn't cause him to be a detractor to the chemistry of that team?

How do I as a GM fit players together to increase team chemistry? And how many more wins will it get me? I don't have a clue, and aside from the ESPN effort -- which itself is tough to evaluate, although I haven't seen anything better and certainly can come up with anything better myself -- I don't know anyone else who has a clue either.

So please help me out of my conundrum. Baseball is a sport (pretty much like the others) that is measured with numbers. If we don't keep score and have a winner and a loser, I don't really need to know any performance numbers. But since we do, the numbers have a very high importance.

Numbers allow me to predict a player's future performance a little better than I could do without the numbers. They allow me to make a little better evaluation of a player's current performance than I otherwise could. If I believe a player aids my team's chemistry, I have two problems.

First, does he truly aid it, or am I wrong in my assumption.

Second, assuming I am right and he DOES aid team chemistry, how many wins does that translate to?

Am I better signing a free agent who is a good player but has bad chemistry -- or am I better signing a lesser player who will aid team chemistry? How MUCH will that player aid or detract from chemistry? How much difference will that make in wins and losses?

Someone out there please help me out here. If you can't, I'm probably right not to get too excited about chemistry, since I don't know how much it affects winning. If I am a GM, how can I make an informed decision on a particular characteristic such as chemistry if I don't know how much difference it makes?

Let me ask this question: Which player or players are so bad for chemistry that the negativity caused by the negative chemistry is likely to outweigh the player's measurable contributions? And how do we know that is the case with that player?

I can tell you, for instance, that a player like Buster Posey is likely to be worth around five wins more in a season than a catcher such as Hector Sanchez in a season -- based on performance. How bad an influence would Buster have to be on chemistry in order for it to be better for my team to have Hector than Buster?

If it can't be measured, I'm merely guessing at its impact. And I'm not fond of guessing. I'll guess if that's the best I can do, but how do I know my guess is better than anyone else's?

You let me pick a roster based on performance, and I can make a decent estimate of how many wins that team can reasonably be expected to win (although clearly that can vary a LOT from year to year). I would rather put together a roster that is likely to win more games than a roster that isn't.

But how many wins can I expect from my "All Chemistry" team? And does chemistry breed winning, or does winning build chemistry?

I have found on one who has much of a clue to these questions. If anyone here can help, please do. Otherwise I am led to wonder how a chemistry player such as Angel Pagan can allow a non-chemistry player such as Yasiel Puig to take an extra base. Anyone can hustle. Why wouldn't the chemistry player be the one who was more likely to do so? Or at least, not the one who DIDN'T?

A player can't always control whether he can get a hit or not (although his success there can be measured). But any player can hustle, although the impact of that is tougher -- although not impossible -- to measure?

Was Yasiel Puig more of a positive factor in that game than Angel Pagan? Yes, Puig is a better player than Pagan. But is he enough better to offset his negative chemistry? Any why was it Puig, not Pagan, who hustled?

You can say, isn't that like asking why Buster Posey struck out instead of Brandon Crawford? The answer is no. Clearly Posey is the better player, but he can't control getting a hit every time -- whereas he CAN control hustling on every play (which he doesn't, by the way. Almost no one this side of Hunter Pence does.)

For that matter, how much does hustling improve chemistry? We can see how it can allow a player to take an extra base, and we can calculate what portion of a run that is usually worth.

[klaiggeb]

Roger-I do indeed struggle with the concept of chemistry because it can't be quantified. I've been studying it for 40 years, and I still don't how much difference it makes. And neither does anyone else, which makes the concept rather nebulous.

---boly says--

I think it's difficult, if not impossible for any "numbers-type" of guy to understand 'chemistry' unless you've played on a team that won BECAUSE of that chemistry.

I have.

I was fortunate enough while in the Air Force to have played on a team that really didn't have enough talent to win... because individually, we had only 1 or 2 stand out players. The rest were poor, or below average.

But when we took the field together...Wow! What happened was something you had to see, to experience, to understand.

The collective sum of our very average parts was greater than looking at the pieces one-by-one and trying to quantify, or give a value to them.


My suggestion is this; stop trying to 'measure' it, or 'give a value' to anything where chemistry is involved.

Stop trying to argue that it has no effect or doesn't/can't exist.



It simply 'is.'

It cannot be defined, it cannot be explained, but I'm flat out telling you what I've experienced both as a player and a coach; you DO win games, not all, but you DO win games because of it.

It's that simple, and it's that complex.

boly

[Rog]

Here is what I believe about chemistry:

. It exists.

. I can't imagine good chemistry being a bad thing.

. I haven't found anyone who can evaluate in terms of extra games that will be won, which means if I am a GM, I shouldn't overpay for it.

. Chemistry isn't tangible at present. Number of wins is. Relying on an intangible to provide an important tangible benefit can be dangerous.

What I believe is that I would try to build a team with chemistry. But I would make building a team with lots of talent a much higher priority. Perhaps one way of looking at it would be that chemistry is the icing on the cake. But without the cake of a fairly good roster, I don't that icing is likely to be enough.

Does anyone?

A question for you, Boly: You say your teams with chemistry won more games. Which games were they? If you can't identify the games, how do you truly know they won more. You may suspect it, and I too suspect you're right. But unless we can point to the specific games, we both could be wrong.

Again, I'd rather have chemistry than not have it. But give my team greater talent, and it will likely win more often. And when they do so, I can point to the games they won because of that superior talent.

[donk33]

Sept 16, 2014 14:08:52 GMT -5 Rog said:

Here is what I believe about chemistry:

. It exists.

. I can't imagine good chemistry being a bad thing.

. I haven't found anyone who can evaluate in terms of extra games that will be won, which means if I am a GM, I shouldn't overpay for it.

. Chemistry isn't tangible at present. Number of wins is. Relying on an intangible to provide an important tangible benefit can be dangerous.

What I believe is that I would try to build a team with chemistry. But I would make building a team with lots of talent a much higher priority. Perhaps one way of looking at it would be that chemistry is the icing on the cake. But without the cake of a fairly good roster, I don't that icing is likely to be enough.

Does anyone?

A question for you, Boly: You say your teams with chemistry won more games. Which games were they? If you can't identify the games, how do you truly know they won more. You may suspect it, and I too suspect you're right. But unless we can point to the specific games, we both could be wrong.

Again, I'd rather have chemistry than not have it. But give my team greater talent, and it will likely win more often. And when they do so, I can point to the games they won because of that superior talent.

dk...this is the guy that is so sure that ERA is more important than W-L....in evaluating a pitcher...especially Tim, when things were good...and by the way, how many rings did Bonds win?

[klaiggeb]

Rog--But give my team greater talent, and it will likely win more often. And when they do so, I can point to the games they won because of that superior talent.


---boly says---If you're talking 1927 Yankees greater talent, of course you'll win.

But that rarely is the case.

Chemistry is subtle.

IF we're talking Dodgers-Giants talent right now, if we both start from square one; dead heat and tied, and if we play 10 games for all the marbles...

you manage LA with slightly better talent, I'll manage SF with slightly less talent but great chemistry, and I'll beat you 6 to 7 of 10 games.

I guarantee it.

boly

[Rog]

dk...this is the guy that is so sure that ERA is more important than W-L....in evaluating a pitcher...

Rog -- It usually is, as more and more are realizing.

Don -- especially Tim, when things were good...

Rog -- I really dislike it when you get your facts wrong, Don. Don't you remember when Tim was at his best and I said that as well as he was pitching, his record wouldn't be as good if he hadn't had good run support? In 2008 and 2009, both his ERA and his won-loss were outstanding.

Don -- and by the way, how many rings did Bonds win?

Rog -- The same number as any other great won by himself.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2449/chemistry#ixzz3DXQk2iqD

[Rog]

Rog--But give my team greater talent, and it will likely win more often. And when they do so, I can point to the games they won because of that superior talent.


---boly says---If you're talking 1927 Yankees greater talent, of course you'll win.

But that rarely is the case.

Chemistry is subtle.

IF we're talking Dodgers-Giants talent right now, if we both start from square one; dead heat and tied, and if we play 10 games for all the marbles...

you manage LA with slightly better talent, I'll manage SF with slightly less talent but great chemistry, and I'll beat you 6 to 7 of 10 games.

I guarantee it.

Rog -- I think our approach here shows the difference in our thinking. I wouldn't guarantee EITHER team would win 6 to 7 of the 10 games.

When there is something like this that we have no way of knowing, I often start by asking myself what we DO know.

. We know that the two teams have split the 16 games they have played. Neither team won 60% to 70% of the time.

. We know that the Giants have played .508 ball against teams with .500 or higher records. The Dodgers have gone .476. The Giants have played a bit better against the top NL teams.

. We know they have gone 4-3 against the Cardinals, 2-5 against the Nationals, and 2-4 against the Pirates, the other three teams likely to be in the playoffs with the Giants and Dodgers. The Dodgers have gone 4-3, 2-4 and 2-5. Coincidentally, the two teams have an equal record against these three teams combined.

What does that all mean? Hard to say. But it makes it unlikely that the Giants would beat the Dodgers six or seven games out of 10 on a consistent basis.

I can't say they wouldn't. But I certainly wouldn't want to guarantee it.

Perhaps the chemistry suggests the Giants. The facts seem to suggest the two teams would likely play pretty close to each other over say a 100 game series. In any 10-game series, EITHER team could win 6 or 7 games -- or MORE.

But it wouldn't be likely to happen a great deal. The most likely result would be 4, 5 or 6 wins. Seven would happen on occasion, but not too often. More than 7 would be unusual.

And that would likely hold true for either the Giants or the Dodgers.

To me, the value of chemistry is like your saying you will pay me for something. I seem fair in asking you ask how much you will pay before blindly accepting it. In the case of a "commodity" such as chemistry, you can't tell me how much you would pay for it, since its value is unknown.

I could reasonably expect you to commit to a NUMBER. That's why numbers have meaning. It's the way baseball and many aspects of life keep score.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2449/chemistry?page=1#ixzz3DXS0FCLh

[donk33]

Sept 16, 2014 22:04:54 GMT -5 Rog said:

dk...this is the guy that is so sure that ERA is more important than W-L....in evaluating a pitcher...

Rog -- It usually is, as more and more are realizing.

Don -- especially Tim, when things were good...

Rog -- I really dislike it when you get your facts wrong, Don. Don't you remember when Tim was at his best and I said that as well as he was pitching, his record wouldn't be as good if he hadn't had good run support? In 2008 and 2009, both his ERA and his won-loss were outstanding.

Don -- and by the way, how many rings did Bonds win?

Rog -- The same number as any other great won by himself.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2449/chemistry#ixzz3DXQk2iqD

dk...strange how did you justify Tim beating Carpenter out of the Cy Young in 2009.....and Bonds wasn't alone on the Giants, he had plenty of help ..it's strange, the many "great" players, who never won a ring, were also known for hurting the Chemistry on their teams.....but then, no one has ever tried to put a number to it...probably the dumbest concept I have heard....

[Rog]

dk...strange how did you justify Tim beating Carpenter out of the Cy Young in 2009..

Rog -- I don't think I DID justify it. I was simply happy he won. As for record, his 15 wins was the least ever at that time for a Cy Young winner. I'm not quite sure I could have used his record as the justification for his award. The voters overcame his low win total, but it certainly didn't HELP him win the Cy.

I think having the next two best pitchers on one team (Carpenter and Wainright of the Cardinals) helped him. I think they might have diluted each other's vote.

Again, Don, please get your facts right. If you do, I will be happy to discuss the merits of your argument.

[Rog]

Don -- Bonds wasn't alone on the Giants, he had plenty of help ..

Rog -- Clearly he didn't have quite enough help at the right time.

Don --it's strange, the many "great" players, who never won a ring, were also known for hurting the Chemistry on their teams.

Rog -- Ernie Banks leaps immediately to mind.

Incidentally, do you think it is possible that any players who had the reputation for bad chemistry might have had that reputation improved when their team won one or more championships?

[Rog]

Don -- no one has ever tried to put a number to it...probably the dumbest concept I have heard.

Rog -- I doubt that. Being able to quantify something usually helps us understand it better. That might be why they keep score rather than simply have judges vote to determine the winner. What is indicative of the importance of numbers is that even where judges DO vote for the winner, they usually give a total score or a round-by-round tally.

In baseball itself, scouts use a number between 20 and 80 to quantify their evaluation of a player's play and potential. Heck, they even use it to evaluate an intangible -- "make up."

So in a way, one can say that baseball itself has put a number on "chemistry," calling it "make up" and evaluating prospects on that trait.

[donk33]

Sept 17, 2014 11:50:16 GMT -5 Rog said:

Don -- Bonds wasn't alone on the Giants, he had plenty of help ..

Rog -- Clearly he didn't have quite enough help at the right time.

Don --it's strange, the many "great" players, who never won a ring, were also known for hurting the Chemistry on their teams.

Rog -- Ernie Banks leaps immediately to mind.dk..get your glasses cleaned, I didn't say ALL, I said many...and that included Bonds and Williams...

Rog Incidentally, do you think it is possible that any players who had the reputation for bad chemistry might have had that reputation improved when their team won one or more championships?

dk...again, wise guy, I didn't say all  "chemistry" problem players failed to get a ring...but keep twisting things, as usual....

[Rog]

dk...again, wise guy, I didn't say all "chemistry" problem players failed to get a ring...but keep twisting things, as usual....

Rog -- I was kind of joking around when I mentioned Ernie. Clearly though it shows that chemistry isn't necessary to having a ring.

Don, would you mind knocking it off with the comments that I'm twisting things lest someone thing you're twisted? I'm joking around, but your "twisting" comments are foolish and uninformed. Why not just state the facts and see what conclusion they lead to? Why do you feel it is necessary to falsely editorialize beyond that?

I don't want to get in an arguing match with you, so why not just knock it off and stick to the facts?

[islandboagie]

Nobody is saying it's essential to a team being successful, but it sure doesn't hurt, where as a lack of chemistry, or bad chemistry could. There have been teams that win without chemistry, just like there are teams that win without a very good offense, or pitching, or defense. That doesn't mean those areas aren't important in the grand scheme of things. Thinking differently is a very short sighted way to look at professional sports.

[Rog]

You are right that a team can win it all without chemistry, or without pitching, or or without offense, or without defense. But we can make a reasonable estimate of the effect of any of the last three. We have to guess in the case of chemistry -- and really have little on which to base our guess.

A team can win with great pitching alone. It can win with great hitting alone. But I don't think it can win with either defense or chemistry alone.

By the way, I'm not doubting chemistry has an effect. I'm simply saying we don't know that effect is or even how to estimate it. I keep asking for the answer to that, and I can't blame anyone for not having the answer.

But not having a valid way to estimate something is sort of like telling someone you'll pay him for his merchandise or service. When he asks you how much you'll pay, you honestly reply that you don't know how much, only that you'll pay him. Think he will sell you the item?

I'm willing to say that chemistry is there and that it has an effect. But since I don't know how much effect it has, I have no way to evaluate it.

For instance, if I am a GM and can get a 4-win player with bad chemistry at the same price as a 3-win player with good chemistry, which player should I choose? Would even a 2-win player with good chemistry be worth more than the 4-win guy with bad beakers (chemistry)?

When parents choose a neighborhood based on its school system, don't they want to know how that school system -- and its schools -- is rated, rather than just knowing the school exists and students do learn there?

When you shop for a TV, don't you want to know how it is rated rather than just that it works?

Good chemistry likely gives a team an advantage. So does home field advantage. The nice thing is that we can estimate how much home field advantage helps. We can calculate the home field in all games played by all teams. We can calculate it by home field.

With chemistry, we're only guessing at its value. We don't know if it's high or low.

It's nice to know something exists. It's even better to know its effect.

[donk33]

Sept 17, 2014 15:53:37 GMT -5 Rog said:

You are right that a team can win it all without chemistry, or without pitching, or or without offense, or without defense. But we can make a reasonable estimate of the effect of any of the last three. We have to guess in the case of chemistry -- and really have little on which to base our guess.

A team can win with great pitching alone. It can win with great hitting alone. But I don't think it can win with either defense or chemistry alone.

By the way, I'm not doubting chemistry has an effect. I'm simply saying we don't know that effect is or even how to estimate it. I keep asking for the answer to that, and I can't blame anyone for not having the answer.

But not having a valid way to estimate something is sort of like telling someone you'll pay him for his merchandise or service. When he asks you how much you'll pay, you honestly reply that you don't know how much, only that you'll pay him. Think he will sell you the item?

I'm willing to say that chemistry is there and that it has an effect. But since I don't know how much effect it has, I have no way to evaluate it.

For instance, if I am a GM and can get a 4-win player with bad chemistry at the same price as a 3-win player with good chemistry, which player should I choose? Would even a 2-win player with good chemistry be worth more than the 4-win guy with bad beakers (chemistry)?

When parents choose a neighborhood based on its school system, don't they want to know how that school system -- and its schools -- is rated, rather than just knowing the school exists and students do learn there?

When you shop for a TV, don't you want to know how it is rated rather than just that it works?

Good chemistry likely gives a team an advantage. So does home field advantage. The nice thing is that we can estimate how much home field advantage helps. We can calculate the home field in all games played by all teams. We can calculate it by home field.

With chemistry, we're only guessing at its value. We don't know if it's high or low.

It's nice to know something exists. It's even better to know its effect.

dk..I fully disagree with your comments....the reason you can't put a number on "Chemistry" is because it isn't a finite commodity...You take 25 guys and put them on a team and there has to be some guys that don't get along with some other guys...sometimes it remains in the background, not always...some time is breaks out in the open...like Kent and Bonds.....Tim and Buster ...Puig and others...some guys are rated as pains and cause problems on and off the field...like Ramirez in Florida...he gets traded to the Dodgers and all the rumors of him dogging it disappear and his main problem is keeping him out of the lineup when he is hurting... if you remove a guy from a team, it is possible the "Chemistry" turns around..... I think rating schools is hard to do...I had to move into an area in California that I could afford and our school system wasn't rated the greatest....however, my little league double play combination both went to Mayfair (Lakewood,Ca.) High and my son finished #1 in his class and went on to finish near the top at UCLA and graduated from UCLA Med.School....Gary, my 2B, finished first in his HS class , a year later and followed in my son's footprints in becoming a doctor...the school stunk, but there were several students who worked hard and did   a lot on their own.....I wonder if the Giants would have won before they did if Bonds had not been signed...I also wonder if there isn't a problem between Posey and the rest of the team...they use such catch phrases as getting him on the same page...and there is never any display of true affection towards Posey....I just never see anyone really talking to Buster in the dugout, and he usually ends up talking to the hitting coach or standing close to Bochy......

[rxmeister]

Yes, DK, they all hate Posey, that's pretty obvious. I'm surprised they don't beat him up in the dugout between innings. You definitely see what you want to see with Posey, because I've seen him having fun in the dugout many times, even with Tim Lincecum, who you probably think is contacting hit men to take Posey out as I write this.

[donk33]

Sept 17, 2014 22:36:20 GMT -5 rxmeister said:

Yes, DK, they all hate Posey, that's pretty obvious. I'm surprised they don't beat him up in the dugout between innings. You definitely see what you want to see with Posey, because I've seen him having fun in the dugout many times, even with Tim Lincecum, who you probably think is contacting hit men to take Posey out as I write this.

dk...I don't hate anyone on the Giants...never have, but I was embarrassed by Bonds....I just think Posey is highly over rated as a catcher and I would rather have him at first...however, since I have to watch the Giants play on any station I can get, I back up my ratings of Posey with the comments of the other announcers that you guys don't get in SF......yesterday, Brenly was critical of Busters half hearted swipe at a pitch...saying with 2 strikes on the batter, you have to get in front of any pitch because the batter might swing and get to first base...you get a wide variation of comments about Posey...some good, some bad...as one of the ex players said...Posey is highly rated as a catcher because of his hitting and average fielding.....they comment on his high caught stealing (By today's standards) but a good percentage of his CS are padded by the high number of MadBum's pickoffs.... Posey gets credit for a CS when the pitcher picks a runner off base...with the high number of PO's , Posey numbers are in the upper level...without PO's counting for all catchers, he is close to the bottom...but, you will discount that, too...

[Rog]

dk..I fully disagree with your comments....the reason you can't put a number on "Chemistry" is because it isn't a finite commodity..

Rog -- And as such, we can't know its impact, which was my point. As I have pointed out numerous times, I don't doubt that chemistry exists. I'm not challenging that. What I AM saying is that we can't accurately measure its effect.

Actually chemistry IS a finite commodity. It's simply well beyond our ability to measure. Statistics are measuring more and more things in sports, and they are measuring them more and more accurately. We have the opportunity to learn things we never DREAMT we'd learn.

And that opportunity is growing every day. I don't think they'll be able to measure chemistry in our lifetimes though. That's too bad. I'd LOVE to know the answer (and to related questions, as well). I've been studying this subject for 40 years and am little if any closer to the answer.

And the sad thing is, I can't find anyone else with an answer either.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2449/chemistry#ixzz3DgRqJDnD