|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 18, 2015 10:11:12 GMT -5
IMHO, it says nothing about chemistry, Rog. Nothing at all.
What it tells me is that, one, as you pointed out, injuries, and two, and most importantly what the FO didn't address in the off season came back to bite them in the fanny.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 19, 2015 10:42:24 GMT -5
I don't know that it says anything about chemistry either, but one possible measure of chemistry might be how a team does in one-run games. Why?
Well, we can rarely point to a specific example of how chemistry helped win a game, indicating that chemistry's effect may be subtle. And if something is subtle, it seems more likely to be important in close games. In one-sided games, could it matter enough to truly make a difference? Is there a three-run chemistry out there?
I've been studying chemistry off and on for forty years. I realize most everyone here thinks all I pay attention to is numbers, but four decades is a long time to study something as intangible as chemistry. It's such a tough subject to -- sorry to put it this way, but I'm not sure how understanding its effect could come any other way -- "quantify."
Either before this season or before last I posted part of something I had seen in ESPN The Magazine. It was an effort to identify how much effect chemistry had on teams. I recall that the Giants were considered to have the best in the NL and the Dodgers the worst. IIRC it was calculated to help the Giants by two games and hurt the Dodgers by two, although I might be mis-remembering the amount. If we look at the standing for the past two seasons, I don't think those amounts would have affected the standings in any meaningful, and of course, who knows if the numbers were right?
But the point is that even a few games -- sometimes even just one -- can make the difference in making or not making the playoffs. And what I had read was the first ATTEMPT I had seen to quantify the effect of chemistry.
If we believe chemistry has an effect -- and I don't know anyone who doesn't -- doesn't it make sense to learn as much about quantifying it as we can? Otherwise there is no way we can know the IMPORTANCE of chemistry.
It has been said here that we can't say what chemistry is, but we know it if we have it. If we can't really identify it, doesn't that make measuring its effect all the more important?
Anyway, I don't now if a team's record in close games is an indication of its team chemistry or not. But doesn't it make sense to explore any ways we can find to try to identify the existence and effect of chemistry?
If it doesn't, then chemistry probably isn't worth discussing.
Here's a comparison. We don't really know where home field advantage comes from. (ESPN has also tried to measure that.) But we can quantify its effect. Home field advantage might stem from a type of chemistry. Comfort with sleeping one's bed for a decent period of time as opposed to traveling all around the continent in planes, for instance. But we can measure it. If we can measure the impact of that type of "chemistry," might that not be a small step toward measuring the effect of team chemistry?
As I say, I've been studying it for 40 years. Now that the topic has come up and with the powers of the internet, maybe I'll try to make a concerted effort to study it again. Anyone else want to take a shot at it himself?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 19, 2015 10:49:25 GMT -5
I was listening to a discussion by coach John (I'm going to spell this wrong) Kintera yesterday, talking about what went wrong with the Padre team this year.
They hashed around a lot of things, but the bottom line both guys agreed upon was that ON THE FIELD, the chemistry didn't mesh.
People can say what they want about chemistry, but I KNOW what I've personally experienced, I KNOW what I've seen; it's there, and it's a real thing.
Heck, if one is foolish enough to believe in momentum, how can one NOT believe in chemistry?
Or let's put it another way;
Last night they were talking about an article Duffy wrote. He talked about the WAY he was welcomed into the Giant clubhouse last year; how that effected him; how that made him fit in so quickly.
He speculated that THAT was one of the reasons why so many Giant kids came up and were successful so quickly.
And I AGREE with him!
That veteran attitude creates a sense of togetherness; a sense of family.
And a sense of family means 'we're all in this together,' and that no, ONE PLAYER, is larger than the whole.
And, IMHO, THAT creates chemistry.
We have it, the Padres don't.
boly
|
|