|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 27, 2021 1:50:34 GMT -5
I think there was a misunderstanding. I've said that chemistry couldn't be measured -- Randy in particular scoffed when Sports Illustrated attempted to do so a few years back -- but if I said that it doesn't exist, I spoke against my own beliefs. I personally applauded SI's attempt to measure chemistry, although as an intangible, it's pretty tough to measure. But I admired their attempting to do so.
I particularly admired ESPN the Magazine's finding a way to measure the contributions of some of the intangibles in basketball. I think the more purely a sport is a team sport, the more important intangibles become, although they might get a boost in baseball due to the effect comradery might have during a longer, closer season.
Baseball is a team sport, but think how little one player often contributes to the success of another compared to things like blocking in football or passing or screen setting in basketball.
Compare, for instance, the difficulty in playing team defense in basketball compared to team defense in baseball. The relationship between a pitcher and a catcher might possibly approach that between two basketball defenders, but seriously, how tough are things like relay plays? In basketball, both offensively and defensively, all five players can be important in working together in a single possession, whereas in a relay play, for the most part, only three players participate. A few other players have assignments and participate occasionally, but if a relay play is performed accurately, no more than three players will be involved.
Chemistry definitely exists, but I wonder if it is as important in baseball as in other, more truly team oriented sports. 90% of baseball is pitcher against batter.
I think the present Giants have been able to do more with less talent than any Giants team I can remember because they have done an outstanding job of combining chemistry and analytics. The Giants have become close to a complete organization.
For instance, think of the work my neighbor does as a team psychologist. Among many others, she has worked with Drew Robinson, who is now another member of the Giants' support staff himself. By the way, if you haven't read the ESPN article about Drew, look it up. It's fascinating. One of the best background Giants stories I've ever read.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Oct 27, 2021 8:21:36 GMT -5
Last night the Braves found themselves without their expected starter, yet they beat baseball's winningest 2021 pitcher with a bullpen game. My sense is that like many ideas, the use of openers and bullpen games are often successful when they are used properly and in situations with decent chances of success. They're not very successful when they are used improperly and in situations with little chance of success. In what none other than Vince Scully called the biggest game in Giants/Dodgers history, the use of an opener allowed Dave Roberts to catch Gabe Kapler with one of postseasons' greatest mismatches for the final out. Gabe will likely be named the NL Manager of the Year, in great part because he put his players in positions to succeed so often. But in that particular instance, with so very much on the line, Gabe got caught with his pants down. It's not like the situation wasn't foreseeable prior to the game. Just ask Boagie. "Biggest game in Giants-Dodgers history" now seems like an overstatement.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 27, 2021 10:15:57 GMT -5
I think there was a misunderstanding. I've said that chemistry couldn't be measured -- Randy in particular scoffed when Sports Illustrated attempted to do so a few years back -- but if I said that it doesn't exist, I spoke against my own beliefs. I personally applauded SI's attempt to measure chemistry, although as an intangible, it's pretty tough to measure. But I admired their attempting to do so. I particularly admired ESPN the Magazine's finding a way to measure the contributions of some of the intangibles in basketball. I think the more purely a sport is a team sport, the more important intangibles become, although they might get a boost in baseball due to the effect comradery might have during a longer, closer season. Baseball is a team sport, but think how little one player often contributes to the success of another compared to things like blocking in football or passing or screen setting in basketball. Compare, for instance, the difficulty in playing team defense in basketball compared to team defense in baseball. The relationship between a pitcher and a catcher might possibly approach that between two basketball defenders, but seriously, how tough are things like relay plays? In basketball, both offensively and defensively, all five players can be important in working together in a single possession, whereas in a relay play, for the most part, only three players participate. A few other players have assignments and participate occasionally, but if a relay play is performed accurately, no more than three players will be involved. Chemistry definitely exists, but I wonder if it is as important in baseball as in other, more truly team oriented sports. 90% of baseball is pitcher against batter. I think the present Giants have been able to do more with less talent than any Giants team I can remember because they have done an outstanding job of combining chemistry and analytics. The Giants have become close to a complete organization. For instance, think of the work my neighbor does as a team psychologist. Among many others, she has worked with Drew Robinson, who is now another member of the Giants' support staff himself. By the way, if you haven't read the ESPN article about Drew, look it up. It's fascinating. One of the best background Giants stories I've ever read. If that's what SI tried to do, then THAT was their biggest mistake.
Chemistry cannot be measured or quantified in any manner what-so-ever.
Why?
Because it takes place at the subliminal level.
No one is aware of it until it starts to occur.... and when it's there...when it's there, as a player it is beautiful to behold!
As a fan? Well, it just can't be measured
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 27, 2021 13:02:58 GMT -5
Why do we have to say that SI made a mistake? (Some of) you guys are so negative about change.
You realize, right, that if no one ever tried to do things that hadn't been done before, we wouldn't advance much?
It's been a few years, so I don't remember all the methodology, but it stemmed from such things as the sub-groups that made up the team and how they were likely to interact. IIRC the Giants were rated the highest, and the Dodgers were ranked the lowest or close to it. I think SI came up with something like a four-game difference between the Giants and Dodgers when it came to chemistry.
Obviously it was a first attempt, and it was rough. But you've got to start somewhere.
If one doesn't learn more about a subject, particularly one that is changing as the game of baseball is, he falls behind those who continue to learn.
I just came back from the library where I picked up a book I ordered a couple of weeks ago. It was written by Joan Ryan, who has written for the Examiner IIRC and who is the wife of announcer Barry Tompkins. It's entitled "Intangibles: Unlocking the science and soul of team chemistry," and I believe it may have a bunch of Giants stuff. Billie Jean King, who has a family relationship with the Giants, calls it "The seminal work on the capacity of teams." I'm hoping it will be really good. To be honest, it's tough to find stuff about team chemistry.
We all realize how difficult it is to measure an intangible, but why in the world would we criticize an attempt to do so? I thought SI's attempt was, as I believe they admitted, pretty rough. But ESPN the Magazine did a pretty good job of measuring it in basketball.
The guy I think of when I think of chemistry in basketball is Shane Battier. Battier averaged just 8.4, 4.2 rebounds, 1.8 assists, 1.0 steals and 0.9 blocks per game, yet he ranks 183rd all-time in Win Shares, ahead for instance of Kiki Vandeweghe, who averaged 19.7 ppg. He ranks #152 in box plus/minus. 122nd in Value Over Replacement Player. ESPN explained the things that Battier did that made him so important to a team without building big stats.
I saw a video of Battier speaking at my nephew's high school graduation. He spoke to the brother of his Memphis Grizzlies teammate Pau Gasol, among others. Pau's brother is named Marc, who later became the NBA Defensive Player of the Year. Battier was a sensational speaker, one who appeared quite capable of being a motivational speaker. One could see how he might contribute to team chemistry.
Andre Igoudala is a similar example on the Warriors.
I mentioned that I suspect team chemistry is more important in other truly more team-oriented sports than it is in baseball, but given the grind of the baseball season I am open to suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 27, 2021 13:15:25 GMT -5
I was surprised when Vince Scully called game 5 the biggest game in the history of the rivalry, but I saw and see what he meant. Looking backward now that neither team made the World Series, that does indeed seem like an overstatement. But maybe not.
I would say The Shot Heard Round the World was the biggest previous game, but the Giants lost the World Series to the Yankees. The third playoff game of 1962 was also huge, but again the Giants lost the World Series.
I just realized that rain delays played a part in BOTH those World Series. Back in 1962 I remember being disappointed that all the World Series game at Candlestick were going to be played during the week, meaning I wouldn't get to go. Then came the rain delay, which at first meant a weekend game. But the delay lasted so long that the games fell back into the next week, so I didn't get to go.
I had forgotten that my dad mentioned that in 1951 the Giants took a 2 games to 1 lead over the Yankees, but lost three straight after rain caused a one-day delay. He felt without the interruption that the result might have been different, and it did likely change the rotation.
Then of course there was the huge 1989 earthquake delay. The elements haven't been kind to the Giants' World Series efforts.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Oct 28, 2021 9:14:17 GMT -5
I think there was a misunderstanding. I've said that chemistry couldn't be measured -- Randy in particular scoffed when Sports Illustrated attempted to do so a few years back -- but if I said that it doesn't exist, I spoke against my own beliefs. I personally applauded SI's attempt to measure chemistry, although as an intangible, it's pretty tough to measure. But I admired their attempting to do so. I particularly admired ESPN the Magazine's finding a way to measure the contributions of some of the intangibles in basketball. I think the more purely a sport is a team sport, the more important intangibles become, although they might get a boost in baseball due to the effect comradery might have during a longer, closer season. Baseball is a team sport, but think how little one player often contributes to the success of another compared to things like blocking in football or passing or screen setting in basketball. Compare, for instance, the difficulty in playing team defense in basketball compared to team defense in baseball. The relationship between a pitcher and a catcher might possibly approach that between two basketball defenders, but seriously, how tough are things like relay plays? In basketball, both offensively and defensively, all five players can be important in working together in a single possession, whereas in a relay play, for the most part, only three players participate. A few other players have assignments and participate occasionally, but if a relay play is performed accurately, no more than three players will be involved. Chemistry definitely exists, but I wonder if it is as important in baseball as in other, more truly team oriented sports. 90% of baseball is pitcher against batter. I think the present Giants have been able to do more with less talent than any Giants team I can remember because they have done an outstanding job of combining chemistry and analytics. The Giants have become close to a complete organization. For instance, think of the work my neighbor does as a team psychologist. Among many others, she has worked with Drew Robinson, who is now another member of the Giants' support staff himself. By the way, if you haven't read the ESPN article about Drew, look it up. It's fascinating. One of the best background Giants stories I've ever read. If that's what SI tried to do, then THAT was their biggest mistake.
Chemistry cannot be measured or quantified in any manner what-so-ever.
Why?
Because it takes place at the subliminal level.
No one is aware of it until it starts to occur.... and when it's there...when it's there, as a player it is beautiful to behold!
As a fan? Well, it just can't be measuredIf the pundits, computer projections projected 75 wins for 2021, then the actual number was because of chemistry, coaching, final spurt year, and 32 more wins than expected. Works the other way, too. Padres probably underperformed by about 15 games. I think you can get an idea of chemistry by taking the initial projection and subtract the actual. You won't get a hard number but you can get an idea.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 28, 2021 9:49:16 GMT -5
If that's what SI tried to do, then THAT was their biggest mistake.
Chemistry cannot be measured or quantified in any manner what-so-ever.
Why?
Because it takes place at the subliminal level.
No one is aware of it until it starts to occur.... and when it's there...when it's there, as a player it is beautiful to behold!
As a fan? Well, it just can't be measured If the pundits, computer projections projected 75 wins for 2021, then the actual number was because of chemistry, coaching, final spurt year, and 32 more wins than expected. Works the other way, too. Padres probably underperformed by about 15 games. I think you can get an idea of chemistry by taking the initial projection and subtract the actual. You won't get a hard number but you can get an idea. Reed, that's an awfully good way to look at chemistry!
Once again, well said!
IMHO, it is the best way to understand how we performed so well, and the Padres didn't.
Certainly wasn't because the Padres lacked talent!
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Oct 28, 2021 10:35:06 GMT -5
I was surprised when Vince Scully called game 5 the biggest game in the history of the rivalry, but I saw and see what he meant. Looking backward now that neither team made the World Series, that does indeed seem like an overstatement. But maybe not. I would say The Shot Heard Round the World was the biggest previous game, but the Giants lost the World Series to the Yankees. The third playoff game of 1962 was also huge, but again the Giants lost the World Series. I just realized that rain delays played a part in BOTH those World Series. Back in 1962 I remember being disappointed that all the World Series game at Candlestick were going to be played during the week, meaning I wouldn't get to go. Then came the rain delay, which at first meant a weekend game. But the delay lasted so long that the games fell back into the next week, so I didn't get to go. I had forgotten that my dad mentioned that in 1951 the Giants took a 2 games to 1 lead over the Yankees, but lost three straight after rain caused a one-day delay. He felt without the interruption that the result might have been different, and it did likely change the rotation. Then of course there was the huge 1989 earthquake delay. The elements haven't been kind to the Giants' World Series efforts. The problem with the moniker "biggest game in the history of the rivalry" is that the winner would have had to win eight more games to become WS champs, so they're less than a third of the way. I think if the Giants had won, they might have been in better shape than the Dodgers to go against Atlanta but I'm not sure if they would have won either (bullpen was gassed). Logan Webb certainly looked in better shape than Urias, Buehler, and Scherzer. I'm thinking if the Giants were in the NLCS, it would have been a seven-game series but a slight edge to the Giants because we have more starting pitchers with more in the tank and Fried looks tired.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 28, 2021 17:38:03 GMT -5
The Giants outperformed their projections by more than any team I can remember. I think there were quite a few factors that entered in.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 28, 2021 17:41:38 GMT -5
I think most would have said that the biggest game in Giants/Dodgers history had previously been game 3 of the 1951 playoffs, the shot heard round the world. Arguing against game 5 being even bigger is as Reed said that the winner still had to win eight more games. But even after the shot heard round the world, the Giants still had to win four more games, and they reached only half that amount.
The argument for it's being the biggest game is that I'm not sure two teams had ever played with so many combined victories in the regular season. Certainly no two teams had ever played with 107 and 106 victories respectively.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Oct 28, 2021 20:11:00 GMT -5
If the pundits, computer projections projected 75 wins for 2021, then the actual number was because of chemistry, coaching, final spurt year, and 32 more wins than expected. Works the other way, too. Padres probably underperformed by about 15 games. I think you can get an idea of chemistry by taking the initial projection and subtract the actual. You won't get a hard number but you can get an idea. Reed, that's an awfully good way to look at chemistry!
Once again, well said!
IMHO, it is the best way to understand how we performed so well, and the Padres didn't.
Certainly wasn't because the Padres lacked talent!After signing Bob Melvin, they may be the most improved next season.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 29, 2021 16:45:13 GMT -5
It was fun when the Giants had the two Bob's, Brenly and Melvin, behind the plate. In 1987 they also had Kirt Manwaring and Mackey Sasser. Those 1987 Giants were a REALLY good team. A shame they didn't beat the Cardinals.
|
|