GatewayRedbirds.com

Where does anyone point to the lack of team chemistry about the Mets?

Fan_In_NY wrote:

vinsanity wrote:It's easier to spot on a team with good chemistry whose winning or team with poor chemistry that's losing.

The Yankees have been winning, just not WS, since A-Rod got there - coincidence?

One of the Best Cardinal Teams in many many moons had some of the best Chemistry I've ever seen. The Giants have slowly declined as Bond's Ego inflates.

But I'd say a team like Florida last year, who lost a lot, had some great chemistry. There doesn't seem to be ego's on that team and they have(had) a coach who backed them. Where as a team like the Mets who won, I just didn't see them as all that cohesive, too many players on that team and not enough members. Floyd, Delgado, Beltran and Reyes all seem like me guys.

I'd have to disagree with you on the Mets team. I am in NY so I see them a little bit closer. Their clubhouse may be a little more relaxed than the Cards, but they definately have a ton of chemistry there. Part of it could be Minaya's desire to get as many Latin American players, but they certainly played all of last season with a ton of heart and with a ton of energy. Floyd was on of their leaders and Delgado was known to be their quiet old man who shared experience. Along with Julio Franco they provided the guidance. They relied on Reyes and Wright for their fire and youthful energy. Pedro and El Duque enjoyed being with the club even when injured. Possibly the only one that seems standoffish is Beltran who I think has just shyed away from the leadership role. Honestly, if you look at the season on a whole, the Mets had a lot more character and a lot more chemistry than the Cards had.

As much as it pains me to say this, I agree with you on that one. To be completely honest, the Cards seemed flat so much of the year than not. Something just seemed different with this team (the Cards) this past year than others. Call it chemistry or whatever, but it seemed to all come together at the right time. I will say though, that Edmonds shouldn't wait until the post season to "step up" and be a leader this time around.

vinsanity wrote:

a_smith wrote:

vinsanity wrote:The Yankees have been winning, just not WS, since A-Rod got there - coincidence?

is the yankees losing the fault of A-rod--i would call that a dead horse that I will feel free and beat

i have a hard time with that claim- it seems it has a lot more to do with the pitching not being as good, torre burning out the pen in the season more than he did in earlier years so that pen is burned out by the post season, the offense not being as good, and the team just not playing as well in the post season.

That was my point though. I wasn't trying to say that it was his fault. But if they are a better team with him than Aaron Boone why aren't they winning more? Why does a team that was nothing but smiles from 96-02 (even when they didn't take home a WS) seem so catty now?

I think it definetly plays a role...but it's the difference between winning 100 and a 105. It's the difference between losing 85-95 games and losing 105. A bad team with chemistry can still develop some young players, whereas a bad team with bad chemistry is going to bicker and just be slothy in practice in the field.

A good team with bad chemistry will lose more 1 games than a good team with good chemistry. It's nto essential, measurable or even significant. But I do think the whole thing is the nature vs nurture argument. What comes first the chicken or the egg? Well this is half egg-half chicken. A winning team creates more chemistry, but a team with chemistry creates more winning. It's a circular paradox IMO.

yeah I agree with you
but i dont see the difference in chemistry being 5 games.
no freaking way its that many

as for why arent the yanks winning- well because the rest of the team isnt as talented.
The bullpen isnt as good
and the starting rotation isnt as good
pretty easy to explain why they havent been winning it all

Also you could also argue that they wouldnt have been in the playoffs without arod.

Or you could look at the last three years and they got smoked by better pitching with the Tigers, in 2005 they lost in 5 games to the Angels- their pitching stunk- starting a washed up Leiter and Johnson wasnt good,
and 2004 their pitching and offense caved at the same time.

planet pujolsian wrote:Where does anyone point to the lack of team chemistry about the Mets?

Like I said, I just got the feeling that Floyd, Beltran, Delgado and Reyes were all lil too about themselves.

Chemistry is a pretty subjective thing, and unless you're in a locker room you can't say a team has it or doesn't. But as NY pointed out I was incorrect in my perception, though my reasoning can't be all that flawed. He said Beltran shy'd away from Leadership, Delgado is a quiet old man, and Reyes and Wright for fire and energy.

Now a guy who doesn't want to be a leader and a guy who has a rep as a quiet old vet could be minscontrued as selfishness (See Rolen).

And I don't like Reyes so that's probably a personal bias, I think he's a lil flashy and lil big for his britches for now.

Alright, well this is all I'm going to say.
I could very well be wrong about the Mets, but I didn't see them as anything special this year. Almost like another Yankees, with good players who played well and won games. I didn't see anything I'd really call 'character' or 'chemistry'. Whereas a team like the Phils or the Marlins made runs at playoff bids after trading arguably their best hitter/leader(Abreu) or bunch of too young players led by a too young manager who basically lost his job before the season was over (Marlins).

I do NOT think the Yankees are losing because of A-Rod, but I do think that it has something to with their lack of success in the pst-season(though more because of his lack of production at the plate). The coincidence remark was almost rhetorical. Not a sarcastic, see he's come over and they suck so it must be related.

As far as chemistry and wins and going in the playoffs. I think a team with great chemistry (04 Cardinals) are far, far more likely to come back from ohhh say 8 - 1 against their nemesis on the road than a team with much less (06 Cards). A team that clicks well, gets along well and pushes each other behind closed doors and on the field is much, much more likely to ride Decent to Mediocre Pitching to a WS and win in the playoffs(I'm gonna have to say 04 again).
I think part of the reason that team won back-to-back at home against two of the best pitchers in the NL Central is because they didn't feel defeated. I liked our 05 NLCS team better than our 04 NLCS but the production was much different. Did the fact the team got along well create the MV3 that year? In my opinion, yes.
Edmonds, Rolen and Pujols are all great players. They all had great years in 03 and a good years in 05. But those two years weren't nearly as good as 04, and of the three years which team had the best 'character and chemistry'? Which team had the most fun?
Which team had the best record in 1 run games( I dunno, nor how to find it) or come from behind wins? I'd be it was 04, and I bet they were at least 5 games better in 1 run and come from behinds in 04 than any year that Rolen, Edmonds, and Pujols were together.

That's all I'm gonna say on it.

Chemistry is what we call it when we fans imagine we know what it would be like to be in the majors.

I don't know how it is possible to put a "win value" on team chemistry. Some teams have ridden team comraderie, work ethic, and a willingness to adhere to a strict team system/plan (all elements of team chemistry, IMO) into achievements far beyond those possible based on their relative talent level alone...the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team comes to mind as a great example.

Some other teams have significantly underachieved their cumulative talent level because they lacked those three important things...the US Basketball Dream Team comes to mind in several recent Olympics.

Team chemistry, and team results, can be affected by team leadership...think the Blues this season as they transitioned from Kitchen to Murray and how their level of play radically altered with the change.

Or, team chemistry can stem from (or be enhanced by) the personalities of the players themselves.

In team sports like hockey or basketball, chemistry is much more important because if even one part is "broken"...the team's play is crippled. In baseball, the LFer could be "broken" and it might not affect any number of games. With that said, team chemistry can still make a difference in overall attitude, coachability, and work ethic even for baseball teams. How much of an impact it has simply varies by team situation...but I would think that the overall the negative impacts of bad team chemistry would be greater than the positive impacts of good team chemistry. How good a team is will always be capped by their talent level to some degree...but if a team has given up on itself or its coach, then even the most talented teams can tank to the very bottom. I would think situations that extreme are fairly rare, though.

I think chemistry (or relationships, or whatever you want to call it) matters and in some cases can matter a great deal. But it's impossible to measure, so it's easily dismissed. I think it probably matters in some other sports more where there is more player performance dependence (soccer, basketball).

skmsw wrote:Chemistry is what we call it when we fans imagine we know what it would be like to be in the majors.

I don't put a lot of stock in it as I said.

I don't know how you can reconcile your comment with the comments of former ballplayers that put stock in it though.

Going back on my point on the Mets and Cards chemistry... I think looking at the discussion I took Chemistry to equal energy. Since it is tough to see how a team behaves in a clubhouse, its tough to see how players really feel about each other. The only eyes in a clubhouse is through a beat writers, and honestly as we have seen with Bernie, they are all primarily agenda driven. In NY all of the rag magazines (Post, Daily News, Newsday) all try to stir up trouble and find problems between players. There was very little about the Mets negatively. (One of the incidents was with Lastings Milledge who after getting called up spurned a few veterans before his wings were clipped and he was reeled in). Day in and day out I saw the Mets play with energy despite breaking out to a huge lead. They fought back in many games and just showed a ton of effort.

I sat in on many nights watching the Cards on Extra Innings and saw them look lifeless in blowing late leads, failing to come back against terrible opponents throughout the bulk of the season. It just seemed like the team didnt have the spunk that it did in other years. Not knowing what really goes on in the clubhouse, I took that as not the greatest chemistry.

That said starting with the next to last game of the season, the Cardinals all of a sudden started playing with desire and enthusiasm with their back against the wall, and appeared to carry that energy throughout the season.

My whole point was that watching the 2 teams the Mets seemed to have had more on the field and in the dugout energy throught the entire season than the Cardinals did. I view that as chemistry because I see players truely excited to play, and excited for one anothers success. Obviously clubhouse chemistry I have no idea. I have no idea who goes to the bars with one another, who sits alone on the team plane or anything like that.