I would love to see a good study on team chemistry. How can you tell what trades or free agent signings will improve team chemistry? It seems like some teams might win even with bad chemistry or dissension. The 1970s A's come to mind (maybe they are a rare exception). Maybe some teams with great chemistry have losing records. Who was the poison in the Mariners team chemistry this year? Why didn't anyone see it coming? When one player is hitting, does bad chemistry hurt his concentration?

The thesis seems to be that, because it relied on high OBP players, instead of mixing in a few high SLG types, Seattle failed to produce runs, because it required a persistent OBP production.

The fact that they also have the lowest OBP in the league -- .304, compared to .356 for the league leading NYY -- may have something to do with why this "strategy" failed.

I wish businesses would start thinking outside the box to come up with a different cliche than "outside the box."

I wish businesses would start thinking outside the box to come up with a different cliche than "outside the box."
Page 1 of 1 pages

Perhaps they can shift a paradigm to your liking.

It seems like some teams might win even with bad chemistry or dissension. The 1970s A's come to mind (maybe they are a rare exception).

The Bronx Zoo Yankees of 76-81 also come to mind. That A's, at least, were united in their hatred of Finley. The Yankees had feuds going on between teammates, with their manager, and with their Owner -- and came out of it with 4 pennants and 2 WS.

Who was the poison in the Mariners team chemistry this year?

Isn't Milton Bradley automatically chosen as the clubhouse cancer wherever he goes?

Isn't Milton Bradley automatically chosen as the clubhouse cancer wherever he goes?

Chown Figgins is the one who got into a physical confrontation with the manager.

I would love to see a good study on team chemistry. How can you tell what trades or free agent signings will improve team chemistry? It seems like some teams might win even with bad chemistry or dissension. The 1970s A's come to mind (maybe they are a rare exception). Maybe some teams with great chemistry have losing records. Who was the poison in the Mariners team chemistry this year? Why didn't anyone see it coming? When one player is hitting, does bad chemistry hurt his concentration?

I think there's a mistaken impression that certain types of chemistry can be universally classified as good or bad (at least in how they affect performance). Players likely have different responses to different environments. It's quite possible that the chaotic clubhouses of the A's and Yankees of the 1970s were just the kind of environment to bring out the best of those particular teams, ultimately making that "good chemistry." So, while I believe that chemistry can have an impact on a ballclub, I think that pinpointing what kind of environment will produce the best results from an ever-changing collection of individuals is going to be extraordinarily difficult to pin down.

I think that pinpointing what kind of environment will produce the best results from an ever-changing collection of individuals is going to be extraordinarily difficult to pin down.

Agreed. Take a look at the Yankees, again. In their late 90's run, they were the "all business" Yankees. The last couple of years, though, they are the "cream pie", loosen up a little Yankees. You could probably find articles extolling the way the team conducted itself in each time frame as the right way to go about it -- probably by the same reporters.

Why would the 6th-best organization in baseball feel the need to change things up?

paradigm

I wish businesses would start thinking outside the box to come up with a different cliche than "outside the box."

These businesses need to stop thinking outside the box and start working inside the white space. Of course, one would think the sixth best organization in baseball would already be doing that.

Chown Figgins is the one who got into a physical confrontation with the manager.

See how bad an influence Bradley is?

Oh my god please stop with this 6th-best meme. Could it be any less funny/witty/relevant at this point?

Oh my god please stop with this 6th-best meme.

For many here, the Mariners' pratfall is delicious comeuppance for the author of "6th-best."

Oh my god please stop with this 6th-best meme. Could it be any less funny/witty/relevant at this point?

6th-best comment in this thread?

For many here, the Mariners' pratfall is delicious comeuppance for the author of "6th-best."

There are more M's fans round than just Cameron. Reading it in every single M's related thread is like salt poured in the wound.

Unless you bought into what Cameron was selling, why would you be hurt?

Oh my god please stop with this 6th-best meme. Could it be any less funny/witty/relevant at this point?

Oh wow, it's beginning to look like a TRIPLE-6TH-BEST-ORGANIZATION-IN-BASEBALL!

ALL THE WAY!

For many here, the Mariners' pratfall is delicious comeuppance for the author of "6th-best."

agreed, and I even like USS Mariner, but that entire exercise was clearly biased, while trying to pretend to be even keeled. Nobody outside of their blogosphere thought the Mariners were even the 6 best organization between the AL West and East, they deserve the comeuppance they are getting.

I also agree with Sosh...and Srul and their comments about chemistry. I don't know if chemistry makes you a winner or loser, but I do think that over the course of the season it could have an effect on your desire to play day in, and day out. If you don't like the work environment for whatever reason, it's hard to stay sharp, that is as true in sports as it is anywhere else. It may or may not actually affect your performance, but it does affect your attitude.

Perhaps they can shift a paradigm to your liking.

That would require them being proactive and adding synergy for a more value-added approach.

Agreed. Take a look at the Yankees, again. In their late 90's run, they were the "all business" Yankees

And they did it with guys, who in another context, could have been clubhouse poison - Paul O'Neill, Daryl Strawberry, Jim Leyritz, Hideki Irabu, Roger Clemens ...in fact - wasn't there a big blow up between Chad Curtis and someone playing "that loud rap music" in the clubhouse?

I have no doubt that chemistry is real and can have a marginal positive or negative impact, but I don't think there is any way you can predict how that many personalities will mesh together and what kind of impact you will get.

And wasn't Chad Curtis thrown through a ping-pong table soon after saying that?
I swear I remember this.

Yes, Curtis was.

The lesson to be learned here is, do NOT #### with Kevin Mitchell.

I have no doubt that chemistry is real and can have a marginal positive or negative impact, but I don't think there is any way you can predict how that many personalities will mesh together and what kind of impact you will get.

Well the Braves have had a great time since dumping Yunel. Sure they lost two of three to the Fish and the Nats (and watched Yunel light it up as a Jay) but they have had a f'ing blast doing it. That's what's important.

I guess I should post since I initially responded. . . .

Unless you bought into what Cameron was selling, why would you be hurt?

If by buying "into what Cameron was selling" means considering the M's the "6th best org" then no, I didn't buy into it. the "wound" I referred to was simply the faint hope that the '09 team, with the addition of Lee & co., would be somewhat competitive--you know, win half their games, maybe a few more--only to watch them lose over 60% while their offense hits .236 with a 77 OPS+ (yes, I knew it was bad, but their performance is something I don't think could have been predicted, although my glasses may be rose-colored . . . ). And the "salt" is a reference to the snide response ("6th best org!") to any M's comment or thread, which doesn't do much for discussion about the team, IMO.

If by buying "into what Cameron was selling" means considering the M's the "6th best org" then no, I didn't buy into it. the "wound" I referred to was simply the faint hope that the '09 team, with the addition of Lee & co., would be somewhat competitive--you know, win half their games, maybe a few more--only to watch them lose over 60% while their offense hits .236 with a 77 OPS+ (yes, I knew it was bad, but their performance is something I don't think could have been predicted, although my glasses may be rose-colored . . . ). And the "salt" is a reference to the snide response ("6th best org!") to any M's comment or thread, which doesn't do much for discussion about the team, IMO.
Page 1 of 1 pages

being competitive was not really part of the article though, it was about long term sustainability, short term solutions and combinations of bullcrap that was laughable at the time... NOBODY outside of USS Mariner really thought the Mariners were competitive this season. it's laughable to think that, they overrated the lack of quality of the Rangers, and both the A's and Angels have an actual history of creating quality teams.... to think that the Mariners were anything other than the fourth best organization in their own division was pretty laughable at the time, it's extremely laughable now. To think that Adrian Beltre was fungible with Jose Lopez is just silly to the extreme. And that is just one of their clear mistakes in evaluating value.


just following the most basic of sabermetric studies and looking at the pyth of the Mariners last year(75-87) vs their actual record(85-77) and without doing one piece of analysis and basing it upon previous studies, you knew that they would fall back to earth, add in the fact that they didn't bother improving the team one iota(outside of the failed Milton Bradley experiment) and you just can't understand the hype as an outsider.... We aren't talking about a team like the Mets that talent wise was good but failed due to injuries, we are talking about a team clearly lacking talent

they overrated the lack of quality of the Rangers

That is an interesting turn of phrase.

NOBODY outside of USS Mariner really thought the Mariners were competitive this season

Not true. The projection systems generally saw the AL West as a toss-up. One blog's diamond mind sim based on a couple different projection systems (PECOTA/CHONE/Marcel/etc) had the M's winning the division 26% of the time (and making the playoffs 30% of the time) behind only Texas.

Not true. The projection systems generally saw the AL West as a toss-up. One blog's diamond mind sim based on a couple different projection systems (PECOTA/CHONE/Marcel/etc) had the M's winning the division 26% of the time (and making the playoffs 30% of the time) behind only Texas.
Page 1 of 1 pages

agreed... sorry overstating for simplicity, but the fact is that most expert projections seemed to say Rangers/Angels with the Mariners sniping in(doubt that many people thought the A's were competitive to be honest, outside of the cult of Beane) I just don't think many people on here really thought the Mariners were competitive, Pyth has that much sway at times.

and of course as a general rule these systems both underestimate the a's and Angels.

That is an interesting turn of phrase.

yep, sorry screwed that up clearly.