I am curious if Primates feel that chemistry is important in their office environments.

Not only did he win it, look what he had to work with.

oh yes it is, at least in our group of 15. Within 90 days, you know if your coworkers like you or more importantly respect you. We've pushed out people who don't 'fit', and that's even before a client calls us to tell us that so and so is lousy. The key is to recognize this early. Nothing sinks an office faster than low morale, and as hard and expensive (cost to hire, train, then find a new body) as it can be sometimes to fire people, it's even worse to let them hang around and further taint the office chemistry.

So he's a mascot.

But at least he knows how to market himself; he understands that when the tangibles are gone, he has only one thing left to sell.

Just how much positive leadership do you need, though, to offset a .674 OPS? He's still living off of 2004, kind of like how Rick Cerone lived off of his 1980 for a decade. When Millar is gone from the game, which will be soon, I will always remember him for the walk he drew off of Rivera that brought Dave Roberts to first base, that changed an inning, that changed a game, that changed a series, that changed history.

Chemistry can do horrible things to a taint

I think Ichiro has had the most cogent take on chemistry:

What kind of foundation was put in place this year? Is it enough to take the next step?

Ichiro: I think that we were able to have a conglomeration of good people.

No matter how many people you get with potential and skill, and they are able to have good results, if these people you get are not good people I feel the team will not be successful. Contrary to that I think if you have a team of a bunch of good people, if you lack in these areas such as skill and potential you have a lot more of a chance to have a good team.

But in the history of baseball there are 25 guys 25 cabs teams that were successful.

Ichiro: To dig deeper into what we were talking about, we are all professionals here. We come together here as professionals so even if we don't get along in our private time I really don't think that matters. What's important is when we are on the field to let those feelings go so if you have a bunch of players that drag that kind of feeling onto the field. Then you have a problem so of course it's the best if even in your private time you get along and you have the same values and you are all striving for the same things and you share these things. It's great but that is very hard to do. What is important is even if you don't like each other you are able to fight together on the field. That is the important part.

I'm reminded of Tinker to Evers to Chance. By all accounts the three disliked each other, and Tinker and Evers in particular did not get along. But they hated one thing more than each other, and that was the other team.

Millar's chemistry and world series ring (he's won a world series, by the way) pretty much offsets the Cardinals signing Holliday right?

Kevin Millar: Kevin Millar Not Overrated

Millar's chemistry and world series ring (he's won a world series, by the way) pretty much offsets the Cardinals signing Holliday right?

Maybe if this was 20003, but it isn't. Millar is a good chemistry guy (helped bridge the cliques on the Red Sox), or at least was, but it helps if he can still play the game better than some AAAA guy. He could when he was 32, but not now.

insert random PED jokes here.

Kevin Millar: Kevin Millar Not Overrated

Kevin Millar: Please Don't Forget Who Kevin Millar Is
I Was on the 2004 Red Sox, Have No Other Marketable Skills and This is a Tough Economy

I'll rise to a modest (very modest) defense of Millar here:

1) The Red Sox starting in fall of 2002 when Epstein got hired did make note of players that they thought would be a pain in the ass and players with reputations of being well liked in the clubhouse (Todd Walker fit this category). And they did give significant extra-credit to the latter. The late era Duquette teams had big problems with this and while its questionable it actually hurt the team in the field, it murdered them in the Boston papers (which has the potential to hurt you in the field down the road).

2) Millar's was sought out precisely because Henry knew the guy in Florida and was pretty much universally the most liked and respected guy in that clubhouse. At the time Millar was still young and could still provide valuable baseball skills. This caused that infamous scenario where Epstein claimed Millar off waivers when the Marlins tried to sell him Japan, thereby violating one of MLB's "unwritten rules."

3) Your guess as outsider fans as to which players fit which category based on what little you hear, sometimes isn't all that accurate. Not knowing any better, what little I had heard about Ortiz in Minnesota indicated he might be a problem child (clashes with Tom Kelly and so forth). However when the Red Sox looked into it they got nothing but glowing reviews about his personality and that the Kelly situation was just the normal "player wants to play" stuff.

So the effects this aspect has on things can be very difficult to ascertain from an outsider perspective, because it can be very difficult to determine who really is and isn't causing good vibes in the clubhouse. But generally I don't much buy the "chemistry" stuff. Good chemistry might make your job more enjoyable, but you can't just assume that it also makes you better at it.

Good chemistry might make your job more enjoyable, but you can't just assume that it also makes you better at it.

Based on my own work experience, everything I've read about professional athletes/teams, and management theory, I long ago formulated a theorem regarding team chemistry. I'm almost positive it's correct (if not complete), and if somehow the actual "answer" were to be revealed by God/the Universe/whatever tomorrow, I wouldn't be shocked to find out it is completely right and doesn't miss anything. Ready? Here goes:

Great chemistry doesn't add success, but truly bad chemistry can take it away. The trick is realizing that the only time chemistry is worth worrying about is when it's actively hindering success.

Honestly, I don't understand why some people place (to me) abnormally high values on chemistry and interpersonal things in the workplace, and I don't understand those who think it doesn't matter at all. If your workforce consisted of 24/7 100% professional people, it wouldn't matter how they got along because nothing would remove successes or distract. If your workforce consisted of completely useless malingerers (Mets) then it wouldn't matter because at best they'd just be screwing off together. Since everyone is somewhere between those two groups, deal with egregiously bad cases, but otherwise trust in the professionalism of your staff.

"Guy Who Speaks Proto-Indo-Iranian But Can't Change a Light Bulb: Knowledge of hypothetical dead languages not overrated."

I'm reminded of Tinker to Evers to Chance. By all accounts the three disliked each other, and Tinker and Evers in particular did not get along. But they hated one thing more than each other, and that was <strike>the other team</strike>gonfalon bubbles.

Honestly, I don't understand why some people place (to me) abnormally high values on chemistry and interpersonal things in the workplace, and I don't understand those who think it doesn't matter at all. If your workforce consisted of 24/7 100% professional people, it wouldn't matter how they got along because nothing would remove successes or distract. If your workforce consisted of completely useless malingerers (Mets) then it wouldn't matter because at best they'd just be screwing off together. Since everyone is somewhere between those two groups, deal with egregiously bad cases, but otherwise trust in the professionalism of your staff.

The problem with analogies to the workplace is that in the workplace, your personal productivity isn't measured and public. If you do a half-assed job because you're unhappy, it kind of shows up in the organization's ultimate results, but in a diffuse sort of way; it's unlikely anybody will be able to point a finger at you. But if a third baseman does a half-assed job because his team's first baseman is a jerk, everyone will know it. He has to perform individually, on a public stage, where each thing he does is counted. (Yes, he can slack off behind-the-scenes -- not put in as much work in the batting cage or weight room or something -- but that still shows up in the public results specifically attributable to him. His average drops, or he hits fewer HRs, or whatever.) So a player has a much greater incentive not to do a half-assed job than an ordinary employee does.

1) The Red Sox starting in fall of 2002 when Epstein got hired did make note of players that they thought would be a pain in the ass and players with reputations of being well liked in the clubhouse (Todd Walker fit this category). And they did give significant extra-credit to the latter. The late era Duquette teams had big problems with this and while its questionable it actually hurt the team in the field, it murdered them in the Boston papers (which has the potential to hurt you in the field down the road).

I remember an interview on EEI with Bill James in which he basically said the exact same thing. He chuckled when asked about how much consideration the front office gives to matters of chemistry and personality and then talked about how there was this one player he really pushed the front office on, but Theo rejected the idea of picking up the player because of make up issues. The way James laughed made me think it had been quite a battle between him and Theo over this guy. I still wonder who it was. The interview was around 2004. Anyway, this confirms that Voros did, in fact, work in the Sox front office like that book written by Jeremy Brown says.

"Guy Who Speaks Proto-Indo-Iranian But Can't Change a Light Bulb: Knowledge of hypothetical dead languages not overrated."

Speaking of this, it's amazing to witness the death of a whole language, but I guess that's the story this week.

She said that Boa Sr's death was a loss for intellectuals wanting to study more about the origins of ancient languages, because they had lost "a vital piece of the jigsaw".

"It is generally believed that all Andamanese languages might be the last representatives of those languages which go back to pre-Neolithic times," Professor Abbi said.

I would think these scholars and researchers would have been long aware of this lady, so I wonder how much data they got from her before she passed. I wonder how such work is done. Seems fascinating.

I'm reminded of Tinker to Evers to Chance. By all accounts the three disliked each other, and Tinker and Evers in particular did not get along. But they hated one thing more than each other, and that was the other teamgonfalon bubbles.

Well, screw them. Screw all three of them. I don't care.

(runs away crying)

So a player has a much greater incentive not to do a half-assed job than an ordinary employee does.

And the public measurement is only part of the much greater incentive. For most ballplayers (especially those who live and die by their chemical contributions) the following equation holds:

Potential income playing baseball>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Potential income not playing baseball

So, letting that bad chemistry impact your play not only becomes known quickly, it costs you a hell of a reward--far more than most of us stand to lose if we slack off at work.

Great chemistry doesn't add success, but truly bad chemistry can take it away. The trick is realizing that the only time chemistry is worth worrying about is when it's actively hindering success.

This goes too far.

Great chemistry can add success. Very competent and diligent people that don't like each other don't get to know nuances of personality. Those nuances can make a difference in the long run. With more than just the minimum professional relationship, I can recognize that my co-worker is troubled by something and since I like him, I make it my business to grab drinks after work with him and be a sounding board.

That said, all the post-workday hangouts in the world aren't going to generate ability. The best that stuff can do is create an environment conducive to maximizing the ability that already exists.

Well, screw them. Screw all three of them. I don't care.

(runs away crying)

Dude, it's better than what they *were* doing to you. Unless you're into that sort of thing. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

By long-time observation/experience it takes a truly horrid individual to impact performance of others for an extended period.

And really, the worst offenders are women. By a country mile. You get some manipulative wench with a nice figure and a pretty smile and the poison spreads quickly. She can snipe the other women crazy and drive the men to distraction.

Guys can always punch one another

I will always remember him for the walk he drew off of Rivera that brought Dave Roberts to first base, that changed an inning, that changed a game, that changed a series, that changed history.

As I will. You can say his current skills have eroded to the point where he's only qualified to work as a circus clown. And skewer Millar all you want for his history of self-promotion and buffoonery, but Red Sox fans must acknowledge the "Walk".

And really, the worst offenders are women. By a country mile. You get some manipulative wench with a nice figure and a pretty smile and the poison spreads quickly. She can snipe the other women crazy and drive the men to distraction.

Guys can always punch one another

You've been watching "Mad Men" too, huh?

As I will. You can say his current skills have eroded to the point where he's only qualified to work as a circus clown. And skewer Millar all you want for his history of self-promotion and buffoonery, but Red Sox fans must acknowledge the "Walk".

OK, so I had to go back to the play by play data for game 4 to remind myself how it all played out. I had forgotten that the walk, steal, and RBI single all came in the first 2 PA of the innings, and then the Yankees desperately hung on to force extra innings.

Millar's walk is ridiculously overshadowed by Roberts' steal, even though it was more important. But what I recall is that it was four straight pitches, not one of them close. So it was more a Rivera "failure" than Millar's keen batting eye.

Before that game Millar turned the clubhouse attitude from "if we lose we're done" to "they have to beat us to stop us". Both statements mean the same thing but it can be argued that the latter attitude is more conducive to winning.

The problem with analogies to the workplace is that in the workplace, your personal productivity isn't measured and public.

Also, I would estimate, and I'm pretty sure I'm right, that most workplaces involve more working in concert between workers than a baseball team does. There is some working together -- pitcher and catcher, 2B and SS, for ex. -- but most, and the most important tasks, pitching and hitting, are pretty solitary.

So I, a fairly strident chemistry-is-bunk person, do feel that chemistry plays an important role in my workplace. I also feel it plays an important role in sports where there is more interaction between players on the field, which is most of them. Basketball, hockey, soccer, football. But: I think it's silly to define chemistry as "people like each other" or they all show up at the barbecues. To me, chemistry is being able to work together, knowing each other's strengths and weaknesses and tendencies. In other words, kind of what Ichiro said. "What is important is even if you don't like each other you are able to fight together on the field." I have been a part of good work produced in concert with people I didn't particularly like, and who didn't much like me.

Here's a non-sports but not quite work example from my life. In my musician days, my band was one that jumped around on stage a lot, put on a big show. And we weren't playing the Garden. Some of those stages were tiny. The guitar player and I (I also played guitar after a fashion, and sang) were the chief jumper arounders, because the other two guys were standup bass and drums. Now, Mr. Guitar Player and I were/are friends, but we also clashed a lot, especially when we were on the road. Confined quarters, different, strong, kind of eccentric personalities, stress of the road, we just sometimes didn't get along and didn't like each other very much. But onstage, we worked beautifully together. Without any choreography (ha!), we played hundreds of shows, bouncing and crashing around like mad men in tiny spaces, and not once, not one time, did we ever crash into each other. I'm pretty sure we never so much as brushed up against each other. I can't explain it, but I just always knew, without having to have a conscious thought, where he was and where he was going to be next, and so did he about me. It gave me a very small insight into how, say, Magic Johnson or Steve Nash could know that some teammate was going to be somewhere when he threw a no-look pass through traffic.

A couple other things about chemistry in a workplace.

This:

Potential income playing baseball>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Potential income not playing baseball

and also, most workplaces aren't made up exclusively of employees who are among the best in the world, the top 1 or 2 percent or whatever, at what they do. The incredibly high level of play in MLB has already sifted out almost all of the employees who can be distracted by such things as the fact that some co-worker is a jerk. These guys have already established that they can ignore or overcome such distractions and perform at a ridiculously high level.

As I recall, Millar's contributions to team chemistry were directly proportional to his playing time. Once he doesn't get his way, he switches from chemist to carcinogen. Full-time mascot duty might not be in the cards for him.

As I recall, Millar's contributions to team chemistry were directly proportional to his playing time. Once he doesn't get his way, he switches from chemist to carcinogen.

Cite? I've never heard any stories to this effect.

I think Millar really is a great chemistry guy. He was clearly helpful in bridging gaps between cliques in the Red Sox clubhouse, and the stories in Baltimore suggested everyone there loved him too. It's hard to say what sorts of effects on real wins this had, and the effects were probably marginal, but I am willing to defend Millar even if the effects of his clubhouse action weren't particularly significant.

My opinions: Team chemistry is important, but I think it's not always necessary. The Cubs lack good chemistry and are trying to address it, whether by bringing in "leaders" or dumping "cancers." It's hard to intentionally improve a team's chemistry; it usually grows organically and serendipitously from a mix of players, a team leader in terms of leadership and baseball performance, and the right manager. It'll be hard for Millar to inspire his teammates if he's washed up. (Similarly, what kind of "captain" can Varitek be as a backup catcher?)

and also, most workplaces aren't made up exclusively of employees who are among the best in the world, the top 1 or 2 percent or whatever, at what they do. The incredibly high level of play in MLB has already sifted out almost all of the employees who can be distracted by such things as the fact that some co-worker is a jerk. These guys have already established that they can ignore or overcome such distractions and perform at a ridiculously high level.

In terms of chemistry, professional baseball teams have a lot more in common with the Supreme Court or the Solicitor General's office than they do with basketball teams or the average office.

Occasionally, the relationships between a few individuals become so toxic that it affects the product on the field, and baseball and jurisprudence are very much a "sum of their parts", as opposed to a cohesive efforts. Sometimes Robert Jackson and Hugo Black despise each other, sometimes William Douglas grows senile and drags everything down with him, sometimes Raffy Palmerio shags Cindy and drives the best player off the team.

Compare that to your average NFL offensive line.

Cite? I've never heard any stories to this effect.

In early September, Kevin Millar, the self-fashioned team mascot, handed out to his teammates t-shirts he'd had printed up. F*CK'EM ALL, the shirts read. 2005 SOX - ALL WE HAVE IS EACH OTHER. Even some of his teammates found this new us-against-the-world stance a bit odd. The Red Sox, after all, were in first place...What were these unnamed forces against which the Red Sox had to band together?

For Millar, the F*CK'EM ALL shirts came to represent a kind of sorry coda to his career in Boston. After energizing the team and helping push it towards its successes in 2003 and 2004, both the press and Millar's teammates had begun to tire of his antics. Trot Nixon, whose locker was next to Millar's, found himself barking at his teammate to quit aping for the cameras so he could get to his clothes. Millar had even lost his starting job, and was now platooning at first base with John Olerud....

Towards the end of the month, he finally found an outlet for his frustrations. On September 21, Howard Bryant, in his Boston Herald column, quoted an annonymous teammate of Curt Schilling's slamming the pitcher. "When he comes into the game people cheer him like he's the Pope...You think they'd let Pedro get away with this? Why does he get the pass?" That Millar was Bryant's source was no secret to the team.

Pages 371-372 of Seth Mnookin's Feeding the Monster. It's bias as hell, considering his open fandom and that the Red Sox gave him a lot of access. There's nary a disparaging word about the organization in the whole book (IIRC) and it's pretty gushing in some parts, so you can take the above excerpt with a grain of salt. But it does support #29's comment.

Dock - thanks.

The first half of that excerpt does nothing for me - "some teammates found it odd" doesn't really get us anywhere. I'd say that no sports team has ever earned an "us against the world" sentiment. All sports teams have legions of fans and are populated by rich people. Nonetheless, almost every sports team ever has attempted to claim it's them against the world, because that's a really fabulous way to motivate people. I don't think Mnookin's got anything there.

The latter piece is interesting. I had missed that - I had previously been of the opinion that Damon was Bryant's source. That definitely doesn't reflect well on Millar. My general take on the Red Sox clubhouse 2005-2007 is that most everyone, except a few of the pitchers, hated Curt Schilling anyway, so I don't think we can extrapolate from that quote that Millar wasn't a central figure in the clubhouse. But it suggests he wasn't exactly using his power for good there.

MCoA,

When I read #29, I immediately thought of that passage, which I read a few years ago. When Millar said "F*CK'EM ALL," my impression was that by "all" he really meant the "Boston Red Sox organization". I re-read the chapter and couldn't find anything that supported my initial impression. But then I consulted the index and looked for Millar passages. From page 338:

In mid-December [2004], Millar...had announced that he was unwilling to platoon with Doug Minetkiewicz in 2005. "Can't have us both back." Millar said. "I've already expressed that to Theo...I'm not going to platoon behind Doug...I've proven myself here"...Millar got his wish, if only because none of the teams Boston contacted were interested in trading for him and before the season started, Mientkiewicz was shipped to the New York Mets. None of this stopped Millar from rolling into camp overweight and out of shape.

[snip]

When, on May 1, the Sox offered a minor league contract to 36-year-old John Olerud...Millar took it as an affront. Because he was such an inegral part of the social fabric of the club, his unhappiness affected a disproportionate number of people on the team. As Terry Francona had pithily put it in the offseason, "Millar is a great team player - as long as he's playing."

"Millar is a great team player - as long as he's playing."

Ohhhh ____ crackle pop!

And from page 339:

...says one member of the team's front office..."But for all his talk about 'Cowboy Up," you know, team first, he ####### and moans when it looks like 'team first' might mean he needs to ride the pine.'"

It seems counter intuitive to me that one player provides team chemistry.

I also feel it plays an important role in sports where there is more interaction between players on the field, which is most of them. Basketball, hockey, soccer, football

In basketball, Michael Jordan was known to purposefully throw hard passes to Bill Cartwright because he resented his presence. I could see a QB not throwing to a receiver that he didn't like. I guess I could see an offensive lineman not covering for another lineman who misses his block if he doesn't like the guy. I kind of doubt it, but I could see it.

In the workplace there are a hundred specific examples: worker doesn't pick up the other guy's phone, doesn't inform someone that their customer's unhappy, doesn't get their paperwork done on time so that the other guy has to work late or miss a deadline.

What kind of things would a left fielder do on the baseball field that would be caused by his dislike of the second baseman? Last game of the year, on second, the batter is at 99 RBI's, the games out of reach, batter hits a single, runner purposefully slows down to get thrown out? I suppose, but it seems far fetched.

Can poor team chemistry be cured by food combination?

Did the Cubs sign Millar? Juat an NRI I hope. Cuz there's no spot for him on the team -- he's pretty much the last thing the Cubs need.

Millar was also part of the Jays' mutiny against Cito Gaston (along with Wells, Aaron Hill, Rod Barajas, Scott Rolen, according to the Star). I'm not sure I want to take Cito's side in any argument, but I don't think Millar showed any signs of being a chemistry expert during his time in Toronto.

What kind of things would a left fielder do on the baseball field that would be caused by his dislike of the second baseman? Last game of the year, on second, the batter is at 99 RBI's, the games out of reach, batter hits a single, runner purposefully slows down to get thrown out? I suppose, but it seems far fetched.

You are looking for answers that are too concrete.

If the LF hates the 2B, maybe he stops showing up early for practice. Maybe if he's in a sour mood, he isn't as excited about this team, he stops feeling it a duty to tutor younger players, just starts counting the days until his contract expires. Maybe he takes it out on the media and causes a distraction. Maybe people stop sharing information on pitchers that they've faced before.

Obviously nobody on this site is going to argue that chemistry directly creates runs, but taking the excessively logical approach above is really a "get your nose out of the spreadsheet" comment.

the astros supposedly signed darin erstad for his "veteran presence" but with almost all Old Guys on the team, not sure why on earth that would be needed

moren a few times i have asked people i know who work in a small office or in a situation where team performance is important about the whole question of team chemistry. and yeah, i know it is different than a baseball team

but i have heard that the problem is usually ONE rotten apple, not that everyone gots to work together etc

i don't know why baseball players, not just millar, talk about chemistry so much - maybe to give reporters something to write? but they must value something about it to talk about it so much. the same way they talk about "confidence"

"get your nose out of the spreadsheet"

But that's where my coke is.

Kevin Millar: Coke Not Overrated

interpersonal relations are an important factor in job satisfaction..which affects customer satisfaction and work quality.

production becomes quite inhumane if it's considered the only important factor.

professional athletics seems to be an exception.

Is that free verse poetry?

I believe that good or at least neutral chemistry is the normal situation for groups of people. Bad chemistry is more likely alleviated by removing a bad apple spoiling the bunch than it is by adding one clown to your circus.

I own and manage a small family business with 8-10 employees. Some amount of teamwork is involved and, unfortunately, it becomes evident fairly quickly when an employee has difficulty being "able to play well with others".

Several years ago, two of my employees had an ongoing personality clash. They not only couldn't work well together, but would actively try to make the other one look bad. I explained to them (in language that they might understand) that while they thought they were f*ckin' with each other; in reality they were f*cking with my business and, by extension, f*cking with me.

This different way of looking at the situation seemed to result in a temporary suspension of hostilities. But one of them soon renewed the personal conflict and I moved with alacrity to terminate his position with our company. Poor chemistry problem solved.

EDIT:
"production becomes quite inhumane if it's considered the only important factor."
Luckly, the bad apple that I sh*tcanned was also the least productive of the two employees. I think that's what this above quote from post #47 refers to... I didn't really understand it.

...but I don't think Millar showed any signs of being a chemistry expert during his time in Toronto.

Mmmm. Then what the #### was Ricciardi keeping his dogsh!t arse around for then?

[49]

Bad chemistry is more likely alleviated by removing a bad apple spoiling the bunch than it is by adding one clown to your circus.

This is known as "addition by subtraction."

Not that intramural sports quite reaches the level of MLB :-), but my personal experience of team chemistry is I didn't much care how big a jerk a guy was as long as he played well and I didn't really much care how good a guy he was if he didn't play well. But, yes, the jerks who didn't play well were really annoying.

At the pro level, about the only justification I can think of for chemistry between two players that is so bad as to be disruptive would be something like Palmeiro sleeping with Sandberg's wife. I'd imagine that gets in the way enough to really make a difference. But, in general, the problem isn't really the jerk -- the problem is the 5 "non-jerks" huddled together ######## about what a jerk that other guy is which, sometimes, leads the jerk to get together with his friends on the team and ##### about what jerks those other 5 guys are. And I suspect that most of the time this happens, there's some other form of social friction behind most of it (race, ethnicity, class, region, age, whatever).

My general take on the Red Sox clubhouse 2005-2007 is that most everyone, except a few of the pitchers, hated Curt Schilling anyway,

They hated him? News to me. Source on this?

Millar also hit a forgotten homer off Clemens in game 7 in aught-trois

Millar also hit a forgotten homer off Clemens in game 7 in aught-trois

Home runs in deciding games that the team goes on to lose don't matter. Ask Alfonso Soriano.

Also, I had no idea that Millar was such a quality player his years in Florida. .298/.369/.525 in ~1300 PAs the three years before he ended up in Boston. That's a quality line

Have you heard?
There's a man dressed up like a nation's bird
And he's setting his guitar on fire!