Team Chemistry

[CH David]

How big of a factor does chemistry really play in professional sports? We can look back on recent champions and just look at how good a team they were. The 2009-2010 Chicago Blackhawks. This was a team of characters, but no matter the age (Patrick Kane, 21, to John Madden, 37) they all got along fantastically on and off the ice. Point in case, just look at some of the players in the limousine, or even their postseason trip to Alcatraz Island. They were a great bunch of guys who all had talent.

The 2009 Yankees, yes they were all brought in with big money, but they still had to go out and perform together. That they did, and brought about the shaving cream pies to New York, along with teammates buying toys at gas stations, giving framed photos of a previous incident, or enjoying a basketball game.

The Saints, well shit, they've had some great team chemistry, especially on the offensive side for probably the past two years. Plus, they carried the city of New Orleans on their shoulders after Katrina, which I think truly brought them together over the past years.

All of these teams won their respective Championships this past year. Sure there was a ton of talent on each team, but again, they all had to perform together. It seems lately that teams that have good to great team chemistry have been winning more championships the past few years, compared to the old days when all that mattered was how they played on the field.

So I ask, does team chemistry truly matter now in professional sports, or is it just happenstance that the teams winning championships get along off the field?

 

[Big Sexy]

Team chemistry has and always will play a major factor in sports. You'd be hard pressed to find many teams, if any, that have won titles without any chemistry. A couple feuds may exist on winning teams but for the most part the best teams are going to get along. Some teams may have more chemistry then others but a group of guys who dislike each other aren't going to win championships in professional sports. It has been like that throughout the history of professional team sports.

You can bring up teams like the Oakland A's of the early to mid 70's but while they may have had some feuding within the organization, on the field they played well as a unit. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to get at with the question because chemistry has always been a big part of success in sports and nothing will ever really change that. It would be asinine to think otherwise.

 

[Theo Mays]

I'm pretty much with Big Sexy here. Team chemistry is a big deal in sports. Analysts and fans aren't crazy when they say "well we need to see just how well the team gels in game time situations". I use to know people that sneered at that and didn't look at it as such a big deal, but it is. You look at the teams that go anywhere have some sort of chemistry and it is usually quite strong.

 

[CH David]

You can bring up teams like the Oakland A's of the early to mid 70's but while they may have had some feuding within the organization, on the field they played well as a unit. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to get at with the question because chemistry has always been a big part of success in sports and nothing will ever really change that. It would be asinine to think otherwise.

I can look on websites all over the place and see people say that chemistry is overrated. A lot of people probably thought that last year's Yankees were just a big group of highly paid athletes and that they bought the championship. But they still had to play the game, and that is part of my question. Not just on field chemistry, the ability to play with whoever, but off the field, growing together as friends and legitimately caring about each other. The Blackhawks did it, the Saints did it, Yankees, so on and so forth. People just don't want to give that sort of thing merit when they should.

 

[Tenta]

It's the most basic human instinct, really; we perform better when we're surrounded by people we like. I mean, that's what it boils down to. What we often forget is that pro sports players are human, and have the exact same desires and needs that we do. They, too, have the need to be social and the desire to work with people they like. Consider your job for a second. Don't you perform better when your amongst friends, who offer you a friendly rivalry, but can also push you when needed? When you're working with friends, you never have to watch your back, you never have to worry about what a teammate will say about you to the media, or any of that junk, really. That said, it isn't always the most important factor, and for that matter, isn't even close. A team can love the Hell out of each other, but when it comes to performance, they need the talent to surround them, in order to reach the needed goal. That said, the teams that get along are the ones that are playing well.

It's really quite the catch-22 in sports. A team has to be doing well to keep team chemistry in place, so they need talent. But talent needs to get along to do well, meaning they need the chemistry.

 

[The People's Peep]

Yeah, team chemistry is huge. No doubt about it. It affects a team in so many ways.

First off, in the locker room. When a team has good chemistry they get along with each other and have a good time. That enjoyment and good feeling carried on to the field and helps you enjoy playing the game. They are just grown men playing kid's games. You need to have fun and playing it with people you want to be around contributes to that. Like CH already said, look at the 2009 Yankees. The attitudes of Swisher, Burnett, and Teixeira made the clubhouse a fun place to be. They showed everyone else to have fun playing the game. Look at what they did to A-Rod. With him learning to have more fun out there, he actually was great in the postseason. Partly due to the steroids confession, but a lot had to do with the three aforementioned guys showing everyone how to enjoy the game.

Next, team chemistry plays a huge role on the field. I dont think it plays much of a role on the field in baseball except between battery mates. But in other sports, its just as important as in the locker room. Take hockey for example. CH already mentioned the Hawks. Sure they won because they have great players, but great players get better with chemistry. I'm pretty sure there was a line of Toews, Kane, and Byfuglien and they wrecked havoc because they had great chemistry. They knew what the others were thinking and they all played together, helping each other. Without the chemistry they had, they might not have made it pass the first round.

So yeah, team chemistry is easily one of the most important parts of a team. Maybe more than talent.

 

[The Doctor]

Of course chemistry matters. I don't follow sports, but this isn't a sports question, more of a philosophical one. Chemistry matters in all walks of life. In school, if you don't have chemistry with your classmates or teacher, you're going to be miserable. If you don't have chemistry with your family, you're not going to have a very good family life. If two pro wrestlers don't have chemistry with each other, the match isn't going to look good.

It's the same with sports. If you can't connect with your teammates, your morale isn't going to be as high, and you're not going to enjoy playing as much. We as humans want to be around people we like to be around, and if we aren't we'll be very uncaring and wooden. People need to be able to work well with each other on and off the field to keep morale at its highest. With good chemistry comes high morale, and with high morale comes high performance rates.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

Team Chemistry FTW!

I am one who truly believes that having proper team chemistry can make an average team into a good team, a good team into a great team, and a great team into a legendary one.

Now strictly looking at baseball, the first thing that comes to mind for me is the Pirates, and the "we are family" dynasty of the 70's, and is also a good example of a great team with chemistry becoming a legendary team. A similar case can me made for the Yankees of the 90's, they had great team chemistry, and I'm sure everyone is familiar with those results.

As for a more recent example, I'll look to my 2010 San Diego Padres, if this team isn't an example of what good team chemistry can go, than I don't know what is. This is a team that everyone has counted out, and continuously been pushed to the pack burner; yet they continue to persevere and prove the critics wrong, and they're not doing it with payroll and big names, they're doing it with with teamwork, great chemistry and good baseball.

 

[I Suck Ass]

Totally agree that team chemistry is important. Almost all of the championship teams have awesome chemistry. The only championship team that didn't have great chemistry is the Lakers, and that's just because of Kobe. Chemistry can make or break a team. Look at what happened to the Eagles with T.O.. To win a title, a team need chemistry. It's as simple as that.

 

[Tenta]

Totally agree that team chemistry is important. Almost all of the championship teams have awesome chemistry. The only championship team that didn't have great chemistry is the Lakers, and that's just because of Kobe. Chemistry can make or break a team. Look at what happened to the Eagles with T.O.. To win a title, a team need chemistry. It's as simple as that.

Noah, i love you buddy, but I'm not sure I can agree with these sentiments. I mean, think about it. When the Eagles had TO, they reached the highest peak of their dominance. Without TO, they do not get into the Superbowl, and they have no chance against The Patriots. If anything, TO proved one thing, that talent overtakes chemistry when there's enough talent. And that's exactly what I believe. Tem Chemistry is great, and it makes for reporters able to write up a cute little story. Either than that, Talent is the only true important factor in sports, and chemistry is just nice to have. All of the teams in which win, they had more talent, but they didn't always get along as well as people think. The Saints this year have been the exception to the rule; players who get along is good, but really, it isn't necessary. I argued before that players play well with friends, but at the end of the day, the best player is going to win the matches. The Heat don't have any chemistry at the moment, and Jeff Van Gundy is predicting that the Heat will beat the Bulls win record. The Yankees are loaded with personalities that don't mesh, and yet they still won, because they had more talent.

Is chemistry cool? Sure. Necessary? Not really

 

[Megatron]

Noah, i love you buddy, but I'm not sure I can agree with these sentiments. I mean, think about it. When the Eagles had TO, they reached the highest peak of their dominance. Without TO, they do not get into the Superbowl, and they have no chance against The Patriots.

Actually they were a good team w/o him and won their 2 playoff games w/o TO. So yeah, he wasn't critical to their playoff run.

If anything, TO proved one thing, that talent overtakes chemistry when there's enough talent. And that's exactly what I believe.

But, in the game that he played in (although he played well and it wasn't really a fault of his own) they lost. So how does that prove anything?

Tem Chemistry is great, and it makes for reporters able to write up a cute little story. Either than that, Talent is the only true important factor in sports, and chemistry is just nice to have. All of the teams in which win, they had more talent, but they didn't always get along as well as people think.

The 2004 Detroit Pistons didn't have any true stars on their team but they beat a star studded Laker team that featured 4 future HOF's. They wiped their asses, in fact.

The Saints this year have been the exception to the rule; players who get along is good, but really, it isn't necessary. I argued before that players play well with friends, but at the end of the day, the best player is going to win the matches.

Teams that play better normally have great chemistry, though.

The Heat don't have any chemistry at the moment, and Jeff Van Gundy is predicting that the Heat will beat the Bulls win record.

Actually, Lebron, Wade, and Bosh (the 3 players that matter) area all good friends, so how is that not having some chemistry?

The Yankees are loaded with personalities that don't mesh, and yet they still won, because they had more talent.

Is chemistry cool? Sure. Necessary? Not really

The Yankees had a bunch of personalities that relaxed the team and had them have a fun time.

Chemistry, I would say, is more important then a roster full of all stars who don't mesh.

 

[Tenta]

Actually they were a good team w/o him and won their 2 playoff games w/o TO. So yeah, he wasn't critical to their playoff run.

Yeah, forgot they didn't have him for the Falcons, and I wanna say the Bears? Still, TO gave them a deep threat they never had before. They had never made it to the Super Bowl without TO, in spite of all their success, and still haven't. Something should be said for that, man/

But, in the game that he played in (although he played well and it wasn't really a fault of his own) they lost. So how does that prove anything?

He also had a superhuman performance, so you can't blame the loss on him. He was spectacular. If anything, the big reason they lost was theb "chemistry guy", Donovan McNabb

The 2004 Detroit Pistons didn't have any true stars on their team but they beat a star studded Laker team that featured 4 future HOF's. They wiped their asses, in fact.

Whoa whoa. Two of those HOFs were way past their prime, and that team was much more loaded than you let on. Prince, Billups, Wallace, Big Ben when he was a dominant force, and Rip Hamilton? Again, they had more talent than the Lakers.

Teams that play better normally have great chemistry, though.

No argument, when push comes to shove though, talent wins

Actually, Lebron, Wade, and Bosh (the 3 players that matter) area all good friends, so how is that not having some chemistry?

I'm under the influence of talking about playing together. They can like each other, sure, but that isn't chemistry to me. Chemistry is playing really well together, something we're unsure of.

The Yankees had a bunch of personalities that relaxed the team and had them have a fun time.

Like who, AJ Burnett? The same guy who just cut his hands banging on glass doors?

Chemistry, I would say, is more important then a roster full of all stars who don't mesh.

Again, chemistry is great, but talent wins, all the time

 

[CH David]

Noah, i love you buddy, but I'm not sure I can agree with these sentiments. I mean, think about it. When the Eagles had TO, they reached the highest peak of their dominance. Without TO, they do not get into the Superbowl, and they have no chance against The Patriots. If anything, TO proved one thing, that talent overtakes chemistry when there's enough talent. And that's exactly what I believe. Tem Chemistry is great, and it makes for reporters able to write up a cute little story. Either than that, Talent is the only true important factor in sports, and chemistry is just nice to have. All of the teams in which win, they had more talent, but they didn't always get along as well as people think. The Saints this year have been the exception to the rule; players who get along is good, but really, it isn't necessary. I argued before that players play well with friends, but at the end of the day, the best player is going to win the matches. The Heat don't have any chemistry at the moment, and Jeff Van Gundy is predicting that the Heat will beat the Bulls win record. The Yankees are loaded with personalities that don't mesh, and yet they still won, because they had more talent.

Is chemistry cool? Sure. Necessary? Not really

Tents, I love ya buddy, but I have to correct a few things in here. If you notice the winners this year of the Super Bowl, World Series, and Stanley Cup, they all had great chemistry.

The Saints gathered together and played for the city of New Orleans. They all got along great on and off the field. It's hard to say that talent overtook there. Great talent helps win, but chemistry brings teams together.

The Yankees got along great off the field. Look at the talent they had on the field for the previous nine years before last year. Tons of talent, but just couldn't win the Series. They bring in some quality personalities, and it loosened everyone up, and they took care of business.

The Blackhawks I know firsthand were a great set of guys. There was a lot of love in the locker room, and all the players that are gone will be missed by everyone. You could sense just through interviews and talk that the guys were a special group. Hell, who goes to Alcatraz before the Conference Finals? A group of brothers that's who.

Lastly, and this is my personal favorite example. The 2005 White Sox. They didn't field the best talent, but they played as a team and loved hanging out off the field. What happened? On the field they took care of business going wire to wire in first place and recorded the best record in the AL at 99-63. Follow that by going 11-1 in the playoffs, and that group was a champion.

Special groups of players that gel together make it to the next level. You take a good team, and they gel together and get along off the field, they get better. There is a trust that they will do their job and perform.

 

[Megatron]

Yeah, forgot they didn't have him for the Falcons, and I wanna say the Bears? Still, TO gave them a deep threat they never had before. They had never made it to the Super Bowl without TO, in spite of all their success, and still haven't. Something should be said for that, man/

No, he didn't play in either of the playoff games that they won. So how did he contribute to their success?

He also had a superhuman performance, so you can't blame the loss on him. He was spectacular. If anything, the big reason they lost was theb "chemistry guy", Donovan McNabb

Yeah, I'll agree on that.

Whoa whoa. Two of those HOFs were way past their prime, and that team was much more loaded than you let on. Prince, Billups, Wallace, Big Ben when he was a dominant force, and Rip Hamilton? Again, they had more talent than the Lakers.

Sure, they may be good talents in their career, but that year only Big Ben was an all-star. And on the other side the Lakers had two of the best players in the game with Shaq and Kobe. The talent level was FAR greater on the Lakers then Pistons, who had a bunch of 3rd and 4th options but knew how to work well together.

No argument, when push comes to shove though, talent wins

Wins you games in teh regular season, yeah. In the playoffs when it's all on the line, give me a team with great chemistry over a team with a few great superstars who aren't on the same page.

I'm under the influence of talking about playing together. They can like each other, sure, but that isn't chemistry to me. Chemistry is playing really well together, something we're unsure of.

Fair enough, but we'll see when they step on the court. They didn't seem to have a problem during their Team USA days in the Olympics.

Like who, AJ Burnett? The same guy who just cut his hands banging on glass doors?

I didn't follow the team at all but even I know what kind of character a guy like Nick Swisher can bring to a team. Burnett was fine last year, as well, from what I recall.

Again, chemistry is great, but talent wins, all the time

When it's all on the line? Really? Any team that has great talents always have great chemistry. Like the 2008 Celtics. They had great players, but they meshed well and connected with each other. A team with a lot of talent is more dependent on chemistry then vice versa (if that makes sense).

 

[Big Sexy]

Noah, i love you buddy, but I'm not sure I can agree with these sentiments. I mean, think about it. When the Eagles had TO, they reached the highest peak of their dominance. Without TO, they do not get into the Superbowl, and they have no chance against The Patriots. If anything, TO proved one thing, that talent overtakes chemistry when there's enough talent. And that's exactly what I believe. Tem Chemistry is great, and it makes for reporters able to write up a cute little story. Either than that, Talent is the only true important factor in sports, and chemistry is just nice to have. All of the teams in which win, they had more talent, but they didn't always get along as well as people think. The Saints this year have been the exception to the rule; players who get along is good, but really, it isn't necessary. I argued before that players play well with friends, but at the end of the day, the best player is going to win the matches. The Heat don't have any chemistry at the moment, and Jeff Van Gundy is predicting that the Heat will beat the Bulls win record. The Yankees are loaded with personalities that don't mesh, and yet they still won, because they had more talent.

Is chemistry cool? Sure. Necessary? Not really

You are wrong on this one and I will use the TO with the Eagles example to prove that. In 2004 TO got along with all of his teammates great and was a great teammate. He helped the Eagles to a 13-1 start before getting injured. Philly then made it to the SB without him and he returned to play in the SB but the Eagles fell just short. In the 2004 season the team had great chemistry and succeeded.

In 2005 it was a different story. TO was calling out his quarterback, had a contract dispute, and there was a lot of turmoil. They started out 3-1 but then lost two of their next 3 games and at 4-3 TO was told to basically go home. Injuries added up and the team finished 6-10 on the season.

There was really only one main difference between the 2004 season and the beginning of the 2005 season. That difference was chemistry. When TO started complaining the team started losing. You definitely need talent but talent without any chemistry isn't going to succeed at the highest level.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Chemistry is important, but I'd say a bit overrated. You always want your players to get along, but chemistry is not worth sacrificing talent for. A good manager/coach should be able to help keep players on the same page and create chemistry, instead of signing guys with the intention of creating chemistry.

 

[Mr. Steve]

Chemistry is important, but I'd say a bit overrated. You always want your players to get along, but chemistry is not worth sacrificing talent for. A good manager/coach should be able to help keep players on the same page and create chemistry, instead of signing guys with the intention of creating chemistry.

This is true. You need to be able to make do with the things you got. Like CHuh said, the '05 Sox banded together and got the job done. They really wanted to get that trophy, and they did because they were on the same page. That's what it comes down to on the field: to be able to be on the same page and act for the good of the team. That tends to blend in with their lives off the field, and they grow closer still. That tightens up the group and nothing but cool shit happens. Of course, like Thriz said, some tend to buy the chemistry and hope the players adapt to it, which is far from right.

 

[Stormtrooper]

As has been said previously, Team Chemistry is not essential to winning in professional sports. However, it makes winning easier. Doc (and a bunch of other people) said it best, that people naturally perform better when they are happy, and good Team Chemistry makes people happy. However, winning also makes people happy, and if you can manage to out-perform opponents on the field while hating each other off of it, you can still win.

Tenta, I love ya man, but you're way off with the 2009 Yankees. The team chemistry was not there from 2002-2008, but the 2009 team was one of the most fun-loving big-personality getting-along-with-each-other team I've seen in all sports. Guys like Swisher and Burnett livened up the clubhouse, and guys like Sabathia and Texiera really helped unify the team to levels not seen since the last Yankee Dynasty of the late 90's. They had been seen pretty often doing things like going to Magic games during Spring Training (I'm talking most of the team, not just a couple guys). When CC Sabathia was choosing where to play last off-season, his one holdup with the Yankees was the clubhouse, which lacked good chemistry. He was told that they were bringing him in to change that, and change it he did.

Another issue with Team Chemistry is that it can be rather hard to see if you don't see the team every day. Tenta's mistake on the Yankees is a prime example. He didn't see the Yankees every day, and see them interact with each other. Because of the recent history of bad free-agent moves (2002-2008), he assumes there is bad chemistry, which makes sense. However, when someone who sees them play every day, and sees them interact with one another on a day-to-day basis, you can clearly see the chemistry.

 

[Da Prophet]

Team chemistry is very important, if team members don't get along how can they work together for the win.If I can remember there was a case in National Rugby League (NRL) where a player for one of the teams wouldn't pass the ball to his outside winger.He flat out refused to do it and just went the opposite way each time he got the ball so his winger wouldn't get it.All because he had signed with a different club for next season.It was not as if he was jumping ship to Super League but just changing teams.I do believe that they didn't do that well that season.So team chemistry is very important as you can't have a bunch of guys or girls playing a sport together if they don't get along.

 

[Tenta]

Welllp, time to take this on and see how it all goes. I've got like three people to debate, and a few more elsewhere, that said, I'll try to do it

Tents, I love ya buddy, but I have to correct a few things in here. If you notice the winners this year of the Super Bowl, World Series, and Stanley Cup, they all had great chemistry.

Well, sure, but they also had more talent than the team they played, and really, less chemistry

The Saints gathered together and played for the city of New Orleans. They all got along great on and off the field. It's hard to say that talent overtook there. Great talent helps win, but chemistry brings teams together.

And the Indianapolis Colts had been playing together for much longer than The Saints, and have had so much more time to gel. So much time, in fact, that Peyton Manning aqnd co. can probably run their offense with their eyes closed. Yes, the Saints were a lovely story, but the Colts had longer to play with the same core, and probably had more chemistry. It just gets washed away by the Saints story.

The Yankees got along great off the field. Look at the talent they had on the field for the previous nine years before last year. Tons of talent, but just couldn't win the Series. They bring in some quality personalities, and it loosened everyone up, and they took care of business.

This one, I'll grant, with a grain of salt. Sure, the Yankees had personalities that got along, probably much more than last year. That said, The Phillies had more time to get along, so did the Sox. I see what you're saying, but plenty of other teams got along. The Yankees just had much more talent man

The Blackhawks I know firsthand were a great set of guys. There was a lot of love in the locker room, and all the players that are gone will be missed by everyone. You could sense just through interviews and talk that the guys were a special group. Hell, who goes to Alcatraz before the Conference Finals? A group of brothers that's who.

You mean the same guys who had their star punch out a taxi cabi.

Lastly, and this is my personal favorite example. The 2005 White Sox. They didn't field the best talent, but they played as a team and loved hanging out off the field. What happened? On the field they took care of business going wire to wire in first place and recorded the best record in the AL at 99-63. Follow that by going 11-1 in the playoffs, and that group was a champion.

And for every Chicago White Sox, I can give you St. Louis Cardinals, who get along well, but not nearly as well. Two years ago the Rays were probably the better chemistry team. They lost to a Phills to team that didn't have chemistry, but had talent

Special groups of players that gel together make it to the next level. You take a good team, and they gel together and get along off the field, they get better. There is a trust that they will do their job and perform.

But a good player is going to want to be surrounded by talent. Read; he's not going to care about chemistry. Give him talent to surround him. That's what he wants, more than anything

 

[CH David]

And the Indianapolis Colts had been playing together for much longer than The Saints, and have had so much more time to gel. So much time, in fact, that Peyton Manning aqnd co. can probably run their offense with their eyes closed. Yes, the Saints were a lovely story, but the Colts had longer to play with the same core, and probably had more chemistry. It just gets washed away by the Saints story.

Just because you can run your offense with your eyes closed doesn't mean you are good friends off the field. When I talk Team Chemistry, I don't just mean on the field, but off the field. That's what happened with the Saints, they came together off the field as well, not just having a great core on the field.

This one, I'll grant, with a grain of salt. Sure, the Yankees had personalities that got along, probably much more than last year. That said, The Phillies had more time to get along, so did the Sox. I see what you're saying, but plenty of other teams got along. The Yankees just had much more talent man

More time to get along doesn't mean anything. There have been teams made up of people who don't get along that well, but go out and play. Just because teams have been together for a while, it doesn't mean they have good or great off field chemistry. Sure there may be some cliques on the team, but it's not one big family.

You mean the same guys who had their star punch out a taxi cabi.

Good to know you have no response to that.

And for every Chicago White Sox, I can give you St. Louis Cardinals, who get along well, but not nearly as well. Two years ago the Rays were probably the better chemistry team. They lost to a Phills to team that didn't have chemistry, but had talent

Are we talking the same off field chemistry that I am, Tents?

But a good player is going to want to be surrounded by talent. Read; he's not going to care about chemistry. Give him talent to surround him. That's what he wants, more than anything

Sure, every player wants talent to surround him. However, my point is that if you have a team that is good, but better talent is on other teams, and you come together on and off the field like a family you will play better collectively.

 

[Tenta]

Just because you can run your offense with your eyes closed doesn't mean you are good friends off the field. When I talk Team Chemistry, I don't just mean on the field, but off the field. That's what happened with the Saints, they came together off the field as well, not just having a great core on the field.

But the point is, the relationship on the field spills to off the field, man. What I'm getting at is that teams do well, and like each other, when they're winning. We'll see cases of this late

More time to get along doesn't mean anything. There have been teams made up of people who don't get along that well, but go out and play. Just because teams have been together for a while, it doesn't mean they have good or great off field chemistry. Sure there may be some cliques on the team, but it's not one big family.

Well, of course it does, Chi. I mean, why would you now want to bplay with people you're familiar with. It's simple; the more time a team has, the more accustomed they are to each other. The more they come to like one another

Good to know you have no response to that.

Actually I do. Look, I like watching live Hockey games. That said, the Stanley Cup is all about who has the hot goalie in the series. Look at the Canadiens, an 8 seed who ran roughshod before running into the better goalie

Are we talking the same off field chemistry that I am, Tents?

We're probably not, but that said, both spill into each other. Again, the off field relationship bleeds into the on field one, you're right here. That said, people like their teammates better when they're winning. Jeter and A-Rod hated each other for a while, until, surprise, they won.

Sure, every player wants talent to surround him. However, my point is that if you have a team that is good, but better talent is on other teams, and you come together on and off the field like a family you will play better collectively.

Sure, I get that. But just not enough to warrant me saying Chemistry is more important than Talent

 

[Dave]

Chemistry means an absolute tonne in any sporting team endeavour and I think you have happened across a great thread here, Dave.

I am a football (soccer) fan and I know the importance of having chemistry on the park with your peers and team-mates. I also played football semi-professionally with Motherwell Football Club before breaking my hip and having to quit. However, every Sunday after our match, we would all go out somewhere and just chill out and just enjoy each other’s company. We talked about everything and nothing all at the same time and we created bonds that were not even close to being matched by any other team in the division. Before I broke my hip, we were first in the league and after I recovered, I lost touch with a lot of the guys.

However, during that time, chemistry was everything for us. Mistakes are what will costa team dearly and if you are worrying about making mistakes that will cost your team, you can bet that they are twice as likely to happen, However, when you are at peace with the rest of your team, you do not fear mistakes and you realise that when you work as a team, more gets accomplished. Chemistry is what brings a team together and makes them a complete unit. I could tell what my team-mates were going to do before they even did it and it made us one step ahead of the opponents at all times.

Chemistry is everything and the importance of it cannot be overstated at all.

Great thread, Dave.

 

[CH David]

But the point is, the relationship on the field spills to off the field, man. What I'm getting at is that teams do well, and like each other, when they're winning. We'll see cases of this late

What about when teams aren't winning? Such as the 2010 White Sox? They sucked for the first two months, but stuck together, get along great off the field and have played extremely well since the start of June. Since then, they had been in 1st place, and now sit only one game behind the Twins, who they are in they are currently in a series against. Your theory kind of takes a shit there bud.

Well, of course it does, Chi. I mean, why would you now want to bplay with people you're familiar with. It's simple; the more time a team has, the more accustomed they are to each other. The more they come to like one another

I'm not saying you wouldn't want to play with people you are familiar with, it just doesn't mean you are a good fit for the team. Again, I'll use the White Sox from 2004 and 2005. Traded Carlos Lee, a known run producer and very good hitter, for Scott Podsednik and Luis Vizcaino. Let Magglio Ordonez go, granted he was still injured. In 2004 they went 83-79, 2005 they went 99-63. That's a 16 game differential. They were a better team, on and off the field in 2005 than they were in 2004, and you know which team won the World Series.

Actually I do. Look, I like watching live Hockey games. That said, the Stanley Cup is all about who has the hot goalie in the series. Look at the Canadiens, an 8 seed who ran roughshod before running into the better goalie

Antti Niemi wasn't the hottest goaltender until the San Jose series, and then he went right back to making important saves when needed and not stopping everything in sight. The team came together as a group off the ice. Did they have a shit load of talent? Hell yeah, but great talent doesn't mean you will win.

We're probably not, but that said, both spill into each other. Again, the off field relationship bleeds into the on field one, you're right here. That said, people like their teammates better when they're winning. Jeter and A-Rod hated each other for a while, until, surprise, they won.

Or until A-Rod was humbled about juicing. The team meshed last year, there is no doubt about that. Chemistry was a factor. If it wasn't, and it solely rested on talent, why didn't they win in any of the eight previous seasons?

 

[Slyfox696]

Chemistry is like the comparison between *********ion and sex. Sure, you can *********e and get off, but it's always so much nicer when someone is there to do it for you. Chemistry is not required for a team, but it makes it so much more enjoyable, and more successful when it's there.

The problem is, chemistry can't be created. You can cultivate it, you can nourish it and you can improve it, but you cannot create it. I've coached teams that were less than the sum of their parts, because the individuals were only in it for themselves. And I've had teams that were far greater than the sum of their parts, because they meshed so well together, and complemented each other perfectly. I once even had a team that had basically zero chemistry, until I had to suspend a few players for disciplinary reasons, and in the two weeks those guys were gone, the team played FANTASTICALLY with each other and really enjoyed playing with each other. Then when the other guys came back, it was shot to hell again.

The thing so many people don't understand about chemistry, though, is that it has NOTHING to do with liking each other. Being friends can help, but being friends has nothing to do with good chemistry. You can not talk to your teammate outside of when you're competing, and have good chemistry with it.


In the end, I guess what I'm saying is that chemistry is important, but not necessary, it can't be created, but can be nurtured, and has nothing to do with being friends, but being friends helps.