Team Chemistry of the Stars

Derek Zumsteg

Team Chemistry is often cited by the mainstream media as an important factor in a team's success and failures. If you read enough sports journalism, you'll discover that Team Chemistry exists in different forms and is often related to things like "clutch hitting" and "doing the little things". From the earliest days of baseball, Chemistry Omens derived from superstition ("this is their year"), press rumors (anything about Eddie Murray), and repeated cliches ("we just didn't get it done"). Like astrology, believing that a team pulls together to win, or doesn't and it loses, is seductive because it offers to eliminate the randomness of sport. Also like astrology, Team Chemistry is absolutely worthless, a crutch for crippled sportswriters who don't get on-base percentage.

It's worthless because it can't predict. If one player on a team gets injured and another player subsequently does well, the latter player "stepped up to the plate" when the team needed him, yet if he doesn't do well, he couldn't handle the pressure. If a team goes to the World Series they must have had good team chemistry, and it can even be explained in reverse: oh, of course Bobby Bonilla and Gary Sheffield are bad clubhouse presences, but they hated each other so they competed harder. No believer in chemistry has ever been able to predict whether a certain combination of players will have good chemistry or not, and what effect that'll have on the team's records or even on the individual players. And without being able to test the chemistry theory, it no more deserves your attention than the lastest plot twist in "For Better or Worse".

How about this: I believe that the success of a team is based entirely on the quality of its fans. Last year, because the Marlins started winning, they attracted a new kind of fan who believed in winning, which inspired the players to keep winning. Next year, those fans won't show up because they've been demoralized by the dismantling of the team. If they do show up, however, the Marlins will keep winning.

That's an absurd statement - no matter what, I can claim my prediction came true. Compare that to this prediction: Last year the Marlins had a lot of great players, and this year they don't have them. Look for the Marlins to win sixty-five games.

Which one is worth more to you? A vague prediction based on factors that are hard to verify, if they exist at all, or a specific prediction based on something obviously true? How about these two: 1) Mike Bordick will have a good season because the pressure of replacing Ripken will be off his shoulders. 2) Mike Bordick has sucked for his entire career and will hit about .250, get on base about 30% of the time, and his slugging average will be about .300. At best he'd hit .260/.320 but don't hold your breath.

The man who makes the first prediction will claim an average Bordick season a victory, while the woman who makes the second prediction will actually be right.

Be wary of players with no bats, no gloves, but with a portfolio of 'credentials'. They suck, and sucking won't help your team. Selfish players like Barry Bonds and Mike Piazza have picked up undeserved reputations - both improve their teams by five or six wins per season, and if that's not team leadership, I'd like to know what is. Rickey Henderson has a deserved reputation as an egotistical fathead, but when Rickey was in his prime the teams he was on (also filled with evil influences like Jose Canseco) won, and won, and won. The chemists chalked it up to being 'bad boys'. It was because they were good players, which in the end is all that counts in the standings.

Derek Zumsteg is the clubhouse leader of strikethree.com, and is due for a breakout season of chili cookery. Offer cornbread recipes at dmz@strikethree.com.

Custom Search