Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Don't Believe The Chemistry Hype

Earlier this week, Hitman posted the following column about the NLDS. I refer to it so that I can get people to focus on one particular comment, which I’ve copied below:

“If amassing talent were all it took, then the Bronx Bombers would be sitting on no less than 9 of the last 12 titles – and they certainly wouldn’t be in a 7-year drought.

Anyone who’s played team sports knows that good teamwork and camaraderie can elevate a team up a notch. It’s not a replacement for talent, but it does embellish and support it.

In this Moneyball era, it’s become trendy to poo-poo “intangibles” as a myth or a media creation. Just because we can’t wrap our hands around it, or toss it into a mathematical equation, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a place.

Yes, the Mets had holes, and maybe in fact the Phillies have more raw and collective talent. But does anyone think that it was solely a lack of talent that caused the Mets to drop 12 of their last 17 – including 5 of 6 to the Senators?

Mikey is correct: this was a total collapse of absolutely everything – talent and those statistically-unfriendly intangibles.”


I know that it’s incredibly difficult to get people to change their minds about certain things which they hold to be absolute truths. This column isn’t really an attempt on my part to change Hitman’s or anyone else’s mind – about the ideas of team chemistry and its perceived value on winning.

What I will simply argue – and this is something that statistics bear out 100% – is the idea that poor team chemistry held the Yankees back in the past six postseasons. Certainly, if you believed ESPN or any number of Yankee-haters, they would have you believe that it was a divided clubhouse, filled with selfish corporate types who merely showed up to collect their paychecks. To be frank, that’s probably the case in each and every single major league clubhouse today. Every team has a few guys who are more interested in the money than the joy of playing baseball for a living. But that’s hardly groundbreaking news.

Since the 1996-2000 dynasty ended, the Yankees have only lost two playoff series in which they were the better ballclub. They lost the 2001 World Series to the Arizona Diamondbacks in the bottom of the 9th inning when their closer Mariano Rivera – the best playoff reliever of all time – gave up a walk, an infield single and a bloop base hit. Additionally, they lost the 2003 World Series because Joe Torre mismanaged his lineup and his bullpen, giving a seriously inferior Florida Marlins team opportunities to win Games 4 and 5 of that series. Good teams lose to weaker opponents. It happens.

Hitman is absolutely incorrect in asserting (or insinuating) that the Yankees playoff losses in 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006 were the result of anything less than vastly inferior pitching. Team chemistry, or lack thereof, had nothing to do with the events of those playoff defeats. It was simply the case of the Yankees being a flawed team in each of those years. My evidence is in the following query, pulled from Baseball-Reference.com. In short, this shows you the entire history of the Steinbrenner-era Yankee pitching staffs. The search string sought to bring to light how many pitchers on the Yanks had slightly above league-average ERA’s, at least 60% games started, and at least 150 IP. The 2003 AL Champion Yankees had the best pitching staff in the Steinbrenner era, followed by the 1998 Yankees (arguably baseball’s best team ever), the 2001 AL Champs that fell short, and two more World Series teams (the 2000 and 1996 incarnations).

This clearly shows the flaws of the 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006 teams. Chemistry had nothing to do with it. Pitching’s the thing that kept those Yankee teams from winning in October. And pitching looks like it might keep the Yanks from winning again in 2007.

I believe that team chemistry and all of the peripheral elements that go along with that term do have a place in sports. The concept does exist in some form or fashion. In football, a sport where playing on emotion in order to overcome physical pain or adverse conditions, is oftentimes very important. But baseball, a sport played over the course of six months and 162 games…well, I’m just not buying it. Bad teams can cite poor team chemistry when, come August, their players start mentally checking out. But teams that are in playoff contention are not torpedoed by “teamwork and camaraderie.” It comes down to talent, execution, and luck.

Think about it this way – the Mets and Phillies seasons came down to the 162nd game. I’m supposed to believe that the Mets lost because they were lacking a certain something that the Phillies had in greater abundance? Someone’s dirty joke or whoopee cushion in Philadelphia propelled them to a division title? That’s just nonsense. The Mets fizzled down the stretch because their starters and their relievers were not up to the task over the long haul. And what of the 133 days the Mets spent in first place? Did they have poor chemistry then too? Did they only act as caretakers of the NL East while Philadelphia figured out which campfire songs to sing?

Chemistry is what ESPN and newspaper reporters use to humanize (or de-humanize) their subjects and to provide colorful stories for readers and viewers. Players can have intangible attributes and teams can be propelled by momentum in short bursts. But a losing streak in September that cost the Mets a playoff berth was nothing more than picking the wrong time to get cold.

Look, you don’t have to believe me. But I know I’m right.

No comments: