Is Energy/Chemistry Worth a Damn?

[vitaminB]

<!--quoteo(post=41445:date=Jun 1 2009, 03:09 PM:name=BackyardLegend)-->QUOTE (BackyardLegend @ Jun 1 2009, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41441:date=Jun 1 2009, 01:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jun 1 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You missed my point entirely. I am saying if Roberts was out, the 2004 red Sox have no chemistry. Since he was safe, they were a close knit team who won 8 in a row.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Sorry if you feel I skipped over your point. I caught your drift.

Roberts could have been out and the Red Sox could have still won that game.

Think of this though. After the 5th inning of Game 1 against the Dodgers last year, we were done for the series. We didn't even try afterwards.

Boston got their asses totally kicked (cue Jim Mora) in game 3, and were down early in game 4. But they still fought and put themselves in a position to win the game.

I look up and down this squad and even if we win 100 games this year, I don't see the type of players that can buck up in the playoffs and play with heart.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't think we really know anything about this team yet. We really haven't seen them all healthy at the same time yet.

[BackyardLegend]

<!--quoteo(post=41447:date=Jun 1 2009, 02:19 PM:name=vitaminB)-->QUOTE (vitaminB @ Jun 1 2009, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't think we really know anything about this team yet. We really haven't seen them all healthy at the same time yet.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

We saw them last year. Take away Jim Edmonds and Mark DeRosa and insert Milton Bradley. Really not that different--at least not yet.

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=41428:date=Jun 1 2009, 12:47 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jun 1 2009, 12:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41416:date=Jun 1 2009, 11:17 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Jun 1 2009, 11:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41401:date=Jun 1 2009, 10:18 AM:name=BackyardLegend)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BackyardLegend @ Jun 1 2009, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41396:date=Jun 1 2009, 10:07 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Jun 1 2009, 10:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->When is Aramis expected back? He really makes a difference in this lineup. He is the guy who has that Sosa-like quality of being able to singlehandedly carry the team. Lee did - for one season - but that's what this team nees... a healthy Aramis.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No way is Aramis on par with Sosa. Ramirez can put up some decent numbers, but I wouldn't consider him a leader of the pack. Even more, Ramirez is normally the kind of player that feeds off the rest of his teammates. He's not the kind of player that turns lead to gold.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I wasn't saying he was "on par" with Sammy. I said he has that Sosa-like quality of being able to singlehandedly carry a team. There is nobody else on this team with that sort of impact bat.

JH hoped that Milton would be it. He isn't. Dlee isn't anymore. Soto isn't close.

I really think this team NEEDS Aramis in order to be able to dominate.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

actually, if there's one player on this team that can carry the load, it's soriano.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


But given where he hits in the order, I don't see him being able to be impactful enough independently. He won't drive in enough runs or do enough to help the guys hitting immediately before hime. I agree that the Cubs need Soriano to play well to win. But if I had to pick one guy, and say he has the most impact, I'd go with Aramis.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=41445:date=Jun 1 2009, 02:09 PM:name=BackyardLegend)-->QUOTE (BackyardLegend @ Jun 1 2009, 02:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41441:date=Jun 1 2009, 01:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jun 1 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You missed my point entirely. I am saying if Roberts was out, the 2004 red Sox have no chemistry. Since he was safe, they were a close knit team who won 8 in a row.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Sorry if you feel I skipped over your point. I caught your drift.

Roberts could have been out and the Red Sox could have still won that game.

Think of this though. After the 5th inning of Game 1 against the Dodgers last year, we were done for the series. We didn't even try afterwards.

Boston got their asses totally kicked (cue Jim Mora) in game 3, and were down early in game 4. But they still fought and put themselves in a position to win the game.

I look up and down this squad and even if we win 100 games this year, I don't see the type of players that can buck up in the playoffs and play with heart.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

But how can "chemistry" be a tangible and authentic asset, if the EXACT same team with the EXACT same players, playing in the EXACT same way, behaving all year in the EXACT same manner, interacting with each other in the EXACT same way, be viewed in two entirely separate ways, all depending on ONE play?

Look, if chemistry is a tangible asset, either the 2004 Red Sox "had it" or they didn't, going into the bottom of the 9th in game 4. I guarantee you if they were swept, people would have said they had no chemistry, just as people NOW say, because they won those games, and in such thrilling fashion, they did have it. Did the chemistry just kick in, right after Roberts stole the base? If so, isn't it then a result of winning, and not a precursor of it?

If the perception of having chemistry can be changed, after the fact, by one play, retroactively, then it doesn't exist.

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=41457:date=Jun 1 2009, 03:18 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jun 1 2009, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41445:date=Jun 1 2009, 02:09 PM:name=BackyardLegend)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BackyardLegend @ Jun 1 2009, 02:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41441:date=Jun 1 2009, 01:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jun 1 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You missed my point entirely. I am saying if Roberts was out, the 2004 red Sox have no chemistry. Since he was safe, they were a close knit team who won 8 in a row.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Sorry if you feel I skipped over your point. I caught your drift.

Roberts could have been out and the Red Sox could have still won that game.

Think of this though. After the 5th inning of Game 1 against the Dodgers last year, we were done for the series. We didn't even try afterwards.

Boston got their asses totally kicked (cue Jim Mora) in game 3, and were down early in game 4. But they still fought and put themselves in a position to win the game.

I look up and down this squad and even if we win 100 games this year, I don't see the type of players that can buck up in the playoffs and play with heart.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

But how can "chemistry" be a tangible and authentic asset, if the EXACT same team with the EXACT same players, playing in the EXACT same way, behaving all year in the EXACT same manner, interacting with each other in the EXACT same way, be viewed in two entirely separate ways, all depending on ONE play?

Look, if chemistry is a tangible asset, either the 2004 Red Sox "had it" or they didn't, going into the bottom of the 9th in game 4. I guarantee you if they were swept, people would have said they had no chemistry, just as people NOW say, because they won those games, and in such thrilling fashion, they did have it. Did the chemistry just kick in, right after Roberts stole the base? If so, isn't it then a result of winning, and not a precursor of it?

If the perception of having chemistry can be changed, after the fact, by one play, retroactively, then it doesn't exist.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You don't think the working relationship (or "chemistry" if you want to call it that) between players could change over time? It most cases in jobs it seems to change on a daily basis.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=41458:date=Jun 1 2009, 03:33 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jun 1 2009, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41457:date=Jun 1 2009, 03:18 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jun 1 2009, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41445:date=Jun 1 2009, 02:09 PM:name=BackyardLegend)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BackyardLegend @ Jun 1 2009, 02:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41441:date=Jun 1 2009, 01:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jun 1 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You missed my point entirely. I am saying if Roberts was out, the 2004 red Sox have no chemistry. Since he was safe, they were a close knit team who won 8 in a row.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Sorry if you feel I skipped over your point. I caught your drift.

Roberts could have been out and the Red Sox could have still won that game.

Think of this though. After the 5th inning of Game 1 against the Dodgers last year, we were done for the series. We didn't even try afterwards.

Boston got their asses totally kicked (cue Jim Mora) in game 3, and were down early in game 4. But they still fought and put themselves in a position to win the game.

I look up and down this squad and even if we win 100 games this year, I don't see the type of players that can buck up in the playoffs and play with heart.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

But how can "chemistry" be a tangible and authentic asset, if the EXACT same team with the EXACT same players, playing in the EXACT same way, behaving all year in the EXACT same manner, interacting with each other in the EXACT same way, be viewed in two entirely separate ways, all depending on ONE play?

Look, if chemistry is a tangible asset, either the 2004 Red Sox "had it" or they didn't, going into the bottom of the 9th in game 4. I guarantee you if they were swept, people would have said they had no chemistry, just as people NOW say, because they won those games, and in such thrilling fashion, they did have it. Did the chemistry just kick in, right after Roberts stole the base? If so, isn't it then a result of winning, and not a precursor of it?

If the perception of having chemistry can be changed, after the fact, by one play, retroactively, then it doesn't exist.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You don't think the working relationship (or "chemistry" if you want to call it that) between players could change over time? It most cases in jobs it seems to change on a daily basis.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Sure, but that would simply prove my point. If the chemistry "changes" because Roberts stole 2nd base, then chemistry is a RESULT of winning, not a cause of it.

[bz]

I have to work in 20 so this is gonna be quick:

"Clutchness" exists. From experience, my level of play in bean bags increases when I'm playing better competition. When I'm on the ropes I almost <i>always</i> come through either for the big tying hole or 3 holes in to come back from behind to win. That's why there are Robert Horry's or Steve Kerr's. Don't mistake clutchness for making a shitty player suddenly channel Babe Ruth when the game is on the line. Clutchness is relative and players that would perform well in any situation are those that I am referring to when I speak of clutchness.

Chemistry exists and is a big part of a successful team. Yes, it ebs and flows with the immediate success of a team, but a team ability to work together, coexist, etc. or lack of will effect everyone's ability. Baseball is a game, but it is also a job like any other. Think of your jobs and how well you and your coworkers perform when your boss is being a dick or your guy in the cube next to you won't stop farting.

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=41459:date=Jun 1 2009, 03:44 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jun 1 2009, 03:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41458:date=Jun 1 2009, 03:33 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jun 1 2009, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41457:date=Jun 1 2009, 03:18 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jun 1 2009, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41445:date=Jun 1 2009, 02:09 PM:name=BackyardLegend)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BackyardLegend @ Jun 1 2009, 02:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41441:date=Jun 1 2009, 01:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jun 1 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You missed my point entirely. I am saying if Roberts was out, the 2004 red Sox have no chemistry. Since he was safe, they were a close knit team who won 8 in a row.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Sorry if you feel I skipped over your point. I caught your drift.

Roberts could have been out and the Red Sox could have still won that game.

Think of this though. After the 5th inning of Game 1 against the Dodgers last year, we were done for the series. We didn't even try afterwards.

Boston got their asses totally kicked (cue Jim Mora) in game 3, and were down early in game 4. But they still fought and put themselves in a position to win the game.

I look up and down this squad and even if we win 100 games this year, I don't see the type of players that can buck up in the playoffs and play with heart.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

But how can "chemistry" be a tangible and authentic asset, if the EXACT same team with the EXACT same players, playing in the EXACT same way, behaving all year in the EXACT same manner, interacting with each other in the EXACT same way, be viewed in two entirely separate ways, all depending on ONE play?

Look, if chemistry is a tangible asset, either the 2004 Red Sox "had it" or they didn't, going into the bottom of the 9th in game 4. I guarantee you if they were swept, people would have said they had no chemistry, just as people NOW say, because they won those games, and in such thrilling fashion, they did have it. Did the chemistry just kick in, right after Roberts stole the base? If so, isn't it then a result of winning, and not a precursor of it?

If the perception of having chemistry can be changed, after the fact, by one play, retroactively, then it doesn't exist.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You don't think the working relationship (or "chemistry" if you want to call it that) between players could change over time? It most cases in jobs it seems to change on a daily basis.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Sure, but that would simply prove my point. If the chemistry "changes" because Roberts stole 2nd base, then chemistry is a RESULT of winning, not a cause of it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yea, but if Roberts went out and fucked the starting pitcher's wife the night before and he found out I'm sure he wouldn't perform as well.

And it is a cause but not THE cause. It is one of trillions of causes.

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=41460:date=Jun 1 2009, 02:49 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jun 1 2009, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I have to work in 20 so this is gonna be quick:

"Clutchness" exists. From experience, my level of play in bean bags increases when I'm playing better competition. When I'm on the ropes I almost <i>always</i> come through either for the big tying hole or 3 holes in to come back from behind to win. That's why there are Robert Horry's or Steve Kerr's. Don't mistake clutchness for making a shitty player suddenly channel Babe Ruth when the game is on the line. Clutchness is relative and players that would perform well in any situation are those that I am referring to when I speak of clutchness.

Chemistry exists and is a big part of a successful team. Yes, it ebs and flows with the immediate success of a team, but a team ability to work together, coexist, etc. or lack of will effect everyone's ability. Baseball is a game, but it is also a job like any other. Think of your jobs and how well you and your coworkers perform when your boss is being a dick or your guy in the cube next to you won't stop farting.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well said.

[BackyardLegend]

<!--quoteo(post=41460:date=Jun 1 2009, 02:49 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jun 1 2009, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I have to work in 20 so this is gonna be quick:

"Clutchness" exists. From experience, my level of play in bean bags increases when I'm playing better competition. When I'm on the ropes I almost <i>always</i> come through either for the big tying hole or 3 holes in to come back from behind to win. That's why there are Robert Horry's or Steve Kerr's. Don't mistake clutchness for making a shitty player suddenly channel Babe Ruth when the game is on the line. Clutchness is relative and players that would perform well in any situation are those that I am referring to when I speak of clutchness.

Chemistry exists and is a big part of a successful team. Yes, it ebs and flows with the immediate success of a team, but a team ability to work together, coexist, etc. or lack of will effect everyone's ability. Baseball is a game, but it is also a job like any other. Think of your jobs and how well you and your coworkers perform when your boss is being a dick or your guy in the cube next to you won't stop farting.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I like what you've done there.

[bz]

Bt/Butcher what say you?

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=41782:date=Jun 3 2009, 12:16 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jun 3 2009, 12:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Bt/Butcher what say you?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find it funny that you used your bean bags example as the crux of your argument.

Maybe you're just half-assing it when the game isn't on the line, but when it is, you start caring. It isn't necessarily that you're playing at a high level, then the game is on the line and you're able to take it to an even higher level. Maybe you're always just a really good bean bag player, but only play well when you start giving a shit.

If Manny or Papi (or whoever the clutch guy of the hour is) can turn it up a notch at will, why don't they always turn it up a notch and hit .500 with 150 HR and 300 RBI every season? Surely they would reach a level of fame and wealth that would be unsurpassed by any human to ever play the sport.

[Butcher]

To quote Bill James: How is it that a player who possesses the reflexes and the batting stroke and the knowledge and the experience to be a .260 hitter in other circumstances magically becomes a .300 hitter when the game is on the line? How does that happen? What is the process? What are the effects? Until we can answer those questions, I see little point in talking about clutch ability.

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=41794:date=Jun 3 2009, 12:41 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 3 2009, 12:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->To quote Bill James: How is it that a player who possesses the reflexes and the batting stroke and the knowledge and the experience to be a .260 hitter in other circumstances magically becomes a .300 hitter when the game is on the line? How does that happen? What is the process? What are the effects? Until we can answer those questions, I see little point in talking about clutch ability.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Did you not read this:

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Don't mistake clutchness for making a shitty player suddenly channel Babe Ruth when the game is on the line. Clutchness is relative and players that would perform well in any situation are those that I am referring to when I speak of clutchness.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Now to address your other comment...I always play at a high level when it comes to bean bags. I'm one of the best that I know. And when the game is on the line and it is down to me, I never buckle under pressure. That is being clutch. Some players can shut down an opponent every time like Trevor Hoffman or some players freak out when the pressure is on like LaTroy Hawkins.

You are fooling yourself if you believe that just because someone has the ability they will use it to it's full potential all the time.

You've obviously never had to deal with your own adrenaline or emotions when pressure rises. There's no other way to know what it feels like to have to perform under duress unless you've actually done so.

Clutchness is ones ability to not fold, to keep performing under pressure, to not make mistakes under pressure and to pull through with a big performance under pressure. It isn't "turning it up a notch" or whatever. It is the ability to adapt to your overwhelming emotions and rush of adrenaline, endorphins, etc. If you don't think that the pressure of a situation doesn't affect a players immediate ability in that situation then you're crazy or you've never been in a tight situation yourself.

But "clutchness" won't make Jason Bere become Sandy Koufax. If a player is already a good player then they will perform better than average players in any situation. But a good player that isn't affect by high amounts of pressure is better than a good player who simply cannot handle pressure. It isn't the devine, romantic ability that Hollywood movies have made it or the lore of baseball past has made it. But it is a trait that some people are born with and some people are not. Or a trait that people have developed and mastered or some people have not. To say otherwise is lunacy.

[Butcher]

There's a difference between "clutch" (or what is perceived as "clutch") and "not pissing down your leg."

I'm not arguing that there aren't players who choke under pressure. But not choking ≠ clutch.