06-01-2009, 04:33 PM
<!--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.
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.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy