Pinch hitting: The Bronx Stop
-
- January
- 5
It’s a slow month for baseball news. But fear not, we’ve lined up a series of guest bloggers to entertain you. Next up is Mark from The Bronx Stop.
Mark is a full-time student at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio. He was born in Columbus, minutes from the Yankees old AAA farm team, the Columbus Clippers. In one of his greatest Yankees moments, Mark met Derek Jeter at a “Clipper Convention” for kids and to this day possesses an autographed Jeter minor league card.
Here’s his post:
Joe Torre had a quote on the Mike Tirico show on ESPN Radio Thursday. It went something like this, “Chemistry does not create winning, winning creates chemistry.”
When I heard Mr. Torre recite those words, I stopped dead in my tracks. Something about that quote just did not feel right to me. “Come on!” I said to myself, “Joe Torre is already one of the most successful managers in the history of the game of baseball, and he doesn’t look to be stopping anytime soon. Why is it so hard for you to accept this great baseball man’s opinion on the concept of team chemistry?”
The more I thought about it, the more I could not understand how Mr. Torre could possibly feel that way after being a manager in the Major Leagues for two decades. “Chemistry does not create winning, winning creates chemistry?”
On the surface this makes a lot of sense. But under closer examination its enough to make any red-blooded Yankee fan wonder. Could Mr. Torre (who is to this day still one of my all-time idols) possibly have this concept backwards? Did he mean to say “Chemistry creates winning, and winning creates chemistry” but it just came out wrong?
I can not answer that question, but I can tell you this: I have long respected the words of our once fearless leader, but on this subject I must be honest with myself and flat-out disagree.
Vastly underestimated in any team sport is the concept of “team.” If you don’t agree with me, think of your workplace. When you go into work in the morning do you look forward to spending the day with your co-workers or do you do everything you possibly can to avoid them? Well, chances are, whichever way you answered greatly impacts the enjoyment you get out of your occupation.
Well, the same goes for baseball players. After all, baseball is a business right? Just because they make millions of dollars does not mean that they show up to 162 games a year thrilled to be in the company of their teammates. They are human. They too, get annoyed with the guy who always interrupts people.
As a baseball fan, would you rather have a Yankee team who enjoys playing ball together day in or day out or a Yankee team who only has chemistry when they win? As a rational fan (and I assume all of you are) I really hope you chose a team who enjoys playing ball together day in and day out.
Baseball is still a game where intangibles can lead to amazing things. All you have to do is look closer at the Indians. That club talked all year about being so successful because of the chemistry they shared on and off the field, and look what happened in the postseason.
As a fan who strongly believes in the “team” concept of team sports, I must say I am really looking forward to the 2008 season and all of the new ideas on what it is going to take to win No. 27. With a new era approaching, a new manager at the helm and loads of young, enthusiastic and truly quality talent, the Yankees may once again become a team to fear for many years to come. That is if they don’t trade it all away …
This entry was posted
on Saturday, January 5th, 2008 at 1:03 am by Peter Abraham.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
Peter Abraham
Nice post. Thoughtful and thought-provoking. This is how it’s done, guest bloggers!
Is this a long joke? Joe Torre is absolutely right. Alex Rodriguez could hit 75 HR next year, whether or not Wilson Betemit thinks he’s an annoying interrupter.
What happened to the Indians was a collapse that rivals the 2004 Yankees’. Was one of those two teams more cohesive by one game? Did the Indians have chemistry until Game 5? did the Red Sox only demonstrate team chemistry after Game 4?
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing
I care that they win………………………………
Good little discourse, and I appreciate you and, yesterday, Maureen, as well as all future guests, for the work you’re doing here on Peter’s little corner of cyberspace.
Torre was always good at saying things that didn’t say anything, or that deflected whatever problem of the day needing deflecting. Not that I’m sure he didn’t really believe this little bit of dirty realpolitik that you quote him on. I heard him say this many times on TV as a retort to questions about the Yanks’ team play on any given day. I’m certain he believed it and, to some extent, it is true. A team that is winning usually finds a way to gloss over any interpersonal problems that are going on. Usually.
At the same time, a team that is losing usually exhibits behavioral issues along the way as tempers flare and frustrations surface. Of course, I’d rather have this than have a bunch of mellow, happily co-existing losers, so I’m not sure what the problem is here.
Can there be chemistry that guides a team in the absence of winning? Sure. Does it mean anything? Well, that chemistry and two bucks gets you on the subway. Terribly feuding players have found a way to play together and win, since the dawn of organized baseball.
Chemistry is nice, if a bit overrated. I think it’s more important in basketball.
Thanks to Mark for joining the guest bloggers. More to come!
…and when you win everything is great, and when you lose… ??? Winning teams (champions) have that chemistry and losing teams (generally) don’t.
Torre’s statement that “chemistry” does not create winning was a reference to the current steroid-HGH scandal. In other words, Torre was saying that the use of performance-enhancing chemicals by players does not create a winning team. He was defending his Yankee championships in light of all the recent allegations.
what, no picture this time? Interesting lol
Pete-
Thanks for bearing with me! I can’t wait to read the comments!!!
Pat-
LOL. I had some trouble locating the picture that is actually posted with the article on my blog. Check it out.
I agree with Torre on the issue.
People never talk about how great the team chemistry is when they’re losing games - only winning games.
Chemistry is the product of winning.
Baseball, in general, doesn’t depend on chemistry the way that football, basketball, and other team sports do.
However, when you spend as much time together as professional ball players do, chemistry is extremely important. Just look at a dropped popup on the infield or two outfielders colliding. How do they react? Are they laughing or is it tense? What happens on the field carries into the clubhouse and vice versa. Of course the chemistry is better when you’re winning because everyone’s in a better mood.
On the flip side, good chemistry also allows teams to ride out the hard times. A good testament to that is how the Yankees survived a horrible first half of the season to come within two games of homefield advantage in the postseason.
As for Joe Torre, you have to respect what he says. However, his theory may be tested this season. That clubhouse was a mess as the youngsters bucked against the vets. Will he try to reconcile the clubhouse which is one of his greatest attributes? Or will he subscribe to the theory that Mark mentions in this post? You’d think with so many youngsters he’d try to build chemistry himself (you know, manage) rather than wait for the winning to take care of things.
What a paradox for Mr. Torre. Good luck. Saw a sideline interview with their young first baseman James Loney at the Laker game tonight. Zero personality. Couldn’t even fake that he liked living in Southern California. Sitting there at a Laker game and couldn’t even say anything nice about how they were playing (shooting 70%, winning by 30 points), instead he lamented about his Rockets.
Anyhoo, Looks like Mark’s one of the “psyched” people as opposed to the “worried” camp. Great, thought-provoking post.
Awaaaah finally a good topic. I can see it both ways but Torre may have it backwards.For years the Yankees have been accused of being too corporate and that there wasn’t any team chemistry.Torre was too laid back and that filtered down to the team.Well this past season required a cohesive group to come back to within 2 of winning the division,I’d say the yankees had chemistry to accomplish that fete.
A post about chemistry that isn’t about PEDs? Whoa.
Torre is 100% correct on this subject, if that is indeed what he said and in the context of what he meant.
Next time let’s not say the quote “went something like this”. That is retarded my guest blogger friend. If you’re going to quote somebody make sure you have it 100% correct and in the right context. That’s why they invented the internet.
Moving on….
A good team has good chemistry because they’re winning. Although I think chemistry can manifest itself in bad players and help them, ultimately skill will always win.
As much as one may like to think it, baseball is NOT a team sport. There’s no passing (except for hitting the cutoff man), limited amount of plays, and with the exception of feilding there is rare team interaction. In comparison to every other major sport, baseball is BY FAR the most individual oriented.
Give me the most powerful but greediest players at the plate, the most confidant pitchers that will shake off their catchers over a team of best friends with the chemistry of a Fraternity at a school-girl themed social. I will destroy you.
Chemistry is nice to imagine, something that makes one warm and fuzzy inside and all like when you were a kid and thought your favorite player cared about something but money. It’s false though. Skill always prevails.
End of rant.
A good way to look at it is the current Boston Celtics team. They’re 27-3. They were the worst team in basketball last year, and just threw in two superstars and look where they are.
You’re going to tell me that’s chemistry? BS. They had no time to create chemistry, the only science in their success is that Garnett, Allen, and Peirce are GOOD. And the Eastern Conferance sucks, but I digress…
That’s in BASKETBALL a far more team oriented game. Now put that in context of baseball, where you’re alone at the plate and one strong pitcher can win a game for a team.
Hope that made a little sense.
Mark, (asking sincerely) did you play baseball at a level past little league, because i think even on a high school team it’s quite obvious that what Torre said was 100% right.
in regard to mel’s comment about dropping a pop up…i think you’re simplifying it way too much…chemistry isnt necessarily about everyone laughing and having a good time…its about each player feeding off of each other to ultimately play better as a team.
Hi Mark,
I respectfully disagree with your main points about team chemistry, especially in baseball. A baseball game consists of dozens of individual 1-on-1 battles. Even if Magglio Ordonez doesn’t get along with Gary Sheffield, that won’t stop Magglio from putting his best effort in against whoever is on the mound opposing him. These guys can earn monster pay days by pumping up their stats at every chance they get. HR, RBI, ERA, etc are all important for these players and they should selfishly want to do the best job they can do, regardless if they don’t get along with half the team, and regardless of whether the team is good or not. Look at A-Rod. People tried to say that he was aloof and nobody got along with him, so that’s why he sort of struggled in 2006. Then he’s a monster MVP in 2007, and everybody forgets that one year ago he was getting dumped on for being a head case. His turnaround wasn’t due to finding a way to get along with, say, Johnny Damon. Joe Torre’s quote is more accurate. Winning creates chemistry, not the other way around.
And I don’t think the 2007 Indians are a great case for or against the idea of team chemistry. They had 2 Cy Young worthy starters, a great bullpen, and an above average offense in 2007. They matched up very well against the Yankees. The Indians didn’t win because Travis Hafner and Victor Martinez are such great friends. Carmona didn’t shutdown the Yankes because Peralta gave him a nice pat on the back before the game. Wang didn’t stink up the place because he secretly hates A-Rod and wanted to get more “A-Rod stinks in October” conjecture going around.
I know I am oversimplifying things with these scenarios, but I think it gets my point across better.
Or how about Randy Moss as a football example. Everywhere he goes he is a “cancer” and kills team chemistry. Then he goes to New England, helps them go 16-0, breaks some Jerry Rice TD records along the way, and is hailed by Tom Brady as the smartest player he ever played with. Everybody on that team now loves the guy it would seem. That’s because the Pats win with him.
From my personal experiences playing baseball, even in college, my teams were always the best when we had chemistry first. Winning does not always create chemistry. And whatever chemistry it does create isn’t real. Its just a front. But when a team has real chemistry, then special things can happen.
“Winning does not always create chemistry.”
Yeah but this isn’t really relevant because chemistry doesn’t always create winning either.
It doesn’t matter how much team chemsitry the 15 million dollar payroll Marlins have, they are still not going to win many games next year because they don’t have the talent. And even if the Yankees chemsitry is terrible next year, they will still be a winning team next year because they do have the talent.
NJ,
Nice post. I wonder which teams that Derek Jeter played on had the best chemistry in his opinion. Were they the ones from the 90’s or this decade? My thinking is that he’d say the ones from the 90’s. Now is that because they won lots of rings or because they were “special”? Hmmm. It’s like the chicken or the egg. Which came first?
This chemistry/winning debate shouldn’t even be applied to the Yankees because if any other organization enjoyed the ride they’ve had over the last 12 years it would be considered a blockbuster success. However, in the Yankees opinion, “winning” means nothing short of winning the world series. So yes, they’ve won and yes they’ve had good chemistry, but they haven’t won the World Series since 2000. To them, that’s a failure even though they’ve been “winning” in every sense of the word.
I don’t think it is a matter of which comes first, but instead a matter of which in general is more likely to create the other. And chemistry isn’t more likely to create winning, because there are so many other critically important things to winning, such as the overall talent level of the 25-man roster. Winning is more likely to create chemistry, because guys gel better when they win a lot.
But of course, it isn’t an “always” kind of a situation. One doesn’t always cause the other.
What losing team do you ever hear about having great team chemistry? Even if they do have good team chemistry, which I’m sure many losing teams do indeed have, the media could care less. You just hear about how some championship teams like the late 90’s Yankees had great chemistry. Even though what they largely had was one of the most talented 25-man rosters in the game, and their 25 men performed better than the other teams in October during that stretch.
well done Mark! i dont really agree with it but you laid it out well and its a subject that already has a nice discussion going that has nothing to do with your gender or looks!
personally i dont think it matters but it always seemed like the 98, 99, and 2000 teams were tight. on the other hand, the bronx zoo won 2 championships too. (Major props to Reggie and the boys, RIP Billy, Thurm, Catfish)
I have never heard of a last place team saying, “We had great chemistry”.
Conversely, folks always trot out the “great chemistry” comments when a team wins.
Just like in life, winning is better than losing. When a team is winning, the clubhouse is a lot more managable and that breeds chemistry.
When a team is losing, I don’t care how the guys feel about one another, the clubhouse becomes one lonely place.
Go to my blog link to see the kind of quality photoshopping you guys are missing by not letting us be guest posters.
Sorry folks, click the link in this post instead.
Mark:
‘Tis a fine “chicken and egg” dilemma you have posed.
Evaluating a team on paper before it plays its first game has a predictive value. But that value is limited because you still have to play the actual games against other teams.
IMO, Torre is saying that chemistry, the mix of personalities within the relative vacuum of the clubhouse, is merely potential. But it is not as important a factor in pennant-winning success as the actual behavior once they start playing the season. For example, 162 clubhouse prayer meetings a season were OK with Torre so long as Andy Pettitte came out when the man said “Play Ball” and pitched like a left-handed Devil. (And I’m not making fun of prayer meetings).
Torre means that winning in a team sport creates the “whole is greater than the sum of its parts” scenario, giving the team that turbo boost over its regular output.
When a team is successful, all of the annoying quirks of your teammates are more palatable and you laugh them off.
When you are losing, those quirks lead to fist fights and trade demands.
Winning cures everything. As does success.
If Joba wasn’t successful, his fist pumps after strikeouts would be viewed much differently. He’d be chastised as too flashy.
Thanks for all of the feedback.
I have managed to read every post so far (theres only 30).
I just want everyone to know that I really do still like Torre (a lot). The purpose of this post is just to offer a little difference of opinion from the way he ran things.
Please do not take this article as anything too serious(I am an amateur after all). But, if it got you thinking or dreaming of next year the article served its purpose.
I disagree with you Mark, team chemistry and winning go hand in hand in a team environment. With that said, your post was well written and easy to follow. Good job Mark!
“All you have to do is look closer at the Indians. That club talked all year about being so successful because of the chemistry they shared on and off the field,”
mark-
nice job, but i had to laugh at the statement above. isn’t chemistry what mcnamee and radomski have admitted sharing with some players? oh not that kind of chemistry. i get it.
seriously , i think i’m in the middle on this one. it’s both. you often can tell more about a team when they are losing and how they turn that around than you can when they are winning. i think what’s inside has to be independent of the results. that’s what makes jeter jeter.
player like jeter have an inner character that’s hard to define. if you get enough players with this kind of inner character, chemistry develops. winning of course makes it easier. winning builds on itself, but i think there has to be something there before the winning starts.
i’d like to think there’s something that makes the yankees the yankees. i think it’s something deeper than just chemistry. i like good chemistry, but that x factor that is committed to excellence makes the yankees different than any other team, and it’s even more important.
sj44-
how’s that minor league orgabizational report coming? i know i’m looking forward to seeing it.
2 excellent guest bloggers, 2 not great posts. C’mon, guys, quit trying too hard and do what you do!
Pa-Leaze! To spend any time at all musing over the deeper meaning of such a lame quote as this only speaks to just how slow a week it has been. Here’s one for you all to muse over: “Dear Lord, please save us all from the doldrums of Christmas week.”
Southron
P.S. From this I can only assume you’ve all grown tired of flogging Roger “the fallen” Clemens; thank God for small favors.
Haha. This has been rough!!!
Mark,
I enjoyed your post. I think it did what a good blog post should, which is to initiate discussion and make people think a bit.
I am more inclined to agree with Joe Torre’s view. Team chemistry is an ethereal thing that oddly only seems to be noticed in winning teams. I think winning feeds the chemistry of a team. I think winning turns the negatives into positives. But I don’t think that all the individuals on a team have to be best buddies in order to win or even in order to have a good team chemistry. Just look at the Jackson/Munson situation. Sometimes individuals feed on a personal competition, which makes them put out at max effort. That negative relationship turns into a positive, adding to the team chemistry. It could work the other way, too.
If you look at the Mets last year as an example, they seemed to have great team chemistry over the first 2/3 of the season. But when the wins stopped coming, and they stopped coming at least in part because of their lack of solid pitching, all the chemistry evaporated. All of a sudden the articles extolling Reyes’ winning smile and happy demeanor bemoaned his selfish play. So, maybe what really happens is that losing kills team chemistry?
Just some thoughts…Darryl Strawberry interviewed with the Associated Press on December 19th, 2006. A little over a year ago. Heres some of his comments for you to read. Tell me that you did not see this happening after the All Star Break.
Darryl Strawberry thinks the Yankees’ clubhouse is beset by bad chemistry that can be cured only one way: Derek Jeter needs to “embrace” Alex Rodriguez.
“They’ve got to come together,” Strawberry said Tuesday. “It’s time for them to mend their relationship and get back to, like, OK, let’s have some fun. We’re here in New York together. We’re on the greatest team that we possibly could play on. Let’s try to win instead of going separate ways. Because I remember them when they were young and they went to dinner together and they did everything together.”
“Hopefully, it will rub off on the team, guys will get more supportive of each other,” Strawberry said. “I think the Yankees’ problem is that they just don’t support each other enough. I mean, back when I played in those years we were winning, we all supported each other, we all cared for each other. I think they need to get back to that, because the talent is there, but everybody seems like they’re going their separate ways.”
You better think twice before throwing chemistry out the window…
Mark
Thought provoking post as evidenced by all the other posts both for and against. Not anything to alter the course of civilization as we know it but interesting nonetheless.
History/chemistry revisited:
I was at a game in Baltimore when Reggie came back to town as a Yankee having played for the Orioles the previous year and someone had made the comment (Reggie??)that there wasn’t enough mustard in the world to cover him.
Naturally, the fans were on him from beginning to end throwing hot dogs and packets of mustard at him in right field throughout the game. Of course, this was the kind of attention that Reggie thrived on and he responded with a double and a home run to help the Yankees best Baltimore that evening.
On his way to the dugout at the end of the game he was weaving and ducking to avoid different things being thrown at him but when he got close to the dugout he was hit in the chest with a large balled up piece of tin-foil.
This was followed by a couple of fans climbing over the top of the stands onto the field at which point 3rd baseman Nettles grabs the first guy and gives him a hip flip to the ground landing him on his back with a thud. At that point the police were able to get control of the situation and bring things under control.
Was it chemistry that had Nettles linger longer till Reggie made it in?? Or just a more basic US vs THEM attitude??
I vote for the latter.
How would you describe the chemistry of the 1977-78 World Champion Yankees? Or the A’s of the early 70’s?
Chemistry means nothing - even in the workplace - when it comes down to being successful. You may enjoy the success more if you enjoy being with the people around you. But if you can’t perform because you don’t particularly like the people on your team, then you are not a professional, IMO.
Now lets take a look at basketball…In the words of Bill Simmons at ESPN.com
“Much has been made of the Boston Celtics team slogan — “Ubuntu,” an African word meaning unity — but you need to attend a Celtics game to understand why they’re on pace for 139 wins this season. In the layup lines, everyone is high-fiving and joshing. Before the opening tip, Posey greets each starter with a prolonged man-hug and inspirational words. The nightly sequence might hark back uncomfortably to Rocky and Apollo’s beach snuggle, but it works. During games, bench players stand and cheer as if they’re being coached by Mark Madsen. In garbage time, the starters root just as passionately for the scrubs.
These guys eat dinner, hang out, work out and play video games together. They don’t care about stats, acclaim, shots or minutes. It’s a team in every sense. Even better, Boston’s future is protected for years to come: Allen’s contract expires in 2010, Pierce’s in 2011, KG’s in 2012. The Celtics are good, and they will continue to be good. What more can you ask for? When you can mix talent with chemacterility, you have something substantial.”
and Bill Belichick would say….
”A guy who comes in and wants his name on a scoreboard that says, ‘Joe Blow, No. 28,’ is probably not going to be a New England Patriot,”
Belichick said. ”A guy who wants to play for a team and not worry about being a star is likely to be one.”
And Kansas football coach Mark Mangino would say…
“If you just recruit talented kids and you don’t look at the intangibles, those kids aren’t always the guys that help you win and they aren’t always the best team chemistry guys,” Mangino said. “I think we’ve been successful for the most part in the last few years here recruiting kids that some have great talent and some who are overachievers or hard-working kids that have those intangibles.”
Whatever recruiting tactics Mangino has relied upon since arriving at Kansas in 2002 have worked wonders. The coach has elevated Kansas football from the bottom of the Big 12 standings to the top ten in the BCS rankings with players who are out to prove talent evaluators and opposing coaches wrong each week.
Welcome Mark and nice job on your topic.
Having worked at a job where I wasn’t comfortable with my coworkers I can see your point. I now work at a job where I enjoy my co-workers. I can’t honestly say I was more productive in either situation,but I sure do enjoy going to work now.
What I am sure of,is that when things don’t work out with a work project, it’s a lot easier to deal with in my more positive environment. And I’m not so sure that’s a good thing.Maybe I’m wrong. Boston seems to have better team chemistry and bounced back from missing the playoffs to winning the World Series.
But overall I tend to agree with Joe Torre. Winning breeds success and success makes everyone happier.
I just thank the posting gods that we don’t have to wade through “she’s hot” posts to get to a real discussion.
I am praying the next guest blogger will be better than these last 2. There is nothing new that we learned and the both did not provoke any thoughtful discussions.
Phil,
Agreed. I thought yesterday was downright embarrassing and no fault of YankeesChick.
And thanks to the BronxZoo for providing this:
http://thebronxzoo.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/when-a-rod-left-he-took-melky-with-him/
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY THE YANKEES NEEDING CHEMISTRY
The joy of Alex Rodriguez is impossible to miss. He laughs with Jeter in the dugout. He laughs when Robinson Cano and Melky Cabrera sandwich him with their own post-home run dance… Cabrera and Cano deserve a lot of credit for bringing out A-Rod’s exuberance. The three, often heard chattering in Spanish, have become good friends. “I love them. They’re amazing,” Rodriguez said. “They both lighten me up and I need that. I can be too tight. Leche [Cabrera’s nickname] is a riot.”
Chemistry is a myth that fans and writers created.
If anyone is qualified to speak out on whether chemistry exists and influences baseball games, it’s Torre. Torre’s defining characteristic as Yankee manger was his ability to project a sense of calm upon the team. How many times has Pete praised Torre for managing his players’ egos?
Given his reputation as a keeper of harmony in the clubhouse, Torre could have given himself credit by saying that winning is a byproduct of chemistry. Instead he said the exact opposite. His statement should close the book on this tired issue. Instead, we get this post arguing that Torre did not know what he was saying.
Strawberry’s comments are absurd. How can Jeter and ARod’s relationship be a problem for them when Jeter and ARod were among the league’s best players in 2006 and 2007? How did the players’ attitudes affect the 2007 ALCS, which we lost because Wang had two horrendous starts and Torre didn’t get his team off the field during an insect swarm? How does Strawberry know what’s going on in the Yankees’ clubhouse - does he still talk to the players?
Mark, I appreciate your efforts, but this is a facile argument. You provide no support for an attempt to contradict a quote from one of the best-qualified people to speak on this issue, save a statement from Darryl freaking Strawberry, who may be the least-qualified person. The Indians won because of chemistry? Please. Have you ever heard of C.C. Sabathia and Fausto Carmona?
And while I would like to imagine that my job experience is somewhat similar to that of a major league baseball player, there are a few differences here and there, including the fact that a major league baseball player can sign a contract worth millions of dollars if he plays well for a few years. That alone should be incentive to play as well as you can even if you can’t stand your teammates and are on a last-place team.
Last time I checked, we weren’t trying to solve the world’s problems here, just shooting the breeze about baseball.
We’re the opposite of Congress,where they’re job is to focus on more thought provoking themes and leave baseball as a hobby.
Interesting article Mark, and many good points made throughout.
My feeling is, enthusiasm breeds chemistry and youth breeds enthusiasm.
I remember the days when a clutch base hit in a big game would bring Jeets, Posada, and a host of others to the top step fists pumping and voices screaming.
Refreshing to see Melky, Duncan et al doint the same last year.
Mark -
I have to comment on the Strawberry quote. First, he was not in that clubhouse, so how could he possibly know what exactly was going on? Strawberry spoke out of turn as far as I’m concerned.
Second, you need only to watch the games to see that at least on the field, where arguably it counts the most, Jeter and Rodriguez support each other. Unless my eyes deceived me, I did observe the two of the laughing and patting each other on the back. Do I care if that extends past the game? Not really.
Third, you contradicted yourself a couple of posts later by pointing out the same thing I said above regarding Jeter and Rodriguez, plus, relating how the Melky/Robby/ARod dynamic is such a positive both for the team and for the individual players involved.
“We’re the opposite of Congress,where they’re job is to focus on more thought provoking themes and leave baseball as a hobby.”
too bad they wouldn’t keep their focus off baseball. i’m hoping one of the players has the baseballs to ask a know -it- all -holier than thou congressional inquisitor when congress is going to have drug tests since they vote and make decisions on things that involve life and death.
the pettitte/ clemens peronal chemistry as friends may be severely tested when they appear before congress. pettitte comes off as a “i can not tell a lie ” kind of person. as i learned in philosophy 101 telling the truth isn’t always the right think to do.
That Strawberry quote is hogwash. I love ol’ Straw but what does he know about the inner workings of the Yankee clubhouse?
Darryl Stawberry’s most famous quote came when he appeared before the judge on drug charges for the umpteenth time:
“You honor, my brain… it is broken…my brain is broken ,your honor.”
bashing congress, what a novel idea! i think ben franklin invented it!
let me point out a few things:
Baseball operates with an anti-trust exemption granted by congress
Baseball is supposed to be a sport (which implies a fair game) and the american people spend MILLIONS of dollars to watch it on tv and in person
American cities and states (some of them desperately cash starved) have spent BILLIONS of dollars building stadiums for baseball teams (yes INCLUDING THE YANKEES AND METS)
making clemens, pettite and mcNamee answer questions under oath and threat of perjury in public may well produce some solid answers about what happened.
Congress doesnt spend all day deciding what to do in iraq or iran (watch CSpan and tell me if the clemens issue rates above naming a bridge in arkansas)
congress deserves alot of the hate it gets
but you cant argue that they have no interest in whats going on in baseball
Plain and simple, winning breeds confidence and consequently the chemistry factor sets in along with some swagger.
Mark, good job in getting the discussion and thoughts flowing. I might not agree with your conclusion, but enjoyed the post nonetheless.
Jesse (9:34)- you’re absolutely right - from what I’ve heard Nettles was not a great chum of Reggie. It was US vs. THEM.
56 Bomber (9:34) - Good point about the A’s of the early Seventies and the Yanks of 77 -78. Talent led the way in both cases, however I also wonder if the conflicts that existed between players on those teams didn’t push them to excel as a kind of internal competition. I’m not saying that teams should look to create conflict, but I do wonder if, in special circumstances, that kind of situation doesn’t help to create another kind of winning, above and beyond what a relatively laid back team would have. Well the latter, of course, would be the worse kind of team atmosphere.
I just think that when athletes push one another - whether friendly or not - that the end result is going to be a little better. But the talent has to be there to begin with.
Good job pinch hitting, Mark!
A parallel to what you are trying to say might be this:
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from poor judgment.
Since these things are so interrelated, it is more a circle than one coming from the other.
Bob
Not to change the topic, but this Congressional hearing is nothing more than a meeting of good old boys making sure one of their own (Mitchell)doesnt look bad.
Yes, steroids are an important topic. But to think the main topic of conversation coming out of Washington for 2 full days will be about baseball is absurd. Heaven forbid a national crisis occurs (not that the war, etc doesn’t qualify as far as I’m concerned),but if something big did happen they would cancel this hearing in a heartbeat. Why would they cancel it? Because at this point in time it is frivolous.Also, Mitchell clearly had a conflict of interest as a paid employee of the Red Sox.All this hearing does is make that matter worse.
Clemens, McKnamee and Selig all need to give sworn testimony. They should give it in a court of law with severe penalties for perjury.
Take this hearing out of the hands of a bunch of grandstanding politicians and put in in front of a judge,where it belongs.
Could someone please post a list of the best friends and biggest enemys on all the players on yankees team. Does anyone know who likes and who hates who? Thanks
drive
do u think some judge can just decide to call selig clemens and mcnamee into his courtroom and compel testimony because he wants to?
you also seem to be under the impression that mitchell will be on the house panel
(he is a retired senator)
these peole have profitted greatly from what congress and the public have given them and baseball should be willing to show up and testify any time they are asked, since the seemingly never stop asking for more funds for stadiums, etc.
Excellent post.
You have to love the guy that asks “did you play baseball past little league?” This is the same guy that follows Tiger Woods around the Masters with his own set of golf spikes on.
This has nothing to do with years of experience in baseball, it is a very simple concept.
Even though, these athletes are all at the pinnacle of their profession - chemistry, or as I like to call it, getting along with your co-workers is a huge aspect of any office or team. This is the reason that offices spend hundreds of million dollars on team building exercises in this country every year.
Yes, occasionally a guy will come along, think Tom Brady, Michael Jordan, or Wayne Gretzky and be so good at what he does that chemistry will not matter, but in my opinion, this is the exception to the rule.
I believe that the Yankees chemistry this year will be much better and that this should result in a more successful 2008 season.
Mike-
It is not the point of the article to examine friendships. More or less it was to reflect on the new attitude that the Yankees have seemed to adopt in a different way. From what I can see they will no longer be falling into the trap of overpaid, underachieving players (NO ONE IN SPECIFIC).
I am not blaming Torre or anyone for anything, Torres quote was just used as a jumping off point to start the discussion.
Thank you to everyone who read my post. Whether you agree or disagree is not the point. The point is you took the time to read it. Thank you!!!
paulie,
I’m not under the impression Mitchell will be on the panel. Mitchell WILL be appearing on Jan 15,where he will be given his pat on the back from the good old boys and not asked why his report is incomplete.
to me, the question of chemistry comes down to one simple question: how, physiologically, does enjoying your teammates help a hitter hit a baseball better than they otherwise would have? does a good clubhouse atmosphere improve strength? or vision? or hand-eye coordination? clearly not.
drive,
say what you want but the last hearing about steroids exposed mcguire for what he is
good ole boys or not, at some point, rocket is going to be asked under oath and threat of perjury whether he took steroids or hgh, and he’s going to have to answer. same for mcnamee. this is going to give us alot more insight than a 60 minutes interview, and could stand as the basis for bringing one of them into court under a perjury charge, which is what you said you’d like to see
Hey where is the picture?
You had one up for the men, now how about one for the women.
paulie,
I think there is enough evidence already for defamation charges against Clemens or vice versa. Either one could clear their name right now if they wanted to. It would save the taxpayers a lot of money and force Congress to keep their focus where it belongs. Any congressional hearing is going to focus mainly on the players.
The players are certainly culpable. But if you own a business and knowingly hire drug addicts,who is to blame when things get out of control?
So why wasn’t Justice called. He flat out denyed he used roids. And why are they calling Andy? Are they looking to speak to Roger and have him deny, than ask Andy if what Roger is saying is the truth?
I posted this in another blog entry but haven’t seen or read it anywhere else.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2008/01/05/2008-01-05_jose_cansecos_sequel_not_as_juiced.html
Canseco basically doesn’t have the goods on Alex that he says he has.
Re: the Cleveland Indians in the 2007 post season? They were leading the Red Sox 3 games to 1. Word likely leaked out of what was the bombshell of the deciding Game 7, ie, ESPN employees published Paul Byrd’s drug use in the SF Chronicle. The team was swamped by reporters and meetings. This miraculously timed revelation of course had a great impact on the Indians, but has been forgotten even by Yankee fans. The ‘revelation’ came out just a few days too late….to help the Yankees.
I think all teams have a certain clubhouse chemistry to start with. How they deal with times of adversity will either strengthen it or break it. The breaking point usually comes down to whether individuals feel their contributions, no matter how big or small, is valuable.
For all the weaknesses some of you feel Torre had, he was great at making players feel valued. Anyone who watched even one of his post game press conferences would see how he would mention the walk before a homerun or the middle reliever who got one out as being “huge”. If each individual player feels valued for there contribution, they are less likely to interfere with the unity of the team.
I disagree with Strawberry regarding Jeter and A-Rod’s relationship. If they have personal issues that can’t be mended that’s fine as long as they leave it outside the clubhouse door and other players don’t feel pressured to choose sides.
It was reported that Andy Pettitte in spring training made an effort to spend time with Pavano. I remember thinking that Pettitte did alot for the team with that small gesture. He was basically saying to the other guys that he wasn’t going to let their opinions get in the way of what was in the best interest of helping Pavano feel included. I thought the same thing when I saw some of the young guys start to develop a relationship last year with A-Rod.
Susan I didn’t forget that, and I hope congress didn’t either. That should be one of the questions to Mitchell.
Here’s what I know. I was on several really successfull baseball teams in college. And, I have to say, the best team of those was the one that had the best chemistry. Guys loved hanging out together. There was no infighting in the dugout. No one moped when they weren’t playing. This team ended up finishing fourth in the nation. I feel that there were two other teams that had just as much talent as this team (if not more in one case), but neither of these teams were as successful as the team that had great chemistry. I’d say it’s because they didn’t have the same chemistry. There was quite a bit of dissent in the dugouts during games on these teams. Guys moping because they weren’t playing. A lot of questioning of the coach, etc. After these observations, I’d say that chemistry alone will not beget winning (you need talent!). However, I feel that good team chemistry is something that will take that talented team to the next level. The final cherry on top if you will.
I don’t think the ‘Chemistry’ question is Either/Or, but some of both. Certrainly it’s nicer to like/enjoy your teammates then not. But does it create winning? No. Not to any great degree. Let’s say that having ‘friendship chemistry’ is light Pink. It’s nice. It’s better then dull white. But winning itself is the goal, and winning is HOT RED.
Playing on a team in MLB is a little diferent then most of us have at our workplace. These players are VERY driven to win. Trying to win is actually the job.
Lets say you were offered a BIG BIG raise and promotion if your ‘team’ at work was able to accomplish a certain task/goal (win). Who do you want on your team. Your best friend who doesn’t happen to be able to contribute much to your team’s goal, or someone you don’t really like, but who is able to contribute a lot to your team’s goal?
If your best friend can’t contribute (strikes out with the bases loaded) to something you really want, for the moment you will like him a little less. If the guy you don’t like contributes (hits a grand slam), you will like him a lot more.
Reaching your goal (winning) has an energy/synergy of it’s own. When people around you contribute to the goal, you have positive feelings about them. So if you want to win, having a non-likable ARod type is a lot better then having a likable Juan Pierre type.
So it’s not one or the other, but both, that contribute. However, the winning itself contributes a LOT, LOT more then friendship does to team chemistry, because winning is the goal, and reaching the goal energizes you much more then a ‘friendly environment’.
If Jeter and ARod could TRULY straigthen out there stuff, that would be good and ‘help’ the team chemistry. But irregardless, if they both produce big years and help win, that will create a LOT more ‘chemistry’.
Good choice of topics, Mark.
murphy beat me to the punch with the “chicken and egg” reference, which is exactly what I was thinking about while I was reading the blog post. I think that chemistry and winning are components of an interchangeable equation. They can be equally caustic, but there are other factors that invariably complete the equation.
For example, take your own choice of career. If you’ve been having a rough patch at work, it’s natural to go through a feeling of being unmotivated. Remember the Dunkin’ Domuts commercial? The guy gets up at the crack of dawn muttering “gotta make the donuts….”. You start going through the motions without any fire. At that point, your mode of earning income has been reduced to simply “going to work”.
Now you’re in a rut (or a slump, in baseball). How do you get out of it? You can’t just sit back and wait for the next big “victory” to pull you out of it, because waiting for it to come along is akin to hoping to hit the lottery - a reward without an effort to earn it. A big win is going to help you, but there’s still more work to be done after that.
So the next variable in this equation is going to be resiliency. You have to be able to bounce back when the chips are down and focus on your task at hand, whether that’s finding the gap to spray a line drive through or wading through a particular client contract or project that’s not really that exciting to you.
If a coworker in your office is just “phoning it in”, so to speak - what happens? More often than not, they are not only putting their job status on thin ice in their supervisor’s eyes, they are likely to lose their task to someone else who seems to be more up to the challenge (”clutch”, maybe?). I’m sure you can see all the parallels to the game of baseball unfolding here.
So how do you keep that edge? How do you manage to be resilient and push forward when the reward seems to be outside your grasp? That’s where the aforementioned motivation comes into play. In the office world, you know could either achieve a goal that earns you a bonus or you can slack and risk losing your job. As a “team”, you and your coworkers can either complete a project and satisfy a client’s needs or have it end up in the scrap heap while your competition wins the favor of your client. In baseball, the parallel is that you are either picking up a game in the standings or losing one, all in the pursuit of your final goal - a championship (the bonus). Needless to say, you either have to keep yourself motivated or have a leader (boss or team manager) who does it for you.
I think that winning makes it easier to develop chemistry. Everybody is happier when things are going well, and therefore they work together easily. But if things are down, then people can start throwing blame around, thereby disrupting chemistry. On the flip side, when you are winning, you start to take things for granted and coast along - sometimes forgetting what it is you are trying to achieve. You could make the argument that this has been part of the Yankees’ problems the last few postseasons - they’ve become so accustomed to winning that they forget you still have to work hard.
I’ll stop rambling now. But my point is that while winning and chemistry go hand in hand, they rely on a number of other factors at any given time.
very thoughtful post mark; good job.
Interesting post Mark but I disagree with pretty much everything you say. Also, it only hurts your credibility when you quote Daryl Strawberry. Regardless, an interesting entry.
Nice job Mike, I liked your post!!
I really hope they dont trade the Melk Man or the other young guys who have great talent. Who knows how good they could be for years to come and how many World Series titles they could lead us to?? I have a feeling its for many years in a row!!
There have been plenty of great teams that didn’t have chemistry. The guys on the early 1970’s A’s hated each other but they won 3 championships. The Red Sox get all this publiciity for having chemistry, but they win because they have good baseball players, not because they get along with each other. Sure, it’s nice to have a group of players who like each other (it may create 1-2) more wins per season, but does it really matter if Cano and Jeter are buddies? Does it help them turn a double play? If the team wins, there’s always going to be a certain amount of chemistry. Winning just puts everyone in a better mood.
check out this article on Travis Fryman…http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071219&content_id=2333710&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
“That would be what I am most proud of in my career,” Fryman said, “not what I ever did between the chalk lines, but the changes that took place in my life, to the point that I began to care for the men that I played with and try to contribute to their success in life and their careers. Some of those relationships continue even through today.
“When you look back, it is about relationships. For me, those relationships were the most important thing. As athletes, we’re limited by what God has given us. It’s our responsibility to get the most out of that.”
I can only wish if the Yankees allow carl pavano to stay on the roster for insurance purposes,that his name is never mentioned again in connection with the yankees.He should be considered, never happened,doesn’t exist period.He’s milked the yankees for too long.
wow i ment nice post Mark…opps,my bad.
I had too much sleep!! haha
Nice job, Mark!
Nice job Mark. Go get yourself a Myles Pizza and a beer…you deserve it.
Where’s his picture?
Wow. Myles pizza and a beer. AMAZING!!! Such a small world….
LOL…thought that might suprise you a bit. My son used to live on the corner of Wooster and Baldwin.
I’ve never seen friendship win a baseball game.