On Feb 10, 11:40=A0am, snapp44 <snapp44_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
<c91e461f-f289-4ce2-b5a0-29080e571...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> McBain says...
>
> >On Feb 10, 4:50=3DA0am, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> tell ya what; I lost interest as soon as I saw that line in the "bio"
a=
bou=3D
> >t
> >> believeing that team chemistry being a myth...
> >> yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >Well, given a choice between a team with lots of talent or lots of
> >chemistry, I'll take talent.
>
> >If you can get both, thats fine. =A0But I've never seen friend****p win
a
> >baseball game. =A0How does the second baseman liking the right fielder
> >make them physically better players?
>
> As in any workplace environment, performance can be effected
> by the comfortability factor and external pressure. (Rasheed
> Wallace playing in ****tland - No Chemistry/Rasheed Wallace
> playing in Detroit - Chemistry and Champion****p).
>
Do you think ****tland was as good as those Detroit teams?
I understand there is a psychological aspect to the game. I also
understand that there have been teams that hated each other and have
been very successful. A look at baseball in the seventies is a good
place to start.
Chemistry is heralded when a team wins and missed when a team loses.
Good chemistry is rarely cited on a bad team unless that team appears
to be playing over their heads. Then its the chemistry that has made
them good, as if this ability didn't exist in the players before they
all landed on the same team.
Its easy to blame lack of chemistry when a team does poorly because
they look and speak poorly when they're not playing well. Baseball
writers use it all the time because you can't say a team stinks every
day. That gets boring and doesn't sell papers.
Success breeds chemistry and lack of success breeds bad chemistry.
You can certainly have some bad apples in the bunch and that can cause
some problems. But the talent usually overcomes it.
|
