SB Nation User Blog: dyspeptic

What is Chemistry?

dyspeptic — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:18:11 -0000

Besides something I got a D in.

We started this last year and then I dropped the ball in my championship euphoria. I think it is an oft-bandied about phrase that, if we are going to discuss its existence and value we need to define more clearly. Here is the link from last years discussion and my hijack of Brent Brookhouses post from yesterday. http://www.southsidesox.com/story/2005/10/29/14348/823

Sorry for the delay Chemistry - The composition, structure, properties, and reactions of a substance. Chemistry has an important role from a few standpoints. I'm very much old school in my approach to the game and I'm sure that bothers a lot of people, just like pure stat guys bother me. Thats why I enjoy this site, its a healthy blend between the two. Back to the subject though. Basic human nature (within all jobs not just baseball) says that someone comfortable with their surroundings and happy with their situation is able to do their job better. For example, if you work with a group of jerks who don't listen to your ideas or make you uncomfortable in your office you are less likely to be productive than if you work with a group of people who work well together and encourage your input. Now imagine that your job requires you to travel with a group of people you hate for 75% of the year. You're going to have trouble focusing and will most likely not function at your highest potential. If the hardest job to do in sports is hit a baseball, anything that is negetively affecting your ability to focus on that task is a bad thing. I'm not saying that freakish talent can't overcome poor team chemistry in some cases, but I refuse to accept the notion that it plays no impact in the success of a team. From a sheer numbers standpoint the Sox had no business winning the world series last year. You can not say that they just got "hot" at the right time, because they were the best team in the AL all season. Was all season the 'right time?' I think that chemistry played a role in it both with the attitude of the players as well as the composition of the team. Having the correct and necessary parts (i.e. a leadoff hitter getting on base, solid defensive players) is also a part of chemistry. it isn't just player attitude, it is team composition. AIM: BrentBrookhouse by brentbrookhouse on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 08:59:38 AM CST

Chemistry set

dyspeptic — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 05:43:48 -0000

I would like to start a general discussion on team chemistry or the importance of the clubhouse. As I mentioned before Jimmy Piersall, gold glover, nut job and member of the finest broadcasting duo I've ever heard, is a baseball traditionalist but believes chemistry is bs. However most baseball insiders treat clubhouse chemistry as one of the keys to winning baseball. At the same time, they do not consistently describe what the attributes of good team chemistry are, let alone show ways it can be measured or predictive. I would like to start with a possible area of description, that of selfishness and how that might translate into bad team performance and therefore contributing to bad chemistry.

Pitching is by nature a selfish activity so my thoughts are going to be on base running, fielding and hitting. Base running selfishness is pretty rare. There was a contest between Maglio Ordonez and Carlos Lee in 2001 which led to Lee being thrown 8 times in 17 attempts before it was stopped. There are guys who try to steal bases when they shouldn't but usually only base stealers have a green light all the time anyway. There are surely some guys who try to stretch hits into something better, but it's hard to say what is selfishness and what is simply bad judgement. Base running productivity is not hugely impacted by selfish play.

Selfishness in fielding can also be misinterpreted as bad judgement though I see a lot more of it. It comes in the form of the diving catch and the big throw. There are techniques for catching a ball in a sliding manner which if done right can increase the chance of catching a sinking hit while minimizing the possibility of the ball getting past. Most players have had this technique taught to them in college and/or the minor leagues. Most leaguers have a pretty good idea of where and when to hit the cut-off man. Yet anybody who watched Sammy Sosa for several years (and his bookend Moises) has seen the basic practice disregarded time and again and often in crucial situations. These plays/decisions make it more likely your team will lose. Why?

Boo Yaa.

As much as we like to believe and players like to pretend that there is some kind of chinese wall between the game and the media, ball players are people too. They have egos and some have difficulty sublimating them. It can become acceptable when playing on teams that are out of a race or play with big leads or deficits and often become habit. It's fun to be on the big show at night, where your buddies around the league can see what you did. Highlights at 10 and the BooYaa network will never show a perfectly hit cut off man or a controlled sliding catch but will show
the man gunned down from left field or the diving catch in the gap. It's a way to be recognized.

This segues into hitting well. The home run is shown often on the highlight shows and the single is on rarely. They have a recap of home runs every night. Hitting HRs gets you on TV. It also gets you money. Teams still pay for power. (While there may also be a macho part of this I'm not sure it is significant.)

Home Run hitting has become more important and not striking out has become less so. As impressive as the increase in power numbers were in the 90's, steroids or no, strike outs had an even steeper trajectory. It is as if the wave of acceptable striking out overwhelmed any resistance. Swinging for the fences was once a fairly rare occurence. Home runs were usually residual, part of good hitting. There are guys (Carl?) who have at bats when all they are doing is swinging for home runs.

To swing for home runs will lessen a hitters chance for a productive at bat.The change in the swing is more likely to produce fly out, pop outs and strike outs. It is preferrable to increase that likelihood of a productive at bat. When there are runners on base it may be better to try to hit the ball hard in play than swing for a home run. Because home runs are residual they will come some of the time. But players are more likely to have a positive impact for the team if they take a controlled approach. And of course generally more balls that are in play lead to more potential hits and errors.

There are other areas which probably end up being as symbolic as they are truly productive such as sacrifice flys, trying to hit behind the runner and swinging at a pitch during a stolen base attempt. Finally the 'non-rational' giving up of at bats (bunts and such) may serve a purpose of creating a submission to the team, butI don't want to go all Shinto on you.

Players are more selfish today (now I really sound like an old bastard) because there are fewer consequences for selfish play. Free agency and general player mobility have made it that way. Plus player behavior can be situational. A guy on a team that is 30 games out has only stats and highlight reels to play for. The question for a GM is whether he sees a permanent condition or situational ethics.

The old saying is that a winning clubhouse is a happy clubhouse, but there may be a reinforcing mechanism to that. If players see tangible benefits from sacrificing, figuratively, for the team, they are more likely to do the "right" things to help a team win. There are surely guys who don't get this regardless of the situation. I think Sammy was that way: winning was fine as long as it contributed to his mojo. I think that if there are enough guys who get it it improves the chance of winning. Some might call it good management, others a good clubhouse.

How much? I have no idea, but I have a wild-ass guess on one way to quantify it. Compare strike outs as a ratio to productive at bats (OBP?) +Sacflys and maybe Bunts, cause it's the thought that counts.

what were you right/wrong about?

dyspeptic — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 05:04:40 -0000

It's very pleasurable to look back at this season now that is a (almost complete) success. I probably spent more time on this team since any since I was a kid, thanks to being self-employed. And as much as I hoped and revel in the season and the playoffs, it's funny how different your perceptions were about 6 months ago

I thought the bullpen would be good but for me the starters were shaky. I though the team woudl hit for a high average but would lack power. I thought getting rid of Lee was a good idea but Mags was not. I wasn't sure if Aaron Rowand wasn't a fluke and that Podsednik should play center (yikes). I thought that Pierzynski was a good move. I thought the team had a chance to win 90 games if everything went right.

Anybody else?

Buerhle number 4 in playoff rotation?

dyspeptic — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:17:53 -0000

I've been meaning to work up a thread regarding Buerhle being one of the starting pitchers for the playoffs. Ever since last September when he lost 2 must win games against the Twins I've been dubious of his ability as a big game pitcher. Since then I have refined my opinion to state that he does not fare well against the better teams. And while at some statistical level that may seem like an oxymoron, the fact is he pitches much worse against good teams and consistently loses and much better against poorer teams and usually wins. Let's look at this year.

Wins: these are all "quality starts" only once did he give up 4 ERs and get the win.
*    Bad teams: Seattle (2) Detroit (2) KC (3) Baltimore (2) Twins since they've thrown in the towel (2)
*    Mediocre Teams: Toronto, Dodgers
*    Good teams (at least hitting wise) Texas (a great game)
*    That leaves 2 wins against Cleveland early in the year before they got hot.

I can argue that he has one ace quality win this year.

Losses: With the exception of an Oakland loss where he gave up 2 earned runs (but 5 total), none of these is a quality start with fewer than 4 runs allowed
*    Bad Teams: KC (2) Minnesota (on 9-25)
*    Mediocre teams: Minnesota (on 8-17)
*    Good teams: Oakland (2) Boston, Texas.

Zero ace like starts.

Non-Decisions:
*    Mediocre team, good start - San Diego (no runs)
*    Good teams, good start (runs allowed in parenthesis) LAA (1), Cleveland early (3)
*    Good teams, bad start (runs allowed in parenthesis) Oakland (7), LAA (4) Boston (5), Cleveland (4) LAA (5)

2 ace like starts

There are reasons Buehrle is successful. He throws strikes, has good command, is a lefty, fields his position very well and he keeps hitters off balance by working quickly. This will make him effective against many hitters. It doesn't make him effective against the best teams, which in the American League have more good hitters, because he these qualities are insufficient. You need great stuff to get great hitters out

Mark Buehrle is not an ace. He was the best pitcher on a mediocre staff for 3 years. He is a number two or three starter. In this staff, right now he is number 3 behind Contreras and Garland. However, depending on his next start, McCarthy may be too hot to sit, which puts him at number four for the playoffs.

New thread on how Joe Crede sucks

dyspeptic — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:40:08 -0000

Well.... I'm waiting - Judge Smails

///////////////////
//////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////// ////
******************
******************
*****************
****************
***************

Marte isn't the problem

dyspeptic — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:23:52 -0000

"When Marte reportedly scheduled not one, but two appointments with independent doctors, general manager Ken Williams, according to one source, was furious. Williams, who is not on this trip, did not return phone calls Tuesday.

Getting on the wrong side of Guillen and Williams, especially the latter, usually is not good for a player seeking longevity with the White Sox"

Why would someone in management be furious by such an action? Even if it is against policy or procedure why become furious? If this is what sets Kenny off he needs to get a better handle on his emotions. But we've seen him operate like this before.

Anyone who manages an organization like this is bound to make irrational, counter-prdouctive decisions. Playing the 'on my good side, on my bad side' game is childish. This organization will be constrained as long the General Manger is ruled by his emotions

It's okay to breath again

dyspeptic — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 04:32:45 -0000

This was supposed to be the acid test for the Sox. 15 games in a row with the two best east teams and their no.1 nemesis. How'd they do? They were banged up and got worse. The bullpen fell apart a couple times after being almost flawless. They got a couple of bad calls that hurt in close games. Buerhle went into a slump. They had their first real losing streak of the season. They lost 9 of 14 (one rain out)

But...

They won three of the last four. They really weren't blown out at any time; they lost by more than three only twice. The starting pitching is for real. The bullpen was due for a slump and will be fine. They will get healthier. (I'm even hopeful they'll stop over-swinging when Podsednik returns.) They are 8 games up.

They play 3 games with the Angels and a three game set with Cle in the third week of Sept. Other than that, the sked is full of teams that are bad and are or will be out of it. They have 14 games with Detroit and KC in Sept!!!!! They will make the playoffs and compete.

I'm still not crazy about the offense for the playoffs, but this pitching they will have a chance in every game. (Maybe Juan Uribe will go crazy; it could happen). I'll go back to being a pessimist tomorrow but really things are fine.

Griffey v.24 or the thing that would not die

dyspeptic — Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:11:11 -0000

From the Sun TImes

"According to a source, New York Yankees general manager Brian Cashman has said his team would not put in a claim for Griffey if the Cincinnati Reds put him through the waivers process. The Yankees, who are in dire need of a center fielder, are the only playoff-caliber team that would seem to have the financial backing to stand behind a Griffey claim if the Reds decide they are willing to turn over the slugger and his hefty contract."

This smells fishy. Why wouldn't the Yankees do it? They need Griffey more tha the Sox.

12 pitchers

dyspeptic — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 04:30:14 -0000

I suppose if you stare at anything long enough you begin to discern a pattern...

I think what Ozzie/Kenny are trying to do with 12 pitchers is to cut back the on the work generally in the bullpen. Several of these guys are already approaching their career highs in appearances and I think they feel that if there are blow outs, Jenks and Adkins can pick up the innings and rest Cotts, Marte and the newly effective (!!!?) Vizcaino. These are the guys they'll need in the playoffs.

This gets blown to hell in a series like the one w/ the Yankees. I hope they win two close ones in Boston and then have a blow out either way in the other game

Plus keeping Gload in the minors keeps him playing (hitting) everyday, whereas his at bats would be limited if they brought him up.

Or not.