Friday Stream: Does Winning Create Chemistry, or Vice Versa?

[Seth Stohs]

In the late innings of Thursday afternoon's Twins win over the Tigers to complete their sweep of a homestand, Justin Morneau posed a question that comes up from time to time. It comes up when a team is doing well and is questioned if teams are playing poorly. Does winning create chemistry, or does chemistry come with wins?

Many articles that you read here at Twins Daily or other sports or news sites may use data or reasoning to push a reader toward an opinion. Sometimes it's as black and white as right or wrong. Other times, statistics or scenarios can push a narrative. That isn't what this article is going to be. 

Frankly, I don't know what this article is going to be. I haven't written a Stream of Consciousness article for quite some time. While trying to organize my thoughts, I realized that there are many angles and factors to be considered. So, let's see where this takes us. 

Does team chemistry help with Winning, or does it take Winning to create team chemistry? 

I think looking at the 2022 Minnesota Twins can undoubtedly help the conversation, or it can just give more data points or concepts to consider. 

There is no doubt that the chemistry of this team was altered with all of the February and March transactions. Trading popular, positive team leaders like Mitch Garver and Taylor Rogers certainly affects chemistry. Trading Rogers literally on opening day and welcoming Chris Paddack and Emilio Pagan to the team the next day had to be jarring. 

On the other side of the equation, it's possible that team chemistry improved with a bit of Addition by Subtraction. It is clear (after the fact) that trading away Josh Donaldson was a positive for team chemistry. Still, Gio Urshela's struggles in 2021, and Gary Sanchez's unfortunate negative relationship with Yankees fans, could have made both players bitter. Instead, they have been happy, excited teammates since Day 1, and the change of scenery could be a blessing in disguise. 

Urshela has been competing against the Twins for many years, going back to his time in Cleveland. Gary Sanchez has been friends with Miguel Sano and Jorge Polanco for over a dozen years. 

As exciting as it is that the Twins signed Carlos Correa, it sure could have gone a number o ways. He could have come in and acted entitled. He could have been a prima donna. Instead, from Day 1, he has said all the right things. He hasn't tried to take over a leadership role, but his leadership qualities showed when he told everybody that this is Byron's (Buxton) team. Despite his slow start, it's clear that he is leading in the dugout. He has been a supportive teammate. He has taken the time to help and offer ideas to teammates. 

And Byron Buxton? There is a legitimate question of if he is the best player in baseball or at least the most talented player. He had every right to be upset at the Twins and this front office for their manipulation of his service time. He couldn't have handled it any better than he did, starting the following year.

And last year, amid rumors of broken contract talks and trade talk, Buxton made it clear that he wanted to stay with the Twins. And ultimately, that's what happened. He could have waited and become a free agent after this season. He likely could have doubled the guaranteed money he received from the Twins or another team. Instead, he took an offer that he could be happy with, his family and the Twins' front office should be thrilled with. Fans should be thrilled with the deal.

But, maybe more important, Buxton made playing in Minnesota a good thing. Signing him probably helped Carlos Correa's interest in the team. In coming offseasons, could his presence factor into decisions of other free agents, like it did when Kirby Puckett roams the outfield for the Twins? 

And how much fun is it to see him having a blast playing with this group? It's clear that he is everything you would want in a superstar, and seeing him smiling in the dugout, and joking with teammates, is encouraging. 

Sonny Gray came to the Twins in a trade, a veteran with a terrific track record over his career. We have frequently heard about how Gray has encouraged (if not made it mandatory) all of the starting pitchers to be there for each other's bullpen sessions. First, they can watch what the other pitchers are working on and how they work. Second, they can pass on information and learn from each other—veterans leading the way and veterans who seem to enjoy learning. 

Chris Archer was great with Tampa. However, once he was traded to the Pirates, he started fighting injuries and struggling on the mound. He talked to former teammates who played in Minnesota or for Baldelli and was told it's a great place.  Dylan Bundy has faced injuries throughout his decade in pro ball, and he's had some ups and some real lows. Aside from pitching well, these guys are leaders and articulate lessons well to teammates. 

You have heard consistently from all new players to the organization is the atmosphere facilitated by the front office, Rocco Baldelli, and his coaching staff. It is an atmosphere of professionalism and working on getting ready for every game and scenario. It's an atmosphere that will also treat them as men, with dignity and respect. Baldelli's leadership has created an environment of communication and makes sure players and their families are comfortable. 

These are things that I know some people will roll their eyes when they read it. I get that. No one wants to think that touchy-feely stuff affects adults. They are incredibly well-compensated adults playing a kids' game. I get it. We've all heard people say that.

Regardless of our job or our role in life, we all want to be respected. We all want to work in a comfortable environment, an environment where everyone feels heard, and increased compensation is available through hard work and challenging yourself. Maybe not everyone wants those things, but like the big leagues, those people are often weeded out. 

So, again, let's bring it back to this season. 

With a short spring training and new teammates coming in over that three-week period, it had to take time to get to know each other, much less develop chemistry on the field, in the clubhouse. Again, the roster moves continued right up until Opening Day. 

Should we be surprised that they struggled out of the gate? Should we be impressed that they only needed 12 games (4-8 start) to turn things around? With their seven-game win streak and sweeps of the White Sox and Tigers, the Twins are now 11-8 and sit atop the AL Central at this very early stage. 

 Players talk about the chemistry the team felt even through their early struggles. So, was it that Chemistry that allowed the Twins to start winning? Or was it the Winning (and a couple of wild wins) that made the chemistry stronger? 

How much does the front office affect team chemistry? Well, probably primarily by getting reports about players from people who have been their teammates or coaches, or even opponents (along with all of the statistical and analytical stuff). It seems that is part of the role of special advisors to Baseball Operations like Torii Hunter, Michael Cuddyer, LaTroy Hawkins, and Justin Morneau. Part of their job description, when hired, was that they could speak to this type of information on players they played with or against or use their relationships around the game to get information on the interpersonal skills of players the Twins might consider acquiring. But that can go both ways. Was Donaldson a detriment to team chemistry? What kind of atmosphere could devolve when popular teammates are traded right before a season starts? 

How much does the manager, Rocco Baldelli, deserve credit for the chemistry? This is where it's at. Since he was hired, he has set the atmosphere and the expectations. He has been a players' coach, but he's led the Twins through some challenging situations, from Covid to the riots in Minneapolis, to a labor lockout. He's hired coaches, with help from the front office obviously, who are good teachers, know their technical stuff, and listen. Proof of that is that several coaches from his staff have been hired away over the years. Finally, you probably would never hear a player badmouth his manager. Still, the sense is that there is genuine respect for Baldelli, his intelligence, his playing, scouting, coaching background, and more. With replay, there aren't as many opportunities for a manager to "back his players" by getting ejected with silly arguments with umps on close plays. 

So again, is it chemistry that helps a team relax and perform better and win... or does a team need to experience success (usually in Wins) for chemistry to develop better? 

And let's be honest. It's easy right now to tout the team's chemistry. They held on early and are currently pitching well and winning games. I'm sure that they will lose their ninth game of the year at some point. The winning streak will likely come to an end. And, like most other teams, the Twins will have a couple more rough patches throughout the season. They are likely to have another 4-8 stretch or two. That's part of the beauty of baseball. It's a marathon, filled with ups and downs. 

I think chemistry is essential in any part of life, especially in team sports. But it isn't everything. There have been teams that hated each other, got in fights with each other (think 1970s A's, or pretty much any Billy Martin-led team), and won. There have been teams that got along great, had great relationships, and lost a lot of games. And, of course, there are close teams with great chemistry that have won and bad chemistry teams that have lost. 

So, does that mean that chemistry has nothing to do with winning or losing? 

There are many examples of teams that won that hated each other. 

The questions for you to consider include: 
1.) What work atmosphere do you personally prefer in your life? 
2.) How does that compare to your thoughts on chemistry in professional (or any) sports?
3.) What are your thoughts on the team chemistry of the Twins this year, and where that credit lies? (Front office, manager, coaches, players)
4.) And what are your thoughts on the question: Does Winning create chemistry, or does team chemistry help a team Win?

Here are a few final thoughts - and if you've made it this far, thank you, or I'm sorry 

Ranking keys to success on a baseball team
#3 - Chemistry
#2 - Talent
#1 - Having Byron Buxton on your team and on the field.  

 

View full article

[In My La Z boy]

Good topic! In my mind, the importance of chemistry and culture goes directly to teamwork. To the extent that teamwork contributes to winning in baseball is subjective and directly relates to the on-field talent. A baseball team comprised of 9 all-stars that hated each other would beat a team of 9 nice young men in a playoff series who all loved each other and got along well no doubt. On the other hand, a team of 9 all-stars who hated each other would never beat a team of 9 all-stars in a playoff series who loved each other and got along well with each other. High talent + Chemistry = Victory.

[minman1982]

"Team chemistry" is one of those amorphous things that is really hard to pin down.  How do you know if a team has good chemistry or not?  Obviously, if you are winning games, a lot of the little issues in a clubhouse get ignored.  I may not like you very much but if you are going to help us win, I will put up with you and even pretend to be your friend.  Losing does the opposite.  It is easy on a losing team to blame others for your team's performance and try to find scapegoats for every situation. 

Since it is next to impossible to actually quantify "team chemistry" in any meaningful way, it is hard to answer the initial question.  My gut feeling is that it is a little of both, winning games contributes to better team chemistry and better team chemistry increases your odds of winning a game.  Basically, a positive feedback loop where one improves the other and vice versa.

[PatPfund]

1. Collegial supportive atmosphere that mixes individual effort fairly seamlessly with teamwork.

2. I grew up in a family with 8 kids, most of us playing various sports, several of us being coached at least a couple years by my Dad (in baseball). I don’t see a lot of separation here; I truly think one of the best lessons you can get from sports is how to work together for a common goal. It pays off outside the white lines, big time.

3. So far the chemistry looks good. Most of the imports are working toward bounce-back years, and most are doing that well and with smiles. Correa indicating he is interested in a long-term deal is a great early indicator. Chemistry is such that you can’t credit one area. The players have to be engaged (and Byron sets a great example), you have to have the right people (credit the front office there), and you have to have a supportive, respectful atmosphere with clear communication (and that is one of Rocco’s strengths). Things can turn, but good start!

4. I think chemistry exists outside of winning. Top of mind example would be the ‘80s Twins when a batch of young players came up together, and despite the beatings they took, hung together, and hung together, and then won a title in ’87. But just like in real chemistry, you can speed things up by adding the flame of winning, or potentially shatter them with the deep chill of being bad.

[Old fox]

Quote

 

Excellent article and philosophy. My life time of observations is they go hand in hand and are kind of like an electrical plug in. A one prong plug in doesn’t work a two prong plug will work but does have some possibilities of dangers but a three prong plug in works best in safety, efficiency and production of a good outcome. There are so many sub headings or traits  that also play into the situation such as respect, humbleness, types of leadership conduciveness, timeline order, honor, genuineness, nonjudgmental, adaptability, forgiveness & meeting the needs of the individual & team. I feel this ishappening now in 2022 to the Twins.

[RJA]

Wow, fascinating article.  I asked a very similar question in a sports management class I taught in college, and the responses were all over the board, but fascinating.

1.  When I worked (I'm retired), I preferred organizations with leaders that had a high level of emotional intelligence (there is a significant correlation between a high level of EI and success as a leader), as leaders with EI tend to value employees, listen to employees and do their best to create an organizational culture that encourages collaboration, risk taking, and a "we're in it together" sort of ethos.  I found I not only performed better in those organizations, but also had more fun and a better attitude.

2.  I think good team chemistry is another way of saying that a team has a positive organizational culture, one that values the things I noted above.  Like with non-sports organizations, having a good team chemistry does not guarantee success, but it definitely is a contributing factor to success.  Positive team chemistry will not produce a winning team if no talent is present, but it improves the chances that a good team talent wise will realize its potential.  Likwise, a bad team chemistry does not guarantee poor results, but it certainly contributes to team failures--the Vikings under Zimmer for example.

3.  I think the team chemistry, or organizational culture, of the Twins is very good this year.  As to who deserves the credit, all of the above.  Ultimately, while the FO needs to sign the right players (Correa and the players signed and traded for this year seem to be positive, but Donaldson, Lynn, Shoemaker, etc were not), it is the front line leader, Baldelli, that has to make it all work.  I think he does a really nice job of dealing with his players.  While I criticize some of his game management decisions, I think his players play hard for him, and he listens to them.  He has EI.  So do many of his players.  For example, for Correa to come in here heralded as the best shortstop on the planet only to say "this is Buck's team, not mine", and that "Buck is the best player in baseball" shows incredible EI.  He gets it.  And with those simple statements he removed any chance of people perceiving a rift between he and Buck.  He did it because he is smart and knows that it would immediately remove any conversation about who is "the" leader of the Twins.

4. Both.  Winning and good team chemistry feed into one another.  You can have one without the other (depending on talent levels), but you will be at your best when you have both.  As for the keys to success, if the Twins want to be at their best, they need all three--Buxton, talent, and chemistry.  They can be successful without chemistry, but not without Buxton and talent, so I would say chemistry is #3.  But, chemistry, IMHO, is worth a number of games every year.  Maybe somebody will develop a WAR number around chemistry ;).

Sorry for the long winded answer, but you did ask.

 

 

[wsnydes]

I think they go hand in hand.  And they both take time to consistent at.  And one will breed the other in the process.  In other team sports, great chemistry will often beat superior talent.

That said, I think that the only real answer is...

Yes.

[Harrison Greeley III]

I think the obvious premise with this subject is that stress and confidence are difficult ideas to quantify, but they are nonetheless real.

I define good chemistry as a framing for people to understand of a general good feeling of confidence and support among a group. Bad chemistry is a framing of a group going through a stressful time together, and support networks and trust are crumbling.

Both confidence and stress are contagious. Correa, for example, has remained confident throughout his slump. He has a belief he can and will make the necessary adjustments even though before yesterday he was really scuffling. If others are stressed out about their own issues, that example being set makes a difference. And on the contrary, a cornerstone player struggling and showing the stress is getting to him is going to rattle the confidence of others around him. 

I'm of the belief that post-analytics, the manager's 1st and most important job is to keep the vibe among the team confident, loose, and supportive of each other. Stress is to be acknowledged and managed, but it can't find its way into the way the team plays.

If you do any baseball task without confidence and/or stressed out, you will probably be far from your best. If you handled those tasks with a genuine belief of yourself and the people around you'll likely be closer to your best. 

[Dman]

I don't think chemistry trumps talent, but I think it does help create an atmosphere of confidence or safety for players.  I think what I mean by that is when a team has each others back or is there to lift one another up  players are more able to play loose.  By playing loose I mean not being afraid to fail or that a mistake will cause your teammates to think less of you etc.  I think it helps keeps negative energy out of ones mind and focuses a player more on playing for each other and lift your teammate up if some mistake or failure happened to them.

I think chemistry creates a family atmosphere where players can communicate without fear.  I also think that when you have good to great relationships it makes it fun to come to work and puts you in a good frame of mind to start.  If your mind is in a positive state it is easier to handle failure or adversity.

Bad chemistry when you are worried about any little thing you do or say blowing things up or any failure leaving you hanging out there on your own.  I think players play tight and negative thinking makes it harder to get back on track.

I think Rocco does a really good job with having players backs and making sure they are comfortable. I think the FO is good at accommodating player needs to the point of nap room for Cruz.  I think from the FO down there is the promotion of player safety and keeping players healthy and I think players appreciate that.  I am surprised about all the positive things players have said about playing in Minnesota so they must be doing something right.

Good team chemistry doesn't guarantee wins but it is nice to see as a fan and hearing the players rave about it shows that it means a lot to them as well.

[Doctor Gast]

IMO chemistry makes any team better. If you enjoy working with the other players and their's a spirit of mutual comradery, good things are bound to happen. One of the reasons I stated before on why we should sign Archer was his willingness to mentor players. Comradery is great to encourage each other to be better and feed off each other's successes.

[h2oface]

17 minutes ago, Doctor Gast said:

IMO chemistry makes any team better. If you enjoy working with the other players and their's a spirit of mutual comradery, good things are bound to happen. One of the reasons I stated before on why we should sign Archer was his willingness to mentor players. Comradery is great to encourage each other to be better and feed off each other's successes.

There have been some championship teams in more than one sport that didn't like each other much, and there have been teams that had great chemistry, but they still were horrible, but less horrible than they could have been because they had good chemistry. 

I also agree, that good chemistry, usually, makes any team better. It can also make a team that has far less talent be champions, and win over a team with far more talent and selfish, poor chemistry. As far as the OP question, "Does Winning Create Chemistry, or Vice Versa?" - it can be birthed/created from either direction.

[CRF]

Very interesting article. I don't think there is any definitive 100% correct answer to the question. It's probably some of both. Most likely many more factors too. Everyone likes to win and winning creates a good atmosphere in the clubhouse. Even if all of them in there can't get along and there is no "chemistry".  If everyone loves all their teammates, it makes for a good clubhouse, but not necessarily a good team. Talent, dedication, respect, and accountability are all important. A lot of us remember the old Oakland A's from the early 70's. By all accounts, most of them hated one another, but they were extremely talented and had a helluva team. How about the "We are Fam-A-Lee" Pirates in the 70's? Supposedly, they all loved one another They had great teams. There are plenty of examples of similar teams, that went both ways. My feeling is...it can't be forced, it has to be natural and organic. It has to evolve on it's own. Business/companies often try to do the same type scenario. Talk about trying to force it...I used to be a supervisor for McKesson in Eagan, and they would send us on these team building seminars to build "chemistry", where they locked us away with members of a few of their other facilities, in a hotel for several days, and then we went through a whole bunch of these ridiculous classes/exercises/tests/games/etc to bring us closer, and work toward a common goal. It was some of the most idiotic, pointless, childish crap I've ever been through in my life. It didn't make us do our jobs any better...we all knew how to do that. All it did as far as bringing us together, was make us hate the stupid seminars!

[Prince William]

The chemistry on a team is limited by how moody the darkest, nastiest, pissy narcissistic  person on the team gets when things don't go there way. 

The feuding Oakland team knew they were a special group. Despite the publicized feuds there was likely a cohesive group

 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Chemistry is literally ingredients, tools and process. Good process for chemistry is built on the scientific method, to isolate changes in the process or ingredients to differentiate effects and documentation appropriately.

it seems the Twins have taken a similar approach. The ingredients: players, coaches, team management. They have a good cocktail of ingredients. Tools and Process: communication, culture, practices/drills, rest, rhythms and patterns in the clubhouse. The combination of ingredients, tools and process is the recipe, just like baking a cake. Process and ingredients work together. If you take out your eggs, crack them, and then take out your bowl, you just threw your eggs on the floor and wrecked the cake. Conversely, you can bake a cake all day long, but if you don’t have a leavening agent it won’t rise. Process without ingredients, ingredients without process, either makes for a bad cake.

and so work place chemistry, team chemistry is very similar. The right people, right tools, right process, makes for a high performing team. Outcomes can be external, if the flour delivery truck delivers late it breaks down the chemistry, but that normalizes over time (and why we carry safety stock/strong bench)

edit to add: unlike literal ingredients to chemistry reactions, people don’t come with specification documentation and certificates of lot conformance. Sometimes you have to adjust process, and sometimes you have to adjust ingredients to get the right chemical reaction

[The Mad King]

I can't answer your chicken or the egg question, but I can tell you chemistry is huge. I coached youth football for 10 years. During one season one of our two best players left the team halfway through the season. And they didn't lose another game the rest of that season. At the year end banquet we heard from parents how their kids were so happy once that one player left. Relieved. Addition by subtraction...

[tony&rodney]

Team chemistry is quite different in professional sports than in many other areas, including amateur sports. While it is a definite plus for everyone to mesh their different personalities, talent and some good fortune plays a major role in winning. There are untold ways that positive vibes get reduced, but a good example can  be the multiple losses the Twins suffered last April and May due to blown saves. When a team loses a number of games in dramatic fashion the confidence and trust level is diminished. Similarly, winning games late pushes a team together with everyone smiling and laughing. The wins against Detroit and Chicago last week are good examples of that good luck. I'm hesitant to place blame on individual players for dissension unless I personally know specific truths of actions. Baseball is a tough sport because of the great amount of failure inherent in the game. Thus most players are quite good at focusing on the positive with themselves and their teammates. So while chemistry is a good thing, it is talent and performance nudged along with a little bit of luck that is most important towards winning.

[Riverbrian]

I've never heard of a losing team that had great chemistry. The designation is never applied unless winning takes place. 

The definition of Chemistry is muddy while the definition of winning is not. 

Therefore

Winning creates Chemistry

 

[adorduan]

Winning cures a lot of ailments. Frankly I think "chemistry" is overrated, especially in a game that is pretty individualistic. If you asked a 100 different people what it meant you would get a 100 different answers.

[RpR]

Chemistry -- look at Sano without Cruz.