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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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...

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.

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.

Chemistry -- look at Sano without Cruz.