Feb 6, 2010, 10:33 AM EDT
Kevin Millar makes the case for his value to the Cubs:
“Everybody is looking at stats … I get it. But my point is when you’re making a team
and trying to bring in a bunch of different personalities I think
everybody’s got a certain amount of intangibles that they bring.
“Obviously, I’ll bring some leadership qualities. I’ve won a World
Series. Having a chance to play with guys like Ryan Dempster and Derrek
Lee, we came up together in Florida. It’s trying to make a family
atmosphere and trying to get everybody to pull on the same rope and
trying to get everybody to believe that we can do this.”
There’s a saying among lawyers: when the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. In Millar’s case you can substitute with “skills” and “chemistry.” The skills, unfortunately, are no longer there: Millar is a first base/DH type who can’t hit enough to carry that job, and there’s little reason to think that he’ll add anything positive from a baseball prospective to the Cubs’ 2010 season. It appears based on his comments that even he knows that, and to that extent it’s actually refreshing to hear that he is not deluded about his abilities the way so many other close-to-the-end ballplayers have been before him.
But what about the chemistry? Does it matter? Is it worth giving Millar a spot on the roster?
I won’t go so far as some of my sabermetic colleagues and suggest that chemistry is totally meaningless. After all, we’ve all worked with jerks before, and while a jerk can’t necessarily make you any less good at your job, in the aggregate, one can bring down the group’s performance. By all accounts, Kevin Millar is a great guy to have in the clubhouse, and as long as you’re not giving him too many plate appearances, it’s nice to have a fun guy around, especially after a summer with Milton Bradley on the team.
But really, chemistry is almost always a retrospective application that, in the context of baseball, approaches meaningless. Teams that win are later said to have good chemistry (except when they don’t have good chemistry). I’ve yet to hear anyone refer to a team that went 76-86 as having good chemistry. And of course, unlike basketball and football, where the whole concept of chemistry was probably invented, baseball has comparatively few true “teamwork” moments. You basically have the double play and relay throws and a whole bunch of individual as opposed to team moments.
At the end of the day, you have to ask: would anyone be talking about Kevin Millar and all of the intangibles he brings to the table if Dave Roberts had been tagged out at second in Game 5 of the 2004 ALCS?
- Vin Scully will return in 2016 for his 67th season of broadcasting 6
- The Athletics have a travel-heavy 2016 schedule and unsuccessfully tried to have it altered 6
- Mariners fire general manager Jack Zduriencik 63
- Pedro Martinez wonders if bad chemistry is the reason the Tigers and Mariners are out of contention 48
- Vote of non-confidence: Reds owner says manager Bryan Price won’t be fired before the season is over 22
- And That Happened: Thursday’s scores and highlights 86
- Denard Span headed back to DL with hip inflammation, unlikely to return this season 10
- Report: Barry Bonds loses collusion case against MLB 40
- Sarah Palin sticks up for Curt Schilling, tells ESPN to “stick to sports” (259)
- Dan Patrick: When does ESPN cut ties with Curt Schilling? (200)
- Curt Schilling taken off of Little League World Series duty for making a really bad tweet (169)
- Curt Schilling taken off of ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball telecast this week (134)
- Phillies announcer calls Mets fans “obnoxious” (123)