Comments on: Quote of the Day: why the Mets are doing well

By: paperlions

paperlions — Wed, 30 May 2012 23:38:07 +0000

Untrue. There are no instances of crappy teams with good chemistry winning….there are plenty of instances of talented teams with crappy chemistry winning.

It isn’t that complicated. Winning is fun, losing sucks…winning creates good feelings people call “good chemistry”…when it is really just the fun of winning.

If chemistry was that important, people could build a successful team making talent take a back seat to chemistry….of course, this can’t be done.

By: natstowngreg

natstowngreg — Wed, 30 May 2012 23:05:57 +0000

I took chemistry in college. Don’t remember anything about chemistry.

By: WhenMattStairsIsKing

WhenMattStairsIsKing — Wed, 30 May 2012 20:54:06 +0000

Until we’re on a MLB team, we have no idea if either of us are right. I think raw talent is obviously a vast majority of success, but I’m not going to discount chemistry too, based on my own ignorance.

By: chill1184

chill1184 — Wed, 30 May 2012 20:43:47 +0000

Having a manager that actually pushes them instead of us throwing his hands up in the air giving up also helps. One game at a time.

By: neelymessier

neelymessier — Wed, 30 May 2012 20:41:46 +0000

baseball is barely a team sport compared to football, basketball, or hockey. In those sports chemistry and camaraderie are much more important than in baseball. The A’s of the early 70′s hated each other, and their owner, and won three straight WS with minimal “chemistry”.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Wed, 30 May 2012 20:41:31 +0000

That’s just silly. No one gets better at baseball because they are around a good group of guys. “Chemistry” is always a post hoc narrative. No one ever writes, this team isn’t that talented, but gosh darn they get along well that you should expect big things out of them this year.

Talented teams win regardless of whether or not they like each other….though it is easier to like each other when you are winning and much harder to do so under a media spot light when you are losing and everyone is pointing fingers and ascribing blame.

Winning begets good “chemistry”, not the other way around.

By: sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo

sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo — Wed, 30 May 2012 20:01:26 +0000

Chemistry made Jose Canseco good. I wouldn’t be bragging about it if I were on the Mets.

By: WhenMattStairsIsKing

WhenMattStairsIsKing — Wed, 30 May 2012 20:01:07 +0000

We aren’t in the clubhouse; we can’t act like we know for certain chemistry isn’t a factor at all. Perhaps it is the reason why Johan and David are kicking ass. Perhaps it’s not. But performance aside, chemistry is a reasonable deduction when a team performs well. I know I do some of my best work around people I enjoy being with.

By: heyblueyoustink

heyblueyoustink — Wed, 30 May 2012 19:50:51 +0000

If the Phils are in need of this good chemistry on the other hand, I propose we pick up that chemistry prospect Walter White out of New Mexico.

By: chadjones27

chadjones27 — Wed, 30 May 2012 19:19:21 +0000

That was so dumb, I gave myself a thumbs down.

By: chadjones27

chadjones27 — Wed, 30 May 2012 19:18:12 +0000

I took chemistry in college. Don’t remember anything about baseball.

By: trybe29dr

trybe29dr — Wed, 30 May 2012 19:05:06 +0000

Lets see…good chemistry coincided the year jose reyes left…hmmmmm…

By: number42is1

number42is1 — Wed, 30 May 2012 18:49:09 +0000

Weird Science.. ience…ience…ience…

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Wed, 30 May 2012 18:46:30 +0000

Winning usually comes before “good chemistry” in baseball. So much so that I’m almost inclined to think “good chemistry” may just be a result of winning instead of the other way around. Not sure.