Jan 28, 2014, 9:12 AM EDT
Cole Hamels sat for an interview with Jim Salisbury of CSNPhilly.com. There’s a lot of content and more installments will roll out all week, but for now there’s this: Hamels talking to Salisbury about team chemistry. Normally this is something that makes my eyes roll, but this time Hamels seems to nail it:
“You have a lot of guys coming in and out and we didn’t know how to handle it,” Hamels said. “I think that was kind of the case. A lot of us had been winning, a lot of us were new, and all we knew was winning, so it was a different sort of perspective for a lot of us that we had to deal with.”
Hamels was asked whether the chemistry issues were a matter of the players not liking each other or the players not liking losing.
“It was not liking losing,” he said.
No matter how much people like to credit good and bad chemistry for the results on the field, Hamels is right: bad chemistry is a product of losing, not a cause. Or, if it’s not an actual product — if there are odd relationships and troublesome personalities in the clubhouse to begin with — they’re ignored or tolerated if the team is winning and made a scapegoat if the team loses. No one ever credits a losing team with having great chemistry. Lots of winning teams are filled with combative jackwagons. It’s professional sports. Winning and losing is everything. The rest mere detail.
I hope people watching the Phillies this year keep that in mind if the team has another bad season. I fear, however, that the idea of having the wrong set of personalities, as opposed to an underperforming set of players, will get more press and air time.
- Ian Kinsler hopes Rangers go 0-162, calls GM a “sleazeball” (132)
- Albert Pujols was insulted when someone asked him if he can put up Mike Trout numbers (103)
- The politics of “The Cardinal Way” (67)
- Robinson Cano wants the Mariners to bring in Kendrys Morales and Ervin Santana (64)
- Reporter calls Ian Kinsler as self-absorbed as A-Rod (60)