Ahh, chemistry rears it's ugly head

[RedlegJake]

Lance McAlister ‏@LanceMcAlister (https://twitter.com/LanceMcAlister) 2m2 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/LanceMcAlister/status/621713726257807360) "This team has chemistry issues. There's a lot of guys on this team that don't like each other" @bradjohansen (https://twitter.com/bradjohansen) on @700wlw (https://twitter.com/700wlw) with Willie. #Reds (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Reds?src=hash)
(https://twitter.com/LanceMcAlister)

[TRF]

ugh.

[757690]

The BRM had players that hated each other, probably far worse than what this team has.

Team chemistry has nothing to do with how well players get along. That never happens 100% on a 25 man team. Chemistry has to do with players motivated to win. The Reds could have chemistry issues, but that has nothing to do with now much they like each other.

[dougdirt]

Jim Leyland on team chemistry (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2010/06/jim_leylands_awesomely_grizzle.html)


Take all that clubhouse [stuff] and all that, throw it out the window. Every writer in the country has been writing about that [nonsense] for years. Chemistry don’t mean [anything]. He’s up here because he’s good. That don’t mean [a hill of beans]. They got good chemistry because their team is improved, they got a real good team, they got guys knocking in runs, they got a catcher hitting .336, they got a phenom pitcher they just brought up. That’s why they’re happy

[CySeymour]

I guess their problems have nothing to do with there being too many players on the team that aren't good MLB players.

[TRF]

here is the point.

































And here is McAlister.

[NebraskaRed]

If they could all get together and take a trip to King's Island for the day, they'd realize they have a lot in common. They'd all start to be friends. And then they are RIGHT back in the chase for the wild card this season.

[westofyou]

“Winning creates chemistry more than the other way around. I’ve seen clubs that don’t necessarily like each other, but they respected each other once they got on the field, and that’s more important than being happy to go out to dinner with each other.”

Joe Torre

Chemistry follows winning, and clubhouse strife follows losing, not the other way around.

Ozzie Guillen


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/15/sports/15jeffkent.1.600.jpg

[Bourgeois Zee]

I know it doesn't matter, but I'd still love to see who doesn't like whom.

Nosy that way.

[Raisor]

They need more [redacted] team-speed!!!

[NebraskaRed]

I know it doesn't matter, but I'd still love to see who doesn't like whom.

Nosy that way.

Votto and Gapper haven't spoken since 2013.

[texasdave]

This guy seems to think it matters, and he could manage a little.


What I can tell you is this, and I believe it: Roland Hemond -- the most beloved guy still alive in baseball -- once told me, "If you have true chemistry on your team, it will be like tomorrow I added a superstar to your roster -- a twenty-game winner, a top closer, or a 30/30/30 middle-of-the-lineup hitter."Would that help your team? Oh yeah, it would, and over the years there's not doubt in my mind that chemistry contributes or detracts to that significant of a degree.

From "One Last Strike" by Tony La Russa

[marcshoe]

It's Gapper again. Mr. Red is jealous of all the attention Mr. Redlegs is getting, and Gapper's been egging him on. He's an agitator, I tell you. I know this because I used to know a mascot who worked with Rosie in the minors, and they still keep in touch. Gapper wants to be the only mascot, and he won't rest until the others all leave because they hate each other.

[marcshoe]

Votto and Gapper haven't spoken since 2013.

This wasn't there when I posted, but it proves my point. I mean look at your avatar, Votto obviously has no problem with mascots in general. It has to be Gapper.

- - - Updated - - -


This guy seems to think it matters, and he could manage a little.


From "One Last Strike" by Tony La Russa

Of course when LaRussa uses the word 'chemistry' he's talking about something else entirely. . . . :evil:

[M2]

I know it doesn't matter, but I'd still love to see who doesn't like whom.

Nosy that way.

These things typically reduce to white guys vs. black guys vs. Hispanic guys and it's always B.S.

[Hoosier Red]

here is the point.

































And here is McAlister.

To be fair, Lance is just posting what was said. I don't think he necessarily believes it.

[BCubb2003]

Take care of the physics, and the chemistry will take care of itself.

[traderumor]

The lost decade was full of back slapping fraternal type activity. Maybe they would have only won 50 games a year if not for that great chemistry.

[RedlegJake]

I knew this would stir things up. I've always felt chemistry tends to follow the won loss record. Amazing how a losing team with bad chemistry gets a couple of talented players filling holes and start winning and the chemistry improves. I do believe there are bad guys who can hurt a team but they are few and far between. Sour surly Alex Johnson, maybe Albert Belle (though teams he was on were often winners so there's that theory)

[Roy Tucker]

Joey is being mean to me.
Jay hit me.
Brandon took my bat and didn't ask.
Bryan won't listen to me.
Johnny picked his nose and wiped it on my shirt.

[klw]

It's Gapper again. Mr. Red is jealous of all the attention Mr. Redlegs is getting, and Gapper's been egging him on. He's an agitator, I tell you. I know this because I used to know a mascot who worked with Rosie in the minors, and they still keep in touch. Gapper wants to be the only mascot, and he won't rest until the others all leave because they hate each other.

Gapper and Votto truly fell out at this moment:
http://swollendome.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/joeyvottomountie.jpg

[klw]

Question: were many of the Reds other than Frazier and Chapman around during the all-star festivities? Is it typical for host teams to have players (at HR derby etc) around even if they are not playing?

[klw]

These guys clearly are at odds.
Brayan Pena retweeted
Todd Frazier ‏@FlavaFraz21 May 18
With a couple of the guys at dinner @cuban2727 and @JohnnyCueto
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFU6dZbUgAAFn7Y.jpg


I blame Pena. He clearly is hard to get along with. He has been harassing Billy Hamilton all season on Twitter.

Brayan PenaVerified account

‏@cuban2727
@BillyHamilton WAKE UP BILLY , time to go to work, i will pay for your breakfast if u meet me at the GYM ,if not you owed me LUNCH" WAKE UP"

Here is Pena clearly in fear of Cueto:
Brayan Pena retweeted
RT Ohio ‏@RT_Ohio Jul 10

#VoteCueto because if you don't, he'll get mad at @cuban2727!!

Mike Leake retweeted
JJ Hoover ‏@JJ_Hoover Jun 20

Had another awesome day @CincinnatiZoo with @MikeLeake44 and his family. Weather held off. Great time. #munch
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CH-GDOgWcAAhpbv.jpg

[redsmetz]

Question: were many of the Reds other than Frazier and Chapman around during the all-star festivities? Is it typical for host teams to have players (at HR derby etc) around even if they are not playing?

I know Billy was seen in the stands during one event or another. Not sure which.

[Slippin'Jimmy]

9455

It's not even chemistry really. It's the study of change.

[Slippin'Jimmy]

These things typically reduce to white guys vs. black guys vs. Hispanic guys and it's always B.S.

If that's not sarcasm I hope that life is good for you in your 1952 time warp.

[M2]

If that's not sarcasm I hope that life is good for you in your 1952 time warp.

It's what sports radio descends into.

[TRF]

awful the way they treat each other...

https://usatq.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/frazier2.jpg?w=1000

[Chip R]

Question: were many of the Reds other than Frazier and Chapman around during the all-star festivities? Is it typical for host teams to have players (at HR derby etc) around even if they are not playing?

I believe most players go home to be with their families if they aren't selected. Frazier went back to Jersey after the ASG even though there is a home game on Friday.

[jojo]

Lance McAlister ‏@LanceMcAlister (https://twitter.com/LanceMcAlister) 2m2 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/LanceMcAlister/status/621713726257807360) "This team has chemistry issues. There's a lot of guys on this team that don't like each other" @bradjohansen (https://twitter.com/bradjohansen) on @700wlw (https://twitter.com/700wlw) with Willie. #Reds (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Reds?src=hash)
(https://twitter.com/LanceMcAlister)

"Chemistry is for losers. Character is the thing winners are made of. All things being equal, give me a clubhouse full of grit and i'll kick your clubhouse's (full of chemistry) arse every time. Give me above average grit and I might beat more talented teams. Give me above average team chemistry and I'm a slave to pythag."~~jojo 2015

[ram]

Chemistry happens when you win. Pure and simple, this team is not very good and has a corresponding chemistry.

[badcontent]

Frazier can't be on anyone's enemies list.

[Kingspoint]

Jim Leyland on team chemistry (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2010/06/jim_leylands_awesomely_grizzle.html)

Gotta love Jim Leyland.

[Roy Tucker]

If that's not sarcasm I hope that life is good for you in your 1952 time warp.

Hey, what's wrong with 1952? Some people around here were born then.

;)

[marcshoe]

Hey, what's wrong with 1952? Some people around here were born then.

;)

That's the year my step-father stopped tearing pages off of his calendar.

[TRF]

That's the year my step-father stopped tearing pages off of his calendar.

i opened my calendar app on my phone looking for the tear off pages feature. Guess i need to update the app.

[Big Klu]

They need more [redacted] team-speed!!!

Team speed, for chrissakes!

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Sports/GTY_weaver_kab_150611_4x3_992.jpg

[klw]

here is the point.

































And here is McAlister.

To be fair, McAlister is merely tweeting a quote from what Brad Johansen said on the air.

[reds44]

Never heard this under Dusty.

Just sayin.

[westofyou]

To be fair, McAlister is merely tweeting a quote from what Brad Johansen said on the air.

Yes the Bengals PbP guy is where all our baseball news should come from.

[klw]

Yes the Bengals PbP guy is where all our baseball news should come from.

It is a change from having most major Reds stories about trades being broken by a national reporter.

[Kingspoint]

Hey, what's wrong with 1952? Some people around here were born then.

;)

Only the best year of Topps' cards ever!

[Raisor]

Never heard this under Dusty.

Just sayin.

Yes they did, in his last year

[KittyDuran]

Question: were many of the Reds other than Frazier and Chapman around during the all-star festivities? Is it typical for host teams to have players (at HR derby etc) around even if they are not playing?

Didn't Jay host a golf tournament yesterday in the area?

[KronoRed]

Never heard this under Dusty.

Just sayin.

You must have missed 2011 and 2013, it was tweeted all the time.

[traderumor]

There is "chemistry" in baseball. It has nothing to do with behavior, it has to do with playing together toward a common goal. Unless guys are going out there and lollygagging, swinging and missing on purpose, showing poor plate discipline, or chucking meatballs down the middle on purpose, the Reds chemistry problem is RS<RA and all that went into getting there. Their relationships emotionally, spiritually, behaviorally, is just a load of crap that gives bored media something intangible to write or talk about.

[IslandRed]

There is "chemistry" in baseball. It has nothing to do with behavior, it has to do with playing together toward a common goal. Unless guys are going out there and lollygagging, swinging and missing on purpose, showing poor plate discipline, or chucking meatballs down the middle on purpose, the Reds chemistry problem is RS<RA and all that went into getting there. Their relationships emotionally, spiritually, behaviorally, is just a load of crap that gives bored media something intangible to write or talk about.

Yep. Chemistry problems, in terms of guys getting along, is often overplayed in terms of how it affects team performance.

Now, if there are issues with that "playing together toward a common goal" thing? That can hurt. Teams with players that don't respect each other as ballplayers and professionals, for whatever reasons, could have more trouble dealing with the ups and downs of a baseball season. It's just basic group dynamics.

Having said that, I have no reason to believe any of that is a problem with the Reds. They just have too many guys on the roster who aren't that good.

[Redsfaithful]

I wonder sometimes if guys get discouraged every time a manager goes to a guy like Kevin Gregg or every time a guy like Jason Marquis starts a game. They are pros so I presume they just worry about what is in their control, but at the same time I'm sure a "here we go again" feeling can take hold. Not sure if that qualifies as team chemistry, but I'm sure players know who doesn't belong on a ML roster and I doubt it's good for morale when they keep getting run out there for so long.

And of course, they hear all the trade rumors and know what's coming, and that's not going to be good for morale either. Again, whether that is chemistry or not I don't know, but it shouldn't be news that the clubhouse isn't happy overall.

[WVRedsFan]

I wonder sometimes if guys get discouraged every time a manager goes to a guy like Kevin Gregg or every time a guy like Jason Marquis starts a game. They are pros so I presume they just worry about what is in their control, but at the same time I'm sure a "here we go again" feeling can take hold. Not sure if that qualifies as team chemistry, but I'm sure players know who doesn't belong on a ML roster and I doubt it's good for morale when they keep getting run out there for so long.
I wonder about that too, but losing is always worse than winning. I'm sure all the one-run losses last year hurt team morale. When you see a bullpen just implode, it has to have an effect on your psyche. Fingers begin to point at players and suddenly you don't care if you even play the game. I hope this is not the case, but you never know.


And of course, they hear all the trade rumors and know what's coming, and that's not going to be good for morale either. Again, whether that is chemistry or not I don't know, but it shouldn't be news that the clubhouse isn't happy overall.

What can a manager do to heal that? I don't know. What I do know is that what is going on now isn't working.

[RedTeamGo!]

Never heard this under Dusty.

Just sayin.

Other than the multiple times, you mean?

[Brutus]

Jim Leyland on team chemistry (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2010/06/jim_leylands_awesomely_grizzle.html)

Anyone who says chemistry doesn't matter has never been in a dysfunctional work environment. Chemistry absolutely can disrupt production, and it's nonsense to suggest otherwise.

How much? That's the real crux of the debate.

[RedlegJake]

I think chemistry and morale get mixed up a lot. To me, chemistry is how the interactions of the group's individual component play off of and tend to strengthen or weaken production. Too many guys who swing and miss, too many similar types that magnify weaknesses that opponents can then exploit. Too many lefty hitters? That's a chemistry problem - too many crybabies complaining in the dugout, that's a morale problem.

[marcshoe]

Anyone who says chemistry doesn't matter has never been in a dysfunctional work environment. Chemistry absolutely can disrupt production, and it's nonsense to suggest otherwise.

How much? That's the real crux of the debate.

I think whether chemistry leads to or flows from success is also a legitimate question, assuming there is a cause and effect. Looking for ways to assign blame destroys the workplace environment quickly.

[RedsManRick]

I think chemistry and morale get mixed up a lot. To me, chemistry is how the interactions of the group's individual component play off of and tend to strengthen or weaken production. Too many guys who swing and miss, too many similar types that magnify weaknesses that opponents can then exploit. Too many lefty hitters? That's a chemistry problem - too many crybabies complaining in the dugout, that's a morale problem.

I'm not if I agree with exactly the way you've separated the two, but I do think they're different. To me, chemistry is about conflict vs. support. Morale is about excitement and optimism. You can have a group of guys with good chemistry who are really down in the dumps and not terribly motivated. And you can guys who are at each other's throats but also ready to attack the other team. I imagine they correlate, but I can see them being confused for each other.

As for chemistry & winning, while I think having good chemistry probably does help in that it relieves a bit of stress, it's more like bad chemistry is a jagged landscape that gets covered up by a rising tide of winning. Winning doesn't make good chemistry, it just renders it irrelevant for awhile. And losing doesn't worsen chemistry, it just leaves it bare to the elements for everybody to see.

For the Reds, I can see Votto and/or Homer being a bit too serious for some guys and maybe not getting along all the time. On the flip side, I can see Phillips rubbing people the wrong way too. But that's just a team. This team hasn't changed that much over the years for their to be a major chemistry problem unless the view is just that they still miss having a "veteran presence" type (e.g. Scott Rolen) that sets the tone and keeps guys focused. But who knows; unless there's some real juicy details out there, I'll just chalk it up to the inevitable frustrations of a bad season.

[RedlegJake]

C. Trent Rosecrans ‏@ctrent (https://twitter.com/ctrent) 10h10 hours ago (https://twitter.com/ctrent/status/621752679489011713) Average record of #Reds (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Reds?src=hash)’ 2nd-half opponents? 47-41, best mark in baseball. So they’ve got that going for them


Also, it should really help the chemistry rumors

[RedsManRick]

C. Trent Rosecrans ‏@ctrent (https://twitter.com/ctrent) 10h10 hours ago (https://twitter.com/ctrent/status/621752679489011713) Average record of #Reds (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Reds?src=hash)’ 2nd-half opponents? 47-41, best mark in baseball. So they’ve got that going for them


Also, it should really help the chemistry rumors

Geez, C Trent! How is that stat supposed to help the Reds win!?

[jojo]

How much? Not much.

[cumberlandreds]

C. Trent Rosecrans ‏@ctrent (https://twitter.com/ctrent) 10h10 hours ago (https://twitter.com/ctrent/status/621752679489011713) Average record of #Reds (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Reds?src=hash)’ 2nd-half opponents? 47-41, best mark in baseball. So they’ve got that going for them



Piece of cake.

[Assembly Hall]

I think you guys have about covered the "chemistry" issue. Along with talking about morale. One thing I havent seen brought up is "jealousy". And I sort of use that term loosely, but the fact of the matter is that these guys know what everybody on the team earns pay wise. If I was a guy on the team earning 1 million a year and batting .300, I would be looking around at guys that made more than me and seeing what their stat line is.

[dougdirt]

I think you guys have about covered the "chemistry" issue. Along with talking about morale. One thing I havent seen brought up is "jealousy". And I sort of use that term loosely, but the fact of the matter is that these guys know what everybody on the team earns pay wise. If I was a guy on the team earning 1 million a year and batting .300, I would be looking around at guys that made more than me and seeing what their stat line is.

Well, Joey Votto does eat well.

[dougdirt]

Anyone who says chemistry doesn't matter has never been in a dysfunctional work environment. Chemistry absolutely can disrupt production, and it's nonsense to suggest otherwise.

How much? That's the real crux of the debate.

Sports aren't like your job in the cubicle workplace.

[Assembly Hall]

Well, Joey Votto does eat well.

And Frazier eats french fries!!!!!!!!!!!

[Edskin]

1. Chemistry is vitally important to any organization. If you say it isn't, you've never been in charge of one.

2. Liking each other personally is not a pre-requisite for good chemistry.

[jojo]

Sports aren't like your job in the cubicle workplace.

BAHBOOM!!!!!!!!!!!


Because I sit in a cubicle, I can hit a 95 mph fastball. Anyone who can't has never sat in a cubicle.

[Bob Sheed]

They need to bring back Dunns rocking chair. Anything else is just spinning their wheels.

[RedTeamGo!]

I have a desk in an office, thank you very much.

[dougdirt]

I have a desk in an office, thank you very much.

Is your office cubicle shaped?

[SidneySlicker]

1. Chemistry is vitally important to any organization. If you say it isn't, you've never been in charge of one.

2. Liking each other personally is not a pre-requisite for good chemistry.

Well said.

[RedTeamGo!]

Is your office cubicle shaped?

No, it is actually in a van down by the river.

[bounty37h]

Piece of cake.

You just had to mention cake on a ctrent post huh?

[kpresidente]

Jim Leyland on team chemistry (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2010/06/jim_leylands_awesomely_grizzle.html)

Of course you quote a players' manager who was known for his leadership and not his brains. Maybe he thought chemistry didn't matter because he never had any problems with it on his teams.

[cumberlandreds]

No, it is actually in a van down by the river.

Daniel Norris share your cube?

[jojo]

Of course you quote a players' manager who was known for his leadership and not his brains. Maybe he thought chemistry didn't matter because he never had any problems with it on his teams.

Chemistry was no problem for Leyland because he had a PhD in life from the School of Hardknocks.

[dougdirt]

No, it is actually in a van down by the river.

And what shape is that van? I bet it's got a cube shape.

[traderumor]

With a bunch of different definitions flying around for "chemistry," it ironically proves the point. Think about the silliness: "Look at BP on second there. Can't stand the guy. Ain't no way I'm driving him in. I'm chasing three sliders out of the zone." "Oh, Joey Votto, making $20M a year and can't drive in runs. I'm throwing this one in the dirt where no one, even the $20M dollar man, can catch it." This crap just does not contribute to winning or losing baseball games. Now...if they do not respect the coaching staff....

[traderumor]

Of course you quote a players' manager who was known for his leadership and not his brains. Maybe he thought chemistry didn't matter because he never had any problems with it on his teams.Which pretty much sums up someone doing his job as a manager. It isn't a position that requires a deep thinker, the primary job requirement is leadership, showing players you are a competent baseball man. Baseball strategy is pretty basic on the thinking man's scale, esp. for a big league manager who has probably been in love with the game for as long as he can remember. As Larry Dierker said, "this is not rocket science."

[westofyou]

With a bunch of different definitions flying around for "chemistry," it ironically proves the point. Think about the silliness: "Look at BP on second there. Can't stand the guy. Ain't no way I'm driving him in. I'm chasing three sliders out of the zone." "Oh, Joey Votto, making $20M a year and can't drive in runs. I'm throwing this one in the dirt where no one, even the $20M dollar man, can't catch it." This crap just does not contribute to winning or losing baseball games. Now...if they do not respect the coaching staff....

"I was rooting for Steve Barber to look like horsecrap tonight and get his rear shipped out. Instead he had good stuff out there, good enough that they'll keep him around for another month, even if he can't pitch."

Jim Bouton
Ball Four

[traderumor]

"I was rooting for Steve Barber to look like horsecrap tonight and get his rear shipped out. Instead he had good stuff out there, good enough that they'll keep him around for another month, even if he can't pitch."

Jim Bouton
Ball Four

Rooting for someone to fail is much different than choosing to fail yourself to hurt the team. That was my point.

[Johnny Footstool]

1. Chemistry is vitally important to any organization. If you say it isn't, you've never been in charge of one.

2. Liking each other personally is not a pre-requisite for good chemistry.

I am in charge of one. Performance (winning) breeds chemistry, and poor performance destroys it.

[klw]

“Winning creates chemistry more than the other way around. I’ve seen clubs that don’t necessarily like each other, but they respected each other once they got on the field, and that’s more important than being happy to go out to dinner with each other.”

Joe Torre

Chemistry follows winning, and clubhouse strife follows losing, not the other way around.

Ozzie Guillen


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/15/sports/15jeffkent.1.600.jpg

Bonds and Kent- Chemistry at its best and chemistry at its worst.

[muethibp]

I think chemistry might be a touch overrated. But what isn't is leadership - setting the tone for how to handle oneself in preparing to play, approaching the game itself, dealing with the media, dealing with distractions, what to eat on the road...it all matters. I view it as no coincidence at all that we sucked for long periods when Dunn and Jr. were the ones whose conduct set the example, were successful when Rolen's leadership was in the locker room, and we've been essentially adrift since Rolen left.

[Brutus]

Sports aren't like your job in the cubicle workplace.

When it comes to basic human psychology and behavior, absolutely they are. Humans are humans. Psychology isn't any different in sports than they are in everyday walks of life.

Study after study has shown production is tied to mood. When you're unhappy showing up for work because you're in a bad environment, production suffers. Doesn't matter if it's a 9-to-5 office job or a sports team.

[dougdirt]

When it comes to basic human psychology and behavior, absolutely they are. Humans are humans. Psychology isn't any different in sports than they are in everyday walks of life.

Study after study has shown production is tied to mood. When you're unhappy showing up for work because you're in a bad environment, production suffers. Doesn't matter if it's a 9-to-5 office job or a sports team.

Has there ever been a study done on a professional sports team? Or are they all on office/warehouse workers? Do the studies give different information on different occupations? Are people who work on an individual basis affected vastly different than those who rely directly on others to perform their job?

Psychology in the office where you hate Jenny is a lot different than in the locker room where you hate Frank in terms of how it's effecting your performance. In the office, you probably rely directly on Jenny for something. In baseball, you probably don't rely on Frank to do anything to get your job done. It's an entirely different animal.

[muethibp]

Has there ever been a study done on a professional sports team? Or are they all on office/warehouse workers? Do the studies give different information on different occupations? Are people who work on an individual basis affected vastly different than those who rely directly on others to perform their job?

Psychology in the office where you hate Jenny is a lot different than in the locker room where you hate Frank in terms of how it's effecting your performance. In the office, you probably rely directly on Jenny for something. In baseball, you probably don't rely on Frank to do anything to get your job done. It's an entirely different animal.

I think you're substantially understating the way that being invested in the success of the organization and supporting/feeling supported by one's co-workers affects a person's emotional and mental state. And much as you are suggesting baseball is purely a physical game made up of mostly individual acts, I'd submit that mental and emotional issues affect play substantially.

[jojo]

I'm a gazillionaire getting paid to play a game, yep a flipping game, for a living. I get to work in the greatest facilities that mankind has ever designed for my sport and have access to the most cutting edge technology to help me get better while getting to parade around on tv nightly and in front of at least 10,000 people in the stands even in venues with the most lackluster fan support.

Ummmm, bad environment my backside.

Calling SHENANIGANS on that crazy argument.

[Old school 1983]

So am I right if I type in big red letters? All the facilities in the world don't matter if the people around you aren't worth a crap.

[KronoRed]

Has there ever been a bad team with good chemistry?

[Old school 1983]

Has there ever been a bad team with good chemistry?

A lot of lost decade Reds teams seemed to get along well.

[jojo]

So am I right if I type in big red letters? All the facilities in the world don't matter if the people around you aren't worth a crap.

Unfortunately some arguments aren't really helped by big red letters. For instance no matter how big the letters that the quoted hyperbole was typed in, the argument would still be SHENANIGANS

Guess who is the problem when everyone around ya is crap? Yep, you.

[Old school 1983]

Unfortunately some arguments aren't really helped by big red letters. For instance no matter how big the letters that the quoted hyperbole was typed in, the argument would still be SHENANIGANS

Guess who is the problem when everyone around ya is crap? Yep, you.

People that discount people skills and interpersonal relationship skills are usually the ones that lack them. You win. People in your work environment don't matter. Leaders in management and in the workforce cant set a tone and expectations. All the research done on this is wrong. The 72 size red font has spoken.

[jojo]

People that discount people skills and interpersonal relationship skills are usually the ones that lack them. You win. People in your work environment don't matter. Leaders in management and in the workforce cant set a tone and expectations. All the research done on this is wrong. The 72 size red font has spoken.

Or you could true practicing a little people skills in stead of preaching them by maybe, actually fairly considering the actual argument rather than trying to spew an insult in the form of attempting to misconstrue one in a way that you think paints me in the worst possible light. Desirable teammate indeed. You win though, 24 people mimicking the approach in the quoted post versus 1.... guess the 1 isn't actually the bad apple.

[757690]

Anyone who thinks chemistry doesn't matter, imagine working on a project as a three man team of you, Old School 1983 and JoJo.

Baboom!

[jojo]

Anyone who thinks chemistry doesn't matter, imagine working on a project as a three man team of you, Old School 1983 and JoJo.

Baboom!

Well at least my third of the project would be completed with 110% effort, ahead of deadline, and in excellent quality.

BAHBOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KittyDuran]

Well at least my third of the project would be completed with 110% effort, ahead of deadline, and in excellent quality.

BAHBOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not if I bring my Leake t-shirt and make you wear it... [emoji6]

[Old school 1983]

Well at least my third of the project would be completed with 110% effort, ahead of deadline, and in excellent quality.

BAHBOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As would mine if it were two solo assignments that had nothing to do with each other and could be assembled by someone else later. But we'd have to work together to create a cohesive piece of work....like a team....like a baseball team.

[jojo]

Not if I bring my Leake t-shirt and make you wear it... [emoji6]

I'd happily wear it to lunch at Montgomery Inn.

- - - Updated - - -


As would mine if it were two solo assignments that had nothing to do with each other and could be assembled by someone else later. But we'd have to work together to create a cohesive piece of work....like a team....like a baseball team.

You act like you'd struggle with that. It's a shame.

[Roy Tucker]

I am in charge of one. Performance (winning) breeds chemistry, and poor performance destroys it.

Yep. Each is like a firestorm.

[jojo]

Yep. Each is like a firestorm.

A maelstrom of malaise befell the monarch who tasted a morsel moistened with moldered mayonnaise. The monarch eating cookies, on the other hand, loved life. All hail Raisor.

[Old school 1983]

Or you could true practicing a little people skills in stead of preaching them by maybe, actually fairly considering the actual argument rather than trying to spew an insult in the form of attempting to misconstrue one in a way that you think paints me in the worst possible light. Desirable teammate indeed. You win though, 24 people mimicking the approach in the quoted post versus 1.... guess the 1 isn't actually the bad apple.

I, as well as many more than 24 posters, have tried being civil with you and applying social skills. It rapidly degenerates, so I cut to the chase. As far as what you said about work environment, your argument completely disregards, what is commonly held, and btw through research held, as the most important factor in work environment, and that is the people inside of it. Your argument is bordering a strawman. But you can't consider that, much like you cant, won't, and don't consider what most other posters say. You've hinted at things being a me problem, but I'll point to that and one of your most often used terms: ad hominem. Maybe a little bit of applying some people skills and self evaluation would reveal that to be less of all the other posters' problem and more of a JoJo issue. Chemistry is a great topic to discuss. Acting like it's an open and shut case while using large red font to finalize your stance as final while further discounting the most important factor in it, and further refusing to consider others' opinions when the people factor was brought to your attention, and even further acting like your part in a group activity would be the best in a later post without considering how it's all go together as cohesive whole, proves my point and further displays your stance isn't the greatest way to approach the topic.

[jojo]

I, as well as many more than 24 posters, have tried being civil with you and applying social skills. It rapidly degenerates, so I cut to the chase. As far as what you said about work environment, your argument completely disregards, what is commonly held, and btw through research held, as the most important factor in work environment, and that is the people inside of it. Your argument is bordering a strawman. But you can't consider that, much like you cant, won't, and don't consider what most other posters say. You've hinted at things being a me problem, but I'll point to that and one of your most often used terms: ad hominem. Maybe a little bit of applying some people skills and self evaluation would reveal that to be less of all the other posters' problem and more of a JoJo issue. Chemistry is a great topic to discuss. Acting like it's an open and shut case while using large red font to finalize your stance as final while further discounting the most important factor in it, and further refusing to consider others' opinions when the people factor was brought to your attention, and even further acting like your part in a group activity would be the best in a later post without considering how it's all go together as cohesive whole, proves my point and further displays your stance isn't the greatest way to approach the topic.

Make this about me in a PM. Quit junking up the thread. Seriously.

[KronoRed]

A lot of lost decade Reds teams seemed to get along well.
I thought they were just lazy :confused:

[Chip R]

I think you guys have about covered the "chemistry" issue. Along with talking about morale. One thing I havent seen brought up is "jealousy". And I sort of use that term loosely, but the fact of the matter is that these guys know what everybody on the team earns pay wise. If I was a guy on the team earning 1 million a year and batting .300, I would be looking around at guys that made more than me and seeing what their stat line is.

This could be said about any team since players started getting paid.

[Brutus]

So am I right if I type in big red letters? All the facilities in the world don't matter if the people around you aren't worth a crap.

When people resort to typing a reactionary post in big, bright font, it's just overcompensation for lack of a real rebuttal.

[mth123]

Assuming chemistry is referring to how well these guys get along (which is debatable IMO), my shot at this is that it matters a lot to the people in the clubhouse because that is their workplace. No one wants to work in an uncomfortable environment and everyone wants a workplace that is a pleasant place to be, so they talk about it a lot. I don't think it really matters so much in the won/lost column, but since its important to the on field personnel, we'll always hear about it.

From that perspective, I do think it's important as a consideration in how a business should be managed, I just don't believe that changing it will add or subtract wins.

[Roy Tucker]

This thread could use better chemistry.

Q: How many moles are in guacamole?
A: Avocado's number

[Brutus]

Has there ever been a study done on a professional sports team? Or are they all on office/warehouse workers? Do the studies give different information on different occupations? Are people who work on an individual basis affected vastly different than those who rely directly on others to perform their job?

Psychology in the office where you hate Jenny is a lot different than in the locker room where you hate Frank in terms of how it's effecting your performance. In the office, you probably rely directly on Jenny for something. In baseball, you probably don't rely on Frank to do anything to get your job done. It's an entirely different animal.

How about instead you show a study that shows somehow athletes are immune to the same emotions, moods and feelings that the rest of human civilization are impacted by. We're all built the same -- athletes, white collar and blue collar workers alike. We all have emotions and moods, and we all react and respond to varying moods and circumstances accordingly. Our production can all be impacted regardless of what we're doing for our career. That baseball players somehow aren't impacted by mood and being in a workplace they don't like is absolutely silly and contradictory to conventional logic.

I'll go you one better though: a few years back I got into sales management on top of my freelance writing; as such, we went through a week long seminar studying personality types and how to interact with them. A guy that was speaking was someone that had been paid six figures a gig by dozens of professional sports franchises in the U.S. His job? To study teams' personnel and their personality types and analyze which players are likely to fit best within the organization.

Even these teams you speak of think its worth time and money to find out how players will interact. It's important. They're humans just like everyone else.

[westofyou]

I hate people at my work place if they don't perform, it causes a chemistry issue.

Real world issues, applies to every workplace, if we rock we all enjoy it... if we suck the reason we suck eventually moves on... meanwhile working with them is an issue.

Anywhere a team of people share a common goal this can occur, is it the reason we under perform?

It varies.

[dougdirt]

How about instead you show a study that shows somehow athletes are immune to the same emotions, moods and feelings that the rest of human civilization are impacted by. We're all built the same -- athletes, white collar and blue collar workers alike. We all have emotions and moods, and we all react and respond to varying moods and circumstances accordingly. Our production can all be impacted regardless of what we're doing for our career. That baseball players somehow aren't impacted by mood and being in a workplace they don't like is absolutely silly and contradictory to conventional logic.

I'll go you one better though: a few years back I got into sales management on top of my freelance writing; as such, we went through a week long seminar studying personality types and how to interact with them. A guy that was speaking was someone that had been paid six figures a gig by dozens of professional sports franchises in the U.S. His job? To study teams' personnel and their personality types and analyze which players are likely to fit best within the organization.

Even these teams you speak of think its worth time and money to find out how players will interact. It's important. They're humans just like everyone else.

I'm not going to go around and search for the studies, Brutus. I don't have the time, nor do I know where to look even if I did. You claimed you knew of the studies, so I was hoping you may be able to answer the questions.

And no, we aren't all built the same. We've all got different drives. We've got different ways in how things effect us. We handle things very differently.

But, the guys at the very top of their profession, the elite of the elite, probably aren't letting Tommy Reliever effect how he's playing in right field or how he's handling the pitcher throwing to him. It just doesn't make sense that it would happen that way. In football? Yeah, I can see John Righttackle not blocking Frank Linebacker because Tim Runningback was a jerk and letting him get crushed. In basketball I can see James Pointguard not passing the ball to Dwight Center because James didn't get along with Dwight. In baseball? That interaction just doesn't follow that.

Likewise, if it's just a "I'm not happy" working here, is the guy going to just not try as hard? Wouldn't trying harder, and performing better get him out of town sooner? Surely he understands that. Could it be subconscious and he's just not giving it all? I guess that's certainly possible. But it's probably something that's never been studied either.

Again though, I just don't buy that studies in your common workplaces apply to sports. The environments are completely different. The expectations are completely different.

[TheNext44]

I wonder how many members of the military think that team chemistry isn't important?

[dougdirt]

I wonder how many members of the military think that team chemistry isn't important?

The comparison between someone literally having your back, your right and your left and what happens in baseball in uncomparable. The guy at the plate is not effected in any way by the players on his team. It's hit versus the pitcher and the defense. Nothing his teammates do change how his actions work at the plate unless his manager makes him do something because of them (sac bunt, take a pitch).

[Brutus]

The comparison between someone literally having your back, your right and your left and what happens in baseball in uncomparable. The guy at the plate is not effected in any way by the players on his team. It's hit versus the pitcher and the defense. Nothing his teammates do change how his actions work at the plate unless his manager makes him do something because of them (sac bunt, take a pitch).

So you're saying baseball players have an inhuman ability to block out their mood when they're at the plate? They don't feel depression, sorrow, joy, anger, etc.? They've been blessed with the ability to set aside all the mundane stuff the rest of us mortals have to deal with in our lives, and they don't let it impact them?

Sure, I buy that (heavy sarcasm).

We're not different, Doug. Sure, we have individual personalities, but at the end of the day, human behavior is very predictable. There's a reason criminal profilers exist. People follow patterned behavior. There are outliers, sure, but at the end of the day, we all generally tend to follow the same idiosyncrasies.

Joey Votto was sidelined because of extended anxiety from his father's death. Yet, we're supposed to believe that an unhappy clubhouse can't carry over and impact players while they're at the plate? Dude, I've been at places where I hated merely being in the same room with a few people. I highly doubt athletes are immune to this kind of stuff. Actually I don't doubt they are, I know they aren't.

[jojo]

When people resort to typing a reactionary post in big, bright font, it's just overcompensation for lack of a real rebuttal.

PENULTIMATE SHENANIGANS TO THE EXTREME OF SHENANIGANISM

The BRM was arguably the greatest baseball team in history. Barry Bonds and Jeff Kent had their best years together despite likely fantasizing about killing each other. A world famous advocate for building teams based upon chemistry was arguably one of his era's biggest buffoons as a GM, certainly unarguably, Bill Bavasi was one of the least effective. And on and on and on and on and on and on infinity.....

But I will concede this-these things might all have been different if they had occurred on a violent, bloody battlefield, perhaps even during hand to hand combat, while everyone was informed that their dad just died.

[jojo]

So you're saying baseball players have an inhuman ability to block out their mood when they're at the plate? They don't feel depression, sorrow, joy, anger, etc.? They've been blessed with the ability to set aside all the mundane stuff the rest of us mortals have to deal with in our lives, and they don't let it impact them?

Sure, I buy that (heavy sarcasm).

We're not different, Doug. Sure, we have individual personalities, but at the end of the day, human behavior is very predictable. There's a reason criminal profilers exist. People follow patterned behavior. There are outliers, sure, but at the end of the day, we all generally tend to follow the same idiosyncrasies.

Joey Votto was sidelined because of extended anxiety from his father's death. Yet, we're supposed to believe that an unhappy clubhouse can't carry over and impact players while they're at the plate? Dude, I've been at places where I hated merely being in the same room with a few people. I highly doubt athletes are immune to this kind of stuff. Actually I don't doubt they are, I know they aren't.

I think he's saying its a game. The players are all compensated insanely. They play in Camelot. They have access to all resources imaginable to facilitate their success. They have all of the trappings of success. You're overstating the daily angst they feel in the clubhouse and you're begging the question concerning the impact that whether they slap each others naked butts with towels in the shower has on the manifestation of their talents on the field. Seriously I never got the fixation on guys snapping towels on their teammates naked butts anyway. Sometimes I think some would rather have cameras in the clubhouse than watch what happens between the white lines.

[dougdirt]

So you're saying baseball players have an inhuman ability to block out their mood when they're at the plate? They don't feel depression, sorrow, joy, anger, etc.? They've been blessed with the ability to set aside all the mundane stuff the rest of us mortals have to deal with in our lives, and they don't let it impact them?

Sure, I buy that (heavy sarcasm).

We're not different, Doug. Sure, we have individual personalities, but at the end of the day, human behavior is very predictable. There's a reason criminal profilers exist. People follow patterned behavior. There are outliers, sure, but at the end of the day, we all generally tend to follow the same idiosyncrasies.

Joey Votto was sidelined because of extended anxiety from his father's death. Yet, we're supposed to believe that an unhappy clubhouse can't carry over and impact players while they're at the plate? Dude, I've been at places where I hated merely being in the same room with a few people. I highly doubt athletes are immune to this kind of stuff. Actually I don't doubt they are, I know they aren't.

Of course they feel those things. But what they've got to do is very different from what us every-dayers have to do.

Handling grief of a lost loved one is a lot different than not liking the reliever or the shortstop or the fullback.

[dabvu2498]

I definitely think there is some level of "chemistry" needed on the field. Ex: "Do I trust my catcher enough to try and bury a slider with runners on?" Pitcher-catcher is the obvious example. Same with guys who play next to each other in the field, especially middle infielders. I'm not saying they have to be buddy-buddy, but some level of communication/trust is needed for optimum performance.

At the plate, probably not much. But I think that it's possible for guys to go to the plate with that dull, low roar in their gut and in the backs of their minds... "This sucks... I don't like these guys... Screw this, I'm playing for me, who cares if we win 71 or 72 games..." Of course, it's rare, but not totally out of the question. And I'd say it almost always happens on bad teams, which is, again, generally representative of cumulative talent.

And Doug -- I look at lockers and I see cubes. Dugout=cubish. Baselines=cube. So there!

[Roy Tucker]

This may be oversimplified, but I think losing breeds bad chemistry, not the other way around.

[Assembly Hall]

I go to my work place and in my line, I need every body to be on the same page. We have to work as a "team" to make money. If the company doesnt make money then we very possibly wont have our jobs very long. Baseball doesnt work that way at all. I can hit .330, bash out 35 Hr's, and have 140 RBI's and nobody cares that my team lost 100 games. Seems the sport is more conducive to individual accomplishments than winning.

[dougdirt]

I definitely think there is some level of "chemistry" needed on the field. Ex: "Do I trust my catcher enough to try and bury a slider with runners on?" Pitcher-catcher is the obvious example. Same with guys who play next to each other in the field, especially middle infielders. I'm not saying they have to be buddy-buddy, but some level of communication/trust is needed for optimum performance.

At the plate, probably not much. But I think that it's possible for guys to go to the plate with that dull, low roar in their gut and in the backs of their minds... "This sucks... I don't like these guys... Screw this, I'm playing for me, who cares if we win 71 or 72 games..." Of course, it's rare, but not totally out of the question. And I'd say it almost always happens on bad teams, which is, again, generally representative of cumulative talent.

And Doug -- I look at lockers and I see cubes. Dugout=cubish. Baselines=cube. So there!

The baselines are round. No one runs the bases in a cube!

So there! :mooner:

[Raisor]

Player 1 900 ops a-hole
Player 2 700 ops great guy

Assuming everything else being equal, who wouldn't take player 1 over player 2?

[jojo]

Player 1 900 ops a-hole
Player 2 700 ops great guy

Assuming everything else being equal, who wouldn't take player 1 over player 2?

Ironically enough....perhaps some who are slavish to soft science that is oft evoked but never linked.

[Old school 1983]

Ironically enough....perhaps some who are slavish to soft science that is oft evoked but never linked.


Where are your links about research showing that environment is more important than the people in it? Where are your links to "you" problems in the workplace? These are the broad generalizations that you often accuse people using against you. Do a google search for a Richard Boyatzis. He's done 40+ years of documented research on leadership, personal relationships and their connection to work environment and performance.

As for the comparison of the 900 v. 700 OPS players, I haven't once in this discussion discounted the role of player ability. In the Acquire Larkin thread I made a post speaking to getting more talent on the team. Yes there is a certain point where an employee or player is so much more skilled that their performance trumps the detrimental effect of their personality. Just looking at the .900 v. .700 OPS example, how often does a choice like that actually come up? There are very few 900 ops players. In real life he decision will come down to guys who are more in the same OPS range. When realistically looking at the scenario, the players are likely to be closer in OPS. In that case a players personality or willingness to work with younger players may, and as research in the workplace shows, often does, promote and lead to a higher overall level of performance for the team as a whole. On the same note, a player with a higher OPS, or skill level at their job, but an a-hole, may, and according to research often does, have a detrimental effect on the team, other performers,or workforce as a whole, that lessens overall performance, even if the effect is subconscious.

Pointing to extreme disparities in talent really doesn't shed light in the real world because cases that extreme are seldom seen. Most workers and players are usually around a similar performance level. Players or employees that are just that damn good that their poor attitude and personality don't matter are a rare breed.

[KronoRed]

Player 1 900 ops a-hole
Player 2 700 ops great guy

Assuming everything else being equal, who wouldn't take player 1 over player 2?

Is player 2 a fan favorite? because you always take the fan favorite.

[dabvu2498]

Player 1 900 ops a-hole
Player 2 700 ops great guy

Assuming everything else being equal, who wouldn't take player 1 over player 2?

All of Major League Baseball in 2008? (Except that it was actually a 1.045 OPS.)

[757690]

Player 1 900 ops a-hole
Player 2 700 ops great guy

Assuming everything else being equal, who wouldn't take player 1 over player 2?

When that .900 OPS guy was Milton Bradley jr., a bunch of teams chose "not him."

[jojo]

Where are your links about research showing that environment is more important than the people in it? Where are your links to "you" problems in the workplace? These are the broad generalizations that you often accuse people using against you. Do a google search for a Richard Boyatzis. He's done 40+ years of documented research on leadership, personal relationships and their connection to work environment and performance.

As for the comparison of the 900 v. 700 OPS players, I haven't once in this discussion discounted the role of player ability. In the Acquire Larkin thread I made a post speaking to getting more talent on the team. Yes there is a certain point where an employee or player is so much more skilled that their performance trumps the detrimental effect of their personality. Just looking at the .900 v. .700 OPS example, how often does a choice like that actually come up? There are very few 900 ops players. In real life he decision will come down to guys who are more in the same OPS range. When realistically looking at the scenario, the players are likely to be closer in OPS. In that case a players personality or willingness to work with younger players may, and as research in the workplace shows, often does, promote and lead to a higher overall level of performance for the team as a whole. On the same note, a player with a higher OPS, or skill level at their job, but an a-hole, may, and according to research often does, have a detrimental effect on the team, other performers,or workforce as a whole, that lessens overall performance, even if the effect is subconscious.

Pointing to extreme disparities in talent really doesn't shed light in the real world because cases that extreme are seldom seen. Most workers and players are usually around a similar performance level. Players or employees that are just that damn good that their poor attitude and personality don't matter are a rare breed.

Why do I need to post a link to support the notion that those evoking soft science as a premise in their argument they repeatedly declare in such a way as to imply the discussion is over don't actually ever post links?

BTW, do a google search on the psychological literature that suggests mindset makes environment (i.e. your stinky jerk wad com padres) irrelevant. You paint a world populated by a bunch of wussies with severe metacognitive deficits. Now here I thought ballplayers had testosterone coursing through their veins and a desire to overcome at all costs. Silly me, all of those guys I've known for years are really just wussies who depend upon others in order to get a hit.

The clubhouse is just a big frat house. Don't be a poindexter and youre not a chemistry problem. But guess what, what goes on in the frat house doesn't effect the score doled out in the classroom.

But I do think it's funny that you'd argue others have to somehow provide evidence for your opinion.

[Raisor]

When that .900 OPS guy was Milton Bradley jr., a bunch of teams chose "not him."

Bradley had more problems than just being a jerk. Domestic violence is a whole different level.

You can be an a-hole and not be a criminal. (And I should know)

[Assembly Hall]

Why do I need to post a link to support the notion that those evoking soft science as a premise in their argument they repeatedly declare in such a way as to imply the discussion is over don't actually ever post links?

BTW, do a google search on the psychological literature that suggests mindset makes environment (i.e. your stinky jerk wad com padres) irrelevant. You paint a world populated by a bunch of wussies with severe metacognitive deficits. Now here I thought ballplayers had testosterone coursing through their veins and a desire to overcome at all costs. Silly me, all of those guys I've known for years are really just wussies who depend upon others in order to get a hit.

The clubhouse is just a big frat house. Don't be a poindexter and youre not a chemistry problem. But guess what, what goes on in the frat house doesn't effect the score doled out in the classroom.

But I do think it's funny that you'd argue others have to somehow provide evidence for your opinion.

Damn, I dont know what half those words mean. I should have paid better attention in school.

[Assembly Hall]

Bradley had more problems than just being a jerk. Domestic violence is a whole different level.

You can be an a-hole and not be a criminal. (And I should know)

LOL!!!!!!!!

[757690]

Bradley had more problems than just being a jerk. Domestic violence is a whole different level.

You can be an a-hole and not be a criminal. (And I should know)

You're not a criminal? Learn something new everyday ;)

[Old school 1983]

Why do I need to post a link to support the notion that those evoking soft science as a premise in their argument they repeatedly declare in such a way as to imply the discussion is over don't actually ever post links?

BTW, do a google search on the psychological literature that suggests mindset makes environment (i.e. your stinky jerk wad com padres) irrelevant. You paint a world populated by a bunch of wussies with severe metacognitive deficits. Now here I thought ballplayers had testosterone coursing through their veins and a desire to overcome at all costs. Silly me, all of those guys I've known for years are really just wussies who depend upon others in order to get a hit.

The clubhouse is just a big frat house. Don't be a poindexter and youre not a chemistry problem. But guess what, what goes on in the frat house doesn't effect the score doled out in the classroom.

But I do think it's funny that you'd argue others have to somehow provide evidence for your opinion.

This whole thing basically boils down to the fact that you discounted people within the work environment as being a factor in that environment and then tried to make an indelible statement of the fact of your post in 72 sized red font. There is more to it than you preached to. Why would I quote the man who did over 40 years of research on the topic? Because he's the expert. It'd be akin to me asking why you can't you do your own work when you use a concept created by Bill James. By citing someone's work I'm somehow asking him to make the argument for me, not using it as a reference of authority on the subject?

But back to the topic, research indicates that the way humans are genetically programmed is linked to actions and reactions in the workplace no matter if you're a sissy or a hardass. Evidence suggests it doesn't matter. And furthermore on that topic, wouldn't pointing to the hardassness of ball players enabling them to ignore poor influences point to your argument admitting that psychological and personal skills matter in the workplace? Something that you've refuted this whole time. My initial reply to you was to a post pointing to only physical attributes of an environment being a factor on the impact of the people in it. You discounted the people within the environment and research shows that they are the most influential part of an environment. I haven't discounted the physical environment or flat out talent in the equation like you have discounted the people within the situation. This discourse is basically over. You won't, can't, or refuse to accept the role of the people around you in a work environment. This can go no further and will basically turn into a more escalated pissing contest laced with thinly veiled insults.

[jojo]

This whole thing basically boils down to the fact that you discounted people within the work environment as being a factor in that environment and then tried to make an indelible statement of the fact of your post in 72 sized red font. There is more to it than you preached to. Why would I quote the man who did over 40 years of research on the topic? Because he's the expert. It'd be akin to me asking why you can't you do your own work when you use a concept created by Bill James. By citing someone's work I'm somehow asking him to make the argument for me, not using it as a reference of authority on the subject?

But back to the topic, research indicates that the way humans are genetically programmed is linked to actions and reactions in the workplace no matter if you're a sissy or a hardass. Evidence suggests it doesn't matter. And furthermore on that topic, wouldn't pointing to the hardassness of ball players enabling them to ignore poor influences point to your argument admitting that psychological and personal skills matter in the workplace? Something that you've refuted this whole time. My initial reply to you was to a post pointing to only physical attributes of an environment being a factor on the impact of the people in it. You discounted the people within the environment and research shows that they are the most influential part of an environment. I haven't discounted the physical environment or flat out talent in the equation like you have discounted the people within the situation. This discourse is basically over. You won't, can't, or refuse to accept the role of the people around you in a work environment. This can go no further and will basically turn into a more escalated pissing contest laced with thinly veiled insults.

Since you're solely the one turning this into a pissing contest and hurling insults, just apologize and frankly, the board would likely accept it without further comment.

But the reality is that this discussion won't move forward until one of the soft science evokers but non-linkers actually move beyond metacommentary and rather than continually preaching about how important chemistry is, actually say chemistry has impact X on performance and should thus be valued Y. It's flaccid to argue the discussion is over because of google without tangibly defining the impact then acting like some kind of meaningful dialog has taken place. Literally, if you're unwilling or you can't put a number on it that can be debated than concede the point. If you can, how about throwing the board an actually bone that can be chewed upon rather than framing the issue with personal attacks that do nothing but distract?

[jojo]

You're not a criminal? Learn something new everyday ;)

Masterminds are too far ahead of primitive institutions like the legal system to be in violation of their naive tenants.