Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> I'm not saying that numbers, or how you play the game
> (stress OBP, not average etc. etc.) aren't vital to success,
> but if you have one or two divisive players in the clubhouse
> and those players happen to be the stars, you're chances of
> winning go down the toilet.
>
> --
> Doug
>
> Then why did Reggie Jackson's Oakland A's - who famously hated each other so
> much they got into fistfights in the clubhouse - won the World Series?
They won three in a row, in fact, '72-'74, and they were a
great team despite (and because of) Charlie Finley. They
had a few spats, but I seem to remember that they had a
solid clubhouse.
Or
> why did the famous "Tinkers to Evers to Chance" Cubs - who also hated each
> other - do exceptionally well? Or why the Orioles in 1998 said that they
> had the best clubhouse any of them could remember, and did not do so well.
> I would suggest the alternate. Teams that win develop good clubhouse
> chemistry, and teams that lose (sometimes) develop poor clubhouse chemistry.
> But it's the winning that causes the chemistry, not the other way around.
> Note that this is _only_ true for baseball, the most individual of team
> sports. It's clearly not true for football or basketball, for example.
I agree with 99% of what you are saying, but I think there
is a psychological component, especially in the post season,
that can account for success or lack thereof. Yes winning
is vital to create the atmosphere, but _winners_ are
necessary too.
Golf is probably one of the most individual sports, period.
You play the course, not your opponent. But when it comes
down to the final round in a major, you need a great game
_and_ you need to be able to overcome the psychological
stress. Tiger Woods isn't just good at golf, he's good at
winning. Baseball is, I agree, the most individual of team
sports (that I am familiar with). But there is a team
component, again, especially in a short series, that must be
factored in.
--
Doug
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zo.com/~brighto
