Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> 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. Me: I don't remember them, for obvious reasons, but what I've read about them suggests that they _hated_ each other. 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 Me: The odd thing is, I agree with you too. I know from the competitions I've cited that I played in, for example, that a good team captain was _the_ critical component to winning games. But, in the case of baseball, my problem with the team chemistry argument is that it's analytically useless. There isn't any way to say _in advance_, this team will have good chemistry and this one won't. There often isn't even any way to say afterwards, really. So I think that a team executive, or even a fan, is probably better off ignoring it, because it's an explanation that does far more to cloud than illuminate. It may or may not have much of an effect on the game, but so far as I can tell, there just isn't any way to know. Gautam
