Clubhouse chemistry seems to be a bit of the "chicken or the egg" debate. Does winning breed good chemistry or does good chemistry lead to winning?
Last year, manager Lou Piniella lamented a lack of chemistry, and many observers pointed the finger at recalcitrant right fielder Milton Bradley for poisoning the well.
Well, right or wrong, Bradley is gone and the trade seems like less of a baseball decision (given Carlos Silva’s awful pitching) and more of an admittance by Cubs GM Jim Hendry that the clubhouse chemistry matters.
According to Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald , Piniella seems to be one who stands on the side of chemistry being important.
“You’ve got to have fun in this business," Piniella said. "Yeah, it's work, it's a business, no question. You've got to enjoy it. You've got to be able to laugh.”
So does it matter, and, if so, how much does it matter? Well, I personally doubt that the Cubs 2009 season washout was the result of Milton Bradley’s attitude; it had more to do with the lack of overall talent, under-performance, and the injuries.
Look, the Oakland A’s in the early 1970s won championships with teams that reportedly didn’t get along.
Those who think that team chemistry matters often lean on anecdotal evidence to support their argument. Think about workers at the place where you work. Are there persons who do not carry their weight? And who badmouth the company? Yet, despite that, are there workers who perform well?
As to the 2009 Cubs specifically, how did Derek Lee have such a fine season if Bradley supposedly took the tram so far down?
On any given day there are 750 people who populate the entirety of Major League active rosters. To get there, an American born player had to prove themselves in Little League, junior high, high school, maybe college and then the minor leagues.
It is a grueling process to become a Major League ballplayer and just as grueling to stay one. The players at the top level of baseball provide a variety of personalities, but nearly all of them are driven by success.
To believe that a disagreeable personality would derail someone of such focus and desire is ludicrous. Good chemistry at the highest level is more a matter of proficiency rather than camaraderie.
Therefore, to blame Bradley for the Cubs failure is pointless. Likewise, to suggest that the Cubs will improve in 2010 simply because the "evil man" is gone is equally ridiculous.
The Cubs have brought in positive personalities in Marlon Byrd and Kevin Millar. But if they can’t play good baseball, it won’t matter.
So chemistry matters to a point. But good chemistry won’t make a bad team a good team, come to think of it.
Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com
- Login to post comments