Team Chemistry issues?

[Squirrel]

Things were certainly different this year, but I'm not sure why that would be the case with Dozier and his leadership. The core was essentially the same from last year. Supplemented by Duke, Rodney, Lynn, and Morrison.

 

The personalities changed more during the season when Sano/Buxton hit rock bottom, and Castro was lost for the season. The people that have filled in for them have been utterly forgettable.

 

So while I agree things are different, I'm not sure why it's different. And don't think we'll know until the season is over why it changed.

As I said, I’m wondering. This is just a theory, why I used the phrase ‘I’m wondering.’ Dozier certainly is a role model in who he was and how he went about playing the game. Looking up to him and respecting him, though, are different than being a leader. When he assumed the role from Torii there wasn’t anyone else to do that. He stepped up, again, an admirable thing. And the guys around him, for the most part, saw and accepted that torch pass. Or mostly. New guys may not have, and/or younger players getting older may have pushed back and I wonder if Brian had the true leadership skills to deal with it. Again, just wondering. I loved Dozier. He wasn’t a favorite like Escobar was and Eddie still is, but something didn’t work this year, if all these reports are true. Teams are always going to be adding new players to the mix and it is both sides that need to adjust to the changes.

[nicksaviking]

 

Right. And I’m wondering if he was getting push back from some of the players leading to conflict. Again, not saying it’s Dozier’s fault by any means. Most of you know how much I liked him. But, I wonder if it was a role not fully suited to him? Torii would have put people in their places, whether not that was a good way, but there was no questioning his ... ‘authority’ ... for lack of a bette way to put it. Dozier was just a good guy and you liked him because he was a good, amiable guy who worked really hard. And people gravitated toward that, making him the de facto leader, but I wonder if he really had the right quality to lead some of the personalities in that club house. Again, not pointing at Dozier here as the one at fault, but I could see that as causing problems.

 

And perhaps Dozier wasn't actually much of a leader previously, it just so happened that he was the team's best player, looks good and speaks well so the reporters would shove their microphones in his face first, which made him look like a leader.

 

Obviously that's only an off-the-cuff theory.

[Vanimal46]

I am not sure I go along with the utterly forgettable part. Escobar player a .lot a 3B and Cave has been pretty darn good. Granted Kepler got quite a few starts in CF but Cave has been the guy of late.

I'm talking about Bobby Wilson, Ryan LaMarre, Petit, Motter, Astudillo... Guys who came in to replace some of Buxton and Sano's PAs. Will we remember any of these guys by this time next year?

[Jham]

From my college baseball days. I can tell you when your team has high expectations and the guys playing are sucking the guys not playing start getting pissed they aren't getting a chance.

So maybe that has something to do with this years chemistry. For example I am guessing quite a few are friends with Vargas and they see Morrison being terrible and they are thinking Kennys could be doing that for way less money? IDK

I'd add that once resentment starts to set in, it begins to erode at the structure of any relationship. It spirals because the natural reaction is to get defensive when confronted by warranted and unwarranted criticism. Buck, Kep, Berrios, and Rosario were approached with k extensions prior to the year. But not Sano? The FO wouldn't pick up the phone for Doz. Those guys all turned down offers, and still no money for Doz. No offer for Esco. No offer Sano. More FA pick ups, and no money. The problem is every side has some reason to be upset. When both sides are "right", you can get some pretty explosive confrontations.

[jimmer]

IMO, with very few exceptions, good chemistry is created when teams are winning, and it turns to bad chemistry when teams are losing.

 

As far as players being leaders, these guys are major leaguers. None of them should need to have other players motivate them. Nor should they have to accept someone other than the coaches, managers and FO getting in their face.

 

MLB clubhouses don't need to be day care centers.

 

And we also have no idea who on the team is a good or bad leader cause there are many ways to lead. Also we aren't around them to see how these players interact away from the field. We do sometimes see loudmouthes get in co-workers faces on TV. Some might say that is leadership

[Doomtints]

 

That's called not burning bridges. You learn that when you're on 10 teams in 14 years.

 

Viola had a pretty good career and he was not shy about being thrilled to be getting away from the Twins.

[gocgo]

 

Team chemistry does NOT win games. It's that simple.

"I went to the clubhouse, and I gathered [everyone] up. I said, 'Everybody together, we're going to have a short meeting,'" Puckett said, retelling the story years later. "Everybody comes in, and I said, 'Guys, I just have one announcement to make: You guys should jump on my back tonight. I'm going to carry us.'"

 

I disagree with you.  When you have team chemistry, you play your guts out for the guys around you.

[Mike Sixel]

 

"I went to the clubhouse, and I gathered [everyone] up. I said, 'Everybody together, we're going to have a short meeting,'" Puckett said, retelling the story years later. "Everybody comes in, and I said, 'Guys, I just have one announcement to make: You guys should jump on my back tonight. I'm going to carry us.'"

 

I disagree with you.  When you have team chemistry, you play your guts out for the guys around you.

 

Chemistry can help, but talent and luck win games, imo.

 

You don't think anyone gives speeches like that, in losing games? We just never hear those stories....

[MikeW]

Bad chemistry often makes for an interesting topic of conjecture and hindsight.

 

Brian Dozier is a good team mate and, I suspect, person. He and his wife do a lot for the community and, as a professional and as an engaged community person, we will miss him a lot.

 

I’m reminded that the Timberwolves are also allegedly having “bad chemistry” during the off-season.

 

As fans, we really have no idea what the truth is.

 

One thing for certain is that Dozier was most upset with Escobar being traded. Dozier is a guy who develops strong relationships with his team mates. Having grown up in the Twins organization, Dozier likely pushed aside the business aspect that the game as become. Brian is an emotional guy which is mostly good and, occasionally bad.

 

The new management wants to put its imprimatur on the franchise. As such, they see the recent mostly languishing seasons as a problem that they were brought in to solve.

[ND-Fan]

This front office has alot to do with team chemistry because of how they have structured this team and how they have moved players like checkers back and forth with nothing to do with how they have performed. They made no long term signings to any players to develop a club house where you  know who the leaders of the team are and basically have traded the core of this team away in last week. This team is in  free fall for rest of this year and will be for next several years. Look at their roster we only have several quality major league players that will be on this squad by next year. Berios, Gibson, Rosario, Castro, and Polanco  are proven major league players this team has under contract or team control past this season. Dozier everyone has talked about having down year but I believe it was all the pressure of trying to lead a club when a lot players knew he wasn't going to be here at the end of the season. Look its one game but sure look like Dozier of old with first game in Dodgers uniform. This Front Office is so analytical that they have forgotten they are dealing with people and they are not just player  to fit what ever statistic they need to make this perfect team. I think Levine may know this but he is not in charge but part of plan to be carried out by Falvey and his other analytical people. I have read where Levine is being considered for some positions coming available after the season.  But getting back to this Front Office this was team that they took over  had many of the pieces in place and were drafting from the number one position in the draft to add to this team. Ownership and Business side of team sold this to the public and said we just need to modernize operation but we were close to winning. They gave up on the team last year real early and the team won in despite of this with out adding players but subtracting players plus there were no rewards for any of key players everybody was on one year deal. So we start this season out with fan optimism but players in club house all looking to have personal best season to get the bigger contract. Then we lost what was key to this club doing little things to win. Then you add in Sano and Buxton flops this year we have nothing year and now trade away the core its going to get ugly before year ends. Sano and Buxton is where this front office has fallen down the most they have not communicated well with these players and if that isn't possible they need to have made a decision on their future with this team. I wonder if they haven't lost whole team where most of these players are playing to just complete their time here and move on . We will never know and players will never say  anything to world what they are truly thinking but I just get a feeling that players tired of playing under this analytical system. Falvey has been such innovator on analytics and it is wonderful to his peers but how does it play out with players in club house. Before this is done Molitor will be one taking fall for the poor club house and he may part of the problem but he isn't even in know on the direction they are on player moves.  I just think were at least were four years at least until we can put competitive team on the diamond. I look were staring at 95 plus loss season this year and what we have on the books for team next year were looking at team that could loose 100 to 110. All these trades were for A level players where 75% will never make the MLB and are at least 2 to 3 years away from making MLB level. Look at our top prospects now Royce Lewis he still a A ball with two years almost put in, Gordon has number years in he's at AAA and struggling so far at least not good enough to be called up. I guess I feel the media in town has given this Front Office free pass on what they are doing and I don't understand this because they would have call for Terry Ryan head with the moves made. Also there would have been columns on what Front Office was doing wrong but I haven't seen one critical piece on what the TWins are doing. Ownership was concerned about their brand when they hired this group and felt need to change to improve how their brand was perceived. I think the Twins will now become what the Timberwolves have been to cities the most loosing franchise because before they are competitive again its going to be at least 15 years of loosing so they will have lost a generation of fans. This is all been done on what this front office didn't do between their first year and second year of running this club. I believe its because they have never believed in any of these players because it wasn't who they would have chose and couldn't adapt to putting winner together with this group so were in full rebuild again that public has no mood for and I wonder what ownership will think in next few years.

[yarnivek1972]

The players in every MLB clubhouse better learn to adjust to the realities of analytics, which includes far fewer multi-year, 8 figure contracts. It isn’t going away anytime soon.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Adversity doesn't really create bad character, it reveals it. That's one axiom that I think bears repeating. No question that things like expiring contracts and one year deals are going to infuse a different dynamic into the team.. and who knows... maybe there were people sucking it up who quite frankly didn't care... and that's not going to rub well on things.

 

If you want my take on Sano, I suspect his demotion likely had to do with those types of things. His club house presence did get brought up in a few official reports. 

 

But I'll say this... I think you can be on a losing team and have great chemistry... and I do think that good chemistry can contribute to wins/losses... I think that a winning team can have poor chemistry, and when adversity comes, that can quickly make things toxic. There's no WAR value for that.

 

Now whether or not this was a shot at Dozier or a way of deflecting fan wrath from trading away a popular player... who knows. I don't think any of us can come to a solid conclusion on any of this without information that none of us have. 

[USAFChief]

https://www.americaninno.com/boston/bill-james-red-sox-value-intangibles-and-clubhouse-chemistry/

 

It appears the idea that "chemistry" isn't important isn't a universally held viewpoint, at least not for Bill James and the Red Sox.

[Mike Sixel]

 

https://www.americaninno.com/boston/bill-james-red-sox-value-intangibles-and-clubhouse-chemistry/

 

It appears the idea that "chemistry" isn't important isn't a universally held viewpoint, at least not for Bill James and the Red Sox.

 

Not sure who this is aimed at.......chemistry matters, talent matters more. Is that really controversial?

 

Is it odd we never read about bad chemistry, until after things turn out badly? Is it odd we never read about great speeches given in losing games (they must happen).

 

I don't think anyone has said chemistry doesn't matter......

[D. Hocking]

 

Chemistry can help, but talent and luck win games, imo.

 

You don't think anyone gives speeches like that, in losing games? We just never hear those stories....

 

Kirby was obviously a great player for both the tangibles and intangibles, but I remember hearing one of his teammates (Gladden?) when asked about the comment reply that Kirby said that before a lot of games, many of which they lost.

 

I think chemistry can give you a little bump and get people playing about their level when caught in the momentum - especially in the streaky game like baseball, but you need actual talent at the foundation.  It is kind of the icing on the cake.

 

One thing for certain is that Dozier was most upset with Escobar being traded. Dozier is a guy who develops strong relationships with his team mates.

 

 

Mauer, seemed a bit emotional (for him) when he was interviewed after the Dozier news broke, saying he was one of his closet friends.  I am not sure coming back would even be his choice at this point, but if it was, this would have to sour him a bit on the idea.  At 35 he would going to be on another team that is rebuilding, most of his friends long gone. 

 

Between another rebuild, his growing family, and the return of the concussion symptoms, I have gone from thinking there was a fair chance he could play one or two more eyarst to this is probably his last year.  Plus, I am not sure there will even be an offer from the team.

[Mike Sixel]

Was this already posted here? Warning....long read....

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/finding-the-formula-for-team-chemistry/561722/

[USAFChief]

 

Not sure who this is aimed at.......chemistry matters, talent matters more. Is that really controversial?

 

Is it odd we never read about bad chemistry, until after things turn out badly? Is it odd we never read about great speeches given in losing games (they must happen).

 

I don't think anyone has said chemistry doesn't matter......

Nobody has said chemistry doesn't matter? Or said chemistry only flows from winning and/or losing, and in no case the other way around?

 

Reread the thread, Mike.

 

What nobody has said is that talent doesn't matter, or matter more than chemistry. You can't take a bunch of AAAA players and win a pennant because they get along well together. On that we agree.

 

The question is, does cohesiveness and chemistry, and working together toward a common goal get more from a given amount of talent than from the same group who aren't willing to put the team first? Do leaders on a team have an influence on how hard people work, how willing they are to set aside personal goals in favor of group goals, how willing they are to accept roles they didn't envision for themselves?

 

And there are plenty of people in this thread who have posited that it doesn't matter. 

 

I disagree.

 

So does at least one executive from a highly successful team, who also happens to be a forerunner of modern analytics.

 

[Thrylos]

 

As I said, I’m wondering. This is just a theory, why I used the phrase ‘I’m wondering.’ Dozier certainly is a role model in who he was and how he went about playing the game. Looking up to him and respecting him, though, are different than being a leader. When he assumed the role from Torii there wasn’t anyone else to do that. He stepped up, again, an admirable thing. And the guys around him, for the most part, saw and accepted that torch pass. Or mostly. New guys may not have, and/or younger players getting older may have pushed back and I wonder if Brian had the true leadership skills to deal with it. Again, just wondering. I loved Dozier. He wasn’t a favorite like Escobar was and Eddie still is, but something didn’t work this year, if all these reports are true. Teams are always going to be adding new players to the mix and it is both sides that need to adjust to the changes.

 

I think that certainly if Dozier was trying to play leader and try to chastise either of the Eddies, both could have had a valid argument that a. he has done nothing on the field this season and b. he publicly admits that baseball is a side thing for him, so he has no place to stand and criticize others who are better and are 100% in the game.

 

I can really see a "who are you, again, and what have you done?" type of attitude against Dozier in the clubhouse.  Not to mention the politics part...

 

Simple. 

[jimmer]

Not sure who this is aimed at.......chemistry matters, talent matters more. Is that really controversial?

 

Is it odd we never read about bad chemistry, until after things turn out badly? Is it odd we never read about great speeches given in losing games (they must happen).

 

I don't think anyone has said chemistry doesn't matter......

IMO, I think good chemistry will help good teams become very good teams and very good teams become great teams. These are some magical seasons we have seen occur. How sustainable that is, though, I don't know because you see teams have chemistry described as great one year then horrible the next and it's practically the same team (like Boston a few years ago). Bad chemistry likely makes bad teams worse. But no amount of great chemistry takes a team lacking in real quality MLB talent and makes them great. That's movie stuff right there.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I think that certainly if Dozier was trying to play leader and try to chastise either of the Eddies, both could have had a valid argument that a. he has done nothing on the field this season and b. he publicly admits that baseball is a side thing for him, so he has no place to stand and criticize others who are better and are 100% in the game.

 

I can really see a "who are you, again, and what have you done?" type of attitude against Dozier in the clubhouse.  Not to mention the politics part...

 

Simple. 

 

It's always simple when you hold to a bunch of assumptions that you cannot prove.

 

Nothing typed here can be concluded with any real certainty. Is it possible? Sure. Is this Occam's razor? No not really.

[Thrylos]

 

 

Nothing typed here can be concluded with any real certainty. Is it possible? Sure. Is this Occam's razor? No not really.

 

Nothing typed in this whole thread can be concluded with any real certainty as well, since nobody who is typing here has been there for the whole season.

 

It is all a bunch of assumptions.   They just vary depending on the eye of the beholder.

[Jham]

It's always simple when you hold to a bunch of assumptions that you cannot prove.

 

Nothing typed here can be concluded with any real certainty. Is it possible? Sure. Is this Occam's razor? No not really.

And here, the downside of the analytics movement: "the we don't have a stat to measure it, so it either doesn't exist or doesn't matter" argument.

 

If only someone had studied workplace productivity in comparison to job satisfaction, compiled the data, and published the result. Oh wait, that has been done. Hundreds of times.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/do-happier-people-work-harder.html

 

Just because a stat isn't a baseball card stat doesn't make it not analytics. Every major Corp spends huge dollars on team building, workplace consultants, and hr because chemistry does matter. Baseball still has people playing it, not zips projections or algorithms.

[USAFChief]

"Not everything that can be measured is important, and not everything that's important can be measured."

[terrydactyls]

I have been saying all year P train Morrison I a problem. You cannot come in all brash and cocky, with a big mouth talking a lot of stuff ten fail as miserably as he has. The Logan Morrison experiment needs to end soon. He never fit here, Falvey and Levine must realize that by now. DAF Morrison and be done with it.

"P train Morrison I a problem?" What the heck does that mean?

 

"DAF Morrison?" Did you mean "DFA?"

 

Please take a moment before posting to read your comments to see if they make any sense.

[Mike Sixel]

 

And here, the downside of the analytics movement: "the we don't have a stat to measure it, so it either doesn't exist or doesn't matter" argument.

If only someone had studied workplace productivity in comparison to job satisfaction, compiled the data, and published the result. Oh wait, that has been done. Hundreds of times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/do-happier-people-work-harder.html

Just because a stat isn't a baseball card stat doesn't make it not analytics. Every major Corp spends huge dollars on team building, workplace consultants, and hr because chemistry does matter. Baseball still has people playing it, not zips projections or algorithms.

 

I literally just posted an article about trying to do this work.....

 

and saying analytics types don't believe in chemistry is like saying they don't believe in scouting.....then you say it is part of analytics, then you type the last sentence. I'm not sure what your point is, actually.

[Platoon]

Well, after Molitor's "no" when it came to seeing players from Triple A, nope, wouldn't surprise me.

When I first heard that Molitor said that, I thought it was a GT joke. It obviously wasn't a GT joke, but it was a joke!

[Blake]

 

When I first heard that Molitor said that, I thought it was a GT joke. It obviously wasn't a GT joke, but it was a joke!

I would have thought it was sarcasm, but for Molitor, a few weeks ago, seeming to agree an opposing team was running up score when the score was 7-0 in, say, the 5th? Don't remember the game, but, I remember the comment and thought it rather eye-opening.

[Platoon]

Perhaps it was just a lack of media presence, or a lack of my paying attention, but it sure seemed like Dozier played the role of a front-and-center leader the prior three years more so than he did this year.

Its very difficult to be front and center when you are having the season he was having. And last year, one of the primary reasons the team sold at the break was his lousy first half. Yet he was the most vociferous about giving in too soon. It would have sounded far more inspiring if he had played up to abilities.

[Jham]

I literally just posted an article about trying to do this work.....

 

and saying analytics types don't believe in chemistry is like saying they don't believe in scouting.....then you say it is part of analytics, then you type the last sentence. I'm not sure what your point is, actually.

There's times I'm not sure what my point is... I think what I was trying to convey is that chemistry does make workers including players more focused and productive. And that science and numbers support that idea. Even though it's impossible to measure on an individual basis.

[Mike Sixel]

 

There's times I'm not sure what my point is... I think what I was trying to convey is that chemistry does make workers including players more focused and productive. And that science and numbers support that idea. Even though it's impossible to measure on an individual basis.

 

ah, got it. We agree!