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.