Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer.
What a great debate, with both writers presenting excellent arguments. While our writers generally bicker behind the scenes over email, and often in the debate comments on the website, those heated exchanges are usually reserved for after the debate verdict is posted. I am excited to report that the bickering started even before the editor was able to post the arguments live on the website! Therefore, I am certain that the following verdict will incite a riot here at The Sports Debates world headquarters. The local police are on high alert, the national guard just pulled up with water cannons, and Bleacher Fan is already donning his trusty Barbie parka.
For me, as the Sports Geek, this verdict is a struggle. Like Fox Mulder from the X-Files, I genuinely WANT to believe… that chemistry matters. I applied that context to my analysis and the decision on the arguments.
The primary example in Loyal Homer’s argument – Kobe versus Shaq – is a non-starter for me because it implies that the Lakers did not have more going on than just the feud and its supposed disruption of team chemistry. Loyal Homer admits that Kobe was dealing with a lot of personal issues with his wife and a court case while Shaq missed a lot of time due to injury. Therefore it is impossible to declare the team’s struggles that season as solely due to a lack of chemistry. Sure, chemistry played a role without a doubt as Shaq missing a lot of time played a HUGE role, given that the team was built around his presence in the middle. I do not, however, believe this example proves the value of chemistry. Chemistry, in this case, was just one of many factors that ultimately distracted the team from performing well.
First, Shaq is a good player. When not on the court, he is replaced by a player who was not as good. That is not a chemistry disruption. It is just one player who is good not being able to play and a replacement taking his minutes who is not as good. Plus, as Bleacher Fan points out, that team made the NBA Finals. Making the Finals is hard, and only good teams can do it. Honestly, every team should have those type of “chemistry” issues. I simply do not agree that this team was dealing with chemistry issues more than it was dealing with the impact from Shaq’s injuries or the declining skills of Gary Payton and Karl Malone. The Pistons exposed problems with the team that, arguably, had nothing to do with a lack of chemistry and had a great deal more to do with Malone’s inability to drive to the basket and Shaq’s poor performance from the free throw line.
Likewise, I am unconvinced that Terrell Owens – one solitary player – can be such a problem in the locker room that the entire team – defense included – is impacted in a negative way. Owens did get to a Super Bowl with Philadelphia, and played well despite a severe ankle injury. Owens’ selfish personality was not the reason the Eagles’ defense gave up so many points to the Tom Brady-led Patriots offense. To attribute the Cowboys’ relative success in 2009 to Owens’ absence is also a stretch. While a noble attempt, I believe it is hard to make a chemistry argument in football, when so many disparate factors contribute to a team’s success or failure.
Loyal Homer does get points for mentioning my favorite team, the Chicago Cubs, and pointing out that poor chemistry resulting from Milton Bradley’s presence negatively impacted last season’s team. However, more impactful was poor pitching in the first half, a questionable bullpen, and big injuries to third baseman Aramis Ramirez and left fielder Alfonso Soriano. While Bradley was certainly distracting, his behavior, and the chemistry problems it genuinely did create, was not the sole reason the Cubs played as poorly as they did last season. The injuries and the resulting inability to perform likely contributed to Bradley’s attitude, but if those players do not get injured and the team is winning games, Bradley would not be the scapegoat for 2009 that he became.
Loyal Homer’s one valid argument, that Alex Rodriguez’s growth as a player impacted the team’s chemistry in a good way, is compelling. The Yankees clearly got along better after Rodriguez admitted he was a human being. However, is that why the Yankees pitchers were effective? Is that why the team avoided injuries? I remain unconvinced because there are teams with great chemistry that fail. The Cleveland Indians of the past several seasons have really gotten along well, but that does not make the hitters hit better or the pitchers pitch better (or Kerry Wood’s goatee longer).
Bleacher Fan makes an interesting point about team chemistry not necessarily being why a team wins or loses, though it may be responsible for adding flash to a team’s performance. Ultimately, Bleacher Fan wins this argument for correctly stating that team chemistry is nice, but it is NOT a prerequisite for success.
The point that the Cavaliers’ struggles this season with the Charlotte Bobcats existed before the trade for Antawn Jamison further underscores the notion that team chemistry gets too much credit. The Cleveland Cavaliers provide the perfect example in sports right now to study the impact of chemistry.
This debate topic is particularly challenging for me because I like to quantify things. Sure, a bad influence in the clubhouse may exist at the same time a team’s collective batting average goes down… but does that mean the bad influence is directly responsible for bad batting averages? No, in the same way that if it begins raining shortly after a medicine man does a rain dance, it does not necessarily mean that the medicine man brought the rain.
The truth is that sports thrive on statistics and being able to measure success or failure with numbers. There is good reason for that. Chemistry is not measurable… but it also is not very important. The relative lack of real importance is likely why a number has never been attached to it.
Also, how, exactly, to classify a chemistry disruption is critical. For example, I do not consider a star’s absence – and the resulting decline of a team’s record – an example of poor chemistry. I see that example as one good player is replaced by one that is not as good. The reason for the drop off is obvious, and has nothing to do with how well players get along on or off the court. The difference is one can hit a jump shot or a curveball and the other cannot.
I genuinely want to believe chemistry makes a difference in a team’s performance, or is the reason one team wins a championship while another flounders. However, given the arguments presented, I simply do not see enough evidence that a lack of chemistry prevents winning, or the presence of chemistry assures a championship.
What do you think TSD fans? Does chemistry make a difference?
Posted by Sports Geek 
