My AL East Preview

Here we are, another year where the Royals think they can win the division. Another year, when every team has the chance to win. Yes, folks, baseball is finally back. Spring Training is finally getting under way, and we are just under 30 days until the first regular season game. Thank the lord. I will do one division per day. AL East will be first.

AL East Predictions

AL East

1. Boston Red Sox:

The Boston Red Sox will contain both the Tampa Bay Rays and the New York Yankees to finish in first. Even though the Yanks got both Texiera, CC and Burnett, I love the depth of the Red Sox bullpen. The Red Sox had really solid moves this off-season with the addition of Saito and Smoltz. Smoltz should have a decent year, and the Red Sox will probably use him as the #4-5 starter. The addition of Saito, is a low-risk, high reward. Coming off a terrible year plaged with injuries, (although he still ended up with a 1.19 WHIP) Saito should rebound to where he was in 2007 when he had a 1.40 ERA and a 0.72 WHIP. Roco Baldeli is another interesting story for the Red Sox, Baldeli could be a rebound type of guy for them, and could use them as a really good bench player, or even a spot starter. They also resigned C Jason Varitek which is another big piece to the Red Sox, mainly not for his bat, but he knows the pitching staff, so the pitchers are more comfortable with him. More additions to the Red Sox include SP Brad Penny, which could be another good starter, see Smoltz. Ramon Ramirez is going to be a stud someday, and the Red Sox are lucky to get him also.

Players to watch: Boston's young pitchers

Watch out for the Red Sox young pitchers this upcoming season. Manny Declarmen, Micheal Bowden, Clay Bucholz all could be good pitchers for the Red Sox, and their bullpen would be even more dangerous.

So additions to the Red Sox who could be solid contributors:

Roco Baldeli, John Smoltz, Ramon Rameriz, Brad Penny, Takashi Saito.

Record: 99-63

2. Tampa Bay Rays
Coming off one of the best records in Rays history, the 08-09 Rays have some key players. Adding OF Pat Burrell to the already good lineup is just going to make them better. Pat Burrell is a power threat in any lineup, and should be the Rays anchor in the #4 spot for them. Gabe Kapler, another addition to the Rays OF, will be another good bench player. And finally, Jason Israghusen another addition, should be a good reliever. I think the Rays will beat the Yankees because of the better overall depth, and their rotation is more younger, and a bit better.

James Shields, went 14-8, with a 3.56 ERA and a 1.15 WHIP, which is really good, expect the same out of him this year.

Scott Kazmir, went 12-8, with a 3.49 ERA and a 1.27 WHIP.

Players to watch: Can Pat Burrell be the same player the Rays signed? Can the players stay healthy, and finally can Kazmir and Shields be the same pitchers they were last year? If the answer is yes, then the Rays will finish 2nd.

Record: 92-70

3. New York Yankees

Man, the Yankees are going to be a tough team to write about. But I think the Yankees will finish 3rd. Yes, you know why? The injuries are already going to get to them. AJ Burnett rarley stays healthy, CC Sabathia pitched how many innings last year? He will eventually fall of the table, and can the team chemistry remain the same after what A-Rod went through this off-season.

First off, I loved the CC Sabathia signing for the Yankees. Even though I wanted the Brewers to re-sign him (Yes, I'm a Brewers fan) the Yankees had one hell of a signing here. The guy is a horse, but truth is, he pitched a TON of innings last year, and even went 4-5 starts in a row on 3 days rest. Sabathia will hate the Yankees when he has a bad game, and the Bronx fans are booing him off the field.

AJ Burnett signing was also a "good" one considering it doesn't matter how much the Yankees spend, and they have all the money in the world. If Burnett can remain healthy and still get somewhere between a 3.5 and 4.0 ERA, with a 1.25 WHIP or lower, then maybe the Yankees have a chance. I don't see that happening.

Mark Teixera signing was easily the best one the Yankees made. Teixera is a stud on all levels. Last year he hit .308, 33, 121 in an Angels lineup, where it's not the best. The defense that he brings is another key thing for the Yankees.

Players to watch: Melkey Cabera and Robinson Cano. In order for the Yankees to be successful, these players, along with the newly accquired players, need to live up to their expectations. CF and 2B are probably the weakest spots that the Yankees have, and if Cano can live up to his 06 numbers where he hit .342, then obviously the Yankees are in a better spot. Right now though, I don't see the chemistry getting along, and I don't see CC being a star like he was in Milwaukee and Cleveland, so I have the Yankees 3rd.

Record: 90-72

4. Baltimore Orioles

The O's have the talent to be good someday. Right now though, the Yankees, Red Sox, and the Rays are all better talent wise. The Orioles and Jays will fight for 4th and 5th place respectivley, but I still can't see the O's falling to 5th with the talent they do have. Led by Markakis, the Orioles will end up over .500, and they will get the fans excited again in Baltimore.

Players to watch: Ty Wigginton 3B

Can Wigginton be a solid contributor to the O's? IF so, maybe the Orioles can end up with 84-85 wins.

Record: 83-79

5. Toronto Blue Jays

The Jays will end up 5th again, and fans in Canada will get impatient with the team. Without Burnett, the Jays do not have a good starting rotation, except for Halladay, although they do have some young pitching in Marcum and McGowan, I don't think they are ready to have an break-out season, which is why I think the Jays will end up 5th.

Players to watch: Young SP

Their season will highly depend on their young SP in both Marcum and McGowan. If those two can remain solid, and Halladay have another Cy-Young type year, then the Jays can make some noise. If not, well then the Jays will end up in the celler again.

Record: 75-87



Well, that wraps up the AL East, the AL Central will either be later tonight, or tommorow. Thanks for reading and all comments are appreciated.

I do not see the O's doing so well, Nor any team reaching 99 wins in the East.

Good write up, and thanks for taking your time to post a good/solid writeup, as I enjoyed it (even though you have my Yanks down as 3rd).

I think the standings will be something more along the lines of:

1. Yankees (95-67)
2. Red Sox (93-69)
3. Rays (90-72)
4. Blue Jays (82-80)
5. Orioles (75-87)

Yes, I am a Yankees fan, but I really am not using any bias here at all... Trust me... I wanted to mark the Yankees down for 98 wins, but I am trying to be a little conservative.

The team that stays the healthiest will win the division, IMO. Everyone talks about how Burnett can't stay healthy, but the Red Sox #1 (Josh Beckett) has a 4.10 ERA and 90 starts over the past 3 years, while Burnett has a 3.93 ERA and 81 starts over the past 3 years. I am in no way saying Burnett is better than Beckett, but maybe Burnett isn't as bad or as much of an injury risk as people say he is. Plus, everyone including him is saying that he has learned how to stay healthier and that he feels as good as he ever as... Though, definitely take that with a grain of salt, as players always say that they feel as good as they ever have or better than ever, etc...

We need to stop babying players so much... Yeah, Sabathia pitched a lot of innings last year (around 250 I believe), but 10 or 15 years ago, this was the norm. It has just been recent that people get scared or say that a guys arm is gonna fall off because he pitches 240+ innings, or pitches on 3 days rest a few times. The man is a horse... I don't believe he will be breaking down anytime soon... In fact, he'll just get better and stronger, IMO... because here in NY for the Yankees, he's probably only gonna pitch 210-220 regular season innings, if that, and then the post season.

People also seem to forget that the Yanks bullpen was ranked in the top 10 last season in bullpen ERA... and that is with SP's that got lucky if they lasted 5 innings. (Ponson, Rasner, Kennedy, Hughes, etc...). So, if anything, the reduced stress on the bullpen should in fact theoretically make it stronger.

The Yankees have a ton of if's, though... You really gotta wonder if the bullpen was a 1 hit wonder, and if A-Rod will be healthy, if Posada can catch/and be healthy, if Matsui will be healthy, if Cano will bounce back, and if Gardner/Melky can be effective. The Yanks have the least amount of if's out of the big 3 in the AL East, though, so that's why I gotta put em 1st.

Now on to the Red Sox...

The Red Sox have always loved their depth, that's for sure... This season they might be the deepest team in the majors, and probably are. They have a LOT of if's though. Will Smoltz be healthy? Will Saito be healthy? Will Ramirez translate from pitching with no pressure in KC to very intense/high pressure in Boston? Will Lowell be healthy? Will Papi regain his old form, or even a glimpse of it? Will Ellsbury get better? Will Lowrie or Lugo step up and at least be average? Will Drew be healthy? Will Varitek be a black hole in the lineup again? Will Beckett be healthy? Will Lester continue his success? Is Bowden ready? Will Penny be healthy or even translate into the AL East? Will Buchholz finally be ready? Will Dice-K continue to dominate even though he pitches 6 innings a game and walks 5? Will Youk continue to be one of the best 1B in game on offense? Loads and loads of questions...

I would say that the Red Sox have more questions than any team in baseball... and if their if's work out for them, they could be the best team in baseball, no doubt. They also have a lot of people who you know will be effective and healthy like Drew, Pedroia, Youk, Paps, Oki, etc...

I don't have much to say about any of the other teams (because I have limited time, plus I think that BrewCrew summed the other teams up perfectly, and I agree with most of what he said about them).

BrewCrew...Shaun Marcum is out for the year, and Dustin McGowan is out until June.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koolzach1

We need to stop babying players so much... Yeah, Sabathia pitched a lot of innings last year (around 250 I believe), but 10 or 15 years ago, this was the norm. It has just been recent that people get scared or say that a guys arm is gonna fall off because he pitches 240+ innings, or pitches on 3 days rest a few times. The man is a horse... I don't believe he will be breaking down anytime soon... In fact, he'll just get better and stronger, IMO... because here in NY for the Yankees, he's probably only gonna pitch 210-220 regular season innings, if that, and then the post season.

---

Although I agree Sabathia will probably get in a full season, being 290+ pounds and pitching ~500 innings the past 2 years is something to worry about. Heavier pitchers who throw around that many innings usually end up with shoulder/elbow/back problems There is currently no reason to assume Sabathia can't complete a full season, but just because player A did it 10 years ago doesn't mean anything really. Point is, Sabathia is heavy and there should be a little concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 200tang

Although I agree Sabathia will probably get in a full season, being 290+ pounds and pitching ~500 innings the past 2 years is something to worry about. Heavier pitchers who throw around that many innings usually end up with shoulder/elbow/back problems There is currently no reason to assume Sabathia can't complete a full season, but just because player A did it 10 years ago doesn't mean anything really. Point is, Sabathia is heavy and there should be a little concern.

---

Oh, I see how there is some concern, but he has no injury history whatsoever... So, I think that he should be counted on for at the very least this season to be a factor.

Koolzach, thanks for your post.

Ranking these teams will probably be the hardest of all the divisions. The thing is, anything could go wrong for anyone which would reflect on how well the team does. With the A-Rod situation, and the fact he's already injured, I don't see the Yankees being able to live up to the pressure everyone has put on them. The Red Sox, I just love the veteran presence they signed in the off-season. John Smoltz, a guy who's been through everything, will be key in the clubhouse and taking the younger guys (Ellsbury, Pedroia, Bucholz, DeClearmen) and teach them how to play the game the right way and kinda be a mentor for them. It's the team chemistry that makes teams either win or loose, and I think the Red Sox have a better team chemistry then the teams in the AL east, espically the Yankees. I could see the Yankees ending up 2nd easily, heck even 1st, but a lot of right things need to go right in order for that to happen, and I don't see it happening, could I be wrong? Sure, but more then likley I don't see it happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrewCrewFan255

they do have some young pitching in Marcum and McGowan, I don't think they are ready to have an break-out season, which is why I think the Jays will end up 5th.

Players to watch: Young SP

Their season will highly depend on their young SP in both Marcum and McGowan.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

BrewCrew...Shaun Marcum is out for the year, and Dustin McGowan is out until June.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrewCrewFan255

I don't see it happening, could I be wrong? Sure, but more then likley I don't see it happening.

---

You were wrong on Marcum and McGowan already, so it doesn't look good. :p

Kidding, kidding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrewCrewFan255

It's the team chemistry that makes teams either win or loose, and I think the Red Sox have a better team chemistry then the teams in the AL east, espically the Yankees.

---

No. It is not team chemistry that makes teams either win or lose. It's playing better than the other team that makes teams win.

There is no way for us to measure chemistry, or know what teams have good chemistry or not. What's that old adage? Something like "Winning is chemistry." If a team is winning, there's not going to be any rumbles about a lack of chemistry. Rather, people are going to talk about what a great clubhouse they have....unless you're the Yankees, in which case, you only have good chemistry if you win the World Series. If a team is doing bad, people are going to blame it on a lack of chemistry, rather than, I don't know, the team being fricken' bad.

Tell me, what makes the Red Sox have better chemistry than the Rays? Or the Yankees? And then tell me how that translates into scoring runs.

Quote:

---

No. It is not team chemistry that makes teams either win or lose. It's playing better than the other team that makes teams win.

There is no way for us to measure chemistry, or know what teams have good chemistry or not. What's that old adage? Something like "Winning is chemistry." If a team is winning, there's not going to be any rumbles about a lack of chemistry. Rather, people are going to talk about what a great clubhouse they have....unless you're the Yankees, in which case, you only have good chemistry if you win the World Series. If a team is doing bad, people are going to blame it on a lack of chemistry, rather than, I don't know, the team being fricken' bad.

Tell me, what makes the Red Sox have better chemistry than the Rays? Or the Yankees? And then tell me how that translates into scoring runs.

---

So your telling me the Yankees are going to have the best team chemistry when A-Rod just admitted to using steriods? Your telling me that there won't be any players in the clubhouse who will think he's a cheater, and ultimley ruin the chemistry of the team? It was like the Brett Favre situation in Green Bay, half the players wanted Rodgers to be the QB, half the players wanted Favre to be the QB, and they even said it split lines between the clubhouse, and why didn't McCarthy or Thompson want Favre at the practice? Because it would ruin the chemistry and cause a disruption. Chemistry is a big part in winning, and if you tell me it's not, then that shows you how much you know about winning.

I'm saying that in the overall scope of things, it's not that big of a thing, and if it is, we absolutely have no way to know HOW it affects winning, AND we have no way to measure it, so we cannot say "The Red Sox will win because they have better chemistry."

And please, let's not bring other sports into it. The dynamics of sports like basketball and football are entirely different than baseball.

How do the Red Sox have better chemistry than the Rays? How does that translate into them winning more games? Can you answer those two questions?

No I really can't, maybe I misused some words, what I should have said, they would have the MOST team chemistry because they won more games, and usually winning and chemistry tie perfectly together.

Which supports what I said here:

Quote:

---

There is no way for us to measure chemistry, or know what teams have good chemistry or not. What's that old adage? Something like "Winning is chemistry." If a team is winning, there's not going to be any rumbles about a lack of chemistry. Rather, people are going to talk about what a great clubhouse they have....unless you're the Yankees, in which case, you only have good chemistry if you win the World Series. If a team is doing bad, people are going to blame it on a lack of chemistry, rather than, I don't know, the team being fricken' bad.

---

Chemistry is used by the media to create a story. A team could have the most broken up clubhouse in the game, but if they're winning, we'll hear about how great they get along. A team could have the greatest group of friends, but if they're losing, we'll hear about how a couple bad seeds are dividing the clubhouse.

In the end, talent is by far the most significant factor in winning.

Gotta agree with HGM. I do believe that having leaders in the clubhouse and chemistry are great things to have in a clubhouse, but realistically the effect they have is at best very minimal. I think this whole idea works in the opposite; being depressed (and no, finding out A-Rod used PED's doesn't even come close) would probably lead to a bad season, but I find it hard to believe being happy somehow makes you a significantly better player. I think a lot, if not all, owners and GM's realize this. Why you ask? Well, if they valued leadership so much and it had such a great effect on players, people like Cliff Floyd, Kevin Millar and Jason Varitek would be getting much more money than they are now. If someone found out that leadership somehow added ~20 points (batting average) to all the starters I can guarantee you those guys would have a better salary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Which supports what I said here:

Chemistry is used by the media to create a story. A team could have the most broken up clubhouse in the game, but if they're winning, we'll hear about how great they get along. A team could have the greatest group of friends, but if they're losing, we'll hear about how a couple bad seeds are dividing the clubhouse.

In the end, talent is by far the most significant factor in winning.

---

agree that talent by far is the most significant factor, but chemistry most certainly plays a part. How much? Can't say....but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And the fact that you admit it exists in other sports has to at minimum leave some possibility in your mind that it exists to some degree in baseball. From personal experiences, I strongly believe 'chemistry' can make or break a clubhouse/team. You don't need "great" chemistry but "bad" chemistry, "25 cabs for 25 players", can ruin a team regardless of talent.

Quote:

---

I think this whole idea works in the opposite; being depressed (and no, finding out A-Rod used PED's doesn't even come close) would probably lead to a bad season, but I find it hard to believe being happy somehow makes you a significantly better player.

---

thats an oxymoron. If you're depressed and you believe that leads to a bad season, than obviously being happy would make that person significantly better than when he was depressed lol. Just using your logic on that one. However, your quote proves that you believe bad chemistry, which leads to unhappy players/clubhouse "would probably lead to a bad season". I'd argue some may play better when angry/unhappy...but that runs a short stint. Over 162 games, a team that constantly argues, doesnt' get along....that will wear thin and blow up.

Quote:

---

The Red Sox have always loved their depth, that's for sure... This season they might be the deepest team in the majors, and probably are. They have a LOT of if's though. Will Smoltz be healthy? Will Saito be healthy? Will Ramirez translate from pitching with no pressure in KC to very intense/high pressure in Boston? Will Lowell be healthy? Will Papi regain his old form, or even a glimpse of it? Will Ellsbury get better? Will Lowrie or Lugo step up and at least be average? Will Drew be healthy? Will Varitek be a black hole in the lineup again? Will Beckett be healthy? Will Lester continue his success? Is Bowden ready? Will Penny be healthy or even translate into the AL East? Will Buchholz finally be ready? Will Dice-K continue to dominate even though he pitches 6 innings a game and walks 5? Will Youk continue to be one of the best 1B in game on offense? Loads and loads of questions...

---

the Yanks have more questions;

- who will play center?
- who will play 3rd?
- how will they make up arods lost production?
- will posada be able to catch 130 games?
- will posada rebound offensively?
- can Joba start for a full season effectively?
- will Burnett be healthy?
- will Cano bounce back?
- will matsui/damon be healthy & have effective seasons platooning?
- will nady have a productive season as a full time starter?
- will rivera continue to pitch like he's 28, even after admitting health issues?
- where will depth come from when injuries occur?
- will hughes & kennedy EVER provide anything consistent?
- will the bullpen full of career years last year produce near last years levels?
- their offense was subpar last year and no major improvements as a whole were made, how will they improve that?
- is Wang going to bounce back?


the yanks have more valid questions than the Sox and Rays combined.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

thats an oxymoron. If you're depressed and you believe that leads to a bad season, than obviously being happy would make that person significantly better than when he was depressed lol. Just using your logic on that one. However, your quote proves that you believe bad chemistry, which leads to unhappy players/clubhouse "would probably lead to a bad season". I'd argue some may play better when angry/unhappy...but that runs a short stint.

---

Bad Chemistry is pretty different from being diagnosed with depression. I wouldn't want to live in a world where A-Rod being questioned throughout the year about PED's was equal to someone's loved one dying or suddenly being divorced. Point is, just like PED's there's no reason to think that being happy is going to make you any better of a ball player, and no I don't think just because it can work in the opposite proves it can work with "bad chemistry". Bottom line : Depression and being happy probably don't work the same way.

Quote:

---

Over 162 games, a team that constantly argues, doesnt' get along....that will wear thin and blow up.

---

And do you know which teams are constantly being labeled with "bad chemistry"? Generally very bad teams. If they're sad that they're losing all the time it's because their talent is bad, not because they somehow have 'bad chemistry'. Any team that somehow wins 90+ games, no matter how many primma donnas it has, will find a way to get along with or without good chemistry because of the talent they put out on the field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrewCrewFan255

So your telling me the Yankees are going to have the best team chemistry when A-Rod just admitted to using steriods? Your telling me that there won't be any players in the clubhouse who will think he's a cheater, and ultimley ruin the chemistry of the team? It was like the Brett Favre situation in Green Bay, half the players wanted Rodgers to be the QB, half the players wanted Favre to be the QB, and they even said it split lines between the clubhouse, and why didn't McCarthy or Thompson want Favre at the practice? Because it would ruin the chemistry and cause a disruption. Chemistry is a big part in winning, and if you tell me it's not, then that shows you how much you know about winning.

---

Brew there are two different sides to the 'chemistry argument', you don't have to bash Houston for eyeing chemistry with skepticism.

Personally I believe chemistry exists, but good teams play through that **** or try putting a positive spin on things. After all that's what eight years of 'Manny being Manny' was, putting a positive spin on things....Pedro was a huge Prima Donna, but you don't hear a lot about it because the team chose not to let it be an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 200tang

Gotta agree with HGM. I do believe that having leaders in the clubhouse and chemistry are great things to have in a clubhouse, but realistically the effect they have is at best very minimal. I think this whole idea works in the opposite; being depressed (and no, finding out A-Rod used PED's doesn't even come close) would probably lead to a bad season, but I find it hard to believe being happy somehow makes you a significantly better player. I think a lot, if not all, owners and GM's realize this. Why you ask? Well, if they valued leadership so much and it had such a great effect on players, people like Cliff Floyd, Kevin Millar and Jason Varitek would be getting much more money than they are now. If someone found out that leadership somehow added ~20 points (batting average) to all the starters I can guarantee you those guys would have a better salary.

---

They Do! At least in Varitek's case. He got a big 4 year contract in 2004, based mostly on leadership and *perceived* game calling ability.

And Kevin Millar does get a better salary for his clubhouse influence. He's employed isn't he?

[QUOTE=dickay;1263111]the Yanks have more questions;

- who will play center?
Melky

- who will play 3rd?
Ransom

- how will they make up arods lost production?
They won't.

- will posada be able to catch 130 games?
No

- will posada rebound offensively?
No

- can Joba start for a full season effectively?
No

- will Burnett be healthy?
Yes

- will Cano bounce back?
Without Bowa to ride his ass? No.

- will matsui/damon be healthy & have effective seasons platooning?
Damon will.

- will nady have a productive season as a full time starter?
No.

- will rivera continue to pitch like he's 28, even after admitting health issues?
Yes.

- where will depth come from when injuries occur?
Same place they always do. Trades and the farm

- will hughes & kennedy EVER provide anything consistent?
Hughes will.

- will the bullpen full of career years last year produce near last years levels?
Yes.

- their offense was subpar last year and no major improvements as a whole were made, how will they improve that?
They won't.

- is Wang going to bounce back?
14 wins.

Quote:

---

Bad Chemistry is pretty different from being diagnosed with depression. I wouldn't want to live in a world where A-Rod being questioned throughout the year about PED's was equal to someone's loved one dying or suddenly being divorced. Point is, just like PED's there's no reason to think that being happy is going to make you any better of a ball player, and no I don't think just because it can work in the opposite proves it can work with "bad chemistry". Bottom line : Depression and being happy probably don't work the same way.

---

??? i was using your terminology. you claimed that a person who is depressed will play badly but said you didn't see how being happy would make one play better. That statement contradicts itself.

Quote:

---

I think this whole idea works in the opposite; being depressed (and no, finding out A-Rod used PED's doesn't even come close) would probably lead to a bad season, but I find it hard to believe being happy somehow makes you a significantly better player.

---

There's your statement. If one is "depressed" to use your words...they will play worse than if they were not (according to you). Thus, being happy is going to make one better than if they were depressed (again according to you). I agree chemistry and depression are two different things entirely. I don't know which you were referring to in your initial post. The premise had flaws though, which i was pointing out.

Quote:

---

Personally I believe chemistry exists, but good teams play through that **** or try putting a positive spin on things. After all that's what eight years of 'Manny being Manny' was, putting a positive spin on things....Pedro was a huge Prima Donna, but you don't hear a lot about it because the team chose not to let it be an issue.

---

agree....though bad chemistry can ruin a team. Look at Terrell Owens. Its easier to see in other sports but it seems rediculous to claim it exists elsewhere but not in baseball. You do often hear the term good chemistry with successful teams. Often its placed just because...with no basis. Look at the Rockies of 07 though...a team that clearly wasn't as talented as others but jelled, got extremely hot, and rode the wave. chemistry most certainly played a part, the team lifted each other.

The only thing chemistry does, and the only thing it can be proven to do, is make players' personal experience with a team better or worse. It's possible that being happy or unhappy might have a nominal, undetectable effect on a guy's performance, but there's a zillion other factors that will wash it out completely. Stuff like physical condition, luck affecting peripherals like BABIP, etc.

I think the chemistry argument is similar to the "so and so does better under such and such manager" argument, and the "so and so will not perform well because his heart was broken when he was relegated to such and such role." We're talking about grown men - professional athletes - doing their jobs.

Football is a different game. Chemistry and voodoo and heart and leadership and desire and all that nonsense actually seem to have some sort of place there. That's because it's more of a team game, and not a station-to-station, man-by-man sport, like baseball is. There's more cooperation in football (far, far more), more instances of having to "have someone's back," stuff like that.

So your saying that a person is going to play better if they hate the team they play for and the other players? Chemistry has everything to do with winning. If it doesn't why couldn't teams just go out and get the best players possible in FA and then win the world series? Look at the yankees, look at how many times they try to buy the world series, and how often do they win the world series? Chemistry has a lot to do with winning, when you want to be at the ball park, when you want to be there, you tend to play better and harder then when you want to get the hell out of the town. Trust me.

[QUOTE=Pavelb1;1263138]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

the Yanks have more questions;

- who will play center?
Melky

- who will play 3rd?
Ransom

- how will they make up arods lost production?
They won't.

- will posada be able to catch 130 games?
No

- will posada rebound offensively?
No

- can Joba start for a full season effectively?
No

- will Burnett be healthy?
Yes

- will Cano bounce back?
Without Bowa to ride his ass? No.

- will matsui/damon be healthy & have effective seasons platooning?
Damon will.

- will nady have a productive season as a full time starter?
No.

- will rivera continue to pitch like he's 28, even after admitting health issues?
Yes.

- where will depth come from when injuries occur?
Same place they always do. Trades and the farm

- will hughes & kennedy EVER provide anything consistent?
Hughes will.

- will the bullpen full of career years last year produce near last years levels?
Yes.

- their offense was subpar last year and no major improvements as a whole were made, how will they improve that?
They won't.

- is Wang going to bounce back?
14 wins.

---

I'd say that I agree with about half or more of your answers (which is good for a Yankees and Red Sox fan).

-Gardner will play center.

-We'll either trade for 1 year stop gap at 3rd or play Ransom there (depends how long A-Rod is out).

-Can't really make up for losing the best player in the game (or at the very least, top 2).

-I doubt Posada catches 130 games, and I think 110 is more like it, but we'll be fine with Molina and his awesome defense for 50 games or so.

-I think Posada will be around his career norm offensively... He'll hit .275-.280 with .470 SLG, and .370-.380 OBP and an OPS+ of 120-125.

-I see ZERO evidence that suggests that Joba cannot start a full season effectively. I mean, he was a starter in high school, college, and in the minors. He will last a full season, trust me.

-Burnett will stay healthy and make 32-33 starts with a 3.70-3.80 ERA.

-Cano was really focused this off season and lost weight, while gaining muscle... I think he'll rebound with a .310, .360, .495 type of season with excellent D (he has always had amazing range and an amazing arm, he just lacks focus out on the field sometimes)

-I can see Damon being fully healthy for the season, but I don't really see Matsui being healthy for a full season. I see Damon playing his norm (150+ games), but only see Matsui playing 130 games or so.

-Nady will definitely have a productive season. I will assume that he puts up his career norm + a little extra (.280-.285 average, .340-.345 OBP, and .490 SLG)

-Rivera is amazing... I wouldn't be surprised if he was still the best closer in baseball in 3 or 4 years.

-Depth will come from the farm and trades, just like Pav said. There is some depth in the minors (not a lot, mind you). So... mostly minor trades.

-Hughes, I think will be effective in the starts he gets this season. I think he'll get 20 starts this season and put up good stats... Kennedy. I think needs to get outta NY, and I don't think he'll be getting many more chances here... I could see him as a #3 or #4 on a team in the NL West or something, or anywhere in the NL, but not the AL.

-The bullpen will be just as good as last year's, if not better, IMO. This season, we'll eventually call up Mark Melancon (remember this name!) and he is expected to be our future closer... he's a total beast. I think that he'll eventually be our setup man sometime this season. Bruney has lost so much weight the last couple of years and he pitches hard and had a great season last year. There's still Veras and Ramirez, who are are very solid. The best closer in baseball, Marte (who has been an awesome setup man/lefty reliever the last few years). You also cannot forget Phil Coke, who should be a very solid RP/spot starter.

-I'd definitely say that the Yanks offense wasn't subpar last year... If the offense was subpar, then I'd be VERY scared if I were the Rays or Redsox... Ponson and Rasner getting a ton of starts last year, pitching with a ERA in the 5's or worse, and now replaced by Burnett and Sabathia. The Yanks offense was ranked 6th in BA in all of MLB, 9th in RBI's, 9th in homeruns, 6th in OBP, etc... It wasn't the usual top 3 offense, but it was still a good offense.

-I don't think Wang will win his usual 19 or so, but he'll get to 17, I believe. There would be NO reason why Wang couldn't bounce back... He had... a freak injury... running the bases!!! Won't affect his pitching.

Honestly, I could come up with a lot more problems/if's for the Red Sox... You gotta admit that they have a lot more problems, even if you are a homer :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrewCrewFan255

So your saying that a person is going to play better if they hate the team they play for and the other players? Chemistry has everything to do with winning. If it doesn't why couldn't teams just go out and get the best players possible in FA and then win the world series? Look at the yankees, look at how many times they try to buy the world series, and how often do they win the world series? Chemistry has a lot to do with winning, when you want to be at the ball park, when you want to be there, you tend to play better and harder then when you want to get the hell out of the town. Trust me.

---

I'd venture to say that the Yankees not winning the WS in recent years was due more to awful pitching moreso than team chemistry...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koolzach1

I'd venture to say that the Yankees not winning the WS in recent years was due more to awful pitching moreso than team chemistry...

---

Quote:

---

I'd venture to say that the Yankees not winning the WS in recent years was due more to awful pitching moreso than team chemistry...

---

I would agree. I don't think the "chemistry" has been that bad in NY to be honest. Then again, it really hasn't been "good" either. It's been a circus for quite a few years now. But for the most part, their lack of pitching has been a bigger problem. You can't put it on any one thing. Saying its simply bad chemistry is rediculous, just as bad as saying they are winning because of great chemistry. But however, that doesn't mean chemistry doesn't have a role.

Quote:

---

Honestly, I could come up with a lot more problems/if's for the Red Sox... You gotta admit that they have a lot more problems, even if you are a homer

---

I wholeheartedly disagree. Especially now with the AROD situation, the Yanks have more if's. The sox of late however are catching up...Drew's back pain is worrysome, though nothing new. The sox have more depth to withstand injuries however than do the Yanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

agree that talent by far is the most significant factor, but chemistry most certainly plays a part. How much? Can't say....but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And the fact that you admit it exists in other sports has to at minimum leave some possibility in your mind that it exists to some degree in baseball. From personal experiences, I strongly believe 'chemistry' can make or break a clubhouse/team. You don't need "great" chemistry but "bad" chemistry, "25 cabs for 25 players", can ruin a team regardless of talent.



thats an oxymoron. If you're depressed and you believe that leads to a bad season, than obviously being happy would make that person significantly better than when he was depressed lol. Just using your logic on that one. However, your quote proves that you believe bad chemistry, which leads to unhappy players/clubhouse "would probably lead to a bad season". I'd argue some may play better when angry/unhappy...but that runs a short stint. Over 162 games, a team that constantly argues, doesnt' get along....that will wear thin and blow up.

---

I don't have any "personal experience" with professional sports team "chemistry" but I will point to the '72-'74 A's and '77-'78 Yankees as examples of teams that not only argued, but out and out fought. In fact I would take the players/cabs expression quite a bit further with the A's and call it 25 body bags for 25 players. They apparently absolutely despised each other, but "between the white lines" they were somehow able to set that aside and as Al Davis would say "Just win baby".

We all like to think we have some insight into "what goes on in the room" with our favourite teams, but I call bullsh!t on that. Not even the writers have access to that because there are large chunks of time where the clubhouse is off-limits to all except players, coaches, staff and attendants. The more likely explanation for winning is overall talent level and I'm not talking about "on paper", I'm factoring in injuries that happen over the bumps and grinds of a 162 game schedule, which can only the lower the overall talent level on the field against other teams that you're fighting for a playoff spot with.

I think I'm going over old ground here with you dickay, but I believe that every single player in the big leagues is incredibly strong mentally and would not be there were that not the case. There is absolutely no such thing as "wanting it more", willing yourself to victory, out-competing the other team blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc. These are the inventions of lazy (read: hack) sportswriters who can't find an explanation for why Team A beat Team B but have a deadline to meet and feel the worst possible thing they could write would be something where they sounded wishy-washy. So the myths and yarns get spun over and over again when what they should be doing is hearkening back to the great line from Bull Durham: "Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains...think about that." The team that wins is the team that scores the most runs/points/goals in a given game. Period. It is that simple. Of course if the writers wrote that they'd probably be out of a job, but that's not my problem. ;)

As an irrational Yankees Fan I have to way in here....

I am irrational but not blind....the Yanks will tank early, somehow pull into a WC spot and lose the first round costing Girardi his job....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by actionjackson

I don't have any "personal experience" with professional sports team "chemistry" but I will point to the '72-'74 A's and '77-'78 Yankees as examples of teams that not only argued, but out and out fought. In fact I would take the players/cabs expression quite a bit further with the A's and call it 25 body bags for 25 players. They apparently absolutely despised each other, but "between the white lines" they were somehow able to set that aside and as Al Davis would say "Just win baby".

We all like to think we have some insight into "what goes on in the room" with our favourite teams, but I call bullsh!t on that. Not even the writers have access to that because there are large chunks of time where the clubhouse is off-limits to all except players, coaches, staff and attendants. The more likely explanation for winning is overall talent level and I'm not talking about "on paper", I'm factoring in injuries that happen over the bumps and grinds of a 162 game schedule, which can only the lower the overall talent level on the field against other teams that you're fighting for a playoff spot with.

I think I'm going over old ground here with you dickay, but I believe that every single player in the big leagues is incredibly strong mentally and would not be there were that not the case. There is absolutely no such thing as "wanting it more", willing yourself to victory, out-competing the other team blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc. These are the inventions of lazy (read: hack) sportswriters who can't find an explanation for why Team A beat Team B but have a deadline to meet and feel the worst possible thing they could write would be something where they sounded wishy-washy. So the myths and yarns get spun over and over again when what they should be doing is hearkening back to the great line from Bull Durham: "Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains...think about that." The team that wins is the team that scores the most runs/points/goals in a given game. Period. It is that simple. Of course if the writers wrote that they'd probably be out of a job, but that's not my problem. ;)

---

I would say most of this is VERY well put. We DON'T know what goes on in the locker room and neither do the sportswriters. Thats why its crazy to rule out chemistry as a factor altogether, and even more crazy when someone believes that it may be a factor in other sports. It is the same old argument we're having, and one i'm not wishing to relive. We have a different opinion on this, plain and simple. Talent in general wins by a large margin, but IMO there is a chemistry factor. You don't need "good" chemistry to win but you do need the right makeup of players. I believe players have been traded/released simply because they were a bad fit on the team DESPITE them having more talent than another player at their position. A managers job is to assess all this. Just because a team fights does not necessarily mean there is bad team chemistry. And even if there is bad chemistry, there are "some" players with the mental fortitude to not let it effect their game. I in no way believe that is the case for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

As an irrational Yankees Fan I have to way in here....

I am irrational but not blind....the Yanks will tank early, somehow pull into a WC spot and lose the first round costing Girardi his job....

---

while I could see the Yanks winning it all...this scenario is far more likely IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

agree that talent by far is the most significant factor, but chemistry most certainly plays a part. How much? Can't say....but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And the fact that you admit it exists in other sports has to at minimum leave some possibility in your mind that it exists to some degree in baseball. From personal experiences, I strongly believe 'chemistry' can make or break a clubhouse/team. You don't need "great" chemistry but "bad" chemistry, "25 cabs for 25 players", can ruin a team regardless of talent.

---

We've already discussed in other threads why the other sports aren't applicable to baseball.

This: "It's the team chemistry that makes teams either win or loose" is 100% not true.

Quote:

---

thats an oxymoron. If you're depressed and you believe that leads to a bad season, than obviously being happy would make that person significantly better than when he was depressed lol. Just using your logic on that one.

---

No, you're not using his logic. His logic is that being depressed could lead to you performing worse than your baseline talent, but being happy does not improve your talent. And that's perfectly logical.

Quote:

---

However, your quote proves that you believe bad chemistry, which leads to unhappy players/clubhouse "would probably lead to a bad season". I'd argue some may play better when angry/unhappy...but that runs a short stint. Over 162 games, a team that constantly argues, doesnt' get along....that will wear thin and blow up.

---

I think his example of "depression" is a lot worse than just being agitated at teammates.

Quote:

---

Thats why its crazy to rule out chemistry as a factor altogether, and even more crazy when someone believes that it may be a factor in other sports

---

1) That's why it's also crazy to say that it's THE difference between winning and losing.
2) Other sports are much more team-oriented than baseball. They simply are not comparable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrewCrewFan255

So your saying that a person is going to play better if they hate the team they play for and the other players?

---

Not sure who this is directed at, but I don't think anyone in this thread said anything even remotely close to that.

Quote:

---

Chemistry has everything to do with winning.

---

Prove it.

Quote:

---

If it doesn't why couldn't teams just go out and get the best players possible in FA and then win the world series?

---

Money, player preferences, limits on FA signings, compensation draft picks, lack of available players at positions sought, etc.

Quote:

---

Look at the yankees, look at how many times they try to buy the world series, and how often do they win the world series?

---

As already mentioned, that had more to do with pitching trouble and other teams being better all around than anything else. That and, baseball is still baseball, and any short series of games is a total crapshoot. For one thing, you can't just chalk it up to chemistry, and for another thing, you have no clue about the chemistry in those clubhouses.

Quote:

---

Chemistry has a lot to do with winning,

---

Prove it.

Quote:

---

when you want to be at the ball park, when you want to be there, you tend to play better and harder then when you want to get the hell out of the town.

---

Again, why are we talking about these grown, adult men, professional athletes, the best in the entire world at what they do, as if they're a bunch of p*ssies that can't get their jobs done if their feelings are hurt?

Quote:

---

Trust me.

---

Why? How would you know?

I'll drink to that Joe12Pack. :D