My AL East Preview

[dickay]

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.

[200tang]

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.

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.

[Pavelb1]

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.

[Pavelb1]

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?

[Pavelb1]

[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.

[dickay]

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.

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.

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.

[Joe12Pack]

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.

[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.

[koolzach1]

[QUOTE=Pavelb1;1263138]

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

[koolzach1]

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...

[dickay]

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'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.

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.

[actionjackson]

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.

[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....

[dickay]

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.

[dickay]

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.