MLB 13 The Show - Overall Team Ratings, Including Batting, Pitching and Defense

[HustlinOwl]

Quote: Originally Posted by metsfan31

I'd switch the Blue Jays and Red Sox.

at MLB level maybe, but these represent the entire organization including minor league players

[cardinalbird5]

Quote: Originally Posted by bdubz91

So this is your logic for 2010 and 2012, where they had the same dominant pitching staff, and won the world series? Give me a break. The Giants pitching staff which has stayed pretty much the same since 2010, won them the world series (with some timely hitting of course). Never discount the value of playing together as a team in any sport.

Yeah it is called they were good and once you make the playoffs anything could happen. There was no magical team chemistry that put them over the edge. You don't think every team has little antics and pre-game rituals they do as a team? That doesn't make you a good team though.

Trust me, I am about team chemistry and cohesion, but it matters very little in baseball. I coach both baseball and basketball and I can tell the difference. If players aren't getting along in baseball it had no impact on the game. If players weren't getting along in basketball it made a direct impact. If you have the talent, you'll win in baseball. The only exception is the catcher really. It is important they are smart and can work with any pitcher.

[bdubz91]

Quote: Originally Posted by cardinalbird7

Yeah it is called they were good and once you make the playoffs anything could happen. There was no magical team chemistry that put them over the edge. You don't think every team has little antics and pre-game rituals they do as a team? That doesn't make you a good team though. Trust me, I am about team chemistry and cohesion, but it matters very little in baseball. I coach both baseball and basketball and I can tell the difference. If players aren't getting along in baseball it had no impact on the game. If players weren't getting along in basketball it made a direct impact. If you have the talent, you'll win in baseball. The only exception is the catcher really. It is important they are smart and can work with any pitcher.

But i thought the Tigers had more talented players going into the world series than the Giants? Isn't that why they were the heavy favorites? You should just change your argument to "they were lucky". That's what most of the Giants haters say. Yeah luck will totally win you two world series in three years, fools. Good pitching, defense, and team chemistry in the playoffs won the world series.

[cardinalbird5]

I don't get what you are saying? All I said was Team Chemistry was not the reason the Giants won. You are putting words into my mouth as if I am saying the Giants were lucky and did not deserve it. They were a good team that got hot at the right time. It has nothing to do with team chemistry... give me a break. It just so happens when teams are winning they can come up with these antics or pre-game rituals. However if you are never winning then things like this never come up.

In fact...enlighten me. Give me an example of their team chemistry and how that transitioned onto the field? I love listening to cliches in every sports. Are you trying to tell me the Reds, Cardinals, and Tigers did not have team Chemistry and that the players hated each other or did not get along with one another?

Also no one answered my question from above....if team chemistry is such a huge deal in MLB then why don't teams try to resign players that have been playing with one another over the course of a few seasons?

[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by cardinalbird7

Also no one answered my question from above....if team chemistry is such a huge deal in MLB then why don't teams try to resign players that have been playing with one another over the course of a few seasons?

Eh, what? They do.. Baseball economics however, plays a factor in that.

The notion that chemistry doesn't play a factor in a team sport that's played over a 6 month span and covers 162 games plus playoffs is laughable. Is it quantifiable? Not really, it's intangible, but it's there, and I've heard far too many people who know more about the game of baseball than anyone here comment on what a big factor it can play.

[bautistabomb]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

Eh, what? They do.. Baseball economics however, plays a factor in that. The notion that chemistry doesn't play a factor in a team sport that's played over a 6 month span and covers 162 games plus playoffs is laughable. Is it quantifiable? Not really, it's intangible, but it's there, and I've heard far too many people who know more about the game of baseball than anyone here comment on what a big factor it can play.

Of all the major professional team sports, chemistry plays the smallest factor in baseball, simply because of how the game is played. Its mostly made up of a bunch of individual efforts. Pitchers and catchers are the only real positions that there needs to be some chemistry as both usually need to be on the same page to be succesful defensively. Its a known fact that the A's teams in the 80s hated each other and yet were very successful.

[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by bautistabomb

Of all the major professional team sports, chemistry plays the smallest factor in baseball, simply because of how the game is played. Its mostly made up of a bunch of individual efforts. Pitchers and catchers are the only real positions that there needs to be some chemistry as both usually need to be on the same page to be succesful defensively. Its a known fact that the A's teams in the 80s hated each other and yet were very successful.

As I've said, I've heard and talked to way too many people who know way more about it than anyone here dispute that. Tough to quantify yes, but a factor without a doubt.

80's A's team was also managed by someone who was a master of managing personalities and players. Of all the people in that organization I've known, never really heard about in team hatred.

You obviously have to have talent to be succesful, but it's not the only thing required. If it was, the teams the list of World Series winning teams would look a lot different than it does today.

[Dannyc]

PECOTA projected the Mets for 80 wins this season, they aren't that bad.