I've always scoffed at the idea of team chemistry being very meaningful. I grew up watching the Oakland A's and New York Yankees win with poor team chemistry (it's difficult to have good chemistry with Reggie Jackson on your team). Today, the New York Times has an excellent article on diffuse vs. close-knit teams.

"So much of psychology and sociology emphasizes the importance of communicating and creating strong bonds to improve group performance, but in a lot of situations that is just not how it works," said Dr. Calvin Morrill, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Irvine, who has studied group behavior in competitive corporate situations and in high schools. "Baseball is an odd mix of an individual and team sport, and an ideal example of where a diffuse team with weak ties to one another may help the overall functionality of the group."

It turns out that winning does more to create chemistry than the other way around:

Winning is more likely to create team unity than vice versa, Torre has said repeatedly, and the evidence backs him up, said Dr. Richard Moreland, a professor of psychology and management at the University of Pittsburgh. Team cohesion is a hard thing to measure in the first place, Dr. Moreland said, and dozens of studies of sports teams find that, although having players who feel team unity helps performance, "it is not a strong effect, compared to the effect of performance on cohesion."

If you want fans in the stands, if you want a team that gets along, just win baby.

Baseball Musings is holding a pledge drive during March. Click here for details.