David Locke: Baseball Genius

by ryanhealy on Jun 1, 2005 1:11 PM PDT

In Locke's "column" today he wrote that bad chemistry is the reason the Mariners suck. Do you think Dave got drunk last night and forgot he had a deadline?

He continually references the Sonics recent success and attributes it to good chemistry and then makes comparisons to the Mariners citing the opposite as the reason for their failure.

Uh, Dave, perhaps the M's aren't good because, well, some of their players, uh, suck.

Maybe?

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Well, crap.

Just saw that USS Mariner posted something about this already.

I love being late and unoriginal.

by ryanhealy on Jun 1, 2005 1:38 PM PDT reply actions

Nice article isn't it? Team chemistry is one of the most over blown assessments in pro sports. When teams are winning, they get along great and have terrific chemistry. When they are losing, they don't get along and have bad chemistry. Its human nature, particularly for males, to express these emotions and reactions, even in simplistic aspects of our lives. Show me a guy who doesn't get upset when he is losing at a video game and I'll tell you that guy probably had a sex change.

As for the late comment, thats 90% of my work on here. With my current schedule, by the time I actually sit down and write something up, it has already been posted here or on USSM. And the times I actually beat someone else to the punch, I've rushed it so I can try to contribute and I don't like the way it turned out and won't post it. It's a Catch-22.

by Trent on Jun 1, 2005 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes and No

I thinks its overrated in Baseball because its more individual sport.

But I don't think its overrated in Basketball because a negative player can ruin a good team (Timberwolves) and believing in one another can make you a better team regardless of talent (Sonics)

by Scruffy Lefty on Jun 1, 2005 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions

basketball chemistry vs. baseball chemistry

also, there's a far greater deal of extraneous factors that go into a baseball game. no other sport, not even football, is so affected by the acutal building that it is played in. park factors have pretty much been proven to have a greater effect on baseball than chemistry. in hockey and basketball those kinds of factors are virtually nonexistant and players themselves have to be synchronized in just about every regard to be superior to another team. unless your franchize player/ballhog is like kareem or magic or mj, you're going to need at least one other superstar to win, or a good passing game.
in baseball, though, you can be like the 70's A's dynasty and hate each other and still win several world series.

by Bigfoot Hunter on Jun 1, 2005 7:14 PM PDT reply actions

Locke on the radio

I heard David Locke on the radio, and I think he made a bit more sense at times. He read some emails basically saying everything that was said above, and agreed that chemistry isn't the most important factor, but however the Mariners chemistry is bad and that is contributing to the overall suckiness of the team. He didn't seem to implicate that it was the only reason for it, which the title of his article would indicate.

by gumbostu on Jun 1, 2005 9:37 PM PDT reply actions