Team Chemistry

[FredJacket]

In this interview posted by @Stinger90, Coach Hall touches briefly on the importance of team chemistry to success.
http://www.collegebaseballnow.com/danny-hall-georgia-tech-yellow-jackets/ …

We have come to expect Ga Tech baseball to be 'above average' in the conference and nationally. The results sometimes seem to wind up barely above average (don't argue with me...I'm staying positive) in some recent seasons. This forum is full of good explanations on why that's happened...not really important to rehash all that to make my point.

I agree with Coach Hall and I'm a big believer...and this applies to all team sports... that team chemistry is a big X factor that is so difficult to master. You can recruit "good baseball talent" and "good kids" ...and prepare them and make them better. You can get lucky (or unlucky) with injuries. But how do you do all that while also cultivating a culture where the group comes together and decides to work and fight just a little harder for success. Teams with the "it" of chemistry challenge each other just a little more in preparation, the group is elevated, and it will improve results compared to equally "talented" teams unable to find good chemistry.

I follow/watch all Ga Tech sports now from significant distance (literally and figuratively)... far removed and with no inside source or information. I do not know or could I measure how we've done in the team chemistry department throughout Coach Hall's tenure. Anecdotally, a couple of thoughts:

1. We recruit heavily in the state of Georgia; but I believe this is more a scholarship/financial priority decision than anything to do with chemistry. However, I'm willing to bet most of these recruits know each other before arriving on campus. Is that good or bad or neutral?...who knows.
2. Accepting the observations of @GTNavyNuke that Coach Hall is extremely loyal to players in the program and seems to stick with a player based on that loyalty over perhaps a better (younger) option at the time... is this a factor that may contribute good or bad to our chemistry?
3. Next year (2018), we'll be getting the 2nd Hall kid on the roster. Another curious thought is how does that dynamic affect the clubhouse?

Here's what I want... I want to see our baseball team succeed. College baseball is my 'go-to' for what is still mostly good about college/amateur athletics. Very high quality play mixed with the energy and enthusiasm of youth without the awfulness of corporate greed. ...and when you watch the "team" doing all that while genuinely enjoying the experience...there is nothing better.

Come ON Feb 17th!!! Go Yellow Jackets!!

 

[senoiajacket]

1) Seems like this has gotta help. The top talent knows each other, have competed with or against each other, and have already created relationships
2) Not sure this I agree with the premise that CDH would play a less talented player out of loyalty. If he did, I think that takes away from chemistry
3) Generally speaking, I don't see how this can be a positive to the chemistry dynamic.

That said, I also wonder how much chemistry is worth. I listened to the Podcast a few weeks ago & remember the discussion, but not the details. Bad Chemistry can wreck a team, but not sure how many wins "average" verses "great" Chemistry is worth.

If you believe Dabo, I guess its worth a lot , but that is football & I believe it means more in football, baseball, volleyball which in my opinion are more of a team sport than baseball.

I can't wait for Feb 17th either. My youngest son graduated HS last year and finished his baseball career & there is a big (baseball shaped) void to fill. Always loved coming to games at the RustyC, and now should have more time to do it.

SJ

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I'm looking forward to 17 February but won't wish my life away till then. This is really a dead time for college baseball.

I don't know about "character". To me thinking about this, it's kind of like the equation (Talent) + (Coaching) + (Character) = Performance. We can use recruiting rankings to quantify "talent". We can use coaching past performance considering "talent" to quantify "coaching". And we can quantify performance easily with power rankings.

The leftover to me is "character". And "character" is an individual thing that may collectively become a team thing but it starts at the individual.

In the end, it's entertainment for the masses. For the kids, it's their life and how the coaches work with them to make them better people.

For @senoiajacket , my observation about Hall valuing seniority over performance is based on watching for a few years. Look at the (to me inexplicable) use of Pitts last year. It would have been much better for the team to develop talent than keep riding a 5th year senior who wasn't getting any better.