[Dudd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Wow, that Albert sure is a nice guy, I really like having him in the clubhouse, I think I'll go 3-for-3 today!"

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Basically sums up my feelings on this "intangible" [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

people that 100% deny the existence of clubhouse chemistry and it's affect on winning are just as silly as those who might claim that Pujols clubhouse chemistry is as valuable as his on field contributions.

I hate to keep saying this, but the game isn't played by frickin robots. human emotion plays into this.

almost to a man the Red Sox from 2 years ago will say that their chemistry as a team helped them come back from 0-3. was it as important as Keith Foulke thwoing lights out or David Ortiz crushing the ball? No, but it's a factor...and contributed at some level to those performances.

you can either believe the guys who are actually playing and there, or choose to ignore this primary evidence.

the stats guys don't like intangibles b/c they are hard (or impossible) to quantify and are therefore extremely difficult to use in predicting future performance. but that doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't affecting curent performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, the thing I don't buy about intangibles is that everyone always talks about them after the fact. If Dave Roberts stumbles halfway to second, we're not talking about intangibles, we're talking about a bunch of losers who can't handle the pressure of playing the Yankees. Winning teams always talk about intangibles because they're winning. I mean, no one ever talks about the Pirates or the Devil Rays having good intangibles.