Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    RSN + JBJ = WSC

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    understand

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    RSN + JBJ = WSC



    That would also mean that WSC - JBJ = RSN

    A venn diagram might better illustrate the relatationship.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    geo, had we lost in 2004, would you have blamed Shill for fostering bad chemistry? 

    Afterall, he had "a history" of being a "cancer in the clubhouse" beforehand.

     




     

    Chemistry is extremely important!  The problem is, it's highly misunderstood.  People think it's ALL about "getting along," or "guys having fun all the time."  WAY OFF!  The chemistry that a guy like Schill added was a COMPETATIVE FIRE and A WORK ETHIC that NEVER QUIT.  Even Manny, who was notorious for living in the batting cage.  These guys are not stupid.  They may not like some of their teammates, but they do respect a guy who puts it all out on the line.  A guy who is willing to do anything to help them win between the lines.  This type of thing is infectious, and it is exactly what pushes a team to greatness

    CHEMISTRY is ALL important.  I've been on many teams, with guys I personally couldn't stand!  BUT, their work ethic, toughness, grit, drive, nastiness, contentiousness, ugliness, kill or be killed attitudes were a factor in making our teams better.  On the field, I was their biggest fan.  Win or lose, I knew these guys gave it their all.  The guys I really resented were some of the really nice guys who were not doing everything they needed to do to be all they could be. 

    Schill was a MAJOR factor in giving Boston something we thought we might never see in our lifetime.  Folks want to spoil that by focusing on his big mouth?  Have at it.  Rediculuous!  The chemistry of his literal blood, sweat, and tears was an integral part of our World Series Winning Chemistry!   :)  As was Manny, Pedro, .........




    Billy Martin's A's hated each other. And they hated Billy. Earl Weaver's guys didn't care for him too much either. In 1978 Billy Martin and Reggie Jackson were in a fistfight in the visitor's dugout at Fenway during an important series between the Sox and Yankees. What the A's did have was Jackson, Tenace, Rudi, Bando, Campaneris, Hunter, Blue, Odom and Fingers. Weaver's O's had Palmer, McNally, Dobson, Flanagan, Martinez and the Robinsons. The 78 Yanks had Guidry, Hunter, Jackson, Nettles and Gossage. Talent trumps chemistry. Sorry.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    In response to Sheriff-Rojas' comment:

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

     

    RSN + JBJ = WSC

     

    Ouch.  The inverse relationship of addition.  I didn't know how one combines chemical compounds, or I would have gone with Chemistry.  My worst subject!



    That would also mean that WSC - JBJ = RSN

     

    A venn diagram might better illustrate the relatationship.




     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    In response to carnie's comment:

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    geo, had we lost in 2004, would you have blamed Shill for fostering bad chemistry? 

    Afterall, he had "a history" of being a "cancer in the clubhouse" beforehand.

     




     

    Chemistry is extremely important!  The problem is, it's highly misunderstood.  People think it's ALL about "getting along," or "guys having fun all the time."  WAY OFF!  The chemistry that a guy like Schill added was a COMPETATIVE FIRE and A WORK ETHIC that NEVER QUIT.  Even Manny, who was notorious for living in the batting cage.  These guys are not stupid.  They may not like some of their teammates, but they do respect a guy who puts it all out on the line.  A guy who is willing to do anything to help them win between the lines.  This type of thing is infectious, and it is exactly what pushes a team to greatness

    CHEMISTRY is ALL important.  I've been on many teams, with guys I personally couldn't stand!  BUT, their work ethic, toughness, grit, drive, nastiness, contentiousness, ugliness, kill or be killed attitudes were a factor in making our teams better.  On the field, I was their biggest fan.  Win or lose, I knew these guys gave it their all.  The guys I really resented were some of the really nice guys who were not doing everything they needed to do to be all they could be. 

    Schill was a MAJOR factor in giving Boston something we thought we might never see in our lifetime.  Folks want to spoil that by focusing on his big mouth?  Have at it.  Rediculuous!  The chemistry of his literal blood, sweat, and tears was an integral part of our World Series Winning Chemistry!   :)  As was Manny, Pedro, .........

     




    Billy Martin's A's hated each other. And they hated Billy. Earl Weaver's guys didn't care for him too much either. In 1978 Billy Martin and Reggie Jackson were in a fistfight in the visitor's dugout at Fenway during an important series between the Sox and Yankees. What the A's did have was Jackson, Tenace, Rudi, Bando, Campaneris, Hunter, Blue, Odom and Fingers. Weaver's O's had Palmer, McNally, Dobson, Flanagan, Martinez and the Robinsons. The 78 Yanks had Guidry, Hunter, Jackson, Nettles and Gossage. Talent trumps chemistry. Sorry.

     



    but those teams had immense talent. If you have enough talent it doesn't matter who likes or hates eachother (sometimes, hating your teammate can be as beneficial as getting along really well). But to teams who aren't stacked chemistry is very important. good Chemistry makes good teams great.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    In response to carnie's comment:

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    geo, had we lost in 2004, would you have blamed Shill for fostering bad chemistry? 

    Afterall, he had "a history" of being a "cancer in the clubhouse" beforehand.

     




     

    Chemistry is extremely important!  The problem is, it's highly misunderstood.  People think it's ALL about "getting along," or "guys having fun all the time."  WAY OFF!  The chemistry that a guy like Schill added was a COMPETATIVE FIRE and A WORK ETHIC that NEVER QUIT.  Even Manny, who was notorious for living in the batting cage.  These guys are not stupid.  They may not like some of their teammates, but they do respect a guy who puts it all out on the line.  A guy who is willing to do anything to help them win between the lines.  This type of thing is infectious, and it is exactly what pushes a team to greatness

    CHEMISTRY is ALL important.  I've been on many teams, with guys I personally couldn't stand!  BUT, their work ethic, toughness, grit, drive, nastiness, contentiousness, ugliness, kill or be killed attitudes were a factor in making our teams better.  On the field, I was their biggest fan.  Win or lose, I knew these guys gave it their all.  The guys I really resented were some of the really nice guys who were not doing everything they needed to do to be all they could be. 

    Schill was a MAJOR factor in giving Boston something we thought we might never see in our lifetime.  Folks want to spoil that by focusing on his big mouth?  Have at it.  Rediculuous!  The chemistry of his literal blood, sweat, and tears was an integral part of our World Series Winning Chemistry!   :)  As was Manny, Pedro, .........

     




    Billy Martin's A's hated each other. And they hated Billy. Earl Weaver's guys didn't care for him too much either. In 1978 Billy Martin and Reggie Jackson were in a fistfight in the visitor's dugout at Fenway during an important series between the Sox and Yankees. What the A's did have was Jackson, Tenace, Rudi, Bando, Campaneris, Hunter, Blue, Odom and Fingers. Weaver's O's had Palmer, McNally, Dobson, Flanagan, Martinez and the Robinsons. The 78 Yanks had Guidry, Hunter, Jackson, Nettles and Gossage. Talent trumps chemistry. Sorry.

     




    I agree that you've got to have the talent!!!  Completely!  My argument/s were designed to show that Moon and Shaughnessy have the fundamentals of "chemistry" all wrong!  Yes talent trumps chemistry in the uninformed person's definition, but without "chemistry," as I define it, your really good team likely does not become great.

    I think we're both right here.  BUT.....  as Shaughnessy and Moon define it, they are both dead wrong!

    You'd have to read all my posts on this subject, and they are very boring....  :)  But completely 100% dead on correct.  If a guy hasn't played on a competative team, he doesn't have a clue.  I doubt Shaughnessy has ever played on a team???  Well......  maybe chess???  Moon would kick his arcc at chess.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    geo, had we lost in 2004, would you have blamed Shill for fostering bad chemistry? 

    Afterall, he had "a history" of being a "cancer in the clubhouse" beforehand.

     




     

    Chemistry is extremely important!  The problem is, it's highly misunderstood.  People think it's ALL about "getting along," or "guys having fun all the time."  WAY OFF!  The chemistry that a guy like Schill added was a COMPETATIVE FIRE and A WORK ETHIC that NEVER QUIT.  Even Manny, who was notorious for living in the batting cage.  These guys are not stupid.  They may not like some of their teammates, but they do respect a guy who puts it all out on the line.  A guy who is willing to do anything to help them win between the lines.  This type of thing is infectious, and it is exactly what pushes a team to greatness

    CHEMISTRY is ALL important.  I've been on many teams, with guys I personally couldn't stand!  BUT, their work ethic, toughness, grit, drive, nastiness, contentiousness, ugliness, kill or be killed attitudes were a factor in making our teams better.  On the field, I was their biggest fan.  Win or lose, I knew these guys gave it their all.  The guys I really resented were some of the really nice guys who were not doing everything they needed to do to be all they could be. 

    Schill was a MAJOR factor in giving Boston something we thought we might never see in our lifetime.  Folks want to spoil that by focusing on his big mouth?  Have at it.  Rediculuous!  The chemistry of his literal blood, sweat, and tears was an integral part of our World Series Winning Chemistry!   :)  As was Manny, Pedro, .........

     




    Billy Martin's A's hated each other. And they hated Billy. Earl Weaver's guys didn't care for him too much either. In 1978 Billy Martin and Reggie Jackson were in a fistfight in the visitor's dugout at Fenway during an important series between the Sox and Yankees. What the A's did have was Jackson, Tenace, Rudi, Bando, Campaneris, Hunter, Blue, Odom and Fingers. Weaver's O's had Palmer, McNally, Dobson, Flanagan, Martinez and the Robinsons. The 78 Yanks had Guidry, Hunter, Jackson, Nettles and Gossage. Talent trumps chemistry. Sorry.

     

     




    I agree that you've got to have the talent!!!  Completely!  My argument/s were designed to show that Moon and Shaughnessy have the fundamentals of "chemistry" all wrong!  Yes talent trumps chemistry in the uninformed person's definition, but without "chemistry," as I define it, your really good team likely does not become great.

     

    I think we're both right here.  BUT.....  as Shaughnessy and Moon define it, they are both dead wrong!

    You'd have to read all my posts on this subject, and they are very boring....  :)  But completely 100% dead on correct.  If a guy hasn't played on a competative team, he doesn't have a clue.  I doubt Shaughnessy has ever played on a team???  Well......  maybe chess???  Moon would kick his arcc at chess.




    Far be it from me to defend CHB (Shaugnessy) on anything. I haven't liked anything he's written since he trash talked the 86 C's. As a matter of fact I was actively cheering for Carl Everett to head butt him at least once before he cleared out his Red Sox locker. :-) I do think you can win without everyone necessarily being in love with each other though, and the 1970's A's, O's and Yanks bear witness to that.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

     

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    geo, had we lost in 2004, would you have blamed Shill for fostering bad chemistry? 

    Afterall, he had "a history" of being a "cancer in the clubhouse" beforehand.

     




     

    Chemistry is extremely important!  The problem is, it's highly misunderstood.  People think it's ALL about "getting along," or "guys having fun all the time."  WAY OFF!  The chemistry that a guy like Schill added was a COMPETATIVE FIRE and A WORK ETHIC that NEVER QUIT.  Even Manny, who was notorious for living in the batting cage.  These guys are not stupid.  They may not like some of their teammates, but they do respect a guy who puts it all out on the line.  A guy who is willing to do anything to help them win between the lines.  This type of thing is infectious, and it is exactly what pushes a team to greatness

    CHEMISTRY is ALL important.  I've been on many teams, with guys I personally couldn't stand!  BUT, their work ethic, toughness, grit, drive, nastiness, contentiousness, ugliness, kill or be killed attitudes were a factor in making our teams better.  On the field, I was their biggest fan.  Win or lose, I knew these guys gave it their all.  The guys I really resented were some of the really nice guys who were not doing everything they needed to do to be all they could be. 

    Schill was a MAJOR factor in giving Boston something we thought we might never see in our lifetime.  Folks want to spoil that by focusing on his big mouth?  Have at it.  Rediculuous!  The chemistry of his literal blood, sweat, and tears was an integral part of our World Series Winning Chemistry!   :)  As was Manny, Pedro, .........

     




    Billy Martin's A's hated each other. And they hated Billy. Earl Weaver's guys didn't care for him too much either. In 1978 Billy Martin and Reggie Jackson were in a fistfight in the visitor's dugout at Fenway during an important series between the Sox and Yankees. What the A's did have was Jackson, Tenace, Rudi, Bando, Campaneris, Hunter, Blue, Odom and Fingers. Weaver's O's had Palmer, McNally, Dobson, Flanagan, Martinez and the Robinsons. The 78 Yanks had Guidry, Hunter, Jackson, Nettles and Gossage. Talent trumps chemistry. Sorry.

     

     




    I agree that you've got to have the talent!!!  Completely!  My argument/s were designed to show that Moon and Shaughnessy have the fundamentals of "chemistry" all wrong!  Yes talent trumps chemistry in the uninformed person's definition, but without "chemistry," as I define it, your really good team likely does not become great.

     

    I think we're both right here.  BUT.....  as Shaughnessy and Moon define it, they are both dead wrong!

    You'd have to read all my posts on this subject, and they are very boring....  :)  But completely 100% dead on correct.  If a guy hasn't played on a competative team, he doesn't have a clue.  I doubt Shaughnessy has ever played on a team???  Well......  maybe chess???  Moon would kick his arcc at chess.

     




    Far be it from me to defend CHB (Shaugnessy) on anything. I haven't liked anything he's written since he trash talked the 86 C's. As a matter of fact I was actively cheering for Carl Everett to head butt him at least once before he cleared out his Red Sox locker. :-) I do think you can win without everyone necessarily being in love with each other though, and the 1970's A's, O's and Yanks bear witness to that.

     

     




    you haven't read all my boring posts, or you would know that's my exact point.  No offense.  I wouldn't back read them either.  :)

     

     

    My whole point being......  they don't understand what "chemistry" means.

    In fairness, the classic connotation is "getting along - harmony - etc......," so I don't blame moon.  It's simply not how anybody who has played on a highly competative TEAM would define "chemistry."  They know better!  No team, with 20 - 30 guys, all get along!  Not even close!  On the field, with all the differences and even acrimony, you gel....  You may even hate eachother enough to know eachothers strengths and weaknesses to always be there when the other guy needs a bailout.  Not because you like them, but because you know them. 

    Chemistry can have absolutely nothing to do with EVERYONE "getting along."

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    The debate goes on...

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    geo, had we lost in 2004, would you have blamed Shill for fostering bad chemistry? 

    Afterall, he had "a history" of being a "cancer in the clubhouse" beforehand.

     




     

    Chemistry is extremely important!  The problem is, it's highly misunderstood.  People think it's ALL about "getting along," or "guys having fun all the time."  WAY OFF!  The chemistry that a guy like Schill added was a COMPETATIVE FIRE and A WORK ETHIC that NEVER QUIT.  Even Manny, who was notorious for living in the batting cage.  These guys are not stupid.  They may not like some of their teammates, but they do respect a guy who puts it all out on the line.  A guy who is willing to do anything to help them win between the lines.  This type of thing is infectious, and it is exactly what pushes a team to greatness

    CHEMISTRY is ALL important.  I've been on many teams, with guys I personally couldn't stand!  BUT, their work ethic, toughness, grit, drive, nastiness, contentiousness, ugliness, kill or be killed attitudes were a factor in making our teams better.  On the field, I was their biggest fan.  Win or lose, I knew these guys gave it their all.  The guys I really resented were some of the really nice guys who were not doing everything they needed to do to be all they could be. 

    Schill was a MAJOR factor in giving Boston something we thought we might never see in our lifetime.  Folks want to spoil that by focusing on his big mouth?  Have at it.  Rediculuous!  The chemistry of his literal blood, sweat, and tears was an integral part of our World Series Winning Chemistry!   :)  As was Manny, Pedro, .........

     



    Chemistry is at best 1% of the total equation.

     

    Beckett had "the fire" when we won, but was a "cancer" when we lost.

    Had we won in 2011, nobody, and I mean nobody would be talking about the "poor chemistry"- just as in 2004 and 2007. As soon as we started losing,all of a sudden Manny was a cancer, Beckett was a cancer, fill in the blank was a cancer...

     




    No offense Moon.  Have you ever played a competative sport.  I think you might misunderstand team chemistry, just as the writer of the column does???

     

    You're dead wrong about chemistry!

    Again...  No offense!!!  But I've lived it.

     

    I'm dead right about chemistry. Chemistry never knocked in a run in the bottom of the 9th, split the defense on a breakaway to the hoop, or eeked out that extra yard for a first down.

    It helps for sure, and 1% is significant in a 162 game season. 

    You are not the only one who has played sports. I realize that some players have a defeatist attitude and can poison a dugour or bench, but it has been my experience that the vast majority of players I have played with are not affected by it, and do their very best no matter what other teammates are griping, complaining or pouting about.

    I played competitive baseball  and then softball until my last 30's. I played interhall football and basketball at the U of Notre Dame- a league with several all state players from high schools across the USA. It was highly intense and competitive.  Maybe it wasn't the level you played, but it was intense. I was a point guard and QB/DB. We won the basketball title my freshman and senior years ( I scored 40% of the teams points in the championship game). We won the football championship my freshman year (I was a reciever and back up QB). I played 2B in baseball next to one of the best defensive SSs I have ever seen at any level, then a little CF. In softball, I played 2B, CF, then pitched a slow pitch  knuckleball. I have played volleyball, tennis, and soccer. I was gym rat since I was 5. I used to shoel off my driveway and play basketball in freezing temperatures. We had to stop the game and put the ball under hot water every 6-7 minutes so it would bounce enough to dribble. I wore off my fingerprints with the dirt and grime on the wet ball. I have always had an intense desire to win, and when I was younger, I was a poor sport when we lost. I got over that as a teen, but my drive has never eased up. At 53, I still play hoops at the middle school kids I volunteer at. They are better than I was at that age. I pulled a groin muscle Friday. It still hurts. I'll be there again Wednesday and Friday.

    On this thread, I was responding to Geo and his fixation that Beckett was the sole reason we lost in 2011, and that he was a cancer with the Marlins before coming here as well. I'd take 5 Beckett's on my rotation over the last 8 years over any team's 5 man rotation. He was a fierce competitor, and rose to the occasion more times than not. Yes, he had issues, but so did Schill. No knock on Schill. I loved him here with the Sox, but he did have some issues in Philly, he was scolded a bit by Clemens when a prospect here, and now this minor think with the wives comes up. I thought I'd blow it up as much as he did the whole Chickengate thing. I don't think Josh or Curt we negatives to the team. I don't think Manny was until maybe the last month here. There are occasions where attitude and chemistry can help or hurt by more than 1%, but there are countless times it is at 0%, so I'll figure maybe it's at about 1-2% of a team's overall assessment.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    Girl fights.... Shaughnessy finally found something he is qualified to write about.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    Billy Martin's A's hated each other. And they hated Billy. Earl Weaver's guys didn't care for him too much either. In 1978 Billy Martin and Reggie Jackson were in a fistfight in the visitor's dugout at Fenway during an important series between the Sox and Yankees. What the A's did have was Jackson, Tenace, Rudi, Bando, Campaneris, Hunter, Blue, Odom and Fingers. Weaver's O's had Palmer, McNally, Dobson, Flanagan, Martinez and the Robinsons. The 78 Yanks had Guidry, Hunter, Jackson, Nettles and Gossage. Talent trumps chemistry. Sorry.

    When teams win, all the "messes" are kept quiet, minimized, or laughed at as being silly or inconsequential. Only when a team loses do people seek a source of blame.

    I've been on winning teams with great chemistry, losing teams with great chemsitry, and losing teams with poor chemistry and losing teams with poor chemistry. Of course the last one is the least amount of fun, but I rarely felt like any level of team chemistry affected my play or production, or others on the team.

    One example: the 2004 Sox. Had we got swept by the Yanks, or fought back to a game 7 then lost 19-7, I am one hundred percent positive, we'd have heard several posters here blasting the team chemistry and attitude. Millar would have been vilified. The silly "Idiots" antics would have been labelled negative influences. A change would have been demanded. Instead, we won the WS, and all of a sudden, our team chemistry was A- number 1, and a big reason we won. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

     I don't blame moon.  It's simply not how anybody who has played on a highly competative TEAM would define "chemistry." 

    Stop the condescending talk.Stop pretending like only people who have played highly competitive spots can possibly know what the true definition of chemistry is.

    I know "chemistry" is not just about getting along, but I also know that no matter how much anybody hated Beckett, they loved having him on the mound in the big game. He made their jobs easier. He was not a cancer. The teams after 2007 never had a Manny batting 4th or 2 aces like we had in '04 and '07. We did not lose because of chemistry. We lost because we had glaring weaknesses we could not overcome.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    geo, had we lost in 2004, would you have blamed Shill for fostering bad chemistry? 

    Afterall, he had "a history" of being a "cancer in the clubhouse" beforehand.

     




     

    Chemistry is extremely important!  The problem is, it's highly misunderstood.  People think it's ALL about "getting along," or "guys having fun all the time."  WAY OFF!  The chemistry that a guy like Schill added was a COMPETATIVE FIRE and A WORK ETHIC that NEVER QUIT.  Even Manny, who was notorious for living in the batting cage.  These guys are not stupid.  They may not like some of their teammates, but they do respect a guy who puts it all out on the line.  A guy who is willing to do anything to help them win between the lines.  This type of thing is infectious, and it is exactly what pushes a team to greatness

    CHEMISTRY is ALL important.  I've been on many teams, with guys I personally couldn't stand!  BUT, their work ethic, toughness, grit, drive, nastiness, contentiousness, ugliness, kill or be killed attitudes were a factor in making our teams better.  On the field, I was their biggest fan.  Win or lose, I knew these guys gave it their all.  The guys I really resented were some of the really nice guys who were not doing everything they needed to do to be all they could be. 

    Schill was a MAJOR factor in giving Boston something we thought we might never see in our lifetime.  Folks want to spoil that by focusing on his big mouth?  Have at it.  Rediculuous!  The chemistry of his literal blood, sweat, and tears was an integral part of our World Series Winning Chemistry!   :)  As was Manny, Pedro, .........

     



    Chemistry is at best 1% of the total equation.

     

    Beckett had "the fire" when we won, but was a "cancer" when we lost.

    Had we won in 2011, nobody, and I mean nobody would be talking about the "poor chemistry"- just as in 2004 and 2007. As soon as we started losing,all of a sudden Manny was a cancer, Beckett was a cancer, fill in the blank was a cancer...

     




    No offense Moon.  Have you ever played a competative sport.  I think you might misunderstand team chemistry, just as the writer of the column does???

     

    You're dead wrong about chemistry!

    Again...  No offense!!!  But I've lived it.

     

     

     

    I'm dead right about chemistry. Chemistry never knocked in a run in the bottom of the 9th, split the defense on a breakaway to the hoop, or eeked out that extra yard for a first down.

    It helps for sure, and 1% is significant in a 162 game season. 

    You are not the only one who has played sports. I realize that some players have a defeatist attitude and can poison a dugour or bench, but it has been my experience that the vast majority of players I have played with are not affected by it, and do their very best no matter what other teammates are griping, complaining or pouting about.

    I played competitive baseball  and then softball until my last 30's. I played interhall football and basketball at the U of Notre Dame- a league with several all state players from high schools across the USA. It was highly intense and competitive.  Maybe it wasn't the level you played, but it was intense. I was a point guard and QB/DB. We won the basketball title my freshman and senior years ( I scored 40% of the teams points in the championship game). We won the football championship my freshman year (I was a reciever and back up QB). I played 2B in baseball next to one of the best defensive SSs I have ever seen at any level, then a little CF. In softball, I played 2B, CF, then pitched a slow pitch  knuckleball. I have played volleyball, tennis, and soccer. I was gym rat since I was 5. I used to shoel off my driveway and play basketball in freezing temperatures. We had to stop the game and put the ball under hot water every 6-7 minutes so it would bounce enough to dribble. I wore off my fingerprints with the dirt and grime on the wet ball. I have always had an intense desire to win, and when I was younger, I was a poor sport when we lost. I got over that as a teen, but my drive has never eased up. At 53, I still play hoops at the middle school kids I volunteer at. They are better than I was at that age. I pulled a groin muscle Friday. It still hurts. I'll be there again Wednesday and Friday.

    On this thread, I was responding to Geo and his fixation that Beckett was the sole reason we lost in 2011, and that he was a cancer with the Marlins before coming here as well. I'd take 5 Beckett's on my rotation over the last 8 years over any team's 5 man rotation. He was a fierce competitor, and rose to the occasion more times than not. Yes, he had issues, but so did Schill. No knock on Schill. I loved him here with the Sox, but he did have some issues in Philly, he was scolded a bit by Clemens when a prospect here, and now this minor think with the wives comes up. I thought I'd blow it up as much as he did the whole Chickengate thing. I don't think Josh or Curt we negatives to the team. I don't think Manny was until maybe the last month here. There are occasions where attitude and chemistry can help or hurt by more than 1%, but there are countless times it is at 0%, so I'll figure maybe it's at about 1-2% of a team's overall assessment.

     




    I stand corrected!

    You are a Renaissance man!  An athlete and a scholar!  My time was cut short by the ravages of MS.  Oh well.  You can't win em all.

    Anyway.  We may essentially agree.  My 1 - 2 % may factor in a bit more as an intangible though...  My definition is vastly dif. than Shaughnessy's!  It's not about "getting along."

    I agree that it's 1 - 2 %, but .....

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    In response to Thesemenarecowards' comment:

    Girl fights.... Shaughnessy finally found something he is qualified to write about.




    hahaha good one.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     I don't blame moon.  It's simply not how anybody who has played on a highly competative TEAM would define "chemistry." 

    Stop the condescending talk.Stop pretending like only people who have played highly competitive spots can possibly know what the true definition of chemistry is.

    I know "chemistry" is not just about getting along, but I also know that no matter how much anybody hated Beckett, they loved having him on the mound in the big game. He made their jobs easier. He was not a cancer. The teams after 2007 never had a Manny batting 4th or 2 aces like we had in '04 and '07. We did not lose because of chemistry. We lost because we had glaring weaknesses we could not overcome.




    Honestly wasn't trying to be condescending.  My apologies!  Your avatar fools me!  Took you for a George Will baseball fan!  My definite apologies.  Not that there is anything wrong with being a cerebral fan, I just didn't think you had ever played. 

    I stand firmly corrected!  :)

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    Cut it out guys.  Anything that anyone says to build themselves up on the Internet  is taken with a grain of salt. Just stick to your opinions.  We really don't care about your " accomplishments . "   I could give you some of mine if I thought it mattered.   But I know it doesn't. 

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    geo, had we lost in 2004, would you have blamed Shill for fostering bad chemistry? 

    Afterall, he had "a history" of being a "cancer in the clubhouse" beforehand.

     




     

    Chemistry is extremely important!  The problem is, it's highly misunderstood.  People think it's ALL about "getting along," or "guys having fun all the time."  WAY OFF!  The chemistry that a guy like Schill added was a COMPETATIVE FIRE and A WORK ETHIC that NEVER QUIT.  Even Manny, who was notorious for living in the batting cage.  These guys are not stupid.  They may not like some of their teammates, but they do respect a guy who puts it all out on the line.  A guy who is willing to do anything to help them win between the lines.  This type of thing is infectious, and it is exactly what pushes a team to greatness

    CHEMISTRY is ALL important.  I've been on many teams, with guys I personally couldn't stand!  BUT, their work ethic, toughness, grit, drive, nastiness, contentiousness, ugliness, kill or be killed attitudes were a factor in making our teams better.  On the field, I was their biggest fan.  Win or lose, I knew these guys gave it their all.  The guys I really resented were some of the really nice guys who were not doing everything they needed to do to be all they could be. 

    Schill was a MAJOR factor in giving Boston something we thought we might never see in our lifetime.  Folks want to spoil that by focusing on his big mouth?  Have at it.  Rediculuous!  The chemistry of his literal blood, sweat, and tears was an integral part of our World Series Winning Chemistry!   :)  As was Manny, Pedro, .........

     



    Chemistry is at best 1% of the total equation.

     

    Beckett had "the fire" when we won, but was a "cancer" when we lost.

    Had we won in 2011, nobody, and I mean nobody would be talking about the "poor chemistry"- just as in 2004 and 2007. As soon as we started losing,all of a sudden Manny was a cancer, Beckett was a cancer, fill in the blank was a cancer...

     




    No offense Moon.  Have you ever played a competative sport.  I think you might misunderstand team chemistry, just as the writer of the column does???

     

    You're dead wrong about chemistry!

    Again...  No offense!!!  But I've lived it.

     

     

     

    I'm dead right about chemistry. Chemistry never knocked in a run in the bottom of the 9th, split the defense on a breakaway to the hoop, or eeked out that extra yard for a first down.

    It helps for sure, and 1% is significant in a 162 game season. 

    You are not the only one who has played sports. I realize that some players have a defeatist attitude and can poison a dugour or bench, but it has been my experience that the vast majority of players I have played with are not affected by it, and do their very best no matter what other teammates are griping, complaining or pouting about.

    I played competitive baseball  and then softball until my last 30's. I played interhall football and basketball at the U of Notre Dame- a league with several all state players from high schools across the USA. It was highly intense and competitive.  Maybe it wasn't the level you played, but it was intense. I was a point guard and QB/DB. We won the basketball title my freshman and senior years ( I scored 40% of the teams points in the championship game). We won the football championship my freshman year (I was a reciever and back up QB). I played 2B in baseball next to one of the best defensive SSs I have ever seen at any level, then a little CF. In softball, I played 2B, CF, then pitched a slow pitch  knuckleball. I have played volleyball, tennis, and soccer. I was gym rat since I was 5. I used to shoel off my driveway and play basketball in freezing temperatures. We had to stop the game and put the ball under hot water every 6-7 minutes so it would bounce enough to dribble. I wore off my fingerprints with the dirt and grime on the wet ball. I have always had an intense desire to win, and when I was younger, I was a poor sport when we lost. I got over that as a teen, but my drive has never eased up. At 53, I still play hoops at the middle school kids I volunteer at. They are better than I was at that age. I pulled a groin muscle Friday. It still hurts. I'll be there again Wednesday and Friday.

    On this thread, I was responding to Geo and his fixation that Beckett was the sole reason we lost in 2011, and that he was a cancer with the Marlins before coming here as well. I'd take 5 Beckett's on my rotation over the last 8 years over any team's 5 man rotation. He was a fierce competitor, and rose to the occasion more times than not. Yes, he had issues, but so did Schill. No knock on Schill. I loved him here with the Sox, but he did have some issues in Philly, he was scolded a bit by Clemens when a prospect here, and now this minor think with the wives comes up. I thought I'd blow it up as much as he did the whole Chickengate thing. I don't think Josh or Curt we negatives to the team. I don't think Manny was until maybe the last month here. There are occasions where attitude and chemistry can help or hurt by more than 1%, but there are countless times it is at 0%, so I'll figure maybe it's at about 1-2% of a team's overall assessment.

     

     




    I stand corrected!

     

    You are a Renaissance man!  An athlete and a scholar!  My time was cut short by the ravages of MS.  Oh well.  You can't win em all.

    Anyway.  We may essentially agree.  My 1 - 2 % may factor in a bit more as an intangible though...  My definition is vastly dif. than Shaughnessy's!  It's not about "getting along."

    I agree that it's 1 - 2 %, but .....



    So, tell me your definition. Not just what it is not. Give examples of when you experienced chemistry helping you win, or the lack of it, helping you lose.

    Where did you play? What position?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    It's about veteran professional worth ethic and self policing accountability veteran leadership, it's not about the meaningless word "chemistry".



    "worth ethic!"  There you go.  I knew we were all missing the key factor.  :)

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    geo, had we lost in 2004, would you have blamed Shill for fostering bad chemistry? 

    Afterall, he had "a history" of being a "cancer in the clubhouse" beforehand.

     

    Chemistry is extremely important!  The problem is, it's highly misunderstood.  People think it's ALL about "getting along," or "guys having fun all the time."  WAY OFF!  The chemistry that a guy like Schill added was a COMPETATIVE FIRE and A WORK ETHIC that NEVER QUIT.  Even Manny, who was notorious for living in the batting cage.  These guys are not stupid.  They may not like some of their teammates, but they do respect a guy who puts it all out on the line.  A guy who is willing to do anything to help them win between the lines.  This type of thing is infectious, and it is exactly what pushes a team to greatness

    CHEMISTRY is ALL important.  I've been on many teams, with guys I personally couldn't stand!  BUT, their work ethic, toughness, grit, drive, nastiness, contentiousness, ugliness, kill or be killed attitudes were a factor in making our teams better.  On the field, I was their biggest fan.  Win or lose, I knew these guys gave it their all.  The guys I really resented were some of the really nice guys who were not doing everything they needed to do to be all they could be. 

    Schill was a MAJOR factor in giving Boston something we thought we might never see in our lifetime.  Folks want to spoil that by focusing on his big mouth?  Have at it.  Rediculuous!  The chemistry of his literal blood, sweat, and tears was an integral part of our World Series Winning Chemistry!   :)  As was Manny, Pedro, .........

     



    Chemistry is at best 1% of the total equation.

     

    Beckett had "the fire" when we won, but was a "cancer" when we lost.

    Had we won in 2011, nobody, and I mean nobody would be talking about the "poor chemistry"- just as in 2004 and 2007. As soon as we started losing,all of a sudden Manny was a cancer, Beckett was a cancer, fill in the blank was a cancer...

     




    No offense Moon.  Have you ever played a competative sport.  I think you might misunderstand team chemistry, just as the writer of the column does???

     

    You're dead wrong about chemistry!

    Again...  No offense!!!  But I've lived it.

     

     

     

    I'm dead right about chemistry. Chemistry never knocked in a run in the bottom of the 9th, split the defense on a breakaway to the hoop, or eeked out that extra yard for a first down.

    It helps for sure, and 1% is significant in a 162 game season. 

    You are not the only one who has played sports. I realize that some players have a defeatist attitude and can poison a dugour or bench, but it has been my experience that the vast majority of players I have played with are not affected by it, and do their very best no matter what other teammates are griping, complaining or pouting about.

    I played competitive baseball  and then softball until my last 30's. I played interhall football and basketball at the U of Notre Dame- a league with several all state players from high schools across the USA. It was highly intense and competitive.  Maybe it wasn't the level you played, but it was intense. I was a point guard and QB/DB. We won the basketball title my freshman and senior years ( I scored 40% of the teams points in the championship game). We won the football championship my freshman year (I was a reciever and back up QB). I played 2B in baseball next to one of the best defensive SSs I have ever seen at any level, then a little CF. In softball, I played 2B, CF, then pitched a slow pitch  knuckleball. I have played volleyball, tennis, and soccer. I was gym rat since I was 5. I used to shoel off my driveway and play basketball in freezing temperatures. We had to stop the game and put the ball under hot water every 6-7 minutes so it would bounce enough to dribble. I wore off my fingerprints with the dirt and grime on the wet ball. I have always had an intense desire to win, and when I was younger, I was a poor sport when we lost. I got over that as a teen, but my drive has never eased up. At 53, I still play hoops at the middle school kids I volunteer at. They are better than I was at that age. I pulled a groin muscle Friday. It still hurts. I'll be there again Wednesday and Friday.

    On this thread, I was responding to Geo and his fixation that Beckett was the sole reason we lost in 2011, and that he was a cancer with the Marlins before coming here as well. I'd take 5 Beckett's on my rotation over the last 8 years over any team's 5 man rotation. He was a fierce competitor, and rose to the occasion more times than not. Yes, he had issues, but so did Schill. No knock on Schill. I loved him here with the Sox, but he did have some issues in Philly, he was scolded a bit by Clemens when a prospect here, and now this minor think with the wives comes up. I thought I'd blow it up as much as he did the whole Chickengate thing. I don't think Josh or Curt we negatives to the team. I don't think Manny was until maybe the last month here. There are occasions where attitude and chemistry can help or hurt by more than 1%, but there are countless times it is at 0%, so I'll figure maybe it's at about 1-2% of a team's overall assessment.

     

     




    I stand corrected!

     

    You are a Renaissance man!  An athlete and a scholar!  My time was cut short by the ravages of MS.  Oh well.  You can't win em all.

    Anyway.  We may essentially agree.  My 1 - 2 % may factor in a bit more as an intangible though...  My definition is vastly dif. than Shaughnessy's!  It's not about "getting along."

    I agree that it's 1 - 2 %, but .....

     



    So, tell me your definition. Not just what it is not. Give examples of when you experienced chemistry helping you win, or the lack of it, helping you lose.

     

    Where did you play? What position?




    "
    I stand corrected!

     

    You are a Renaissance man! An athlete and a scholar! My time was cut short by the ravages of MS. Oh well. You can't win em all.

    Anyway. We may essentially agree. My 1 - 2 % may factor in a bit more as an intangible though... My definition is vastly dif. than Shaughnessy's! It's not about "getting along."

    I agree that it's 1 - 2 %, but ....."

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    "So, tell me your definition. Not just what it is not. Give examples of when you experienced chemistry helping you win, or the lack of it, helping you lose."

    scan back.  It's there.  again... no offense moon.   Tried to tweak a debate, but I was wrong about you.

    Tough guy to apologize to??

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jaytftwofive. Show jaytftwofive's posts

    Re: Here's the Best 2004 Highlight We've Never Seen

    I remember when this story came out in the spring of 05. Shonda made lucky scarfs that all the wives and girlfriends had to wear. When we were getting our butts kicked in game 3, Damon's girlfriend said "A lot of good luck these lucky scarfs are doing" Shonda's response was "Oh yeah we'll if your boyfriend was hitting better then 1 for 15 maybe that would help us" Supposedly they had to be separated. As Kramer on Seinfeld would say..."CacacaCat fight" I'm not the biggest believer in chemistry because the Oakland A's of 72-74 couldn't stand each other and won 3 straight WS.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share