Edward Cossette has an interesting post on team chemistry, and is nice enough to include my opinion on the matter. However, I think Edward is changing the traditional view of team chemistry. After quoting me about wanting lots of Reggies and Bonds and Rickeys on my team, he says:

Right. And having those kind of guys are part of a chemistry that just might work. In my own experiences, I've had some of the most productive development teams be made of folks who were not at all friends in the traditional sense. We didn't hang out. We didn't go to each others houses. We didn't play softball together. Indeed, I know a couple of us really didn't like each other very well, but the team had just the right chemistry, just the perfect amount of stubbornness and acquiescence, ego and modesty, sweat and laughter…

No, chemistry is not friendship. Chemistry, for certain, is akin to what the Supreme Court said about pornography: I can't define it but I sure do know it when I see (or rather feel) it. (Of course, it's the inability to quantify it that gets all the sabermetrics guys and gals all pissy.)

The problem is that writers define chemistry very narrowly; it's how well the players get along. That's it. If they walk into a club house, and the players are all smiling and chatty and golfing together, they have great chemistry. If they are growling at each other, they have lousy chemistry. What Edward is saying (I believe), is this narrow definition is wrong. I've with him on that. However, even if chemistry exists, I don't think it's very important. And we'll see how good the Red Sox chemistry is if they don't meet expectations this year.