Good interview with Mike Krukow this AM, where he was asked, "Do you think a team can win without good chemistry?" Mike thought for a moment and emphatically replied, "No."

He talked of all the recent Giant teams who had won the World Series, and their great chemistry. He said it only takes one player to wreck team chemistry. He said he learned this in the minor leagues, playing in Texas. The best player on his team was a pitcher who had been to a major league camp, John Schrader. He said John was a sarcastic guy and was often saying something negative. The team was not winning. One day Mike came to the ballpark, and John's locker was empty and he was gone. The manager told the team that there would be no more negative talk the rest of the season. If anyone else began to be negative, his locker would be emptied as well. The players got the message and began to win, and ended up winning the Texas league championship.

Baseball to me is more of a team sport than basketball in general has become today. However, chemistry is still really important to a basketball team's success. And it only takes that one player who is negative and does not get along with others who can wreck a team. As an example, Cal had a player, Justice Suing, who played well for Cal for two seasons, but when his coach was fired and the new coach arrived, we all saw the press conference where showed his displeasure at the message from Mark Fox with his facial expressions and body language. some have said he would have been a good player for Cal last season, but after seeing that performance at the press conference, my guess is that Sueing would not have been an enthusiastic Cal player, if he had stayed. So I wish him luck, but I don't miss him.

We all write a lot about the qualities we would like to have in our players, but we seldom write about chemistry, and that is another thing I'd like us to look for in recruits. It doesn't matter the talent, if a player can't fit in and get along well with his teammates, on the floor and away from it.

Kruk must have forgotten about the Oakland A's '72-'74 World Series teams or most of the Yankees championships for that matter. Also, wasn't Bonds and Kent known to pretty tough guys to be around in the clubhouse?

It's coming out recently that the KD Warriors didn't have good chemistry.

Civil Bear said:

---

Kruk must have forgotten about the Oakland A's '72-'74 World Series teams or most of the Yankees championships for that matter. Also, wasn't Bonds and Kent known to pretty tough guys to be around in the clubhouse?

---

You beat me too it on the A's.

Team chemistry is very important. His basic point stands. But you can overcome it.

And of course those A's teams were massively talented.

I think it is also easier to get away with lack of chemistry in baseball.

That said, following my daughter in softball I have been very surprised at how often I have seen whole travel teams just fall apart and disperse to other programs because players don't like the coach or each other. (Thankfully none of my daughters teams)

When NBA Players Touch Teammates More, They and Their Teams Play Better

https://www.fastcompany.com/1711199/new-study-when-nba-players-touch-teammates-more-they-and-their-teams-play-better

Haven't seen comparable study for baseball, but for football I have watched "Remember the Titans" :-)

BearGreg said:

---

I would be careful not to conflate interpersonal issues and off the court challenges with a lack of chemistry. Competitive chemistry is huge even if clubhouse chemistry isn't perfect. I suspect BTW that baseball and football need more clubhouse chemistry than most sports. Whilst basketball and soccer can win big with competitive chemistry alone.

---

Krukow talked about getting rid of a guy who was sarcastic. The A's were literally having fist fights

Civil Bear said:

---

Kruk must have forgotten about the Oakland A's '72-'74 World Series teams or most of the Yankees championships for that matter. Also, wasn't Bonds and Kent known to pretty tough guys to be around in the clubhouse?

---

Actually, the interviewer brought up the fist fights that the A's had, and Krukow said something about the chemistry they were talking about being the chemistry on the field. It's a fair point.

I recently decided to go to a high school reunion which was for the class behind me. I wanted to see a former teammate, Milton, who had signed up for the lunch, and whom I hadn't seen in 50 years. Were had been on the basketball team together, competing for the same position. Our coach was a total incompetent, and in spite of him, as a team we played pretty well together and had won some games. In a game against Washington, the best team in the city, we fell far behind in the first half and got blown out. In the locker room after the game, Milton was hot, and shouted that our coach was terrible. I disagreed, saying we had played badly, and Milton took it to mean that he had played bad, and we had a huge fistfight over it. I went to the reunion to apologize to him for starting that fight, and tell him that he was right, that our coach was a terrible coach. We spotted each other in the lobby. We both had big smiles on our faces, we hugged each other, and when I made my apology to him for starting the fight, he laughed and said he didn't recall the fight at all. There is something about team sports that creates a bond between athletes, even when there are fights and friction. And when this darn shutdown is over, Milton and I will be having lunch together.

BearGreg said:

---

I would be careful not to conflate interpersonal issues and off the court challenges with a lack of chemistry. Competitive chemistry is huge even if clubhouse chemistry isn't perfect. I suspect BTW that baseball and football need more clubhouse chemistry than most sports. Whilst basketball and soccer can win big with competitive chemistry alone.

---

Thanks Greg. You said this better than I could.

graguna said:

---

A friend of mine is a good friend of coach Fox's. From what I understand, Fox wasn't concerned to see Sueing leave because he felt he was not going to get him to buy into his system. He knew he was a good player but was concerned he would hurt the team chemistry.

---

I suspected as much.

BearGreg said:

---

I would be careful not to conflate interpersonal issues and off the court challenges with a lack of chemistry. Competitive chemistry is huge even if clubhouse chemistry isn't perfect. I suspect BTW that baseball and football need more clubhouse chemistry than most sports. Whilst basketball and soccer can win big with competitive chemistry alone.

---

For being a team sport, baseball, IMO, doesn't rely on on-field chemistry as much as other sports (other than between short & second, and pitcher & catcher to a degree). Players that have never played together can still compete at a high level, which isn't the case with sports like hockey, soccer, basketball, and football. I figure a baseball Allstar team can beat a world series team, which isn't the case with the other sports.

Thanks, graguna. Coach Fox told me essentially the same thing, last fall in the University Club during a football game, but in a general sense about the players who did not return. Though he did not reference Sueing specifically, my observations from several hoops games in Wyking's final season led me to a similar conclusion.

Civil Bear said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

I would be careful not to conflate interpersonal issues and off the court challenges with a lack of chemistry. Competitive chemistry is huge even if clubhouse chemistry isn't perfect. I suspect BTW that baseball and football need more clubhouse chemistry than most sports. Whilst basketball and soccer can win big with competitive chemistry alone.

---

For being a team sport, baseball, IMO, doesn't rely on on-field chemistry as much as other sports (other than between short & second, and pitcher & catcher to a degree). Players that have never played together can still compete at a high level, which isn't the case with sports like hockey, soccer, basketball, and football. I figure a baseball Allstar team can beat a world series team, which isn't the case with the other sports.

---

On the field, baseball is a series of individual efforts with the pitcher/catcher and maybe shortstop/second base on the double play possible exceptions where chemistry helps. However baseball players spend a lot of time together in the dugout and on the road with games nearly every day. It is a pain if teammates don't like each other, but it doesn't necessarily affect the team play.

Basketball requires the most on the court chemistry, plus there is a lot of time together on the bench and on the road (not as much as baseball).

Football requires everyone to do their individual job, with setbplays so chemistry does not play a big role, plus there are a lot of players and a lot of space to spread out on the sideline if there is anyone you don't care for and it has the fewest games. Sometimes bad chemistry can hurt, but that is an extreme. The 49ers trading Charles Haley to the Cowboys because a guy who is manic crazy in attacking quarterbacks is sometimes crazy off the field too shifted the balance of power in the NFC and was a huge mistake. In football if you don't want to be around a guy, don't be around him.

Also, Phil Rizzuto and Bill White were the best baseball announcing duo, but I'm biased as that's who I grew up listening to. They would switch between TV and radio in the same game.

Civil Bear said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

I would be careful not to conflate interpersonal issues and off the court challenges with a lack of chemistry. Competitive chemistry is huge even if clubhouse chemistry isn't perfect. I suspect BTW that baseball and football need more clubhouse chemistry than most sports. Whilst basketball and soccer can win big with competitive chemistry alone.

---

For being a team sport, baseball, IMO, doesn't rely on on-field chemistry as much as other sports (other than between short & second, and pitcher & catcher to a degree). Players that have never played together can still compete at a high level, which isn't the case with sports like hockey, soccer, basketball, and football. I figure a baseball Allstar team can beat a world series team, which isn't the case with the other sports.

---

I confess to knowing little about baseball, but I have come to appreciate the game more by watching Giants broadcasts and listening to the current announcing crew, which is outstanding in their explanations. Baseball plays are very complicated, much more than the cooperation of just pitcher and catcher or shortstop and 2nd baseman. There are so many different types of plays requiring the cooperation of several players for success. If a fly ball is hit, there are at least 3 players, and if a ground ball is hit, at least 4 players. Players not touching the ball, may have to cover a base which a teammate has left to try and make a play. There are cut off plays, and plays when a runner is on base, where several players cooperate to keep a runner close to the bag, and others are responsible for backing up the play at a base, or more than one base, all on the same play. Someone calculated there are 12 million possible plays in a game, and many of them involve several players cooperating. Some amount of chemistry has to be involved to achieve effective cooperation among players in any play, I should think. Even if it is something really simple like the shortstop holding up his hand for the outfielders to remind them that there two outs, and they still need to concentrate, or Willie Mays telling the other two outfielders exactly where to play for the next batter, to be in the best position to catch a fly ball from this particular hitter hitting against this particular pitcher. This kind of stuff goes on with all nine players on the field, not to mention the interaction and cooperation of the on-field coaches holding up a baserunner, or letting him go, or saying nothing when it is Willie Mays rounding 3rd base. Has a World Series team ever played an All-Star team? If they haven't, I'd bet on the World Series Winner, since baseball is a game of inches and requires so much precision, I would have to bet on the guys who had just played 162 games together, and they must know each other's game inside out.

Here is a site with description of some plays: http://www.qcbaseball.com/situations/cut-off-runner-on-second.aspx

SFCityBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

I would be careful not to conflate interpersonal issues and off the court challenges with a lack of chemistry. Competitive chemistry is huge even if clubhouse chemistry isn't perfect. I suspect BTW that baseball and football need more clubhouse chemistry than most sports. Whilst basketball and soccer can win big with competitive chemistry alone.

---

For being a team sport, baseball, IMO, doesn't rely on on-field chemistry as much as other sports (other than between short & second, and pitcher & catcher to a degree). Players that have never played together can still compete at a high level, which isn't the case with sports like hockey, soccer, basketball, and football. I figure a baseball Allstar team can beat a world series team, which isn't the case with the other sports.

---

I confess to knowing little about baseball, but I have come to appreciate the game more by watching Giants broadcasts and listening to the current announcing crew, which is outstanding in their explanations. Baseball plays are very complicated, much more than the cooperation of just pitcher and catcher or shortstop and 2nd baseman. There are so many different types of plays requiring the cooperation of several players for success. If a fly ball is hit, there are at least 3 players, and if a ground ball is hit, at least 4 players. Players not touching the ball, may have to cover a base which a teammate has left to try and make a play. There are cut off plays, and plays when a runner is on base, where several players cooperate to keep a runner close to the bag, and others are responsible for backing up the play at a base, or more than one base, all on the same play. Someone calculated there are 12 million possible plays in a game, and many of them involve several players cooperating. Some amount of chemistry has to be involved to achieve effective cooperation among players in any play, I should think. Even if it is something really simple like the shortstop holding up his hand for the outfielders to remind them that there two outs, and they still need to concentrate, or Willie Mays telling the other two outfielders exactly where to play for the next batter, to be in the best position to catch a fly ball from this particular hitter hitting against this particular pitcher. This kind of stuff goes on with all nine players on the field, not to mention the interaction and cooperation of the on-field coaches holding up a baserunner, or letting him go, or saying nothing when it is Willie Mays rounding 3rd base. Has a World Series team ever played an All-Star team? If they haven't, I'd bet on the World Series Winner, since baseball is a game of inches and requires so much precision, I would have to bet on the guys who had just played 162 games together, and they must know each other's game inside out.

Here is a site with description of some plays: http://www.qcbaseball.com/situations/cut-off-runner-on-second.aspx

---

Well, I know quite a bit about the game having played it and coached it for much of my life. Although much of what you say is correct, almost every team at every level plays it essentially the same way, and any small variances can be picked up in a practice or two. It really isn't that complicated for experienced players. The defense is set by the coaches and how players react when the ball is in play is pretty much the same throughout baseball. For example who covers which base, who lines up to take the cut-off, and who tells the cut-off man to cut-it off or not and which base to throw it to. Even the words that are called out are the same. It's all just fundamental baseball, like the 3rd baseman fielding every grounder he can get to cleanly, or the infielders going for every deep pop-up until they are called off by the outfielder. None of this takes much chemistry between the players, just a knowledge of, and a willingness to play fundamental baseball. There is some chemistry needed between the middle infielders, such as the shortstop knowing where the second baseman prefers to receive the ball during double-plays, but even that isn't a huge deal since any SS worth a lick knows where the sweet spot is for most (like a pg should know the sweet spot for most spot-up shooters).

In addition to the above, fielding is only one part of the game. It's true that good defense can make a good pitcher look great, but the best pitchers dominate the game.

And the other half of the game is offense, where the hitter might as well be on an island, knowing what to do by either the fundamentals of situational hitting (eg how to have a productive at-bat) or by taking instruction by the third base coach. What team you are on or who you are playing with doesn't change any of that. An example of when chemistry might be needed is when the batter takes a pitch or two if he thinks the runner may want to try and steal a base.

So to get back to the Allstar vs. a Championship team, yes, there is some benefit to playing together, but it likely isn't a big enough advantage to overcome having to go up against the best individual pitchers and batters in the game. Even the best World Series teams have holes in their batting orders and pitching rotations.

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

I would be careful not to conflate interpersonal issues and off the court challenges with a lack of chemistry. Competitive chemistry is huge even if clubhouse chemistry isn't perfect. I suspect BTW that baseball and football need more clubhouse chemistry than most sports. Whilst basketball and soccer can win big with competitive chemistry alone.

---

For being a team sport, baseball, IMO, doesn't rely on on-field chemistry as much as other sports (other than between short & second, and pitcher & catcher to a degree). Players that have never played together can still compete at a high level, which isn't the case with sports like hockey, soccer, basketball, and football. I figure a baseball Allstar team can beat a world series team, which isn't the case with the other sports.

---

I confess to knowing little about baseball, but I have come to appreciate the game more by watching Giants broadcasts and listening to the current announcing crew, which is outstanding in their explanations. Baseball plays are very complicated, much more than the cooperation of just pitcher and catcher or shortstop and 2nd baseman. There are so many different types of plays requiring the cooperation of several players for success. If a fly ball is hit, there are at least 3 players, and if a ground ball is hit, at least 4 players. Players not touching the ball, may have to cover a base which a teammate has left to try and make a play. There are cut off plays, and plays when a runner is on base, where several players cooperate to keep a runner close to the bag, and others are responsible for backing up the play at a base, or more than one base, all on the same play. Someone calculated there are 12 million possible plays in a game, and many of them involve several players cooperating. Some amount of chemistry has to be involved to achieve effective cooperation among players in any play, I should think. Even if it is something really simple like the shortstop holding up his hand for the outfielders to remind them that there two outs, and they still need to concentrate, or Willie Mays telling the other two outfielders exactly where to play for the next batter, to be in the best position to catch a fly ball from this particular hitter hitting against this particular pitcher. This kind of stuff goes on with all nine players on the field, not to mention the interaction and cooperation of the on-field coaches holding up a baserunner, or letting him go, or saying nothing when it is Willie Mays rounding 3rd base. Has a World Series team ever played an All-Star team? If they haven't, I'd bet on the World Series Winner, since baseball is a game of inches and requires so much precision, I would have to bet on the guys who had just played 162 games together, and they must know each other's game inside out.

Here is a site with description of some plays: http://www.qcbaseball.com/situations/cut-off-runner-on-second.aspx

---

Well, I know quite a bit about the game having played it and coached it for much of my life. Although much of what you say is correct, almost every team at every level plays it essentially the same way, and any small variances can be picked up in a practice or two. It really isn't that complicated for experienced players. The defense is set by the coaches and how players react when the ball is in play is pretty much the same throughout baseball. For example who covers which base, who lines up to take the cut-off, and who tells the cut-off man to cut-it off or not and which base to throw it to. Even the words that are called out are the same. It's all just fundamental baseball, like the 3rd baseman fielding every grounder he can get to cleanly, or the infielders going for every deep pop-up until they are called off by the outfielder. None of this takes much chemistry between the players, just a knowledge of, and a willingness to play fundamental baseball. There is some chemistry needed between the middle infielders, such as the shortstop knowing where the second baseman prefers to receive the ball during double-plays, but even that isn't a huge deal since any SS worth a lick knows where the sweet spot is for most (like a pg should know the sweet spot for most spot-up shooters).

In addition to the above, fielding is only one part of the game. It's true that good defense can make a good pitcher look great, but the best pitchers dominate the game.

And the other half of the game is offense, where the hitter might as well be on an island, knowing what to do by either the fundamentals of situational hitting (eg how to have a productive at-bat) or by taking instruction by the third base coach. What team you are on or who you are playing with doesn't change any of that. An example of when chemistry might be needed is when the batter takes a pitch or two if he thinks the runner may want to try and steal a base.

So to get back to the Allstar vs. a Championship team, yes, there is some benefit to playing together, but it likely isn't a big enough advantage to overcome having to go up against the best individual pitchers and batters in the game. Even the best World Series teams have holes in their batting orders and pitching rotations.

---

One of the fun results of baseball being a collection of individual efforts is it fairly easy to create games like "All Star Baseball" where you can draft players and play games based on their individual statistics. We had a league in the dorms back in the early 80s that was a tremendous amount of fun.

for baseball, what about guys hitting to the right side to advance a runner to 3rd instead of trying to launch one? or a pitcher risking ejection to throw at a guy to retaliate for a HBP?

I think there are many situations like that which improve team chemistry .

calumnus said:

---

One of the fun results of baseball being a collection of individual efforts is it fairly easy to create games like "All Star Baseball" where you can draft players and play games based on their individual statistics. We had a league in the dorms back in the early 80s that was a tremendous amount of fun.

---

Back in the early 80's as a Marine aboard ship for 6 months at a time, some of us spent countless hours playing APBA Baseball, which was a card-based game based purely on the most current stats. The trick was to draft the best pitchers and play small-ball because there weren't enough of us forming our teams to have to draft mediocre pitchers.

philbert said:

---

for baseball, what about guys hitting to the right side to advance a runner to 3rd instead of trying to launch one? or a pitcher risking ejection to throw at a guy to retaliate for a HBP?

I think there are many situations like that which improve team chemistry .

---

Hitting to the right-side (with nobody out) to advance the runner to 3rd is one of the fundamentals of situational hitting that I mentioned. Being a jerk (or a primadonna) may hurt team chemistry, but that doesn't hurt your team's chance of winning as much as just not having a productive at bat.

Civil Bear said:

---

philbert said:

---

for baseball, what about guys hitting to the right side to advance a runner to 3rd instead of trying to launch one? or a pitcher risking ejection to throw at a guy to retaliate for a HBP?

I think there are many situations like that which improve team chemistry .

---

Hitting to the right-side (with nobody out) to advance the runner to 3rd is one of the fundamentals of situational hitting that I mentioned. Being a jerk (or a primadonna) may hurt team chemistry, but that doesn't hurt your team's chance of winning as much as just not having a productive at bat.

---

I see it more as if one guy starts doing it because he's looking to pile up stats for his next contract, other guys see that may start to do the same. The right baseball play doesn't show up in stats, especially in this analytics driven age of baseball.

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

I would be careful not to conflate interpersonal issues and off the court challenges with a lack of chemistry. Competitive chemistry is huge even if clubhouse chemistry isn't perfect. I suspect BTW that baseball and football need more clubhouse chemistry than most sports. Whilst basketball and soccer can win big with competitive chemistry alone.

---

For being a team sport, baseball, IMO, doesn't rely on on-field chemistry as much as other sports (other than between short & second, and pitcher & catcher to a degree). Players that have never played together can still compete at a high level, which isn't the case with sports like hockey, soccer, basketball, and football. I figure a baseball Allstar team can beat a world series team, which isn't the case with the other sports.

---

I confess to knowing little about baseball, but I have come to appreciate the game more by watching Giants broadcasts and listening to the current announcing crew, which is outstanding in their explanations. Baseball plays are very complicated, much more than the cooperation of just pitcher and catcher or shortstop and 2nd baseman. There are so many different types of plays requiring the cooperation of several players for success. If a fly ball is hit, there are at least 3 players, and if a ground ball is hit, at least 4 players. Players not touching the ball, may have to cover a base which a teammate has left to try and make a play. There are cut off plays, and plays when a runner is on base, where several players cooperate to keep a runner close to the bag, and others are responsible for backing up the play at a base, or more than one base, all on the same play. Someone calculated there are 12 million possible plays in a game, and many of them involve several players cooperating. Some amount of chemistry has to be involved to achieve effective cooperation among players in any play, I should think. Even if it is something really simple like the shortstop holding up his hand for the outfielders to remind them that there two outs, and they still need to concentrate, or Willie Mays telling the other two outfielders exactly where to play for the next batter, to be in the best position to catch a fly ball from this particular hitter hitting against this particular pitcher. This kind of stuff goes on with all nine players on the field, not to mention the interaction and cooperation of the on-field coaches holding up a baserunner, or letting him go, or saying nothing when it is Willie Mays rounding 3rd base. Has a World Series team ever played an All-Star team? If they haven't, I'd bet on the World Series Winner, since baseball is a game of inches and requires so much precision, I would have to bet on the guys who had just played 162 games together, and they must know each other's game inside out.

Here is a site with description of some plays: http://www.qcbaseball.com/situations/cut-off-runner-on-second.aspx

---

Well, I know quite a bit about the game having played it and coached it for much of my life. Although much of what you say is correct, almost every team at every level plays it essentially the same way, and any small variances can be picked up in a practice or two. It really isn't that complicated for experienced players. The defense is set by the coaches and how players react when the ball is in play is pretty much the same throughout baseball. For example who covers which base, who lines up to take the cut-off, and who tells the cut-off man to cut-it off or not and which base to throw it to. Even the words that are called out are the same. It's all just fundamental baseball, like the 3rd baseman fielding every grounder he can get to cleanly, or the infielders going for every deep pop-up until they are called off by the outfielder. None of this takes much chemistry between the players, just a knowledge of, and a willingness to play fundamental baseball. There is some chemistry needed between the middle infielders, such as the shortstop knowing where the second baseman prefers to receive the ball during double-plays, but even that isn't a huge deal since any SS worth a lick knows where the sweet spot is for most (like a pg should know the sweet spot for most spot-up shooters).

In addition to the above, fielding is only one part of the game. It's true that good defense can make a good pitcher look great, but the best pitchers dominate the game.

And the other half of the game is offense, where the hitter might as well be on an island, knowing what to do by either the fundamentals of situational hitting (eg how to have a productive at-bat) or by taking instruction by the third base coach. What team you are on or who you are playing with doesn't change any of that. An example of when chemistry might be needed is when the batter takes a pitch or two if he thinks the runner may want to try and steal a base.

So to get back to the Allstar vs. a Championship team, yes, there is some benefit to playing together, but it likely isn't a big enough advantage to overcome having to go up against the best individual pitchers and batters in the game. Even the best World Series teams have holes in their batting orders and pitching rotations.

---

Thanks Civil Bear, for your thoughts here, contributing to my baseball education. One of the things I like about baseball is that the size of a player does not seem to matter as much as in basketball or football, and there are positions on a baseball team that athletes of small stature can and do play and many have excelled at it.

Civil Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

One of the fun results of baseball being a collection of individual efforts is it fairly easy to create games like "All Star Baseball" where you can draft players and play games based on their individual statistics. We had a league in the dorms back in the early 80s that was a tremendous amount of fun.

---

Back in the early 80's as a Marine aboard ship for 6 months at a time, some of us spent countless hours playing APBA Baseball, which was a card-based game based purely on the most current stats. The trick was to draft the best pitchers and play small-ball because there weren't enough of us forming our teams to have to draft mediocre pitchers.

---

Yes, it was APBA we played at Cal in the early 80s. My brother and I and some neighborhood kids played All Star Baseball in the 70s. For that one each player had a disk that you put into a plastic spinner.

Bill James' Baseball Abstract was one of the most influential books in my life.

Billy Martin was 50% italian ( Mothers' side) He was picking fights when his Mother was 8 months pregnant with him.

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

One of the fun results of baseball being a collection of individual efforts is it fairly easy to create games like "All Star Baseball" where you can draft players and play games based on their individual statistics. We had a league in the dorms back in the early 80s that was a tremendous amount of fun.

---

Back in the early 80's as a Marine aboard ship for 6 months at a time, some of us spent countless hours playing APBA Baseball, which was a card-based game based purely on the most current stats. The trick was to draft the best pitchers and play small-ball because there weren't enough of us forming our teams to have to draft mediocre pitchers.

---

Yes, it was APBA we played at Cal in the early 80s. My brother and I and some neighborhood kids played All Star Baseball in the 70s. For that one each player had a disk that you put into a plastic spinner.

Bill James' Baseball Abstract was one of the most influential books in my life.

---

Or maybe it was Stratomatic Baseball?

Quote:

---

Thanks Civil Bear, for your thoughts here, contributing to my baseball education. One of the things I like about baseball is that the size of a player does not seem to matter as much as in basketball or football, and there are positions on a baseball team that athletes of small stature can and do play and many have excelled at it.

---

So true! It is fascinating that such an array of different body types have been able to play in the major leagues. This reminds me of John Kruk, the obese first baseman who was also a smoker, who like to tell this story:

Quote:

---

"There's a story, a funny story, about me (John Kruk) sitting in a restaurant. I'm eating this big meal and maybe having a couple of beers and smoking a cigarette. A woman comes by the table. She recognizes me and she's shocked because it seems like I should be in training or something. She's getting all over me, saying that a professional athlete should take better care of himself. I lean back and I say to her, 'I ain't an athlete, lady. I'm a baseball player.'" -

---

Regarding smaller stature players, I recall Tim Lincecum was sometimes turned away by skeptical security guards when he tried to get in to some locker rooms at road games because he just didn't look like a baseball player. And of course Eddie Gaedel would make the case that little guys can play baseball too:

helltopay1 said:

---

Billy Martin was 50% italian ( Mothers' side) He was picking fights when his Mother was 8 months pregnant with him.

---

My mother grew up on the same street as Billy Martin - near the Berkeley/Emeryville boarder. Said he was the wildest kid around.