I would like to start a general discussion on team  chemistry or the importance of the clubhouse. As I mentioned before Jimmy Piersall, gold glover, nut job and member of the finest broadcasting duo I've ever heard, is a baseball traditionalist but believes chemistry is bs. However most baseball insiders treat clubhouse chemistry as one of the  keys to winning baseball. At the same time, they do not consistently describe what the attributes of good team chemistry are, let alone show ways it can be measured or predictive. I would like to start with a possible area of description, that of selfishness and how that might translate into bad team performance and therefore contributing to bad chemistry.  

Pitching is by nature a selfish activity so my thoughts are going to be on base running, fielding and hitting. Base running selfishness is pretty rare. There was a contest between Maglio Ordonez and Carlos Lee in 2001 which led to Lee being thrown 8 times in 17 attempts before it was stopped. There are guys who try to steal bases when they shouldn't but usually only base stealers have a green light all the time anyway. There are surely some guys who try to stretch hits into something better, but it's hard to say what is selfishness and what is simply bad judgement. Base running productivity is not hugely impacted by selfish play.

Selfishness in fielding can also be misinterpreted as bad judgement though I see a lot more of it. It comes in the form of the diving catch and the big throw. There are techniques for catching a ball in a sliding manner which if done right can increase the chance of catching a sinking hit while minimizing the possibility of the ball getting past. Most players have had this technique taught to them in college and/or the minor leagues. Most leaguers have a pretty good idea of where and when to hit the cut-off man. Yet anybody who watched Sammy Sosa for several years (and his bookend Moises) has seen the basic practice disregarded time and again and often in crucial situations. These plays/decisions make it more likely your team will lose.  Why?

Boo Yaa.

As much as we like to believe and players like to pretend that there is some kind of chinese wall between the game and the media, ball players are people too. They have egos and some have difficulty sublimating them. It can become acceptable when playing on teams that are out of a race or play with big leads or deficits and often become habit. It's fun to be on the big show at night, where your buddies around the league can see what you did. Highlights at 10 and the BooYaa network will never show a perfectly hit cut off man or  a controlled sliding catch but will show
the man gunned down from left field or the diving catch in the gap. It's a way to be recognized.

This segues into hitting well. The home run is shown often on the highlight shows and the single is on rarely. They have a recap of home runs every night. Hitting HRs gets you on TV. It also gets you money. Teams still pay for power. (While there may also be a macho part of this I'm not sure it is significant.)

Home Run hitting has become more important and not striking out has become less so. As impressive as the increase in power numbers were in the 90's, steroids or no, strike outs had an even steeper trajectory. It is as if the wave of acceptable striking out overwhelmed any resistance. Swinging for the fences was once a fairly rare occurence. Home  runs were usually residual, part of good hitting. There are guys (Carl?) who have at bats when all they are doing is swinging for home runs.

To swing for home runs will lessen a hitters chance for a productive at bat.The change in the swing is more likely to produce fly out, pop outs and strike outs. It is preferrable to increase that likelihood of a productive at bat. When there are runners on base it may be better to try to hit the ball hard in play than swing for a home run. Because home runs are residual they will come some of the time. But players are more likely to  have a positive impact for the team if they take a controlled approach. And of course generally more balls that are in play lead to more potential hits and errors.      

There are other areas which probably end up being as symbolic as they are truly productive such as sacrifice flys, trying to hit behind the runner and swinging at a pitch during a stolen base attempt. Finally the 'non-rational' giving up of at bats (bunts and such) may serve a purpose of creating a submission to the team, butI don't want to go all Shinto on you.

Players are more selfish today (now I really sound like an old bastard) because there are fewer consequences for selfish play. Free agency and general player mobility have made it that way. Plus player behavior can be situational. A guy on a team that is 30 games out has only stats and highlight reels to play for. The question for a GM is whether he sees a permanent condition or situational ethics.

The old saying is that a winning clubhouse is a happy clubhouse, but there may be a reinforcing mechanism to that. If players see tangible benefits from sacrificing, figuratively, for the team, they are more likely to do the "right" things to help a team win. There are surely guys who don't get this regardless of the situation. I think Sammy was that way: winning was fine as long as it contributed to his mojo. I think that if there are enough guys who get it it improves the chance of winning. Some might call it good management, others a good clubhouse.

How much? I have no idea, but I have a wild-ass guess on one way to quantify it. Compare strike outs as a ratio to productive at bats (OBP?) +Sacflys and maybe Bunts, cause it's the thought that counts.