Dave Fleming: By chemistry, I suppose we're talking about chumminess. About guys getting along. A band of brothers kind of thing.

Is chemistry helpful to a team? Sure. Can you name any group activity where the goal is group success, where chemistry is a detriment? I can't. Curling?

But is it important when building a team? I don't know. I'm certain it's not the most important thing. General Managers shouldn't sit around discussing chemistry first and foremost. It shouldn’t be an issue, for instance, if a player "doesn't have a passion to play the game," so long as that player routinely hits 40 homeruns.

I'm a Red Sox fan, and those of us old enough to remember the days of "25 players, 25 cabs" probably have more than our fair share of respect for chemistry. It's a fine thing for a team to think about, and I enjoy rooting for a team that seems to genuinely like one another.

But you know what? Barry Bonds was by all accounts an SOB in the clubhouse. There were the fights with teammates, the entourage, the big chair, the reality TV show. And that was a clubhouse with no shortage of SOB's. But his teams did okay: in 22 seasons Barry's team won 90+ games ten times. Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig had years when they hated each other, but the Yankees dealt with it. Hell, everyone on the Cardinals hated Ducky Medwick, but they won the 1934 World Series.

In basketball, you have situations where a teammate problem becomes untenable. Think Shaq and Kobe. But basketball is a five-man game, and it's a game that requires teamwork. Baseball is a more individualized game: knowing that the guys in the dugout are on your side isn't going to help you hit an 0-2 slider. And I can't think of a single time when a baseball team didn't win because of team chemistry.

Bottom line: chemistry is a fine thing to think about, a fine thing to muse over and write about. And I'm sure chemistry has some value: I'm sure teams with good chemistry tend to do well.

But is it important in building a team? No.

Scott Ham: This is the second hardest question in baseball behind "Who's on first?"

I wrote an article not too long ago touching a bit on this concept and I am still bewildered by it.  Chemistry is the toughest element of a team to understand because you can win with or without it.  I think we can all agree that good chemistry is a benefit to a team, or an office, or any group activity.  But it is not essential.  By that same reasoning, bad chemistry isn't helpful, but there are the rare instances where it doesn't hurt a team.

The question in my mind is, can chemistry make a good team great?  Would the 1996 Yankees have won without good chemistry?  Heck, would the 2000 Yankees, with their 87 regular season wins, have won the Series without good chemistry?  The clubhouse of that team had two years of success behind it and, despite a lesser team, went 11-5 in the playoffs.

We'll never know the answers to questions like that because chemistry is unmeasurable.  There's no magic formula that says pairing two bad apples with four Proven Veterans© will balance the psychology of a team.  You can't make up for attitude like you can balance run differential.

It would seem that ALL of baseball's general managers have some belief in chemistry or Barry Bonds wouldn't be sitting at home today.  And I think that's really the point: good chemistry may or may not make you better, but bad chemistry really has no upside.

Matthew Namee: Yes, it is, in the same way that speed is important, or right field defense, or middle relief pitching. It's one element, and while it isn't absolutely necessary in all cases, a lack of chemistry can be detrimental. I mean, there has to be some good chemistry. You can't have your players injuring each other in fistfights. You can't have fielders dogging it because they don't like the pitcher. There has to be some sense of humanity, or nobody can function. Players don't need to be best friends for the team to be successful, but they have to be at least somewhat civil to one another, or the team's record will suffer.

It's easier to see bad chemistry on an individual level. Derek Bell's "Operation Shutdown," for instance. Or the whole Manny mess earlier this year. If a player isn't motivated, it will impact his performance.

Matt DiFilippo: I'm with Scott in that this is a question for which there is no definitive answer. My feeling is that major league players are professionals, and are better able to block out things like crowds and negative team chemistry than say, a college or high school team.

If you say team chemistry is important, you've got the counterexamples of the 1972-74 A's and the 1977-78 Yankees. If you say it's not, you've got teams like the 1979 Yankees, their season ruined by Goose Gossage's fight with Cliff Johnson, or the 1971 Angels and their head cases, or the 1964 Reds, when Leo Cardenas allegedly refused to try to catch a popup in a key late-season game (Cardenas thought he was being thrown at and his teammates didn't do enough to help him).

I think chemistry means something, but it needs to be kept in perspective. The Astros have loved Brad Ausmus for years even though he doesn't offer average, power, walks or speed. Chemistry is helpful; whether it reaches importance, I can't answer that. It's like a constantly moving target: That which appears to be the result of chemistry can be nine other things of varying importance.