I'll take guys that can play over good guys any day. Not sure why it has to be one or the other. I'll take both (Which seems to be what the Brewers have). The fact that the media and fans pretend that there's a one to one correlation between winning chemestry... Who's pretending that? I've seen suggestions that 'team chemistry' can help or hurt a team, but I have not seen anyone suggest a one to one correlation. I can understand why the stats crew argues against the existence/importance of 'chemistry' because it cannot be quantifiably measured and therefore doesn't fit the template, or their view of the game. I agree that talent is what matters most, but players attitudes, moods, relationships etc. obviously have a major impact on what they do with that talent. "It's the things you don't see, the little conversations by the lockers," said Melvin, who noted that holdover Craig Counsell also is influential in that regard. "They're talking baseball. "It's bringing it all together," said Yost. "It's all part of the plan. We've got the right veterans. When Doug looked at it, that's the first question he asked: 'How will this guy fit in the clubhouse?' We've got guys that are very calm and measured. That's not even talking about what they do on the field. That's the main thing everybody sees but the behind-the-scenes stuff is every bit as important, if not more."