The DSM IV and middle relievers

I was having a discussion about the role of passion\fire\chemistry vs. talent in team sports. Specifically, baseball. The comment preceding the following was, "Alright then, you discuss the performance of a team by using the DSM IV, I'll use the statistics almanac." I'm posting my reply for your enjoyment.

Well, the schizophrenics are generally switch hitters and utility infielders. The paranoids are your pitchers. Catchers usually are antisocial what with the mask and pads to avoid personal contact and all. Closers are the OCD, always pitching that one inning, you see. The middle relievers are the low self esteem types. And the narcissists? I'd guess the DH. I could be wrong.

Now, perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not discounting talent. Certainly, a team has to have guys that can play ball. I'm saying that a team that has talent AND chemistry, passion, fire, sass, whatever, is certainly at an advantage. The hindsight thing is easy. You gather a collection of individual talent, put them together and see how they get along. You can make predictions but until the cake's out of the oven you don't know if it's going to fall flat or not.

So, for example, let's take, oh .. the Lakers. Were they successful? Sure, when they were getting along. Did the talent change? No, not really. Some would argue that Patyon and Malone made them even more talented. However, they didn't get along. The chemistry sucked. So, consequently, they didn't fare so well. All I'm saying is that stats are telling but it's still a team sport. And, to me, there's no way you can leave the chemistry\passion factor out.