Sports Medicine

, Volume 48, Issue 11, pp 2659–2669 | Cite as

Do Long-time Team-mates Lead to Better Team Performance? A Social Network Analysis of Data from Major League Baseball

  • Danielle JarvieEmail author
Original Research Article



To estimate the effects of team-mate shared experience on overall team performance as well as to determine whether concentration of time together among subgroups of players and/or focal players enhances team performance.


Social network analysis (SNA) was used to model 30 active Major League Baseball teams from 2006 to 2015 with years of experience together connecting players resulting in 300 individual team networks. Social network metrics of network density, network centralization, and average weighted degree were computed and analyzed with team attributes by generalized least squares regression to predict wins, and team rank. Logistic regression was used to predict binary outcomes of world series and division wins.


Network density was negatively associated with team rank (β = − 0.115, p = .05), while average weighted degree was positively associated with team rank (β = 0.147, p = .01). On average, each extra year of shared player time per team was associated with 14.86% higher probability of winning a division title (B = 2.69, exp(B) = 14.86, p = .05). Each extra shared year of infield membership among team-mates predicted 2.4% lower odds of winning the world series (B = −0.024, exp(B) = 0.976, p = .01), and each extra shared year between outfield players predicted 2.9% lower probability of winning a team’s division (B = −0.029. exp(B) = 0.972, p = .05).


Prolonged shared time between players is beneficial when it is spread evenly among all players of the team, whereas having few focal players who have been on a team together for many years is a disadvantage to overall performance.


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Danielle Jarvie declares that she has no conflict of interest.


No financial support was received for the conduct of this study or preparation of this manuscript.

Ethical statement

No ethics committee approval was required for the use of the data.


  1. 1.
    Fiore SM, Salas E, Cuevas HM, Bowers CA. Distributed coordination space: toward a theory of distributed team process and performance. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2003;4:340–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eccles DW, Tenenbaum G. Why an expert team is more than a team of experts: a social-cognitive conceptualization of team coordination and communication in sport. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2004;26:542–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ramos J, Lopes RJ, Araújo D. What’s next in complex networks? Capturing the concept of attacking play in invasive team sports. Sports Med. 2018;48:17–28.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ribeiro J, Silva P, Duarte R, Davids K, Garganta J. Team sports performance analysed through the lens of social network theory: implications for research and practice. Sports Med. 2017;47:1689–96.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Silva P, Garganta J, Araújo D, Davids K, Aguiar P. Shared knowledge or shared affordances? Insights from an ecological dynamics approach to team coordination in sports. Sports Med. 2013;43:765–72.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Passos P, Davids K, Araújo D, Paz N, Minguéns J, Mendes J. Networks as a novel tool for studying team ball sports as complex social systems. J Sci Med Sport. 2011;14:170–6.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vilar L, Araujo D, Davids K, Button C. The role of ecological dynamics in analysing performance in team sports. Sports Med. 2012;42:1–10.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grund TU. Network structure and team performance: the case of English Premier League soccer teams. Soc Netw. 2012;34:682–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clemente FM, Manuel F, Martins L, Wong PD, Mendes RS, Clemente FM, et al. General network analysis of national soccer teams in FIFA World Cup 2014. Int J Perform Anal Sports. 2015;15:80–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pina TJ, Paulo A, Araújo D. Network characteristics of successful performance in association football. A study on the UEFA Champions League. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Granovetter MS. The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol. 1973;78:1360–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sparrowe R, Liden R, Wayne S, Kraimer M. Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Acad Manag J. 2001;44:316–25.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reimer T, Park ES, Hinsz VB. Shared and coordinated cognition in competitive and dynamic task environments: an information-processing perspective for team sports. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2006;4:376–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Araújo D, Davids K. Team synergies in sport: theory and measures. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Richardson MJ, Marsh KL, Baron RM. Judging and actualizing intrapersonal and interpersonal affordances. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007;33:845–59.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berman SL, Down J, Hill CW. Tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage in the National Basketball Association. Acad Manag J. 2002;45:13–31.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blickensderfer EL, Reynolds R, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA. Shared expectations and implicit coordination in tennis doubles teams. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2010;22:486–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Collins H. Changing order: replication and induction in scientific practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shamsie J, Mannor MJ. Looking inside the dream team: probing into the contributions of tacit knowledge as an organizational resource. Organ Sci. 2013;24:513–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Freeman LC, Borgatti SP, White DR. Centrality in valued graphs: a measure of betweenness based on network flow. Soc Netw. 1991;31:141–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lahman S. Database journalist. 2016. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.
  23. 23.
    Borgatti S, Freeman L. Ucinet for Windows: software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies; 2002.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI conference on weblogs and social media; 2009.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Drukker DM. Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. STATA J. 2003;3:168–77.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wooldridge M Jr. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cochrane D, Orcutt G. Application of least squares regression to relationships containing auto-correlated error terms. J Am Stat Assoc. 1949;44:32–61.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    StataCorp. Stata: release 14 statistical software. College Station: StataCorp; 2015.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Poizat G, Bourbousson J, Saury J, Sève C. Understanding team coordination in doubles table tennis: joint analysis of first- and third-person data. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2012;13:630–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bourbousson J, Poizat G, Saury J, Seve C. Team coordination in basketball: description of the cognitive connections among teammates. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2010;22:150–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Esteves PT, de Oliveira RF, Araújo D. Posture-related affordances guide attacks in basketball. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2011;12:639–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Esteves PT, Araujo D, Davids K, Vilar L, Travassos B, Esteves C. Interpersonal dynamics and relative positioning to scoring target of performers in 1 vs. 1 sub-phases of team sports. J Sports Sci. 2012;30:1285–93.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Claremont Graduate UniversityClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations