Only found a couple of studies on the subject and both say clubhouse chemistry is too subjective to measure:
Baseball Therapy: How to Measure Clubhouse Chemistry by Russell A. Carleton in 2013 concluded that "Right now, we don't know, but I think we as sabermetricians do ourselves a disservice if we assume that chemistry doesn't matter"
Another study: "
Can We Measure Clubhouse Chemistry?"
by Sky Andrecheck in 1999 stated: "So, if we assume that each player has a clubhouse contribution, with the mean centered at zero and a small standard deviation of about 0.2 wins, how much can clubhouse chemistry really affect the team's overall performance?
Multiplying the SD by the square root of 25, we see that clubhouse chemistry would have a standard deviation of 1 win, meaning that the team with the worst chemistry in baseball will lose about 2 extra games because of it, while teams with the best chemistry gain about 2 extra wins. At least, that's the best estimate we have from looking at teams' behavior with regard to their personnel decisions.
The true value of chemistry is probably so difficult to determine, that it cannot be ascertained directly. If teams are under or over valuing clubhouse chemistry, then theoretically a team could take advantage by assembling an all-jerk team or an all good-guy team to take advantage of the inefficiency. However, by looking at teams' behavior, we have attempted to estimate at least what clubhouse attitude is currently valued at among major league teams. Is it valued correctly? For that, perhaps an even more subjective view is needed.
I always wondered if Cobb, Bonds, Albert Belle and others never winning World Series pointed to cancers in the clubhouse affecting performance. And by the way, I don't think Cobb was an evil person like some, but I believe Sam Crawford said he was not a great teammate.