Chemistry

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
HailBlazers

HailBlazers

RipCity
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
20,171
Likes
17,609
Points
113
..is the single most important element in the game of basketball. The question has been raised, what makes this year's hot start any different than the past couple where we eventually fizzled out and/or came back down to earth. The short answer is chemistry.

As a Blazer homer, the 2011-2012 season was an exciting one. Getting off to a 7-2 start it appeared we had a well rounded squad with both young talent and quality veterans. Come mid season however, it became no secret this team had no chemistry. The locker room fell apart, followed literally by the team with Nate McMillan's firing.

Speaking of Nate, his legacy is tied to that of one Brandon Roy. The natural provided some of the most exciting moments in the history of the Trail Blazers organization. He was also the staple of an iso-heavy offense that failed to promote chemistry and ball movement. It was no wonder that time after time B-Roy was required to be "the Savior" for us to win games.

Which brings us too today, where the Blazers are league leaders in assists and three point shots. And it's not just one guy making the shots or distributing the ball, it's a total team effort. It's chemistry, chemistry that will continue to build and be the staying power behind this teams continued success.

"And once again we can say, it's a Great Day to be a Blazer."
 
Nice post. I think the chemistry is due to great ball movement and nary a prima donna to be found on the floor, and finally having a decent center that does the dirty work without complaint. Like having Pryzbilla back, only sacrificing a few extra blocked shots for being able to play 5 on 5 on offense.
 
Last edited:
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/32380438

The fact is, chemistry is important, but really mostly when you're losing. It's easy to stick together when you're winning. But when you lose, things get tested.
Click to expand...

I think chemistry is one of those things that is highly susceptible to confirmation bias. You remember the good teams with good chemistry, or the bad teams with bad chemistry, but those that don't fit the bill get generally forgotten.

I also think it's important to differentiate between on-court and off-court chemistry (also discussed in the column I linked). The writer hypothesized that off-court chemistry begets on-court chemistry, while the reverse is less common. I think just the opposite; teams that find they play well together, that the players' games complement one another, that brings strengths to fill in each others' weaknesses, will appreciate one anothers' contributions and get along better after the game.

The main aspect (in my mind) to locker-room chemistry is humility; ie, do players seek to do what is best for the team, for each other, or are they primarily concerned with "getting theirs"? And when "what's best for the team" is considered, is the prevailing attitude that teammates are inferior to self, or that working as a unit is more effective than operating individually? For me, self-centeredness is the worst kind of locker-room cancer, and is what essentially destroyed the FelCrawWalCam team.

I have no idea what the locker room is like, but I will say that this team seems to have good chemistry on the court. But I would suggest that the chemistry is based on talent, and based on a generally unanimous acknowledgement that operating within the confines of Stotts' system seems to be beneficial not only to the team as a whole, but to each of the players as well.
 
While I think skill is more important, chemistry is really undervalued
 
Mediocre Man said:
While I think skill is more important, chemistry is really undervalued
Click to expand...

Can't be good without both. The first season of the LeBron, DWade, Bosh Big-Three, the Heat started a mediocre 9-8 despite having the best threesome in the league. It took them a while to develop chemistry and they finished with 58 wins. The surprising thing about this season's Blazers is how quickly the team has developed the chemistry that is allowing them to make the best use of the talent that they have on the roster. They may not have the biggest, bad-est big three (or Core 4, sorry Wesley), but they're are arguably making the most efficient use of the very good talent that they do have.
 
HailBlazers said:
..is the single most important element in the game of basketball. The question has been raised, what makes this year's hot start any different than the past couple where we eventually fizzled out and/or came back down to earth. The short answer is chemistry.

As a Blazer homer, the 2011-2012 season was an exciting one. Getting off to a 7-2 start it appeared we had a well rounded squad with both young talent and quality veterans. Come mid season however, it became no secret this team had no chemistry. The locker room fell apart, followed literally by the team with Nate McMillan's firing.

Speaking of Nate, his legacy is tied to that of one Brandon Roy. The natural provided some of the most exciting moments in the history of the Trail Blazers organization. He was also the staple of an iso-heavy offense that failed to promote chemistry and ball movement. It was no wonder that time after time B-Roy was required to be "the Savior" for us to win games.

Which brings us too today, where the Blazers are league leaders in assists and three point shots. And it's not just one guy making the shots or distributing the ball, it's a total team effort. It's chemistry, chemistry that will continue to build and be the staying power behind this teams continued success.

"And once again we can say, it's a Great Day to be a Blazer."
Click to expand...

Repped you buddy! Nice post!

The chemistry this team has is sooooo amazing. It really seems these guys like each other. The smiles they have and how they poke around with each other is so fun to watch.

I think the biggest plus is how not one player has said anything selfish talking to media. They look poised to keep winning and they absolutely trust each other, even if one player isn't having the greatest of games.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/32380438



I think chemistry is one of those things that is highly susceptible to confirmation bias. You remember the good teams with good chemistry, or the bad teams with bad chemistry, but those that don't fit the bill get generally forgotten.

I also think it's important to differentiate between on-court and off-court chemistry (also discussed in the column I linked). The writer hypothesized that off-court chemistry begets on-court chemistry, while the reverse is less common. I think just the opposite; teams that find they play well together, that the players' games complement one another, that brings strengths to fill in each others' weaknesses, will appreciate one anothers' contributions and get along better after the game.

The main aspect (in my mind) to locker-room chemistry is humility; ie, do players seek to do what is best for the team, for each other, or are they primarily concerned with "getting theirs"? And when "what's best for the team" is considered, is the prevailing attitude that teammates are inferior to self, or that working as a unit is more effective than operating individually? For me, self-centeredness is the worst kind of locker-room cancer, and is what essentially destroyed the FelCrawWalCam team.

I have no idea what the locker room is like, but I will say that this team seems to have good chemistry on the court. But I would suggest that the chemistry is based on talent, and based on a generally unanimous acknowledgement that operating within the confines of Stotts' system seems to be beneficial not only to the team as a whole, but to each of the players as well.
Click to expand...

Damn you for posting this before I did mine! I repped you because you are smart like me!
 
Some call it chemistry, but I would say it is more finding players that fit a system instead of the other way around. San Antonio has had a lot of success due to having a core they can build around and getting production from lesser players because they are not asked to do things outside their skill set.
 
Charcoal Filtered said:
Some call it chemistry, but I would say it is more finding players that fit a system instead of the other way around. San Antonio has had a lot of success due to having a core they can build around and getting production from lesser players because they are not asked to do things outside their skill set.
Click to expand...

BULLSEYE! Which is why Pops can play reserves more and still win games. SAS Brass and Pop have put together a well oiled machine, using cogs that fit.

Teams like Houston, New York, Lakers (last season), Brooklyn and others like them fail. They are trying to put a hemi V-8 on a go-kart.
 
Yup. Chemistry is not just how players fit together personally, but also skill wise as pieces of a puzzle.
 
This is why I don't want to even think about making a trade right now. We seem to be developing some real chemistry so far this season, and that will only improve as the year goes on.
 
To me this subject makes Dame's all-star bid interesting. In an iso-centric system I think He makes the all-star team this year. However, in this pass-to-an-open-shooter-because-its-the-best-for-the-team-and-besides-you-know-they-can-shoot system, the wealth gets spread around. In this type of system Dame makes the all-star team only if the team is killin' it. So far so good, but who knows what'll happen by the all-star break.

Don't touch that dial!
 
Wizard Mentor said:
To me this subject makes Dame's all-star bid interesting. In an iso-centric system I think He makes the all-star team this year. However, in this pass-to-an-open-shooter-because-its-the-best-for-the-team-and-besides-you-know-they-can-shoot system, the wealth gets spread around. In this type of system Dame makes the all-star team only if the team is killin' it. So far so good, but who knows what'll happen by the all-star break.

Don't touch that dial!
Click to expand...

Exactly. If we're in the top three by the time they announce the reserves, I think Dame has a chance. I still think it's a slim chance though. He's playing well right now, but his numbers have dropped quite a bit since the start of the season. He's not shooting nearly as well, his PER has dropped, and his assists are down. Now, if his production had stayed closer to what he was doing in the first five games, I'd say he has a REALLY good shot, but right now his chances are closely tied to the success of the team.
 
Charcoal Filtered said:
Some call it chemistry, but I would say it is more finding players that fit a system instead of the other way around. San Antonio has had a lot of success due to having a core they can build around and getting production from lesser players because they are not asked to do things outside their skill set.
Click to expand...

magnifier661 said:
BULLSEYE! Which is why Pops can play reserves more and still win games. SAS Brass and Pop have put together a well oiled machine, using cogs that fit.

Teams like Houston, New York, Lakers (last season), Brooklyn and others like them fail. They are trying to put a hemi V-8 on a go-kart.
Click to expand...

This is basically what the Ducks were/are doing in the football program. It's why they can still succeed when one of their star RB or QB goes down.
 
Funny how quickly we forget the pain of Nate's "system." I don't think Stotts is getting quite enough credit for his work.
 
BigGameDamian said:
When it comes to the playoffs your right! Skill is more important not that chemistry is not but it only gets you so far.
Click to expand...

Durant, Westbrook, and Harden say hello. Had they better chemistry, they'd of won it all. Think e_blazer said it best, can't be good without both.
 
HailBlazers said:
Durant, Westbrook, and Harden say hello. Had they better chemistry, they'd of won it all. Think e_blazer said it best, can't be good without both.
Click to expand...

Well like I said Chemistry is important. If you say it is more important in the regular season I would agree but the playoffs are a whole other ball game and I believe skill outplays chemistry in the playoffs.
 
HailBlazers said:
Durant, Westbrook, and Harden say hello. Had they better chemistry, they'd of won it all. Think e_blazer said it best, can't be good without both.
Click to expand...

I think this statement is completely unfair to everyone, posters, OKC, the Heat, etc. OKC lost to a better, more experienced team.

Are you saying, Clyde, Porter, Buck, Kersey, Duck had bad chemistry?
 
Me and my two sons have great chemistry, but we'd lose 100000000000000 to 0 against 3 NBA players who have never met each other
 
Natebishop3 said:
This is why I don't want to even think about making a trade right now. We seem to be developing some real chemistry so far this season, and that will only improve as the year goes on.
Click to expand...

I can see the value in this thinking, but if some deal came along that clearly fit and made them better in the long-term, then Olshey can't afford to be sentimental.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
Why are you talking about you and your sons? Everyone else is talking about NBA players.
Click to expand...

Ok.

the Plumlee's vs Lebron, Durant and Paul.

Talent and skill always beat chemistry. If two equally talented teams were playing, chemistry would make a difference though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
Remaining preason games prediction
Replies
10
Views
932
blue32
blue32
GrandpaBlaze
Creating an atmosphere of non-chemistry
Replies
14
Views
570
Phatguysrule
Phatguysrule
SlyPokerDog
Chemistry vs turnovers
Replies
9
Views
835
jlprk
jlprk
espn_hall_of_famer
The Miami Experiment
2 3
Replies
85
Views
7K
MickZagger
MickZagger
RR7
Behind the Locker Room Door
Replies
14
Views
1K
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top