Chemistry

[BigGameDamian]

Chemistry Matters

I'm not surprised by the Blazers’ success. I'm not surprised these guys genuinely like each other and work well together. Shared goals and a group working together to achieve what they could not individually is a requirement to maximize success, and they are doing just that. Winning basketball teams have great chemistry. This is common sense to some, and not so much to others, perhaps because not all people have been in leadership roles, or achieved shared success as a member of team competing for something greater. Who really knows? Just my guess. Some value characteristics differently: temperament, personality, sense of duty, respect, integrity, loyalty, selflessness, will power, and other values - that combined, form one’s character and ultimately lead to success or failure. There are other elements of course: skill, athletic ability, physical size, intelligence, ect.

We're talking about NBA players here. What makes basketball unique from many other sports is that it requires a great deal of team work. It’s not enough to have the best players, or a team like Miami would have won the championship during LeBron’s first year in South Beach. It’s the combination, and interaction - the chemistry that enhances, and maximizes, and creates the reaction that leads to failure, mediocrity, or an NBA championship.

Why is such a seemingly simply concept such as chemistry valued highly by some, and not so much by others? Chemistry is more than personality or getting along. It is how different elements react with each other across several fronts. That Portland has several 3 point shooters that fit into the system, or that Lopez fits into a system well with his able to be left alone in the paint and not needing help to double team, is as much what constitutes chemistry as whether or not they get along in the locker room. An individual filling a role that maximizes their skill set within a system, to produce the most successful reaction, that's chemistry.

Ultimately, I think the argument between skill and personality is the wrong line to draw when talking about chemistry. They should not be looked at as mutually exclusive elements, but rather combined, as individuals’ characteristics, which reacts to other elements (teammates) in a reaction (a team). How they get along in the locker room, is as a part of chemistry a how well they interact on the basketball court. You can't simply separate them, because people aren't robots. And while having the best player in the NBA helps, it pails in comparison to the value of chemistry. Does having the most skilled player make the following phrase true?

"There is no limit to what can be accomplished when you don’t care who gets the credit."

If not, then we cannot keep trying to split hairs and draw distinctions between skill and personality in terms of chemistry. On an NBA team, chemistry trumps everything when the goal is to win it all.

I don't think any of this makes me smarter than someone who doesn't see, or doesn't place such a high premium on how important chemistry is. I would liken it to one of those 3D hidden images in a repeating pattern of digital shapes. Some can pick out the hidden picture right away, others it takes greater focus and time, some need to be shown or told what to look for, some don’t have the time or patience to see the image, and others simply can’t see it at all.

That hidden image is revealed because of chemistry. Without it, it's just a picture of digitally repeating shapes, a group of athletes on a basketball court, a lottery team. If everyone could see the hidden picture right away, and understand it is the result of chemistry, I have no doubt that people wouldn't make so many GD trade threads.

So, yes, the moral of the story is, when you feel like suggesting a trade, don't. lol - rook

Look at it this way, Chemistry is like horsepower: Keeps the game going in a smooth. Skill\Talent is like torque: It pushes you to that next level. No one is saying Chemistry isn't important but when it comes to the playoffs it's your stars that push you to that next level. Kobe and Shaq didn't have great chemistry but they got it done.

 

[magnifier661]

Look at it this way, Chemistry is like horsepower: Keeps the game going in a smooth. Skill\Talent is like torque: It pushes you to that next level. No one is saying Chemistry isn't important but when it comes to the playoffs it's your stars that push you to that next level. Kobe and Shaq didn't have great chemistry but they got it done.

That was really good! Nice analogy!

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

Look at it this way, Chemistry is like horsepower: Keeps the game going in a smooth. Skill\Talent is like torque: It pushes you to that next level. No one is saying Chemistry isn't important but when it comes to the playoffs it's your stars that push you to that next level. Kobe and Shaq didn't have great chemistry but they got it done.

Not without a lot of help from the refs. Yes, talent matters, but chemistry is more important. Those two made it work, despite not getting along off the court. Which is why I made the point that you take a player as a whole, as an individual element, that reacts with other elements (players/coaches). It's not simply whether or not they hang out after the game, it's how they interact on the court and what results. If you don't have good chemistry, it doesn't work. Shaq went to Miami and won a title, Kobe won a title without Shaq. It's the chemistry that makes it work. I'm not discounting talent, I'm just saying that you can get pretty far with chemistry and lesser talent, the opposite is less common. You absolutely need both to be a contender.

You can have the best motor, injector, exhaust, hoses, spark plugs, and whatever else goes under the hood, but without the oil, you're not going anywhere.

 

[PapaG]

Nate's system was iso Brandon Roy at his peak, with some vet talent infusions that kept the
bottom from falling out.

He was good at motivating under talented squads into competitive respectability. That 54-28 team had the 62 game Oden season, which easily made a 6-8 game difference, just in intimidation alone.

62 game of Oden for 20 mpg isn't worth 6-8 games, IMO.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Bbref has oden at 4.6 WS for that season

 

[BigGameDamian]

How about this for Chemistry.... [video=youtube;KmVbjogVNrk]

 

[PapaG]

Funny how quickly we forget the pain of Nate's "system." I don't think Stotts is getting quite enough credit for his work.

I'll wait until the Blazers actually make the playoffs before I give too much praise to Stotts. If this team collapses this year for some reason, I think Stotts will probably be fired, since the talent is clearly there for a playoff run.

 

[PapaG]

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

You'd start yelling at him on the court if he wasn't boxing out with effort.

 

[magnifier661]

You'd start yelling at him on the court if he wasn't boxing out with effort.

That and he's American born, white and most likely playing center

 

[PapaG]

No. It doesn't say anywhere that it is his offense. I had also read in the past, when we were looking at Shaw as coach, that Indiana basically runs Frank Vogel's offense. I am sure he has input, and has suggested adjustments, but Indian's offensive sets are pretty much exactly the same as last years

Offensive rating 2012-2013 104.3
Offensive rating 2013-2014 104.2

What that tells me that Paul George scoring more has actually hampered the offense a bit. I'd say that maybe that is partially on Nate, but then again, his Roy playoff teams were near the top in offensive efficiency.

 

[PapaG]

That and he's American born, white and most likely playing center

True, true.

 

[PapaG]

I think it was pretty simple. Every guy we signed knew ahead of time whether they were a starter or a bench player. Neil only signed guards and wings who can really shoot the 3 and a bigs who could rebound. He also signed mostly high character guys.

Really, the only guy who doesn't know his role is Leonard, who we already had.

Absolutely. When Failton, Wallace, Camby were brought in, it was just throwing together some talent.

When Miller was brought in, reports at the time said that he had accepted being a back-up. Then he started whining and had a temper tantrum. Funny thing is, he's been a bench player since he left for Denver, and a solid one at that. Had he accepted that role in Portland, perhaps the team wouldn't have fractured.

Repped.