With so much talk about the talent of other teams, Lakers, Heat, Bulls, Celtics, etc., I was curious as to what is more important, team chemistry or talent. In my time of playing basketball, I've been on teams that had great team chemistry. We were able to mop the floor with teams that had more talent than we did. A team runs like a well-oiled machine when it has great chemistry. At its peak, it's like the whole team is in the "zone" instead of just one player. I think this team can have that kind of chemistry, but I continously hear in most of the interviews as well as most of the comments that the goal is the playoffs; there is no mention of "winning it all". What are your thought?
I think the Rockets usually have great chemistry, but you don't see us hoisting any trophies over our heads
You need a third option, both. Chemistry can get you victories in spurts, but for the long haul, it's talent. When you have talent and chemistry at a high level, the team is usually a contender. Next topic.
To win in the NBA you really do need a good heaping of both talent and team chemistry. In international play, teams with great chemistry go very far in the Worlds since the rules accommodate that sort of play. In the NBA, the rules are set up where chemistry can get you in the playoffs, but to win it all, you need a few players with exceptional talent that can score for you when the defensive intensity revs up thousandfold. So I voted for talent
Chemistry, to me, is one of those mysteries in pro team sports that sometimes gets assigned a spot in the pecking order of winning ahead of what it means to be a pro athlete.... ...and that means, as a pro, you have to be good at your job. You don't build team chemistry without talent at the professional level. Hard working players will not often beat more talented players under optimal conditions (meaning, in a seven game series, the better team wins and the team with the most talent, from top to bottom, is that team). This is what happens: talent creates confidence and a quantifiable amount of certainty in what will happen from possession to possession. You know that you're going to score. You know that you're going to be able to defend. Talent gives you a starting point for legitimately competing. Confidence in teammates' abilities is what creates chemistry. That chemistry grows the more success is had. It is possible to gamely compete with effort and hustle. It's even possible to make a movie like "Hoosiers". You don't win, though. Unless winning is relative to you. Some people prefer to look good losing (whatever that means) than have a legitimate chance to win (winning the whole thing). You're not going to fly a kite like that very long in the professional ranks...not before it gets struck by lightning once or thrice. Chemistry is what's created when each teammate not only knows his job, but can do that job at the highest level against the bets competition in the most pressure-filled circumstances. It's possible to manufacture a reasonable facsimile to it (see the Rockets of last season)...but like so many other things that are decided by final scores, winning is the goal. Chemistry creates stability. Talent creates opportunity. You can paddle around on the outskirts of stability, if you like feel-good stories or hate somebody enough in particular. But sooner or later, you need to risk the reward that adding talent to that stability will offer. That's what matters at this level. You can have all the chemistry your Bunsen burner sets can melt together. But if you're going to be a mad scientist and make that breakthrough, you need to create the Frankenstein. The best thing the Rockets did in the past twenty years was NOT to trade Hakeem Olajuwon in 1992. Olajuwon had the talent. He also had the drive and competitiveness. Rudy Tomjonovich and Carroll Dawson were able to convince Olajuwon to add that talent to the chemistry his teammates had finally managed to create by finally being good players. Lots of other things had to happen, but eventually those Rockets won. Make no mistake about it: the Rockets championships' are perfect models of what team chemistry can achieve. But those would be pretty sorry models without the dominating talent of Olajuwon. It's why the rest of the world thinks Olajuwon won those titles practically unassisted. Ridiculous, of course, but that's the rub. The talent gets you the wins. The chemistry can get you the chance to win. Which came first? The talent or the chemistry? The system or the player? the X's or the O's? Silly question, to me. You don't win without talent, dham01. Until you get that talent, you're probably better served keeping your chemistry set in its box....
Talent takes you along ways, easily. You don't have to be a good coach to keep a talented team winning. But even lesser talent can overcome talented teams with great chemistry. More ofen than not, great teams fall somewhere in the middle. I'd rather have a team with good talent but great chemistry.
Talent. Kobe Bryant Olajuwon Shaq Kareem Magic Bird Russell Wilt Jordan Bird All winners of NBA rings. Talent trumps everything When you have alot of talent? Kobe /Gasol/Bynum/Odom Shaq/Kobe Jordan/Pippen Duncan/Manu/Parker Magic/Kareem/James Worthy You have multiple rings. Chemistry? Rockets Detroit Detroit You have a chance but slimmer.
It's a mixture of both. You cant have scrubs and succeed without talent. You can have stars but they need to cooperate together in order to reach there potential.
All things even, chemistry. But I'll say Minnesota better have some of the best team chemistry in history to beat the Lakers. Give Minnesota Lebron and their chemistry goes up. People seem to think Washington's chemistry will improve with John Wall. Chemistry can beat NON-cohesive talent. But chemistry has little margin for error.
You need talent first and then you create chemistry. You can win more games with "only talent" than with "only chemistry"
True dat. Winning streak team? '08 Blazers/Lakers series teams? They were some of the most synergistic teams in the league, but they didn't have the talent to beat the Los Angeles "thanks for the free 7 foot all-star" Lakers.
Well, Shroopy2.... ...chemistry can and often does beat non-cohesive talent, particularly in a seven-game series (we saw a prime example of that during the Rockets' title run in 1995). The four teams the Rockets beat in the postseason on the way to the the title that year were more talented personnel-wise, but only marginally so. Usually, at that level of competition (say, conference finals and NBA finals)...the NBA's versions of the Elite Eight and the Final Four....there are very little differences in talent level, just as a matter of course. By that time, you've got the pretenders separated from the contenders. Chemistry can make its biggest impact in these situations. Here, against that level of competition, teammates have to be able to rely on each other and trust one another. They have to all be accountable, and raise their abilities to the challenge of the moment. A team with good chemistry will always get the most out of itself, despite the circumstances. But the gameplan, at its most basic, has to be founded on the premise that I'm better at what I do than you are at what you do. You can't even begin to win games thinking that making a personal appearance and sticking to the gameplan is all its going to take. Bottom line, Shroopy2....every team in the league can have all the chemistry their high school chem credits will allow. Your exams are going to be graded by the Lakers, the Celtics (still), the Orlando Magic and the Miami Heat. If you don't have the talent to beat them four games out of seven in May and June... .....you'll fail Team Chemistry 101.
