What's more important? Team Chemistry or Raw Talent

This is not true. Unless you have a very loose definition of what you consider talent. Without Yao and Tmac (before the Martin trade) I would've said the Rockets didn't have talent. Sure Brooks, Landry, Scola, etc... but we had to be one of the least talented teams in the league.

But if your definition of talent is that your team has a few people that are deserving to be in the NBA (which every team does). Then we could also turn your chemistry definition on it's head and say that every team has SOME chemistry. If they had 0 chemistry they wouldn't pass the ball or play defense together or anything.

This goes back to my whole thing where this question is very flawed. Every team with a lot of talent, will still have some chemistry. Every team with a lot of chemistry will also have some talent. It's rare for a team to have a lot of one and very little of the other.

 

chemistry……think of the main contenders in this league:magic, lakers, cava, boston, spurs, they all have good chemistry and some talent...now think about L.clippers, they have extremely good talent, but……

 

Did you just say the Magic, Lakers, Cavs, etc. have "some talent" and Clippers have "extremely good talent"?

 

Obviously both are important, because you cant win without either but I think chemistry is a bit more important.

Internationally look Argentina and the U.S. Argentina had an amazing team chemistry, and the US didnt.

 

Magic, Lakers, Celtics have talent. Spurs have talent when healthy. Cavs have talent this season as well. Outside of Lebron, you have 3 other players that could count on to score to some extent.

 

but US won the most games and Argentina won once or twice.

talent > chemistry.

 

This is a flawed poll.

It's like saying what's more important? Having a good offensive game or having a good defensive game?

You don't have to have chemistry to make the playoffs and have a positive season. You don't have to have a whole lot of talent either.

But if you want to really do well as a team, you got to have both.

 

Before this latest olympics, where USA gets the gold after several years of zero World class titles (2000 was the latest, failed horribly at 2002, 2004, 2006 competitions), Argentina and Spain were doing it better than USA in that period, and the difference in individual talent was not slight, was HUGE in favor of USA....

 

yeah, flawed poll. You definitely need both.

 

you need both but you have to start with the requisite talent. the best chemistry in the world can't compensate if talent is lacking.

chemistry can be developed ... entry level talent? nope.

this guy could have great chemistry with your team,



good luck!

 

I agree that you need both, but with good chemistry the sum of the parts can exceed the individual talents.

Think of the Beatles, none were singularly as talented as they were collectively as a group.

 

Effort and IQ anybody

 

You need talent first, then talk the team chemistry later. Have you seen any team to win a champ without much talent? Detroit was the only team that won a champ without a superstar, but they have lots of talent. Do not confuse with a team without a superstar with no talent. Your chemistry will come along soon or later if you have a talent team, of course with a good coach.

 

What flavor of cheetos?