Chemistry - What is It?
- Thread starter Kingster
- Start date
Gary
All-Star
To me chemistry is having players on the floor who know what every other player on their team is going to do before they do it. They are friendly players who have no on/off the court issues with each other. They are players who all put the team ahead of themselves in regard to "getting their stats". Players who know their roles and accept it without whining.
Chupacabra
Starter
The kings need players that compliment its base; Tyreke and Cousins. To me that means a shot blocker next to Cousins and a real point guard next to Tyreke. The Sf spot can be filled by anyone 6'8 or taller that plays defense and can hit an open 3. I think of Calderon/Evans/Chandler/shot blocker/Cousins as being a pretty dynamic group. 2nd most importantly there needs to be a head coach that can put it all together and make it shine. Lastly the players need time to play together, the more the better. From where I stand I'd say we're a couple of moves, a draft and a year or two away from having good chemistry.
Padrino
All-Star
i agree with your general view of "chemistry" (a largely indefinable quality), except to say that "friendliness" has absolutely nothing to do with it. if a team happens to be friendly with each other on and/or off the court, that's great. it's a plus in the direction of keeping a team together. but championship teams of all kinds across the history of the nba have had strong, competitive talent that did not necessarily get along with one another, but played well together, well enough to win it all. they don't have to like each other. they just have to get the job done...
in my estimation, chemistry is simply the clicking together of complementary pieces. if a GM does his job properly by acquiring the right kind of complementary talent, and if a head coach does his job properly in fitting that talent together, "chemistry" will follow (unless each and every player on that team happens to hate each other's guts enough not to rise above it and win. i'm not sure such a team has ever existed. not one with talent, anyway)...
Two things almost always jump out at me whenever people talk about teams with great chemistry.
(1) It's a winning team. Seems self-explanatory, but you rarely hear about cellar dwelling teams with "great chemistry". Wins improve everyone's attitude. There's often a lot of talk that chemistry leads to wins when I think it's exactly the opposite.
(2) It's very clear who the best player or two players are on the team and they are also the team's hardest workers. First of all, this means there is an established pecking order and therefore other guys can fall into their roles more easily AND the tone is set by the most talented guy or guys which again trickles down to the rest of the team.
(1) It's a winning team. Seems self-explanatory, but you rarely hear about cellar dwelling teams with "great chemistry". Wins improve everyone's attitude. There's often a lot of talk that chemistry leads to wins when I think it's exactly the opposite.
(2) It's very clear who the best player or two players are on the team and they are also the team's hardest workers. First of all, this means there is an established pecking order and therefore other guys can fall into their roles more easily AND the tone is set by the most talented guy or guys which again trickles down to the rest of the team.
Big Cuz 15
All-Star
The chemical composition and properties of a substance or body.
1. Trust. I disagree with Padrino that friendliness is not necessary. I think that good team chemistry is not necessary for teams to win, because you can win on sheer talent alone. To have good team chemistry I feel that guys have to be able to trust one another both on and off the court. They have to stick up for each other and not throw them under the bus.
2. Complementary players and roles. You could say that sticking Tyreke Evans in the corner to shoot 3s is complementary to having Cousins inside, but that's not Tyreke's strength or style of play. Chemistry is also knowing where your team mate is going to be and being able to anticipate if he's going to cut or stay outside, that isn't necessarily a drawn up play. That sorta thing.
2. Complementary players and roles. You could say that sticking Tyreke Evans in the corner to shoot 3s is complementary to having Cousins inside, but that's not Tyreke's strength or style of play. Chemistry is also knowing where your team mate is going to be and being able to anticipate if he's going to cut or stay outside, that isn't necessarily a drawn up play. That sorta thing.
Padrino
All-Star
you don't have to like each other to trust each other on the court. friendliness, a desire to get along with everybody, a desire to be liked, is precisely why, for example, dwight howard has come up short time and again in his career. it's why he couldn't carry orlando. it's why he won't be able to carry the lakers when kobe and nash have retired (and it's why he might very well bolt for houston this offseason). friendliness can dull the killer instinct a player needs to compete. kevin durant and russell westbrook don't always get along. westbrook, in particular, is hardly considered among the most friendly individuals in the nba, but he and durant trust each other on the court. they have a chemistry out there. they get the job done...
jalfa
Starter
interestingly enough, just last week, Kobe claimed that the best teams he was on weren't all that close. it's Kobe saying this, but still.
Jerichoholic
Bench
1. Complimentary Skills: This is obvious and already been touched on.
2. Basketball IQ: Most if not all of the players not only need to have complimentary skills to each other, but also know how and when to use those skills. They need to understand the game, how to make adjustments, and how to work best with who is currently on the floor. This also comes down to instinct and experience playing with the same players. You will notice that championship teams have very few players with low basketball IQ because it is hard for those players to fit into any type of chemistry.
3. Common Mission: All of the players need to truly believe that winning is the most important thing and requires sacrifice. This is where the Kings are really lacking. This also comes to down to understanding and more importantly accepting their and every other player's role. If every player wants to the first option then the goal is not winning, it is a selfish need to look good. The majority of Kings players may say that they want to win, but actions speak louder than words and deep down you know what it is they want by how they play. Not to pick on Marcus Thornton, but he is a great example of this. When he first got here and Tyreke and Beno were hurt he played with such energy on both sides of the court, he was everywhere. He played very good defense, got a lot of steals, and was able to score in a variety of ways, not just 3-pointers. He believed that he could fight his way to number one. Since then though he has realized that with Tyreke, Cousins, and perhaps even IT that he won't be number one and his energy and effort are gone. Stands in one spot shooting 3-pointers on offense and making no effort on defense. We know what he is capable of, we have seen it, he just chooses not to use it because he is not on the proper mission.
4. Friendliness: This has seemed to create the most debate. In my opinion this should be renamed lack of unfriendliness. This doesn't have to be the Kings of the glory days. These guys don't have to spend time together after games and be great friends. The Durant and Westbrook example is a great one, they aren't friends on or off the court, but the big difference is that they don't dislike playing with each other. This is the big issue with Cousins that needs to get figured out. From what we've heard some of the players don't like playing with him and that is a major issue. Friendliness isn't needed, but unfriendliness is the first thing that can destroy a team's chemistry.
2. Basketball IQ: Most if not all of the players not only need to have complimentary skills to each other, but also know how and when to use those skills. They need to understand the game, how to make adjustments, and how to work best with who is currently on the floor. This also comes down to instinct and experience playing with the same players. You will notice that championship teams have very few players with low basketball IQ because it is hard for those players to fit into any type of chemistry.
3. Common Mission: All of the players need to truly believe that winning is the most important thing and requires sacrifice. This is where the Kings are really lacking. This also comes to down to understanding and more importantly accepting their and every other player's role. If every player wants to the first option then the goal is not winning, it is a selfish need to look good. The majority of Kings players may say that they want to win, but actions speak louder than words and deep down you know what it is they want by how they play. Not to pick on Marcus Thornton, but he is a great example of this. When he first got here and Tyreke and Beno were hurt he played with such energy on both sides of the court, he was everywhere. He played very good defense, got a lot of steals, and was able to score in a variety of ways, not just 3-pointers. He believed that he could fight his way to number one. Since then though he has realized that with Tyreke, Cousins, and perhaps even IT that he won't be number one and his energy and effort are gone. Stands in one spot shooting 3-pointers on offense and making no effort on defense. We know what he is capable of, we have seen it, he just chooses not to use it because he is not on the proper mission.
4. Friendliness: This has seemed to create the most debate. In my opinion this should be renamed lack of unfriendliness. This doesn't have to be the Kings of the glory days. These guys don't have to spend time together after games and be great friends. The Durant and Westbrook example is a great one, they aren't friends on or off the court, but the big difference is that they don't dislike playing with each other. This is the big issue with Cousins that needs to get figured out. From what we've heard some of the players don't like playing with him and that is a major issue. Friendliness isn't needed, but unfriendliness is the first thing that can destroy a team's chemistry.
roasthawg
Starter
Getting along with teammates was an issue for Dwight this past year in L.A. From my own personal experience playing sports there's a lot to be said for playing with guys you like... enjoying playing together is HUGE imo and should never be understated.
Fear the Putin
Starter
The absence of selfishness, trust and execution via trust.
Sac.Kings
All-Star
Dwight didn't get along with his teammates because he blinked underneath the bright lights of LA. He thought it would be easy and fun playing for LA and playing with Kobe. Kobe doesn't joke on the court or try to "get along with someone." He is out there to beat you and that is the end of it. Dwight is there to talk to media and talk it up and whine about stuff. That is why he is overrated. He was/is always one injury away from losing his title as best center in the NBA.
Padrino
All-Star
dwight's issue was in playing for a coach that couldn't effectively utilize his particular skillset, and with being challenged by a certain future hall of famer to not focus so mightily on whether or not he was getting along with his teammates, but rather to elevate them with superior play, by making a statement on the court. in year 1 with the lakers, howard failed to do so...
enjoying playing together is a nice part of recreational sports. but at the professional level, it should not be an expectation, and is not a prerequisite for success. michael jordan, larry bird, bill russell, kobe bryant, shaquille o'neal, etc... all of these legends and a great many more would undoubtedly attest to the fact that they did not always like their teammates, and were not always liked by their teammates, but always set aside those differences for the sake of the team, for the sake of the win...
to me, that is chemistry, when you can produce results despite the fact that you will not always get along with your teammates. when things go right, it's never difficult to rise above the fray. but when things get tough, how well do you fare? can you push through the adversity despite the differences you might have with those around you?
Kingster
Hall of Famer
How about the Kings of old.
Every single player in the starting five could shoot the rock; Peja and Bibby were outstanding. Christie was a good enough outside shooter to make teams honest. Webber was killer from the elbow. Vlade could shoot outside and play the high post. Vlade and Webber could also play inside, making for extraordinary versatility. Now that is an a team that could really space the floor. Christie was the weakest outside shooter, but he had four other guys that could complement his weakness. Dribbling wasn't Peja's strength, but the complement of others who opened the floor allowed him to to cut to the basket. Bibby wasn't the best ballhandler, but Christie complemented his weakness. That is an example of chemistry. Each player complementing the other in a synchronistic fashion. The whole was greater than the sum of the parts.
Every single player in the starting five could shoot the rock; Peja and Bibby were outstanding. Christie was a good enough outside shooter to make teams honest. Webber was killer from the elbow. Vlade could shoot outside and play the high post. Vlade and Webber could also play inside, making for extraordinary versatility. Now that is an a team that could really space the floor. Christie was the weakest outside shooter, but he had four other guys that could complement his weakness. Dribbling wasn't Peja's strength, but the complement of others who opened the floor allowed him to to cut to the basket. Bibby wasn't the best ballhandler, but Christie complemented his weakness. That is an example of chemistry. Each player complementing the other in a synchronistic fashion. The whole was greater than the sum of the parts.
I think I call that professionalism, not chemistry. Chemistry is when everything "clicks" for a team, both on the court and off. You can win with professionalism (see most Laker teams), but chemistry makes it fun as well (see the Greatest Show on Court).
Gary
All-Star
The whole friendliness thing affects some but not others. I don't speak with any of the people I work with outside of the work environment. But at the same time I don't like working with people that I dislike. Even if they are great at their job I still prefer not to work with them. I assume some ball players are like that. Especially since a lot of them are young. When I was younger I would get pissed if I had to work next to someone I hated 
It affected my job skills.
It affected my job skills.
Padrino
All-Star
well then the sad difference is that one helps you win titles, while the other is, as you say, "fun," but considerably less useful. it is professional sports we're talking about here, after all...
the spurs, for example, maintain their success because their organization is run with nothing but professionalism in mind. they don't get SI covers with catchy headlines. they don't do big pre-game hype-fests in their huddle. they're unconcerned with appearances. their business is winning. they are owned, managed, and coached as professionally as any team in any professional sport, and their player personnel act accordingly. whatever chemistry they have is a byproduct of their professionalism, and a function of time spent on court together...
as for the greatest show on court, my opinion has often been an unpopular one at kf.com, but i honestly believe that the kings lost the '02 western conference finals more than the refs stole it from them. they let a series of bad calls get into their heads. they let the lakers get under their skin. their chemistry couldn't save them, and their professionalism faltered to the tune of some of the most ghastly free throw shooting the playoffs have ever seen...
Chemistry is all about respect and sacrifice. Each player has to respect what the other players bring to the table both on the court and in the locker room. Each player has to be willing to sacrifice for the good of the team. Chemistry comes from a combination of skills, personalities, coaching, and time spent playing together.
Chemistry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9vvy9m84-U
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Well, to quote Petrie when asked how he managed to put together a team (Vlade, Webber, Bibby, Peja, Christie etc.) that had such great chemistry? He said that chemistry is one of those things that when you have it, you know it, and you have no idea how you got it, and when you don't have it, you have no idea how to get it. I think there's a lot of truth in that statement. One thing is for sure. You can have all the chemistry in the world, but if that team isn't talented, your still not going to win. Where chemistry helps, is when you have it on a very talented team. The result is that your probably getting the most from that team that you can.
Everyone liking one another? Well thats nice if it happens, but hardly neccessary. The old Oakland A's team that won 3 world championships had some huge fights in the clubhouse between the players. The difference is that when they went out on the field, they put all that aside and won. Shaq and Kobe had many disagreements, but still managed to win. Sometimes just one player can make the difference, and he may not be the most talented player. I watched Funderburke and Jason Williams come close to blows right in front of the Kings bench. My son and I had seats right behind the bench for that game. Williams face was beet red with anger. Vlade came up and put a headlock on both players and talked to them. When he finally released them, they shook hands and sat down. Vlade was the calming influence on that team, and everyone listened. Maybe, just maybe, without Vlade, there would have been no chemistry.
Whatever it is, or however you want to describe it, there is no formula. You can't bottle it. As Petrie said, you either have it, or you don't!
Everyone liking one another? Well thats nice if it happens, but hardly neccessary. The old Oakland A's team that won 3 world championships had some huge fights in the clubhouse between the players. The difference is that when they went out on the field, they put all that aside and won. Shaq and Kobe had many disagreements, but still managed to win. Sometimes just one player can make the difference, and he may not be the most talented player. I watched Funderburke and Jason Williams come close to blows right in front of the Kings bench. My son and I had seats right behind the bench for that game. Williams face was beet red with anger. Vlade came up and put a headlock on both players and talked to them. When he finally released them, they shook hands and sat down. Vlade was the calming influence on that team, and everyone listened. Maybe, just maybe, without Vlade, there would have been no chemistry.
Whatever it is, or however you want to describe it, there is no formula. You can't bottle it. As Petrie said, you either have it, or you don't!
I second this. You don't need great chemistry to win if you have great talent. Chemistry is a bonus.
To be honest the Spurs have both. Duncan Manu and Parker stick up for each other and are great friends after so many years of playing together. Chemistry is a bonus, professionalism is a must-have. But needless to say the lines between the two aren't all that clear cut.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
I think Petrie shows him his limitations on this one. I don't think chemistry is like pornography: you know it when you see it (but you can't define it). I think that's Petrie being cute, but not being forthcoming. If you look at the Kings team you can see why it had chemistry - versatility in players (like Webber and Divac) and complementary players. It's not magic.
Regarding talent and chemistry. One could also make the same inverse argument: talent without chemistry isn't desirable either.
Last edited:
bajaden
Hall of Famer
I think chemistry is more evasive than you think. You can put together a team that on paper looks talented and all the pieces seem to compliment each other, and still not have chemistry. You still might have a good team, but you'd have a better team if you had that special chemistry. There's a reason the word chemistry is used as the descriptive word. Its the blending of several ingredients that result in a different product. Sometimes you get a cure for cancer, and some times you get rat poison.
