PDA

View Full Version : Is team chemistry more important than having a superstar?



sunsfan88
02-08-2014, 05:42 PM
When you look at every team in the NBA, they are all trying to find a superstar or trade for a superstar to build their team around. Or of course, they already have their superstar.

But one thing I feel like goes underrated is team chemistry. I feel like acquiring a superstar can ruin the team chemistry if that superstar isn't a perfect fit and if that superstar isn't willing to change or alter his game at least a bit to fit the best interests of the team.

Look at the Knicks for example. I can't remember off the top of my head what their record was, but before acquiring 'Melo, the Knicks were VERY good with Amare, Gallo, Chandler and Felton. Lots of "experts" were saying how NYK looked like it had a bright future cause all it needed was to hit on one of its draft picks in the upcoming years. Then of course the Knicks decide to piss away their future and traded all the picks and promising players in Gallo and Chandler who were coming along well in NY for 'Melo. Safe to say that they haven't even come close to achieving what they wanted to achieve when they traded for 'Melo.

Another example in recent years could be the Warriors. Their team last year had excellent team chemistry and it looked like their players just needed some more time to develop. Barnes, Curry, Thompson all were young blossoming players who would all get better in time. They didn't piss away their future but they traded for Igoudala instead of keeping their team from last year intact. Let Jack and Landry go and demoted Barnes after he showed so much promise in the playoffs. The Warriros are arguably same as last year or worse with Igoudala and if you watch them play, there is a huge drop off in the team chemistry from last year compared to this year. The Warriors last year were an exciting team to watch cause of all the players on the team were developing and gelling together and having fun...the only Warriors player that's exciting to watch this year is Curry.

The Lakers last year with Dwight and Nash would be another example. I don't think I need to explain this one any further, everyone knows what happened here. I wouldn't say that Lakers had good team chemistry prior to acquiring Dwight and Nash but it was definitely much better than after they got Dwight & Nash.

If the Rockets fail to advance to at least the WCFs then we can include them here as well. Signed Dwight, and basically demoted Asik and Lin. Lin may be getting the same number of minutes but he is like the 3rd or 4th option now. From watching the Rockets play, they also seemed to have much better team chemistry last year compared to this season.

There are plenty of times when trading for a superstar has worked out for the team but does anyone else think that many teams kill the good team chemistry that they had in order to get the superstar?

Goose17
02-08-2014, 05:55 PM
You can't win a chip without chemistry and you can't win a chip without that go-to guy.

You need both. Nobody wins a championship on their own, not Lebron, not Kobe, not Michael, not anyone. Good team mates and good chemistry is a must.


And yes, trading for a star can kill the chemistry. I mean there's countless examples. Sometimes you don't know what you've got until it's gone.

The Warriors are not an example though, you'll see that for yourself tonight after we get done spanking your Suns. Our chemistry is great, it's the lack of effort and lack of bench production that's an issue.

tredigs
02-08-2014, 05:57 PM
An amazing defense + great chemistry can net you a ship without a superstar offensive player (Detroit), but it's few and far between. Generally you need the go-to guy, chemistry + a great defense.

Goose17
02-08-2014, 05:58 PM
An amazing defense + great chemistry can net you a ship without a superstar offensive player (Detroit), but it's few and far between. Generally you need the go-to guy + a great defense.

Why separate superstar offense player and superstar defense player? A superstar is a superstar, and nobody has won it all without one.

P&GRealist
02-08-2014, 06:08 PM
04 Pistons

bholly
02-08-2014, 06:08 PM
If the goal is a championship I don't think you can say one is more important than the other - both are just about necessary conditions.

Hawkeye15
02-08-2014, 06:10 PM
You can't win a chip without chemistry and you can't win a chip without that go-to guy.

You need both. Nobody wins a championship on their own, not Lebron, not Kobe, not Michael, not anyone. Good team mates and good chemistry is a must.


And yes, trading for a star can kill the chemistry. I mean there's countless examples. Sometimes you don't know what you've got until it's gone.

The Warriors are not an example though, you'll see that for yourself tonight after we get done spanking your Suns. Our chemistry is great, it's the lack of effort and lack of bench production that's an issue.

pretty much, though there has been the one exception (Detroit), but they did have at least one future HOF'er, so yeah.

KniCks4LiFe
02-08-2014, 06:12 PM
You can't win a chip without chemistry and you can't win a chip without that go-to guy.

You need both. Nobody wins a championship on their own, not Lebron, not Kobe, not Michael, not anyone. Good team mates and good chemistry is a must.


And yes, trading for a star can kill the chemistry. I mean there's countless examples. Sometimes you don't know what you've got until it's gone.

The Warriors are not an example though, you'll see that for yourself tonight after we get done spanking your Suns. Our chemistry is great, it's the lack of effort and lack of bench production that's an issue.

Detroit?

Goose17
02-08-2014, 06:12 PM
04 Pistons


Detroit?



Ben Wallace was a superstar.


Why do people assume that "superstar" is synonymous with "high scoring" ?

KniCks4LiFe
02-08-2014, 06:15 PM
Ben Wallace was a superstar.


Why do people assume that "superstar" is synonymous with "high scoring" ?

:eyebrow:

ManRam
02-08-2014, 06:17 PM
I think chemistry is something that's really hard for use to evaluate as outsiders. Sure, we'll catch notice of the huge outliers in the wrong direction, but I think it's for the most part impossible to quantify. Yeah, you need it, for sure. How much of it do you need? IDK. Have their been teams that have won it all with chemistry issues? Of course.

The Knicks problem isn't chemistry. I mean, it's playing a role now probably, but that's just a flawed team and the chemistry failings have mostly come because of the lack of success. Did these issues exist last year when they were surpassing expectations? I don't think so. Most of that core is the same. I think the issues spawned from the lack of success, and not vise versa.

Even the Lakers last year. Were they really doomed because of chemistry, or were they doomed because Nash couldn't contribute, because Dwight wasn't his normal self and because Pau, at this point in his career, isn't best suited as a 4. Coaching too. It's just so hard for me to equate something like chemistry and then say how much I think it's playing a role. Hell, would there have been chemistry issues if they just dominated from day one? I doubt it. Dwight's desire just to have fun probably would have been viewed in a different light, as it was when he was succeeding in Orlando. Pau and Dwight, if they're succeeding, probably aren't going to have an issue with anything. Kobe isn't gonna bark if things are going well. Again, I thin chemistry is more dependent on team success than team success is dependent on it.


A lot of times I think chemistry, or a lack thereof, really just follows when a team either surpasses or fails to live up to expectations.

I also think it's way too sweeping and broadly defined word.

ManRam
02-08-2014, 06:21 PM
Ben Wallace was a superstar.

It's just one metric, so who knows, but Ben Wallace did rank in the top 5 in RAPM+ for 6 straight years in the early-mid 2000s. He posted the league's best in 2006. His defensive impact was truly amazing and undeniably important. We don't treat defensive game changers as super stars when they don't excel on the other side, but we don't hesitate to do just that with guys who are amazing offensively, but who are at the same time detrimental defensively. It might not be 100% fair. There are two hoops and two sides of the court.

abe_froman
02-08-2014, 06:22 PM
:eyebrow:

before they won a championship ,ben wallace was selected to a few all star appearances,had some all nba team nods,a few dpoy awards and was top 10 in mvp voting 3 or 4 times.. so yes,he was a superstar.maybe a lower tier one,the offense minds guys get thought of first and foremost, but still anyone who gets such accolades are always classified as that(even was in commercials,magazine covers and the media crap)


to the op-
simple answer is no. chemistry alone can get many wins ,but you cant win a title without stars,just never has happened.now there are some stars that are cancers and mess up chemistry,so you cant just throw any star and expect to win.you need ones that will help(or at least not mess up)chemistry.

tredigs
02-08-2014, 06:24 PM
It's a fair point to call Ben a superstar (impact wise) and one that I've argued myself. But he was the definition of a one dimensional player and in the spirit of this discussion I'm assuming he meant your standard offensive superstar in mentioning the Knicks, etc.

bholly
02-08-2014, 06:32 PM
I think chemistry is something that's really hard for use to evaluate as outsiders. Sure, we'll catch notice of the huge outliers in the wrong direction, but I think it's for the most part impossible to quantify. Yeah, you need it, for sure. How much of it do you need? IDK. Have their been teams that have won it all with chemistry issues? Of course.

The Knicks problem isn't chemistry. I mean, it's playing a role now probably, but that's just a flawed team and the chemistry failings have mostly come because of the lack of success. Did these issues exist last year when they were surpassing expectations? I don't think so. Most of that core is the same. I think the issues spawned from the lack of success, and not vise versa.

Even the Lakers last year. Were they really doomed because of chemistry, or were they doomed because Nash couldn't contribute, because Dwight wasn't his normal self and because Pau, at this point in his career, isn't best suited as a 4. Coaching too. It's just so hard for me to equate something like chemistry and then say how much I think it's playing a role. Hell, would there have been chemistry issues if they just dominated from day one? I doubt it. Dwight's desire just to have fun probably would have been viewed in a different light, as it was when he was succeeding in Orlando. Pau and Dwight, if they're succeeding, probably aren't going to have an issue with anything. Kobe isn't gonna bark if things are going well. Again, I thin chemistry is more dependent on team success than team success is dependent on it.


A lot of times I think chemistry, or a lack thereof, really just follows when a team either surpasses or fails to live up to expectations.

I also think it's way too sweeping and broadly defined word.

Also all of this. Plus there's on court chemistry and off court chemistry, and way too often we conflate them. Team winning games? "Good chemistry!" Team dapping each other up a lot and having fun on the sidelines? "Good chemistry!" They obviously aren't the same thing, and it's not clear either actually means anything.

You need guys whose games work together somewhat, and who can run the systems together rather than getting in each others way, and have built somewhat of an understanding of how each other plays. You don't need them to be best buddies or anything. Really bad personal chemistry can bring a team down if it affects the on-court chemistry, or makes a guy start looking out for his own stats, or affects how hard they practice or whatever, but beyond that it's not really much, or at least not much that is knowable and predictable and meaningful.

Bostonjorge
02-08-2014, 06:40 PM
An amazing defense + great chemistry can net you a ship without a superstar offensive player (Detroit), but it's few and far between. Generally you need the go-to guy, chemistry + a great defense.

This

The pacers don't have a superstar player but George is almost there. They play great D and have the best chemistry in the league. Only a superstar type player like kobe or Jordan type level can win without great D or great chemistry but not without both tho.

albertajaysfan
02-08-2014, 06:46 PM
Depends entirely on what your goals are as a franchise.

Regular season success and perhaps a couple of rounds in the playoffs is deemed as success. Chemistry wins out in that scenario.

Success being measured by chips. You need both.

As mentioned before however chemistry is extremely dependent on winning.

I think a more important factor and is more easily defined then the general term of chemistry is buy in. You need a coach who is intelligent enough to develop a system that works for the players at his disposal and can then get the appropriate buy in from the players.

Pop is the most obvious example. Thibs is another example of being able to get players to buy in. Vogel comes to mind.

D'Antoni interestingly enough as been on both sides of the coin. Had a system and the players for that system in Phoenix. Tried the same system in LA were he didn't have the personnel for it.

Mikeleafs
02-08-2014, 06:47 PM
Team Chemistry >>>>>>>>>>>> Superstar

unless its Lebron or Durant...

smood999
02-08-2014, 06:59 PM
The Knicks traded away 1 first rounder for Melo...not all these draft picks...also two 2nd rounders...ironically enough, that's the exact thing they traded for Bargnani..go figure. The Knicks were a .500 team in the middle of a losing streak so they were not "very good." They've definitely improved considering how bad they were.

Like everyone is saying, there hasn't been a case of a team winning without a "superstar." Detroit seems to be the only example thrown out there but although they did not have a "superstar" they had 4 all-stars...3 of which have a chance at the HOF.

The reality is...if you're not fortunate enough to draft or acquire Jordan, Olajuwan, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, LeBron...you're team may not ever win. Those 6 players have all the championships the past 24 yrs except for 3 (Dal, Det, Bos). You can go even further back and the same remains true. Only a handful of players will ever lead their teams to championships no matter how much we want to believe other wise.

smood999
02-08-2014, 07:02 PM
Durant is the only player currently that may be added to that list...

sunsfan88
02-08-2014, 07:07 PM
The Warriors are not an example though, you'll see that for yourself tonight after we get done spanking your Suns. Our chemistry is great, it's the lack of effort and lack of bench production that's an issue.
Haha beating a team that's supposed to be the worst in the West is the big achievement for the Warriors?

And do you wanna sig bet that the Warriors (who won't have Bogut or Lee) won't "spank" the Suns? They beat us last time in a blowout but we beat them the time before that too.The season series is tied at 1-1. Suns may lose but its definitely not gonna be a blowout again...even without Bledsoe.

But you are right, I think the Warriors sample size is too small to include them in the list. Maybe they will pick it up as the season goes but I have heard that GSW has no problem moving Igoudala...the only two they consider "untouchable" is Curry and Bogut.

ManRam
02-08-2014, 08:19 PM
If the Rockets fail to advance to at least the WCFs then we can include them here as well. Signed Dwight, and basically demoted Asik and Lin. Lin may be getting the same number of minutes but he is like the 3rd or 4th option now. From watching the Rockets play, they also seemed to have much better team chemistry last year compared to this season.

I also don't agree with that. Asik is the only guy that's grumpy. They've been doing fine. Lin is playing as much as last year, and actually playing better. Asik is the only chemistry issue that I think we can allude to. And I refuse to believe that him pouting impacts the team.

And saying that if they don't make it to the WCF, it's because of bad chemistry kinda plays into my point. "Chemistry" just is not that black and white. Maybe they're just not better than SAS, OKC, Portlad, LAC, GS or whatever. How do we know it's chemistry that will be their downfall? We don't.

DreamShaker
02-08-2014, 08:55 PM
The Rockets have the best mid-season record they have had since Barkley, Hakeem, and Drexler were on the team. Raw talent does that, and when talent meets chemistry, championship level teams atise. Chemistry takes time, though. And it can just simply not work.

DreamShaker
02-08-2014, 09:12 PM
I also don't agree with that. Asik is the only guy that's grumpy. They've been doing fine. Lin is playing as much as last year, and actually playing better. Asik is the only chemistry issue that I think we can allude to. And I refuse to believe that him pouting impacts the team.

And saying that if they don't make it to the WCF, it's because of bad chemistry kinda plays into my point. "Chemistry" just is not that black and white. Maybe they're just not better than SAS, OKC, Portlad, LAC, GS or whatever. How do we know it's chemistry that will be their downfall? We don't.

Yeah. Rockets are a young team in a stacked West. No sure thing they are a top 2 team by any means. All those other teams have multiple All-Star level players as well.

kobe4thewinbang
02-08-2014, 09:54 PM
You can't win a chip without chemistry and you can't win a chip without that go-to guy.

You need both. Nobody wins a championship on their own, not Lebron, not Kobe, not Michael, not anyone. Good team mates and good chemistry is a must.


And yes, trading for a star can kill the chemistry. I mean there's countless examples. Sometimes you don't know what you've got until it's gone.+1

Pierre The Poet
02-08-2014, 10:35 PM
People keep mentioning Detroit...I remember that Pistons team having 4 guys on the all star team one year

lol, please
02-09-2014, 12:55 AM
I agree with those who say you need both more often than not, and while it's impossible to accurately quantify though metrics, manram is exaggerating on it's elusiveness, I have no problem identifying chemistry in a team, maybe because I have been apart of chemistry in a team in a different sense, but I don't find it that complex to the point where we can't reach conclusions through critical thought and intelligent discussion.

The Warriors as an example for a lack of chemistry is a joke, chemistry is present in boat loads, that's far from "an issue" if there was one.

lol, please
02-09-2014, 12:55 AM
People keep mentioning Detroit...I remember that Pistons team having 4 guys on the all star team one year

superstar and all star are not synonymous.

sunsfan88
02-09-2014, 01:47 AM
Y
The Warriors are not an example though, you'll see that for yourself tonight after we get done spanking your Suns.

:laugh:

mdm692
02-09-2014, 02:18 AM
You can't win a chip without chemistry and you can't win a chip without that go-to guy.

You need both. Nobody wins a championship on their own, not Lebron, not Kobe, not Michael, not anyone. Good team mates and good chemistry is a must.


And yes, trading for a star can kill the chemistry. I mean there's countless examples. Sometimes you don't know what you've got until it's gone.

The Warriors are not an example though, you'll see that for yourself tonight after we get done spanking your Suns. Our chemistry is great, it's the lack of effort and lack of bench production that's an issue.

Yeeeeeeeah, about that spanking. . .

Drummond#1
02-09-2014, 02:25 AM
Ben Wallace was a superstar.

Why do people assume that "superstar" is synonymous with "high scoring" ?

Ben Wallace became a superstar after two trips to the ECF. Since he was a defensive minded undrafted player he had to prove it. Whereas players like Harden, Davis, and Howard were always expected to become superstars since the day they were drafted. Which is why there accomplishments and play are overrated. Whereas a player of the Ben Wallace/Goran Dragic pedigree has to earn it by proving the business of the NBA wrong.

bholly
02-09-2014, 02:48 AM
:laugh:

A little tough to laugh/brag when the only counter you were willing to give at the time was "we may lose but it definitely won't be a blowout", isn't it?

mdm692
02-09-2014, 03:42 AM
A little tough to laugh/brag when the only counter you were willing to give at the time was "we may lose but it definitely won't be a blowout", isn't it?
A lot better than saying you're team is going to spank the other team hours before tip off.

Beltrans Mole
02-09-2014, 04:23 AM
Ben Wallace was not a superstar, sorry.

sunsfan88
02-09-2014, 05:26 AM
A little tough to laugh/brag when the only counter you were willing to give at the time was "we may lose but it definitely won't be a blowout", isn't it?

Not at all tough, I admitted to the possibility of it being a loss, he expected them to "spank" the Suns.

R. Johnson#3
02-09-2014, 05:48 AM
It's just one metric, so who knows, but Ben Wallace did rank in the top 5 in RAPM+ for 6 straight years in the early-mid 2000s. He posted the league's best in 2006. His defensive impact was truly amazing and undeniably important. We don't treat defensive game changers as super stars when they don't excel on the other side, but we don't hesitate to do just that with guys who are amazing offensively, but who are at the same time detrimental defensively. It might not be 100% fair. There are two hoops and two sides of the court.

Two words. Jose Calderon.

It drove Raptor fans crazy! The guy was great on offence but absolutely atrocious on defence.

Heediot
02-09-2014, 06:08 AM
As long as you have a guy that can close and step up when it matters.

Goose17
02-09-2014, 09:38 AM
Not at all tough, I admitted to the possibility of it being a loss, he expected them to "spank" the Suns.

Nothing wrong with some friendly trash talk. I'll use the injury cop out and say you guys wouldn't have scored 100 points or out rebounded us if Bogut was in the game. :p

mike_noodles
02-09-2014, 10:09 AM
pretty much, though there has been the one exception (Detroit), but they did have at least one future HOF'er, so yeah.

Possibly three depending on the voters and the best defensive player of a generation. But Detroit is in a class of it's own. As many others have said you need to have a superstar and team chemistry.

lol, please
02-09-2014, 03:20 PM
A lot better than saying you're team is going to spank the other team hours before tip off.
Not really, it was the logical and popular opinion. Hindsight is 20/20.

Not at all tough, I admitted to the possibility of it being a loss, he expected them to "spank" the Suns.Most people expected the Suns to get handled, stop acting like it was a ludicrous statement, thinking the Suns would win was the ludicrous thought at the time, you can't talk trash if you didn't have outspoken confidence in your team prior, sorry.

mdm692
02-09-2014, 05:23 PM
Not really, it was the logical and popular opinion. Hindsight is 20/20.
Most people expected the Suns to get handled, stop acting like it was a ludicrous statement, thinking the Suns would win was the ludicrous thought at the time, you can't talk trash if you didn't have outspoken confidence in your team prior, sorry.
2-1 vs Blazers
2-1 vs Warriors
2-0 vs Pacers
1-0 vs Clips

But yeah I can see how that is the "popular logic" among homers and everybody else who who doesn't want to acknowledge the fact that the Suns and Dragic are the real deal with so little talent. #'s and stats don't lie lol.

KnicksorBust
02-09-2014, 06:51 PM
When you look at every team in the NBA, they are all trying to find a superstar or trade for a superstar to build their team around. Or of course, they already have their superstar.

But one thing I feel like goes underrated is team chemistry. I feel like acquiring a superstar can ruin the team chemistry if that superstar isn't a perfect fit and if that superstar isn't willing to change or alter his game at least a bit to fit the best interests of the team.

Look at the Knicks for example. I can't remember off the top of my head what their record was, but before acquiring 'Melo, the Knicks were VERY good with Amare, Gallo, Chandler and Felton. Lots of "experts" were saying how NYK looked like it had a bright future cause all it needed was to hit on one of its draft picks in the upcoming years. Then of course the Knicks decide to piss away their future and traded all the picks and promising players in Gallo and Chandler who were coming along well in NY for 'Melo. Safe to say that they haven't even come close to achieving what they wanted to achieve when they traded for 'Melo.

Another example in recent years could be the Warriors. Their team last year had excellent team chemistry and it looked like their players just needed some more time to develop. Barnes, Curry, Thompson all were young blossoming players who would all get better in time. They didn't piss away their future but they traded for Igoudala instead of keeping their team from last year intact. Let Jack and Landry go and demoted Barnes after he showed so much promise in the playoffs. The Warriros are arguably same as last year or worse with Igoudala and if you watch them play, there is a huge drop off in the team chemistry from last year compared to this year. The Warriors last year were an exciting team to watch cause of all the players on the team were developing and gelling together and having fun...the only Warriors player that's exciting to watch this year is Curry.

The Lakers last year with Dwight and Nash would be another example. I don't think I need to explain this one any further, everyone knows what happened here. I wouldn't say that Lakers had good team chemistry prior to acquiring Dwight and Nash but it was definitely much better than after they got Dwight & Nash.

If the Rockets fail to advance to at least the WCFs then we can include them here as well. Signed Dwight, and basically demoted Asik and Lin. Lin may be getting the same number of minutes but he is like the 3rd or 4th option now. From watching the Rockets play, they also seemed to have much better team chemistry last year compared to this season.

There are plenty of times when trading for a superstar has worked out for the team but does anyone else think that many teams kill the good team chemistry that they had in order to get the superstar?

Lmao at using the Knicks as an example. We were .500 or worse with Gallo and co and instead won 54 games with Melo. You are way off base here.

lol, please
02-09-2014, 11:07 PM
2-1 vs Blazers
2-1 vs Warriors
2-0 vs Pacers
1-0 vs Clips

But yeah I can see how that is the "popular logic" among homers and everybody else who who doesn't want to acknowledge the fact that the Suns and Dragic are the real deal with so little talent. #'s and stats don't lie lol.
The Suns are the real deal? Oh my gosh, here we go.. :rolleyes:

mrblisterdundee
02-10-2014, 02:12 AM
It's a balance. Even the Spurs have three or so stars.

sunsfan88
02-10-2014, 02:17 AM
Most people expected the Suns to get handled, stop acting like it was a ludicrous statement, thinking the Suns would win was the ludicrous thought at the time, you can't talk trash if you didn't have outspoken confidence in your team prior, sorry.

Um most people expected the Suns to get blown out...by the Warriors...in Phoenix? Um no.

And the Suns have a better record than the Warriors, please explain to me how it was "ludicrous" to think that the Suns would beat the Warriors?

And sorry, you don't have to be an idiotic homer to talk trash. Sorry.

Sandman
02-10-2014, 02:19 AM
^^ its a balance

they are not mutually exclusive

but I'd bet its easier to get a superstar to be a part of a team than it is to get a good team player to be a superstar.

your team is screwed if it is missing either one.

Goose17
02-10-2014, 12:08 PM
Um most people expected the Suns to get blown out...by the Warriors...in Phoenix? Um no.

And the Suns have a better record than the Warriors, please explain to me how it was "ludicrous" to think that the Suns would beat the Warriors?

And sorry, you don't have to be an idiotic homer to talk trash. Sorry.

They didn't have a better record going into the game.

mdm692
02-10-2014, 01:34 PM
They didn't have a better record going into the game.
We were even in the Loss column and you guys only had 1 more W than us. Not better than you guys but not inferior either. But a little pacific trash talking is always welcome :p.

IndyRealist
02-10-2014, 01:52 PM
It is not important to have a superstar. It is, however, important to have players who produce even if they are not recognized as superstars. Perception, and thus allstar appearances, MVP voting, etc. is totally dominated by raw points scored and ignore virtually any other factor.

People on here said you can't win DPOY if you don't score in double digits. Freakin' defensive player of the year. People on here have called Brandon Jennings allstar material. Who's had one good game his entire career. But all people see is 55 points.

Plenty of fantastic players could power a team to a championship but get ignored because they are not primary scorers. Joakim Noah, Anderson Varejao, etc. It's a travesty that Andre Drummond isn't an allstar this year.

arbitrage
02-10-2014, 01:53 PM
While chemistry is important, having a superstar setting an example for the rest of the team is more important if you want to win a chip. Guys like LeBron and Duncan work harder than anyone on the team to improve AND play defense. Guys like Melo don't play defense and pout all the time if they don't get the ball. The rest of the team follows their example. Look at the results.

LAKobeBryant
02-10-2014, 02:03 PM
team chemistry develops super stars like curry, PG, LA

Goose17
02-10-2014, 02:09 PM
We were even in the Loss column and you guys only had 1 more W than us. Not better than you guys but not inferior either. But a little pacific trash talking is always welcome :p.

Yeah. It was all in jest.

The only teams from the pacific I trash talk and honestly mean it are based in la la land.

rockets-fan
02-11-2014, 11:56 AM
So since has become a suns and warriors thread, I need to ask warriors fans a question.

What is up with the warriors? They were supposed to be like the 3rd best team out west and everyone here voted them to be better than teams like Houston,Portland,suns, etc....at least they expected them to be. I honestly have not seen much of their games or kept up with them so I do not know if they have had serious injury issues or what not. For all the "curry best pg" talk and all the offseason hype, they are underperforming, at least record wise right? Or is it just one of those things where the west is so deep that the record doesn't indicate how good they're playing?


I honesty want warriors fans opinions on this because I have not watched them at all this year, I just know iggy was out for a good amount of time earlier in the year.

jerellh528
02-11-2014, 12:04 PM
There's no clear cut answer for this because generally you need both to win a ring, but the teams that have won with no superstar are few and far between, so I'd say a superstar is slightly more important.

Goose17
02-11-2014, 03:56 PM
So since has become a suns and warriors thread, I need to ask warriors fans a question.

What is up with the warriors? They were supposed to be like the 3rd best team out west and everyone here voted them to be better than teams like Houston,Portland,suns, etc....at least they expected them to be. I honestly have not seen much of their games or kept up with them so I do not know if they have had serious injury issues or what not. For all the "curry best pg" talk and all the offseason hype, they are under performing, at least record wise right? Or is it just one of those things where the west is so deep that the record doesn't indicate how good they're playing?

I honesty want warriors fans opinions on this because I have not watched them at all this year, I just know iggy was out for a good amount of time earlier in the year.

Our role players were riddled with injuries early in the season and Dre was out for a while to.

Most Dub fans on here seem to be in agreement that there's a lot of issues, but the vast majority stem from one factor; Effort.

There's been a distinct lack of effort, especially against bottom tier teams. I was convinced they were buying into their own hype and not giving teams the respect they deserved. But it's too far into the season now. There has to be another reason for the lack of effort.

The West being so deep doesn't help either. Despite our record though I think we're just as good as any of those teams you mentioned, and would hold our own in a seven game series. We've been playing well against top tier teams, just poorly against the weaker ones. We're only four games back from the fifth seed.



My post in the other warriors thread in the main section sums up my thoughts on the offense;


The bench was(is?) awful. Barnes has been terrible up until very recently. And I mean (Chuck voice) TURRIBLE!

Ball movement seems to stall when Curry isn't in the game, although Crawford has done a decent job recently, I think that will work out a good trade.

Dre, Klay, Barnes and more recently Green, have settled for spot up 3s or fade aways. Dre hasn't attacked the basket with the same aggression since returning from that thigh injury earlier in the season. Up until VERY recently Barnes seemed to have lost all confidence and hasn't been attacking the rim at all. Klay tries to shoot his way out of slumps instead of putting the ball on the floor and beating his man for an easy lay up, which he is more than capable of doing. Green just seems to be finding his feet offensively, he's improved from last season on that side anyway.

It's almost like playing with Curry is contagious, you see him make 3s so you get excited and try to do it yourself, I don't know, it's strange.

The bench in particular has settled for iso plays a lot, they don't even seem to put the effort in on that side.

Having no inside scoring other than Lee doesn't help either, I really miss Landry (still don't miss Jack though before people hop on that, we're better without him).



Funnily enough, the best game we've played this season was against your Clippers. 60 something points in the paint, we need more of that.



As for the stats, we're 4th in 3PT% and top 10 for eFG% so it's not all doom and gloom :)





Now, I open the floor to the idiots who think it's all because Jack left, you know, the guys who watch our highlights and maybe one or two games during the regular season and think they know the team...

Chronz
02-11-2014, 04:04 PM
Warriors ARE a top4 team, dont pay too much attention to wins-losses in the standings, regular season grinds are about much more than that. I only have the Clips-Spurs-Thunder ahead of them.

Goose17
02-11-2014, 04:05 PM
Warriors ARE a top4 team, dont pay too much attention to wins-losses in the standings, regular season grinds are about much more than that. I only have the Clips-Spurs-Thunder ahead of them.

Agreed^

But I feel OKC and Clippers is debatable.

b@llhog24
02-11-2014, 07:10 PM
No it isn't. Talent will win over chemistry more often than not imo.

Chronz
02-11-2014, 07:46 PM
Agreed^

But I feel OKC and Clippers is debatable.

Ill take our superior SRS despite injuries to our best players over the limited sample of the starting lineup.

KnicksorBust
02-11-2014, 08:07 PM
No it isn't. Talent will win over chemistry more often than not imo.

Thread winner.

smood999
02-11-2014, 08:13 PM
It is not important to have a superstar. It is, however, important to have players who produce even if they are not recognized as superstars. Perception, and thus allstar appearances, MVP voting, etc. is totally dominated by raw points scored and ignore virtually any other factor.

People on here said you can't win DPOY if you don't score in double digits. Freakin' defensive player of the year. People on here have called Brandon Jennings allstar material. Who's had one good game his entire career. But all people see is 55 points.

Plenty of fantastic players could power a team to a championship but get ignored because they are not primary scorers. Joakim Noah, Anderson Varejao, etc. It's a travesty that Andre Drummond isn't an allstar this year.

Well, there have been plenty of NBA champions...how many support your theory?

3RDASYSTEM
02-11-2014, 08:35 PM
When you look at every team in the NBA, they are all trying to find a superstar or trade for a superstar to build their team around. Or of course, they already have their superstar.

But one thing I feel like goes underrated is team chemistry. I feel like acquiring a superstar can ruin the team chemistry if that superstar isn't a perfect fit and if that superstar isn't willing to change or alter his game at least a bit to fit the best interests of the team.

Look at the Knicks for example. I can't remember off the top of my head what their record was, but before acquiring 'Melo, the Knicks were VERY good with Amare, Gallo, Chandler and Felton. Lots of "experts" were saying how NYK looked like it had a bright future cause all it needed was to hit on one of its draft picks in the upcoming years. Then of course the Knicks decide to piss away their future and traded all the picks and promising players in Gallo and Chandler who were coming along well in NY for 'Melo. Safe to say that they haven't even come close to achieving what they wanted to achieve when they traded for 'Melo.

Another example in recent years could be the Warriors. Their team last year had excellent team chemistry and it looked like their players just needed some more time to develop. Barnes, Curry, Thompson all were young blossoming players who would all get better in time. They didn't piss away their future but they traded for Igoudala instead of keeping their team from last year intact. Let Jack and Landry go and demoted Barnes after he showed so much promise in the playoffs. The Warriros are arguably same as last year or worse with Igoudala and if you watch them play, there is a huge drop off in the team chemistry from last year compared to this year. The Warriors last year were an exciting team to watch cause of all the players on the team were developing and gelling together and having fun...the only Warriors player that's exciting to watch this year is Curry.

The Lakers last year with Dwight and Nash would be another example. I don't think I need to explain this one any further, everyone knows what happened here. I wouldn't say that Lakers had good team chemistry prior to acquiring Dwight and Nash but it was definitely much better than after they got Dwight & Nash.

If the Rockets fail to advance to at least the WCFs then we can include them here as well. Signed Dwight, and basically demoted Asik and Lin. Lin may be getting the same number of minutes but he is like the 3rd or 4th option now. From watching the Rockets play, they also seemed to have much better team chemistry last year compared to this season.

There are plenty of times when trading for a superstar has worked out for the team but does anyone else think that many teams kill the good team chemistry that they had in order to get the superstar?

Kind of hand in hand because you can have a core of guys who have chemistry but lack a go to perimeter superstar like the old CAVS that use to battle 90's BULLS, They had good players though but add a DREXLER or NIQUE to that squad and they would have been something special with the bigs they had and they sniper pg in PRICE

Chemistry is just basically winning a lot and knowing your mates tendacies, superstars sell tickets/jerseys so it depends on what the nitpicking billionaire owner wants to put around that star to win big or just make big money at the gate on that lone superstar and if lucky 2 superstar

if I had to choose I would say superstar is more vital, see past and present champs for proof