Chemistry May Be In The Mix For Celtics

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/04/03/celtics-coach-brad-stevens-enticed-team-chemistry-analytics/sW90ZcX160o5i61NxqVDxK/story.html



Chemistry may be in mix for Celtics

Team intrigued by potential tool

By Baxter Holmes  | GLOBE STAFF   APRIL 04, 2014



Celtics coach Brad Stevens is enticed by the idea of quantifying team chemistry in order to improve his team.
SHAWN THEW/EPA






Chemistry, that certain special something between people who just seem to get along, doesn’t come along every day.

It is significant but abstract, and in sports — especially professional sports — it’s valued at a premium, even though it can be elusive.

“It’s hard to find, especially with guys making this type of money, with egos,” said Celtics captain and point guard Rajon Rondo.

But an ESPN The Magazine article from October 2013 detailed how more Major League Baseball teams — including the Boston Red Sox — are exploring the idea of quantifying chemistry to help better construct their rosters.

One aspect noted was that some teams, such as the Red Sox, have tried using more extensive background checks to gauge a player’s personality, which then helped them carefully determine if that player fits into the construct of their team.

NBA sources have heard rumblings of teams experimenting with the notion of trying to quantify chemistry — though it’s unclear if the Celtics are one of them — but it’s still in the earliest stages and nothing conclusive has yet been found.

Even still, chemistry is considered to be one of the next frontiers in the basketball analytics revolution, a notion raised several times at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conferences held last month in Boston.

Celtics rookie coach Brad Stevens, whose team plays the Philadelphia 76ers on Friday at TD Garden, is enticed by the idea.

“The chemistry stuff matters,” he said. “It matters a lot.”

Stevens’s teams at Butler University were known for their exceptional togetherness. And while other important factors were obviously involved, such as skill, talent, and game plans, those teams also had tremendous success, reaching consecutive national championship games in 2010 and 2011.

“I was at a level where people looked at [chemistry] and valued it and it was huge, huge, huge, huge,” Stevens said.

Stevens suggested that basketball teams might be able to gauge chemistry through lineup analysis — that is, how certain players function together in varying combinations.

But while he believes that finding the key to improving chemistry would be valuable, he’s also a firm believer in another approach.

“You could make an argument that you’re quantifying chemistry and you could make some sound arguments,” Stevens said, “but I think it’s more about somebody deciding, coming to that decision personally, that I’m going to embrace that role.”

Would that method be easier than just finding the right pieces and putting them together, perhaps with the goal of artificially manufacturing a certain level of chemistry?

“Well, I think part of it is moving parts, but I think it’s also encouraging everyone to embrace a role and be content in that and try to be the best they can be to help the team be the best it can be,” Stevens said.

“But there’s all kinds of intangibles that go along with that, way beyond numbers and trying to figure that out. I wouldn’t put it past some of the people in these organizations to figure it out, but it’s really hard.”

Celtics forward Jared Sullinger raised an eyebrow when asked about the subject.

“It’s kind of tough,” Sullinger said. “You can’t really gauge a team off chemistry. Sometimes the teams that don’t get along are the best teams.”

Sullinger added, “Chemistry is definitely underrated to me, personally, but to build a team off chemistry and not talent and certain pieces that you need is not a smart idea.”

Sullinger then said if a team had the proper balance of talent and the pieces it needed, improving chemistry would of course be valuable. Still, he reiterated that basketball teams are able to successfully function without good chemistry, too.

“I’m not saying from experience, but I’m saying from guys I’ve talked to in the past that have played in the NBA that have disliked a player, but once you step onto the court and you’re inside those four lines, all of the sudden, they’re buddy-buddy,” Sullinger said.

“I’ve seen it for myself. I’ve done it before — not at this level, but at another level. It’s just how basketball is. Competitive nature takes over. Chemistry has a lot to do with stuff, but at the same time, it just depends on who you are.”

Rondo pointed out that the value of chemistry also varies depending on the sport.

“Chemistry, I don’t think that matters in baseball,” Rondo said. “Big Papi doesn’t have to get along with everybody. He goes up there and he makes a hit, he catches every ball that they throw to him at first base — he’s doing his job. It’s simple.”

Rondo added, “Football is probably the best sport to give you an example. If he doesn’t sell this fake and if he doesn’t make this block at that angle, if the quarterback doesn’t sell the draw play — then the play doesn’t work. It’s all about team chemistry. All 11 players are pretty much [tied together] on each possession.”

And though individual players can dominate in basketball, Rondo believes that team chemistry plays a considerable role.

“Basketball, every once in a while, you can [run an isolation play] and you don’t need five guys,” Rondo said. “But for the most part, to win a game, to win a series, you need five guys all together.”

And maybe some day, analytics could help teams do just that.




bob
MY NOTE:  Bird and McHale would go for weeks without talking directly to each other, using Danny Ainge as a courier pigeon to relay ideas (even back then Danny was a deal-maker) but when they stepped between the lines McHale knew it was Larry's team and Larry knew he needed McHale. On the other hand there's the Russell Celtics, who had great chemistry. I don't know, I just don't know.  


.

My guess is that the '80s Celtics won despite their personal issues, not because of it.

I think some of this is in the definition of "chemistry." most people assume it's how well the players get along with each other, how much time they spend together off the court, and that type of thing, and that is part of it, but it seems to me that chemistry is how well the players mesh into a cohesive whole, anticipating each other's moves and working seamlessly as a unit. To achieve that kind of harmony, teams usually need the personal connections evidenced when players get along well together as people, but the Bird-McHale Celtics showed that that's not always the case. They may not have liked each other, but when I watched them play, they looked to me like a team with great chemistry.

Outside

question...

Can you name a winning team that didn't have good chemistry?

Seems that winning creates an atmosphere in which the chemistry develops.

Perhaps there are teams that play well together but don't win regularly for various reasons. even our own C's have show signs of really good teamwork but being that parts are missing we just can't develop enough chemistry to overcome our weaknesses.

Anyway hope springs eternal that we can get some help via the draft or free agency (or both)

At least this season is about over, thank goodness

beat

beat wrote:Outside

question...

Can you name a winning team that didn't have good chemistry?

Good chemistry in their play, no. Good chemistry as individuals, yes, with the Bird-McHale Celtics being the poster child for that. The Kobe-Shaq Lakers won three titles despite their well-documented issues.

beat wrote:Seems that winning creates an atmosphere in which the chemistry develops.

It's a symbiotic relationship, yes. Winning begets chemistry which begets winning. Then it becomes a chicken/egg thing -- which comes first?

At the moment, I'm reading a book by David Halberstam, The Breaks of the Game, which is about the NBA in general and the Trailblazers in particular in the aftermath of their 1976-77 championship. He does a great job of getting at the intricacies of the game, including chemistry, and he describes how issues between all the people involved -- players, coaches, and staff -- existed during their title season and the season after, when they were even better and were 50-10 until Bill Walton got hurt, but the problems were kept dormant because they were winning. After that, they lost the harmony that they'd had on the court, they stopped winning, and all the problems that had previously been below the surface bubbled up.

Winning teams find themselves in a place where those problems either don't exist or are ignored. With losing, those problems come to the forefront along with other problems that manifest themselves because of the losing.

Good chemistry doesn't guarantee winning, but it can be part of the foundation for creating a winning team. The Celtics and Lakers seem to be polar opposites in that regard. Both have had miserable seasons, but the Celtics seed to have had a minimum of personal issues, while the Lakers have had them nonstop. That doesn't mean that Boston will build a contender before the Lakers, but it certainly seems like a better position to be in while rebuilding.

Outside

Guess I should have been a little more specific by asking good chemistry ON THE COURT....

Regarding off the court..

personally as long as the guys are not doing anything illegal I could care less if they sit around a campfire together and sing.

I work with a lot of pretty good people and out department runs pretty smooth, but I rarely seek to socialize much with them.

beat

Beat,

I don't see how it's possible to be a winning team and not have good chemistry on the court. The only possibility that comes to mind is an isolation-centric team like the 2005-06 Heat, but even then, they needed good chemistry on the defensive end and even on the offensive end for the team to work together to get one of the scorers (Wade, Shaq, or Antoine Walker) the ball in a good isolation position.

Unless no one else in the league is capable of playing team ball, there's no way that a team with poor chemistry on the court would win. But that brings us back to defining what chemistry is and whether it includes how well the players get along as people. Winning teams often have good chemistry on and off the court, but only the on-court chemistry is essential to winning.

Which is it?

Winning because of good chemistry or good chemistry because their winning.?

swish

Swish,

I'd say some of each because the to feed off each other.  Lack of chemistry on the floor is the linchpin because, if you're not part of good chemistry on the floor, you're not as likely to have as many opportunities to be part of that inner core that generates personal chemistry.

Sam

As far as I can see, a winning team has good chemistry, especially when they have a good leader. Russell, Cousy, Havlicekl, Cowens, White, Bird, Pierce, Garnett, the list goes on and on. And each era seemed to get along.

There are times when management steps in and brings in guys that disrupt the way teams get along. We all can name names galore, but the good have far outweighed the bad.

So, I think one begets the other!

Rosalie

If the Celtics are looking for compatibility among their players for a greater chance at achieving success, Danny should get all players to sign up for
E HARMONY DOT COM!


112288

Nicely put, Rosalie.

Sam