Learning from the Pacers mistakes

[Stevo]

The spurs didn't become so good at ball movement over night. They've been playing together for years and years. They know each others tendencies and trust each other fully

I agree with this post.

I'm skeptical however, of our players being able to learn this. Lowry, as much as I believe he was our MVP this year, does not strike me as a ball-movement guy. He needs to feed off his dribble to be effective, and rides his adrenaline too much to stick to a systematic approach of playing ball. I hope that's just my opinion, but guys like Duncan, Ginobli, Parker were slowly groomed in to accepting Pop's ball-movement system when they became clear grizzled veterans without the ability to compete based off of pure natural athleticism with the young stars of today.

That's still years away for guys like Lowry, DD, and so on.

[OptimalOptimist]

Well written post, lots of good ideas and I really hate myself for this but there were too many spelling mistakes in the OP for me to be able to concentrate lol. Anyone else?

Sorry, french is my first language haha, doing my best. In fact if you see any blatant mistakes, do not hesitate to report them to me.

____

My point is not that we need to emulate the Spurs playing style, i didn't mention them once in the initial post.

But they sure are the best managed team. Every player they bring in as a specific role and has been recruited for a purpose.

Also I do not know where the obsession over "talent" came from, especially if you refer to the spurs. Referring to Duncan is great, however he is not a top 20 player in the league anymore. Also, his supporting cast is loaded with undrafted/unwanted players who contribute in some way or another because they FIT in the system.

Parker/Ginobli weren't drafted as stars, but they became that by internal growth, continuity and team system/culture. They more than likely wouldn't have become what they are now if they were traded for assets.

[OptimalOptimist]

ALso regarding the draft and talent vs chemistry, check out this quote:

Tolzman confirmed that the Raptors are looking at fit as much as talent. They don’t want the players they bring into training camp to mess up the team’s chemistry.

“Just seeing what kind of people they are,” Tolzman said. “It’s a huge part because you want to see how they are going to fit with the chemistry of our team right now. I think that was one of the biggest positives of our team was our chemistry and so one of the last things we would ever want to do is mess that up.”

[CalgaryRapsFan]

ALso regarding the draft and talent vs chemistry, check out this quote:

Tolzman confirmed that the Raptors are looking at fit as much as talent. They don’t want the players they bring into training camp to mess up the team’s chemistry.

“Just seeing what kind of people they are,” Tolzman said. “It’s a huge part because you want to see how they are going to fit with the chemistry of our team right now. I think that was one of the biggest positives of our team was our chemistry and so one of the last things we would ever want to do is mess that up.”

As one of the posters in this thread that had more of a negative response to the OP, I would summarize my opinion like this:

Talent + Chemistry = Ideal (duh)

Talent alone = 2nd choice, since chemistry can be worked on (no knuckleheads, please)

Chemistry alone = 3rd choice, since losing together is still losing


I just didn't like how the OP and its supporters seemed to give too much weight to the impact of chemistry, to the point that it seemed valued even beyond talent. I never questioned the importance of chemistry/fit/balance/knowing your role, but only if the team (recognizing that sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts) is talented enough to be (or become) legitimately competitive for an NBA championship.

I don't think the current Raptors roster is that talented, so improving the overall talent should still be MU's top priority. Obviously incorporating internal growth, chemistry, fit, balance and clearly defined (and accepted) roles, should go hand-in-hand with talent acquisition and development. It was just the idea that the current roster should be left as is, simply because of the positive chemistry they have (despite being a mid-tier team at best), that I failed to understand or agree with.

[special1]

As one of the posters in this thread that had more of a negative response to the OP, I would summarize my opinion like this:

Talent + Chemistry = Ideal (duh)

Talent alone = 2nd choice, since chemistry can be worked on (no knuckleheads, please)

Chemistry alone = 3rd choice, since losing together is still losing


I just didn't like how the OP and its supporters seemed to give too much weight to the impact of chemistry, to the point that it seemed valued even beyond talent. I never questioned the importance of chemistry/fit/balance/knowing your role, but only if the team (recognizing that sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts) is talented enough to be (or become) legitimately competitive for an NBA championship.

I don't think the current Raptors roster is that talented, so improving the overall talent should still be MU's top priority. Obviously incorporating internal growth, chemistry, fit, balance and clearly defined (and accepted) roles, should go hand-in-hand with talent acquisition and development. It was just the idea that the current roster should be left as is, simply because of the positive chemistry they have (despite being a mid-tier team at best), that I failed to understand or agree with.

Everyone in the NBA has "talent." Obviously some are more talented than others (which you usually see earlier in drafts as they get drafted earlier because of their talent/potential/upside). NOBODY is saying to leave the team as is. I think we all accept that there must be some changes (for example Salmons/Byucks/Stone/Hayes/Novak could all be replaced and no one would really care NOR do i think it would destroy the team chemistry).

I think the discussion was reflecting on what happened to the Pacers (same team went from #1 contender to struggling to hold on to the top spot and then struggling to defeat the #8th seed). They won 6 out of their final 15 regular season games. Their chemistry obviously took a big hit and they reportedly had locker room issues after the trade with Philadelphia.

I personally think your 3rd choice above is just ridiculous as we know that most if not everyone in the NBA has talent. I don't think a 3rd choice actually really exists. So therefore i would pick number one. Talent + Chemistry/Fit is VERY important to successful teams. I actually think this Raptors team has a lot of talent (Lowry, Demar, TRoss, JV, Amir, GV, Patterson are all talented players in my opinion).....but obviously that's just my opinion and your entitled to yours.

Would i like to add to the talent of this team? (YES). Should we bring in talent that could mess with the current team chemistry/identity? (NO). I think most posters may agree or disagree, but would understand the logic.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Everyone in the NBA has "talent." Obviously some are more talented than others (which you usually see earlier in drafts as they get drafted earlier because of their talent/potential/upside). NOBODY is saying to leave the team as is. I think we all accept that there must be some changes (for example Salmons/Byucks/Stone/Hayes/Novak could all be replaced and no one would really care NOR do i think it would destroy the team chemistry).

I think the discussion was reflecting on what happened to the Pacers (same team went from #1 contender to struggling to hold on to the top spot and then struggling to defeat the #8th seed). They won 6 out of their final 15 regular season games. Their chemistry obviously took a big hit and they reportedly had locker room issues after the trade with Philadelphia.

I personally think your 3rd choice above is just ridiculous as we know that most if not everyone in the NBA has talent. I don't think a 3rd choice actually really exists. So therefore i would pick number one. Talent + Chemistry/Fit is VERY important to successful teams. I actually think this Raptors team has a lot of talent (Lowry, Demar, TRoss, JV, Amir, GV, Patterson are all talented players in my opinion).....but obviously that's just my opinion and your entitled to yours.

Would i like to add to the talent of this team? (YES). Should we bring in talent that could mess with the current team chemistry/identity? (NO). I think most posters may agree or disagree, but would understand the logic.

Well the OP was suggesting the core be left intact, which I took to mean the primary 10 rotation players (at least the main 7-8). I think that would be a terrible mistake. Obviously the current core players have talent, but I don't believe they are talented enough to be (or become) more than a 2nd round playoff team, which is why I would argue that the overall talent level of the core roster needs to be upgraded.

Everybody seems to be in agreement that chemistry is an integral part of successful team building.

I suppose there are 2 main points of disagreement:
1. the current Raptors core is or could become (through organic growth only) a legitimate title contender
2. the failure of the Pacers was entirely a result of chemistry being negatively impacted, due primarily to the Granger trade

If you agree with either of those 2 points, then we absolutely disagree. Disagreement is fine, and lots of discussion/debate could be had about each point, but neither issue really has anything to do with 'talent VS chemistry' (which was the premise of the OP).

[stooley]

I think you get the most talented player that fits the team culture with our top pick.

That's how the Spurs have rolled and they're the most successful team in the past 17 years.

[TSF]

I think you get the most talented player that fits the team culture with our top pick.

That's how the Spurs have rolled and they're the most successful team in the past 17 years.

Well, that and EXCEPTIONAL player development. Kawhi didn't have a good shot when he came in. Danny Green met with one of their assistant coaches during summer league for 3 days/5 workouts. Popovich met with Richard Jefferson in the off-season when he came to the spurs to work out how his game could work in SA. George Hill's D and 3-point shooting were improve with their staff. Every player on the spurs roster has something to credit to that development help.

[e_wheazhy_]

Well the OP was suggesting the core be left intact, which I took to mean the primary 10 rotation players (at least the main 7-8). I think that would be a terrible mistake. Obviously the current core players have talent, but I don't believe they are talented enough to be (or become) more than a 2nd round playoff team, which is why I would argue that the overall talent level of the core roster needs to be upgraded.

Everybody seems to be in agreement that chemistry is an integral part of successful team building.

I suppose there are 2 main points of disagreement:
1. the current Raptors core is or could become (through organic growth only) a legitimate title contender
2. the failure of the Pacers was entirely a result of chemistry being negatively impacted, due primarily to the Granger trade

If you agree with either of those 2 points, then we absolutely disagree. Disagreement is fine, and lots of discussion/debate could be had about each point, but neither issue really has anything to do with 'talent VS chemistry' (which was the premise of the OP).

I agree with the OP though that we should keep the core intact (that being DD, Ross, JV, Kyle, PPat, Amir, Greivis) . The beauty of this raps team and the reason a lot of us have for being optimistic is that we have flotsam on the current roster on relatively bloated contracts (Novak, Landry, salmons, Chucky) and so once we get rid of them we have cap space to add some pretty good players. It's not like in the Colangelo era where the core had us capped out so much that keeping it intact would cripple us financially. This core can be kept intact while still chasing a max player! Who'd have ever thunk that?

Chemistry is definitely a big part of how well a team performs. If guys are in tune, not only will they play harder for each other, they'll move more, they'll know where each other is at all times (see the spurs ball movement as an example) and will be used to each other's cuts and know how to get the ball to the open man. Look at the spurs and pacers as (easy) examples of how chemistry impacts a team's performance, positively and negatively, respectively.


It doesn't necessarily mean it'll happen, but imagine this core with Love, or Durant (or both, which Matt Devlin will call Y2Kevin). I want to see these guys (DD, Kyle, Amir, etc.) win, and I want to see them win in Toronto.

[stooley]

Well, that and EXCEPTIONAL player development. Kawhi didn't have a good shot when he came in. Danny Green met with one of their assistant coaches during summer league for 3 days/5 workouts. Popovich met with Richard Jefferson in the off-season when he came to the spurs to work out how his game could work in SA. George Hill's D and 3-point shooting were improve with their staff. Every player on the spurs roster has something to credit to that development help.

Agreed.

But there's also an element in there of picking the right players that are humble, willing to work and mouldable (ie Spurs guys).

[yabadabayolo]

Agreed.

But there's also an element in there of picking the right players that are humble, willing to work and mouldable (ie Spurs guys).

Ie demar derozan

[stooley]

Ie demar derozan

Yep.

[Raptorsnz]

Well, that and EXCEPTIONAL player development. Kawhi didn't have a good shot when he came in. Danny Green met with one of their assistant coaches during summer league for 3 days/5 workouts. Popovich met with Richard Jefferson in the off-season when he came to the spurs to work out how his game could work in SA. George Hill's D and 3-point shooting were improve with their staff. Every player on the spurs roster has something to credit to that development help.

Good article on their shooting coach in case you haven't seen it:

http://grantland.com/features/the-shot-doctor/

[iblastoff]

I agree with the OP though that we should keep the core intact (that being DD, Ross, JV, Kyle, PPat, Amir, Greivis) . The beauty of this raps team and the reason a lot of us have for being optimistic is that we have flotsam on the current roster on relatively bloated contracts (Novak, Landry, salmons, Chucky) and so once we get rid of them we have cap space to add some pretty good players. It's not like in the Colangelo era where the core had us capped out so much that keeping it intact would cripple us financially. This core can be kept intact while still chasing a max player! Who'd have ever thunk that?

Chemistry is definitely a big part of how well a team performs. If guys are in tune, not only will they play harder for each other, they'll move more, they'll know where each other is at all times (see the spurs ball movement as an example) and will be used to each other's cuts and know how to get the ball to the open man. Look at the spurs and pacers as (easy) examples of how chemistry impacts a team's performance, positively and negatively, respectively.


It doesn't necessarily mean it'll happen, but imagine this core with Love, or Durant (or both, which Matt Devlin will call Y2Kevin). I want to see these guys (DD, Kyle, Amir, etc.) win, and I want to see them win in Toronto.

Where was the chemistry during the playoffs when we actually needed it? Random hero ball was pretty much the only reason we won 3 games against the nets. This core definitely isn't talented enough to make a serious splash.

[stooley]

Where was the chemistry during the playoffs when we actually needed it? Random hero ball was pretty much the only reason we won 3 games against the nets. This core definitely isn't talented enough to make a serious splash.

don't think I agree at all. a starting lineup that's played zero playoff minutes and who's average age is like 24 didn't play well, but still managed to push a super vet lineup to seven.

that's pretty good in my books