Great Insight from KP today

by ppilot on Jan 4, 2008 4:26 PM PST Comment 21 comments

During the interview with the fan today. He said plan like crazy during the summer and make whatever moves you want before the season. Then let your team gel together during season which is something from the Spurs organization.

It sounds relatively simple but it is something that has worked wonders. Too often teams trying to reach that next step try to rush the development cycle and end up making a move that costs them in the long run (see Tyson Chandler). I think the Bulls had a great chance to become a long term contender in the East, but they got impatient and all of a sudden things don't look so hot.

It's a good day to be a blazer fan

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Tyson Chandler

I think this a hindsight is 20-20 situation. Chandler was constantly injured and trending down statistics wise in his last year in Chicago.

I cant really think of a good example of a guy who was trending upward every year that was given up on. Jermaine O'neal maybe, Desagana Diop? Drazen Petrovic?

I am sure someone will come up with a wicked good list of players.

by jonestr on Jan 4, 2008 4:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Tell that to the Warriors ...

whose trade last year vaulted them into the playoffs.

However, it's clear that trade was made early enough so the new team still had time to gel.

I don't disagree with the philosophy, I'd just say it shouldn't be a hard and fast rule. It depends on the team and on the situation.

by bfan on Jan 4, 2008 4:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Short Term Results

The Warriors are always going to be the that team barely makes the playoffs. . Allen Iverson made the Nuggets better, but they are in no position to make a championship run. The best exception I know of is the Rasheed Wallace trade. Other than that, it is hard to argue with the results of the Spurs

by ppilot on Jan 4, 2008 5:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

chemistry... yuck

I'm pretty quick to dismiss all the babbling about chemistry because when it domes down to it, teams that win are ones with players that make shots and keep opponents from making them. What does that have to do with Steve Blake throwing a chair or Joel and Martell's emotional involvement. That stuff is cheesey at best, and actually feels pretty weird when you step back and think about it.

by little joey on Jan 4, 2008 4:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Chemistry is very important

thus why military theory values it so much. Camaraderie, espirit de corps, teamwork, synergy, the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts, etc,etc.

Corporate America also values chemistry, especially places like Google who go out of their way to keep workers happy.

Happy people are more productive in general.

Blazer's fan since '84, Currently exiled in Tennessee and North Carolina

by HurraKane212 on Jan 4, 2008 5:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm curious

Has Army, Navy or the Air Force Academy ever won an NCAA tournament?

by Jumbo on Jan 4, 2008 5:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No.. they win where the stakes are far higher

Wars. REAL wars, not "the Pistons and Lakers are really going to war tonight" wars-as-metaphors.

Of course, morale is more highly regarded in theory and actual practice. The US military and political establishment frequently finds numerous and sundry ways to undermine the role of military personnel--everything from political infighting, to poor strategic and logistical decisions, to undertaking military ventures which are of a questionable nature to being with. So there. :)

by EngineerScotty on Jan 4, 2008 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Shoots

I so wanted to reply this but it would have taken this thread way way off topic. I wasn't even going to bring up Iraq.

I was in the Navy and you should take them off that list. If my CO and a variety of other officers were standing next to Osama and I had a gun, I would hope to have more than one bullet.

"When you're pushed... Killing's as easy as breathing." - Josh "Rambo" McRoberts

by tominhawaii on Jan 4, 2008 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sports vs Wars

A friend of mine had a letter published in The Economist saying that Argentina and Great Brittain should settle their differences about the Falkands Islands (Islas Malvinas) with a football match.

Sports is something so much better than war that I hate to see people comparing the two. One is about greatness, working together, the sum of all parts. The other is about... yikes.

by little joey on Jan 4, 2008 10:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Win streak?

How many wars have we won in a row?

by Jumbo on Jan 7, 2008 5:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure if that was their #1 aim they could make

a run at it.

My ignorance is my greatest weapon

by shenanigans on Jan 4, 2008 6:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Off topic, I guess...

But the military and corporate America are two of the things I detest the most.

Chemistry?

by little joey on Jan 4, 2008 10:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

c'mon dude, really?

All champions have chemistry... Spurs, Heat (had it, don't have it now), Pistons (for sure), L*kers (Shaq and Kobe kept it socially professional, but the rest of the team had tons of chemistry), Rockets, Bulls... these teams played on another level because they had chemistry. Even Kobe was just quoted as saying that the current L*kers squad is a brotherhood compared to the early decade team.

Can you smell what the Pritch is cooking?

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jan 4, 2008 8:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I gotta agree

I was listening to Joe Torre on Mike Tirico's podcast and Torre said "winning breeds chemistry" and he elaborated a little. Of all people, he would know.

"When you're pushed... Killing's as easy as breathing." - Josh "Rambo" McRoberts

by tominhawaii on Jan 4, 2008 9:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't he win some big game or something?

Can you smell what the Pritch is cooking?

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jan 4, 2008 9:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not for a while

But I'm pretty sure not everyone got alone on his teams and they still won, sometimes not it all but they all won a lot.

"When you're pushed... Killing's as easy as breathing." - Josh "Rambo" McRoberts

by tominhawaii on Jan 5, 2008 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Trader Bob.......Is that you?

by jferg on Jan 5, 2008 12:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't he win some big game or something?

Can you smell what the Pritch is cooking?

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jan 4, 2008 9:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

It was so good,

I had to write it twice.

Can you smell what the Pritch is cooking?

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jan 4, 2008 9:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If KP says the word culture one more time...

...I might barf. So pass the Pepto--I'll be needing it! Having said that, chemistry & culture are hard to quantify, but in the end they're as important as talent. Blazer fans--at least those old enough to remember the '77 team--should know that better than anyone. On paper, there was no way they should have been able to beat the '76ers in the Finals. In fact, they should have been swept.

If that's ancient history to you, look at what just happened. How in the world did the third youngest squad in NBA history just win 13 games in a row and 15 of 16? I'm sorry, but you have to use those "C-words" to explain it. When a team is meshing, they're greater than the sum of their parts. When they're not meshing, they're going to lose no matter how much talent they've stockpiled.

Someone used Joe Torre's Yankees as proof that winning breeds chemistry, not vice versa. But didn't the Yankees just fail to even make it to the World Series despite having that monstrous payroll? Talent is great, but minus chemistry it's fool's gold.

"Ime caught the guy in mid-air with a fist and calmly continued his dispatching of oncoming people." -Gabe Muoneke

by hurryup09 on Jan 5, 2008 10:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Another point about the Yankees example

Baseball isn't basketball. Baseball--as others have pointed out--is an individual sport within a team sport. Basketball, on the other hand, is a team sport in every sense. A great hitter can get his numbers--and even win games for his team--when the rest of the team is playing poorly. But a great basketball player at the top of his game is going to lose, lose, lose on a weak team. Just look at Kevin Garnett's career in Minnesota.

Basketball has a lot in common with jazz improvisation or group comedy improv. It's all about the communication, trust, and interaction of the participants. You can go out and hire a team full of NBA all-stars and still lose if the guys don't mesh.

"Ime caught the guy in mid-air with a fist and calmly continued his dispatching of oncoming people." -Gabe Muoneke

by hurryup09 on Jan 5, 2008 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs