Dennis Rodman illustrates that off-court chemistry is worthless.

Here's Rodman's opening statement from that interview:

"Well, I think it was important, I thought it was important for me to go in there and win. Y'know, it wasn't, uh, I don’t have a job to speak to people. My job is to collate and understand how people work and do my thing. And make people believe in the fact that you belong there. Y'know, talking to people will come, relating to people will come. If they see you performing, and doing your job, and being with the group. That’s all I want, that's all I want. I don't [clearing throat] me and Scottie, we're cool; me and Scottie, we’re cool today. Y'know, we’re a little older, we're a little wiser; we’re cool today. I mean me and Scottie [stammering] me and Scottie and Michael never had a conversation in three years in Chicago. Only time we had a conversation was on the court. And that was it. And nobody believes that [laughing] ..."

Strong evidence from a ring wearing Basketball Hall of Famer, "The Worm," that off-court chemistry has got no value whatsoever. Yet, even with his first-hand account that dismisses off-court chemistry as nauseating drivel, countless people will still mawkishly cling to the hokey sentiment that such a meaningless intangible is worth something. I'm sorry, folks, but off-court chemistry is a hollow concept that's got nothing to do with winning in basketball. Nothing at all. What truly matters is on-court cohesion, which that trio had in spades.

8 months ago AK1984 36 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Pshhhhhh

Shaq and Kobe LOVED each other! That’s why they won 3 titles.

by hoodieNation on Sep 23, 2011 3:59 AM PDT reply actions

filed under: hobby horses

i keep dancing on my own.

by atomiccafe on Sep 23, 2011 6:07 AM PDT reply actions

sub-folder "hickory dick"

Me after hearing of a Rudy Hardwood Classic Jersey going for $45:"Take the "RNANDEZ" part off....and sew on a "LTON and you are good to go"."

by 92wastheyear on Sep 23, 2011 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions

Sure, it may be a fixation of mine. Just a scant one, though.

Still, I must say that I concentrate on this topic and hammer away not ‘cause I’m enamored with the subject.

On the contrary, my preoccupation is to push back — and push back hard — against the multitude of people who overemphasize the role of camaraderie in sports.

All told, I’m a polemicist of sorts when it comes to this matter.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 23, 2011 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions

When players are at this level, they shouldn't need camaraderie.

The drive to win should propel them toward the same goal. At lesser levels, I think it is more important.

All of the sports teams that came out of my class at Inavale Elementary in rural Benton County were very good, and not because we were stocked with talent. It was more or less the same 25 kids from K-5, and we all knew each other well enough on and off the field to understand each other’s limitations.

We had the fat kid that had no cardio but took up a lot of space, and thus was a great obstacle to run around in soccer; we had the tall, skinny kid that couldn’t throw, catch, shoot or kick, but he could fly, and was a decent passer. Then there was me, the short kid who always played tough defense, but choked under pressure.

There were no try-outs, and everybody played the two sports on offer: baseball and soccer. Our soccer team was undefeated (including the five aside tournament that we won every year), and in 5th grade we were 5th in the state in baseball, taking home the sportsmanship trophy as well.

The whole was greater than the sum of its parts because we had grown up together.

Doers & Makers > Movers & Shakers

by Adam Randall on Sep 23, 2011 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions

"At lesser levels, I think it is more important."

That I likely agree with, but it’s impossible to measure.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 23, 2011 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions

A lack of off-court chemistry isn't a problem

But, bad off-court chemistry can lead to big problems. Gilbert Arenas’ gun ordeal is exhibit A.

i like it here, there, everywhere.

by Name's Ash on Sep 23, 2011 8:21 AM PDT reply actions

True, an employer cannot tolerate co-workers engaging in dangerous antics like that at the workplace.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 23, 2011 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions

What really matters to winning

you mean. People still want to know that the players they’re fans of arn’t anti-social jerks.

by moflow on Sep 23, 2011 9:07 AM PDT reply actions

Dennis Rodman isn't antisocial; rather, he's asocial.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 23, 2011 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions

On the other hand . . .

A couple of weeks ago, the OKC Thunder players got together on their own for an unofficial voluntary minicamp. Sorry, but I can’t write this kind of stuff off as worthless. Those guys are committed to each other, and it shows on the court. I wish the Blazers were doing this sort of thing.

Many people are unwilling to write this stuff off as hokey and hollow because it reflects our own work experiences. When I’ve felt good about the group of people I’m working with, I’ve given 110% and have gone out of my way to make my colleagues look good.

by Corvid on Sep 23, 2011 9:21 AM PDT reply actions

on the other hand, Aaron Rodgers:

“I’ve just got to ask myself, ‘What would have happened if we had offseason workouts? Could we have started any faster and scored more points tonight?’”

i keep dancing on my own.

by atomiccafe on Sep 23, 2011 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions

I was so glad when Aaron Rodgers shut Skip Bayless up.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 23, 2011 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions

Fact is that our guys did do this for a number of years

Then it was decided that it should be cut back or curtailed to save some miles for the regular season and playoffs (as I recall)

Me after hearing of a Rudy Hardwood Classic Jersey going for $45:"Take the "RNANDEZ" part off....and sew on a "LTON and you are good to go"."

by 92wastheyear on Sep 23, 2011 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions

What have the Oklahoma City Thunder won again?

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 23, 2011 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions

The hearts and minds of the national media and league office?

Who's that tromping across my bedge?

by Troll Blazer on Sep 23, 2011 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions

yes to both

by hoodieNation on Sep 23, 2011 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Off court chemistry isn't worthless

I don’t think this example supports this premise. In this case, the team’s overwhelming talent makes off-court chemistry a non-issue. For teams without three hall-of-famers in their primes, chemistry could matter. On-court chemistry obviously is more important, but off-court chemistry obviously can contribute to game chemistry. You don’t NEED it, necessarily, but it is not worthless.

by byronirvin on Sep 23, 2011 10:11 AM PDT reply actions 4 recs

To your credit, that's a very measured response.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 23, 2011 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions

hmmm

I wonder about the Pistons team that defeated the Lakers with Kobe, Shaq, Payton and Malone. What was their off-court chemistry?

i like it here, there, everywhere.

by Name's Ash on Sep 23, 2011 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions

Probably better than most teams, but the reason they still won it all was due to defense.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 23, 2011 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions

I think that's well said.

"The game was delayed for over 15 minutes with 5:07 left in the second quarter after France's Nicolas Batum, who plays for the Portland Trail Blazers, dunked and twisted the rim. Volunteers and officials scrambled to put a new rim on the basket and reattach a net."

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/olybb/news/story?id=5509394

by ratbastird on Sep 23, 2011 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions

I’m just not a believer that teammates liking each other matters much at all. Maybe very very slightly, but not nearly as much as talent or individual work ethic.

long live the jd.

by jksnake99 on Sep 23, 2011 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions

This does not prove that off-court chemistry is worthless, just unnecessary in some cases.

Who's that tromping across my bedge?

by Troll Blazer on Sep 23, 2011 12:19 PM PDT reply actions

Yeah, "unnecessary" is probably the right word.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 23, 2011 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm OK with "unnecessary"

But that’s a long way from “nauseating drivel,” “hokey sentiment,” “meaningless intangible,” and “hollow concept.” That kind of rhetoric is borderline insulting.

by Corvid on Sep 23, 2011 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Yeah, I used charged language there. I don't deny that, either. For me, it comes with the territory.

As I wrote before, I’m a polemicist of sorts on this topic. Devil’s advocate is a role that must be filled by someone, and that someone is me.

It shouldn’t be “insulting” if you can see through the words to find the core message, which I’m sure you can.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 23, 2011 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions

Oh, and before you or anyone else asks the inevitable question of "Why?" regarding my use of ...

charged language and swollen rhetoric, I’ll answer it in advance: I do it to grab the reader’s attention, get my point across, and leave a lasting impression.

It works, too.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 23, 2011 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions

don't forget the additional benefit

The ability instantly recognize and dismiss any of your future posts

Me after hearing of a Rudy Hardwood Classic Jersey going for $45:"Take the "RNANDEZ" part off....and sew on a "LTON and you are good to go"."

by 92wastheyear on Sep 24, 2011 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

Duh, I don't appeal to everyone.

But hey, that’s okay. I’m satisfied with my niche.

As the ol’ sayin’ goes, no single person can please 100% of the people 100% of the time.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 24, 2011 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions

+1

rec’d for awesomeness

by vullkem116 on Sep 25, 2011 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions

As I've always said, you can take it or leave it.

I’m sure as heck going to put it on the table, though.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 25, 2011 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions

I keep flip flopping on my opinion of this subject

I was thinking I’d rather have a team that hates each other and wins than a team that gets along and doesn’t. But then I just realized winning is never guaranteed . As a fan I want a team of good guys that like each other and find a way to win. I’d enjoy one victory from such a team over 5 from a team full of Heat/Laker players.

by hoodieNation on Sep 23, 2011 12:22 PM PDT reply actions

Not tightly bound relationships.

Good off court chemistry does not necessarily result in good on court chemistry.
Bad off court chemistry does not necessarily result in bad off court chemistry.
Good off court chemistry CAN facilitate good on court chemistry and probably never (or at least rarely) results in bad on court chemistry.
Bad off court chemistry CAN be a significant factor in bad on court chemistry and is rarely a significant factor in good on court facility.
Given a choice, I’d choose good off court chemistry, but I wouldn’t make it the top priority.

by LaughingJon on Sep 23, 2011 4:35 PM PDT reply actions

All other things being equal

I would rather my team have off-court chemistry than not.

The point that people overrate off-court chemistry is extremely valid.

Professionalism is a related quality that is much more important. Even bad chemistry can be overcome if the players have the professionalism to leave it behind when they come to work.

\\\oo///
<
\__/

by NCBlazerfan on Sep 24, 2011 10:48 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs