2460Re: Chemistry thoughts
- Oct 9, 2003One other thing, tying this and the Olympic quals together -- in
looking at the 2002 World's team that did so poorly, I believe that is
a team that struggled from lack of chemistry. Andre Miller and Paul
Pierce dominated the possessions (up over 30% of team possessions in
an all-star lineup?). Maybe it was because the low box guys weren't
big scorers, but I do think more effort should have been spent to get
those low post guys to look to score. I haven't done the full
calculations, but I'm guessing that that team could have been about
10% better offensively if they'd spread the ball around a bit more.
Harder to determine how chemistry would have impacted the defensive
side, but probably some because the big guys were decent defenders in
Wallace, O'Neal, and A. Davis (Brand suffers a little).
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...> wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
> <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
> > To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:39 PM
> > Subject: [APBR_analysis] Olympic Quals
> > >
> > > Has anyone done any statistical evaluation of the Olympic
> > > games this summer? I'd be curious how the NBA guys played, but
> > > how potential prospects from other countries looked.
> > >
> > > usabasketball.com has all the boxes...
> > >
> > Is that a hint? :-) I was looking at some of that stuff, off and
> on. I'll
> > post something this week.
> > BTW a question came up on one of the newsgroups about team
> chemistry, and
> > its usefulness as a concept for analysing team play. I seem to
> recall that
> > you looked at the matter. Do you have any thoughts?
> Some of my thoughts were in that Ramp Magazine article that just came
> out (though Ramp went belly up right afterward). Some quick thoughts:
> - It matters. Normally, it's only a few games a season, plus or
> minus. In rare occasions, it matters more than that. I think you
> can engineer chemistry more than teams have -- I think it can be
> worth more than a few games per season, but it rarely is implemented
> that way in the NBA (Larry Brown is very good at this).
> - What is chemistry? It can be a few things. The Ramp article
> talked about how well guys get along. That's one thing. I also
> think about how well guys fit together -- do their strengths
> compliment each other to neutralize each other's weaknesses? That's
> one I like looking at. A numerical example comes from methods of
> evaluation that show big men to be the best players. Why don't teams
> just stick 5 big guys on the floor? Well, because their other skills
> that aren't measured are blended together pretty well.
> - Chemistry in most people's minds means that the whole is greater
> than the sum of the parts. I've done some analysis of what this
> could mean. There are cases where the whole appears to be less than
> the sum of the parts. Chapter 19 in the book shows one case of
> chemistry and how you have to mix things right -- it's got a lot of
> numbers, but I don't explicitly mention "chemistry" here. I went
> back and forth about doing so and just felt like it gets in the way
> of the message.
> - Ramp's quote is illustrative, too. "[It's like pornography,] I
> know it when I see it." What we should do is look at cases where
> people have said that chemistry is important and see what is common
> among those cases.
> Those are quick thoughts. Gotta work...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>