Well like I said Chemistry is important. If you say it is more important in the regular season I would agree but the playoffs are a whole other ball game and I believe skill outplays chemistry in the playoffs.
I think this statement is completely unfair to everyone, posters, OKC, the Heat, etc. OKC lost to a better, more experienced team. Are you saying, Clyde, Porter, Buck, Kersey, Duck had bad chemistry?
Me and my two sons have great chemistry, but we'd lose 100000000000000 to 0 against 3 NBA players who have never met each other
Funny the Pacers seem to be doing just fine with Nates system this year. http://www.indystar.com/article/20130713/SPORTS15/307130041/
I can see the value in this thinking, but if some deal came along that clearly fit and made them better in the long-term, then Olshey can't afford to be sentimental.
Ok. the Plumlee's vs Lebron, Durant and Paul. Talent and skill always beat chemistry. If two equally talented teams were playing, chemistry would make a difference though.
I don’t think we can tell how good chemistry actually is. I suppose we can tell if its bad, when players demand trades and publicly complain about roles. But we see players through a PR lens. Players are obviously more happy when winning and sad when losing. At the start of the 2011-12 season in training camp the Blazers talked about how great the chemistry was and it felt like a college atmosphere and all the players enjoyed one another. They got off to a 7-2 start. “Chemistry” was great then. When the team was getting blown out and players quit on Nate “chemistry” was terrible.
good article breaking all of it down here: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-t...f-offensive-rebounding-and-transition-defense Relevant part: The Pacers obviously aren’t worried. When Brian Shaw left to coach the Nuggets, Indiana hired Nate McMillan to work as Vogel’s lead assistant. McMillan’s Portland teams were the proto-Pacers — monsters on the offensive glass and in fast-break prevention. Both coaches have strict rules in place designed to ensure three players chase after every miss, they say. If both big men are in the paint, Vogel expects them to pursue offensive rebounds. The third player will be a wing, typically the guy hanging out on the weak side along the baseline, Vogel says. Paul George has the size to be a solid offensive rebounder, and Stephenson brings a desirable combination of athleticism, anticipation, and a lunatic willingness to toss his body around. (Note: This hasn’t yet resulted in either player recording above-average offensive rebounding rates for their position, but Vogel is confident that could change.) The other wing has to scramble back immediately upon the release of a Pacers shot, Vogel says. George Hill does the same, unless a given set play has him positioned along the baseline. There are sub-rules. If David West shoots a 20-footer on the pick-and-pop, he’s supposed to get back on defense instead of chasing his miss; a second wing is then allowed to take West’s spot in the crashing hierarchy. And there are techniques, McMillan says. Modern NBA offenses often space the floor by having a shooter in each corner, and under the Vogel-McMillan system, one of those guys is supposed to hit the glass. But that player cannot just take a straight-line path along the baseline, McMillan says. Instead, he should loop from the corner up toward the foul line when a teammate shoots, and once along that path, decide midway whether he’s got a shot at the offensive board. Following that curl pattern ensures the player will have already started retreating back on defense in case the rebound goes elsewhere, or if the player concludes he has no chance at it, McMillan says. Scrambling along the baseline would leave that player way behind the action. Vogel and McMillan have rarely altered these principles, not even against LeBron's Heat or the Steve Nash–era Seven Seconds or Less Suns. Both believe having more players crashing the offensive glass might actually make their team’s transition defense better. If opponents know the Pacers are going to chase boards like maniacs, those opponents can’t start leaking out for fast breaks, the coaches say. “We always felt like if we were putting pressure on opponents to box us out,” McMillan recalls, “then they couldn’t get out and run.”
McMillan has Brian Shaws job from last year, he's assistant head coach. From everything I've read he's had a large part in their offensive schemes this year. I found another article, this one from before the season http://www.indysportslegends.com/2013/10/27/pacers-preview-five-big-questions-blue-gold/ 4. What about those turnovers – and that offense? Last season the Pacers amassed the league’s second-highest turnover ratio and finished below the league average in offensive efficiency, which means the impact of associate head coach Nate McMillan can’t be understated. McMillan has a history of coaching up offenses, and usually the performance rises significantly in the first year. In 2001-02, he took Seattle from a bottom-half turnover rate into the top 10, while adding 3.2 points per 100 possessions to the Sonics’ offense. When McMillan accepted Portland’s head coaching position in 2005, he inherited a brutal team with a shockingly high turnover rate – second-highest in the game – and serious scoring woes. In Year 1, he cut a turnover per 100 possessions off the ledger, and by Year 3, Portland had the sixth-lowest turnover ratio and an offense ranked in the top half of the NBA. Over McMillan’s last three full seasons as a head coach, Portland finished second, seventh and 11th in offensive efficiency, and eighth, second and fifth in turnover ratio. Clearly, his mission now as an assistant with the Pacers is to help get the best out of their offensive weapons, and he should do well. Last year, some things didn’t look right, but McMillan will give Indiana ways of avoiding turnovers.
I'm glad you brought this up. Now Clyde, Porter, Buck, Kersey, Duck and so forth did have great chemistry but I bet you Clyde, Porter, Cliff?, Barkley and Duck would have had a much better chance at a tittle.
