"Welcome to the era of chemacterility" Bill Simmons ESPN

[biba]

Welcome to the era of chemacterility
By Bill Simmons
Page 2 January 2, 2008
This article is taken from the Jan. 14. issue of ESPN The Magazine.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080102&sportCat=nba


Remember right after "Moneyball" was published, when baseball execs began to embrace the logic of, "Hey, if we put together a lineup of high-OBP hitters, we might score more runs," and everyone else was like, "Wait, that's obvious -- why didn't they always do this?"

I don't want to jinx it, but we may have reached a similar tipping point in the NBA. If you're a hoops fan, you should be delighted. If you're Spurs coach Gregg Popovich or GM R.C. Buford, you should be miserable. If you're Ricky Davis' agent, you should resign before he becomes a free agent this summer. If you're a sarcastic sportswriter who loves making fun of bad GMs, you should be in mourning. (Note: I'm writing this column dressed all in black.) And if you're a Knicks or a Heat fan, throw down two shots and hit yourself in the head before reading on.

Here's the new mantra for savvy NBA teams: "Chemacterility." Why haven't you heard the term before? Because I just made it up. But it's an amalgam of three concepts that have formed the foundation of the Duncan Era in San Antonio: chemistry, character and (cap) flexibility. As soon as Duncan arrived, in 1997, Popovich and Buford began to avoid bad guys and bad contracts, preferring role players, quality guys and short-term deals. They're so fanatic about chemistry that when Luis Scola jumped to the NBA this summer, they traded his rights, partly because they weren't sure he could adjust from being a star in Spain to being a supporting player here. They didn't even want to take the chance he'd screw them up!

Even though the Spurs have won four titles with Duncan, for whatever reason, every other GM except Detroit's Joe Dumars has continually refused to emulate them. But that changed this summer. Sure, Danny Ainge revamped the Celtics by acquiring Ray Allen and KG, but the rest of his game plan has been equally important to the team's early success, and it hasn't received nearly enough fanfare. He filled a depleted roster with unselfish, high-character guys like Eddie House, James Posey and Scot Pollard and refused to pursue any moody vets. Thanks but no thanks, GP and Troy Hudson!

Much has been made of Boston's team slogan -- "Ubuntu," an African word meaning unity -- but you need to attend a Celtics game to understand why they're on pace for 139 wins this season. In the layup lines, everyone is high-fiving and joshing. Before the opening tip, Posey greets each starter with a prolonged man-hug and inspirational words. The nightly sequence might hark back uncomfortably to Rocky and Apollo's beach snuggle, but it works. During games, bench players stand and cheer as if they're being coached by Mark Madsen. In garbage time, the starters root just as passionately for the scrubs.

These guys eat dinner, hang out, work out and play video games together. They don't care about stats, acclaim, shots or minutes. It's a team in every sense. Even better, Boston's future is protected for years to come: Allen's contract expires in 2010, Pierce's in 2011, KG's in 2012. The Celtics are good, and they will continue to be good. What more can you ask for? When you can mix talent with chemacterility, you have something substantial.

Now, if you're a Blazers fan, you're thinking, Wait, that sounds familiar! After enduring the debilitating Jail Blazers Era, the locals despised the team so much that Portland's suits targeted chemistry guys out of self-preservation. Quite simply, Blazers fans needed to like the team again or the franchise was going to be run out of town. When the Blazers spent a 2005 lottery pick on Martell Webster, then-GM John Nash defended the reach pick by telling ESPN, "We think we took an outstanding young man. He's a terrific character, somebody that the community of Portland can be proud of." Was he drafting a councilman or a shooting guard?

That mind-set led Portland to Jarrett Jack, Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge. It also convinced them to give away Zach Randolph for Steve Francis and Channing Frye, then to buy out Francis, the world-class sulker, for $30 million, nipping any chance he'd contaminate the kids. Maybe those last two moves seem like an over- reaction -- you don't just give away 20/10 guys, right? -- but their devotion to cleaning house was admirable, and smart. (Note: Sure, Darius Miles still lurks. But when he's done rehabbing his knee, he'll surely be looking at a Francis-like buyout. Well, unless they can trade him or frame him for something. After that win streak in December, it's clear that keeping Miles makes as much sense for the Blazers as replacing Zac Efron with Pacman Jones for High School Musical 3 would for Disney.)

Although their initial rebuilding plan centered on creating cap space after 2009 and stockpiling enough assets to swing a KG-like deal, the Blazers sped things up this season by becoming the poster boys for chemacterility. They've also left the average NBA fan perplexed. After all, Boston's resurgence makes sense because they have three All-Stars; the Blazers have one emerging star (Roy) leading a mishmashed collection of youngsters and role players. They're a good raw team, but 13-in-a-row good? Without Oden? After they thumped a more talented Raptors team on Dec. 19, Jason Kapono told reporters, "Their chemistry is so good right now, and that's so hard to deal with."

Have you ever heard anyone blame the other team's chemistry for a loss? Me neither. Clearly the Blazers have stumbled onto something. On the flip side, look at the ongoing catastrophe in Miami. Poor D-Wade looks like Will Smith trying to carry I, Robot: His supporting cast stinks, and the script sucks. Who'd blame him if he were thinking about his next movie? Shaq's monster contract killed their cap through 2010, which would be fine if he hadn't developed rigor mortis over the summer. Even worse, Posey was allowed to leave, and the team violated chemacterility Rules 1 through 23 by trading for Davis and Mark Blount. That made about as much sense as holding practice next to a leaking nuclear reactor.

(Last note, I promise: Yes, I know, Miami looks like San Antonio South compared with the damage Isiah Thomas has inflicted on the Knicks. As a belated holiday gift to New Yorkers, I'll skip the gory details. Just know that Isiah is to chemacterility what the Saw series is to wholesome family comedy.)

Regardless, Popovich and the Blazers' Kevin Pritchard have to be cringing. Their secret is out: Talent and chemistry go hand in hand. Will we ever see a team willingly trade for Davis or Blount again or sign a knucklehead like Randolph to an $86 million extension? Sure. There will always be desperate GMs. But I expect more teams to copy the Celtics and Blazers with shrewder signings, more short-term deals and a higher premium on character.

So welcome to the era of chemacterility. Who knows? Brian Scalabrine's five-year, $15 million deal might seem reasonable someday. (I lied: Okay, that's a stretch.)

Bill Simmons is a columnist for Page 2 and ESPN The Magazine. His book "Now I Can Die In Peace" is available in paperback.

[urunobili]

Good article... he should have also added where Portland GM's philosophy comes from more emphatically and that the Spurs have been feeding the whole leave with FO personnel the last 7 years...

[Extra Stout]

Is it just me, or is the non-Bill Simmons national media paying surprisingly little attention to the Celtics, given that they are a major-market team on pace to go 73-9, with a record-shattering +13 point differential?

I'd always wondered how much differently the Spurs would be regarded if the name on the jersey said "CELTICS" rather than "SPURS." Well, now there is a team-oriented defensive leviathan in Boston built around three stars and a bunch of role players, who all eschew drama in favor of winning, and they're not getting that much attention either. The top five stories in the NBA this year have been:

1) Kobe drama in LA!
2) The Bulls suck! Will they trade for Kobe?
3) The Knicks suck! Will Isiah be disemboweled by an angry mob?
4) Look how pretty the Suns still are!
5) The Heat suck!

I must say I'm surprised. I thought the prevailing dynamic was that major-market teams were held in higher regard. But the Celtics are disproving this.

[Extra Stout]

The underlying point is, if all NBA teams follow the Spurs model and build 30 team-oriented, drama-free fundamentally-sound organizations that exemplify everything sports should be about, would that kill the NBA?

[K-State Spur]

he lost me at Posey = high character guy....

[Tippecanoe]

:lmao @

high-character guys like...Scot Pollard

other than that, GREAT article :tu

[MoSpur]

I think the Spurs not bringing in Scola had more to do with $$$ than with chemistry.

[lefty]

During games, bench players stand and cheer as if they're being coached by Mark Madsen.

:lmao

[Holt's Cat]

It's interesting how an article about the Spurs ends up being a marathon Celtics fellatio fest. Oh wait, it's Simmons...

[Tek_XX]

Spurs win because of defense, which the NBA will never encourage. Yea and also good guys and good contracts.

[TwoHandJam]

Since when have Ray Allen and Paul Pierce become high character guys? Even KG has had some pretty unflattering moments on the court.

[smeagol]

Since when have Ray Allen and Paul Pierce become high character guys? Even KG has had some pretty unflattering moments on the court.

The rookie-punching incident :smokin

[Mitch Cumsteen]

Stupid article. You win in the NBA with talent. Always have, always will. The Spurs could have the best chemistry, character and cap flexibility in the world, but they aren't going to do shit in the playoffs without Tim Duncan. Same with Boston without KG. Obviously you need good and unselfish role players to compliment the talent, but when has that not been true?

[urunobili]

so... what happened?
i believe KG sucker punched Timmy on his first playoff series against the Wolves... i posted a video about this in an old thread... :pctoss

[Extra Stout]

Stupid article. You win in the NBA with talent. Always have, always will. The Spurs could have the best chemistry, character and cap flexibility in the world, but they aren't going to do shit in the playoffs without Tim Duncan. Same with Boston without KG. Obviously you need good and unselfish role players to compliment the talent, but when has that not been true?
The Spurs have not been the most talented team in the league in any of their championship runs.

[remingtonbo2001]

so... what happened?

I'm not sure that's what is being referred to.

KG was being schooled by a rookie in practice a few years back.

Everyone was doggin KG.

So KG went up and punched him right in the face, just cause some no-name rookie was out playing him.

The article is posted in the NBA chatroom somewhere. I'm sure someone has a link to it.

[Mitch Cumsteen]

The Spurs have not been the most talented team in the league in any of their championship runs.
Anytime you have Tim Duncan, you are not lacking for talent. He's consistently been the best player in the league for almost a decade now. He's the #1 reason the Spurs win rings. The same way that Jordan was the #1 reason that the Bulls won.

Don't delude yourself. It's all about talent.

[Extra Stout]

Anytime you have Tim Duncan, you are not lacking for talent. He's consistently been the best player in the league for almost a decade now. He's the #1 reason the Spurs win rings. The same way that Jordan was the #1 reason that the Bulls won.

Don't delude yourself. It's all about talent.
A fair amount of what makes Tim Duncan great is not sheer talent.

[Extra Stout]

The Detroit Pistons won the 2004 NBA championship. Does anybody want to tell me about their overwhelming superstar talent?

[Extra Stout]

I'm pretty sure the Spurs themselves would regard it as plainly obvious to the most casual observer that they are not the league's most talented team, and might mock anybody who suggested they were.

Frankly, I'm so perplexed that a Spurs fan would suggest that the Spurs' championships have come on account of their sheer physical talent, that I'm at a bit of a loss on how to respond. I took it as a given that we all understood how their selfless team play, commitment to defense, understanding of roles, and corporate knowledge allowed them to beat less disciplined and less experienced teams that had more sheer talent.

Furthermore, I'm at a loss to explain how somebody can take an explanation of the Spurs' philosophy and think it somehow is saying that Tim Duncan is not a legendary player. I'm at a loss how somebody can read the Simmons article, which clearly explains the tack Pop took after getting Tim Duncan, as saying that the Spurs' success somehow is not directly related to Duncan, as if they would have had the same success plugging Jerome James in there under Pop's system.

[tp2021]

Since when have Ray Allen and Paul Pierce become high character guys? Even KG has had some pretty unflattering moments on the court.

Paul Pierce ain't that bad...he didn't complain about being the only one who could do shit on his team, a la Kobe. And Ray...he did do a commercial for the WNBA.

[lrrr]

Skill is also a "talent", and it could also be argued that mastery of ones craft is a type of talent. Sure TD may not be the most physically talented individual, but he is the most skillful in the post and has mastered his craft. The only Spurs championship team that doesn't overwhelm with talent was the 2003 team, but Timmy was just so dominant he made up for it. 99 they had DRob and TD averaging 20/10. 2005 and 2007 they had the big 3. There was a LOT of talent there!

[Mitch Cumsteen]

The Detroit Pistons won the 2004 NBA championship. Does anybody want to tell me about their overwhelming superstar talent?You mean the same team that landed four players on the 2005 All-star team? They were clearly a bunch of no-talent scrubs.


Frankly, I'm so perplexed that a Spurs fan would suggest that the Spurs' championships have come on account of their sheer physical talent, I never said anything about "sheer physical talent". Clearly, you and I don't have the same definition of talent. If you're talking physical prowess, jumping ability, strength, speed, or whatever... then the Spurs are not the most "talented" team in the league. Shooting is a talent. Playing perimeter defense like Bruce Bowen does is a talent. Having testicles the size of truck tires like Manu Ginobili is a talent, I suppose. Check that. That one definitely falls under the auspices of physical prowess, but I digress. The only Spur that you can argue is physically dominant is probably Parker with his speed.


I'm at a loss how somebody can read the Simmons article, which clearly explains the tack Pop took after getting Tim Duncan, as saying that the Spurs' success somehow is not directly related to Duncan, as if they would have had the same success plugging Jerome James in there under Pop's system.That article wasn't about Duncan. Or the Spurs. That article was about Simmons fellating himself because the Celtics are suddenly good, and he attributes it to James Posey, Eddie House and Scott Pollard singing Kumbaya, and Danny Ainge's mastery of the salary cap despite them having the 5th highest payroll in the league. My point was that none of that crap matters unless you have talent like Garnett, Allen, and Pierce.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

James Dolan should hire Bill as his GM and give him a show on MSG network. Seriously.

The result would be either hilarious epic failure (ie. a continuation of the current Knicks' situation) or a better team in 2-3 years. Sounds like a win-win to me. :lol

[m33p0]

They're so fanatic about chemistry that when Luis Scola jumped to the NBA this summer, they traded his rights, partly because they weren't sure he could adjust from being a star in Spain to being a supporting player here. They didn't even want to take the chance he'd screw them up!
i've read that somewhere before. that's plagarism!

[m33p0]

I'm not sure that's what is being referred to.

KG was being schooled by a rookie in practice a few years back.

Everyone was doggin KG.

So KG went up and punched him right in the face, just cause some no-name rookie was out playing him.

The article is posted in the NBA chatroom somewhere. I'm sure someone has a link to it.

the poor rook needed to be stitched up. the punch caused a gash.

[m33p0]

i believe KG sucker punched Timmy on his first playoff series against the Wolves... i posted a video about this in an old thread... :pctoss
repost... give us the link.

[T Park]

Ray Allen does quite a bit of charity work.

If he wasn't such a jerkoff he'd be one of my favorite players.

I've never heard anything bad about Pierce so I can't really say.

Garnett is a good guy, hell he donated a million dollars to the famalies of Katrina.

Duncan didn't donate squat.

[ClingingMars]

Ray Allen does quite a bit of charity work.

If he wasn't such a jerkoff he'd be one of my favorite players.

I've never heard anything bad about Pierce so I can't really say.

Garnett is a good guy, hell he donated a million dollars to the famalies of Katrina.

Duncan didn't donate squat.

duncan makes wayyy less money

-Mars

[mikejones99]

KG got ejected from the state of south Carolina or Georgia, went to Chicago and the rest is history

[Kori Ellis]

repost... give us the link.

It was Rick Rickert in 04 who KG punched. He tapped Tim in the head, I believe, not punched him.

http://www.hoopscorner.com/archive/0304/september/september15_04.html

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

It was Rick Rickert in 04 who KG punched. He tapped Tim in the head, I believe, not punched him.

http://www.hoopscorner.com/archive/0304/september/september15_04.html
What a sore little bitch.

[Kori Ellis]

Garnett is a good guy, hell he donated a million dollars to the famalies of Katrina.

True. Well he donated the money to build one home a month for 2 years ($1.2 Million)



Duncan didn't donate squat.
... that the media knows about.

[m33p0]

It was Rick Rickert in 04 who KG punched. He tapped Tim in the head, I believe, not punched him.

http://www.hoopscorner.com/archive/0304/september/september15_04.html
not that one. i already knew about that one. the kg-duncan incident. i've never seen it.

[easjer]

not that one. i already knew about that one. the kg-duncan incident. i've never seen it.

It was in the first round of the playoffs in 99 - game 3 or 4. Very physical. That was the game that Mario Elie got the big gash over his eyebrow, where they had to stop the bleeding for him to take his free throws and then he had to leave the game and be stitched up, it was bleeding so bad. Following that, the players were all a little testy, and I remember DRob shoving someone off him, a crowd gathering and KG walking up and slapping Tim Duncan upside the head for no good or understandable reason, since he was not part of any altercation.

All stuff that if it had happened last year would have resulted in DRob, Duncan, KG and a few other players suspended. Boy have times changed.

[m33p0]

It was in the first round of the playoffs in 99 - game 3 or 4. Very physical. That was the game that Mario Elie got the big gash over his eyebrow, where they had to stop the bleeding for him to take his free throws and then he had to leave the game and be stitched up, it was bleeding so bad. Following that, the players were all a little testy, and I remember DRob shoving someone off him, a crowd gathering and KG walking up and slapping Tim Duncan upside the head for no good or understandable reason, since he was not part of any altercation.

All stuff that if it had happened last year would have resulted in DRob, Duncan, KG and a few other players suspended. Boy have times changed.

only a mention and no videos of the incident from the sites i've searched so far. damn. thanks.

[TwoHandJam]

Stupid article. You win in the NBA with talent. Always have, always will. The Spurs could have the best chemistry, character and cap flexibility in the world, but they aren't going to do shit in the playoffs without Tim Duncan. Same with Boston without KG. Obviously you need good and unselfish role players to compliment the talent, but when has that not been true?
Not a stupid article at all imo. You can't claim that you win in the NBA with talent period because it just isn't true. Every player in the NBA is talented otherwise they wouldn't be in the NBA but you can't just lump talent together and expect them to be champions. Jordan himself said it best when he said "Talent wins games but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."

You pretty much said the same thing yourself with the huge qualifier that is the last sentence in your post.

Obviously you need good and unselfish role players to compliment the talent
To that I would add that your talent also needs to be unselfish and trust the role players when teams try to take them out of the game. It may seem obvious to you but it's not obvious to a lot of GMs and it certainly isn't easy to achieve even if you know you should strive for it. That was the gist of the article. Sure you need talent but you don't necessarily need superstar talent or even multiple all-star talent as evidenced by the recent olympics.

Walt Frazier (The Game Within The Game) said "A team that plays unselfish, old-school basketball and has moderate talent will always beat a team with one or two superstars trying to win the game on their own." Makes sense to me and the current state of the NBA seems to bear this out.

Too many GMs are trying to cobble together teams on talent alone with disasterous results. Talent is an important ingredient for championships but I wouldn't say it trumps chemistry and cohesiveness. You need all three to win at the highest levels.

[johngateswhiteley]

Is it just me, or is the non-Bill Simmons national media paying surprisingly little attention to the Celtics, given that they are a major-market team on pace to go 73-9, with a record-shattering +13 point differential?

I'd always wondered how much differently the Spurs would be regarded if the name on the jersey said "CELTICS" rather than "SPURS." Well, now there is a team-oriented defensive leviathan in Boston built around three stars and a bunch of role players, who all eschew drama in favor of winning, and they're not getting that much attention either. The top five stories in the NBA this year have been:

1) Kobe drama in LA!
2) The Bulls suck! Will they trade for Kobe?
3) The Knicks suck! Will Isiah be disemboweled by an angry mob?
4) Look how pretty the Suns still are!
5) The Heat suck!

I must say I'm surprised. I thought the prevailing dynamic was that major-market teams were held in higher regard. But the Celtics are disproving this.

its a good point, though i think the Celtics have been getting a fair amount of attention. i did notice that their coverage dropped off after losing to Detroit...and Boston hasn't beaten many good teams this year. some people might be cautious...

[Mark in Austin]

James Dolan should hire Bill as his GM and give him a show on MSG network. Seriously.

The result would be either hilarious epic failure (ie. a continuation of the current Knicks' situation) or a better team in 2-3 years. Sounds like a win-win to me. :lol

:tu

A reality show of Simmons as GM of the Knicks would be a hell of a lot more fun to watch than the Knicks this year. Who woulda thunk Knickfan would be yearning for the Layden years?

[ShoogarBear]

Is it just me, or is the non-Bill Simmons national media paying surprisingly little attention to the Celtics, given that they are a major-market team on pace to go 73-9, with a record-shattering +13 point differential?

I'd always wondered how much differently the Spurs would be regarded if the name on the jersey said "CELTICS" rather than "SPURS." Well, now there is a team-oriented defensive leviathan in Boston built around three stars and a bunch of role players, who all eschew drama in favor of winning, and they're not getting that much attention either. The top five stories in the NBA this year have been:

1) Kobe drama in LA!
2) The Bulls suck! Will they trade for Kobe?
3) The Knicks suck! Will Isiah be disemboweled by an angry mob?
4) Look how pretty the Suns still are!
5) The Heat suck!

I must say I'm surprised. I thought the prevailing dynamic was that major-market teams were held in higher regard. But the Celtics are disproving this.I disagree. I think the 2008 Celtics are the most hyped NBA team in years, approaching the status of the 2000s Lakers AFTER they won a title or two.

And it's only just started. Just wait until the NFL season is over.

You are right about Bill Simmons, though. According to that asshole, now that the Celtics are good, suddenly the NBA is saved. F off.

[itzsoweezee]

the lakers' three-peat destroys any argument this stupid article is trying to make. so does the heat championship.

and simmons' description of the scola fiasco proves he has no idea what he's talking about.

[JamStone]

The idea of the article is actually a good one, but the examples are not really congruent. A few points:

1. The Spurs and Pistons aren't constructed the same way. The Spurs still have one central superstar that they build their team around and a couple other players have developed into great players around him. The Pistons have been constructed with no clear superstar player but with above average players at every position so there is no huge weakness at any position. And, at least in perception, Rasheed Wallace is not a high character guy.

2. As some people already pointed out, James "flagrant foul" Posey is not a character guy and Scot "kids do drugs!" Pollard is not a character guy.

3. How does Boston have cap flexibility, the third part of this "chemacterility" notion, when their top three players currently take up 97% of their team's salary cap? That's not cap flexibility.

[Kermit]

Ray Allen does quite a bit of charity work.

If he wasn't such a jerkoff he'd be one of my favorite players.

I've never heard anything bad about Pierce so I can't really say.

Garnett is a good guy, hell he donated a million dollars to the famalies of Katrina.

Duncan didn't donate squat.

And how much did you give? Canned food doesn't count.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

The Spurs are the Spurs and the formula on which they are based will be difficult for anyone to copy. Duncan is basically the best team player of our era, and his modesty and approach to the game is not going to be repeated. Secondly, Manu and Tony were surprise superstars by NBA standards, with neither of them getting much hype prior to their ascent to stardom. I'm not sure international players like Parker and Ginobili will slip to the late first and second rounds very often anymore to help solidify the foundation of an already good team. Finally, as long as the Spurs are winning, decent veterans willing to buy into the system will want to join the team to round out the roster. Veteran guys trying to add a ring or two before retirement are pretty selective and only join an established winner. Up and coming teams usually don't snag those guys.

The Spurs are one of the established elite and should remain so as long as Duncan and at least one of the other two big three remain healthy.

Pop can rest easy.

[JamStone]

Chemistry and character are easy things when your team wins. That's why guys like Stephen Jackson, Antoine Walker, Jason Williams, Rasheed Wallace can be considered "good guys" on teams that win but lockerroom problems on teams that don't win.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I disagree. I think the 2008 Celtics are the most hyped NBA team in years, approaching the status of the 2000s Lakers AFTER they won a title or two.

And it's only just started. Just wait until the NFL season is over.

You are right about Bill Simmons, though. According to that asshole, now that the Celtics are good, suddenly the NBA is saved. F off.

I think you'll like this forum:

http://www.sonsofthesportsguy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1

[ShoogarBear]

I think you'll like this forum:

http://www.sonsofthesportsguy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1Holy crap! Now that's obsession!