Chemistry, do the Kings have it or not?

by jasonrp on Aug 19, 2009 1:31 PM PDT

Chemistry, from a statistical point of view, is one of the hardest terms to quantify. Either a team has it or they don't and many times you can't separate wins based on talent versus wins based on chemistry. When thinking about chemistry, one glaring question comes to my mind:

Is there any combination of logic and stats that reveals a team with chemistry versus one without chemistry?

After a little research and a little deductive reasoning I have come to the conclusion that chemistry can be calculated (after the fact, I don't think it can be predicted other than looking at trends.). My thinking goes something like this: If, on average, the home team wins 60% of their home games (actual number was 59.7% in 1994-95, I'm just going to assume that it stays similar from year to year) and that team chemistry is most apparent while a team is away from home because they only have each other to motivate them, then any team that is winning 60% or less of their home games compared to their total wins has good chemistry. Why or less? I think that if a team is winning more than 40% of their road games it is a good indicator of team chemistry. Conceivably, it is then possible for a bad team to have good chemistry and a talented team to have bad chemistry, both of which should be evident in the numbers.

To test my theory I compiled data from 5 teams (because doing them all would make a very crowded chart) the Kings, Spurs, Lakers, Clippers, and Hawks from the 1985-86 season through the 2008-09 season. I had no real reason behind choosing any of those teams, except the Kings when I started. I divided each teams home wins by their total wins to come up with a percentage. Remember that 60% and below is the golden area. So here is the chart:

And the data the chart was based on:

To explain the oddities in the system (1990-91 Kings, and 1996-97 Spurs) it occured to me that NBA teams might have an institutional memory that plays into team chemistry on the road. The 1990-91 Kings have a horrible 96% home win to total win rate. Why? Probably because there were 6 rookies on the team which destroyed any institutional memory that was building. On the opposite side of the coin, the 1996-97 Spurs were without the use of David Robinson and had a very bad record, yet they still managed to have a 60% home win to total win rate. To me this suggests that the institutional memory had built up in the Spurs and they were able to keep their chemistry, but were not able to compete due to lack of talent.

It also appears that this institutional memory amplifies over time. Those teams with a history of winning can not only weather a few loosing seasons with their chemistry relatively intact but they seem to be more likely to improve their chemistry over time by bring their home win to total win rate lower than 60%. Which makes sense because winning makes maintaining chemistry easier. You will also notice that the opposite is also true. Teams with a history of loosing tend to have the occasional season with winning records but their home win to total win rate, more often than not, doesn't improve to the 60% rate of a team with good chemistry. Take a look at the 1991-92 Lakers and Clippers. In this year, the Clippers ended with a better record than the Lakers. However, the Lakers home win to total win rate was a very good 55.81% while the Clippers was a lack luster 64.44%. To me this suggests that each squad wasn't just a product of that seasons, success or lack thereof, but that each had an institutional memory that influenced that season's chemistry.

What does this mean for the Kings? Well, after years of hovering near the 60% line the past two seasons have seen us jump up quite a bit in our home wins to total wins rate which means we need to fix our problems quick or we risk destroying the positive institutional memory we have built up. The good news is that this year was better than last year by 3.71% so a similar improvement next year could have us very near that 60% mark, then we will only have to worry about talent development.

Looking in to this has made me wonder other things along this line, like do players carry some of the institutional memory with them when they join a new team? If so, for chemistry purposes would it be better to get a player who comes from a team with a low home win to total win rate? Surely some players are more responsible for chemistry than others, is there a way to determine who is the rotten apple halfway into a season and trade them? Oh well, that's enough for one FanPost.

(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 8 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I

don’t know, but I’m sure anxious to find out!

Sugar ... water .... and, of course, purple.

by Dub_TC on Aug 19, 2009 2:15 PM PDT reply actions

Nice Jason

Couple thoughts of my own.

One, the core of the Kings didn’t just stay together in their best years, but they also got MORE talent as well. Winning 21 games on the road in any given years is very diffcult. That’s what really separates the best teams from the worst one’s.

As far as why this is so, I think partly it’s how each schedule is designed to work. Many home games don’t have strenuous b2b’s (the Kings play in Sac one night and LA the next is not strenuous by travel standards), but going to Denver one night later is. I think because so many road games are often, particularly in extended road trips, have b2b’s included, you see this fluctuation of production.

Let’s take the All-Star break. I’ll go as far back as 2002-03 (although it was bad years before that too) when the team has bad schedules.

This season, they have 3 games on the road @ Toronto, @ Knicks and @ Detroit.

Last Season , they had @ OKC, @ Dallas and @ Houston

In 08, they played at home vs Utah, the next night @ Golden State, then on to Memphis & Houston for b2b’s there.

In 2007, the Kings have a home & home with Seattle, then play @ Houston at the Oklahoma City (Hornets).

In 2006, the last 2 games of the All-Star break were b2b’s at Chicago and Memphis.

In 2005, (another goody), they played @ Seattle, against Dallas at home (the next night), then 2 nights later went to Boston, and 2 nights later to Chicago and then New Jersey. (This happened directly after the several games where the Kings were screwed by the ref’s most notably against Dallas with the Dampier goaltend.)

In 2004, it’s pretty straightforward with some games at home, except they go on the road for a b2b @ Milwaukee & Detroit.

In 2003, they were @ Houston, @ Dallas and @ New Orleans.

For those curious, the Kings were (only in the games I mentioned) 0-3 in 2009, 0-3 in 2008, 1-3 in 2007 (with the 1 win @ Seattle), 1-1 in 2006, 1-2 in 2005, 2-0 in 2004, and 1-2 in 2003. (The Kings had a nice 6 game in 8 day stretch before the All-Star break in 2002. They played in Seattle (won), the next night vs Denver (won), a day & half later in Minnesota—which was a day game—(won), New Jersey the next night (lost), Boston 2 nights later (won), and Washington to go into the break (lost). I think I’ve made my point.)

The road is unforgiving, and the schedule is usually the biggest culprit. During the regular season their is a great deal of fluctuation due to strength of teams, schedule, timing, injuries, roster depth, outside factors (Hurricane Katrina for instance), and other stuff I’m missing. That’s why the road is so harsh and home advantage is so important. It’d be interesting to see what the fluctuation is for the playoffs.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Aug 19, 2009 2:24 PM PDT reply actions

Interesting stuff

I’m not sure I’m completely convinced of such a close correlation between “relative road success” and team chemistry, but maybe there’s something there. One thought I had is that you could contend that relative road success is more a product of good coaching rather than team chemistry… or do you see those two things as one-and-the-same?

Also, I think there’s a bit of a tricky dynamic going on with your chart; by representing a negative correlation between team chemistry and “% of home wins to total wins”, the “high points” of your graph actually show “low points” in team chemistry. Though you do explain that this is what you’re showing, I think it may be tricky to understand for someone who may be “casually” perusing this post and focusing on just the chart rather than reading your full explanation. I think you could fix this by having the chart show “% of road wins to total wins” instead. I think.

"Sometimes the capriciousness of youth anesthetizes common sense." -Let Geoff's words guide our patience this season.

by AnotherStupidSN on Aug 19, 2009 2:42 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Thanks

I wish I would have thought of % of road wins to total wins, I think your right it would make it easier for someone to skim the charts and still be able to understand the basic idea. I started this as trying to explain why the 1990-91 team was so relatively good at home and bad on the road, I thought maybe Arco might have some super home court advantage, but the data didn’t show that. However, what I saw was the correlation between relative road success and team chemistry. That’s probably why I missed that now obvious improvement, because my data started out looking at home court advantage issues.

Also, when I think team chemistry, I think the whole team/organization: the coaches, gm, the players. Anyone who has the power to impact the team, especially on the road has a part to play in the overall chemistry of the team.

by jasonrp on Aug 19, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions

Great post Jason, I appreciate all the work that went into it.

I’m just unsure what you have proved. To some extent the chemistry issue is a chicken/egg question. You could re-phrase the question like this: Do teams have good chemistry because they win or do they win because they have good chemistry?

Do winning teams always have good chemistry? You could look back to the Shaq/Kobe Lakers who won a bunch of games and championships and who I would submit were not loaded with chemistry. From what I’ve read it is in only the past season that Kobe could be considered a “good” team mate.

I define good chemistry as: a group of individuals willing to sublimate their own interests/statistics/egos in order to achieve team goals. Example: Lamar Odem gave up his starting role and came off the bench in a contract year. If you want to add to the definition I would add trust and mutual respect between team mates. It probably also doesn’t hurt if they actually like each other, willingly spend time together and enjoy each others company.

Did the 08-09 Kings have good chemistry? It would be easy to answer with a resounding NO but I think the real answer would be; rarely. When the Kings had good ball movement they almost always played well even if they didn’t win. Unfortunately it didn’t happen very often or last a whole game. When the players went iso, the offensive game plan, such as it was, went to heck in a handbasket and before you knew it, we would be down by 20 points.

Did the King’s players trust each other last season? Clearly not. I remember a quote from Beno when he was asked why he didn’t have more assists and he said something to the effect that if he passed the ball, the player he passed the ball to wouldn’t hit the shot and Beno wouldn’t get the ball back. Trust? I don’t think so and he wasn’t the only player who felt and acted that way. If there was a stat for the back court not getting the ball to open bigs in the low post we would have been winners of the category.

Jason, I’m not sure if my definition of chemistry is close to yours.If they are close then it’s obvious that many components of team chemistry can’t be measured. I’m guessing that an indicator of team chemistry could be assists. It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between winning teams and the number of assists they averaged compared to the league average of total team assists per game. It would also be interesting to chart the number of passes per play for winning teams if that stat exists.

It’s easy to recommend this post. While I’m not sure that I agree with your initial supposition, it’s an interesting and challenging way to look at an almost impossible to answer question. Great job.

"We are in the business of kicking butt and business is very, very good." - Charles Barkley

by Bluejohn on Aug 19, 2009 11:48 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Jason, wonderful effort - rec'd, BlueJohn - well stated rec'd

Chemistry. How does one define it? You can’t see it, but you can sense it. A heat you can feel from watching a squad for one quarter. As fans we are highly attuned to recognizing this quality as it is a rare and wonderful gem that works like the music of a snakecharmer to capture and delight us.

Let me repeat the wise words of BlueJohn as he poses the crux of the issue so plainly:

I’m just unsure what you have proved. To some extent the chemistry issue is a chicken/egg question. You could re-phrase the question like this: Do teams have good chemistry because they win or do they win because they have good chemistry?

I often say winning cures many ills. Winning teams have chemistry because they win. Does Scot Pollard become an irritant on a losing team and a charming knucklehead on a winning one? Last year John Salmons was not a dribble too much, pass too little small forward on the Bulls just one month after possessing these characteristics on the Kings. Perspective is the difference. Winning smooths the sharp edges that stick out on a losing squad.

Coaching is another factor. Do Jerry Sloan teams have bad chemistry? How about Greg Popovich? These team first Coaches just won’t allow it. As for the Zen Master of Los Angeles: They had very good chemistry for 11/12ths of the squad in the early part of this decade. Read his book “The Last Season: A team in search of its’ soul” and that fact stands out very loud and very clear. Nonetheless, three championships, and a losing finals’ appearance makes chemistry with one sour ingredient an interesting sidebar. (As Donny Osmond once melodically shrilled: “One bad apple don’t spoil the whole bunch (girl)”)

Are the Kings building chemistry? The management team has brought in well adjusted up-and-comers for the most part and by eliminating distractions on the court, off the court and in the locker room they are trying to set the right environment for harmony. The bunsen burner is on low, and if the chemistry is right those few wins will meld together a team or the many losses will fray the bonds that tie these guys together.

by betweentheeyes on Aug 22, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions

Interesting analysis

I don’t know that I have anything to add to StupSN though- other than seconding him on this..

So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Aug 19, 2009 11:52 PM PDT reply actions

Good but. . .

Of course the giant elephant about this is whether or not road wins correlate to chemistry. Its interesting that by looking at the chart the best Kings teams also had the lowest home win percentage, however it was still about league average. Qualitatively, those Kings teams were definitely not league average chemistry wise. The 80s Lakers teams are pretty good evidence also, since they are consistently low. I wonder if other measures might be a better indicator of chemistry, something like expected win total (using whatever statistical method you want) versus actual win total. That could possibly pick up some of the difference between statistics and actual wins. Still, chemistry would (to at least some degree) increase statistics as well, so it is definitely a tough thing to quantify.

by burbo on Aug 20, 2009 9:14 PM PDT reply actions

I also question the idea

that winning more on the road indicates chemistry.

I thought the Kings of the early part of this decade both had great chemistry and fed off the energy of their home crowd particularly well.

If we were to look for chemistry statistically, I’d look for a lineup in which all players’ PER (or win shares, or whatever) are consistently higher than they are when one of the same players plays with different lineups. This would be an indication that in the strong lineup, players aren’t sacrificing to let other players score more, but they’re all making each other better.

What this would lack, though, is a measure of whether a team had better chemistry overall than another— it could only say that one lineup on a team had better chemistry than another lineup on the same team.

I’m really not sure how you’d measure chemistry statistically, but it feels like it can’t just be doing relatively well on the road compared to how you do at home.

by twasserm on Aug 21, 2009 9:36 AM PDT reply actions

Interesting idea about road success

could very well be true. If the away crowds just beating down on you but team chemistry is high you’re probably more likely to play better. Unfortunately chemistry is an intangible which means there’s no real way to measure it.

However, as far as the Kings go I definitely see a big possibility of us building chemistry, especially with the right coaching. Look at some of the youngsters we have in our core group: K-Mart, Tyreke, Cisco, Spencer, JT, Donte, Omri. What’s the worst you could say about any of those guys other than that Spence is a republican and Donte may be a little immature? We have a group of all around good dudes with solid work ethics and loads of humility. That’s a group of guys that can develop as an actual team and build chemistry.

www.mancancook.net

by vfettke on Aug 23, 2009 10:59 AM PDT reply actions

Worst thing?

What’s the worst you could say about any of those guys other than that Spence is a republican

Shoot, I think that’s one of the best things he has going for him!

"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke

by SavageBeast on Aug 23, 2009 4:36 PM PDT reply actions

Facebook like

"Greg Ostertag is one of the finest centers in the history of Western Civilization." - Bill Walton

by submison on Aug 23, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions

Nope

My facebook is an author page. No political statments there. I save my liberal bashing for all my STR friends.

"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke

by SavageBeast on Aug 23, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Lucky us

www.mancancook.net

by vfettke on Aug 23, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Oh jeez

I liked the Reagan smash shirt.. I don’t wanna get into politics either; I only bash green party members.

"Greg Ostertag is one of the finest centers in the history of Western Civilization." - Bill Walton

by submison on Aug 23, 2009 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Actually

I can’t remember the last time I saw any true poltical bashing here. Occassional jabs now and then like the original Hawes Comment by Vfettke, and my, mostly, tongue-in-cheek response. But even then, I can’t really give him any crap since he gave me my sig line.

I figure there are plenty of political blogs (or just the SacBee comments section on any subject at all) if you want to debate politics. But they pretty much never touch the merits of playing Donte at the four, so why should we debate their stuff here.

"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke

by SavageBeast on Aug 24, 2009 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions