During the Baby interview below, they talk a bit about the difference between talent and chemistry. Apparently, in a prior interview, Paul Pierce concedes that the Cleveland Cavaliers are more talented, maybe even the Lakers. But, Pierce says, the Celtics have better chemistry.
Color me confused.
LeBron better than Pierce? Sure, but not by miles and miles. Mo Williams better than Rondo? No. I'm not buying. Delonte West, Jamario Moon, or Anthony Parker better than Ray Allen? Right. Anderson Varejao better than KG? Ah, no. Shaq better than Kendrick? Probably, but not entirely clear. Shaq can still score better, but is he a net liability on defense?
Then we come to the bench.
Zydrunas Ilgauskas better than Sheed? We'll have to see how each of them plays, but right now, Sheed is better. Moon or Parker v. Marquis Daniels: a draw. Glen Davis v. Leon Powe: normally I'd call it a draw, and might even give Leon the edge. But Leon's out until next spring at the earliest. I gotta go with the healthy guy. Who's left on the Cavs bench? We still got Eddie House. Do they have a scorer like that? I don't see one.
Now a Cavs fan might say that they play together better than we do. Ok. But that's matching their chemistry against our chemistry. On a strictly talent basis, there is no way I am conceding the Cavs are more talented.
As for the Lakers, again, I'm just not buying. Kobe is better than Jesus. But I'll take KG over Pau, Pierce over Artest, and Rondo over Fisher (by light years). Since the world loves Andrew Bynum, I'll never convince anyone outside of Boston that Perkins is better, so I'll just concede that point for the sake of argument. Then we have Sheed v. Lamar, Marquis v. Luke, Glen v. Mbenga, and Eddie v. Sasha/Shannon. I don't give one of those match-ups to the purple.
So while chemistry is important, very important, I concede nothing to either the Cavs or the Lakers on the basis of talent alone. In fact, there is one thing that can overcome talent and chemistry--DESIRE. I like our chances on this front, too.