As of Mid-May 2024 --- Roster has been?

[forevershockerfan]

Speaking of updated and finalized roster grids, is there one out there yet?

[molly jabali]

After watching him for two full years, I just don’t think that’ll be enough to change the way he inherently plays the game. There’s a reason why he went to Drexel. I’d love to be proven wrong but I’m not optimistic.

The only thing that could realistically change this year in regards to Bell is Mills actually putting a leash on him since he’s likely gonna have a lot more options.

A very good set of points

[Shockm]

True, I may not be as smart as some others but I can do my own summary. It IS an intangible that can differ from team to team and not even consistently from game to game on a single team, however, teams that consistently record good assist to turnover numbers generally have good chemistry. Hope we achieve that next season.

That's really good, and assists to turnovers does have a direct statistical correlation to chemistry (although there is a lot more to "chemistry"). We agree on the term "intangible" to describe chemistry.

You know. The coaches (in publications that I've read) try to build chemistry (I'll call it their mission or vision statement that says where the team is going), and through this they are trying to build team values. There is no doubt that high assists to turnovers is one of them. How you build unselfishness isn't as easy as it sounds. One of the strategies that they use are Regular Team Get Togethers/BBQ's, etc.

Then you get a guy like Eric Stevenson, or Shaq, on the team, and in a quick instance, the "TEAM CHEMISTRY" goes to pot. The thing that coaches hope for is that you have leaders like VanVleet, Wessel, and Baker (in 2013-16) to bail out the "Team Chemistry", because WSU defeated KU, not because of talent in 2016. They defeated KU because of the intangibles of the team.

In 2018, when we joined the AAC, our team probably had just as much talent as in 2013, but the intangible leadership (no Van Vleet, Baker, or Wessel) weren't on the team. Therefore, we ended up an extremely close #2 in the AAC to Cincinnati, and had a disappointing demise in the NCAA to a weaker Marshall team. Nothing against Landry, Austin, or Conner (who were all very good basketball players and good kids), but they didn't have the intangibles of earlier teams.

[Atxshoxfan]

Am I the only one worried about team chemistry?

I agree that good team chemistry helps teams win more games. But worry, no. It's like cooking. You put your ingredients together and then make adjustments to get the right outcome. But once in a blue moon you may have accidentally used a rotten egg and have to throw out the whole batch, but it's very infrequent because you can smell a rotten egg a mile away before you add it if vetted properly.

[Topshock]

In 2018, when we joined the AAC, our team probably had just as much talent as in 2013, but the intangible leadership (no Van Vleet, Baker, or Wessel) weren't on the team. Therefore, we ended up an extremely close #2 in the AAC to Cincinnati, and had a disappointing demise in the NCAA to a weaker Marshall team. Nothing against Landry, Austin, or Conner (who were all very good basketball players and good kids), but they didn't have the intangibles of earlier teams.

No kidding nothing against Landry, Austin and Conner. All that talent and shooting ability and a Coach too stubborn to use it properly. The Coach can also be the chemistry problem.

[Aargh]

I think we're looking at the wrong aspect of "chemistry". People who don't get along and don't like each other is common in the the workplace, but they can still function efficiently and effectively as a unit. The difference with basketball is that in addition to the on court performance, which is the job, there is a locker room.

The lack of "chemistry" among players won't necessarily affect the on court performance. The presence of poison in the locker room will. So will a self-appoimted "team leader".

If you're defining "chemistry" as knowing, without thinking or looking, what your teammate is going to do in about any situation, that's a factor. That takes time and the portal has eliminated the time to grow and develop a team. A group of Sr's who've played 5together 3 years before their Sr year is quite a bit different than a group of Sr's coming out of the portal.

[Shockm]

No kidding nothing against Landry, Austin and Conner. All that talent and shooting ability and a Coach too stubborn to use it properly. The Coach can also be the chemistry problem.

Their abilities to defend were not good. The Shocker teams from that era (FVV, Baker, Wessel, in fact everyone, except Cle Early on our teams from 2012-2017), were all top notch defenders. We won by our defensive intangibles.

By your idiotic comments, with our coach, we never should have been a Top 1-10 Team all of those F4, Sweet 16, and Elite 8 years, not talking about a #1 Seed and 35-1 year.

The team you tout had a team of Cle Early defenders.

[ShockTalk]

No kidding nothing against Landry, Austin and Conner. All that talent and shooting ability and a Coach too stubborn to use it properly. The Coach can also be the chemistry problem.

Exactly what would have been the proper way to use Landry, Austin, and Conner? First, Conner had a good game offensively (never thought he was that strong of a lock-down type defender) going 10-17 FG with 6-10 from 3pt for 27 points. On the other hand, Landry and Reaves were a combined 3-18 FG and 0-10 from 3pt. Losing by 6 points, there is your shortcoming. Even Kelly and Morris had a good game going 10-18 FG, 2-4 from 3, 25 points, and 20 rebounds.

[Topshock]

Exactly what would have been the proper way to use Landry, Austin, and Conner? First, Conner had a good game offensively (never thought he was that strong of a lock-down type defender) going 10-17 FG with 6-10 from 3pt for 27 points. On the other hand, Landry and Reaves were a combined 3-18 FG and 0-10 from 3pt. Losing by 6 points, there is your shortcoming. Even Kelly and Morris had a good game going 10-18 FG, 2-4 from 3, 25 points, and 20 rebounds.

I'm not getting into it again. Me and others went into great detail on how that talent should be handled at the time. If you didn't get it, then I'm sure you won't now.

[Topshock]

Their abilities to defend were not good. The Shocker teams from that era (FVV, Baker, Wessel, in fact everyone, except Cle Early on our teams from 2012-2017), were all top notch defenders. We won by our defensive intangibles.

By your idiotic comments, with our coach, we never should have been a Top 1-10 Team all of those F4, Sweet 16, and Elite 8 years, not talking about a #1 Seed and 35-1 year.

The team you tout had a team of Cle Early defenders.

Reading comprehension problems? I was speaking to that particular team. You can't run your team like you have great defenders when instead you have great offensive players. You pretty much made my point.

[WuShock Reaper]

[Shockm]

I'm not getting into it again. Me and others went into great detail on how that talent should be handled at the time. If you didn't get it, then I'm sure you won't now.

Agree with ST. Not a chemistry problem.

[Topshock]

Agree with ST. Not a chemistry problem.

The players would disagree.

[ShockTalk]

I'm not getting into it again. Me and others went into great detail on how that talent should be handled at the time. If you didn't get it, then I'm sure you won't now.

Are you talking about the whole season or just the last 4 or so games. I don't believe we as fans had much to complain about prior to that time, particularly since we didn't really have a true PG. Two were more like SGs and the other a 2-3.

We were 24-5 / 14-3. We then lost at home to Cincy by 1, a team we had beaten at their place by 4. Even though we beat Temple in the first round the conference tourney, we pretty much crashed and burned those last 4 games. FG and 3pt % went in the tank those games.

Talking team chemistry, that can be pretty hard to develop without a true and/or quality PG. Hindsight can be 20/20.

[Aargh]

Are you talking about the whole season or just the last 4 or so games. I don't believe we as fans had much to complain about prior to that time, particularly since we didn't really have a true PG. Two were more like SGs and the other a 2-3.

We were 24-5 / 14-3. We then lost at home to Cincy by 1, a team we had beaten at their place by 4. Even though we beat Temple in the first round the conference tourney, we pretty much crashed and burned those last 4 games. FG and 3pt % went in the tank those games.

Talking team chemistry, that can be pretty hard to develop without a true and/or quality PG. Hindsight can be 20/20.

Wasn't Reaves all-conference at OU where he played PG? And from some NBA games I saw he was running point there too. We had an NBA PG playing "stand around on the 3-point line and wait for a pass to shoot" and an NBA SG playing PG. The best career move any WSU basketball player ever made was Reaves leaving for OU.