|
|
 |
 |   |
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Video Plus Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities 
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE | |
No solution Nothing can stop high schoolers from going proPosted: Friday November 30, 2001 1:35 PM
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question. Do you think the influx of high school kids to the NBA is hurting the quality of
the game? Also, do you think this year's crop of high schoolers will produce any
future All-Stars, and if so,
who?
Absolutely, Theddy, the team in your town being Exhibit 1. And think about it: The problem isn't just the NBA's. The hoops baby boom hurts the college game, too, because some of the best potential NCAA players either aren't entering school at all or are leaving early, thus keeping traditionally strong programs from maintaining consistency. The question is: What do you do about it? Answer: Nothing. The courts have continually supported the right of young men to make a professional living. It's the old argument: You can go and fight for your country, even die for it, when you're 18, so who can stop you from playing basketball. It's also a conundrum because for every Tyson Chandler and Eddie Curry (who, by the way, might eventually get better), there's a Kobe Bryant or Kevin Garnett, neither of whom has missed a beat even though they went straight to the NBA. Unlike Dick Vitale and other supposed experts, I don't have a clue which high school players will be NBA stars and wouldn't advance a theory even if I did. I don't think we should turn the spotlight on high school kids like that. Is it my imagination or should we just save everyone a lot of trouble and
award the NBA title to the Lakers right now? Other than possibly Milwaukee, I
don't see that any of the contenders have improved from last year, and the
Lakers appear to be even better. Although I enjoy watching the NBA, the lack of
any real competition for L.A. is putting a damper on the
game.
I don't agree, Bruce. I've always liked a dominant-team setup, no matter what the sport. I'm no fan of NFL-like parity. But I agree with you: The only thing that can stop the Lakers is the Lakers, if they implode from within, fall apart because of internal bickering. I still think their only challenge will come from the West (although you're correct: The Bucks have apparently gotten better, even though I admit I wasn't a fan of the Anthony Mason acquisition), perhaps from Dallas, the other team that has improved substantially. Jack, I appreciate the point you tried to make in your
column on Chris Webber's
return. One question: Why didn't you back up your statement that, in your mind,
he is not a great player? The stats say he is, every team he's played on
has gone to the the playoffs and when he left, it went back to being a lottery
club. Vlade Divac's assists are nice, but do you know of any NBA expert who
wouldn't describe Webber as a great passing big man?
I was wondering if you meant that Webber will hurt the Kings upon his
return, or are just saying it could happen? Last season he averaged 27.1
points, 11.1 rebounds per game. He's also taken Sacramento to the playoffs both
years he's been there. I just don't see how you could think he could hurt the
Kings.
To Paul and Mike: Using the playoff argument, Paul, seems a little flimsy. Webber was three-and-out with Golden State in his rookie year. He got to the playoffs once in four seasons with Washington and that was a three-and-out (admittedly against the Bulls). He's certainly helped Sacramento get to postseason play, though. I will admit a little of my prejudice with players like C-Webb. Big men who can't seem to decide if they are a small forward, power forward or center scare me. (Ralph Sampson comes to mind.) Webber seems to be in that category, so talented in so many areas that he can't quite decide what he is. Having said that, it's absurd to think the Kings won't (or shouldn't) use him to the fullest when he comes back. What I'm saying is that they're a pretty good team right now, and my guess is that it's going to be rocky fitting in another guy who needs the ball. It's not always about stats. You don't look at the Lakers and say, "Gee, if, say, Kevin Garnett was starting at the 3-spot instead of Rick Fox, look how much of a better team they would be." You lose something when you gain something, so what I was trying to get across was exactly what Mike writes: It could happen. It seems as if teams, with the exception of the Lakers, are not running plays
to counter opponents playing zone defense, instead they are shooting jump shots.
I hate to say this, but Duke or another national college powerhouse that is used
to playing against the zone could probably come into the NBA and play for the
championship because it runs plays to counter the zone. NBA players should know
how to do this, as well. Can you explain why the players have turned into a
bunch of jump
shooters?
Ward, if you could divest yourself of one thought in the coming year let it be this one: The best college teams could compete in the NBA. They can't. Trust me. And there isn't a college coach in the country who would argue with that; I've asked them. Now, are teams running good zone offenses against the teams with the best zone defenses, which so far seem to be Minnesota and Seattle? No, you're right. They're not. They are still gearing their offenses mostly toward individual matchups, isolations, breakdowns, etc., the meat of the NBA game. My feeling is that as the year goes on, and games get more crucial, there will be specific zone offenses set up to combat specific zone defenses. Remember one other thing: Getting off a shot against a good NBA zone in 24 seconds is a lot different, and a lot harder, than in the college game. What are your thoughts on the Timberwolves this year? They are off to their
best start in franchise history and I was wondering if you think they are for
real. What is the reason for their
success?
Erin, everywhere I go, I hear praise for Flip Saunders, both his x-ing and o-ing and his way of relating to players. So that's a factor. The T'Wolves are making as good a use of the new defensive rules (see above) as any team. That's a factor. Garnett is so versatile that he becomes the ultimate cliché: making everyone around him better. That's a factor. Wally Wonder is improved. (Jon Wertheim did a good story on him in the Dec. 3 issue of Sports Illustrated.) Put that all together and you have a much improved team, albeit one that got routed by the Clippers Wednesday night. So let's check back in a couple months. I don't understand how you can say
having a deep bench is
overrated. The Bucks have Ervin Johnson, Darvin Ham, Tim Thomas, Michael Redd,
and Rafer Alston, and like you said, a big man to give fouls, Joel Przybilla. Do
you think the Bucks would be just as good without those
players?
Isaac, a deep bench can be overrated because a bunch of players with relatively similar abilities, that is, a nine- or 10-deep rotation, can present a chemistry problem. I maintain -- and this isn't an absolute rule -- that a team is best with one or two great players and three sacrificial type guys (at least one of them a defensive specialist) in the starting five. A capable, even dynamic scorer, off the bench, and two or three other strictly role players who are content being role players. Do the Bucks have this combo? Maybe. George Karl knows a helluva lot more about assembling a team than I do. Milwaukee isn't going to win the East because of Rafer Alston and Darvin Ham, I can tell you that. They're going to win it only if Ray Allen is an All-Star, if Big Dog and Sam almost are and Mason is as good as advertised (which I never thought he was). Who do you think will end up as the 2001-02 Rookie of the Year? It looks like
a battle between Joe Johnson, Pau Gasol and who
else?
Scott, Joe Johnson has been really up and down lately and may continue to be the whole year. Gasol plays for the Grizzlies, a really bad team, which I don't think will help him, and I'm not sure he's better than one of his teammates, Shane Battier. Right now the top candidates would seem to be Tony Parker, the 19-year-old Spurs' whiz kid, or Jamaal Tinsley who's running a somewhat improved Indiana club. Here's an outside pick: Speedy Claxton of the 76ers who was hurt last season. He may not get the chance to show enough offense, though, playing with Allen Iverson. How can you say Jason
Kidd and Steve Francis are the two best point guards in the league? What about
Gary Payton? He's an All-Star who scores more than Kidd, gets teammates involved
more than Francis and defends better than the both of them despite being the
focus of his club's offense. Also, will Mr. All-Star-in-waiting Rasheed Lewis
ever develop a low-post game? His game reminds me of Dirk Nowitzki's. What do
you
think?
I can say that Steve Francis and Jason Kidd are the two best point guards in the league because I think they are. Now. Not two or three years ago. Now. (By the way, Kidd usually dominated Payton head-to-head when they were in the same conference.) You so want Rashard Lewis to have a Rasheed Wallace -like low-post game so badly that you call him Rasheed, eh, Jon? Anyway, wouldn't it be OK if he was another Nowitzki? There are a lot of potential near-the-basket players who simply don't want to be there. Heck, there are a lot of centers like that, never mind forwards, as Lewis clearly is. It's not supposed to be a problem if there is a legit low-post offensive presence on the team, and, on this one, it's Vin Baker, right? But if Vin leaves Lewis may get the chance to fill that role. Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions
every week during the season. Click here to send him a
question
| ||||||||||||||||||||
