 |
| |
|
 |
 |
It's good to be King Hot play at home makes Sacramento the NBA's top dogsPosted: Thursday February 14, 2002 1:16 PM
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question. Jack, have you ever seen a team dominate at home like the Sacramento Kings this
year? What is it about Arco Arena that makes the Kings unbeatable, and how huge
will it be for them to get homecourt advantage throughout the playoffs? Also,
what do you think of Peja Stojakovic? He should be a leading contender for Most
Improved Player. Do you think he'd be a superstar on team where was the go-to
guy?
The best team I've seen at home was the '85-'86 Boston Celtics, which went 40-1 at old Boston Garden. The Kings are certainly the best home team to come along in a while, and the Lakers had best be worried if Sacramento wrests homecourt advantage from them for the playoffs. I don't know what it is. Maybe the noise. Peja is terrific, but you shouldn't assume a player would automatically be more valued on another team. That might be the case, but maybe not. On another team, for example, Stojakovic doesn't necessarily have a player like Chris Webber drawing defenders away from him. He doesn't necessarily have a center like Vlade Divac who can get him the ball in open spots. He doesn't necessarily have a point guard like Mike Bibby who can find him when he spots up on the break. The best thing about the Kings is that they are a great TEAM, the best TEAM in the NBA right now. Why isn't the NBA on the Kevin Garnett marketing bandwagon yet? Not only
is Garnett one of the league's great players on both ends of the court, but he
has charisma and character to match. K.G. is the man who can take Michael
Jordan's place as the focal point of the league. Your
thoughts?
The league will tell you that it has no marketing bandwagon, that the heroes evolve naturally out of media coverage and fan adulation. That is nonsense, of course. You know who has discovered K.G.? TNT. His postgame scrimmages with Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith and Ernie Johnson are among the highlights of the week. I agree with you: Get the Wolves into the playoffs and America will discover one of the great young personalities. I think it will happen for him. I really do. Though I live in India, I am able to watch three or four NBA games per week.
One of my favorite teams is the San Antonio Spurs. What's happening to them?
After their losses to the Lakers, they've fallen apart. Steve Smith is proving
to being a choker -- scoring at will against lesser competition, but failing to
make the shots against tougher teams. Do the Spurs need to make some trades
before the
deadline?
Keep in mind, Anoop, that the Spurs did do a lot to remake their team. They went out and traded for Smith. They drafted a 19-year-old point guard in Tony Parker. They thought those tweaks, combined with the play of Tim Duncan and David Robinson, would be enough . What San Antonio didn't account for, though, was how much David would slip. His knees and back are worse than anyone thought. I think the Spurs are defeated psychologically, and Duncan is not the kind of leader who can inspire his team. What he is, though, is a great player. I don't think they'll make a big deal. They'll hope that Duncan and Co. can give them a second life in the playoffs, which is possible, but not probable. Is Atlanta underachieving this season? The Hawks look like they have a core
of pretty good to potentially great players. Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Jason Terry,
Nazr Mohammed and Theo Ratliff are all guys a lot of other teams would want.
Atlanta also has a pretty decent bench -- albeit one that is banged up. What do
the Hawks need in order to get hot for the
postseason?
Atlanta is underachieving. The Hawks should have a solid enough team to make a run in the weak East, but the team is an enigma. Jason Terry is a terrific player and Shareef was supposed to be the big-time addition that made them a conference contender. For whatever reason, it hasn't happened. My best theory is that injuries have really played havoc with them. They can't get a consistent rotation. You hear the Hawks involved in trade rumors and, if this season is a washout, they will make some deals at the end of it. The good thing is that they have players (Terry, Mohammad, even Toni Kukoc) that other teams will find attractive. Who are some possibilities to replace Knicks GM Scott Layden and coach Don
Cheaney if they get
fired?
How about Pat Riley for GM and Jeff Van Gundy for coach. Just kidding. I think. Some NBA analysts say the Nets will not be successful come playoff time
because they don't have a go-to guy down the stretch. What's your take on
that?
NBA analysts, myself included, have no idea what will happen in the playoffs. The Nets do look like one of those classic teams, however, that will have trouble in the postseason because they love to run and don't like it when the action slows down. And it is true that in the halfcourt they become a little less effective. But if those analysts say the Nets won't advance in the East for that reason, they're nuts. On paper, Milwaukee is the best team in the conference, but the Nets are playing better than the Bucks and have as good a shot -- no, a better shot -- than anyone to make the Finals. They won't beat the West, however. That's when that poor halfcourt game will kill them. Whew! This season has been quite crazy. The Wizards are contending for a
playoff position, the Nets have the best record in the East, and two
ever-dependable franchises -- the Jazz and Knicks -- are struggling for playoff
contention. I have also noticed that a lot of teams are starting to play a more
up-tempo, attacking style of ball (mid-'80s basketball if you will). Some of the
more prominent examples of these teams are the Kings, Mavericks, Lakers, Wolves,
Bucks and Sonics. Do you think this type of basketball is coming
back?
The NBA, as someone smart (I think it was Chuck Daly) once told me, is a copycat league. Whatever works for a championship team will be adopted by the whole league. However, no one can emulate the Lakers because no one has a Shaq or Kobe. Lacking superstars like them, I think some teams decided that running was the way to go. I'm glad to see it because running (in control) was what the league was all about. Part of it is personnel (Kidd comes to the Nets so they run; Garnett can get out and run so the Wolves run; Steve Nash, Michael Finley and Dirk Nowitzki can run so the Mavs get out and run), part of it is reaction to Shaq, and another smaller part is to get out and run before the opposition has a chance to set up a zone. If a running team can win the title (you left out the Kings, a running team with the best chance of upending the Lakers right now), I think you'll see the trend continue. I hope it does. What is the long-term potential of Richard Hamilton? He doesn't quite have
the physique of a superstar, but he's shown flashes of brilliance playing with
Jordan, and I can't help but notice that Washington's recent winning streak
started with Hamilton's first game back from his groin
injury.
Your analysis is right on. Hamilton been compared (sort of) to Scottie Pippen, in that he's learned how to play with Jordan, but his body is nowhere near Pippen's and he's not a good defensive player. When the season began, he was a horrible defender. Now he's at least average. Offensively he is a very, very good player, a terrific shooter who knows how to come off picks to get open. But I don't think he'll become a super superstar. He doesn't create his own shot quite as well as the great ones and, in traffic, his smaller physique can hurt him. But the Wizards absolutely need him to stay healthy to go anywhere in the playoffs. You, among other columnists, have speculated that Tim Duncan is headed to
Orlando. I believe it's much more likely that he heads up Interstate 35 and
hooks up with the Mavs. I believe getting Duncan is Mark Cuban's mission. Tim
knows his presence is the only thing Dallas needs to begin a great run. What's
the possibility of the Big Fundamental going to Big
D?
Duncan is a different kind of guy. I'm sure he'd love a Sony PlayStation and a 35-inch TV in his locker and all that stuff, but he's not as vulnerable to such perks as most players. What I hear is that Orlando is his kind of town, a little closer to his native land and ripe for improvement. But I must confess: I am not privy to Tim's inner thoughts. I don't know anyone who is. You've suggested that Michael Jordan is the string holding together an
otherwise mediocre and undisciplined Wizards team that may crumble after MJ
hangs it up for good. With Washington's recent run, I wonder if you still feel
the same way? No doubt MJ is the magic elixir for this team's astounding
success, but don't you agree that the Wizards have demonstrated remarkable
resiliency, fortitude, and a winning attitude? Everybody is stepping up and
making a contribution in an impressive display of tandem offense and defense.
Washington is discovering a winning chemistry that makes the prospect of a
playoff spot more likely each
day.
Well, Ed, your feelings are certainly clear. I'm not sure why and in what context I expressed my theories about the Wizards, but I'm sure they're close to what you wrote. Here's what I'll say now: Richard Hamilton is better than I thought. Tyronn Lue has begun to play well. Chris Whitney has been a solid pro in the past and is better this season. Popeye Jones is having an out-of-body season and I love it because he's a great guy. Christian Laettner has been a team player and is working with the youngsters. Doug Collins is, and always has been, a great, great coach. I love the Wizards. But take Jordan away from them. Do you honestly think they would be a playoff team? I don't. Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question. |
