 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Sticking with the Sonics Posted: Friday April 26, 2002 12:04 PM
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question Well, half the free world wants to know how in heaven's name I could pick Seattle over San Antonio. Jeez, nothing personal, people, but upsets happen. And I still think this one might. As I write this Friday morning, the series is 1-1, with Game 3 to be played Saturday in Seattle. David Robinson is hurt, as he was when I chose the Sonics. Seattle has Gary Payton, one of the all-time greats at the point, and the Spurs have a 19 year old (Tony Parker), just as they did when I picked Seattle. The Sonics have a lot of confidence and are wildly unpredictable with just the right kind of wacky mentality it takes to win a big series. See, Seattle doesn't know it's supposed to lose. Sure, San Antonio could win the series. And, as I've written before, Tim Duncan was my choice for MVP. But, believe me, stranger things have happened in this world than a No. 7 seed beating a No. 2. The Blazers have played the Lakers tough but are still down 2-0. If Portland,
which is as physical as any team in the West, can't stop the Lakers, who will?
Hurt big toe or not, Shaq still looks as strong as ever, and that alone could
win a title for L.A. Do you
agree?
No, I don't agree that Portland is the team to beat the Lakers. I'm on record as saying, going into these playoffs, that the Kings are that team. (Of course, they have the small matter of getting by Utah.) So far, Dallas looks as if it could be the biggest challenger to the Lakers.
How do you think the Mavs match up against L.A? Do you think the Mavs have the
best chance to dethrone
L.A.?
See above, Barry. No, I don't. I love watching the Mavs, they're really fun, and a Dallas-Sacramento semifinal (if it happens) would be great entertainment. But there's a reason the Mavericks record against L.A. is abysmal: Dallas is not physical enough to really challenge the Lakers. Jack, the Jazz have taken the Kings to the limit in the first two games of
their first-round series (and on the road, no less). With the series tied at
one, and the next two games at the Delta Center, is it still your opinion that
the Kings will run the Jazz into
oblivion?
Uh, no. Remember, Rick, none of this is personal. Jerry Sloan, Karl Malone and John Stockton are three of my favorite people in this sport. I thought the Jazz would be swept. I was wrong. Detroit has looked very impressive in its two games against Toronto. Can the
Pistons get to the Finals? Do they have enough
offense?
Can the Pistons get to the Finals in the East? For heaven's sake, of course they can. They're as good as anyone in that conference, where it won't be a team's offense that carries it to the NBA Finals. Still, Detroit is not good enough to win it all. It looks as if the Pacers' playoff experience is giving the Nets some
trouble. Could the No. 1 seed go down? With the series tied at one, who are you
picking to win
it?
Sticking with New Jersey, Curt. Indy looked awful in Game 2, and I still think Jason Kidd will be the difference. If Tim Duncan is the absolute no-brainer franchise player people say he is,
how come, as a 7-footer, he's so rarely expected to guard the opposing center
when David Robinson's not around? Since when does a franchise player need to be
treated delicately? There's only one center who should be able to wear down
Duncan, and that's Shaq. Why do commentators say Duncan is a natural forward and
not a
center?
Commentators say that, Michael, because it's true. First of all, Duncan's a forward because David is around. Second, Tim has a forward's body, not a center's body, and, really, he has a forward's height. Third, he basically features a face-up game, not a back-to-the-basket game. With Robinson not around, though, you're right -- Duncan is going to have to guard more centers. But if you had Duncan, would you want him to guard Shaq and have a chance of fouling out? I had an argument with a friend of mine over how you build a championship
team. I said that if you want to build one, you should do it around a good big
man. Michael Jordan might have proven otherwise, but he's the exception to many
rules of basketball, right? I said that if Shaq and Michael were coming out of
college, most NBA GMs would pick Shaq, just like they picked Hakeem Olajuwon and
Sam Bowie ahead of Jordan. My friend said that was the most ridiculous statement
he'd ever heard. What do you
think?
Well, now we're in a deep, deep discussion, R.D. My question: Would the GMs know what these players would become? Or are they picking them on the basis of their college careers? If it's the latter, I totally agree with you. No one would pass up a physical specimen like Shaq, just as the Trail Blazers were unable to pass up the 7-foot Bowie, who was chosen just ahead of Michael in the 1984 draft. However, if the GMs knew what they were getting in Shaq and what they were getting in Michael, they would absolutely, positively go with Jordan. He won six championships. He is the single greatest competitor I've ever seen, and proof that you can build a franchise around an out-on-the-floor player. Bird and Magic proved the same thing. Paul Pierce averaged 41 minutes per game this season and played in all 82
games. If the Celtics did not have him for the first 10-15 games of the season
they would not be in the playoffs. Chris Webber did not play in 82 games, his
team played quite well without him and finished with league's best record.
Webber should be on your
All-NBA third team
and Pierce on the second
team.
On your team, Kevin, you may have it that way. You know what? I'm not even going to argue much with you. I love Pierce's game. Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question. |
