 |
| |
|
 |
 |
What should we call Kobe? Users weigh in with nicknames for the Lakers phenomPosted: Wednesday November 27, 2002 10:10 AM
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question. A question in my last mailbag as to why the Los Angeles Lakers' Kobe Bryant doesn't have a nickname elicited 100 or so responses from readers. Let me be clear that I am not presenting myself, nor do I deserve to be, the final authority on this topic. I'll report the nicknames, give my comments (you wouldn't expect me to be silent in my own mailbag, would you?) and send them along to Bryant. When I get out to L.A., I'll see if he has a favorite. A number of readers sent in the unimaginative "KB," tying the nickname to the toy company, as in "KB toys with ya," the offering of Casey Giles of Austin, Texas. Case, don't we have enough corporate tie-ins? Jeez, Kobe already plays at the Staples Center. Peter Anpol of East Windsor, N.J. suggested "Air Who?" Hey, Kobe's pretty good, but I don't think he'd accept a nickname that disses the greatest player ever ... at least not until a few more seasons have passed. I'm also not sure about Ryan Dodge's offering of "Heir Jordan". It's clever, but any great athlete wants an identity of his own. That leads to the suggestion from several readers that Kobe's nickname should play off teammate Shaquille O'Neal. "Ko-Pilot" was sent in by Jack Mann of Birmingham, Ala. "The Big Sidekick", offered Jon Garrison of Tulsa, Okla. "The Vice President" was the choice of DW of Starkville, Miss., who's too cool to give his whole name. "Lil DaVinci" came from A.D. Williams of Atlanta and "Lil Socrates" was Eric Engel's pick. Both play off Shaq's moniker "Big Aristotle." (Of those two, I'd favor the latter since Socrates and Aristotle were both philosophers.) Simon Put of The Netherlands (you sure that's not a pseudonym, dude?) weighs in with "Fatso's Sidekick." I dare you to say that in front of Shaq, Simon. Look, my feeling is that Kobe would not go for a nickname that relates more, or as much, to someone else, even someone as formidable as Shaq. A number of meat-minded, culture-crossing Kobe fans wanted to tie his nickname to Kobe beef, which, if you've never had it, is extremely good and extremely expensive. Well, maybe, but lean and mean Kobe just doesn't say "beef" or "steak" to me. Neither does he say "Puddin'," even though, as Christian Valentino writes, he's so smooth. Puddin' connotes soft as well as smooth, and Kobe is not soft. Jim from Chattanooga, Tenn. looked to Bryant's precocious knack for winning championships and came up with "The Ring King." Not bad, but it seems like more of a nickname for Kobe's coach, Phil Jackson, who has nine rings as a coach and one as a player.
Jeff Reid of Montreal Anyway, I've identified two unique nicknames as my favorites: "Killa B" (from Phil of Philadelphia) and "The Kobra" (Kunle Tayo from Houston). When I get a response from Bryant, I'll let you know. Now onto the 'bag... What do you think about the Pacers? How are their chances in the East? I think they have as much talent as any other team, and will be a tough out come playoff time.
The Pacers are better than I thought they would be. They had so many question marks and all of them seem to have been answered in the positive. Would Jonathan Bender ever stop looking like a skinny high schooler and become a factor? Yes. Would Jamaal Tinsley have the know-how to run the Pacers offense? Yes. Would Ron Artest be mature enough to let his 3-point shooting and defensive abilities come through? Yes. It's early, of course, but, sure, right now Indiana looks as good as my choice for No. 1 in the East, the New Jersey Nets. Do you think Isiah Thomas is turning the Pacers into the new Bad Boys? The teams look quite similar with Brad Miller playing the Bill Lambeer part and Ron Artest playing like Joe Dumars (with better defensive skills. It seems as if this Pacers team is a contender right now. What do you think?
A long time ago, Isiah told me something interesting. He said that team executives always ask players to sacrifice stats for team play, but then, in contract negotiations, those same team executives refer to stats and say, "Look, your point totals are down. How can we pay you more money?" I'm convinced that Isiah has sold the team-first philosophy to the Pacers and they're buying it. Maybe it wasn't as easy a sell when Jalen Rose was around. But it's working. It's a little premature to compare this Pacers team to the Bad Boys, who won two championships, and to compare Artest to Joe D. (And, Mathew, Dumars played damn good defense and did so for a decade.) But Indiana is an interesting team to watch. After Shaquille O'Neal, whom do you consider the NBA's best center? It seems as if the solid big man has become a dying breed. Some people believe that Michael Olowokandi of the Clippers can serve this role. Do you agree?
Hmm, before I'd elevate Kandi Man, I'd consider a couple of centers who aren't really centers -- perhaps defensive stalwart Ben Wallace of Detroit or offensive-minded Jermaine O'Neal of Indiana. But that only speaks to your point about a dying breed. As for pure centers, I'd take two before Kandi -- Zydrunas Ilgauskas of Cleveland and, yes, Yao Ming of Houston. If Yao continues to improve, the question of who's second best to Shaq will be irrelevant by the end of the season. What do you think of Chris Webber's game these days? Is it possible for the Kings to be a championship team with him as a role player? I am personally frustrated and believe his numbers don't tell the whole story. For the amount of money he makes, he should be much more of a presence in the post. He also seems to be cursed by an inability to make smart plays in crucial moments. I think he's lost a lot of mobility, athleticism and confidence since his two ankle sprains.
Damn, Gus, it's obvious what you think. I agree with absolutely everything you say, although I just don't have enough info to speak to his loss of mobility, athleticism or confidence. I think his main fault is that he's not much of a factor in the post, and how much money he makes is irrelevant. He takes (and, to be fair, makes) more shots from the elbow than anybody in the history of the game. But if you're a team's go-to guy, you have to find a way to get the down-and-dirty shots at crunch time, get yourself to the line and make those free throws. But there are times when I think his floor game (passing, ball-handling, etc.) is among the best ever for a big man. I started supporting the Celtics during the great days of Bird, McHale and Parrish. I'm really glad to see them playing well again with Antoine Walker and Paul Pierce as the mainstays and Jim O'Brien as the coach. I think that the Celtics could be even better if Walker and Eric Williams posted up more. By all means use the 3-pointer as a weapon when the shooters are open. But every time I see the Celtics on TV, they are shooting 3-pointers without even letting Walker and Williams post up, which could result in a bucket or a trip to the free-throw line. Can you help me to understand?
You're trying to understand the Celtics from Singapore? They're a tough figure from Boylston Street. Look, in the last two seasons, Walker has attempted 1,248 3-pointers! Think about that. In that span, Reggie Miller, one of the league's all-time greats from beyond the arc, has taken only 907. This is Walker's game -- and O'Brien, the last time I talked to him, insisted that it will continue not only to be Walker's game, but also the Celtics' philosophy in general. The only thing that will change Boston's style, in my opinion, is if it gets a real established low-post presence (besides Walker) and makes throwing the ball into the post a major option. The Celtics have salary cap problems, though, and making a big deal or a move in the free-agent market doesn't seem imminent. Jack, is Vince Carter tradable? If so, could the Raptors get a big name back, like a Rasheed Wallace or a Paul Pierce? Maybe Toronto can get Steve Nash (a local hero in Canada) and another Maverick or even Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford from the Bulls? Do other teams want Carter? Or do you think the Raptors still believe Vince can show the world why he was once labeled "the next M.J.?"
Jeez, M, maybe they can get Shaq. Or Kobe. Mafaaz, do you think the Mavs are going to give up Nash? Are the Celtics going to give up Pierce? Forget such a big-name trade. The Jason Kidd-for-Stephon Marbury deal of two years ago was an anomaly, not a regular occurrence. The other trades you mention are certainly more plausible, and, in answer to your first question, sure Vince is still tradable. He didn't suddenly turn into a complete dog because his team played well without him last year. But now clubs are a little leery about Carter's health. When he returns to the Raptors this week, he will get his chance to show everything's he got. But if he's still falling short come April, Toronto could be looking to make a deal. And could you append that tag to "Maybe the next M.J.?" I was bummed this summer when the Sixers traded Dikembe Mutombo for Keith Van Horn (and Todd McCulloch), because, like a lot of fans, I thought Van Horn was soft under the boards and slow on defense. But have you noticed he is out-rebounding Mutombo and Kenyon Martin? Is this just an early-season fluke? Or could it be that Van Horn is a better player than we thought?
I was one of the folks who believed that the Nets got the better of that deal. I thought that, whatever Van Horn's shortcomings, New Jersey had to get rid of him because the team had come to believe that he was so weak and soft, no matter what the reality. They had really ostracized him in Jersey. But there's no doubt that Van Horn is playing well, and the Nets, Deke included, are not playing quite as well as expected. But it's oylee in Joisy. I like the Nets to be on top of the East when the regular season ends. Lamar Odom is a very good player, but will he ever fulfill the superstar potential everyone has seen flashes of, or is he a "head case" who will do nothing but frustrate coaches and fans with his lack of dedication to his game? Did the Clippers make a mistake by not moving Lamar instead of Darius Miles?
You really want me to give an absolute answer to that question? I JUST DON'T KNOW. Personally, I would've tried to unload Odom. To me, he's had enough chances and blown them. But whenever I visit Clipper Land or talk to people out in L.A., I always hear the same thing: On the court, Odom is a pure team player with a high basketball I.Q. His potential is almost limitless because of his ability to pass, handle, shoot and play defense. So, let's give him one more shot when he comes back from his ankle injury. Regarding your comments on the value of college basketball: I think you hit the nail on the head when you said it would be a shame for kids to miss the college experience. Going to college is not a punishment, it is a privilege. Even a millionaire athlete can profit intellectually from higher education. Shouldn't we be more concerned with the fact that "student athletes" are hardly students at all? I think it is a farce that they are held to a lower academic standard, and, frankly, I find it offensive that the NCAA and private university bureaucrats facilitate this behavior because of its economic value to them. Shouldn't the NBA, the NFL, and the NCAA find a more equitable way to educate student athletes and prepare them for the pro game? Having said all that, I sure love March Madness and New Year's Day bowl games. Maybe there's no balance.
The problem with kids going directly from high school to the pros is that it's causing the NBA to produce a bad product. The talent pool of NBA players is disturbingly thin. We fans have to sit through dozens of turnovers, ridiculously low field-goal percentages and many mistakes. In Toronto, we saw those growing pains with Tracy McGrady before he became the superstar he is now. The NBA should do all it can to improve the quality of its games. Contraction? We know that will never happen. But improving the talent pool should be a priority. And the NBA can start by saying "enough" to all of the underqualified youngsters pretending to be pros.
Well, it's obvious how they feel in Toronto. These are major questions best discussed in books. My quick answer is that I'm learning more and more that a stay in college is no guarantee for NBA success. Your Raptors, for example, are still wondering about Vince even though he spent three years with Dean Smith at North Carolina. Was Carter more prepared for the NBA than, say, Kobe or Kevin Garnett? It doesn't seem so. The NBA has tried to do something about this problem with the National Basketball Development League, but so far it hasn't worked out. The courts have supported, and will continue to support, the right of teenagers to pursue a living. In the U.S. we think of this as basic rights. It's a cliché, of course, but it's true: If 18-year-olds can fly planes in defense of our country, they can sure as hell take jump shots at the Staples Center. I agree that the product is diluted (as it is in colleges, incidentally, because there are so few teams with four-year starters) and will continue to be. But in regard to Dan's comment about sitting through missed shots, here's a stat to chew on: In the 10 seasons between 1956-57 and 1965-66, when the hallowed Bill Russell-Bob Cousy-Red Auerbach Celtics won nine championships, Boston's average field-goal percentage was .410, and in three of those seasons it was below 40 percent. That figure roughly corresponds to the rest of the league. In the '56-57 and '57-58 seasons, in fact, no NBA team shot higher than 39 percent from the field. Missed shots, Dan, have been around for a long time. Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
