 |
| |
|
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tease teams Blazers and Pistons are hot, but will ultimately fall shortPosted: Friday February 07, 2003 4:39 PM
Click here to send a question to Jack McCallum's mailbag. Jack, what is going on with the Trail Blazers? Is Maurice Cheeks performing a miracle, or what? Is he on his way to the Coach of the Year award? Also, to what do you attribute Scottie Pippen's resurgence? Portland is playing like a team on a mission, and you have to admit that no one would want to face the Blazers in the postseason. Would you be surprised if Portland won the Western Conference?
The last question first, I would be a little surprised, mainly because I expected the Blazers -- and still expect them to -- implode at some point during the season. But everything else you wrote is true. We all knew that they had the depth of talent; it was just a matter of putting it together. Installing Pippen as quarterback most of the time was a great idea, and, right now, Cheeks has to be among the favorites for Coach of the Year. Would you say that the Detroit Pistons have significantly inferior talent compared to that of New Jersey and Indiana? I believe the Pistons do, yet they sit one game behind each of those teams in the East. How is this possible? Is Rick Carlisle that good a coach? Do you think Detroit is built to succeed in the regular season, but will fail in the playoffs because they lack a superstar?
I basically agree with you, but I always remember what a wise man once told me about the NBA. (Perhaps it was former Pistons coach Chuck Daly.) Rebounding is talent. Making steals in the post is talent. Blocking shots is talent. Ben Wallace -- no doubt the main reason the Pistons are considered blue-collar workers rather than a collection of high-paid All-Stars -- has NBA talent. But we usually equate talent with offense. Having said that, and agreeing that Carlisle is doing a great job, I do think the Nets are Indiana are better than Detroit and will probably go further than the Pistons in the postseason. Jack, how can you believe that Amare Stoudemire is not a better rookie than Kevin Garnett was? Stoudemire is averaging 12.8 points per game and 9.1 rebounds per game. Garnett averaged 10.4 ppg and 6.3 rpg as a rookie. More impressive, Stoudemire is surrounded by some other good players such as Shawn Marion, Stephon Marbury and Penny Hardaway. Maybe my memory is weak, but what superstars did Garnett play with as a rookie? Stoudemire is not better than Garnett today, but if you compare their rookie seasons, you will see a difference. Maybe not the Michael Jordan-Mario Elie difference, which Marbury spoke of, but there is a difference.
First of all, the Michael Jordan-Mario Elie difference is what Marbury said, right? That's what I was referring to, right? And let me get this straight: being surrounded by great players (Marion and Marbury, I'll give you. Hardaway is no longer in their class) is a reason Stoudemire is better? I don't get your reasoning. Garnett got his rookie stats despite playing with a bunch of guys who loved to shoot (J.R. Rider, Christian Laettner, Tom Gugliotta) and some good rebounders in Gugliotta, Andrew Lang and Sam Mitchell. Plus, Garnett had shooting range, not to mention assist and steal numbers that Stoudemire can't match. I love Stoudemire -- he may be Rookie of the Year -- but he has never been better than Garnett and never will be. How can you be so negative about Ron Artest? You can't deny that he is maybe the best defensive player in the league. Also, you compared him to Dennis Rodman. Artest becoming like Rodman wouldn't cause the Pacers to lose games. Did Rodman hurt the teams he played for? No. He was an important factor on the Bulls and the Pistons. Artest can only hope that he becomes like Rodman. How many rings does Rodman have again? More than most anyone to ever play basketball.
Well, let's go through your sentences. I didn't deny that Artest was the best defensive player in the league, or among them. I did compare him to Rodman. Rodman did occasionally hurt the team he was on, with technicals and wildly unpredictable behavior. And, no, Artest should not hope that he becomes like Rodman, rings and all. It's partly about the rings, but it's not all about the rings, John. With the way the Kings have been playing lately, do you think they can make it through February without Bobby Jackson and Chris Webber before falling too far in the Western standings?
Well, I don't know how far "too far" is. Some of the Kings' recent losses have indeed been disturbing. But I think I know their mentality: They will regroup when they're healthy and once again reach the Western Conference finals. I'd like to add an idea to your suggestions for All-Star weekend. What about watching both current and former players in a game of H-O-R-S-E? I think that would be awesome, everyone could identify with the event and it would encompass both dunking and amazing shots. This could also play off McDonald's "Nothing but Net" campaign from a few years ago, which featured M.J. and Larry Bird.
Jeez, not only do you come up with an idea, but you have a promotional tie-in all set. You sure you don't work for the NBA? To make All-Star Weekend really exciting, why not have a series of charity one-on-one games? Players would get prize money and bragging rights. Some obvious matchups would be: Guards -- McGrady vs. Bryant, Payton vs Kidd. Forwards -- Webber vs. Duncan, Nowitzki vs. Garnett. Center -- Shaq vs. Yao. This could generate fan interest and start great rivalries that would last from season to season. Heck, Vegas would probably get in on the action.
Well, it might work. But I remember a couple of these legendary one-on-one games that didn't work so well, Dr. J versus Kareem in Atlantic City being one of them. If you're serious, I don't think the players would go for it. They would all claim that one-on-one matchups don't mean anything. Toronto fans are perhaps Vince Carter's biggest supporters and critics, but can anybody anywhere deny that the team is playing a heck of a lot better with him in the lineup? The Raptors have knocked off the Kings and Pacers in a stretch during which they've gone 4-1 since Carter's return. Give the guy a break. He's an All-Star, and he's starting material.
Jeez, something positive from Toronto about Carter. Yes, he has been pretty good since returning. But give me a break: he should've taken himself out of the starting All-Star lineup simply because he didn't play enough games. I am so sick of hearing about Yao Ming! I realize he's going to change the NBA, blah, blah, blah. But the guy is averaging 12 points, eight boards and two blocks per game. He is not in the top 15 in any statistical category. What's with all the hype? He isn't even the best player in Houston.
Well, Matt, I just finished writing two stories about him for Sports Illustrated (Jan. 27, 2003 and Feb. 10, 2003, the issue that's on newsstands now). I'm just about tapped out on the subject. But I think some of the answers lie within those stories. What do you make of Pat Riley's constant complaints about the officiating? Do you think he has a point? Have the Heat been unfairly treated because refs do not like Riles? How do you feel the officiating has been overall in the NBA this year? I think it's worse than ever.
Sports Illustrated is looking into this large subject of officiating. It's far too complicated for a one-paragraph answer, and I don't see every one of the Heat games. More to come on this subject. Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
