 |
| |
|
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Good news, bad news for Pacers Team's strengths, unfortunately, are also its weaknessesPosted: Friday March 21, 2003 1:29 PM
Click here to send a question to Jack McCallum. What's the deal with the Pacers?
Well, Matt, you've asked the question of the year in the Eastern Conference. Here's my attempt at a take: A team's greatest strength can also be its greatest weakness. There's always a fine line. The Pacers are balanced -- but that means too many players want playing time. The Pacers don't depend on only one guy -- but that can mean trouble with decision-making at crunch time. The Pacers have a couple options at the point to run the team -- but that system usually works about as well as a two-quarterback platoon in the NFL. The Pacers play a highly aggressive brand of basketball -- but the refs start to grow weary of that if a team develops a reputation for dirtiness. Finally, the Pacers are defined by the heart and guts of Ron Artest -- but Artest has, no matter what Isiah Thomas says, crossed the line on a number of occasions and has hurt the Pacers as much as he's helped them over the past month. But you know what? I still think they can win the East. I've said all year that I like the Nets in the East, but, in the wake of the Sixers' charge, that pick is looking a little shaky. I'm a huge Milwaukee Bucks fan, but I have a big problem with George Karl. Is he not the most overrated coach in all of pro sports? Even after constructing the team to his liking, the Bucks don't play with any heart (only Gary Payton and Desmond Mason do), any urgency, or -- heaven forbid -- any defense. I feel the team has totally tuned him out and that he should have been let go after last season, but his monster contract prevented that from happening. Do you feel it's time for a new leader in Milwaukee?
Your name is Air DiVe? Are you a performance artist? Look, I pledged one thing when I began writing for the Web site: not to get into a this-coach-is-getting-fired thing, because that constitutes 50 percent of the material on the 'Net and moronic sports-talk radio. But it would be silly to pretend that the Bucks have been anything but disappointing and that Karl's reputation as a great X's and O's guy and a motivator hasn't been hurt. I really think his experience coaching our underachieving team in the world championships last summer took something out of him. I just read your article about Michael Jordan and the Wizards. In your opinion, which players should Jordan let go?
Oh, man, now you're asking a lot. How to transform the Wizards, who haven't been winners in a decade? Let me rephrase your question this way: Who are the players worth keeping? Jerry Stackhouse. I like Juan Dixon, though he's obviously not a guy to build a team around. Everyone else is expendable, including Kwame Brown. Regarding your Feb. 19 article breaking down the MVP race: Have you reconsidered whether Allen Iverson should be given serious consideration, now that he and the Sixers have raised their games to such a high level? Larry Brown has gone on record as saying that Iverson is playing as well or even better than he did during his 2000-01 MVP season.
Josh, that is precisely the subject of a sidebar I wrote (it accompanies a full article about Kevin Garnett) in this week's issue of Sports Illustrated. Yes, A.I. is in the MVP hunt (though he and his Sixers just got their butts waxed big-time in Detroit). For the record, though, I don't think A.I. will win. He'll receive consideration, but he's behind (at least) Garnett, Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant. How come Greg Popovich never receives any serious consideration for Coach of the Year? Sure, he has the MVP in Tim Duncan, but we all know it takes more than one piece to win consistently. Popovich has put together a great team that will probably finish with the No. 1 seed in the West (sorry, Mavericks fans), even with all its injuries. The guy's not lucky like Phil Jackson, who has Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant.
Pop appears to be sort of a Jerry Sloan in the making, i.e., someone who achieves perennial excellence but is always overlooked. (Even the one championship he won remains sort of the "forgotten" title in that it came during the strike-shortened '99 season.) I promise I'll give him consideration this year, Kevin, but my vote right now, if his team stays where it is, goes to Sloan, who has been underrated for over a decade. What do you think happened with Wang Zhizhi? That guy was far better than Yao Ming was over here in Asia. I used to watch him, and his game is more complete than Yao's. I can't imagine a player with his talent fading while Yao is rising to stardom. Any ideas on how this happened?
Your timing isn't the best, since Wang had 21 points Wednesday night in a Clippers win. When you say he had a "more complete game" than Yao, well, I guess that's true because as a perimeter player he shoots 3s, dribbles, etc. But being a better player at one time and having more potential are two different things. Every scout I ever talked to thought that, eventually, Yao would be more effective than Wang. Wang doesn't seem to have an NBA body, he's a little slow in getting his own shot, and to this point he hasn't been able to post up smaller players. But I think he's a keeper and will get better. That said, Yao has a chance to be a dominant player. I hear many fans say that the depth of talent in the NBA is much greater now than ever before. If that were true, why can't players today flourish in different systems? It seems more and more that guys cannot gel with their current team's system and have to go elsewhere in order to contribute. Where are the fundamentals -- the smarts, if you will? Is it all ego?
That's funny, Doug, because I hear just the opposite -- i.e., that the depth of talent is ridiculously thin, an opinion I hold. Your question is better suited to be a book subject than a short Q&A, but here goes: Players come out of college too early. The better ones learn the game in run-and-gun AAU ball, instead of on fundamental-oriented teams. Dunks, not backdoor cuts, make the ESPN highlights. Players don't pick up new systems because their agents and posse members tell them to get theirs. And gel is hair gook; what you mean is jell. Sorry to sound like an English teacher, but I want you to know I'm versed in the fundamentals. Do you think Grant Hill will return, and, if not, do think he should retire?
Well, if he's not coming back, of course he will retire. Hill is going to try it one more time, and once again he's optimistic going into this operation. I just came off knee surgery and can't begin to tell you if I'll be back 100 percent, so I won't speculate on a superstar athlete. I hope Hill gets another chance, though -- he's a quality athlete and a quality person. Why is there such a home-court advantage in the NBA? Compared to the other three major sports, the home-road discrepancy is ridiculous. In 2002, 16 of 32 teams in the NFL had a .500-or-better record on the road. In 2002, 11 of 30 teams in MLB had a .500-or-better road record. As of today, 13 of 30 teams in the NHL season have a .500-or-better road record. However, only six of 29 teams in the NBA have a .500-or-better road record. This is not exclusive to this year; historically, these numbers are consistent. It's as if visiting NBA teams start games with a 10-point deficit. Teams such as the Nets, Pacers, Timberwolves and Suns are unbeatable at home but have pathetic road records. I don't know what can be done, but for whatever reason, home court really effects who plays better basketball.
To continue the grammar theme, Chris, it's affects, not effects, in this case. Anyway, you set the record for the longest question, and I praise your research. I don't have much of an original answer for you. NBA teams play too many games, climb on too many airplanes at midnight, arrive in too many cities at dawn, cancel shootarounds on the road too many times because of fatigue. Three or four times during a game, an energy boost is the difference between winning and losing. Home teams get that boost almost every time. I've been a huge San Antonio Spurs fan for almost my whole 17-year life. I believe they are the most underrated team in the NBA, even more than Detroit, and stand the best chance to win the title. They have beaten every "good" team in the NBA (Dallas, Sacramento twice, L.A. three times, New Jersey, Detroit, Minnesota, Portland, etc.). Do you think they pose the most serious threat to the NBA crown?
I'm not sure the Spurs can literally "pose a threat to the NBA crown." (I've got to stop this grammar thing.) What you mean is, Do they stand the best chance of winning? Look, Tyler, I love the Spurs and recognize that they are truly underrated. But their folderama in last year's playoffs was not too impressive. They're better this year with Emanuel Ginobili, Stephen Jackson and an older Parker, but, frankly, I don't see them as the top team in the league right now. However, they are certainly one of four teams -- along with (in no particular order) the Lakers, Kings and Mavericks -- with a shot at winning it all. If the Nuggets break their bad-luck streak and win the No. 1 pick in the lottery, should they take LeBron James or trade for established players? I know the city would railroad the franchise if it dealt the choice for anything less than a bona fide superstar.
I'm just excited, Gary, by an actual question about the Nuggets. As you might know from previous columns, a raging migraine starts to form in my head when I'm asked to talk about James. But I would take him ... provided he doesn't issue an I-won't-play-there statement before the draft. I find it odd that the level of commitment by NBA players is not where it should be. In your opinion, how would the NBA world be different in terms of competitiveness if each of the following were instituted? (Please respond to each, as this isn't meant as a "packaged" solution.)
1. Eliminate guaranteed contracts.
2. Make guaranteed contracts available only to players with five seasons or more of experience.
3. Remove high school kids from the draft.
4. Give underclass draft picks smaller contracts regardless of their draft position.
5. Tie contract bonuses to playoff appearances and decrease base salaries.
6. Increase the playoff bonus paid by the league to teams advancing deep into the postseason. OK, point by point. 1. Never happen. 2. Never happen. 3. Never happen -- NBA already has lost court cases relating to this. 4. Never happen -- NBA put a max contract on rookies a few years ago; it won't go further than that. 5. Could happen, but so much is spent on incentive bonuses for the top players that it probably won't. 6. Could happen, but since the NBA salary-cap number is going to go down and TV contracts will no longer bring in mega-megabucks, probably won't happen. Your questions are the ultimate in ivory-tower analysis. Do you really see any of this happening? Do you see salary shrinkage in any sport? Do you see players and agents and team execs getting together to voluntarily limit contracts? Do you see LeBron James coming into the league and playing for a nonguaranteed contract? And wouldn't the game be better if all the players knew how to shoot two-handed sets? Get real. Earlier in the season everyone was jumping on the Kwame Brown bandwagon, saying that of the three high schoolers chosen early in the 2001 draft, he was obviously the best. Now it seems clear that Brown is not the best of the three. He averages fewer points, rebounds and blocks in virtually the same amount of minutes per game as Tyson Chandler. Even Eddy Curry scores more despite playing about six minutes less. How do you rank these three?
Man, Steve, I must've missed the Kwame Brown bandwagon. It never roared past my window. He had a couple of decent games and some writers made a note of it, but that's hardly a bandwagon. Brown, I think, still has the most upside. But the people who see him on a consistent basis say that his work ethic is still not what it should be. I'm going to go: Chandler, Brown and Curry, in that order. Asked why he shoots so many 3s, Antoine Walker recently responded, "Because there are no 4s." But my favorite quote of all time was Derrick Coleman's response when asked why he didn't go hunting with teammate Jayson Williams: "Because we play the same position." What are some of the best quotes you've come across?
Moses Malone was a great source of humorous quotes, though he wasn't always aware of it. Asked what he was going to do over the summer, Moses said, "Swimming pool." The questioner said, "Oh, you have a swimming pool?" Malone replied, "No. Swim. And pool." Another great quote came from the mouth of an old Russian coach named Alexander Gomelsky after he was asked to identify the reasons for a dreadful shooting game by both teams. He shrugged and said, "Many shoot. Few make." The late Charlie Eckert, a former referee and announcer, offered this classic line about the utter simplicity of this game. "There are only two great plays," said Charlie. "Put the ball in the basket. And South Pacific." Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
