 |
| |
|
 |
 |
|||||||||||
|
Opening remarks Random reflections on a wild and wacky first roundPosted: Friday May 02, 2003 12:49 PMUpdated: Friday May 02, 2003 5:53 PM
Of all the first-round losers through Thursday, my guess is that Phoenix feels the best about itself because of its young nucleus. Which club feels the worst? That has to be Indiana. The Pacers have a real decision to make about whether or not to break up the team -- if Jermaine O'Neal's free agency doesn't automatically start the dismantling Minnesota is not going to feel good just because it extended the Lakers to six games. The Game 4 loss last Sunday in L.A. will stick with the T-Wolves for a long time because they had that contest won and should've been up 3-1 in the series. Seven straight first-round losses -- tough Western Conference or not -- is depressing. My guess is that Milwaukee will come back and see if the Gary Payton-Sam Cassell nucleus can get it done from the beginning of the season. Game 6 predictions? Orlando over Detroit. Philly over New Orleans. And Dallas over Portland. (Yes, in Portland.) One final note: I was in Salt Lake City last weekend and begged John Stockton to tell me if he was going to hang it up after this postseason. I told him I wanted to know if his last game was approaching so I could "freeze-frame it in my mind." Stockton was his usual polite but evasive self. "I really don't know myself yet," he said. Friday, just two days after the Jazz were elminated by the Kings, the NBA's all-time assists leader said that he plans to retire after 19 seasons. Man, it was always great watching him play. On to the questions: I believe the implementation of the zone defense this season has hindered Shaq's dominance in the middle. Do you really think the Lakers would be mired as the fifth seed had there been no zone this year? The zone was meant to limit Shaq's play in the paint. What do you think?
I think, to an extent, you're right. Tex Winter, inventor of the Lakers' triangle offense, always says that the triangle is designed to work better against a zone than a man-to-man defense, though I don't believe it. I really believe, C -- can I call you C? -- that the zone is not the main reason for where the Lakers finished. I don't think Shaq was fully back, in terms of health and conditioning, until the playoffs. And even now he can't get the job done game after game. It's going to be a long haul for L.A. to get by San Antonio and then (probably) Sacramento.
Does David Stern grade his officials on their performance? It seems that some referees let the players play while others call every single foul they see. One other statement: the officials always say that they can't see everything. Well then get more officials to work the games. Baseball uses a bunch of them and so does football, and those officials don't miss as many calls as the NBA refs. I don't think the answer lies in getting more officials. It wasn't too long ago (13 years or so) that the NBA went from two refs to three, and some swear it was better the other way. In answer to your specific question, no, the commish does not grade the officials. Stu Jackson, who works in the league office, is primarily responsible for that, and it's the major part of his job. Trust me on this: The NBA takes the officiating seriously and does a lot of reviews. But -- and I've always been a referee supporter -- I do see more problems with calls these days. I do see some unqualified officials. However, and this may sound like an excuse, basketball is harder to officiate than other sports because of how many bang-bang calls there are in a game. Sure, the first-base ump has a bang-bang call every now and then, but it doesn't involve two 7-foot bodies crashing into each other at full speed.
I agree with your pick of the Kings to win it all, but I have one question about their identity: who gets the big shot in crunch time? All "great" teams have someone who wants to step up, and on the Kings, the only person comfortable with that role is Mike Bibby. But he is not Sacramento's best player, Chris Webber is. Do you think the lack of a single great player who is willing to take the big shot will be a problem for the Kings when they reach the late rounds? The short answer to your question is yes and no. I've always maintained that a surfeit of offensive options is a problem in crunch time, not an advantage. I think the Kings suffer from that. Should it be Peja Stojakovic with a jumper? Bibby on the pick-and-roll? Or Webber down low? Having so many choices is not necessarily a fatal flaw, though it can be. Having said that, I think Sacramento will overcome it this season. I've loved your song writing through the years, by the way.
Were you surprised by how easily the Celtics handled the Pacers? What has Indiana's problem been? I think there is a lot of talent on that team and it should not have gone down so easily? Do you think Boston can keep up its hot play and run through the East?
Obviously, I'm a bit surprised since this is a first-round series I predicted incorrectly. Right before Game 1 of this matchup, I talked to a member of the Celtics organization. (I'm not going to say who.) He was absolutely, positively convinced they would beat Indiana. He said the Pacers had no answer for Paul Pierce and they would crumble if Boston played hard defense, which it did. Indy has big problems. Isiah Thomas lost that team somewhere around midseason. Jermaine O'Neal, I bet, is going to make a free-agent dash and Ron Artest's emotional problems must be addressed.
You've been quite vocal with your doubts regarding the Blazers. But even you have to be impressed with the way they've fought back in the Dallas series. Has your respect level for Portland gone up? Obviously, Joe, my respect level for the Blazers has gone up. If they win a Game 7 in Dallas, I'm probably going to be there and will have to eat a little crow in the next week's issue of Sports Illustrated. Would you say the Sixers-Hornets series perfectly exemplifies the problems with Allen Iverson? He torches Charlotte for 55 in Game 1, but since then has been shooting horribly. I think Iverson is a superstar and one of the top five players in the game, but isn't his lack of consistency as a shooter hurting Philly?
Wait a minute, Iverson's one of the top five players in the game and he hurts the team? I know what you mean -- the little man is confounding. For the record, I now put him a step below Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, Jason Kidd and Shaq (and not necessarily in that order), precisely because of his inconsistency as a shooter. But, to an extent, Iverson is what he is. He's not going to come out next season and suddenly become a standstill, accurate jump-shooter. Not going to happen. He's going to continue to play this volatile, reckless, great-to-watch, attack-the-basket brand of ball. And he'll continue to be a terrific clutch player. I'm writing this on Friday morning and offer this prediction: Iverson will have a big game, either tonight or in Game 7 Sunday, if it's necessary, and lead the Sixers into the next round. Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum covers the NBA for the magazine and is a regular contributor to SI.com. Click here to send a question to his Mailbag.
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
