|
 |
 |
   |
If anyone's like Mike, it's Kobe Posted: Friday December 14, 2001 12:09 PMUpdated: Friday December 14, 2001 3:58 PM
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question. I know it's early in Kobe Bryant's career, but what's your take on his ability
in comparison to Michael Jordan's? To average 27 or 28 points per game on a team
with Shaq leads me to believe Kobe would score well over 30 points per game on a
team such as the '85-'86 Bulls. Also, what side of the fence do you sit on with
regard to Scottie Pippen? Have Kobe or Vince Carter already proven they are
better than Scottie ever
was?
Kobe is, in my opinion, the player who has a chance to get close to Jordan. (Notice I said close.) Bryant made incredible strides this year, both physically and mentally (commitment-wise). He has a will to win, the ability to get off his shot whenever he wants to and he's a soon-to-be-great defender. There are some players -- and I think Scottie is one of them -- who simply cannot be The Guy. These types are better in subordinate roles, as talented as they might be. (And Pippen, make no mistake about it, was incredibly talented.) There is that special something -- confidence, will, drive, whatever -- that sets the superstar apart. Kobe, I think, has it. Scottie does not. Having said that, Kobe (as of this writing on Friday) is in a mini-slump. In his prime Jordan didn't even have mini-slumps. At this point, I don't see Vince Carter as equal to Kobe. The closest, in my opinion, is Tracy McGrady. Why would any team (including the Knicks) want to hire Mike Dunleavy as their
coach? Am I the only person who doesn't think this guy can coach? I watched him
coach the Lakers out of Game 3 in the 1991 Finals and I was at Game 7 of the
2000 Western Conference finals when ol' Mike coached the Blazers to a
"come-from-15 points-ahead" loss.
Jeff, I'm not going to be quite as harsh as you. Remember that Dunleavy, not Pat Riley, got the Lakers to their most unlikely Finals experience, against Jordan and the Bulls in '91. I'll grant you, though, since then he hasn't exactly been the second coming of Red Auerbach. But I think he'll coach somewhere, though not in New York. Hmm, I wonder if he'll get a chance to coach his son, who looks as if he'll be a pro. The Phoenix Suns seem to be one of the surprise teams this season, but they
are still a playoff contender rather than a championship contender. What is
lacking on the current
roster?
They got enough Hardaway, just not enough hard. They're not strong enough inside. They're not tough enough. People worry about Penny Hardaway staying healthy and Stephon Marbury spreading the ball around. Those are a few things. But I'll say this: The Suns have been better than I thought and if they keep playing this well, a few prognosticators -- like me -- will have to admit we were wrong. Why is Juwan Howard coming off the bench for the Mavericks? Why doesn't
Dallas get its money's worth out of someone earning (if you can call it that) an
eight-figure
salary?
Many coaches like to have a real offensive force coming off the bench; coach Don Nelson believes Juwan fulfills that role. However, the question should be worded: "Why did Juwan Howard get paid all that money?" He's not the only player unworthy of his salary, but he's among the main ones. Do you think the Wizards traded/let go of Mitch Richmond, Juwan Howard and
Rod Strickland too early? Wouldn't the Wizards have had a better start if those
players were in Washington with Jordan? Jordan could have also influenced these
three guys to play better and, in the end, raised their trade value like he did
with Luc Longley, Toni Kukoc and Steve Kerr in
Chicago.
For different reasons, all of those players had maxed out in Washington. It just wasn't happening. Michael doesn't like Juwan as a player. He wasn't going to stand for Strickland's on-again-off-again attitude. And both Jordan and Richmond decided that Mitch would be better off making a fresh start with a contender, which is why he was sent to L.A. (Incidentally, so far Richmond hasn't done much with the Lakers.) What's up with the Indiana Pacers? They have proven veteran scorers, a hot
young point guard, an emerging frontcourt star, and plenty of talent off the
bench. On paper, they look as strong as anyone in the East, but they are
hovering around
.500.
The Pacers are Exhibit A in regards to what I was talking about a few weeks ago. They have an incredibly deep team. Lots of players. Lots of versatility. A truly deep rotation. But they don't have a singular great player. Reggie Miller isn't it anymore, though I love the guy. Jamaal Tinsley, yes, is a hot point guard, but he's still a rook and he ain't Magic Johnson. If Jalen Rose would truly take over, well, maybe they could make a quantum leap. What I want to know is: What's a Pacers fan doing in Boston? What happened to the fast break? There are only a handful of teams that truly
run anymore -- the Nets, Kings, Mavericks. I find this style of basketball so
much more enjoyable than the current one. Is it that coaches such as Pat Riley,
"The Architect of Showtime", want so much control and don't trust the
players to run?
Actually, Sean, this is perhaps the wrong year to be asking that question. Fast-break basketball is up slightly. The teams you mention are the primary reasons, but the Clippers and Suns can get out nicely, too, as do the Sixers when Allen Iverson runs his one-man break. There are many reasons the break stopped, but the primary one was over-coaching, and, yes, Pat had something to do with it. Coaches felt the only way they could control a game was to use pound-it-inside, isolation offenses. The Pistons actually started the trend when they won back-to-back titles in the late '80s with a halfcourt offense and bully-boy defense. But I think we may see the break coming back a little bit, particularly if a fast-break team such as the Kings can get by the Lakers. Jack, what do you think about the NBA fining players for the length of their
shorts? I think it's up to the players to decide on the way they like their
uniforms. What's important is that they are comfortable. I mean, this is a free
world, man! It's 2001 and not the 1970s! It would be sad if Shaq had to wear
John Stockton-like
shorts!
Sad is the not the word I think of, Jerome, when I envision Shaq in Stockton-like shorts. Illegal is the word I think of. I'm with you, but the NBA is incredibly concerned about a gangsta-type image. Thus the crackdown on anything that resembles "street ball." What makes you think, as you stated in your Dec. 11 column,
that Don Chaney cannot become a "celebrity coach" in the Big Apple at
age 55? I know of another man who came to New York in his mid-50's after failing
at three other jobs (including in N.Y.) and has done fairly well for himself.
His name is Joe Torre. He has to keep 25 (not just 12) egocentric players happy.
His age has not been a
problem.
Jeffrey, the NBA, believe me, ain't baseball. Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions
every week during the season. Click here to send him a
question.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
