 |
| |
|
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
||
 |
|||
EVENTS
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|
 |
What's in a name? Users recommend alternative titles for NBA
Sports Illustrated senior writer Phil Taylor will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question. Last week's discussion of the rather lame names of the NBA Finals and the league's championship trophy brought some good suggestions into the 'bag. Mortie Wilson of Toronto thinks the trophy should be named the "Russell Cup," after Bill Russell, whose 11 titles are the most any player has ever won. Good thought, but I prefer the idea of Kristin Hall of Ridgecrest, Calif., who says the award should be called the "Naismith Trophy," after the game's inventor, Dr. James Naismith. It seems that a lot of people would like to replace the name NBA Finals with something jazzier. A friend of mine suggested the "Final Shootout," before we both decided that sounded a little too OK Corral. We got "Super Hoops" from Sairavi of Cincinnati, and "Final Hoops" from Tuan Le of Palo Alto, Calif., but I think "Hoops" is a little too informal. The name should be a little more regal-sounding. "The League Showdown," from A. Montes of Charlotte, N.C. is a little closer to the mark, but my personal favorite comes from the same friend who came up with the "Final Shootout." The name: the "Dream Series." It doesn't make reference to the sport, per se, but neither do the World Series or Super Bowl. I can see players talking about growing up hoping to play in the "Dream Series," can't you? As soon as we're done here, I'm going to see about copyrighting that name. Now, on to two 'bag heads who are much bigger fans of Phil Jackson than Phil Taylor. But then, who isn't?:
I would take exception with you
calling Pat Riley
one of the two best coaches ever. For one, if you're going to penalize Phil
Jackson for having so much talent, then it seems hypocritical to turn around and
praise Riley for winning with those great Lakers teams of the '80s. While Riles
did pluck Anthony Mason and John Starks from obscurity to upgrade the Knicks,
they already had Patrick Ewing, and he never won a title with them, thanks in
part to his man Starks' horrendous play in Game 7 against Houston in the 1993-94
Finals. As for Miami, losing in the first round of the playoffs seemingly every
year, most of the time to your former assistant no less, isn't that impressive
in my book. So my question would be, why do you think Riley so
good?
Why don't you think Phil Jackson is as good a coach as Red Auerbach or Pat
Riley? You talk about Phil having M.J., Kobe, and Shaq. Well, Red had Bill
Russell, John Havlicek and Bob Cousy. Riley had Magic, Kareem and James Worthy.
What's the difference? True, Riley rebuilt the Knicks and Heat, but what have
they won? Not a thing. I think Jackson deserves to be ranked with those two, and
in my mind is second only to Auerbach.
You can certainly make a case for Jackson as the best coach of all time. His record stands up to anyone's. But in my opinion his resume isn't as complete as Riley's. Riley not only won with the Lakers and transformed the Knicks and Heat from mediocre teams into NBA powers, he won with two completely different styles of basketball. (I know he didn't win championships with either club, but he put those teams back on the map.) He recognized that the talent he had in New York and Miami was completely different than what he had in L.A., and he adapted to it. I'm not saying it's his fault, but Jackson has never proven he could pull off anything close to that. It's impossible to evaluate whether he could make a similar adjustment, and therefore I think it's wrong to put Jackson ahead of Riley. I'm not saying that any coach could have won with Jackson's teams, but ask yourselves this: If you were the owner of a team that didn't have a single great player, who would you want to coach it, Jackson or Riley? I think most NBA people would say Riley.
I was a little surprised to read your
recent piece
stating that since the Sixers beat the Lakers once, they are now somehow
America's team. The Sixers won a game and that's it. I haven't seen total
domination on the court, and I haven't seen Philly sweep three teams in the
playoffs like L.A. did. I saw a Sixers team that did not deserve the Game 5 win
against Milwaukee. I'm not a Lakers fan; I'm a basketball fan and I know the
difference between the two teams in the NBA Finals, thank
you.
First of all, the Sixers may only have won one game but they went toe-to-toe with the Lakers for at least the first three, and that's something that very few people -- and I'll bet not even you, Paul -- thought they had any chance of doing. Secondly, saying that people have developed an affection for the Sixers doesn't diminish what L.A. has done. The Lakers have had a brilliant postseason, although they haven't been as sharp in the Finals as they were in the earlier rounds, and no one has lost sight of that. L.A. is obviously the better team and deserves the championship. I'm just saying that the Sixers have shown something in the Finals that can't be measured in wins and losses.
It's clear that for the Lakers to win they need both Kobe and Shaq to
dominate (as well as get production out of a third contributor). Assuming the
Lakers win the NBA Finals, would the league ever make Kobe and Shaq Co-MVPs?
Also, it's difficult to imagine the Sixers making the playoffs without Allen
Iverson, let alone reaching the Finals. Could a player on a losing team ever win
the MVP
award?
If the MVP award was for the entire postseason, I'd be all in favor of Shaq and Kobe splitting it. But since it's for the Finals only, I think it has to be Shaq, because he's had the better series (remember Kobe's 7 for 22 shooting in the Game 1 loss?). To the best of my knowledge, no losing player has ever won the Finals MVP, and Iverson shouldn't be the first. He's tried hard, but he really hasn't played that well. He's shot poorly from the field and from the line.
What do you think of the trade for Dikembe Mutombo now? I don't believe
Philly would be in the Finals without him. If Theo Ratliff hadn't gotten injured
and had played the full season, the Sixers would not be playing for the
championship.
I didn't really like the trade when it was made. I said at the time Mutombo wasn't that big an improvement over Ratliff, whom the Sixers traded along with Toni Kukoc and Nazr Mohammed to Atlanta. I felt that Philly needed to at least reach the Finals to consider it a good trade. They've done that, and Mutombo has been a big reason for it. But I'm still not convinced that he was the difference between the Sixers making the Finals or not making it. And you have to remember that one of the main reasons Philly made the deal was because it thought Mutombo had the best chance of containing Shaq if they met in the Finals. Dikembe has played as well as can be expected, but he hasn't kept Shaq from being his usual dominating self. The bottom line is that you can't call it a bad trade, but I think Ratliff is going to be blocking shots and rebounding for the Hawks long after Mutombo has passed his prime, and I'm not sure Dikembe got the Sixers any farther than they would have gone anyway.
Aside from Chris Webber, what other notable players are heading for free
agency after this 2000-01
season?
If you're looking for a big man, Mutombo, Mason, Antonio Davis, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing and Joe Smith are the top names out there, with the second tier including Marc Jackson, Chris Gatling, Shawn Bradley, Brad Miller, Christian Laettner and Chris Dudley. The best of the shooting guards and small forwards are Allan Houston, Derek Anderson and Doug Christie, followed by Ruben Patterson, Mario Elie, Kendall Gill, Cedric Ceballos and Dan Majerle. Rod Strickland, Tim Hardaway and the up-and-coming Alvin Williams of Toronto are the top names among point guards, and some teams will settle for Sherman Douglas, Avery Johnson or Jacque Vaughn. There are also a few big names, like David Robinson and Michael Finley, who are free agents but are very likely to re-sign with their current teams.
With several teams looking for a coach who can relate to the new younger
breed of players, how come I haven't heard ex-Georgetown coach John Thompson
mentioned in any scenarios? He has developed all types of young talent into
solid NBA talents (i.e. Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo, Iverson, Jerome Williams
etc.).
The feeling is that Thompson no longer wants to put in the hard work and long hours that it takes to coach. He's been successful as a television analyst and the host of a Washington, D.C. talk-radio show, and at this stage of his career, he seems to like the easier lifestyle. I don't think he'd want an NBA head coaching job even if one were offered to him.
What do think of the chances that Antonio Davis will be dealt to Washington
as part of a package for the No. 1 pick in the draft? Michael Jordan expressed
that he's willing to trade the pick for some veteran help. Who would be better
than Davis, a player who has escalated his game to new levels in the past two
years? I know he's rumored to be headed to Orlando, but Washington seems like a
good fit. What are your
thoughts?
Nah. Without Duke's Jason Williams or 7-foot-6 Yao Ming of China in the draft, no one is that excited about the No. 1 pick. It's hard to imagine that Toronto would sign and trade Davis, a very useful player, to obtain it. He'd be a good fit in Washington, just as he would in at least a dozen other cities, but if Jordan wants Davis, M.J. would have to sweeten the pot considerably. And besides, don't you think Charles Barkley can take care of that power forward spot for the Wizards? I don't either.
How do you think the 7-foot small forwards will do against next year's zone
defenses? Do you think the Dirk Nowitzki can get it done against a zone, where
players on the wing need footspeed to drive the paint? And what's your take on
Tyson Chandler? I'm a Golden State fan, and I hear he might be coming to
town.
Nowitzki will be fine even against a zone because he can shoot it. He'll be the kind of guy who stretches a zone with his outside shooting and will loosen things up for himself or his teammates to penetrate. You don't necessarily need great quickness to penetrate a zone -- ball movement and outside marksmanship will do it, too. As for Chandler, he would worry me a little if I were a GM. The word is that he doesn't seem to play with much passion. He could easily turn out to be one of those players who has great talent but lacks the will to succeed. Of course, some people also said that Tim Duncan was too unemotional when he was in college, and he turned out OK. But with the Warriors' luck, how do you think Chandler will wind up? Click here to send Phil Taylor a question or comment. |
