by Charley Rosen

Updated: October 5, 2008, 7:54 PM EST 27 comments

add this RSS blog email Print

I think it's a terrific idea for several reasons: Playing alongside Kobe and Pau Gasol, Odom can't establish any kind of offensive rhythm simply because he doesn't get enough touches. This situation tends to emphasize his natural inclination to lose concentration and play with inconsistency. Being the featured player on the second unit, however, should supply the touches he needs to maintain his focus. Also, by matching up against an opponent's second-line players, Odom should be a much more effective point-maker. Even so, it's a good bet that Odom will still get plenty of daylight at the end of close ball games.

Adding Ariza to the starting lineup greatly increases the Lakers' speed, quickness and defensive pressure. Also, Ariza doesn't need the ball to play well.

Once Odom calms down and leaves his ego in his locker, he'll see that the move is best for him and best for the Lakers.

Do you think that the currently constituted Knicks will have any success playing Mike D'Antoni's fast-break, quick-shooting style? Without a Steve Nash-type point guard, and a roster full of quick, athletic, sharp-shooting complementary players, I think the Knicks are doomed to fail. What's your take? — Harley Chosen (not my real name), Virginia Beach, Va.

I couldn't agree more. The relevant question, though, is how much D'Antoni will adjust his game plan to match the abilities of the players on hand. Quentin Richardson thrived under D'Antoni's guidance when their paths crossed in Phoenix. Jamal Crawford should also be a good fit in D'Antoni's system. Ditto for David Lee, Mardy Collins, Jared Jeffries (when he returns to action), Chris Duhon, Winston Chandler and Nate Robinson. Even Stephon Marbury (is he still around?) would be an acceptable fit, but only if he embraced the possibility of either playing the shooting guard and/or coming off the bench.

However, even if all the above players are capable of running and gunning, the Knicks lack the requisite talent to qualify for the playoffs.

And what to do with Jerome James (a certified stiff), Zach (Mister Me) Randolph and Eddy (Bigfoot) Curry?

Given that D'Antoni system produced a 14-36 record during his abbreviated stint in Denver (1990-91), it says here that Nash was the prime mover in whatever success the Suns had during D'Antoni's tenure in Phoenix.

Since there's nobody on the Knicks' roster who can manage even a bad imitation of Nash, D'Antoni will most likely modify his system to some extent. Trouble is, D'Antoni might turn out to be a one-trick pony.

Still, if the Knicks will certainly be more entertaining (at least on the court) than they were during the lost Isiah years, they'll also be on a fast track to nowhere.

Charley, I love your column and respect your roundball mind more than any other analyst. After reading your article on the best 2-way players, I was wondering who you think were the worst defensive players? — Damien Rosenstock, New York, N.Y.

A good question, but for the sake of brevity I'll confine my list to front-line players.

Pete Maravich was perhaps the worst defensive player in NBA history. His challengers would include Don Nelson, Tom Heinsohn, Bob Cousy, Cazzie Russell, Elgin Baylor, Dolph Schayes, Connie Hawkins, Rudy Tomjanovic, Jimmy Walker, Doug Collins, Bob McAdoo, Fred Brown, George McGinnis, Joe Bryant, World B. Free, Freeman Williams, George Gervin, John Drew, Tom Chambers, Magic Johnson, Joe Barry Carroll, Orlando Woolridge, Kelly Tripucka, Walter Berry, Wayman Tisdale, Chris Mullin, Glen Rice, Dell Curry, Chris Webber, Rony Seikaly, Sam Cassell, Glenn Robinson, Toni Kukoc, Vin Baker, Keith Van Horn, Jalen Rose, Eddy Curry, Lee Nailon, Rodney Rogers, Zach Randolph, Peja Stojakovic, Brad Miller, Vladimir Radmanovic, and so on and on and on...

Why wasn't Larry Bird included on your list of best 2-way players? — Hoosier Buddy, Boston, Mass.

Because he was a below-average one-on-one defender. For sure, his remarkable instincts and basketball IQ eventually made him a solid team-defender, but he could rarely avoid being embarrassed by any of the accomplished scorers who looked to take him.

Without using any statistics, could you evaluate and compare Chris Paul, Bob Cousy and Magic Johnson? — Bill, Chapel Hill, N.C.

Chris Paul may end up being one of the NBA's best-ever point guards, but he has a long way to go. (D. Clarke Evans / Getty Images)

Magic, of course, was the biggest and strongest by a huge margin. Because he could score in the low-post, he was also the most versatile. Give Magic a similarly wide edge in getting to the hoop and finishing, in not getting derailed when hit, in rebounding, in being able to maintain his court vision under heavy defensive pressure and in his off-hand handle.

Cousy was the second white player to perfect the behind-the-back-dribble — Bobby Davies was the first, and at least two generations of Harlem Globetrotters were the innovators — and he used this technique to full advantage. His ability to see the court and deliver precise passes on the run ranks him ahead of Paul but behind Magic in these categories.

CP3 is by far the quickest — and even though Magic developed a one-handed push-shot late in his career, Paul was the better shooter, with Cousy a distant third.

Neither Paul nor Cousy were terrific finishers, but the former has a better variety of pull-ups and flips. It should be noted, however, that if Cousy had played in the modern era, he most likely would have developed the same kind of in-the-lane releases.

Even though Magic was an inferior defender, Cousy was even worse. Largely on the basis of his ball-sniping, that makes Paul the leader here.

All things considered, Magic is figuratively and literally head-and-shoulders above Paul and Cousy. In fact, given his pitiful defense, inadequate shooting and slowness afoot, Cousy I doubt would be capable of playing in today's NBA.

You always seem to give preference to the physical American players over finesse European players. But now that we've seen Team USA struggle to win international competitions, do you still doubt that a team of the best "soft" non-American players could win an NBA championship? — Daniel, London

Yao Ming would anchor a hypothetical all-international team. (Garrett Ellwood / Getty Images)

The most likely candidates for an all-international squad of NBA players would include Yao Ming, Manu Ginobili, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Leandro Barbosa, Andris Biedrins, Andrew Bogut, Pau Gasol, Peja Stojakovic, Jose Calderon, Samuel Dalembert, Luol Deng, Boris Diaw, Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, Francisco Garcia, Andre Kirilenko, Eduardo Najera, Andres Nocioni, Mehmet Okur and Tony Parker. (For the sake of clarity, Raja Bell and Tim Duncan, who were born in the Virgin Islands, are not eligible.)

Of these, only Najera and Nocioni would be considered physical players.

Could these guys beat the Celtics in a seven-game series?

Let's say that the starters would be Yao, Nowitzki, Deng, Ginobili and either Parker or Nash — with some combination of Gasol, Nocioni, Najera, Barbosa, Parker/Nash, Kirilenko, Okur and Ilgauskas coming off the bench. They'd certainly be deep, quick and versatile enough to overcome the Celtics.

Still, because of their incredible defense, I'd pick the Celts in seven games.

Would these guys have won the gold in Beijing?

Because of their defense and strength, I'd pick Team USA in quadruple overtime.

As for non-NBA internationals, being competitive in a 10-day tournament is one thing, but I just don't see enough foreign players with the combination of power and talent to survive the grueling NBA season without breaking down.

I find it amusing when I read the numerous bloggers who respond to your articles with virulent negativity. So much of what I read and hear from so many fans makes me wonder just how deeply they watch the games. What are the biggest factors that limit the way that today's NBA fans evaluate players and games? — Roy, Chicago, Ill.

The mere act of eyeballing (in person or on the tube) countless NBA games does not necessarily make a fan an expert.

Without even a modicum understanding of the game's Xs and Os, fans can't really judge what's going on. For example, if one player zigs instead of zags, his mistake will generally create trouble for a teammate — a forced shot, or an unnecessary foul due to an emergency, unplanned defensive rotation — that makes that teammate appear to be deficient.

Shots made and missed, turnovers committed and forced, blocked shots, and so on, are the easily perceived culmination of many sequences, but the whys and wherefores mostly go unnoticed.

Carefully watching (and studying) the off-the-ball action is absolutely critical to a full understanding of NBA action — simply because that's where 80 percent of the action takes place — but this is not something that most fans are interested in doing.

If you have a question or comment for Charley Rosen, submit it below and Charley may just respond. Subject: Comment/Question: Name:  Email:  Hometown:

Fans who have not played organized ball have little idea of how important things like discipline and execution are — and have little idea how to recognize the presence or absence of these qualities.

Blame the media for highlighting spectacular plays as being the end-all-and-be-all of the game — and for thus skewing the vision and appreciation of so many acquiescent fans.

Also, in most fields of public endeavor — economics, education, foreign and domestic relations, and especially politics and sports — doesn't the average citizen truly believe that he's more of an expert than the "so-called" experts?

But the most significant impediment to a deeper, more evenhanded understanding of sports is that most fans are totally invested in their loyalty to certain teams and certain players to the point where their own self-image and self-worth depend on the success and "goodness" of these players and teams. That's why so many fans cannot tolerate any comments that puncture their We're/I'm-Number-One fantasies, which is why so many fans are so eager to pounce on every mistake and erroneous prediction.

In the end, however, hoop-o-philes of every persuasion deserve immense credit for being passionate about the greatest sport and the greatest athletes in the world.