Our experts continue their roundtable talk with five more topics concerning the upcoming season, including small ball, Isiah's situation and this season's wide-open field.
Click here for Part 1 of our expert roundup.
1. Many teams are talking about running and playing smaller. Will the NBA look different in three years?
Scoop Jackson: They're going to try only because of the lack of true back-to-the-basket big men. It's going to serve a purpose for a minute, then teams are going to realize that there's only one Steve Nash.
Chris Broussard: This trend is not just a copy of the Suns; it's a reaction to the fact that very few big men have traditional low-post skills. Maybe Greg Oden will play down low, but in three years (when Shaq is just about gone) we'll see an unfortunate lack of post play from big men.
John Hollinger: The new rules on hand-checking have permanently changed how teams can play and what kind of lineups they can get away with, and organizations still are learning how to best take advantage of this reality. Look for the trend of smaller and quicker to continue, albeit at a slower rate.
David Thorpe: The NBA will feature more teams and players taking advantage of the rule changes that reward quick players who can attack the basket. But there always will be a place for big men who can score in the paint. Teams will utilize their own assets. The contrast in styles between top teams will be great for the league.
Marc Stein: If the rules limiting defending contact on the perimeter continue to be enforced -- and if quality big men remain as scarce as they are now -- this isn't a fad. At least I hope and pray it's not. All small ball really means is getting your five best players on the court without worrying about size. That is a trend we can all embrace.
Jim O'Brien: The NBA is different already because of the many teams' ability to play small. Every team must have a defensive plan to guard the smaller lineups. It is still very, very important to establish an inside presence offensively with a post player. The ideal team is someone that has a big power forward like Dirk Nowitzki or Antoine Walker that can go inside and outside.
2. How will the Isiah Thomas situation play out?
Chris Sheridan: We covered this in a column at the start of training camps, and I've set the over/under as March 30 for the date when [New York Knicks owner] James Dolan says he has
seen enough. The buyouts given to Jalen Rose and Maurice Taylor show that Dolan will not let Thomas deal off expiring contracts as he did in years past.
Tim Legler: Isiah had a huge hand in creating the debacle that is the Knicks and now he wants to try to coach this group himself. The Knicks must get off to a great start or Thomas is toast by the All-Star break. Ultimately, the roster is made up of players that don't complement each other and they lack the defensive mentality to make a stand.
Stein: If the Knicks were smart, they'd have reached into their past to snag Kiki Vandeweghe before ESPN got him. In real life, I have a feeling Isiah will survive even if the Knicks don't make the playoffs. Just coming close might save him.
Hollinger: The Knicks will be good enough to allow him to hang on to the job for most or all of the season, but once they're eliminated from the playoffs he's likely out the door.
O'Brien: The New York Knicks will be much better and win at least 10 to 15 games more this year. This improvement will help Coach Thomas' situation.
Broussard: The Knicks will win 36 or 37 games and put up a decent fight for the eighth and final playoff spot, which might be enough for Isiah to keep his job. But with my new colleague Kiki being free, there could be a clamor for him to return to New York.
Jackson: He might be in the running for Coach of the Year, but that still won't be enough. I think he's in one of the worst lose-lose situations we've seen in sports in a long time. Even if he wins the whole damn thing, Dolan is going to X him.
Thorpe: Isiah might actually be in for a fairly smooth ride (on the court). He has a number of talented players who will rejoice in their newfound freedom. Steve Francis, a bigger problem than Starbury last year, seems to have grown up a lot. If they win, New Yorkers will jump on board. Lose, and those fans will be dreaming of Greg Oden.
3. What officiating rule or interpretation will have the most impact this season?
Thorpe: The combination of referees' calling players for traveling when they indeed travel, along with the "no talkback" rule, should make a lot of good free-throw shooters happy. There will be lots of technicals early on this season. And, I suspect, some entertaining ejections as well.
Hollinger: The no-backtalk rule on technical fouls. A lot of veterans have argued calls a certain way for years and now have to change their ways. Rasheed Wallace is an obvious one, but Gary Payton, Steve Francis and others also will be racking up Ts.
Jackson: The overall consistency has gotten collectively worse over the last three years, from (I think referee) Bernie Fryer's Baron Davis no-shot call to the timeout call against Dallas in the Finals last year. This year they'll (hopefully) be under not only the microscope, but the gun.
Stein: I'm eager to see how vigilant the refs are about dishing out more Ts for back talk. We didn't get a good feel for how fine the new line is during the preseason because exhibition games rarely generate heated situations. This could wind up being a bigger deal than anyone imagined.
Sheridan: Continued strong enforcement of the hands-off rule on the perimeter will have teams playing small-ball, looking to get production from players who can both slash and convert free throws.
Legler: The rule that calls for an ejection of any player intentionally causing the ball to travel into the stands or to be thrown against the basket support will have an impact at some point this season. Emotions get the best of players all the time and a key ejection could cost a team a game when it really matters.
Broussard: If the refs call traveling and carrying, as we've been told they will, that will have a big effect. And how they handle player complaints could have a big effect on games when players who have trouble controlling their emotions (i.e. Rasheed Wallace) are involved.
Barry: The whining rule could be a problem because almost everyone in this league is a whiner!
4. What situation are you watching most closely this season?
Barry: I am curious to see if Amare Stoudemire can return to form. I don't think he is ready but he's young and hopefully he will bounce back.
Broussard: The big story to watch is the return of Amare Stoudemire. If he gets anywhere near the superstar form he displayed before his knee injuries, the Suns will be the team to beat. If not, it will be somewhat sad to watch him play as a shell of his former self.
Thorpe: Stoudemire. First, we need to see how well he is moving and playing. Secondly, how are his teammates and coaches dealing with him if he is not the Amare of old. Finally, how is he handling it? A meltdown is possible, which would hurt the team more than just sitting out.
Hollinger: Orlando. They're the obvious up-and-comer in the East, depending on how Dwight Howard and Darko Milicic fare, and they could be rising much more quickly if Grant Hill is finally healthy.
Jackson: Shaq and Kobe, separately. I want to see how Shaq responds to getting a title and not being the focus of the team, and I want to see how Kobe responds to Game 7 against the Suns.
Legler: I'm anxiously waiting to see how close Amare Stoudemire will be to his 2005 playoff form. He is the biggest X factor in the NBA because his healthy return could mean an NBA championship for the Suns. The word out of Phoenix is far from what they need to hear, but the guy is only 23 and was the best frontcourt athlete in the league before his injury.
Stein: Hate to be such a worrier, but I'm fretting a bit about the playoffs. The '05-06 postseason, as we all remember, was so insanely good. I want to believe more of the same awaits next spring, but let's face it. It doesn't happen every year.
5. What's better: a dynasty or a wide-open field?
Jackson: I believe a dynasty is always better. But it depends on the team. Like I'm not sure the Spurs would be a good dynasty for the league (much the same way the NFL didn't benefit from the Patriots being one), but the Suns or a team like the Rockets would be. Sports is funny that way -- it wants singular domination but it has to be from the perfect (i.e., the Yankees), and only from certain sources. Anything else will prove to be counterproductive.
Sheridan: A dynasty. I've covered the Bulls' run through the '90s and the Lakers' dominance earlier this decade, and a lot more casual fans seem to be interested when there's a marquee team with a big superstar who everyone else is shooting for. When it's this wide open, casual fans pay little attention until the Finals.
Barry: I love the fact that five or six teams have a legitimate shot at winning the whole thing. Parity is a great thing in sports and it will make the regular season that much more compelling.
Hollinger: Dynasties typically are better for the league's popularity, especially when it's an "evil empire" type that everyone can boo lustily -- a Spurs' dynasty, for instance, would never work because they're too darn nice.
O'Brien: I think a wide open field keeps a lot of teams and fans believing they can catch lightning in a bottle and win the whole thing. Every night out every game is up for grabs and this keeps everyone's interest.
Thorpe: The great thing about a "dynasty team" is it still has to earn it on the court each year. Injuries, off-the-court issues, or improvements from other teams all have their impacts. Few "experts" are picking the Heat to win it again, despite the Heat cruising through the playoffs last year. That four other teams can compete with them for the throne is a great thing.
Legler: I personally love the concept of a dynasty. Having that bully on the block for the entire league to go after creates great rivalries and intrigue. Parity is great for the fans, but as a former player, I enjoyed trying to dethrone the perennially great teams.
Broussard: For casual fans, it's better to have a dynasty because that always brings non-hoop fans into the fold. For instance, you didn't have to love basketball to get into MJ and the Bulls. But for folks who truly love the game, it's hard to beat the excitement created by a wide-open field.
Stein: Wide-open field, 10 times out of 10. I like surprises. History says teams (and fans) need a behemoth to shoot at and detest to generate the most drama and passion, but I've never bought that. What was so dramatic about Chicago winning six times in an eight-year span with no memorable rival?