Anthony Macri is a contributing author to BasketballProspectus.com and also trains high school, college, and professional basketball players at The Basketball Academy and Pro Training Center at IMG Academies in Bradenton, Florida. Anthony can be reached via e-mail at coachmacri@gmail.com.

Q: The year is 2012 and you've been given front row seats to the Olympic medal ceremony for men's basketball. Will Wade, Lebron, and Bosh be preening, or are the Gasol boys and Rudy Fernandez showing off their new gold jewelry?

AM: Assuming Lebron plays, the USA has to be the prohibitive favorite. He is such a unique player that all bets are off when he has an opportunity to hit the floor. No one in the NBA can guard him, and I would venture to say no one in the world can either. He is the most unique wing player of our generation, even more so than Jordan was. Is he better than Jordan? Not yet. But the fact that we can even have the discussion and not be bordering on the irrational is saying something.

Keep in mind that by 2012 the following players will be entering their physical "prime": Lebron James, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Carmelo Anthony, and Dwight Howard. That doesn't include Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose, Michael Beasely, Greg Oden and the like. Put that group out on the floor in 2012 and the USA should be on top of the world all over again.

Don't think, however, that this takes anything away from the rest of the world. The biggest difference between the USA and the rest of the world is the size and aggressiveness of our guard play. Assuming that stays the case, and the USA can put a team out there with guards that are as quick and athletic as anyone at 6'3, it will be hard for the international community to compete. Spain has the best chance right now, and they could win it all. But the USA is the prohibitive favorite.

Q: In my humble estimation, Paul Pierce's "injury" in game 1 of the NBA Finals was one of the corniest displays I've ever seen in pro hoops. Your take?

AM: Corny is one word for it. However, I think one thing that gets lost in the shuffle of a situation like that is the lack of space and opportunity to treat a player with an injury on an NBA floor. Think of it this way - in a football stadium, a player gets hurt and the stadium falls into a hush. The spectators are, in many cases, at least 50 yards if not 200+ yards away from the injury. They have plenty of space to work on the injured player, and there is no rush to get back to the action. Now consider basketball. No matter where you are on the floor, there are spectators less than 50 feet away (and, in the case of Pierce's injury, he was basically directly on top of spectators). The best way to handle that situation is to remove the injured player from the scene (no matter how dramatic that might be, like having multiple teammates carry him off) and treat him where there is space to diagnose and room to breathe.

That being said, it appears Paul may have been a wee bit caught up in the moment. I think right there and then, he was not looking for but found a great opportunity to give his teammates and the arena a lift. I don't begrudge him for it.

Q: Why is it that Allen Iverson is thought of as "pound for pound," the best player to ever lace them up? Are critics really thinking that if squeezed into AI's 160 lb frame, that Michael Jordan wouldn't be far superior?

AM: Iverson is a pretty special player. He is probably the best shot-maker to enter the league in the last twenty years. I think that the point that folks that propose that pound-for-pound he is the best player ever are making is that if you squeezed MJ into a 6-foot, 160-pound frame, he would no longer be MJ. Keep in mind, part of MJ's greatness was how strong and tall and athletic he was for a guard. Most guards before him were Joe Dumars' or John Starks' size, and Jordan could post them up and abuse them at the rim. Iverson is able to do everything he can despite his height, not because of it. I also think that "pound-for-pound" label has a lot to do with his durability. He continues to crank out productive seasons, in spite of the fact that he is "old" in NBA years and gets bounced around like a pinball most of the time. There is something to be said for that.

Q: Despite a solid start, many pundits are already deeming the Lakers too soft to capture the 2009 title. Is it possible to hoist "Maurice Podoloff's" trophy if you are indeed "soft"? Can you think of a recent champ who was a little bit on the "squishy side," and still won it all?

AM: Personally, I think it is a convenient, and only slightly appropriate, label to stick on a team that we aren't sure why they aren't winning it all. Once a team wins it all, that label goes away. When the Bulls were trying to get past the Pistons back in the early 90s, one of the knocks was that they were soft in comparison. Then, they won, and all of a sudden, no one called them soft anymore. I think the same thing will happen with this Lakers team, should they win it all. Remember, the big critical question regarding the Celtics last year was whether or not they were "too old." Well, the big three didn't get a whole lot younger, but I don't see that question bandied about as much this year. They proved they weren't "too old" and therefore the question doesn't apply.

I also don't think that any team whose leader is Kobe Bryant can be called soft. Let's keep in mind that Kobe played more than half a season, the Olympics, and is now playing again with an injury that really should be operated on. Softness was not the problem in last year's Finals. They ran into a buzz-saw defense with a team of players that, outside of Kobe and Derek Fisher, had never been in that position before. My guess is they perform better this year.