Basketball Hall-of-Famer and ESPN analyst Nancy Lieberman answers your questions and e-mails throughout the year. Click here to submit a question of your own.

Hi, Nancy. I knew going into this season that Candace Parker and Sylvia Fowles would garner the most keen attention and go as the two top draft picks. But Candice Wiggins, selected at #3 by Minnesota, was seen as a risky move by some (too soft, not enough toughness) and a potential sleeper by others. After watching how she's performed so far in her rookie year, what's your take on the future she will have in the WNBA?
- Lisa, Pittsburgh

First off, I wouldn't view her as a particularly risky pick. She just dominated the NCAA Tournament and there was no reason to think that she wasn't going to continue to grow as a pro. Every year she was at Stanford she got better and expanded her game.

She reminds me a little bit of Magic Johnson: His first year when he was jumping all over Kareem [Abdul-Jabbar] and Kareem was like, "Alright, take it easy, down boy! Enough!" She has such a wonderful, effervescent personality. But it's one thing to have an effervescent personality and it's one thing to have game… but when you have the combination of both, it's amazing. I just think she has revitalized the team around her because she creates so much energy both on and off the court. Her teammates love her and her game is suited for this level.

One of the things that (Lynx coach) Don Zierden said to me recently was, "Nancy, we knew she was quick watching her play, but until you are in practice with her every day, you don't realize how fast she is with the basketball in her hands." She gets places that you don't think she is going to get, and she makes shots that have you wondering not only how she made it, but how she even got it off! She brings an element that maybe we didn't even see at Stanford.

And she's always smiling. You're not supposed to smile that much! You're supposed to act like you are a little tired at some point! Misery loves company, right? But she has such an upside and there's such quality to her game. She can hit the outside shot and now that she has expanded her range, it has changed her game immeasurably because now it opens up the drive. You must go out and guard her on the perimeter and then you're going to find out that she is quick and you're not.

But really she just has such a wonderful persona. She is great for the game.

OK, Nancy, let's talk USA Basketball's Olympic choices. It never ceases to amaze me how Sue Bird continues to beat out Lindsay Whalen when it comes to the "big time" selections. Take a look at the efficiency ratings, not just this year, but last year. Plus, Lindsay is the best distributor in the game. She's not cocky, but she is tough and she makes everybody on the floor a better player. How Lindsay can be left off of the Olympic team totally baffles me, unless of course, she personally doesn't want to compete. I look forward to your comments. Nancy Lieberman: The best guard to have ever played the game! Take care.
- Mike, Richfield, Minn.

Thanks for the shout-out. And having been left off the 2008 Olympic team myself, I must say that I'm a little bitter!

But really and truly, Lindsay Whalen is going to be an Olympian. Maybe not this year, but in the future. Is she talented enough to play on the team this year? Yes she is. But, again, the good news is that there is so much talent right now for USA Basketball to choose from.

And remember, this isn't purely about stats. Picking the team is a lot about relationships and comfort with particular players. And we can't forget that Anne Donovan coached Bird in Seattle and won a championship with her. That level of comfort is very important and it has happened in men's sports for years. Pat Riley traded for P.J. Brown with Miami for reasons more than skill. He trusted him and wanted him on his side. So to point the finger at Sue Bird isn't fair because Sue is doing everything she can… she's just playing. Whether or not Sue should make it just depends on what the coaching staff and committee are looking for.

As a coach, I'm going to war with the person that I am comfortable with regardless of what the fans say. You can't blame anyone; Sue has a lot of international experience, this is a very pivotal Olympics for us and the USA folks are going who they are comfortable with. Once Lindsay Whalen gets on that first U.S. national team and is in practice and wows them, she will play with them till the day she retires. Now if Mike Thibault were coaching that team, maybe Lindsay Whalen gets her shot. That's just how it is in business and in sports and neither is wrong. Nobody is saying Lindsay is not a great player, we are just saying that only 12 people get picked.

What happened to Candice Dupree? Why is she not going to the Olympics? She has been Chicago's franchise for a couple of seasons now and she's still putting up great stats. Why do you think she's so underrated?
- Ali, Lynn, Mass.

I don't think you can say she is underrated. She's been an All-Star in each of her two WNBA seasons! Again, when you are talking about the Olympics, there is only a certain number of spots that can be filled on a roster. And when Tina Thompson or some of these more experienced players step away from the game, there's no doubt that Candice Dupree will make the Olympic team. She has done everything she can. She has played well in Europe the past few years and she has worked on her game and assets on the court. An Olympic team is in her future, so I don't think she is being slighted at all.

Let's talk defense, Nancy. Could you tell us what Sacramento's "white line defense" is and share with us how it works? And could you explain Phoenix's "rover defense" as well? Is it a zone, per se, or more like a box and one?
- Harry-o, Corpus Christi, Texas

OK, Harry-o. Here it is in a nutshell.

The white line defense is a split-line defense where you have two players zone up the back of a man-to-man defense. So you play on the imaginary split line that splits the rim through the foul line. What you are doing is shrinking the court and hoping that, where teams usually have 3 players on one side of the court, those three cannot beat our five. They are banking on numbers to take away the drive or letting them go ahead and take a low-percentage shot from outside. So it is basically a defense that shrinks one side of the court, gives the defense the numbers and forces you to reverse the ball over to the weak side. Then you are at least playing 2 on 2.

The rover defense is a basic zone. In Phoenix's version, they give Diana Taurasi the freedom to roam and be a "rover." The thing that makes this defense work for Phoenix is that Taurasi is big, she is strong and she is tall, so she can flow to where the ball is Even though they are sitting in a zone, if a person comes up, she can make the zone a 3-2, a 2-1-2, or whatever it needs to be because she can rove to wherever the person they are trying to take away is. It is almost like being a free safety in football… looking for the problem and attaching herself to it. Sounds like the perfect job for Dee. ;)

I was a huge Cleveland Rockers fan. And I recently heard that in 2009, there might be two new expansion teams! Any rumors that Cleveland could get a team back here? PLEASE!!!
- Kris, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio

Well, Kris, I can confirm that the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame is in Cleveland. And I can confirm that that is not moving. But that's it.

I can confirm that the league does want expansion and that many cities are interested in having a WNBA team. Where those cities are, I don't know. But I get on RebKell too, so I've seen some of the rumors. I think Cleveland is a wonderful city, and I enjoyed going there and playing and coaching in that building. I hope there are enough fans and investors in Cleveland to bring a team back.

If you were to compare the overall playing ability of the WBL players of your day and the WNBA players of today, how would you rate the two eras?
- Michelle, Albuquerque

One comparison worth noting: It's clear that the WNBA players don't play with the mullet-style hair. Thank goodness. This week, I was also watching some old Lakers and Celtics highlights with the short shorts and tube socks… my God, how did we move?

But back to the question. I think some of the players from that era could absolutely have played in this era. We had some incredibly talented players. We had some players, back in the day, including Donna Orender, who could shoot the basketball. I don't think there has ever been a finer shooter than Carol Blazejowski. Ann Meyers was very athletic, very smart, very savvy and could play multiple positions. Of course, I was a turnover waiting to happen…

There are a lot of players who could have played today, but we would only be looking at the top two or three players from each team. We wouldn't be able to go six or seven deep with the old WBL teams.

If anybody says the game hasn't progressed and that everybody from the '80s could have played now, that's a bad answer. It's wrong. But we did have a handful of players who were ahead of their time and could have competed on many levels with today's players and would have enjoyed the challenge.