PDA

View Full Version : Bulls vs. Grizzlies would be great for basketball purists



ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 12:23 AM
I am thoroughly enjoying these two teams and their level of play. They show passion, grit, and tough-mindedness that is lost in today's culture of basketball where fashion and gaudiness take the front seat more often than not. It is really refreshing. Those same traits are what ordinary fans like myself can relate to and is why I hope a Chicago and Memphis finals match-up comes through.

Maybe, not so much the league, though?

ChitownBears22
05-05-2013, 12:25 AM
I am thoroughly enjoying these two teams and their level of play. They show passion, grit, and tough-mindedness that is lost in today's culture of basketball where fashion and gaudiness take the front seat more often than not. It is really refreshing. Those same traits are what ordinary fans like myself can relate to and is why I hope a Chicago and Memphis finals match-up comes through.

Maybe, not so much the league, though?

Basketball purists? Wouldn't they rather see Mia v Mem? Both solid defensive teams with solid offense as well. Memphis would sweep Chicago, what kind of fan would want that in the finals?

raiderposting
05-05-2013, 12:30 AM
Bulls vs grizz will be one of the most boring match ups of all time. Now Grizz vs heat will be interesting because I have the grizz beating them.

Big Zo
05-05-2013, 12:32 AM
Yeah, cuz you know how everyone looks back so fondly at the 2005 Spurs vs. Pistons finals...

ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 03:43 AM
Yeah, cuz you know how everyone looks back so fondly at the 2005 Spurs vs. Pistons finals...

Man, it's posters like you that defeat the purpose of intelligent dialogue. Are you upset because I did not include Miami in there? All I stated, and rather innocuously I might add, was that it's been fun watching those two teams because I appreciate good basketball. Basketball is one of my passions and has been a tremendous part of my life. I like to play basketball a certain way and I like to watch a brand of basketball that incorporates grit and hard work. Many teams in the NBA do not offer that. Instead, they play basketball without fundamentals and with a greater reliance on athleticism....Instead, you post something that has nothing to do with what I stated. And yes, in fact, I enjoyed the 2005 series. It was played tough and intelligently. You might not have enjoyed it because you're not a purist?

ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 03:45 AM
Basketball purists? Wouldn't they rather see Mia v Mem? Both solid defensive teams with solid offense as well. Memphis would sweep Chicago, what kind of fan would want that in the finals?

I don't think Memphis would sweep the Bulls. I think it would go the distance, to be honest. Thibs is too great of a coach.

Shkelqim
05-05-2013, 04:06 AM
Memphis vs Heat seems like a good matchup honestly, no other team can come close to them

c.c.
05-05-2013, 05:02 AM
I like both teams but I doubt it

Munkeysuit
05-05-2013, 07:22 AM
Bulls are amazingly tough, but just as amazingly fragile :confused:
Miami vs Memphis would be a better series for excitement.

naps
05-05-2013, 07:51 AM
It's become a fashion nowadays to act as the so-called basketball purist :rolleyes:

PhillyFaninLA
05-05-2013, 08:07 AM
I in no way think it will happen but I think the Knicks would be a much better finals team then the Bulls this year for basketball purists.

seikou8
05-05-2013, 09:17 AM
Man, it's posters like you that defeat the purpose of intelligent dialogue. Are you upset because I did not include Miami in there? All I stated, and rather innocuously I might add, was that it's been fun watching those two teams because I appreciate good basketball. Basketball is one of my passions and has been a tremendous part of my life. I like to play basketball a certain way and I like to watch a brand of basketball that incorporates grit and hard work. Many teams in the NBA do not offer that. Instead, they play basketball without fundamentals and with a greater reliance on athleticism....Instead, you post something that has nothing to do with what I stated. And yes, in fact, I enjoyed the 2005 series. It was played tough and intelligently. You might not have enjoyed it because you're not a purist?

yup psd has some fickle and insecure fans I love the knicks but i am realist and i am need to jump their defense every thread every single day like some these posters do

dtmagnet
05-05-2013, 10:04 AM
Nooo I only liek it when Lebron dunksss tha balll in the basket hopp!

KnicksorBust
05-05-2013, 10:18 AM
Too much of a long-shot for me to entertain.

TylerSL
05-05-2013, 10:21 AM
nobody else shows passion, grit, or tough-mindedness :rolleyes:

Big Zo
05-05-2013, 10:21 AM
Man, it's posters like you that defeat the purpose of intelligent dialogue. Are you upset because I did not include Miami in there? All I stated, and rather innocuously I might add, was that it's been fun watching those two teams because I appreciate good basketball. Basketball is one of my passions and has been a tremendous part of my life. I like to play basketball a certain way and I like to watch a brand of basketball that incorporates grit and hard work. Many teams in the NBA do not offer that. Instead, they play basketball without fundamentals and with a greater reliance on athleticism....Instead, you post something that has nothing to do with what I stated. And yes, in fact, I enjoyed the 2005 series. It was played tough and intelligently. You might not have enjoyed it because you're not a purist?

And when the hell did I mention the Heat? Obviously 99% of the population doesn't wanna see a Finals without any star players in it. Unless Rose comes back, that would be the case. And yeah, I guess i'm not a so-called "purist."

TeamSeattle
05-05-2013, 10:57 AM
That would be one of the most interesting Finals ever IMO. Two teams who play fundamental basketball and scrap and play with heart would be more than entertaining for myself. The NBA is marketed by star players now, so it won't happen but it would be cool to see if it happened to take place.

Hellcrooner
05-05-2013, 12:20 PM
Grizzlies vs Pacers .

That would be the pure one.

Rose would spoil the purity vs star **** game .

ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 12:23 PM
It's become a fashion nowadays to act as the so-called basketball purist :rolleyes:

No, nowadays we have a lot of idiots. We have many people who act like they know even a little about basketball. We have people who write one sentence responses that have nothing to do with arguing the point. We have people who feel like they need to bring a miserable indirect response because they are miserable and think they are clever. Nah, THAT"S the fashion these days.

John Walls Era
05-05-2013, 12:27 PM
The same purist who will complain about the refs every 20 seconds?

SwatTeam
05-05-2013, 12:36 PM
Ummmm what to the bulls do that is considered pure or fundamental basketball besides play defense and hustle? I'd even argue that their defense this year is not as good as previous years anyways (mostly due to injuries, free agent movement, etc.)

Pure basketball would incorporate the use of a proper set offensive plays using fundamental tactics like ball movement, posting up, etc. which the bulls do not do consistently on offense. The bulls can't score when they want to and struggled against the Brooklyn Nets for crying out loud. Don't get upset when people look at the Bulls and see a severely flawed team. They are not basketball purist wet dream for an NBAfinals matchup, more so a nightmare. Learn what basketball purist believe in before posting incredulous statements.

ChicagoJ
05-05-2013, 12:53 PM
I think the bulls, due to injuries, are forced into playing defense and hustle which is somewhat refreshing in today's game. I'm not as familiar with memphis so can't really comment on them. I'd say every series is different and it depends on how the teams match up. Although, there is nothing boring about how the bulls are playing right now unless you don't like basketball. The only thing that wouldn't be great is to see a team glide through the playoffs to a championship. Miami has potential to do that. If your a heat fan then you love it. I was there before when the bulls did what they did in the 90s. And it was great for all bulls fans. But, there were plenty of people who wanted to see the bulls loose.

But, most nba fans want to see drama, unexpected outcomes, heart, and of course competitiveness. So, I think the bulls and perhaps the grizzlies would bring that in a series.

xxplayerxx23
05-05-2013, 12:59 PM
God forbid the heat don't make the finals is what Miami fans meant in this thread.

Chronz
05-05-2013, 01:21 PM
Define purist. Chicago isn't my idea of a traditional team, if anything they most represent the new age shift in defensive principles (loading up strong side box and what not).

Memphis I can understand, they are a true throwback, but it wouldn't be entertaining to see them crush the Bulls at all.

Chitownhero1992
05-05-2013, 01:42 PM
I've said all year long that Grizz vs Bulls should be the Finals, it is the most true basketball that the league has. The Grizz with a natural offense and solid defense, the bulls a gritty heart filled defensive team. It is true basketball at its best.

Minimal
05-05-2013, 01:45 PM
Two great defensive teams, who don't really have that great offensive power will be great to watch? Not for me to say the truth.
I respect Memphis so much and want them to make the finals, but the last time Miami played Memphis was the most boring game I saw for the duration of whole season. Both teams were struggling to score whole the time.
Bulls vs Grizzlies won't be my cup of tea.

SwatTeam
05-05-2013, 02:14 PM
I'm sorry but the bulls are frustrating to watch. Yes, they play good defense (not the best in my opinion because I believe their defense was better the past two seasons) but they are frustrating to watch offensively. They struggle mightily to get buckets and go for long stretches without points being scored. They struggled offensively against a Nets teams that is not great or even that good defensively. They are far from pure basketball when it comes to offense.

Memphis would destroy them because besides being good defensively they have 2 solid options in the post they can throw down to get get them offense when their shots aren't falling. Can the Bulls do this? I admire Noah's hustle and heart but he's not a player known for his offensive repertoire. Nate is streaky. Bellinelli is a cheaper version of Kyle Korver. Boozer is inconsistent on both sides of the ball. Heinrich is injured. Deng is a good swingman/2 way player but can't be relied on as a #1 scoring option. Jimmy Butler has potential but he isn't there yet. They will get stomped against a Memphis team that knows its identity on offense and defense. Don't be fooled by your homerism.

MrfadeawayJB
05-05-2013, 02:16 PM
Great defense but not enough offense, which it what the league wants

SwatTeam
05-05-2013, 02:17 PM
Define purist. Chicago isn't my idea of a traditional team, if anything they most represent the new age shift in defensive principles (loading up strong side box and what not).

Memphis I can understand, they are a true throwback, but it wouldn't be entertaining to see them crush the Bulls at all.

I agree with this completely.

bucketss
05-05-2013, 02:20 PM
no one wants to watch bulls get thrashed by memphis.

bucketss
05-05-2013, 02:22 PM
No, nowadays we have a lot of idiots. We have many people who act like they know even a little about basketball. We have people who write one sentence responses that have nothing to do with arguing the point. We have people who feel like they need to bring a miserable indirect response because they are miserable and think they are clever. Nah, THAT"S the fashion these days.

u mad?!?

ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 03:36 PM
Define purist. Chicago isn't my idea of a traditional team, if anything they most represent the new age shift in defensive principles (loading up strong side box and what not).

Memphis I can understand, they are a true throwback, but it wouldn't be entertaining to see them crush the Bulls at all.

I don't mean to offend you, but it seems that you are acting like you know something. What in the world does 'loading up on the strong side box and what not' have to do with pure basketball? Sounds like you regurgitated a Hubie Brown quote. This site is for intelligent debate. So debate!...what the hell is 'what not'. How the hell am I supposed to argue that?

This is my interpretation of purist basketball:
In organized basketball, the team concept is what rules. It's a collection of 5 guys working together defensively and offensively. Purist basketball is easily interpreted when the NBA is compared to college basketball. Often, there is no single player that rules the ball. It is true that the Bulls have one of the lesser shooting teams, but more often than they run their plays to perfection and any one person can find themselves in a open position. In basketball, the Kobes, Lebrons, Pierce's are notable and celebrated because they have the ability to create their own shots and make some unbelievable plays. That's not so much the case in college basketball, where a scheme is set and rarely does one player go beyond it.

Another point is help defense. Because the NBA runs so many isolation plays, there is little need for help defense. Help defense, contradictory to popular thought, is not bum rushing Kobe when Jarret Jack looks like he's about to be crossed over. Help defense begins with proper spacing and it is almost impossible to have proper spacing when movement is stagnant opposite the strong side.

Half court play: College basketball relies more on half court plays that really test a scheme. In the NBA, there is more of a reliance on foot speed and athleticism. This requires a different skill set and isn't defined so much as methodical. It's pummeling the opponent.


Now, the following is quote that I think is fundamental to my argument. It's from a book called Basketball and Philosophy: Thinking Outside the Paint:

"Purists rightly claim that a game that involves ten individuals in tightly interactive relationships both offensively and defensively is more complex than a game that emphasizes only two individuals in these relationships. More complexity exists in a ten-person test because more variables are involved in making things go right (or wrong). Players, I would argue, appreciate this complexity because there are more possibilities to be exploited. Informed fans who watch basketball enjoy ten-person complexity because there is more to see and understand."

In essence the game is dumbed down when individuals take over the game. The game loses complexity. I love beautiful dunks and crossovers as much a sthe next person. In fact, I root for the Lakers. But, I really enjoy a brand of basketball that is pure as defined above. Hope that answers your question.

ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 03:54 PM
You know what, I'd even argue that the Bulls and Grizzlies have become more fundamental-centric teams with the losses of Rose and Gay.

ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 03:56 PM
I'm sorry but the bulls are frustrating to watch. Yes, they play good defense (not the best in my opinion because I believe their defense was better the past two seasons) but they are frustrating to watch offensively. They struggle mightily to get buckets and go for long stretches without points being scored. They struggled offensively against a Nets teams that is not great or even that good defensively. They are far from pure basketball when it comes to offense.

Memphis would destroy them because besides being good defensively they have 2 solid options in the post they can throw down to get get them offense when their shots aren't falling. Can the Bulls do this? I admire Noah's hustle and heart but he's not a player known for his offensive repertoire. Nate is streaky. Bellinelli is a cheaper version of Kyle Korver. Boozer is inconsistent on both sides of the ball. Heinrich is injured. Deng is a good swingman/2 way player but can't be relied on as a #1 scoring option. Jimmy Butler has potential but he isn't there yet. They will get stomped against a Memphis team that knows its identity on offense and defense. Don't be fooled by your homerism.

I'm a Laker fan. In fact dislike the Bulls franchise. But, I appreciate good basketball.

ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 04:02 PM
................

ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 04:03 PM
u mad?!?


Yeah, I sort of am

bucketss
05-05-2013, 04:15 PM
basketball purist = hipsters.

ChiSox219
05-05-2013, 04:16 PM
Ankush,

The Heat and Spurs both feature top 10 offenses and defenses. Each team has unselfish superstars and role players that compliment the stars really well. How is the Grizzlies-Bulls "grit" a more pure form of basketball than that match?

b@llhog24
05-05-2013, 04:22 PM
:yawn:

b@llhog24
05-05-2013, 04:22 PM
Ankush,

The Heat and Spurs both feature top 10 offenses and defenses. Each team has unselfish superstars and role players that compliment the stars really well. How is the Grizzlies-Bulls "grit" a more pure form of basketball than that match?

Harden is a bad man.

SwatTeam
05-05-2013, 04:33 PM
I'm a Laker fan. In fact dislike the Bulls franchise. But, I appreciate good basketball.

I'm glad that's the case. Most Bulls fan wouldn't say such things. In fact, most Bulls fans I talk to understand they are a flawed team offensively. Your definition of pure basketball is contradictory. You just quoted from a book and decided to apply that to the bulls. Show me an expert who thinks the Bulls play good pure basketball on BOTH sides of the ball. Good luck. Again, they are severely flawed offensively. They do NOT run plays called on offense to perfection more times than not or else they would score more points and wouldn't go on scoring droughts for long stretches of the game. A good example of a fundamental basketball team is the Spurs from the past decade. A good low post presence with above average to great wing players in Ginobili and Parker.

Also your claim that iso ball dominates pro basketball a lot more than college basketball is true. Its due to the fact that pro teams have more talented players. That doesn't mean that college basketball is more pure or aesthetically more pleasing to watch. The mistakes are more apparent and glaring in college basketball when plays aren't run correctly, which is more times than not. They play with a longer shot clock (35 seconds- therefore, score less points, waste more time, less efficient offensively), their three point line is shorter, and a lot of players lack fundamental skills (contrary to popular belief, as many players drafted into the league don't know how to post up properly and play from the block coming out of college, which can also be attributed to lack of talent and speed in the league). Evidence lies in the fact of the poor post play that predominates pro basketball in the league today.

TANGENT:
Likewise, in college basketball, the top programs ALWAYS get the best talent and remain at the top of the league. People believe there is parity in college basketball, when there truly is not. The same programs always win the championship more times than not (Duke, UNC, UConn, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, and Indiana have won multiple nat'l titles since 1980) Those 7 programs are always at the top or near the top year after year with Florida thrown in there recently this past decade. So lets say 8 programs, dominate college basketball all the time. Well in the NBA in any given year its always about 4-5 teams in contention. Well 4/32 is equivalent to 8/64.

NYKalltheway
05-05-2013, 04:56 PM
Yeah, cuz you know how everyone looks back so fondly at the 2005 Spurs vs. Pistons finals...


One of the best finals series actually.

Nick O
05-05-2013, 05:13 PM
the thought jokim noah winning a title makes me wanna puke so no thanks

Nick O
05-05-2013, 05:16 PM
i dont really understand threads like this... you're just sort of stating something unrealistic that a group of fans would enjoy... i could have made a thread saying that a bucks/rockets final would have been great because fans love underdogs...

BULLSFAN0810
05-05-2013, 05:26 PM
It would be great to see. Two though mentally eager teams, battle it out. Banging bodies, fighting for rebounds, position and the Refs would actually stay out of it . No phantom calls, star treatment. Great post play, and perimeter defense. Imho it would be an alltime great slobber knocker.

Chronz
05-05-2013, 05:30 PM
I don't mean to offend you, but it seems that you are acting like you know something. What in the world does 'loading up on the strong side box and what not' have to do with pure basketball?
None taken, insinuations based on zero evidence dont phase me.

Loading up Strong Side Box is a defensive principle popularized by Coach Thibs. Its a relatively new age defensive tactic, its meant to disrupt isolation basketball. Because I identify purist NBA basketball as something more traditional, its pretty much impossible to be a zone heavy defensive team and be pure considering zones, particularly in this form, were illegal for most of NBA history. That may be different if you consider NCAA ball to be more "pure" but thats not what I identify with.


This is my interpretation of purist basketball:
I disagree with it entirely, any time you compare College to the NBA, you're not talking about the form of basketball I relate to. To me a purist game is played with traditional old school NBA concepts. Bulls dont fit that bill because of their emphasis on zones and lack of post play. If your definition of purist basketball is focus on team play rather than star drivven basketball then thats your choice, but with regards to the NBA, All-Stars have typically owned the game so I dont focus on such matters. You can still be about the team but have primary scorers, its simply the teams act in freeing up those scorers that I would focus on.


Another point is help defense. Because the NBA runs so many isolation plays, there is little need for help defense.
Its the opposite, isolation plays have gone down over the past few years in RESPONSE to these new tactics. Thibs help game plan is most effective if you play isolation heavy basketball.


Help defense, contradictory to popular thought, is not bum rushing Kobe when Jarret Jack looks like he's about to be crossed over. Help defense begins with proper spacing and it is almost impossible to have proper spacing when movement is stagnant opposite the strong side.
Bum rushing? Can you use actual NBA terminology, I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say. Both offense and defense are about spacing, we agree on that.


Half court play: College basketball relies more on half court plays that really test a scheme. In the NBA, there is more of a reliance on foot speed and athleticism. This requires a different skill set and isn't defined so much as methodical. It's pummeling the opponent.
Point? Again, College basketball is irrelevant to me, we have different interpretations of a purist basketball. The Bulls do play like a College team, so I can understand why you're making that connection, but thats not what I consider pure basketball because Im focusing on the NBA game and how that has historically been played.


Now, the following is quote that I think is fundamental to my argument. It's from a book called Basketball and Philosophy: Thinking Outside the Paint:

"Purists rightly claim that a game that involves ten individuals in tightly interactive relationships both offensively and defensively is more complex than a game that emphasizes only two individuals in these relationships. More complexity exists in a ten-person test because more variables are involved in making things go right (or wrong). Players, I would argue, appreciate this complexity because there are more possibilities to be exploited. Informed fans who watch basketball enjoy ten-person complexity because there is more to see and understand."

I get ya, maybe Im being too literal, but to me, its hard to recognize something as purist when its not implying traditional NBA values. Heavy zone defense was less prevalent back in the olden NBA, obviously so was long distance shooting. Thus a team like the Grizz who plays through the post and gets by with non-shooters like Tony Allen playing heavy minutes, are more of a throwback than a team like the Bulls that has a coach who is widely credited for the advancements in defensive style. Any time your coach is revolutionary, its hard to be remain pure.



In essence the game is dumbed down when individuals take over the game. The game loses complexity. I love beautiful dunks and crossovers as much a sthe next person. In fact, I root for the Lakers. But, I really enjoy a brand of basketball that is pure as defined above. Hope that answers your question.
We have different definitions of the word pure, yours relates to the College game where inferior athletes compete in different rules, I relate to the NBA game and how it has evolved.

With regards to NBA basketball, the Bulls aren't very pure because they represent the new age defensive principles as opposed to the Grizz who play more traditional on both ends.

Chronz
05-05-2013, 05:35 PM
Ankush,

The Heat and Spurs both feature top 10 offenses and defenses. Each team has unselfish superstars and role players that compliment the stars really well. How is the Grizzlies-Bulls "grit" a more pure form of basketball than that match?
Can you answer something for me.

Is it possible to remain "PURE" when your coach is applying revolutionary tactics?

ChiSox219
05-05-2013, 05:37 PM
Can you answer something for me.

Is it possible to remain "PURE" when your coach is applying revolutionary tactics?

Are you talking about Thibs or someone else?

Chronz
05-05-2013, 05:38 PM
Ankush,

The Heat and Spurs both feature top 10 offenses and defenses. Each team has unselfish superstars and role players that compliment the stars really well. How is the Grizzlies-Bulls "grit" a more pure form of basketball than that match?
He doesn't care about the success of the offense, just the disparity in touches. As team oriented as those stars are, the Heat still give the majority of their possessions to a select few players.

In his ideal/pure basketball environment, all 5 players on the court would get a relatively equal amount of touches.
Imagine 5 players all sporting 20 usage%, regardless of how effective it would be, it would be the most team oriented approach of basketball.

I imagine thats more viable in the NCAA , but in the NBA, I doubt thats the ideal construct

Chronz
05-05-2013, 05:39 PM
Are you talking about Thibs or someone else?
Yes Thibs

ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 05:46 PM
Ankush,

The Heat and Spurs both feature top 10 offenses and defenses. Each team has unselfish superstars and role players that compliment the stars really well. How is the Grizzlies-Bulls "grit" a more pure form of basketball than that match?

Definitely agree with you on the Spurs. I was using Memphis and Bulls as an example. I feel like the Spurs play into that same definition. Even their isolation plays are based on weak side screens, so it's much more of a "team iso". I'm not so sure about the Miami Heat, though. They are great. I think they're made up of great individual players. However, Lebron and Wade dominate the ball.

ChiSox219
05-05-2013, 05:47 PM
He doesn't care about the success of the offense, just the disparity in touches. As team oriented as those stars are, the Heat still give the majority of their possessions to a select few players.

In his ideal/pure basketball environment, all 5 players on the court would get a relatively equal amount of touches.
Imagine 5 players all sporting 20 usage%, regardless of how effective it would be, it would be the most team oriented approach of basketball.

I imagine thats more viable in the NCAA , but in the NBA, I doubt thats the ideal construct

Ah, that's basically what Karl's been doing with the Nuggets since Melo left. I'm not sure that's what I call pure, that's just a balanced offense.


Yes Thibs

He's just executing the idea that so many have known for a long time, force long contested two's and stop everything else. The way he's doing it is revolutionary but it's based on a "pure" principal. Getting his team to buy in and having players willing to give that effort is as important as his scheme.

ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 05:53 PM
None taken, insinuations based on zero evidence dont phase me.

Loading up Strong Side Box is a defensive principle popularized by Coach Thibs. Its a relatively new age defensive tactic, its meant to disrupt isolation basketball. Because I identify purist NBA basketball as something more traditional, its pretty much impossible to be a zone heavy defensive team and be pure considering zones, particularly in this form, were illegal for most of NBA history. That may be different if you consider NCAA ball to be more "pure" but thats not what I identify with.


I disagree with it entirely, any time you compare College to the NBA, you're not talking about the form of basketball I relate to. To me a purist game is played with traditional old school NBA concepts. Bulls dont fit that bill because of their emphasis on zones and lack of post play. If your definition of purist basketball is focus on team play rather than star drivven basketball then thats your choice, but with regards to the NBA, All-Stars have typically owned the game so I dont focus on such matters. You can still be about the team but have primary scorers, its simply the teams act in freeing up those scorers that I would focus on.


Its the opposite, isolation plays have gone down over the past few years in RESPONSE to these new tactics. Thibs help game plan is most effective if you play isolation heavy basketball.


Bum rushing? Can you use actual NBA terminology, I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say. Both offense and defense are about spacing, we agree on that.


Point? Again, College basketball is irrelevant to me, we have different interpretations of a purist basketball. The Bulls do play like a College team, so I can understand why you're making that connection, but thats not what I consider pure basketball because Im focusing on the NBA game and how that has historically been played.



I get ya, maybe Im being too literal, but to me, its hard to recognize something as purist when its not implying traditional NBA values. Heavy zone defense was less prevalent back in the olden NBA, obviously so was long distance shooting. Thus a team like the Grizz who plays through the post and gets by with non-shooters like Tony Allen playing heavy minutes, are more of a throwback than a team like the Bulls that has a coach who is widely credited for the advancements in defensive style. Any time your coach is revolutionary, its hard to be remain pure.


We have different definitions of the word pure, yours relates to the College game where inferior athletes compete in different rules, I relate to the NBA game and how it has evolved.

With regards to NBA basketball, the Bulls aren't very pure because they represent the new age defensive principles as opposed to the Grizz who play more traditional on both ends.

Okay, makes more sense now. My definition of pure basketball is more along the lines of what Vitale and Jerry Walls outline in their book (Basketball and Philosophy). It's a definition that I thought was kind of set in stone. But, hey, who am I to say that your interpretation is wrong? So, it's not so much that you are agreeing/disagreeing with me, it's just a matter of interpretation. I really do appreciate the effort in clarification, though. By the way, bum rushing is phrase often used; not meant to be a basketball reference.

ChitownBears22
05-05-2013, 06:45 PM
If the HEAT and Memphis wore short shorts, would it be pure basketball? Why do things have to be pure, you realize games evolve. It isn't all about dunking and shooting outside of Chicago and Memphis, if that is your belief you are missing some great basketball.

ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 07:18 PM
I'm glad that's the case. Most Bulls fan wouldn't say such things. In fact, most Bulls fans I talk to understand they are a flawed team offensively. Your definition of pure basketball is contradictory. You just quoted from a book and decided to apply that to the bulls. Show me an expert who thinks the Bulls play good pure basketball on BOTH sides of the ball. Good luck. Again, they are severely flawed offensively. They do NOT run plays called on offense to perfection more times than not or else they would score more points and wouldn't go on scoring droughts for long stretches of the game. A good example of a fundamental basketball team is the Spurs from the past decade. A good low post presence with above average to great wing players in Ginobili and Parker.

Also your claim that iso ball dominates pro basketball a lot more than college basketball is true. Its due to the fact that pro teams have more talented players. That doesn't mean that college basketball is more pure or aesthetically more pleasing to watch. The mistakes are more apparent and glaring in college basketball when plays aren't run correctly, which is more times than not. They play with a longer shot clock (35 seconds- therefore, score less points, waste more time, less efficient offensively), their three point line is shorter, and a lot of players lack fundamental skills (contrary to popular belief, as many players drafted into the league don't know how to post up properly and play from the block coming out of college, which can also be attributed to lack of talent and speed in the league). Evidence lies in the fact of the poor post play that predominates pro basketball in the league today.

TANGENT:
Likewise, in college basketball, the top programs ALWAYS get the best talent and remain at the top of the league. People believe there is parity in college basketball, when there truly is not. The same programs always win the championship more times than not (Duke, UNC, UConn, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, and Indiana have won multiple nat'l titles since 1980) Those 7 programs are always at the top or near the top year after year with Florida thrown in there recently this past decade. So lets say 8 programs, dominate college basketball all the time. Well in the NBA in any given year its always about 4-5 teams in contention. Well 4/32 is equivalent to 8/64.

What I did was support my position with a source. Vitale and Walls are two great sources, i think. Dick Vitale has been an integral part in the process of transitioning a college player into a professional one. He's perhaps the most notable figure associated with NCAA basketball and has been a major figure in the NBA also. You are asking me to look up someone that supports my idea that the Bulls play fundamental basketball. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You are hard pressed to find support for a specific argument in any field. In addition, why don't YOU look up a source that says the Bulls DON"T play fundamental basketball. All I saw in your argument was....well, I just saw your opinion. It would be nice if there was a little less hypocrisy.

BULLSFAN0810
05-05-2013, 07:26 PM
I don't mean to offend you, but it seems that you are acting like you know something. What in the world does 'loading up on the strong side box and what not' have to do with pure basketball? Sounds like you regurgitated a Hubie Brown quote. This site is for intelligent debate. So debate!...what the hell is 'what not'. How the hell am I supposed to argue that?

This is my interpretation of purist basketball:
In organized basketball, the team concept is what rules. It's a collection of 5 guys working together defensively and offensively. Purist basketball is easily interpreted when the NBA is compared to college basketball. Often, there is no single player that rules the ball. It is true that the Bulls have one of the lesser shooting teams, but more often than they run their plays to perfection and any one person can find themselves in a open position. In basketball, the Kobes, Lebrons, Pierce's are notable and celebrated because they have the ability to create their own shots and make some unbelievable plays. That's not so much the case in college basketball, where a scheme is set and rarely does one player go beyond it.

Another point is help defense. Because the NBA runs so many isolation plays, there is little need for help defense. Help defense, contradictory to popular thought, is not bum rushing Kobe when Jarret Jack looks like he's about to be crossed over. Help defense begins with proper spacing and it is almost impossible to have proper spacing when movement is stagnant opposite the strong side.

Half court play: College basketball relies more on half court plays that really test a scheme. In the NBA, there is more of a reliance on foot speed and athleticism. This requires a different skill set and isn't defined so much as methodical. It's pummeling the opponent.


Now, the following is quote that I think is fundamental to my argument. It's from a book called Basketball and Philosophy: Thinking Outside the Paint:

"Purists rightly claim that a game that involves ten individuals in tightly interactive relationships both offensively and defensively is more complex than a game that emphasizes only two individuals in these relationships. More complexity exists in a ten-person test because more variables are involved in making things go right (or wrong). Players, I would argue, appreciate this complexity because there are more possibilities to be exploited. Informed fans who watch basketball enjoy ten-person complexity because there is more to see and understand."

In essence the game is dumbed down when individuals take over the game. The game loses complexity. I love beautiful dunks and crossovers as much a sthe next person. In fact, I root for the Lakers. But, I really enjoy a brand of basketball that is pure as defined above. Hope that answers your question.
Great post

Nick O
05-05-2013, 07:35 PM
I don't understand the whole basketball purist thing? when it gets brought up i often notice a bunch of people acting like they hate dunks and ally oops and celebrating. i love a good defense and can appreciate a well set screen and hard nosed play . but i just find it weird where all of a sudden people act like excitement hurts the game.. not directed at the OP or anyone in general.. just a couple people ive noticed in the past.. however on topic.. i think the Spurs are still the best example of basketball "purity" around..

OceanSpray
05-05-2013, 07:44 PM
Spurs vs Miami is the best matchup that can possibly happen. LeBron needs to finish the business with the SAS and also because a lot of analyst actually think Spurs will give them a tough matchup.

Bring The Heat
05-05-2013, 07:46 PM
What has made the NBA so great? Stars like Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, John Stockton... The list goes on and on.... If you want to watch that type of basketball then take a look at college... in the NBA is a whole new level.. The man amongst boys emerge and stars are born here...

I'm sorry I love basketball and been watching/playing all my life... But I could give 2 craps about watching two teams like memphis and chicago go at it. That would be frustrating and boring as hell to watch. I watch the NBA because I want to see the best and most remarkable players display their talents on the court and go at it.... the NBA is been so great because of that.

Is it all of a sudden its cool to frown upon dunks, alley oops, cross overs and spectacular athletic plays... I'm sorry I'm not going to jump on that bandwagon. I'm 27 years old, I been watching basketball since the 90's and I ain't going to act like all cool like I don't appreciate those plays and get hyped up jumping off my couch when I see a sick dunk.

ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 07:59 PM
What has made the NBA so great? Stars like Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, John Stockton... The list goes on and on.... If you want to watch that type of basketball then take a look at college... in the NBA is a whole new level.. The man amongst boys emerge and stars are born here...

I'm sorry I love basketball and been watching/playing all my life... But I could give 2 craps about watching two teams like memphis and chicago go at it. That would be frustrating and boring as hell to watch. I watch the NBA because I want to see the best and most remarkable players display their talents on the court and go at it.... the NBA is been so great because of that.

Is it all of a sudden its cool to frown upon dunks, alley oops, cross overs and spectacular athletic plays... I'm sorry I'm not going to jump on that bandwagon. I'm 27 years old, I been watching basketball since the 90's and I ain't going to act like all cool like I don't appreciate those plays and get hyped up jumping off my couch when I see a sick dunk.

Never said it wasn't cool or not fun to watch. Memphis and Chicago play a different style of basketball that maybe harks back to a previous era. I simply wanted to say that it appeals to me because these are things I would do on a basketball court. I cannot dunk nor am I freak of nature. Sure, it's tremendous to see...I just can't relate.

ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 08:02 PM
I'm glad that's the case. Most Bulls fan wouldn't say such things. In fact, most Bulls fans I talk to understand they are a flawed team offensively. Your definition of pure basketball is contradictory. You just quoted from a book and decided to apply that to the bulls. Show me an expert who thinks the Bulls play good pure basketball on BOTH sides of the ball. Good luck. Again, they are severely flawed offensively. They do NOT run plays called on offense to perfection more times than not or else they would score more points and wouldn't go on scoring droughts for long stretches of the game. A good example of a fundamental basketball team is the Spurs from the past decade. A good low post presence with above average to great wing players in Ginobili and Parker.

Also your claim that iso ball dominates pro basketball a lot more than college basketball is true. Its due to the fact that pro teams have more talented players. That doesn't mean that college basketball is more pure or aesthetically more pleasing to watch. The mistakes are more apparent and glaring in college basketball when plays aren't run correctly, which is more times than not. They play with a longer shot clock (35 seconds- therefore, score less points, waste more time, less efficient offensively), their three point line is shorter, and a lot of players lack fundamental skills (contrary to popular belief, as many players drafted into the league don't know how to post up properly and play from the block coming out of college, which can also be attributed to lack of talent and speed in the league). Evidence lies in the fact of the poor post play that predominates pro basketball in the league today.

TANGENT:
Likewise, in college basketball, the top programs ALWAYS get the best talent and remain at the top of the league. People believe there is parity in college basketball, when there truly is not. The same programs always win the championship more times than not (Duke, UNC, UConn, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, and Indiana have won multiple nat'l titles since 1980) Those 7 programs are always at the top or near the top year after year with Florida thrown in there recently this past decade. So lets say 8 programs, dominate college basketball all the time. Well in the NBA in any given year its always about 4-5 teams in contention. Well 4/32 is equivalent to 8/64.

An article that talks about the Bulls ending the Heat's streak. It does not directly mention fundamentals, but it touches on some of the things I've been talking about. Nor am I saying that this is a grade A source....just one that I found on a Google search:

http://www.bballbreakdown.com/how-the-bulls-banged-and-the-heat-streak-ceased/

ChitownBears22
05-05-2013, 08:03 PM
Never said it wasn't cool or not fun to watch. Memphis and Chicago play a different style of basketball that maybe harks back to a previous era. I simply wanted to say that it appeals to me because these are things I would do on a basketball court. I cannot dunk nor am I freak of nature. Sure, it's tremendous to see...I just can't relate.

Yeah I miss the old days of solid D and horrible offense.

NYKalltheway
05-05-2013, 08:16 PM
Yeah I miss the old days of solid D and horrible offense.

what days would those be?

ChitownBears22
05-05-2013, 08:18 PM
what days would those be?

It was sarcasm, he wants the Bulls in the finals for pure basketball reasons (whatever that means). They have solid D and a horrible offense that is plagued by injuries. What kind of fan wants to see a subpar product in the finals.

ANKUSH
05-05-2013, 08:36 PM
It was sarcasm, he wants the Bulls in the finals for pure basketball reasons (whatever that means). They have solid D and a horrible offense that is plagued by injuries. What kind of fan wants to see a subpar product in the finals.

You forgot to take up reading comprehension. 'Pure basketball reasons'. Nah man, I'm talking about fundamnetal basketball. Tried to understand and respond correctly to your ignorance, but you're not worth it. Don't like the thread, GTFO.

ChitownBears22
05-05-2013, 09:40 PM
You forgot to take up reading comprehension. 'Pure basketball reasons'. Nah man, I'm talking about fundamnetal basketball. Tried to understand and respond correctly to your ignorance, but you're not worth it. Don't like the thread, GTFO.

Fundamental? Then you should want San Antonio and Miami. Fundamentals and efficiency go hand in hand you would have the two most efficient teams in the league.

rex.reyesiii
05-05-2013, 11:11 PM
Unselfish Superstars, Efficiency are the keywords for me here.

This thread is a great read guys thanks. ;D

R. Johnson#3
05-05-2013, 11:25 PM
A Memphis/Chicago finals would be full of elbows and shoving which is great and all but Chicago would get owned. They have too many injuries and not to mention Memphis' backcourt would completely shut down anything the Bulls throw at them except for D Rose.

ModernDaySavage
05-05-2013, 11:52 PM
I'd love the battle of the bigs, that's about it.

SwatTeam
05-06-2013, 12:29 AM
An article that talks about the Bulls ending the Heat's streak. It does not directly mention fundamentals, but it touches on some of the things I've been talking about. Nor am I saying that this is a grade A source....just one that I found on a Google search:

http://www.bballbreakdown.com/how-the-bulls-banged-and-the-heat-streak-ceased/

http://www.comcastsportsnet.com/landing?blockID=798959&feedID=627

BTW, this is an old article from the beginning of the season. But many of the offensive struggles mentioned still exist today. A whole season has passed and reading through that article, regardless, shows that the Bulls still struggle with the same offensive problems today as they have all season due to Rose's absence. They struggle to even maintain the identity that Thibs wants on offense which is "inside-out" half court sets (Noah being flawed offensively as a post up big man). Thibs countered that actually by encouraging more of a quicker pace offensively (not fundamental in principle) so the Bulls can set up before the defense can. They are not as fundamental as you think on the offensive side of the ball. They are not a purely fundamental team on BOTH sides of the ball unless you believe watching a team that struggles to score to be fundamental. I haven't seen a counter to this point yet.

To add to that, I think the Pacers at times play well fundamentally when they can get Hibbert involved offensively as well as D.West and their shooters are on target. However, they are inconsistent more times than not. But even they rely on a wing like George to step up when their offense stalls.

I've watched the Bulls all season living here in Chicago and believe me, sometimes they can be downright frustrating to watch. The only thing that keeps them afloat is their hustle and defensive identity, mostly a tribute to Thibs and Noah.

DumDum
05-06-2013, 02:18 AM
Eww that's nasty nobody wants see that

Big Zo
05-06-2013, 09:00 AM
I don't understand the whole basketball purist thing? when it gets brought up i often notice a bunch of people acting like they hate dunks and ally oops and celebrating. i love a good defense and can appreciate a well set screen and hard nosed play . but i just find it weird where all of a sudden people act like excitement hurts the game.. not directed at the OP or anyone in general.. just a couple people ive noticed in the past.. however on topic.. i think the Spurs are still the best example of basketball "purity" around..

These people are known as "hipsters."

JordansBulls
05-06-2013, 09:14 AM
Knicks vs Thunder would be ideal to see a KD vs Melo matchup.

NYKalltheway
05-06-2013, 12:45 PM
Knicks vs Thunder would be ideal to see a KD vs Melo matchup.

See them going 50-60 points per game while the rest watch? :D

Triple_Ocho
05-06-2013, 01:16 PM
Wouldnt a basketball purist want the most fundamental teams in the finals? Spurs/Pacers... Memphis is a great team too, but I would still say the Spurs are team ball at it's finest. The Bulls play ugly basketball... Effective, but ugly...