Are you a purist or a liberal (in basketball terms)

[TradeProposalDude]

Please don't misconstrue the term "liberal" in the political sense. I mean in terms of the game of basketball. Do you tend to agree with the purists (or as I would like to call them, the strict constructionists) or are you in favor of the modifications Stern has implemented into his product in order to make the game more appealing to its consumer base?

There was a lot of controversy generated over the addition of the three point shot in the late 70's. The purists then thought it would detract from playing the game the way Naismith intended? No matter what people may think now, it's a huge part of every offense today. Ever since the 3 point shot was drawn up, there hasn't been a single team who hasn't benefited from it. Larry Bird? Kobe Bryant? Paul Pierce? Manu Ginobili? Just examples of guys who played critical roles on their title bound teams whose focus was on outside shooting - specifically three point shooting. If not focus, it was an integral part of everything they did.

There's a little problem though. The people who label themselves as purists may not necessarily oppose the three point line by itself, though they may have other semi-related issues that stem from a detraction from the fundamentals. The argument that American basketball is focusing more on athleticism than raw skills as a building block for higher level success has been regurgitated for a while now. The beef was at its height after the US took home the Bronze in '04, which was a total shocker considering the differential in collective talent on team USA versus the rest of the world's.

The new NBA has bred guys like Allen Iverson... who individually might be more talented than 99% of the rest of the world's professional basketball players, but has trouble winning because of his inability to play the game the "right way" and subsequently only function effectively doing iso's. On lesser notes, you have the Stephon Marbury's and Steve Francis's who pail in comparison talent wise to the Carlos Arroyo's, yet Arroyo of all people led Puerto Rico in a rout victory over a stacked USA team.

The subculture of "streetball" is highly renowned by the inner city urban population who have too few resources to play in organized basketball. In Rucker Park, dreams are created when "magic" is performed by those that simply stand out of the crowd. We've seen Sebastian Telfair, Kenny Anderson, Rafer Alston, Jamal Tinsley, and several others who were hyped to the maximum repping the NY playground scene, but really how good were their NBA careers?

Their focus on seemingly selfish on court behaviors and playing in a "flashy" way regardless of team efficacy might be seen as a product of a new NBA which has implemented rules like hand checking to open up scoring and inflate individual statistics. I'm not really sure that people like seeing this game... a Celtics Lakers Finals that was expected to generate incredible ratings only produced average ratings, an indicator that perhaps people aren't as satisfied with what the game has to offer as some experts would like to believe.

I'm by no means suggesting that we return to the days of Cousy and McCauley when there was no shot clock, but is the game watered down?

[Redz]

In a perfect world basketball played to the purists satisfaction would also satisfy those who enjoy the athleticism.  There's no reason why a well executed pick and roll can't lead to a nice dunk etc...

At heart, I'd say I'm a purist, but I won't say I'm disgusted when Rondo "Rondo's" someone, or that I'm not impressed by Lebron's ability to can a forty footer with a defender in his face.

[Section301]

I'm unclear on your point.  Would a purist like Cousy (he also learned to ball in NYC, by the way)?  He was definitely flashy.  Maravich was seriously flashy too.  Maybe I'm quibbling over words, but flashy play can still be fundamentally sound. Bird and Magic were both pretty [dang] flashy passers, but again, still fundamentally sound.   Dr J suggested that a dunk was a more high percentage shot than a layup, which would make it a sound choice.  Are we talking about flashy style or willingness to play within a team concept?  Since this decade has seen the Pistons and the Spurs in the finals quite a bit, it doesn't seem that team basketball is dead.  It does seem that team basketball doesn't have as broad an appeal as the sport in the 90's, when the finals were dominated by the Bulls, a team led by a mega-star who excelled in the isolation game. 

So I guess I'm a purist who likes flashy players....

[Ersatz]

TP, TPD, for a good thread idea.

I tend to think of myself as a purist, in that I like players who do fundamentals well, who play defense, who work on different aspects of their game to try to improve it, who play good team basketball, etc. Which is why Tim Duncan has always been one of my favorite players and Larry Bird is my favorite player ever. On the other hand, I also admire and respect people like Iverson, who is probably the most un-fundamental player in league history. The guy's got a heart and smarts that are incredible. I'm not sure my demand for fundamentals is as strong as I think it is.

Also, despite my declared love of fundamentals, I really like the NBA's game. Sometimes the superstar treatment gets annoying--that Jazz-Lakers series this year when Kobe got every call was terrible--but overall I like the game that the NBA has created. It certainly tends to encourage "individual" basketball in some ways, which is good because seeing what some of those athletes can do is amazing, artistic even. But I think that every team that has won the title in the post-Jordan era is an actual team, in every sense of the word. The NBA may promote individuals, but the winning teams play marvelous team basketball. Our Celtics and the Spurs are great examples of this. And I especially like NBA basketball compared to European and international basketball, which I guess is more "fundamental" but is tedious and incredibly dull. Ugly, ugly stuff.

EDIT: I would add that what drove me from being an NBA fan during the Jordan era was precisely the abandoning of team basketball across the league. Partly this was due to the complete lack of talent that the NBA had during the first two-thirds of the 90s, but it was also, I think, because of the pernicious influence of His Airness and Stern and their desire to make the NBA like Disney. Between that and the Riley-era Knicks's thuggery, that was some terrible basketball. (By the way, when people enthuse about Jordan's greatness, how come they never point out that the NBA was in terrible shape at the team, with like half of the talent pool that existed in the 80s and today.?)

[Redz]

So I guess I'm a purist who likes flashy players....

Precisely.  Sort of like those old Frosted Mini-Wheats ads

[guava_wrench]

Perhaps 'purist' / 'progressive' would be better.

Or even 'liberal' / 'conservative'.

One side shouldn't be framed with such a loaded word like 'purist' while the other gets a generic term like 'liberal'.