Dust Off "The Jordan Defense"

[johnnymost]

Some of you remember - early in Michael Jordan's career, the Pistons and the Celtics would take turns in mercilessly beating up the greatest (unproven) player coming up in the ranks. And consistently beating him in the playoffs. Tonight's game may be the same type of game.

What were the specifics of that defensive strategy, besides a constant double team?

[Hoops]

I don't think anything changes today - the Lakers haven't proven that they can beat our defense (when we're playing with the necessary intensity). Our defense is a balance between neutralizing Kobe and not leaving role players wide open to knock down open shots. If we play our game, Kobe could score 15 or he could score 40 and we'll win either way.

[Steve Weinman]

Some of you remember - early in Michael Jordan's career, the Pistons and the Celtics would take turns in mercilessly beating up the greatest (unproven) player coming up in the ranks. And consistently beating him in the playoffs. Tonight's game may be the same type of game.

What were the specifics of that defensive strategy, besides a constant double team?

Funny that you mention this -- I'm in the middle of re-reading Sam Smith's classic The Jordan Rules, and there's plenty of discussion about this.

I'll have to go back and check the particulars for you, but the skeletal structure is pretty simple:

a) Complain endlessly to the league about officiating treatment biased towards Michael
b) Send tapes backing up complaints
c) Knock Michael down
d) Knock him down some more
e) Keep knocking him down after that

All that said, I'm with Hoops on this -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it -- and I'm not sure this would necessarily 'fix' the problem anyway in this day and age.  Let's hope our boys just keep doing what's been working and that we leave LA tonight with title 17 in hand. 

-sw

[johnnymost]

Charlie Rosen's column:
"The overall theory of the Celtics' defense is derived from Pat Riley (when he coached the Knicks and the Heat) and from career assistant Dick Harter. And the rules are simple: Commit at least 10 fouls on every play. Not simply mindless smash-mouth assaults, but subtle shoulder-checks and hip-bumps, surreptitious forearm massages and elbow-jolts, moving screens and arm-locks, elbow-tips and slaps. And anything goes during the mayhem that generally rules the lane.

Here's why these tactics are so effective:

Officials know that should they call every foul they see, the Lakers (or any opponent) will shoot 100 free throws per game.
The fouls come so quickly and so repeatedly that officials are obliged to be selective. Yet it's the rare official who can discern between illegal contact that creates an advantage and incidental contact.
By sheer repetition, refs come to accept that physical teams play physically and subsequently overlook contact that would be called if committed by more finesse-oriented teams (like the Lakers).
And the more fouls that the Celtics can (and do) get away with, the bigger their advantage and the more stifling their defense."

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8246456/Lakers-running-out-of-time-to-solve-Celtics'-defense?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=73

[jackson_34]

Charlie Rosen's column:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8246456/Lakers-running-out-of-time-to-solve-Celtics'-defense?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=73

That was a very good article. Normally I don't even bother with Rosen as he mostly 'loves to hate' the celtics and is entirely out of touch with lottery teams, but he did a very good job breaking down the C's defense in these finals. Worth the read.

[Bahku]

I'm pretty pleased with the "2008 Celtic" defense, and the "let Paul Pierce completely shut down Kobe" defense ... but that's just me!