2 A.M. Two-Fer? Era-ta? I'm not sure what this. Finals got me spun, I guess. This comes as a preview for the Game 2 that has already transpired (unless what we did today was an incredible exercise in post-modernity), but it holds even more value after Sunday's game. It's a vid discussing Brendan Malone and the Magic's strategy at containing Kobe. Malone is the architect of the infamous "Jordan Rules," used by the Pistons in the late 80s. "The Jordan Rules" were a trademark of the Bad Boys Pistons, and as such stood as a highlight of rough, physical play.
If you saw Game 1 of the NBA Finals, you might be scratching your head a bit at this connection. If you watched Game 2, however, you might find some creedence in what's coming to be known as "The Kobe Rules." Malone makes the good point that in Game 1, it wasn't so much about strategy as it was about execution. Kobe's a little bit of a different animal when compared to MJ or even Lebron. (Last round we saw "The Lebron Rules" take effect, so I'm assuming we'll come to call any strategy geared on stopping a star by similar moniker). Both MJ and Lebron, in my humble opinion, bear the traditional marks of unconscious greatness. (by the way, Simmons totally stole my Robin Williams line for Lebron in his last mailbag) Kobe, on the other hand, is an irresistible convergence of such greatness and an almost meta-cognitive level of care given to his game. It's been said that you can't really prepare for Kobe, as he resists tendencies. Thus, one might expect "The Kobe Rules" to be a bit less effective.
How effective is this Ruler-By-Which-We-Measure-Our-Defense strategy anyway? How long did the Pistons really rule over MJ's playground? Ah, I don't really care. What I care about is what the game Sunday looked like. That Pistons team from the 80s was a trendsetter in that it led to physical teams like the 90s' Knicks. The Lakers' and Magic's run to the finals was nowhere near physicality free. Even at our happy go lucky little site here, we chronicled several instances of physical tension come somewhat to fruition. But in Game 1 and much of Game 2, this kind of "chippy" play has been conspicuously absent.
As we live blogged this game, we were consistently lulled away from our ABC feeds, even though this game was fairly close throughout. Sure, the offense was pretty anemic, but what I really think is going on here is the sad fact that these two teams don't care about each other. And, dynamic as the moving parts here are, we as fans just don't care either. It's intriguing on an intellectual level to see who wins between these two teams, but it's almost like a hypothetical question. It's almost as if we have two leagues and you get to see in an exhibition series who of the two leagues' champions would win. Wait...oh, that's my point. Either the conference set up in the NBA needs to be cleared up or else the playoffs need to be designed differently. Too often, the NBA Finals is barely even the second most important series in any given playoffs. And we can see it in the lack of intensity between these two teams.
I'll give it a few games to see if this can develop into something better. Rivalries, or even their semblance, can only occur over a good number of close contests. In the unlikely event that these two teams meet again next year in the finals, or even if this series goes six or seven games, we could see some much needed emotional gravitas/intensity. So here's hoping. In the mean time, I'll continue to bask in the glow of Lakers victories (while actually rooting for Orlando in real time; best of both worlds, eh?) and wait for next season like Cavs fans. There's something to be said about the regular season vs. this gradual winnowing down.
