Originally Posted by Ball Don't Lie
You're being results oriented. Everything had to go right for the Heat to win with how Spoelstra played it.
34 seconds left down 4, and you let Indiana play it out. If Indiana scores, the game is essentially over. If Indiana runs out the clock, you only have 10 seconds to HOPE to hit a 3, and then foul immediately. That's assuming MIA even secures the rebound. So in this scenario, MIA must get a clean rebound against one of the better offensive rebounding teams in the NBA, and rush it up the court and create a quick 3 against the leagues best defence. Sound good to you? Me neither.
Luckily, MIA barely secured the rebound with Lebron tip toeing the line, hit a 3 with only a few seconds left on the clock, and then Hill choked, giving MIA an opportunity to win it, where a larger percentage of the time they'd only be playing to tie the game with a 3 IF THEY'RE LUCKY and IND doesn't score on the original possesion, or get an offensive rebound after running out the clock.
If IND scores on the original possession, or IND secures the offensive rebound, or if their was a battle for the offensive rebound taking more time off of the clock, or if Bosh
missed that 3, everyone would be calling for Spoelstras head wondering why he wouldn't use conventional wisdom and foul to extend the game. But because everything went perfect on those 2 possesions, and Bosh
hit it, you thinks it was well coached, when 90% of the time it doesn't go perfect/perfect like that.
Do you see how flawed your argument is?
Bwahhaa! Thank you for the laugh, honestly! I have no argument in this buddy, the thing worked and all you have to say is Spoelstra got lucky.
The strategy worked, it gave them a chance to win with the last shot. There are no "ands ifs or buts".
If I were to go with your logic: "If West missed that three everyone would be up in arms and would want him waived, he only hit three threes this season before that one, should have gone with the conventional wisdom and given the ball to their best player."
Or I could just say he got lucky as if he threw the ball half way across the court.
But as I said, no "ands ifs or buts". There is no one way. Something might work just once in a hundred attempts but the fact still remains it can work. It comes to making a decision and following through. Spoelstra and the coaching staff made a decision, players agreed, they executed and got them within the striking distance. Even if George Hill hit both free throws, they would still have a chance to tie it with a three.
There was a time-out. They thought of things to do. Spoelstra knew what his team can do and went with it. Bosh
hit that three because the defence didn't have enough time to get in to position which is directly increasing Miami's chance which was part of the conscious decision. It saved them their time-out and just enough time to beat the buzzer. It took away from that best defense in the league as you said.
Of course it was risky but they had nothing to lose in the position they were in. This was their best chance and it almost won them the game.
But you are consciously deciding to label it all as just being lucky. I don't know why you have the need to constantly trash coaches, be it Casey, Scot Brooks, Spoelstra or whoever, but it has become quite funny how you find ways. And by funny, I mean taking it too far beyond the point of being taken seriously.
And some luck is always part of the game.