Mike G wrote:If you don't play someone, you don't know if they're very good or bad. And then when you finally do play them, there's a good chance they'll be less effective than if they had been in the rotation all along.
But they have played already; the players you mentioned aren't some nobodies and never played significant minutes before. But when we look at Haslem or Beasley for example, they haven't been playing well at all recently; in fact, for my next season prediction I have them with about -3.1 each, which would be below the replacement level. Jones and Battier are better, but Battier showed a pretty sharp decline ever since February (for whatever reason) and Jones showed to be best used with James running at PF, which caused other defensive issues for the Heat.
Mike G wrote:
When the Spurs were struggling against OKC, Pop yanked the starters, and the subs got them back in the game.
You mean when he replaced Splitter in the S5 with Bonner? As an adjustment to the comeback by Ibaka? That's all he did. That created different matchups, but overall it didn't make that much of a difference. I think you underrate the variance aspect here and try to find reason in more or less marginal adjustment. Overall the Spurs were substantially better in average than the Thunder; but even in that case a team may lose two games in a row; or sometimes the better team is losing a series based just on bad luck. That happens.
Nonetheless, the Heat didn't have those options anyway in the necessary quality. The players besides James, Bosh and Wade weren't as good in average, and with Wade struggling to reach his average level the Heat played substantially worse with him on the court than in previous seasons. In fact, while the Heat played elite basketball with James+Bosh+Wade on the court in the past 3 seasons, they didn't do that in this season at any point in a consistent way. That Heat team was substantially worse than the 2011 to 2013 version of them, while having to deal with a similar offensive style as they had to deal with in the 2011 finals (with some of the Nowitzki midpost actions replaced by some Duncan low post actions). And that was mainly a defensive issue, not so much an offense issue (although the Heat aggressive perimeter defense usually creates better offensive opportunities via fastbreaks). The Heat defense had big trouble to recover from help, based on the spacing created by the Spurs due to player and ball movement. When the Spurs run those high p&r/p action with Parker or Ginobili top of the key (or on the wings), the Heat overly aggressive attacked that (which works usually better), while that brought the help too far out to be back in position; which gave the Spurs the opportunities for perimeter shots (via extra pass) or opened up the middle for a drive/cut to the basket (Leonard or Green in different games). And then the Heat defense was in such bad positions underneath the basket, that the Spurs could work the offensive glass without sacrificing their transition defense much.
What the Heat could have used here would have been better help defenders from the interior and less aggressive defense against perimeter ball handlers. But only Battier could have helped here, while he obviously struggled over the past months. Neither Haslem was in a shape to be a help (he is better suited working 1on1 against bigger guys operating from the mid to high post, not really a low post defender against Duncan), nor do Jones or Beasley possess any kind of skills in that aspect, which could have been helpful.
So, in the end, the Heat didn't create the amount of turnovers usually created by their defense; their defensive rebounding was not adequate enough basically based on their defensive failures before the shot attempt by the Spurs occured, and the general lack of proper help with trouble to recover made it easier for the Spurs. I really don't see how Haslem (at his current state), Beasley or Jones could have helped here in any way. And then we have seen Battier to not be at his level from last season as well as at the level he had for the first part of this season for whatever reason.
Mike G wrote:
But the Heat were just fine in their first 3 series. They came into the Finals with a 12-3 record. Not against the greatest competition; but that's 80% wins in the playoffs.
The record is meaningless, because of the competition; the toughest matchup was a struggling Pacers team, which wasn't even close to be the same team after the Granger for Turner trade as they were before. If you look at the WC playoff teams, I see the Heat having more trouble with all teams; imagine they have to deal in the first round with those Mavericks; going for the same player and ball movement plays the Spurs did; a team being able to beat the Spurs at their game on the road. The difference in terms of strength between the conferences clouded the weaknesses of the Heat this season, a team never being able to play consistently at a level they had before. Going by their playoff record against 3 teams, where 2 are looked at in the historical perspective not really playoff teams, and one not being at their best, is really misleading.
Mike G wrote:
The combination of the Spurs shooting the lights out and several Heats going into prolonged slumps -- Wade, Chalmers, Cole, Birdman, Ray Allen -- that's the opposite of the 2 years when the Heat won the title. Guys came out of nowhere and torched the opponent -- Battier and Miller, notably. This year the Spurs had those guys.
Way too easy to look at that. Battier and Miller didn't come out of nowhere, they were quality backup players when healthy. Last season the Heat were lucky that they didn't lose to the Spurs with a somewhat struggling Parker due to injuries as well as a Ginobili have trouble to bring his game to the floor due to physical issues as well. And the Heat needed an incredible lucky shot by Ray Allen to surive and not lose in 6. Now the Spurs had a Parker in better shape and Ginobili was much, much better than last season. The Spurs winning was much less about "guys came out of nowhere" than about them being in better shape at this point.
Spurs were shooting "the lights out", because they got those open opportunities, and used them this time. Besides Leonard and Mills nobody made them really at an above expected rate, and when we "correct" the result for that shooting by Mills and Leonard, the Spurs would still be at +9 over those 5 games vs. the Heat. The Heat didn't lose, because the Spurs got somehow lucky with their shots, the Heat lost, because they had no answer talent-wise defensively against the Spurs offense.
So, and when you say that Allen had a "slump", I asked how much better than 41% from 3 is he expected to shoot? Lewis made 46% of his 3pt attempts, Bosh had 39% ... there wasn't much of a "slump" visible, except for Chalmers. And Wade's numbers had less to do with bad luck with his shooting, but more with his inability to get the same separation for his midrange shots as well as lacking the necessary footspeed to get to the basket in the same effective way as before. Andersen has a case here, where his minor injury really seem to have made an impact, but that explains only a small portion of the defensive struggles the Heat had. Other than that, we saw a severe difference in overall talent in favor of the Spurs, and that could have been picked up before the finals. So, yeah, I don't buy your explanation here that this was just some luck/bad luck result and the Heat could go on with the same roster and see a better result next season ...
