re: Erik Spoelstra and Mike Brown

Riley is hands on and involved with the team everyday. Spoelstra is his guy. So the only way Spoelstra is gone is if Riley says he is the problem or is Lebron wants him gone, neither of which is the case

quote:

---

So who gets the blame for these late game break downs?

---

If Sports gets the blame for those does he get credit for this?

quote:

---

"@tomhaberstroh: Before Gm 4, Miami had the NBA's most efficient offense in the final minute when needing a tie or go-ahead bucket, per LINK

---

Honest question.

I'd say they are both average coaches with their own positives and negatives. I don't think Mike Brown is a horrible coach by any means.

I'd take him over Spoelstra.

He's like the Joe Girardi of the NBA.

quote:

---

i'm obviously a numbers guy but I don't think i'd trust em that much. At some point he has to go to Lebron. Wade isn't exactly setting the world on fire either in these big spots.

---

I agree that the ball has to be in Lebron's hands with freedom for him to decide. He has to make a "smart" play, so he is not allowed to do what Kobe or Durant do at the end. He can choose to create his own decent look or facilitate.

I understand playing the numbers, but Spoelstra is putting a shite ton of unnecessary pressure on Lebron. Sometimes, you have to stroke your superstar's ego. Playing by the numbers only works when your team believes in the process.

Spoelstra is very good at X's and O's. His teams are great at getting easy baskets after timeouts. He's great at making defensive adjustments in game. His fatal flaw is often his stubbornness. He's often slow to make changes to rotations, but maybe that's changing considering his starting line up tonight.

The Chalmers play call was the right call. He's a better shooter than the others, and he had a decent look. Sometimes shots don't go down. I don't know why our perception of what should happen at the end of games has so greatly been skewed by the 2000s. Just because a star is a star doesn't mean he should be forcing things he doesn't do well for the sake of being a hero. The game is about winning. Does anyone remember a 3 pt shot Jordan took to win/tie a game in the playoffs?

quote:

---

The Chalmers play call was the right call. He's a better shooter than the others, and he had a decent look. Sometimes shots don't go down. I don't know why our perception of what should happen at the end of games has so greatly been skewed by the 2000s. Just because a star is a star doesn't mean he should be forcing things he doesn't do well for the sake of being a hero. The game is about winning. Does anyone remember a 3 pt shot Jordan took to win/tie a game in the playoffs?

---

I fervently disagree with you here on Chalmers being the right call. For what it is worth, my stance would be unaltered whether or not Chalmers hits the shot.

Maximizing a team's efficiency only works when the players completely buy into the system. For example, the roles of closers in baseball makes little to no sense. However, teams refuse to have a fluid bullpen when the best reliever pitches at the most critical juncture, not just in the ninth inning. This is because those players want saves. Saves leads to big stats. Big stats lead to future contracts. While a team may be win more games by not having a structured bullpen, it will not happen as long as players want to make as money as possible.

Lebron needs to be reinforced that he is the best player and the one with the ball. Maybe Lebron believes in the narrative that his idiotic haters spew. Spoelstra is only accelerating the belief of the narrative if he does not put it in Lebron's hands. Let Lebron decide what to do.

The Chalmers three may have been the best chance to win the game, which, yes, is the primary objective. However, it is not the right call in an irrational society. A coach's job security and/or a superstar's ego may not agree with the Chalmers three. There is a reason that teams punt all the time in football. There is a reason we see hero ball at the end of basketball games. It may not be the optimal decision, but sadly society often leaves us with no choice, but to take the traditional chance and not play the percentages. So, in theory, I agree with the Chalmers three. However, I do not believe that the Chalmers is the right move to make considering the irrationality of society and our sports world.