It's fascinating to me the degree to which sports media is uncomfortable with the simple fact that sometimes three pointers don't go in.

I saw some (fairly mild) pushback on twitter from a few media people after game 2, on the idea that this series is so easily explained. Which I get to some degree- Butler and Bam and Spoelstra are very good, and the team is capable of playing great defense, and I imagine it's hard to submit the same story three times a week to your editors. I didn't see any pushback after the next two games when the point got hammered home that Miami simply doesn't have enough offense unless they're overachieving from three.

EDIT: I think this somehow reads like I'm arguing with you when I am in fact agreeing!

Thinking in general (not just this series), presumably you can explain some media skepticism by considering that the fact undermines both advanced stats AND character-based narratives.

To me it's just, if there's ever a case for MOML, it's the 8 seed poor-shooting team with a negative point differential going on an unbelievable heater against the best two teams in the conference in a few weeks time.

(But again we're jinxing this they're obviously going to win in 7.)

I imagine it's hard to submit the same story three times a week to your editors

Is there anything to talk about other than player movement and soap-opera stuff, then, if results of games are truly coming down to variance in the team's three point completion percentage? Assuming some baseline of talent, skill, and endurance, is there really anything left to analyze during or after a game?

Not even disagreeing with The Variant (tship) but if true...what's left to do here? (here being "NBA discussion" and not just a broken baseball message board)

Of course there's tons to discuss still--it's all relevant/important stuff.

Coverages, player usage, specific plays. All that stuff still matters.

But the Heat won the Boston and Milwaukee series because they shot unsustainably well. They did a bunch of other stuff, too! The zone stuff is really good and interesting. The series with Boston in particular, had a lot of interesting wrinkles. Those wrinkles were just less important to the outcome than Caleb Martin hitting 49% of his 3s and Jaylen Brown hitting 16%.

Yeah maybe I'm completely forgetting but I don't really remember (just thinking about Celtics series since I care about them) last year's ECF or even the Finals having variance be the dominant narrative (now Grant Williams making eleventy 3s against the Bucks last year, sure).

And I'd also suggest there's variance and then there is this specific Heat run, which is just off the charts. I don't think peak Curry/Klay hitting 50% over a month would merit the same kind of conversation.

Game 7 last year between Heat and Celtics featured the Heat going 6/30 from 3 and losing by 4 points.

To be sure, the Celtics were the slightly better team even after accounting for 3p variance, but every run to the Finals in the last ten years or so (maybe with some exceptions) has some variance playing a role.

Fair enough, I absolutely don't remember the details of that game other than the one Butler miss. That said I feel like the conversation after, for better or worse, was "good shot from Butler?" paired with a robust discussion of Boston's effort to give the game away in the final couple minutes. Rather than strictly variance like we're getting now.

You guys are just re-proving that the current pro basketball ruleset sort of sucks, in that it over-favors one style of play over others and increases the role of luck over skill.

(Obviously it also has beneficial effects which is why it was adopted, but I think there were and are way better mousetraps to accomplish the same goals.)

I don't think luck vs skill is the right frame.

Hitting a baseball is a lot like shooting 3s. Even the very best to have ever done it don't hit even 50%.

Baseball has always been highly variable. Sometimes the best team doesn't win the World Series. In fact, it's maybe more often than not. Billy Beane's #### doesn't work in the playoffs.

Historically, in the NBA, the best team wins. That may be changing, but it's still rare for the best team to not win. Denver is probably the best team this year and they are overwhelmingly likely to win the NBA championship.