Thanks: Too bad the Mavs had to "mar" the end of the game by intentionally fouling the Heat players. That *is* what you were complaining about a few days ago, right King? Don't make me have to cut and paste on yo ass.

No need. That's exactly what I was saying.

Just kidding. But while the Mavs' strategy didn't pay off, the important things are that a) It *almost* paid off, thereby showing proof that the strategy has a place in basketball, no matter how boring it sometimes makes the end of a game (which the viewer should just turn off if he/she doesn't like),

I don't think a strategy being effective is proof that it has a place in basketball, though I wouldn't use that phrase, "no place in basketball." I just said the fact that the strategy is possiblel is a flaw in the rules, one that leads to the ends of games being boring, frustrating, free-throw contests, as opposed to exciting contests of basketball skills. I believe that something that makes a game boring is something that should be changed. If enough people agree with me, the game will change. That's why sports evolve. If we just had to shut up and live with it, they'd still be tossing the baseball underhand, and they never would have cut the bottom out of the peach basket.

and b) The strategy didn't "mar" or make boring this particular game either. It was exciting right down to the wire, because the Mavs had several chances to win that they would not have otherwise had.

OK. We disagree.

Don't go talking about changing the rules of basketball.

Don't go telling me what to do.

That's just plain stupid.

Is that nice?

jprusins: As a long-time Knicks fan (1970 until about 4 years ago), I can't help but see shades of Patrick Ewing in the consensus that Nowitzki is not the guy you want taking the last shot with the game on the line.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, and I don't know about the consensus, but what *I'm* saying is that Nowitzki *is* the guy you want taking the last shot with the game on the line. The problem is, he doesn't want to. dsholt put it well above: He shrinks from the occasion. The opposite of what Ewing did.

Jonathan: All recent teams who have won the NBA crown (Detroit, Spurs, and now, Miami) have been defensive juggernauts.

Is Miami a defensive juggernaut? Better than average, but not a juggernaut. Maybe not even elite.

I think back to the Lakers/Sixers finals a few years ago when Phil Jackson just got a young, quick, cocky rookie (can't remember his name) to blanket himself on Iverson.

It was Tyronn Lue, and he actually wasn't a rookie, but good point that getting in Wade's grill would have been worth trying.

David B: Now that you have all this free time on your hands, why not see whether your scoring-second-is-better discovery about low-scoring sports holds true in a sport with lots of scoring - basketball! ... Man, you could milk a whole summer's worth of columns out of it!

Smithers! Does that man work for me? I like the way he thinks.

Baron Dave Romm: ESPN (and you) are missing a potentially nifty stat, at least for us Americans with a short attention span: The team that scores the last goal usually wins!

I have no stats to back this up, and might be wrong, but what the heck. I'll let you provide the sabermetrics of soccer.

I'm sure you're right, because the team that scores any goal usualyl wins. But I'll run the numbers when I get a few minutes.

Also: Is it true that the team with the largest endorsement contracts, in toto, usually win? Size (of monetary compensation) matters.

I don't know, and I'm not going to do that study, but even if so -- and I suspect so -- you have to ask yourself if the large endorsement contracts are a cause or an effect of winning.

Gilbert: Normally I am easy going enough to let things go without comment. But WHY WHY WHY WHY is it important to analyze who-scores-what-goal data?? ... You people make me feel like Ogre: "Nerrrrrrds!!!! Nerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrds!"

It's a good thing you're easygoing.

I said, It's a GOOD GOOD THING you're EASYGOING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not important. I'm making fun of ESPN's silly stat graphics.

madopal: Who said that someone like Ozzie Guillen would be a role model for how kids should behave? Who said that the place we should be looking for political correctness is within the mind of a loud mouthed, impulsive, hot headed MLB manager? Why don't we complain about athletes being financially irresponsible? Why don't we complain about their lack of grammar skills?

I don't know. Who said anything about role models? Whether Ozzie is or should be a role model is a separate question from the one about whether it's appropriate for him to insult the customers.

I find it very difficult to wonder where the journalists are when kids call each other "f**" in a derogatory manner every day, yet they're shocked, SHOCKED, when later in life these same sports figures talk like this?

Well, on playgrounds all over the country, every day, kids punch other kids. And yet, if a big-league manager punched somebody, I'd be pretty shocked. I'm not sure what you're trying to say by comparing Ozzie's behavior to that of children. Don't we expect grownups to act a little differently than children?

Oh, that's right...you don't bite the hand that feeds you unless it's attacking one of your own.

Not clear to me you're saying this, but in case you are: Ozzie doesn't feed me and Mariotti is not one of my own.