Whoa, whoa, whoa! Lyxo you're misreading me here. I haven't made any comments in any other thread implying that the Cavs were "lucky" to win. My comment here was just a lighthearted jab at a poster that I have a good rapport with....Lepip. He's given my Bucks a lot more grief than I'll ever give the Cavs so really it was just fun banter between he and I. It's propaganda (ficticious) to say that I've "attacked"
anyone in this regard. I've found this to be a common practice of those trying to build a case against me. I have no problem giving credit when it's due and providing an objective opinion even if it's unpopular.
I've never been one to knock W's (unless some homer somewhere deserves a kick in the pants...coughjomacough). Marshall did what he was paid to do, knock down big three point shots. He gave his team a chance to win, and ultimately the Cavs outplayed the Magic because they achieved the objective....winning the game. The Cavs weren't lucky that Marshall hit the shot. He hit the shot! I've said before that I put wins in three catagories (good, quality, and great), but ultimately, a win is a win is a win.
In regards to the Pacers, part of winning a basketball game is being able to execute in pressure situations. Stepping to the line in crunch time is not a given as some of the youngins here are suggesting. It's one of the finer details of winning a basketball game. The Pacers failed in this regard and the Bucks succeeded. Had Redd not made his 3 free throws after being fouled under a minute by Anthony Johnson, would I be accurate in saying that the Bucks
gave the Pacers the game? Of course not. If you make boneheaded plays under pressure, put the wrong personel on the floor, and wear out and play meekly on the glass and on defense when the game is on the line, then you did not
give the game away, you were beat by a team that executed and wanted it more.
If we allowed ourselves to portray any victory or loss as "lucky", then we have to characterize pretty much every game that way. The loser will always have missed free throws, broken plays, turnovers, injuries, ect., ect., that they can try to rationalize losing with. So you won't find me calling any teams win "lucky". If you chose to do so, it speaks to your understanding of the key elements of winning. Each game has it's ebbs and flows....good play and bad play....the team that has the better ratio of good play/coaching to bad play/coaching will generally win the contest. Those that don't put things in proper perspective cannot escape the labels of "sore losers" and "crybabies".
Fortunately this season, neither the Cavs nor Bucks have had to do too much crying.