No. I'm pointing out the idiotic hypocrisy in your post.
You're trying to belittle the Lakers' back to back by pointing out some plays that you thought were extremely "fluke" or "lucky."
I was simply showing you that that's a slippery slope because nothing is more lucky than bricking a game tying shot, getting the offensive rebound in a crazy scramble, and getting it to (at the time) greatest 3pt shooter in NBA history who shuffles back two steps and hits a massive shot with seconds remaining. In fact, that's by far a crazier and more unlikely scenario than Ron Artest hitting a 3.
Even the Heat fans didn't believe shyt like that was possible. They had already left the arena
I'm not a Kobe stan or a Lakers stan, but you're being really dense if you honestly believe the Lakers caught breaks and that diminishes their back to back whereas the Heat's was "hard earned" or whatever you tell yourself at night.
Okay, I get it, you're still talking because you still didn't understand my post.
It is GOOD to be neck-and-neck with a fantastic team like the 2013 Spurs. It is GOOD to have great players make great plays to beat them. What the Heat did was unlikely, but both Bosh and Ray's moves (and Lebron's three that cut the lead to 2 just before it) were completely based on skill, not on Artest bricking his three so bad that it went directly to Gasol just standing there like he was making an alley-oop pass.
It is FAR less impressive to barely squeak by the 2010 Suns or the 2010 Jazz. And to do it because 29%-shooting Ron Artest hits a three. Or to barely beat the Celtics on a lucky play even after they've already lost Perkins (a Celtics team that the Heat destroyed in 5 ten months later even after they had added Jeff Green to try to counter Lebron).
If you look at the best teams they beat, the performances they put up in the process, and the style they did it with, the Heat run was more impressive and memorable than the Laker run. You really have to have been on the Lebron-hate bandwagon not to see that.