Citing Giannis Antetokounmpo’s injury in the 1st round, rival teams believe Miami’s run was a fluke

Giannis Antetokounmpo’s injury changed the complexion of the Milwaukee-Miami series.

© Jim Rassol-USA TODAY Sports

The Milwaukee Bucks were touted as one of the favorites to win the NBA title this year. For a while, the Bucks looked like they would live up to the lofty billing when they ended the regular season with the best record and emerged as the overall top seed in the playoffs.

But disaster struck when the Bucks couldn’t get past the first round as they got ambushed by the play-in survivors Miami Heat.

The debacle was a bitter pill to swallow that it led to the firing of Bucks coach Mike Budenholzer.

Giannis injury a turning point

The Heat went on to advance to the Finals but were totally dominated by the eventual champions Denver Nuggets.

Looking back, would the Heat make that far if Milwaukee’s main man Giannis Antetokounmpo did not injure his back in Game 1 of their series?

This question was raised as, according to Zach Lowe of ESPN, some executives believe that Miami’s run was a fluke, especially since they had to play an Antetokounmpo-less Bucks for two games in the first round.

“For some executives, the answer was very little. The Heat's run, the thinking went, was some combination of a fluke and a reversion to normal for a team that had gone cold from 3-point range all season. Would they have survived even one round had Giannis Antetokounmpo not injured his back in the first game of Miami's first-round series against the Milwaukee Bucks?” Lowe wrote.

While Giannis’ injury was a big factor in the outcome of the series, Lowe also pointed out the Heat were able to prove that they were the steadier squad in the endgame of the series. While the veteran Bucks team inexplicably collapsed in the crucial stretches, the Heat were superb in the fourth.

Finding their shooting touch when needed the most

According to Lowe, Miami for the playoffs was minus-50 in the first three quarters but were plus-85 in the fourth quarters and overtime.

The Heat also found their shooting touch at the most opportune time as they shot 38 percent from the three-point land in the playoffs after going just 34 percent in the regular season, just good enough for 27th in the entire league.

“The Heat rode a heater to the Finals. Skeptics wondered: What can we learn from that? How is "make way more 3s than expected" a replicable strategy? Others arrived at the same conclusion from almost the opposite starting point. They cited tracking data suggesting the Heat in the regular season had generated almost the same shot quality as in 2021-22 -- when they hit a league-best 38% on 3s and finished with the top record in the East. Their luck was bound to turn -- and did, in a flood of 3s when the games mattered most. Again: Could rivals inject that into their own team-building strategy?” Lowe explained.

According to Lowe, Miami’s run left some teams asking: What if the Heat's run was proof that in the era of load management, 3-point shot variance, and the play-in tournament, the regular season now matters much less? What would it mean if the play-in, the new collective bargaining agreement, and other factors were ushering in an era of unprecedented parity to a sport that had been defined by predictability and the inevitability of dynasties?

To the Heat’s credit, they did a lot of good stuff in their playoff run, but the debate will always go back to this question: Would they have survived the first round if the Bucks had a healthy Antetokounmpo?