First question (Ira Winderman): "How do you sum this up?"

What kind of stupid fucking question is that? You know what I would have answered if I were Spo? "110-108."

Spoelstra: "It's a tough loss, we're well aware of that, and Washington made some plays down the stretch...This is what competition is about, sometimes another team will just make more plays, as frustrating as that may be...I thought we did enough in all three games to win and we just didn't do it...we have to live with these results...But this is also why we love this profession...We'll just take a day off tomorrow, recalibrate and get ready and prepare and practice on Tuesday for a big game on Wednesday."

Winderman's question packed a lot of poor into the two seconds it took to state. Spoelstra's answer took 1:50.

Second Q (by some other pencil): What was your view of that final possession, was it planned to go for the win in that situation?"

That's how they are. Pencils have short little attention spans, this one's two seconds, the final possession. Not even the final quarter as I had predicted! The questions are, "Why was your team in that position in the first place? Why was your team in that position in the 4th quarter? Why was Washington in position to win the game by making "some plays down the stretch" and your team not? Why did Washington make more plays in the entire second half when they outscored you 62-54? Why did your team keep fouling Kyle Kuzma?" Washington took 22 FTs. Know how many Kuzma had? 16. SIXTEEN of their 22 fucking foul shots were by one guy, a guy who otherwise, i.e. when defended, shot 9/23 (2/7), but standing there all alone while five "Heat" guys had their hands on the bottom of their shorts, made 12. Beeg surprise! Those were "FREE THROWS". Most guys in high school can make 12 of 16 FREE THROWS. Twelve of K.K.'s 32 points were off FREE THROWS at the fucking basket.

I have watched 1:58 secs. I predict that some pencil will ask, extremely gently, about Spo's starting lineup thoughts, something like, "Erik, what did you see from Nikola Jovic tonight that makes him such a valuable part of your starting group?" That may actually be too pointed. It gestures ambiguously toward the sarcastic.

My question would be very pointed, unambiguous, and non-sarcastic.

"Are you thinking of making any changes to your starting group. If so, why? If not, why not?"

"Coach, you started Nikola Jovic again but he only played 23 minutes, SEVENTH-high on the team out of the ten guys you played; why do you start a guy and play him reserve minutes?"