Spurs Insider Podcast, 2026-04-15 09:31:00
专栏作家迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger) 与马刺随队记者杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald) 和汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn) 共同探讨了马刺自 2019 年以来首次闯入季后赛的话题，并分析了无论对手是谁，他们可能都已经为接下来的挑战做好了准备。
推荐阅读：
以下是播客的文字记录：
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：这里是来自南德克萨斯州某处高度安全、绝密的、可能还有录像监控的地点为您带来的《马刺内幕》季后赛预览版。我是迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)，和我坐在一起的依然是《圣安东尼奥新闻快报》的马刺随队记者汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn) 和杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)。这是我们自 2019 年春天以来，第一次聚在一起展望季后赛系列赛。我想问两位尊敬的同事一个开场问题：在经历了七年的“荒芜期”后，你们还记得该怎么报道季后赛吗？
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：嗯，我唯一知道的一点是，你不需要称之为“季后赛系列赛”，因为这在语义上是重复的。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：好吧，那我们还是重新开始吧。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：不，我们只是太久没练，生疏了。
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：确实生疏了。我们连术语都搞不清了。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：所以我刚才叫它什么来着？
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：有点啰嗦。你管它叫“季后赛系列赛”，我懂了。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：好吧，其实那并不算重复。我觉得我这种“疯狂”是有道理的，因为在过去七年的荒芜期里，我们确实打过一场不属于季后赛的季后赛（postseason）比赛。我记错了吗？
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：没，你说的对。是对阵新奥尔良的那场。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：你们为什么要质疑这个获奖播客的主持人呢？这让我很困惑。我刚才差点想再重复一遍，因为已经七年没做过季后赛系列赛播客了，我感觉有点手生。不过，四年前我们是不是做过一场季后赛附加赛的播客？总之，我们还知道怎么做吗？答案是：不知道。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：我们当时为对阵孟菲斯的附加赛也做过播客吗？我记不清了。他们其实打过两场附加赛。我不记得了，那是在“泡泡”赛区还是哪儿。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：我们没去孟菲斯打附加赛时搞巡回直播。但我们确实去了新奥尔良的附加赛现场，结果我感染了新冠，而汤姆则因为路易斯安那州新奥尔良市当时没几家开门的餐馆而急得团团转。
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：那还是在一个周二晚上。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：而我从吧台凳上摔了下来。是的。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：言归正传，大家收听节目不是为了听附加赛的。他们为什么收听？我也不知道。大家是为了听我们聊季后赛。杰夫，这是一年中最激动人心的时刻。即使是杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)，现在可能也对讨论季后赛系列赛感到有些兴奋。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：是的，我很兴奋，但第一步是搞清楚对手是谁。听众们听到这期节目时可能已经知道了，但我们现在是周二早上坐在这里，还不知道结果。所以这是我期待的一件事：弄清楚对手是谁，因为这一切都变了。上一次马刺全队进入季后赛时，我们还不需要多等几天才能确定对手。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：我们发布日期非常固定、严格且规律，其代价就是我们必须在周二上午录音。但我们可以用概括性的语言来谈论接下来的系列赛。我们可以两边都分析一下。有些人会在周二下午听节目；我们可以分析菲尼克斯太阳队，也可以分析波特兰开拓者队。
我想德阿隆·福克斯 (De’Aaron Fox) 在周日晚上霜银中心 (Frost Bank Center) 的常规赛收官战后，代表马刺出征团队中的一部分人表达了观点，他提到他对于马刺对阵谁并没有偏好，但他确实注意到了什么，杰夫？
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：他说去波特兰的航程很长。言下之意是，如果有得选，你宁愿飞短一点的航线，如果我的地理知识没记错的话，那应该是菲尼克斯。但听众并不关心这些。听众关心的是战术博弈，关心本地球员的最佳对阵方案。汤姆，无论对阵这两支球队中的哪一支，马刺都会是更被看好的一方。但这些对阵在比赛进程上会有什么区别吗？
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：嗯，我认为菲尼克斯是更难对付的一个，主要是因为有个家伙让文班很头疼。或者说不是头疼，而是他防守文班的效果可能比维克托进入联盟以来遇到的任何人都好。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：为听众揭开这个谜底吧。汤姆，你说的是谁？我们有些听众可能不像你对 NBA 的细节那么博学多才。那个神秘人是谁？
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：狄龙·布鲁克斯 (Dylan Brooks)。是的。还有德文·布克 (Devin Booker)，正如杰夫指出的，他是大多数球队的麻烦。但杰夫，你几周前说过，布克一点也不想碰到斯蒂芬·卡斯尔 (Stephon Castle)。这可能是需要考虑的一点——马刺在对阵太阳时，可以将卡斯尔作为秘密武器，或者说是防守核心。他们有卡斯尔可以在一定程度上限制布克。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：是的，我想你可以说菲尼克斯有他们所谓的“文班终结者”，但马刺也有卡斯尔这个“布克终结者”。这会很有趣，因为文班在面对那种 6 英尺 6 英寸球员的贴身防守时曾挣扎过一段时间，这也是为什么狄龙·布鲁克斯 (Dylan Brooks) 对他的防守效果那么好。
文班在赛季过程中似乎已经有点开窍了——学会了如何应对和出击这些体型较小的对位。但他已经很久没对上狄龙·布鲁克斯 (Dylan Brooks) 了，因为在马刺对阵太阳的最后两场比赛中，布鲁克斯都没有上场。所以，我们真的得追溯到，我不确定，大概是 11 月，才真正见过布鲁克斯对位文班。所以我很有兴趣看看，如果他们真的对阵太阳，文班在面对其他类似对位时展现出的进步，能否转化到对付狄龙·布鲁克斯 (Dylan Brooks) 的比赛中。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：为了万无一失，这看起来最有可能，因为就像我说的，有些人是在周三对手确定后才听节目的。对手也可能是波特兰。那里也有类似的动态。
我记得去年有一场比赛，文班和杰拉米·格兰特 (Jerami Grant) 陷入了僵持——那是马刺尝试发边线球的情况，杰拉米·格兰特 (Jerami Grant) 一直在推搡文班。格兰特最近在阵容中进进出出。我想他在周二晚上对阵太阳的附加赛中甚至出战成疑。但太阳——他们有多诺万·克林根 (Donovan Clingan)，他们有一些大个子。
但是，我认为在任何七场系列赛中，无论对手是谁，我们都可以这么说：维克托·文班亚马 (Victor Wembanyama)、德阿隆·福克斯 (De’Aaron Fox)、斯蒂芬·卡斯尔 (Stephon Castle) 以及整个团队都将面临各种各样的防守。因为这就是季后赛的本质——我们播客小组的成员在过去七年里可能已经淡忘了这一点——但七场系列赛的本质就是来回的博弈和调整。一旦文班破解了一招，他们就会换下一招，再下一招。我认为太阳和开拓者都会尝试各种包夹方案和计划来对付他，就像任何对手都会做的那样。看着这些战术展开会很有趣，想必马刺应该能在这一轮顺利过关。
因为杰夫，周日晚上发生了什么——我知道，我们的读者、听众以及圣安东尼奥的大多数人对于能再次观看季后赛感到非常兴奋，但其中一些人对于马刺没能把丹佛掘金队踢出他们所在的半区感到有些不安和困惑。你认为马刺可能在第二轮与丹佛掘金会师是个大问题吗，还是说这被夸大了？
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：如果非要选，我会选“被夸大了”。我的意思是，我认为在理想情况下——我不知道。你问这个问题是因为人们感到不安：为什么他们在那种情况下轮休维克托·文班亚马 (Victor Wembanyama)，明明他们本可以将掘金挤到另一个半区？
我对这件事的看法是——我已经说了好几周了——如果文班在最后一场比赛前已经打了 65 场，那么无论发生什么，他们都不会在那场比赛中派他上场。这样做可能很愚蠢，因为一旦他踩到别人的脚并缺席第一轮，你就是个白痴。所以我对他轮休并不感到惊讶。
现在，在理想情况下，我认为他们无论如何都想击败掘金。而且我觉得他们在内心深处可能认为自己能赢，因为掘金轮换了全队。他们轮休了所有人。尼古拉·约基奇 (Nikola Jokić) 只打了一半；其他所有人，首发都下了，关键替补也都没上。我觉得马刺全队有一部分人认为即使这样也能赢下比赛。
但如果必须分个轻重缓急，他们从第 82 场比赛开始的首要目标显然是：让文班亚马以最健康的状态、站得稳稳地去打第一场季后赛。不要让他发生任何意外。这是头等大事。如果他们能在确保这一点的同时赢下比赛，我想他们也会很乐意。但我认为他们没有任何可能——而且我认为理由很充分——在最后一场比赛中把那个家伙派上场。
事实上，我的问题是：为什么要让其他一些人上场？比如，我有点担心斯蒂芬·卡斯尔 (Stephon Castle) 和迪伦·哈珀 (Dylan Harper)，哈珀下场时大拇指好像出了点问题。我觉得任何有磕碰或淤青的人，在那场比赛中我都想让他们轮休。看起来他们结果还好。我不认为哈珀的伤势会很严重。我们稍后会了解更多。我在离开霜银中心时确实在走廊碰到了他；周日赛后更衣室对媒体开放时他不在，但我只是随机遇到了他并问发生了什么。他说他顶到了大拇指，他觉得应该没事。所以大家并没太担心。
但我的意思是，这至少应该是一个警示，如果你在季后赛开始前的最后一场比赛中派上核心球员，而你自己的排名已经基本锁定的情况下，会发生什么。我的意思是，如果那是文班在季后赛前最后一场比赛中伤到了投篮手的大拇指，那这里就会进入“五级战备”——或者是哪一级最严重？5级？1级？我记不清了。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：我认为“一级战备 (Defcon 1)”是最糟糕的。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：所以这里会进入一级战备状态。这是个军事社区；我敢肯定圣安东尼奥周边有很多空军听众，我们可能把这个术语搞错了。但如果文班发生了那种事，整个城市都会坐立不安。如果我们现在讨论的是文班在季后赛开始前一周投篮手大拇指扭伤，那情况就完全不同了。所以我认为没有任何理由去冒险。
我的意思是，我明白，也许你不想面对丹佛，但那你就要面对明尼苏达，我知道他们的战绩不一样，但他们对马刺来说同样是个糟糕的对位。所以，你是说你想冒着让文班缺席季后赛第一轮的风险，仅仅是为了从一个糟糕的对位换到另一个糟糕的对位吗？这在我看来毫无意义。
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：我同意，先生。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：是的，先生。汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn) 这周一直在扮演埃德·麦克马洪（注：著名侧翼搭档）。“你是正确的，先生！”
杰夫说了很多我想说的核心观点。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：嗯，过去一天我一直在社交媒体上跟人争论，所以我已经准备好了我的论点。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：噢，还有这档子事？我都没意识到你一直在干这个。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：噢，是的。我这么做是为了替你们监控社交媒体，这样你们就不用亲自去了。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：伙计，这是你为我做过的最友善的事情之一。我由衷地感谢你，先生。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：我为团队做出了牺牲，伙计。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：关于那点我想说的另一件事是——我看到有人争论说，为什么文班在对阵达拉斯时上场，而对阵丹佛却不上？这听起来也很蠢，但如果他当时准备好了上场，你就让他上去打，这样如果发生什么情况，你下次对阵丹佛时还可以让他打 15 分钟。
我认为另一方面的考虑是，对于像肋骨挫伤这样的伤病，你宁愿在常规赛末端多休息。所以现在文班在达拉斯那场比赛和季后赛首战之间有整整——多少天？10 天？——的休息时间。我认为这样安排效果更好。
但我认为最有力的论据正是杰夫所说的：当你在为了避开一个对手而把自己推向另一个第二糟糕的对手时，你为什么要试图操纵对阵？对我来说，明尼苏达和丹佛就像是 1A 和 1B。我认为区别在于约基奇强于爱德华兹。你可能宁愿面对爱德华兹而不是约基奇，因为约基奇目前仍可以说是世界上最好的球员。但明尼苏达对马刺来说绝非易事，我只是觉得这没什么大不了的。
马刺当时在努力赢球。周日晚上我们在看比赛最后几分钟，媒体席上就有人在问，为什么斯蒂芬·卡斯尔 (Stephon Castle) 还在场上？他当时满场飞奔；有一次他甚至飞过两三个人的身体尝试补扣。这就像是，如果在那儿发生了什么意外，在这一场 99% 毫无意义的比赛中失去一名球员的代价，远比避开丹佛掘金的机会要惨重得多，更何况你本来就是想击败所有人。所以，马刺想击败所有人，那你最好就去击败所有人。
难道人们觉得——难道人们觉得如果湖人排在第三，马刺在第二轮就会打湖人吗？因为那不会发生。再说一次，如果那是当时的对阵，明尼苏达会赢下那个系列赛。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：是的。我不想在大家都很开心的时候，花太多时间去讨论那一小部分粉丝的焦虑。嗯，大家——大多数人都是开心的。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：嗯，大多数人很开心。大多数人很兴奋，理应如此。你是在——等等，你是在说社交媒体上的言论并不能反映整个世界的情况吗？
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：嗯，我不想对此发表评论，因为我觉得人生苦短。我觉得我们应该聊聊正能量的东西。汤姆总是——那边的埃德·麦克马洪总是能把握住积极情绪的脉搏。埃德，我们错过了哪些积极的消息？
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：好吧，你们错过了我的——为了庆祝季后赛，我戴上了我 2003 年 NBA 总决赛的烧烤帽。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：这把我们带回了过去！2003 年，我们《圣安东尼奥新闻快报》的一大群员工长途跋涉去了大苹果城，尽管比赛是在新泽西州的东卢瑟福举行的。我们的总部设在纽约。汤姆，那场烧烤是在哪儿来着？我不——是在哈德逊河边吗？
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：好像是，没错。是的，我想就在那儿。某个俯瞰哈德逊河的地方。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：我记得我们已故的伟大同事蒂姆·格里芬 (Tim Griffin)，每到这个时候我们都会想念他——他总是能把总决赛期间的场外花絮报道得非常出色——他给自己点了两三块大披萨，结果一口都没吃。[笑声] 在接下来的日子里，能创造一些新的季后赛回忆会很有趣。
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：但积极的情绪始于维克托。我的意思是，多么精彩的一个赛季。你知道，我以前说过：球迷们，每个人都真的需要好好欣赏那个家伙。我的意思是，这真是一个不可思议的赛季，现在发生的一切都是因为他。
我回想起迈克，那天晚上选秀抽签结束后，我们从芝加哥的酒店走回来的情景，当时就在反思或者思考一切将如何改变。而它真的发生了，而且发生得如此之快。我认为他在季后赛中会表现得非常出色。所以，这就是我这边的积极情绪来源。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：积极情绪的另一个方面，正如你所说，这绝对是真的——这是因为维克托·文班亚马 (Victor Wembanyama)。但另一个功臣——我想当我们谈到这一点时，我代表了整个播客的观点——那个陪伴球队走过七年荒芜期的家伙，年轻的凯尔登·约翰逊 (Keldon Johnson)。对他来说，这将是一个多么重大的时刻。
杰夫，我知道你对此有看法。这个经历了一切的家伙，他绝对已经——从适应马刺的生活方式变成了“马刺生活方式”的化身。能得到这个机会，与他的努力密不可分。德文·瓦塞尔 (Devin Vassell) 比他晚一年入队；这些家伙坚持了下来，让他们迎来属于自己的高光时刻，我觉得这是一件很酷的事情。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：是的，我认为，你知道，在这一路上，他们两人都有过这样的时刻——他们能否接受现在扮演的角色，这个角色稍微——我的意思是，有些人会说这比他们以前的地位降了一级，以前他们是球队的得分王和核心，可以随意出手。现在他们更多是角色球员。凯尔登现在打替补。
我的意思是，一路上都有疑问：当球队变强时，这两个人还会留在这里吗？你知道，凯尔登因为他的合同，直到几年前还经常出现在交易传闻中。我想就在大约一年前的这个时候，我还在节目里和大家讨论，凯尔登现在是不可交易的。他就是这支球队的灵魂，只要他想留在这里，他就有资格留在这里，当然更有资格在好日子到来时见证这一切。
所以，仅从个人层面来说，你为他感到高兴，也为德文感到高兴，因为他们经历了所有必须经历的烂摊子。20 胜的赛季对任何人来说都没什么乐趣。尤其是凯尔登，在那些只赢 20 场的赛季里，他在防止大家产生内讧方面发挥了关键作用。即使在没有赢球的时候，他也是那个保持良好氛围的人。所以对于他和德文来说，度过了那个时期并能看到好的一面，你真的为他们感到高兴。看看他们会如何应对季后赛会很有趣。我认为他们会应对得很好。是的，这是马刺这次季后赛征程中两个非常重要的故事线。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：我确信很多听众和观众这周都能看到一些相关报道。我在《新闻快报》写了一篇专栏，其他地方也有报道；我们不是唯一一个报道《新闻快报》相关内容的播客。但凯尔登非常友好，邀请了一些每天在更衣室见面的记者去他谈论了很多年的牧场。
杰夫、汤姆和我都在那群人中，亲眼见到那一幕真的很有趣——他是个牧场主，管理着由他兄弟、一些堂兄弟和儿时玩伴组成的出色团队。看看他的大羊驼、他的牛、他的马、他的山羊，还有那头踢所有人的驴，以及他池塘里的鲈鱼和鲶鱼——看到一个像杰夫所说的、挺过了低谷并享受着另一面生活的家伙，我真的很开心。你们喜欢在那儿度过的那一天吗？
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：我敢说凯尔登的那片地——凯尔登的庄园——现在是这片地区第二著名的牧场了，仅次于理查德·金船长在 1853 年建立的那个地方。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：国王牧场 (King Ranch)。那地方离圣安东尼奥可比凯尔登·约翰逊 (Keldon Johnson) 的庄园远多了。我们不应该透露凯尔登的位置——他在一个安全的地方。但是，约翰逊牧场确实可以与国王牧场一较高下，成为德克萨斯传说中的一员。
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：不，那真的很有趣，伙计。正如你在专栏中写得那么好，那是凯尔登·约翰逊 (Keldon Johnson) 的一片天堂。我的意思是，看到他在那个环境里，看到他有多开心，他的家人、朋友有多开心，那些动物有多开心——凯尔登说，“我只想让它们过上长久而美好的生活。” 我的意思是，这真的很棒。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：那天我唯一一次见到凯尔登生气，是当汤姆问他能不能吃其中一只山羊时。凯尔登被吓坏了。
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：我提过我喜欢吃烤乳羊 (cabrito)，你知道的。我不是在提议杀羊，我只是好奇。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：他那句话说得太棒了：“不，我们不打算吃它们。我们只想让它们过上好日子。” 这太棒了。
回到篮球话题，杰夫，这支赢了 62 场的球队有很多未知数。62 场啊！我们播客的朋友杰森·米尼克斯昨天给我们发了一条短信。汤姆，他保留了《圣安东尼奥新闻快报》的预览版，也就是“纸质版”。我们仍有一些读者在阅读并保存纸质版的《圣安东尼奥新闻快报》。他发了一张本赛季预览版的照片，杰夫，上面写的是什么来着？“马刺期待争夺一个季后赛席位。” 目标明确，期待争夺一个季后赛席位。
想想那是六个月前，我们还在讨论马刺争夺“一个”季后赛席位。而他们赢了 62 场。现在，六个月后，我们讨论的是他们竞争第六个 NBA 总冠军。这太不可思议了。
但回到我跑题前的观点，除了卢克·科内特 (Luke Kornet) 和哈里森·巴恩斯 (Harrison Barnes)，基本上所有人会对季后赛舞台做出什么反应，都是未知的。我只是在想，除了我们提到的那些人，还有谁需要证明自己？你对谁在不同场景下的表现感兴趣——在这种连续七场对阵同一支球队、赌注更高等等的情况下？
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：嗯，这可能是一个陈词滥调的答案，但答案难道不是德阿隆·福克斯 (De’Aaron Fox) 吗？他是你薪水最高的球员。你给了他那么多钱；这不就是你给他钱的原因吗？
我认为我们可以讨论的是，一个表现出色的德阿隆·福克斯 (De’Aaron Fox) 在季后赛中应该是什么样子的？标准是什么？因为正如我们今年所看到的，他不会像在萨克拉门托时那样场均砍下那么多分。这支球队的构建方式不是那样的。我不认为马刺教练组的任何人认为德阿隆·福克斯 (De’Aaron Fox) 打了一个糟糕的赛季。我认为他完美地融入了球队，以他需要的方式，以那些也需要锻炼机会的年轻球员需要的方式。文班会大量持球；福克斯不像在萨克拉门托时那样占有大量球权。
但是，伙计，如果他在季后赛打出一场糟糕的比赛，圣安东尼奥的舆论压力会非常大。我认为他是一个处于显微镜下的球员。他在季后赛中打出一场好球是什么样子的？我不认为那一定意味着 30 分，但可能意味着你需要在第四节进三个球来锁定胜局，而他就是投进球的那个人。或者有时他只是那个把球传给投进球的人。但我认为他的成功更多在于时机。他的得分什么时候到来？当进攻陷入停滞时，他能帮你解决问题吗？我不认为这关乎他在萨克拉门托时的那种得分产量。但他是一个一旦季后赛开始，就会因为那份合同而受到严密审视的人。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：为了严谨起见，他以前打过一个季后赛系列赛。这不是他的第一次，但这是第一次他所在的球队被寄予厚望，而且他已经很久没打季后赛了。所以是的，我想这就是我引导你得出的结论，而你也确实想到了。这种默契正在《马刺内幕》播客中建立。这很不一般。汤姆，也许我们正处于巅峰状态？
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：是的，我们是。这一切也同样适用于米奇·约翰逊 (Mitch Johnson)。我的意思是，如果他觉得常规赛收官战对阵丹佛后的那些质疑算回事的话，那他得坐稳了！因为质疑声迟早会来，不管对错，他都会受到审视。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：我们中应该有人写写这个，马刺季后赛中最重要的人之一将是肖恩·斯威尼 (Sean Sweeney)，因为他是去过季后赛次数最多的教练。虽然不是作为主教练，但他曾在打入季后赛甚至，如果我没记错的话，打入总决赛的教练组中待过。是的，在达拉斯。
所以，我的意思是，他的建议对于米奇·约翰逊 (Mitch Johnson) 来说将是无价的，米奇坦率地承认并接受自己是一名第一年的主教练。这是他的第一次征程。我记得我们坐在布鲁克林或纽约时，记者问到这支球队在季后赛中的经验不足，米奇是那个指出“嗯，是啊，主教练也一样”的人。
你之前提到了所有的调整，每一节、每一次球权、每一场比赛——所有这些在季后赛中都会发挥作用。事实就是，这是马刺过去 20 多次季后赛征程中，主教练第一次没有过往经验。所以，我认为教练组里有斯威尼这样的人，而且波波还在大楼里——我认为所有这些对马刺来说都是无价的。
我还想提到，无论马刺在第一轮对阵谁，这都将是两位第一年主教练之间的对决。所以，至少在第一轮，大家在教练经验这方面是处于同一起跑线的。随着比赛进行，你开始对阵——也许是对阵明尼苏达或雷霆——对方会有更多的执教经验。但在开始阶段，我认为大家是平等的。
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：米奇对此如此坦诚且不带防御心理，这让人耳目一新。迈克问他 2019 年马刺在第一轮对阵掘金时他在哪儿，他说他在奥斯汀，或者在执教对阵格林斯博罗蜂群队的比赛，或者别的什么。但他与那个季后赛系列赛毫无关系。正如杰夫刚才提到的，他对此非常坦率。这真的很棒。
是的，我为预览版写了一个关于他依靠波波的故事。波波是他的引路人，是他的导师，是他在大事小事上的参谋。史蒂夫·科尔 (Steve Kerr) 也提到过，他知道波波对米奇有很大帮助。是的，我们还提到了斯威尼，替补席上的科利斯·威廉姆森也去过总决赛，经验非常丰富。所以，我认为他们会没事的。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：当汤姆问起波波时，米奇特别提到波波以前去过季后赛，但这支是一支不同的球队。波波从未在季后赛执教过像这样的球队。
我只是觉得——他会去咨询，但波波救不了你。这支球队与格雷格·波波维奇 (Gregg Popovich) 曾经带进季后赛的任何一支球队都不同，因为波波维奇带进季后赛的每一支球队都比这支经验丰富得多。回想一下——噢，蒂姆·邓肯 (Tim Duncan) 在第二年就夺冠了。他身边都是谁？肖恩·埃利奥特 (Sean Elliott)、大卫·罗宾逊 (David Robinson)、马里奥·埃利 (Mario Elie)——全队上下都是老将。
格雷格·波波维奇 (Gregg Popovich) 从未带领过一支像马刺这样经历了六年荒芜期、由这样一群缺乏经验的球员组成、且在季后赛第一年就被寄予厚望的球队。这与他经历过的任何事情都不同；基本上与任何教练经历过的都不同。以前从未有人处于这种境地。观察这群人如何应对、教练组如何应对、球队如何应对，将会非常吸引人。
汤姆刚才提到我问过他以前在哪儿。我知道他受雇于圣安东尼奥马刺队；我当时是问他有没有参与球探工作，他在球队中的参与度是多少，而他当时就在奥斯汀。米奇·约翰逊 (Mitch Johnson) 当时就在奥斯汀，执教对阵大急流城之类的球队。所以他对这一切是陌生的。
杰夫，我刚才在想你说的调整。每年你都知道季后赛什么时候开始了，因为格雷格·波波维奇 (Gregg Popovich) 要么把马努·吉诺比利 (Manu Ginobili) 调入首发，要么调出首发。就像，那就是标志性的举动。马刺在系列赛中做出的调整。你认为今年季后赛第一个引人注目的类似举动会是什么？有没有明显的换人？你会不会在某个时刻尝试双塔阵容？
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：噢，我认为如果你进入了那种对手有一个你无法应付的高大四号位加一个中锋的系列赛——我想到了明尼苏达和丹佛——你会针对性地增加高度吗？那将是我第一个感到“噢，这下有意思了”的时刻。可能他们一开始不会那样打，但有时只是更快地把那套阵容换上去。
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：你会给 20 岁的卡特·布莱恩特 (Carter Bryant) 多少上场时间？你打算怎么用他？米奇说过会让他上场，但上多久，卡特又会如何回应？他在那套小球阵容中表现得相当不错，能防大个子也能拉开空间。这对马刺来说还会继续吗？
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：我认为卡特·布莱恩特 (Carter Bryant) 在对阵菲尼克斯或波特兰时会扮演重要角色。在对阵这些球队时，有办法让他进入轮换。问题将是——这将是值得观察的地方。我们并不是想操之过急。我们是报纸撰稿人；我们可以承担轻视马刺对手的后果。我们可以展望未来。马刺不需要展望未来，但我们可以。
我认为展望丹佛或明尼苏达的对决，你必须评估年轻的卡特·布莱恩特 (Carter Bryant) 在对阵太阳或开拓者时表现如何？在对阵明尼苏达这种体型大得多的阵容时，他是否合适？我们必须观察这一点。
迪伦·哈珀 (Dylan Harper) 会得到他的上场时间。他一直打得很好。正如杰夫所说，看起来他应该没问题。我们还不知道他大拇指的具体情况，但我预计他会准备好。对他来说会有一些重大时刻。
我们漏掉了谁？朱利安·尚帕尼 (Julian Champagnie)？他能在这样的系列赛中投进关键球吗？赛季三分纪录保持者——他能追随丹尼·格林 (Danny Green) 的脚步吗？丹尼·格林 (Danny Green) 是不是曾一度保持过 NBA 总决赛单场三分纪录？
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：你是正确的，先生！
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：我不认为——我也许会错——但我认为这些家伙中没有谁会退缩。比如，他们可能会输掉系列赛，但我认为大家不会——我也许完全想错了。你到了那儿可能会发现，你期待挺身而出的人反而畏首畏尾了。但就我了解的这些家伙，以及看他们一整年在重大比赛中的表现，我不认为有谁会仅仅因为场面大就退缩或萎靡。
他们可能会投丢球，因为这种事时有发生，但我认为这些家伙在心理上是到位的。我甚至不——你有一个 20 岁的菜鸟迪伦·哈珀 (Dylan Harper)，他将在季后赛系列赛中扮演重要角色，而我一点也不担心他的心态或他会怯场。对于大名单上几乎每个要上场的人，我都可以这么说。我不担心他们。他们可能会输掉系列赛，可能会输给更好的球队，但我认为那不会是因为他们怯场。
这是一个很好的结尾。汤姆，你同意吗？
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：是的，如果一切都行不通，他们可以去调调霜银中心里的温控器。我这纯粹是在开玩笑。我正处于怀旧模式，在回味过去的季后赛。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：阴谋论！我本来以为汤姆只会说“是的”，结果他又加了一个笑话。这很好。我们拭目以待。那已经是很久以前的事了。汤姆，你还记得温控器被动手脚时发生了什么吗？我们看到了杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald) 最糟糕的一面，他没能处理好——他是唯一一个表现得比勒布朗·詹姆斯 (LeBron James) 还糟糕的人。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：这都是谎言。这都是谎言。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：这个故事全是谎言。全是谎言，但请继续。勒布朗·詹姆斯 (LeBron James) 不喜欢他——杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)，你想聊聊“萎靡”吗？天哪。你当时在电梯里咒骂的那些修女，到现在还有心理阴影呢。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：根本没有修女！根本没有修女！你在添油加醋。我们得准备点健怡可乐。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：我觉得当时有修女；电梯里还有孤儿。天哪，我从未感到如此尴尬，看到杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald) 浑身湿透，对着世界上最神圣的人破口大骂。太可怕了。
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：我意味着，你从未感到更尴尬？好吧，那可能太夸张了。我也跟你共度过其他时光。
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：有很多值得期待的事情。下周 NBA 季后赛首场比赛开始后，我们会再回来。在那之前，照顾好彼此，保持真实。
由生成式人工智能翻译，译文内容可能不准确或不完整，以原文为准。
点击查看原文：Back in the postseason: Your ultimate San Antonio playoff primer
Back in the postseason: Your ultimate San Antonio playoff primer
Columnist Mike Finger and Spurs beat reporters Jeff McDonald and Tom Orsborn discuss the Spurs making the playoffs for the first time since 2019 and how no matter who they play they might just be ready for what is next.
Suggested reading:
Ahead of schedule, the Spurs hit the postseason – ready or not
In long-awaited playoff return, it’s the Spurs against the unknown
Why ESPN predicts Spurs to win NBA title
Victor Wembanyama back on court for opening practice of postseason
Suns or Blazers? Spurs await what is next
Here is the transcript of the podcast:
Mike Finger: From a highly secure network of top-secret, possibly videotaped locations across South Texas, this is the Spurs Insider, playoff preview edition. I am Mike Finger, joined as always by San Antonio Express-News Spurs beat writers Tom Orsborn and Jeff McDonald. And we’re convening for the first time since the spring of 2019 to look forward to a postseason playoff series. My question—my opening question for my esteemed colleagues—is: do you guys remember how to do this after seven years in the wilderness?
Jeff McDonald: Well, one thing I do know is you don’t have to call it a “postseason playoff series” because that’s a redundancy.
Mike Finger: Well, let’s start over anyway.
Jeff McDonald: Well no, we’re just out of practice with this.
Tom Orsborn: We’re out of practice. We don’t know the nomenclature.
Mike Finger: So, what did I call it?
Jeff McDonald: It was a little redundancy. A postseason playoff series, I see.
Mike Finger: So, well, that isn’t redundant. And I think there was a method to my madness because we have, in the last seven years in the wilderness, had a postseason game that was not playoffs. Am I wrong?
Tom Orsborn: No, you’re right. New Orleans.
Mike Finger: Why would you guys ever question the host of this award-winning podcast? That baffles me. I almost tried to do it again because I was feeling a little bit tentative because it’s been seven years since we’ve done a postseason playoff series podcast. But what, four years ago, we did a postseason play-in podcast? Anyway, do we still know how to do this? The answer is no.
Jeff McDonald: Did we do one for the Memphis play-in as well? I can’t remember. They’ve actually had two play-ins. I don’t remember. That was in a bubble or something. I can’t remember.
Mike Finger: We did not go—we did not do a traveling roadshow to the Memphis play-in. We did go to the New Orleans play-in, and I got COVID, and Tom just got really flustered by the lack of restaurants available in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Tom Orsborn: On a Tuesday night.
Jeff McDonald: And I fell off a bar stool. Yes.
Mike Finger: Anyway, people did not tune in to talk about the play-in. Why did they tune in? I have no idea. People tuned in to listen to us talk about the playoffs. And it’s an exciting time of year, Jeff. Even Jeff McDonald is probably a little bit excited about a postseason playoff series to discuss.
Jeff McDonald: Yeah, I’m excited, but step one is figuring out who they play. And our listeners might know that by the time this hits their earbuds, but as we’re sitting here today on Tuesday morning, we don’t know that yet. So that’s one thing I’m looking forward to: just finding out who they play, because this is all different. The last time they were in the playoffs all together, we didn’t have to wait extra days to find the opponent.
Mike Finger: One of the costs of being so regimented and strict and regular with our release dates is that we do tape on Tuesday mornings. But there’s a way to talk about the playoff series ahead in general terms. We can break down both. Some people listen on Tuesday afternoons; we can break down the Phoenix Suns, we can break down the Portland Trail Blazers.
I think De’Aaron Fox, late Sunday night after the regular season finale at Frost Bank Center, spoke for a certain segment of the Spurs’ traveling party when he noted that he did not have a preference in terms of who the Spurs play, but he did note what, Jeff?
Jeff McDonald: That Portland’s a long flight. And the insinuation is if you have a choice, you’d rather have the shorter flight, which I believe would be Phoenix, if I have my geography correct. But the listeners don’t care about that. The listeners care about X’s and O’s, about the best matchups for the local cagers. And the Spurs are going to be favorites against either of those two teams, Tom. But what are the differences in terms of how those matchups might play out?
Tom Orsborn: Well, I think Phoenix is the tougher one, mainly because of a certain fellow that gives Wemby fits. Or not fits, but has defended him probably as well as any guy has been able to do since Victor’s entered the league.
Mike Finger: Solve that mystery for the listeners. Who are you speaking of, Tom? Some of our listeners aren’t as erudite and learned about the ins and outs of NBA basketball as you are. Who is that mystery person?
Tom Orsborn: Dylan Brooks. Yeah. So, Devin Booker, as Jeff has pointed out though, that’s a problem for most teams. But I think, Jeff, you said a couple of weeks ago, Booker wants no part of Stephon Castle. And that’s probably something to consider—that the Spurs have that in their back pocket, or at the forefront of any kind of matchup with the Suns. They have Castle to negate Booker somewhat.
Jeff McDonald: Yeah, I guess you could say Phoenix has their quote-unquote “Wemby stopper,” but the Spurs have their Booker stopper in Castle. It will be interesting because Victor struggled for a while against that thing where you put a 6’6" guy on him, which is why Dylan Brooks was working so well against him.
Victor has seemed to figure that out a little bit throughout the course of the season—how to negotiate and play against those smaller matchups. But he hasn’t had to do it against Dylan Brooks in quite some time because Brooks did not play in either of the last two games that the Spurs faced the Suns. So, it’s really been back to, I don’t know, I think November since we’ve really seen the Brooks-on-Wemby matchup. And so I’ll be interested to see, if they do play the Suns, if what Wemby has shown against other like matchups translates to the one against Dylan Brooks.
Mike Finger: That seems most likely just for the sake of covering our base because, like I said, some people do listen on Wednesday after the opponent has been determined. It could be Portland. And there’s a similar dynamic there.
I remember a game last year where Wemby and Jerami Grant kind of had a repeated—it was one of those deals where the Spurs were trying to in-bound the ball and Jerami Grant wouldn’t stop pushing on Wemby. And Jerami Grant’s been kind of in and out of the lineup. I think he’s even questionable for that game Tuesday night, the play-in game against the Suns. But the Suns probably—they have Donovan Clingan, they have some big guys.
But there will—I think in any seven-game series, regardless of matchup, we can speak about this no matter who the Spurs are playing: there are going to be a variety of defenses thrown at Victor Wembanyama, at De’Aaron Fox, at Stephon Castle, at the whole group. Because that’s the nature—those of us on this podcast panel might have had it fade from memory over the past seven years—but the nature of a seven-game series is the back-and-forth, the adjustments. Once Wemby has figured one thing out, they go to the next thing and they go to the next thing. And I think both the Suns and the Blazers will try a variety of coverages, a variety of plans to go at him, just like any opponent would. And it’ll be fun to watch that unfold, presumably in a round where the Spurs should take care of business.
Because what happened, Jeff, on Sunday night—and I know there were—most of our readership, most of our listenership, most of the people in San Antonio were really excited about the chance to watch playoff basketball again, but some of them were kind of perturbed, kind of perplexed that the Spurs couldn’t knock the Denver Nuggets out of their side of the bracket. Do you think that’s a big deal that they set up a possible Denver Nuggets showdown in round two, or is that kind of overstated?
Jeff McDonald: If those are my choices, I’m going with overstated. I mean, I think in a perfect—I mean, I don’t know. The question you’re asking, because this is why people are perturbed: Why did they sit Victor Wembanyama in that game when they could have knocked the Nuggets to the other side of the bracket?
And my thoughts on that are—I mean, I’ve been saying it for weeks—if Victor has 65 games going to the last race, there is no—I don’t care what else is going on—they are not playing him in that game. And they would probably be stupid to do that because the second he steps on someone’s foot and is out for the first round, you’re an idiot. So, I wasn’t surprised they sat him.
Now, in a perfect world, I think they would have wanted to beat the Nuggets anyway. And I think they probably, somewhere in there, thought they could, because the Nuggets sat the house. They sat everybody. Jokić played a half; everybody else, the starters were out, key bench players were out for the Nuggets. I think there was a part of them that thought they could win that game anyway.
But if they had to prioritize, their number one goal clearly from game 82 was: get out of there with Victor Wembanyama as healthy as he could be, upright, ready to go game one. Don’t have anything bad happen to him. That’s priority number one. If they could pull that off and also win the game, I think they would have liked that too. But I don’t think there was any chance—and I think for good reason—any chance to put that dude on the floor in the last game.
And in fact, my question would be: why were you playing some of these other guys? Like, I was a little worried about your Steph Castles and your Dylan Harpers, who kind of came out of there with a thumb thing. I think anybody with a bump or bruise, I would have sat in that game. And it seems like they came out of it okay. I don’t think the Harper thing is going to be serious. We’ll find out more about that later. I did bump into him in the hall on the way out of the Frost Bank; he was not in the locker room when the media was open to the media after Sunday’s game, but I did just randomly run into him and asked him what happened. He said he jammed his thumb, he thinks it’s going to be fine. So, there wasn’t a whole lot of concern there.
But I mean, that should be at least sort of a warning flag about what can happen if you’re playing your best players in the final game before the playoffs when your own seeding is pretty much already locked in. I mean, if that had been Wemby jamming a thumb on his shooting hand the last game before the playoffs, it would have been Defcon 5—or which is the bad one? 5? 1? I can’t remember.
Mike Finger: I think Defcon 1 is the worst.
Jeff McDonald: So, it’d be Defcon 1 around here. It’s a military community; I’m sure we have a lot of Air Force listeners in and around San Antonio and we probably screwed that up. But it would have been—like the whole city would have been on edge if that had happened to Wemby. If we’d be talking about Wemby’s sprained thumb on his shooting hand a week before the playoffs began. So, I just don’t think there was any reason to risk it.
And I mean, I get it, maybe you don’t want to face Denver, but then you’re going to face Minnesota, who—I know their record isn’t the same, but they’ve been an equally bad matchup for the Spurs. So, you’re saying, do you want to risk losing Wemby for the first round of the playoffs in order to go from one bad matchup to another bad matchup? It doesn’t make sense to me.
Tom Orsborn: I agree, sir.
Mike Finger: Yes, sir. Tom Orsborn’s been doing the Ed McMahon this week. “You are correct, sir!”
Jeff made a lot of the points, the salient points that I was going to make.
Jeff McDonald: Well, I’ve been yelling a bit at people on social media for the last day, so I’ve got my points.
Mike Finger: Oh, has this been a thing? I didn’t realize you’d been doing that.
Jeff McDonald: Oh, yes. I do that so I monitor the social media so you guys don’t have to.
Mike Finger: Man, that is one of the nicest things you’ve ever done for me. I sincerely appreciate that, sir.
Jeff McDonald: I take one for the team, man.
Mike Finger: The other point I’d make there is—I think I saw the argument that, well, why did Wemby play against Dallas instead of Denver? This sounds silly too, but if he was ready to play then, you get that out of the way so if something happens, you can get him the 15 minutes against Denver the next time.
And I think the other side of that is with an injury like the bruised rib, you’d rather have the rest on the back side of the regular season. So now Wemby has a full—what is it, 10 days?—between the Dallas game and the opener of the playoff series. I think that works out better.
But I think the best argument of all is exactly what Jeff said: why are you trying to manipulate matchups when you’re manipulating yourself into the second-worst matchup for you? And to me, Minnesota and Denver are kind of 1A and 1B. I think the difference is Jokić over Edwards. You’d probably rather face Edwards than Jokić because Jokić is still arguably the best player in the world. But Minnesota is not an easy matchup for the Spurs, and I just don’t think it’s a huge deal.
The Spurs were trying to win. We were watching the last few minutes of that game on Sunday night, and just amongst the press corps, there was some question as to why is Stephon Castle still on the floor in this game? He was throwing his body around; he went up over, hurdling over two or three bodies for a try for a follow slam at one point. And it’s just like if something happens there, the downside of losing a player in a 99 percent meaningless game is way worse of an outcome than the chance of avoiding a matchup with the Denver Nuggets, when you’re trying to beat everybody anyway. So, the Spurs want to beat everybody and you might as well beat everybody.
Like, did people think—did people think if the Lakers were in the third seed, like that’s who the Spurs would be playing in the second round? Because that’s not going to happen. Again, Minnesota’s winning that series if that was the matchup.
Jeff McDonald: Yeah. And I don’t want to spend too much time on the consternation of certain segments of the fan base when people are happy. Well, people—most people are happy.
Mike Finger: Well, most people are happy. Most people are excited, as they should be. Are you—wait, are you saying that the social media outlets are not reflective of the world at large?
Jeff McDonald: Well, I don’t want to reflect on that because I think life is too short. I think we should just get into the good stuff. Tom’s always—Ed McMahon over there is always got his finger on the pulse of the positivity. What positivity were we missing, Ed?
Tom Orsborn: Well, you’re missing my—in honor of the playoffs, I’m wearing my 2003 NBA Finals barbecue hat.
Mike Finger: That took us back! 2003, we’re in a huge contingent of San Antonio Express-News employees made the trek to the Big Apple, even though the games were in East Rutherford, New Jersey. We were headquartered in the Big Apple. Where was the barbecue again, Tom? I can’t—was that the one along the Hudson?
Tom Orsborn: It seems like it was, yeah. Yeah, I think that’s exactly where it was. Some joint overlooking the Hudson.
Mike Finger: I remember our late, great colleague Tim Griffin, who we miss this time of year—he always did a great job of doing the off-the-court notebooks around the Finals—he ordered himself two or three large slices of pizza that he did not eat. [laughter] It’ll be fun to make some new postseason memories in the coming days.
Tom Orsborn: But the positivity starts with Victor. I mean, what a season. I mean, you know, I’ve said this before: the fandom, everybody needs to really appreciate that guy. I mean, just an incredible season and everything that’s going on now is because of him.
I think back to when you and me, Mike, walked back from the hotel in Chicago that night after the lottery and reflecting or thinking about how everything was going to change. And it happened, and it happened so much quicker. And I think he’s going to be wonderful in the playoffs. So, that’s where the positivity starts on this end.
Mike Finger: The other aspect of positivity, and what you said is absolutely true—this is because of Victor Wembanyama. But another person who it’s because of—and I think I speak for the entire podcast when we get into this—the guy who’s been here through all seven years in the wilderness is young Keldon Johnson. And what a big moment this is going to be for him.
And Jeff, I know you have thoughts on this. Just the guy who has been through it all, absolutely became—he went from adapting to the Spurs’ way of life to becoming the Spurs’ way of life. And for him to get this shot, it’s in no small part to what he’s done. Devin Vassell came a year after he did; those guys have stuck it through, and for them to get their moment in the sun, I think is a pretty cool thing.
Jeff McDonald: Yeah, and I think, you know, there were times along the way for both of them where—could they buy into this role that they’re playing now that’s a little bit—I mean, some people would say it’s a step down the ladder than where they were, where they were the leading scorer on teams and the go-to guy and could take whatever shot? Now they’re more role players. Keldon’s coming off the bench.
I mean, there were questions along the way: are both guys still going to be here by the time everybody gets good? You know, Keldon, because of his contract, was in trade rumors a lot up to a couple of years ago. And I think it was just about a year ago at this time where I think I was on here and we were talking about this on here about, well, Keldon’s now untradeable. Just, he’s the heart and soul of this team, and he deserves to be here for as long as he wants to be, and certainly deserves to be here when the times get good.
And so, just on a personal level, you’re happy for him and happy for Devin, that going through all the crap they had to go through. 20-win seasons are no fun for anybody. And Keldon especially was instrumental during those 20-win seasons in keeping everyone from basically wanting to kill each other. Like, he was the one that kept the vibes good even when the wins weren’t there. And so for him and Devin to come through that period and get to see the good stuff, you feel really happy for them. It is going to be fun to see how they respond to it. I think they’ll respond well. Yeah, those are two really big storylines of this postseason run for the Spurs.
Mike Finger: And I’m sure that a lot of the listeners and viewers were able to see some of it this week. I had a column in the Express-News, there’s been coverage elsewhere; we’re not the only podcast that podcasts about the Express-News. But Keldon was nice enough to invite some of the reporters who he sees every day in the locker room out to his ranch that he’s been talking about for so many years.
And Jeff and Tom and I were among the contingent out there, and that was a really fun day to get to see it with our own eyes—him being the rancher and him being in charge of his great group out there of his brother and some cousins and some friends that he’s had since childhood. And to see his llamas, and his cows, and his horses, and his goats, and the donkey that kicks everybody, and the bass and the catfish in his pond—really happy for just to see a guy who, as Jeff said, has made it through the crap to be enjoying the life on the other side. Did you guys enjoy your day out there?
Tom Orsborn: I dare say that that spread—Keldon’s spread—is now the second most famous ranch in these parts, behind that little place founded by Captain Richard King in 1853.
Mike Finger: The King Ranch. That’s much farther from San Antonio than the Keldon Johnson spread is. We should not give away the location of—Keldon’s in a secure location. But yeah, the Johnson Ranch might rival the King Ranch for a spot in Texas lore.
Tom Orsborn: No, it was a lot of fun, man. That is a slice of heaven for Keldon Johnson, as you so well put in your column. I mean, the guy—to see him in that environment and how happy he was, how happy his family is, his friends, how happy the animals are, who Keldon said, “I just want them to have a good long life.” I mean, it was really neat.
Mike Finger: The only time I saw Keldon upset that day was when Tom asked if he could eat one of the goats. Keldon was horrified.
Tom Orsborn: I mentioned I like cabrito, you know. I wasn’t advocating that, but you know, I was just curious.
Mike Finger: That was a great line he had: “No, we’re not going to eat them. We’re just going to let them have a good life.” That’s a great thing.
Moving back to the basketball, there are so many unknowns with this team that won 62 games, Jeff. 62 games! Our friend of the podcast, Jason Minnix, sent us a text message yesterday. He had kept, Tom, the preview section from the San Antonio Express-News, the “dead tree” edition. We still have some readers out there who are reading and saving paper editions of the San Antonio Express-News. And he had sent a photo of the preview edition of this season and it was like, what was it, Jeff? “The Spurs look forward to contending for a playoff spot.” Eyes on the prize, looking forward to contending for a playoff spot.
And to think that that was six months ago, where we were talking about the Spurs contending for a playoff spot—a playoff spot. And they won 62 games. Now, six months later, we’re talking about them competing for a sixth NBA title. It’s amazing.
But getting back to my point before I started wandering, there are a lot of unknowns about how all of these guys, basically other than Luke Kornet and Harrison Barnes, are going to react to this playoff stage. And I’m just wondering who, other than the guys we’ve mentioned, who has something to prove? Who are you interested to see how they perform in a different type of scenario where you are playing the same team seven times in a row, the stakes are higher, blah blah blah?
Jeff McDonald: Well, I mean, it might be the trite answer, but isn’t the answer De’Aaron Fox? He’s your highest-paid player. You gave him all that money; this is what you gave him the money for, right?
And I think what we can talk about is what does a good De’Aaron Fox playoff look like? What are the standards? Because as we saw this year, he’s not going to come in and average throughout the season—he’s not going to average what he was in Sacramento. That’s just not how this team is built. And I don’t think anybody on the Spurs coaching staff thinks De’Aaron Fox had a bad year. I think he’s fit in with the team perfectly, the way he needed to, the way he needed to with the younger guys that also need reps. Victor’s going to have the ball a lot; Fox isn’t as ball-dominant as he was in Sacramento.
But man, if he has a bad game in the playoffs, the knives are going to be out in San Antonio, I think. I mean, I think he’s a guy that’s under the microscope. And what a good game looks like for him in the playoffs? I don’t know that it means 30 points, but it may mean you need three baskets in the fourth quarter to put this thing away and he’s the one that hits it. Or sometimes he’s just the one that makes the play to the other guy that hits it. But I think his success is more about the timing. When do his points come? When things look like they’re getting dry, can he fix it for you? I don’t think it’s about the volume that it was in Sacramento. But he’s a guy that’s going to be under the microscope once the playoffs start because of that contract that he has.
Mike Finger: And to cover our bases, he has played in one playoff series before. This isn’t his first one, but this is the first series where there are some big expectations for the team that he’s on, and it’s been a while since he’s been in the playoffs. So yeah, I think that’s where I was leading you and that’s where you ended up. And this synergy is building here at the Spurs Insider podcast. It’s something else. We’re peaking at the right time, maybe, Tom?
Tom Orsborn: Yeah, we are. And all that also applies to one Mitch Johnson. I mean, if he thinks the second-guessing after the regular season finale against Denver was something, well, hold on! Because it’s going to come, rightly or wrongly, he’s going to be under scrutiny.
Jeff McDonald: One of us ought to write this, but one of the most important people in the playoffs for the Spurs is going to be Sean Sweeney, because he’s the coach that’s been there the most. Not as a head coach, but he’s been on staffs that have been on playoff runs and, if I’m not mistaken, Finals runs to the Finals. Yeah, with Dallas.
So, I mean, he’s a guy whose input is going to be invaluable right now for Mitch Johnson, who freely recognizes and acknowledges he’s a first-year head coach. This is his first journey. I remember us sitting there in Brooklyn or New York when reporters were asking about the inexperience of this team heading towards the playoffs, and Mitch was the one that pointed out, “Well, yeah, same for the head coach.”
And you mentioned it earlier about all the adjustments, quarter-to-quarter, possession-to-possession, game-to-game—all of that comes into play in the playoffs. And it’s just a fact that the Spurs’ coach, for the first time in the last 20-some odd playoff runs for the Spurs, the Spurs’ coach has not been there before. So, I think having a guy like Sweeney on staff who has, and you know, Pop still in the building—I think all of that is going to be invaluable for the Spurs.
And I would also mention, whoever the Spurs play in the first round, it’s going to be a battle of two first-year head coaches. So, the first round at least, everybody’s on the same playing field in that capacity. As you go along and you start to play the—maybe you play Minnesota or you play the Thunder—you’re going to have a little more coaching experience on the other side. But at the beginning, I think it’s all even.
Tom Orsborn: It’s refreshing how Mitch is so candid about that and he’s not defensive. Mike asked him where he was in 2019 when the Spurs played the Nuggets in the first round, and he said he was in Austin or coaching against the Greensboro Swarm or, you know, whatever. But he had nothing to do with that playoff series. And he was, like Jeff just mentioned, he was upfront about it. That was really neat.
And yeah, I wrote a story for the preview section about him leaning on Pop. That’s his guy, that’s his mentor, his sounding board on matters big and small. And Steve Kerr also mentioned that he knows Pop’s been a big help to Mitch. And yeah, and we mentioned Sweeney, Corliss Williamson on the bench has also been to the Finals and a lot of experience there. So, I think they’ll be okay.
Mike Finger: I thought it was telling when Tom asked about Pop that Mitch made a note of saying he’s been there before, but this is a different team. He’s never coached a team like this in the playoffs.
And I just think there is a—he will check in, but Pop can’t bail you out. This team is unlike any team that Gregg Popovich ever took into a playoff series, because every team that Gregg Popovich ever took into a playoff series had way more experience than this. You think back—oh, Tim Duncan won in his second year. Who was he surrounded by? Sean Elliott, David Robinson, Mario Elie—up and down the line.
Gregg Popovich never took a team coming off a six-year-in-the-wilderness stretch like the Spurs have gone through, with an inexperienced group like this, with the expectations that this group has in their first year in the playoffs. It’s unlike anything he ever had; it’s unlike basically any coach has ever had. No one’s ever been in this situation before. And it’s going to be really compelling to watch how this group does it, how this coaching staff does it, how this team does it.
And Tom had mentioned I’d asked him where he was before. I knew he was employed by the San Antonio Spurs; I was asking him if he had a scout, if he had what was his involvement with the team, and he was just in Austin. Mitch Johnson was just in Austin, coaching against Grand Rapids or whoever it was. So he’s new to this.
I wondered, Jeff, I was thinking earlier when you were talking about adjustments. Every year you knew a playoff series had started when Gregg Popovich either moved Manu Ginobili into the starting lineup or out of the starting lineup. Like, that was the move. The adjustment that the Spurs made during a series. What’s the first big, headline-grabbing move of this postseason in that vein, do you think? Is there an obvious switch-out? Do you go double big at some point?
Jeff McDonald: Oh, I think if you get into one of those series where the problem is the other team has a pretty big four-man that you can’t handle along with a center—and I’m thinking of Minnesota and Denver—do you go a little more size against that? That would be my first “oh, this is getting interesting” moment. And it might be that they don’t start that way, but sometimes it’s just getting that lineup in there quicker might be what happens.
Tom Orsborn: How much do you use 20-year-old Carter Bryant? How do you use him? Mitch has said he’s going to play him, but how much and how will Carter respond? He’s been in that small-ball lineup and done rather well guarding the bigs and spreading the floor. Does that continue for the Spurs?
Mike Finger: I think Carter Bryant has a huge role against Phoenix or Portland. There are ways to get him into the lineup against those teams. The question will be—and that’ll be something to watch. And we’re not trying to put the cart before the horse. We’re newspaper writers; we can afford to take a Spurs opponent lightly. We can look forward. The Spurs don’t need to be looking forward, but we can.
I think looking ahead at a Denver or Minnesota matchup, that’s where you will have to evaluate how well did young Carter Bryant do against the Suns or Blazers? How well does he fit against, in the case of Minnesota, a much bigger lineup? We’ll have to monitor that.
Dylan Harper will get his minutes. He’s been playing really well. As Jeff said, looks like he should be good to go. We don’t know the status of his thumb yet, but I anticipate he’ll be ready to go. There’ll be some big moments for him.
Who have we missed? Julian Champagnie? Can he hit big shots in a series like this? The record holder for most threes in a season—can he follow the lead of Danny Green? Didn’t Danny Green hold the NBA Finals record for threes in a game for a while?
Tom Orsborn: You are correct, sir!
Mike Finger: I don’t think—I might be wrong—but I don’t think any of these guys are just going to wilt. Like, they might lose a series, but I don’t think guys are going to—and I might be totally off. You might get there and realize guys you expected to step up do shy away. But just knowing these guys and watching these guys play in bigger games all year, I don’t think there’s anyone that’s going to just wilt or fall away from the moment.
They might miss shots because that happens sometimes, but I think these guys mentally will be there. I don’t even—you’ve got a 20-year-old rookie in Dylan Harper who’s going to play a huge role in a playoff series, and I don’t worry about his approach or mentality or him shrinking at all. And I could say that about pretty much everyone on the roster that’s going to play. I don’t worry about them. They might lose a series, they might lose to a better team, but I don’t think it’s going to be because they shrink.
That’s a good way to end it. Tom, do you agree?
Tom Orsborn: Yeah, and when all else fails, they can tinker with the thermostat there at the Frost Bank Center. And I say that purely in jest. I’m in a throwback mode thinking about the playoffs past.
Mike Finger: Conspiracy! I was expecting Tom just to say, “Yes,” and then instead he added yet another joke. That was good. We’ll see. That’s been a while. You remember what else happened, Tom, when the thermostat was tinkered with? We saw the worst of Jeff McDonald, who did not handle—the only person who handled it worse than LeBron James.
Jeff McDonald: These are lies. These are lies.
Mike Finger: The story is all a lie. It’s all a lie, but go ahead. LeBron James didn’t like that he—Jeff McDonald, you want to talk about wilting? Holy cow. Those nuns that you cursed at in the elevator are still scarred from that day.
Jeff McDonald: There were no nuns! There were no nuns! You are embellishing. We’ll have to keep some Diet Coke on hand.
Mike Finger: I think there were nuns; there were orphans in that elevator. Man, I’ve never been more embarrassed to see Jeff McDonald just drenched in sweat cursing out the holiest of people in the world. It was awful.
Jeff McDonald: I mean, you’ve never been more embarrassed? Well, that might be an exaggeration. I have spent other times with you.
Mike Finger: A lot to look forward to. We will be back at you next week after the opening game of the NBA playoff postseason has begun. And until then, take care of each other and keep it real.