By John Hollinger | The Athletic, 2026-06-05 10:30:11
圣安东尼奥——圣安东尼奥马刺的五名首发球员可能都没有过NBA总决赛的经验，但鉴于他们在第一场比赛下半场遭遇进攻崩溃，最终以95-105不敌纽约，你完全可以理解他们为何会产生一种似曾相识的感觉。
用另一项运动中一位著名的纽约传奇人物的话来说，这就像是“历史重演，似曾相识”。他们以前也经历过这种情况。
在维克托·文班亚马 (Victor Wembanyama) 出战的三个完整首轮场次中，马刺得分最低的一场是首战对阵波特兰的111分。马刺在次轮得分最低的一场是首战对阵明尼苏达的102分。而在西部决赛对阵俄克拉荷马城的比赛中，马刺在常规时间内的最低得分也是首战的101分（他们最终在双加时中砍下了122分）。
因此，如果马刺在第一场比赛中得到的95分最终成为他们本届总决赛的最低分，那也完全符合他们一路走来的常态。
但反过来说：这最好是他们的最低点。马刺在接下来的六场比赛中几乎没有机会逆转赢下四场，除非他们能拿出远好于周三那场惨淡的99.0进攻效率的进攻表现。在首战砸锅之后，守住第二场的主场优势几乎是必须完成的任务。
话虽如此，马刺与之前几轮系列赛的相似之处不容忽视，尤其是次轮对阵明尼苏达的首战。就像那场比赛一样，进攻端的拉胯源于冰冷的三分球手感（那一晚36投10中，周三则是42投11中）、陷入挣扎的文班亚马（那一晚17投5中，周三则是21投6中），以及进攻端的断电——恕对对手直言，至少在一些马刺教练组成员看来，这很大程度上是自找的。
经过一天的消化，马刺在周四的媒体采访中传达出的信息是，他们在第一场比赛中的表现反常，尤其是在下半场仅得40分的泥潭中。具体来说，场上有太多的个人英雄主义单打，而空切和掩护则远远不够。是的，首战之后不可避免地要进行一些战术细节上的调整，但马刺陷入困境的核心原因似乎更为简单。
“我认为我们输掉比赛的原因甚至不是战术层面的，”文班亚马说，“我们需要以更好的心态去迎接比赛。我们只需要打出自己的风格，明白吗？我们只需要表现得正常一些，不需要去做任何惊天动地的事情。”
缺乏球权移动以及过度依赖“一传即投”的进攻回合是显而易见的痛点。圣安东尼奥全场仅送出16次助攻，这不仅是球队本赛季的单场新低，实际上也是文班亚马马刺生涯以来的最低纪录。他们上一次在单场比赛中助攻数更少还要追溯到2022年3月11日，那是在这位法国天才在NBA完成首秀的一年半之前。
**“**16次助攻根本无法代表这支球队，从我来到这里开始，以及在我来之前的几十年里都是如此，”马刺主教练米奇·约翰逊 (Mitch Johnson) 在周四说道。
“这不是马刺的打球方式，”德文·瓦塞尔 (Devin Vassell) 在周三赛后说道。
然而，问题在于：除非队友能把球投进，否则你无法获得助攻。由此，关于圣安东尼奥马刺在这场失利中投篮表现的“鸡生蛋还是蛋生鸡”的争论便开始了。
圣安东尼奥下半场惨不忍睹的投篮表现，是因为球权移动不佳和急躁的强投导致的吗？还是说，马刺极低的助攻总数只是因为大量本属合理机会的接球即投三分球未能命中而产生的偏差？
不管怎样，这里有一个大胆的预测：第二场比赛的得分会比第一场更多。
我之所以这么说，是因为双方在首战的长时间里都显得杂乱无章。最直观的体现就是他们在外线交出的惨淡投篮数据，尽管双方场上的阵容中都不乏优秀的射手。
记住，如果尼克斯没有在一些相对容易投进的球上同样手感冰凉的话，马刺的这场失利可能会惨烈得多。纽约虽然赢了10分，但在禁区外的投篮仅为52投14中，其中非底角三分球更是惨不忍睹的23投3中。
唉，马刺则像是说了句“那算什么，看我的”。马刺在外线交出了惨绝人寰的46投11中，这玷污了他们原本在数据分析上堪称完美的投篮分布图——那张图上仅仅包含了4次非禁区内的中距离两分球。
所以，是的，对于双方来说，在周五的第二场比赛中，老生常谈的“发挥得更好一些”将是关键的调整。
这就引出了对第二场比赛的第二个预测：那些外线跳投机会依然会出现。整个赛季以来，尼克斯的防守策略都是优先保护禁区，同时接受送给对手底角三分作为代价；在全联盟中，只有三支球队允许对手出手三分球的比例高于尼克斯允许的44.8%。
面对文班亚马无处不在的篮筐牵制力以及马刺三位运动能力出众的后卫，纽约加倍贯彻了这一防守策略。也许尼克斯在防三分时的扑防可以做得更好一些，而不是仅仅指望喜怒无常的三分之神的眷顾，但他们完全可以接受马刺在第一场比赛中展现出的投篮分布。
“我们总是希望在自己的防守策略上做得更好，包括对三分线的防守，”尼克斯主教练迈克·布朗 (Mike Brown) 说道，“但归根结底，如果你允许他们的后卫——他们身材高大、运动能力强、臂展长且速度极快——突入禁区并完成终结，这支球队会彻底击败你。
“我知道我们不能让他们在我们的禁区里横行霸道，因为如果让他们得逞，他们会摧毁我们。”
纽约的核心防守策略奏效了。尼克斯在第一场比赛中仅让马刺在禁区内得到42分，其中文班亚马仅得到8分。但另一方面，马刺对这种战术也并不陌生。
“我们遇到过几支类似的球队，他们非常致力于用身体去围堵禁区，”约翰逊说。
“我们必须确保自己不要与比赛较劲。你知道，如果一支球队防守非常积极，并且致力于掐死某一方面，这通常意味着他们会在其他地方漏出空档……
“但我们必须确保把球传到队友手中。我们必须确保继续给篮筐施加压力。这并不总是为了我们自己得分，可以通过顺下、空切或突破来实现。而我认为昨晚我们有点偏离了这一点*。”*
当然，并非所有的外线出手都是同等质量的。马刺教练组成员的感觉是，尽管这42次三分出手几乎全部都是接球即投，但这并不一定意味着它们都是极佳的出手机会，这或许与他们在前几轮系列赛首战中的情况如出一辙。
“我认为我们有些出手太仓促了，”瓦塞尔说。
**“**我只是觉得我们可以在传导球方面做得更好一些，打得更像一个整体，”朱利安·尚帕尼 (Julian Champagnie) 在周三表示（他在上半场投进了5个三分球，但下半场仅得1分），“我认为在上半场，我们之间的联系非常非常紧密。”
马刺希望在第二场比赛中能打出一场更正常的比赛，就像他们在前几轮系列赛中所做到的那样。圣安东尼奥在之前的每一轮系列赛中都曾遭遇过主场失利，但随后他们分别以12分、38分和21分的优势赢下了接下来的比赛。随着纽约自身手感的回暖，马刺的进攻端面临着巨大的压力，他们必须像文班亚马所说的那样，打出“正常”的表现。
那么，究竟什么才叫“正常”？
“正常意味着彼此信任，信任篮球之神，信任比赛计划，坚决执行，而不是过度依赖天赋去投篮或拯救球队，”他说，“我们整个赛季都以某种方式在打球，并且通过这种方式取得了成功。没有理由在总决赛开始的那天做出改变。”
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：How can Spurs have a more 'normal' offense in Game 2? By looking to the recent past
How can Spurs have a more ‘normal’ offense in Game 2? By looking to the recent past
SAN ANTONIO – The San Antonio Spurs’ five starters may not have any NBA Finals experience among them, but you’ll forgive them for having a familiar feeling after a second-half offensive meltdown led to a 105-95 loss to New York in Game 1.
In the words of a famous New York legend in a different sport, it’s like déjà vu all over again. They’ve been here before.
San Antonio’s lowest-scoring game in the first round, of the three full games Victor Wembanyama played, was 111 points in Game 1 against Portland. San Antonio’s lowest-scoring game in the second round was 102, in Game 1 against Minnesota. And the Spurs’ lowest-scoring regulation total in the conference finals against Oklahoma City was 101 in Game 1 (they finished with 122 in double overtime).
So if the Spurs’ 95 points in Game 1 ends up as their low point of these NBA Finals, it would be par for the course.
Here’s the counterpoint: It had better be the low point. The Spurs have little chance of rallying to win four of the next six games unless they deliver far better offensive performances than Wednesday’s measly 99.0 Offensive Rating. After the dud in the opener, holding court at home in Game 2 is all but essential.
That said, the parallels to the Spurs’ previous rounds are hard to ignore, particularly the opener against Minnesota in the second round. Like that game, the offensive shortcomings resulted from cold 3-point shooting (10-of-36 that night, 11-of-42 Wednesday), a struggling Wembanyama (5-of-17 that night, 6-of-21 Wednesday) and offensive short-circuits that felt — with due respect to the opponent — as heavily self-inflicted, at least to some Spurs staffers.
With a day to digest the defeat, the Spurs’ message at Thursday’s media session was that their play in Game 1 was out of character, especially in a 40-point quagmire of a second half. In particular, there was too much hero-ball and not enough cutting and screening. Yes, some Xs and Os adjustments following the opener are inevitable, but the core reason behind the Spurs’ woes felt simpler.
“I think the reason we lost the game isn’t even technical,” Wembanyama said. “We need to approach the game with a better mental state. And we just need to play our game, you know? We just need it to be normal. We don’t need to do anything incredible.”
The lack of ball movement and reliance on one-pass possessions were notable sore points. San Antonio finished with just 16 assists, which wasn’t just the team’s fewest this season, but actually the lowest number in Wembanyama’s entire time as a Spur. The last time they had fewer assists in a game was March 11, 2022, a year and a half before the French phenom’s NBA debut.
**“**Sixteen assists is not a reflection of this program ever since I’ve been here, and decades before I was,” Spurs coach Mitch Johnson said Thursday.
“That’s not the Spurs way,” Devin Vassell said Wednesday after the game.
Here’s the thing, though: You can’t get an assist unless a teammate makes a shot. And thus begins the series of chicken-and-egg questions about the San Antonio Spurs’ shooting performance in the loss.
Was San Antonio’s ghastly second-half shooting the result of poor ball movement and thirsty shot attempts? Or was the Spurs’ low assist total a consequence of make-or-miss variance on a torrent of otherwise desirable catch-and-shoot 3-point attempts?
One way or another, here’s a hot prediction for you: Game 2 will have more points than Game 1.
I say that because both sides looked ragged for long stretches in the opener. The best way to say that is in the horrifying shooting numbers they posted from the perimeter, despite both having lineups with decent shooters in the game.
Remember, this loss might have been far worse for the Spurs if the Knicks hadn’t also shot poorly on a diet of relatively makeable shots. New York, despite winning by 10, shot just 14-of-52 on shots outside the paint, including an execrable 3 of 23 on above-the-break 3s.
San Antonio, alas, said, “Hold my beer.” The Spurs were a ghastly 11 of 46 from the perimeter, sullying an otherwise analytically pristine shot chart that included only four non-paint 2s.
So yes, the ol’ “play better adjustment” should figure prominently in Friday’s Game 2 for both sides.
This takes us to a second prediction for Game 2: Those jump shots are going to be there. All season long, the Knicks’ defense has prioritized paint protection while accepting corner 3s as a trade-off; only three teams allowed a higher percentage of opponent shots from 3 than the 44.8 percent the Knicks allowed.
Against the ever-present rim gravity of Wembanyama and the Spurs’ trio of athletic guards, New York doubled down on that trait. Maybe the Knicks can close out a bit better to the 3-point line rather than relying on the provenance of the fickle 3-point gods, but they’ll live with the Spurs’ Game 1 shot chart.
“We always want to try to get a little bit better with what we’re doing, including the 3-point line,” Knicks coach Mike Brown said. “But at the end of the day, this team will kill you if you allow their guards, as big and athletic and long and quick as they are, to get to the paint and finish.
“I know we can’t allow them to live in the paint against us, because they’ll destroy us if they do.”
New York’s core defensive strategy worked. The Knicks allowed just 42 paint points in Game 1, including only eight from Wembanyama. On the other hand, it’s not like this is a new tactic to the Spurs.
“We’ve played a couple of teams similar that are very committed to guarding the paint with bodies,” Johnson said.
“We have to make sure we don’t fight the game. You know, if a team is going to be very active and committed to taking away something, typically that means it’s opening something else up elsewhere …
“But we have to make sure we pass the ball to the guys. We’ve got to make sure we continue to put pressure on the rim. That’s not always for ourselves. It can be with the roll, it can be with the cut, it can be with the drive. And I think last night we got a little away from that*.”*
Of course, all perimeter shots are not created equal. The feeling from San Antonio staffers was that even though nearly all 42 3s were catch-and-shoot attempts, that didn’t necessarily mean they were great shots, which was, perhaps, a familiar story from their openers in previous rounds.
“I think we rushed some of our shots,” Vassell said.
**“**I just think we can do a better job with moving the ball around a little bit, and just playing a little more together,” Julian Champagnie said Wednesday (he made 5 3s in the first half but had only one point after the break). “I think in the first half, we were really, really connected.”
The Spurs will hope for a more normal game for themselves in Game 2, much as they were able to conjure up in the previous rounds. San Antonio suffered a home loss in each of those series, but followed them with wins by 12, 38 and 21, respectively. With New York likely to shoot better itself, the pressure is on San Antonio’s offense to deliver a “normal” performance, as Wembanyama put it.
And what, exactly, does normal mean?
“Normal means trusting each other, trusting the basketball gods, trusting the game plan, executing, and not relying on talent so much to make shots or to save the day,” he said. “We’ve been playing a certain way all season, and we’ve been successful this way. There’s no reason to change the day the finals start.”
By John Hollinger, via The Athletic