Spurs Insider Podcast, 2026-06-10 02:38:00
专栏作家迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger) 以及随队记者杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald) 和汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn) 一起讨论了斯蒂芬·卡斯尔 (Stephon Castle) 和迪伦·哈珀 (Dylan Harper) 在马刺总决赛第三场突破性胜利中的贡献，并探讨了头脑清醒的维克托·文班亚马 (Victor Wembanyama) 是否准备好带领球队从0-2的落后局面中一路逆袭。
推荐阅读：
以下是播客的文字实录：
主持人：本期《马刺内幕》（Spurs Insider）由肖恩·C·布朗 (Sean C. Brown) 律师事务所赞助播出。
[音乐]
迈克·芬格：这里是《马刺内幕》“拒绝横扫版”，我们在曼哈顿下城高度机密的绝密网络中为您带来报道。我是迈克·芬格，身边依然是神采奕奕的汤姆·奥斯本和精神抖擞的杰夫·麦克唐纳。他们是《圣安东尼奥快报》的马刺随队记者。整个赛季、整整十年、整个季后赛，他们都进行了全方位、无死角的报道。杰夫、汤姆，我们现在依然在坚守岗位。马刺也依然在战斗。在霜银中心连输两场后，形势曾一度十分黯淡。但在麦迪逊广场花园的第三场比赛中，在包括我们《马刺内幕》播客全体成员在内的众多重磅嘉宾的注视下，马刺证明了他们绝不会轻易缴械。杰夫·麦克唐纳，你觉得现在的总决赛局势如何？这支球队能完成NBA历史上从未有过的壮举——在总决赛开局主场两连败的情况下实现逆转并夺冠吗？
杰夫·麦克唐纳：额，首先，昨晚麦迪逊广场花园的安保阵容着实让我大开眼界。当听说迈克·芬格要来时，那安保级别简直夸张得离谱。
迈克·芬格：你知道的，作为各大播客应用上排名前……我觉得能排进前100万的播客主持人之一，总会面临一些威胁。每当你去公共场所，总会有所顾虑。但还是要向那里的所有安保人员致敬。他们把我保护得很好，甚至防范了来自我身边这几位播客嘉宾的“威胁”。他们确保了我没有受到任何伤害，非常感谢他们。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：所以，你的意思是，我们终于挤进前100万了？
迈克·芬格：那可能有点夸张了。[笑声] 是的，是的，你知道的，但这并不是我问你的问题。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：你问我什么来着？关于我们本地篮球队的总决赛之旅？是的。我想他们重回系列赛的竞争中了。我的意思是，即便赢下了第三场，这依然是一场艰难的硬仗。正如我们大家在过去72小时里写过、说过无数次的那样，这其中是有原因的。在NBA历史上，还没有哪支球队在总决赛开局主场两连败的情况下最终夺冠。这一历史铁律依然有效。之所以难，是有道理的。但是，如果你输掉第三场，你就彻底没戏了。你必须赢下那场比赛才能给自己留有一线生机。现在他们把大比分追成了1-2。你可以开始展望了，如果他们在第四场再下一城，带着平局回到圣安东尼奥，那就是一个全新的系列赛了。所以，他们为自己赢得了喘息之机，这是一场伟大的胜利。在麦迪逊广场花园，由维克托·文班亚马领衔的一场大胜。终结了尼克斯的季后赛13连胜，这意义重大。这是尼克斯自四月下旬以来的首场失利。这太关键了。所以，昨晚本地篮球队取得了一场伟大的胜利，让自己继续生存了下去。
迈克·芬格：汤姆，米奇·约翰逊 (Mitch Johnson) 说过，在每年的这个时候，没有什么所谓的势头，也没有什么可以延续的东西。我想知道这是否是真的。第三场比赛中是否有可以延续到之后的突破？或者有什么具体因素能扭转这个系列赛？还是说我们要在周三的第四场比赛中一切重新开始，静观其变？
汤姆·奥斯本：我觉得是有的。我认为确实存在势头。他们解决了一些问题。你知道，他们之前在传导球上很挣扎，在行动上不够果断和具有侵略性。但我们在第三场比赛中看到了改变，全场送出了将近30次助攻，而前两场比赛他们场均只有22次。我记得第一场比赛他们只有……多少来着，14次左右？
杰夫·麦克唐纳：16次，16次。
汤姆·奥斯本：对，对，16次。所以，我的意思是，他们解决了这个问题。他们的传导球做得很好。虽然达龙·福克斯 (De’Aaron Fox) 在投篮上有些挣扎，但他送出了8次助攻。另外，他们在关键时刻表现强硬。通常情况下，那是杰伦·布伦森 (Jalen Brunson) 的领域，但昨晚，斯蒂芬·卡斯尔和达龙·福克斯在最后两分钟投中了关键球，做出了关键防守。
迈克·芬格：正如我们以及所有报道这轮系列赛的人所指出的，马刺在全部三场比赛的最后两分钟里都曾处于领先，杰夫？对吧。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：没错。
迈克·芬格：所以，这并不是说他们被完全压制了，也不是说他们在进入第三场比赛前处于绝境。这其实是我们预料到他们迟早会撞上的那堵“新秀墙”的一个缩影。不一定是墙，而是他们面对一支经验丰富的球队时必然会遇到的障碍。那是一支懂得如何收割比赛的球队，一支在重大季后赛系列赛中经历过类似大场面的球队。而我们在第一场和第二场中看到的，正是我们原本以为会在第二轮或第三轮对阵明尼苏达或俄克拉荷马城时发生的事情。这支年轻的马刺在前面几轮中打破了所有这些质疑。但在总决赛中，看起来他们似乎无法再创造奇迹了。不过，正如汤姆所提到的，这场比赛是另一个在最后时刻胜负难料的典型例子。这不仅仅是维克托·文班亚马在发挥作用。当尼克斯还留有一线生机时，斯蒂芬·卡斯尔投中了一个至关重要的三分球。达龙·福克斯也展现出了他曾作为“年度关键球员”的风采。因此，我认为最后时刻发生的种种细节都非常令人鼓舞。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：是的，这确实是一种突破。我的意思是，这支球队在心理层面曾让你感到极难战胜，不仅在这轮系列赛中，在常规赛的多次交手中也是如此。在昨晚之前，他们自疫情爆发前（大概是2019年）就再也没有在麦迪逊广场花园赢过球。所以，我认为在心理层面上，突破并击败这个“怪兽”、击败这个强敌是非常重要的。现在，也许你已经证明了自己能做到，也许这会让未来的路好走一些，我不知道。对这些年轻小伙子来说，这依然会是一场艰难的攀登，但他们昨晚展现出了让这轮系列赛继续保持悬念的实力。
汤姆·奥斯本：是的，他们也主动向尼克斯发起了身体对抗。我的意思是，斯蒂芬·卡斯尔撞上[笑声]杰伦·布伦森的那次突破，我认为是整场比赛的标志性镜头。另外，虽然细节很微妙，但凯尔登·约翰逊 (Keldon Johnson) 在防守卡尔-安东尼·唐斯 (Karl-Anthony Towns) 的那几分钟里做得非常出色。我是说，他给了对方很强的身体对抗。虽然凯尔登在得分上没有太多贡献，但我认为他打了一场非常棒的比赛。正负值达到了+14，防守端身体对抗给得很足。我想教练组可能跟他谈过：“嘿，不管出于什么原因你没拿到分，但就做好其他事情，比如在防守端给足对抗，去拼抢篮板。”而他确实完成得很好。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：但过程依然很艰难，伙计。[笑声]
汤姆·奥斯本：还有哈珀，昨晚米奇让迪伦·哈珀打了很多时间。虽然他的投篮有些挣扎，但他抢下了9个篮板，而且他对布伦森的防守——我认为他的臂展确实干扰到了布伦森。整场比赛他都防得很到位。所以，他们得到了很多额外的贡献，大家都在打强硬、坚韧的篮球。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：你提到了迪伦。这对我来说很有意思，我认为让他打那么长时间是为了篮板。人们只看到他的得分和得分方式，这当然很棒。但我认为他需要这些出场时间，因为球队需要他在篮板球上的帮助。在侧翼球员中，他是最擅长抢篮板的球员之一。他会拼尽全力去争夺。我认为这是他必须留在场上的另一个原因。
汤姆·奥斯本：是的，我同意。我同意。
迈克·芬格：等一下，这很有意思，一个很有趣的定位变化，迪伦·哈珀现在成侧翼了。马刺现在越来越多地使用一套阵容，那就是让达龙·福克斯、斯蒂芬·卡斯尔和迪伦·哈珀同时在场。也许他和斯蒂芬算得上是侧翼吧。但我们确实越来越多地看到这个组合。我们也看到维克托·文班亚马在开场时通过多次扣篮、上篮和空接完成终结，这在第一场或第二场开局时是看不到的。这显然是第三场比赛开局的重点，他迅速拿下了四个进球，4投4中，全部在内线。我认为他32分里有16分是在油漆区拿到的，这大概是一个7英尺4英寸的法国人该做的事情，即使尼克斯像往常一样在内线重兵把守。我还看到斯蒂芬·卡斯尔在不断地冲击、冲击、再冲击。这简直不可思议，我不想说他冲击篮筐有多轻松，因为他在场上就像个橄榄球跑卫一样。他是靠身体拼到篮下的，但他确实做到了。当你把这些结合在一起——文班亚马深入内线、马刺冲击篮筐，无论是卡斯尔还是迪伦·哈珀，亦或是其他人，在转换进攻中推进，轻松得分，这才是这支本地篮球队该有的打法。
汤姆·奥斯本：是的，而且，如果他们赢下第四场，伙计，[笑声] 那就走着瞧吧。
迈克·芬格：走着瞧。是“走着瞧”吗，杰夫？
杰夫·麦克唐纳：什么走着瞧？你的问题是什么？
迈克·芬格：我们是不是已经到了“走着瞧”的阶段？你在过去一分钟左右的时间里有点沉默。我想用我专业的播客技巧，来一个听起来天衣无缝的过渡。[笑声] [停顿] 额，要做好这些工作真的不容易。我觉得大家并不理解这背后需要付出多少努力。所以，我正在试着引出杰夫·麦克唐纳的犀利观点。现在，如果你愿意的话，机会来了。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：行吧，但你能用英语提问吗？
迈克·芬格：不。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我都不知道你在问我什么。
汤姆·奥斯本：我刚才的意思是，如果他们赢下第四场，那就走着瞧了。而且——
杰夫·麦克唐纳：哦，那确实。如果他们赢下第四场，确实得走着瞧。
汤姆·奥斯本：走着瞧。
迈克·芬格：为什么每个问题都必须用英语？这可是NBA总决赛。这是一个多民族、多文化、多语言的盛会。在我们参加的新闻发布会上——[笑声] C’est va（法语：还行吧）。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：呃，oui（法语：是的）。
迈克·芬格：我懂了。我懂了，我懂了。你没接住这个梗。要不试试西班牙语？额，¿cómo estás（你好吗）？问题是，米奇·约翰逊说没有什么可以延续的，没有势头。而汤姆·奥斯本说，如果马刺赢下第四场，那就走着瞧。
汤姆·奥斯本：走着瞧。
迈克·芬格：这两者可以同时成立。都可以是真的。我想请我们《马刺内幕》播客的资深嘉宾、自2007年起就报道这支球队的专家，来分析一下“既没有势头和延续性”与“赢下第四场就走着瞧”这两者之间微妙的关联。我想让你展开讲讲为什么这两者可以并行不悖。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我认为，这轮系列赛中的每一场比赛，甚至每一轮系列赛，都是一个全新的挑战。比赛一旦开始，我觉得我现在说话越来越像米奇·约翰逊了。[笑声] 比赛一旦开始，就会有它自己的走向。它们会朝不同的方向发展，你必须做出各种调整。你不能墨守成规，以为只要复制第三场的表现就能赢下第四场。事情往往不是这样的。这是一方面。但另一方面，正如我所说，他们确实找到了赢球的方法，这是一种心理上的突破，会对进入第四场比赛大有裨益。你现在知道自己能做到，也知道该怎么做。你已经看到了成功的可能。对手并不是不可战胜的。尼克斯不是机器，他们也是普通人，穿球裤时也是一次套进去一条腿。所以，他们是可以被击败的。
迈克·芬格：他们之前看起来确实像台机器——我们每周都在讨论这个。甚至在媒体同行里，也有人在比赛期间走过来对杰夫·麦克唐纳说：“为什么在总决赛开始到麦迪逊广场花园的第三场比赛之间，没有更及时的《马刺内幕》更新供我们收听？”答案是：来赞助我们。只要有赞助，我们天天录。但是，如果我们是在第一场或第二场之后录制《马刺内幕》播客，那基调肯定会完全不同，因为当时尼克斯看起来确实像一台机器。而且他们可能随时会重新变回那台机器。正如杰夫之前提到的，他们上一次输球还是在四月中旬对阵亚特兰大老鹰。马刺也并没有在一夜之间彻底看穿他们。这依然是一场胜负难料的比赛。汤姆，即使在比赛最后，当斯蒂芬·卡斯尔站在罚球线上时，局势看起来马刺已经稳了，但转眼又好像不稳了。对于斯蒂芬·卡斯尔在各个方面的表现，从防守到冲击篮筐，再到投中三分球，我怎么赞美都不为过。还有一点——我又扯远了。还记得斯蒂芬·卡斯尔刚被选中的时候吗，还记得他今年刚进训练营的时候吗，我们当时都在讨论他技术上的明显短板，即他是否能偶尔投进一个三分球。他不需要成为三分神射手，但如果他能偶尔投进一个，就能让防守队员不敢轻易放空他。现在他不仅做到了这一点，而且看起来投得非常自信。每当他在关键时刻拿到球，有时间调整出手时，即使他那看起来有些非典型的三分投篮，他也能投进。这不仅仅是让防守不敢放空他，他昨晚还投中了关键球，罚中了关键罚球。你知道，这是属于维克托·文班亚马的巨大舞台，迪伦·哈珀也得到了很多关注。但人们有点忽略了斯蒂芬·卡斯尔在他职业生涯第二年发挥了多么巨大的作用。
汤姆·奥斯本：是的，最后不到两分钟时的那个三分球很有意思。当时24秒进攻时间快到了。他在赛后说，他当时其实是准备去冲抢篮板的。他以为维克托要做动作。结果球传到了他手里，他就果断出手命中了。赛后，文班谈到斯蒂芬可能是队里最成熟的球员，对此斯蒂芬回应道：“不，我觉得维克托才是。我可不会每天晚上9点就上床睡觉。”[笑声] 这真是一次有趣的互动。
迈克·芬格：确实很有趣。我想知道，说到成熟和内心的平静，汤姆，你可是“平静先生”。你这周有没有考虑过在纽约找点时间涂鸦或写生？比如去某个公园，拿出笔记本，看看能不能画幅画？
汤姆·奥斯本：我喜欢公园。喜欢纽约大大小小的公园，但是，不，我不会像文班那样去写生。不过他那次写生确实挺酷的。
迈克·芬格：我研究了一下格拉梅西公园（Gramercy Park）的背景，维克托·文班亚马就是在那里度过了一个美好的纽约下午，他画了埃德温·布斯 (Edwin Booth) 的雕像，汤姆，那可是约翰·威尔克斯·布斯 (John Wilkes Booth) 的哥哥。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：约翰·威尔克斯·布斯？是的。
迈克·芬格：是的。而且进入那个公园需要钥匙，我记得这是从老版《法律与秩序》（Law & Order）某一集里看来的。你进不去那个公园，它不是公共的，你不能直接走进去。它是专供周边居民使用的，或者你必须认识里面的人。我猜维克托·文班亚马认识什么人，所以能进去写生。但他表示，他想清空思绪，让大脑冷静下来。他认为在第一场和第二场之后，暂时远离这一切非常重要。当我们问起他画的埃德温·布斯画像时，他用了四个字评价：“还行，挺好。”如果我们每天都能过得像那样，如果我们能做出那样的播客，那就太棒了。我不确定我们能不能做出一个“还行，挺好”的播客。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我们通常是“不行，挺烂”。[笑声]
汤姆·奥斯本：埃德温·布斯是个生命力很顽强的人。[笑声] 是的。你知道，他们是一个伟大的演员世家，演技精湛。即便在他弟弟刺杀了总统之后，他依然继续演戏。他的名气完全没有受影响。所以，他一定是个极其优秀的演员。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：所以，布斯家族就像是当年的……鲍德温家族（the Baldwins）。
汤姆·奥斯本：是的。额——
迈克·芬格：如果放在现在的语境下，也许像茶茶家族（the Chalamets）。[笑声] 但确实，就像鲍德温家族一样，曾有……额，我不该说这个——算了，当我没说。[笑声] 没什么。嗯，是的。你觉得埃德温·布斯会在《周六夜现场》（Saturday Night Live）上模仿亚伯拉罕·林肯吗？[笑声]
迈克·芬格：这太离谱了。但汤姆说得对。有一个声名狼藉的兄弟——
汤姆·奥斯本：想想看，好好想想。
迈克·芬格：是的。
汤姆·奥斯本：是的。
迈克·芬格：是的。我不想做任何类比，因为那会让我惹上麻烦。但是，如果你有一个因为那种事而臭名昭著的兄弟，而你却能成为一个如此伟大的演员，以至于人们会说：“我不管他兄弟干了什么，我就想看他演《哈姆雷特》。”那你必须得是个演技极佳的演员。
汤姆·奥斯本：顺便安利一个排名前100万、甚至可能排名前10的播客，叫《鲍威里男孩》（The Bowery Boys）。那是关于纽约历史的优秀播客。我想他们专门讲过这个话题，关于布斯家族和埃德温的坚韧。
迈克·芬格：还有约翰·威尔克斯·布斯，伙计。汤姆和我之前聊过这个。我们读过《追捕》（Manhunt）这本书。非常棒的书。
汤姆·奥斯本：关于刺杀事件发生后的那段历史，《追捕》写得太不可思议了。但不管怎么说，大家收听《马刺内幕》可不是为了听一堂关于19、20世纪交替时期南北战争的历史课。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：但如果你确实想听，我们也奉上了。
迈克·芬格：你们确实奉上了。大家收听《马刺内幕》是知道我们迟早会聊到杰夫·麦克唐纳在《圣安东尼奥快报》上写的——他肯定会恨我提这个——第四场比赛的取胜之匙。我不知道你写了没有。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我还没写呢。我向你保证，我甚至还没开始想。我发誓。[笑声]
迈克·芬格：所以我们应该继续聊19世纪90年代的演员，而不是第四场的取胜之匙？至少那是我们了解的领域。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我一整个早上都在想埃德温·布斯，结果你突然用这些取胜之匙的问题来考我。
迈克·芬格：在第三场比赛有利于马刺的种种进展中，你认为最值得关注的是什么？这或许可以作为你为《圣安东尼奥快报》撰写取胜之匙的切入点。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：是的，我们基本上都提到了。在我们今天早上的讨论中，已经涉及了很多。但我的意思是，让维克托·文班亚马在开局阶段就在篮筐附近活跃起来，这显然是个好主意。[笑声] 米奇在系列赛很早的时候就提到过，他们希望由内而外地打，而不是由外而内。在第一场和第二场的大部分时间里，感觉有很多文班的单打，试图通过运球自己创造机会。让他通过顺下冲击篮筐，从而带动对方防守的移动，迫使尼克斯不得不顾忌他的顺下并跟防，这一切都让马刺的进攻变得更好。我认为这也让文班参与度更高。当他在开局阶段轻松拿到几分后，后面那些高难度的投篮对他来说也会变得容易一些，从而开启一个美妙的夜晚。因为我们在总决赛中注意到，你的球星必须在攻防两端都打出球星级别的表现，球队才能赢球。维克托前两场打得——以他的标准来看——只能算平庸，尤其是第一场21投6中。是的，第一场21投6中。第二场上半场只出手了4次。但在过去的六个单节里，我认为他想通了更多，马刺也弄清楚了如何围绕他来使用他。如果他们能保持这种势头，这对马刺的第四场比赛是个好兆头。但是，所有这些比赛最终都取决于谁能在第四节挺身而出。第三场也是如此。我是说，你们提到的卡斯尔投中的那一球，让马刺领先了大概6分。但紧接着他们就防丢了杰伦·布伦森的一个三分，分差被缩小了一半。然后福克斯必须在罚球线附近用一个急停跳投做出回应，将领先优势扩大到5分。接着OG·阿奴诺比 (OG Anunoby) 投中三分，分差变成2分。最后斯蒂芬·卡斯尔必须罚进两球来锁定胜局。马刺在最后时刻赢下比赛的方式，就是不断地给出回应。当尼克斯打出反击时，马刺总能予以回击。面对尼克斯，你必须在最后时刻一直保持这种回应，因为他们绝不会主动放弃。他们不会自己倒下，你必须亲手击败他们。马刺在第三场做到了这一点，但在第一场和第二场没能做到。所以对我来说，让文班在开局打好，以及第四节关键时刻的执行力，这已经是三个取胜之匙中的两个了。
迈克·芬格：这听起来像是显而易见的道理。但是，那种“对方不会放弃，我们必须不断回应、回应、再回应”的韧性，是我们在总决赛之前报道的所有系列赛中未曾见过的。比如，即使是对阵卫冕冠军雷霆，那支在常规赛中堪称全联盟最强战车的球队，在锁定西部第一之前赢了无数场比赛。但在那轮七场大战中，他们却两次被马刺大比分击败。马刺在对阵森林狼和雷霆时，也曾让一些比赛从手中溜走。我的意思是，季后赛中确实会有大比分惨败，这很正常。但马刺和尼克斯之间似乎不会出现惨败。也许第四场会是一场大胜，但目前为止，总决赛前三场比赛中，每次看起来马刺要拉开比分，或者尼克斯要拉开比分时，悬念总会被拉回来。这就演变成了我们在播客中反复提到的情况：在最后两分钟决定胜负。到目前为止，还没有出现过哪一场比赛是“哦，对方打出一波流，我们下场再战吧”的情况。我回想起在圣安东尼奥进行的第一场和第二场开局阶段，尼克斯在所有这些比赛中都曾落后过10分，对吧？嗯。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：这是昨晚之前最奇葩的数据之一。今年马刺对阵尼克斯，当马刺在比赛中建立起10分领先优势时，战绩是0胜4负；而当他们没有领先到10分时，战绩反而是1胜0负。[笑声] 是的，昨晚是他们今年第一次在领先10分的情况下击败尼克斯。非常奇特的数据。但这说明纽约人绝不会轻易放弃。你不可能领先个14分，然后指望他们说“好吧，我们认输”。当然，我们在东部决赛第一场就见识过了，当时他们对阵……完成了史诗级的大逆转。
汤姆·奥斯本：对阵骑士。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：对阵骑士。但在这轮系列赛中，我们一次又一次地看到这种情况，伙计。你领先他们10分、12分、14分，突然之间，你浪费了两次进攻机会，连续几个回合没得分，而他们投中几个球，瞬间就追上来了。他们是一支优秀的球队，绝不会束手就擒。我的意思是，虽然他们目前在系列赛中领先，但要击败他们四次将会非常困难。我觉得这完全算不上什么惊人观点。
迈克·芬格：在马刺扳回一城之前，我在报纸和网上都提到过这一点。尼克斯之于马刺，就像马刺之于雷霆。在很长一段时间里看起来确实如此，现在依然如此。我的意思是，这支球队在阵容构建上简直就是马刺的梦魇。就像你刚才提到的，杰夫，OG·阿奴诺比在第三场打出了他在这轮系列赛中最好的一场比赛，尽管尼克斯输了。那种更偏向大前锋的体型巨大的3D球员，正是击败马刺的利器。如果能得到像昨晚阿奴诺比那样的贡献——这听起来我有点自相矛盾，因为尼克斯昨晚输了——但那正是让马刺最头疼的球员类型。卡尔-安东尼·唐斯在第一场和第二场里也是个巨无霸。同样，如果我们提前两天录制这个播客，我们一定会讨论马刺在攻防两端都对他无计可施，他如何在防守端消耗维克托·文班亚马，以及他在进攻端如何为所欲为。正如杰夫所说，这轮系列赛很容易重新倒向尼克斯，让他们捧起总冠军奖杯。对马刺来说，这依然是一个艰难的对决。但是，正如杰夫所说，在这年里首次在麦迪逊广场花园赢球，至少能让你跨过那道“我们能击败他们吗”的心理障碍。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：是的，这算是打破了瓶颈。
迈克·芬格：打破了瓶颈，捅破了窗户纸，汤姆。
汤姆·奥斯本：问题是，你的——迈克·芬格的安保团队在第四场还会到场吗？
迈克·芬格：这太关键了，这是一个重大问题。汤姆，我倾向于让他们那天晚上放假，因为我觉得那太……在这座世界上最伟大的城市之一，在发生着这一切、洋溢着喜悦、每个人都试图团结一致的时候，如果我把一切都变成以我为中心，那我成什么人了？如果我仅仅为了让自己一个人感到安全，就给成千上万的人带来不便，那我成什么人了？况且大家本来也并不想让我出现在那里。你懂我的意思吧？
汤姆·奥斯本：我认识的你从来不是那样的人。是的，你总是为他人着想。
迈克·芬格：是的，我有足够的自知之明，知道自己在麦迪逊广场花园并不是最受欢迎的人。所以我不会把一切都搞得像围着我转一样。汤姆，虽然我还没最终决定，但我倾向于让大家尽情享受比赛。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：好吧，昨晚简直是一场噩梦，我永远不会原谅你[笑声]和你的安保团队，以及你让我们经历的一切——在一场NBA比赛开球前五个小时就离开酒店之类的。我是说，得了吧。
迈克·芬格：嘿，伙计，我需要安全感。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：感觉就像埃德温·布斯亲临现场一样。
汤姆·奥斯本：迈克，我也很了解你这一点，不管工作多累，你总是神采奕奕。你看，你现在正喝着咖啡，无论发生什么你都能保持清醒。
迈克·芬格：汤姆，我昨晚确实没怎么睡。有一个大问题，如果我们想聊聊的话——我们刚才聊了南北战争，聊了美国早期的戏剧界。如果我们要聊聊美国印刷机或新闻业的历史，现在的年轻孩子们可能不知道，在很久很久以前，你在报道完一场篮球赛后，临近深夜会有一个截稿时间。如果你敲出一些文字并发送给编辑部，那篇报道就会登上第二天一早的报纸。那感觉太棒了，因为一旦过了截稿时间，你当天的工作就结束了，可以去睡觉了。但现在，汤姆，正如你所知，你可以写一整晚，不断在网上更新，以便人们在早上阅读。对于一个在自我设定截止日期方面缺乏自律的人来说，结果就是你熬夜到凌晨5点，只为了给《圣安东尼奥快报》及其官网撰写专栏。所以，你必须得喝点咖啡。
汤姆·奥斯本：是的，这里不缺好咖啡。
迈克·芬格：是的。不过，你昨晚也熬到挺晚的，对吧，汤姆？
汤姆·奥斯本：是的，是的。我确实熬夜了。我是走回去的。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：他当时在54俱乐部（Studio 54）。[笑声]
汤姆·奥斯本：我步行回了位于翠贝卡（Tribeca）的酒店，走了一半的路程。我喜欢纽约深夜的漫步，能看到很多景象。昨晚也不例外。
迈克·芬格：你不想和观众分享昨晚什么特别的见闻吗？
汤姆·奥斯本：不想，但我很享受那个过程。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：昨晚走在城里，我发现气氛相当诡异。我不知道这是否与尼克斯输球有关，还是因为我必须在凌晨两点穿过时报广场，但昨晚在纽约，确实让人感觉有点紧绷。
迈克·芬格：好吧，如果大家喜欢这种诡异的气氛，我们下周还会带来新一期的《马刺内幕》。[笑声] 我们会带来你们想要的所有欢呼和更详尽的报道，还有更多的取胜之匙。也许到时候我们聊的依然是还在继续的总决赛，也许总决赛已经结束了。但不管怎样，最好还是让你的感恩之心大于你的期望。大家保重，保持真实。
[音乐]
由生成式 AI 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：Can the Spurs pull off a Finals comeback?
Can the Spurs pull off a Finals comeback?
Columnist Mike Finger and beat reporters Jeff McDonald and Tom Orsborn discuss the contributions of Stephon Castle and Dylan Harper in the Spurs’ breakthrough victory in Game 3 of the NBA Finals, and ask whether a clear-headed Victor Wembanyama is ready to lead his team all the way back from an 0-2 deficit.
Suggested reading:
How the Spurs embraced a distraction, and possibly turned around the NBA Finals against the Knicks
3 takeaways as Spurs, Wembanyama take Game 3 in New York
How Castle, Fox came up big in crunch time in Game 3
Here is the transcript of the podcast:
Presenter: This episode of Spurs Insider is brought to you by the Law Office of Sean C. Brown.
[music]
Mike Finger: From a highly secure network of top-secret locations across Lower Manhattan, this is the Spurs Insider No Sweeps Edition. I am Mike Finger, joined as always by a bright-eyed Tom Orsborn, bushy-tailed Jeff McDonald. They’re the Spurs beat writers for the San Antonio Express-News. They’ve had it covered from start to finish, from soup to nuts all season long, all decade long, all playoffs long, and we are still working, Jeff and Tom. The Spurs are still at it. It looked bleak after two games at the Frost Bank Center. But in Game 3 at Madison Square Garden, with a- a plethora of high-profile guests in attendance, including every member of the Spurs Insider podcast, the Spurs proved they would not go away. Jeff McDonald, what’s the state of the NBA Finals? Can this team make an unprecedented comeback from losing two home games to start NBA Finals, and win a championship?
Jeff McDonald: Well, starting off, I was just impressed last night at Madison Square Garden at- at the security presence when they heard Mike Finger was coming. There was, it was ridiculous.
Mike Finger: You know, as- as the host of one of the- of the top, like, I would say, million podcasts on the various podcast apps, there’s- there’s always some threats. There’s always some concern whenever you go into a public place. But shout out to all the security folks there. They- they did a good job of looking out for me, including from my fellow podcast panelists. I was not allowed to be harmed in any way, so thanks to them.
Jeff McDonald: And we’re- you’re saying we finally cracked the top million now?
Mike Finger: That might have been an exaggeration. [laughter] Yeah, yeah, you know, but- but that’s not what I asked you.
Jeff McDonald: What did you ask me? About the- the local cagers and their Finals- Finals journey here? Yes. They’re back in the series, I guess. I mean, you know, it’s still- it’s still an uphill- uphill haul after winning Game 3. Like, there’s a reason, and we’ve all written it and said it a million times in the past, you know, 72 hours. No team in NBA history has lost two Finals games at home to start the series and gone on to win the series. And that’s still in play. Like, there’s- there’s a- there’s a reason it’s hard. But, you can’t get back in the series if you lose Game 3. You have to win that game to give yourself a chance. And now they’ve got it- got it to 2-1. And you can start playing the game, well, now if they just do it again on- on Game 4 and it’s even-steven going back to San Antonio, you’ve got a brand-new series. So, they’ve given themselves lives- life is what they’ve done, and it was, you know, it was- it was a big victory there. Big Victor Wembanyama-led victory there at Madison Square Garden. Stopped the Knicks’ 13-game winning streak, postseason winning streak, that was big. First loss for the Knicks since like late April. That was big. So, you know, big-time win for the local cagers last night to stay alive.
Mike Finger: Tom, Mitch Johnson said there’s no such thing as momentum, no such thing as carryover this time of year. I wonder if that’s really true. Did- did- was there a breakthrough in Game 3 that can carry over? Or was there anything specific that can turn this series around? Or are we just going to start all over again on Game 4 on Wednesday and see what happens?
Tom Orsborn: I think so. I think there is momentum. They- they solved some things, you know. They struggled with ball movement and, um, you know, just, uh, being decisive and aggressive with their actions. And we saw that in Game 3, um, you know, nearly 30 assists after averaging 22 per game over the first two- first two contests. And I think having, I don’t know, what did they have in that first- first game, 14 or so?
Jeff McDonald: 16. 16.
Tom Orsborn: Yeah, yeah, 16. So, I mean, they solved that problem. They moved the ball well. You know, De’Aaron Fox struggled shooting-wise, but eight assists. And the other thing, they came up big in- in crunch time. Uh, usually, that’s Jalen Brunson’s territory, but last night, it was Steph Castle and De’Aaron Fox coming up with big shots in the last- big shots, big plays in the final two minutes.
Mike Finger: As- as has been pointed out by us, by- by everyone who is covering this series, the Spurs have led in the last two minutes of all three games, Jeff? Um.
Jeff McDonald: That’s correct.
Mike Finger: So, it’s not like they’ve been dominated, it’s not like they were in a hopeless situation heading into Game 3. It was an example of that eventual wall that we all thought they would hit. Not necessarily a wall, but the obstacle that they were going to hit of playing a- a veteran team, a team that knew how to finish games, a team that had been on this similar stage before in terms of big playoff series. And- and this was what happened in Games 1 and 2, is what we kind of thought was going to happen either in the second round or in the third round against Minnesota or Oklahoma City. And the- the local cagers, the young Spurs defied all of that for a couple of rounds. It looked like maybe they weren’t going to be able to defy it in the NBA Finals. But this was another example, as- as Tom alluded to, of a- a game that could have gone either way down the stretch. It wasn’t just Victor Wembanyama making plays. It was Stephon Castle hitting a huge three-pointer when the- when the Knicks still had life. It was De’Aaron Fox looking like the- the- the- the clutch player of the year that he once was. And so, I think you have to be encouraged by all sorts of things that happened down the stretch.
Jeff McDonald: Yeah, it was, it’s kind of a breakthrough, you know. I- I mean, there- there is a mental component of this team that you haven’t, uh, you’ve really struggled to beat, not just in the- in- in this series, but, you know, over and over again throughout some regular-season meetings. Hadn’t won, until last night, had not won at Madison Square Garden since before COVID, like, 2019. So, uh, I think there is a mental component of, you know, breaking through and beating the monster, beating the beast. And, uh, now maybe you’ve shown you can do it, maybe it makes it easier going forward, I don’t know. It’s still going to be an uphill climb for these guys, but- but, um, you know, they’ve- they’ve shown, they showed last night they have the stuff to make a series of it, I think.
Tom Orsborn: Yeah, they- they- they took it to the Knicks, too. I mean, Stephon Castle running, [laughter] running into Jalen Brunson, that was kind of a defining play, I thought. Um, very- this, you know, this is very subtle, but Keldon Johnson did a great job on- in his minutes, uh, against KAT. I mean, he was really physical with him. I thought that was- Keldon didn’t have his scoring, but that was- that was a pretty good game by him. Um, plus-14, um, just played good physical defense. And I think maybe that’s what they talked to him about. “Hey, you’re not scoring, for whatever reason, but just- just do those other things, you know. Be physical on defense, rebound.” And, uh, hey, he did a good job with that.
Jeff McDonald: And it’s still a struggle, man. [laughter]
Tom Orsborn: And Harper, you know, they played, Mitch played Dylan Harper a lot last night. And he- he struggled with his shot, but nine rebounds, and his defense against Brunson, I think, really bothered him, his length. Um, you know, he was on him pretty good throughout the game. So, um, they got, they got some contributions, you know, just guys playing tough, gritty basketball.
Jeff McDonald: You mentioned Dylan. Like, it’s interesting to me, um, I think you’ve got to play him that much for rebounding. People- people see his scoring and- and the way he scores, and that’s- that’s all awesome. But I think he needs those minutes because they need the help on the boards. And he’s- as far as your wings go, he’s one of your rebounding wings. He’s really going to get it. I think that’s just another thing, um, another reason he needs to be on the floor.
Tom Orsborn: Yeah, I agree. I agree.
Mike Finger: The, uh, wait, that- that’s interesting, um, that’s an interesting bit of terminology there, that, uh, Dylan Harper is a wing now. Um, which, I think, are on the- on the- on the lineup that the Spurs are now playing a little bit more of, which is De’Aaron Fox, Stephon Castle, and Dylan Harper all together. Maybe- maybe he and Steph are sort of wings. But we’re seeing a little bit more of that group. We’re seeing what- we’re seeing Victor Wembanyama start a game by getting a bunch of dunks and layups and alley-oop finishes, which was not the case in- early in Game 1 or 2. And that was a clear priority, um, to start Game 3, where it was- it was four quick baskets. He was 4-for-4, all of them were inside. I think he scored 16 of his 32 points in the paint, which is what a 7’4" Frenchman probably should be doing, even with the Knicks packing the paint like they- they’re wont to do. Um, I- I think you saw, uh, Stephon Castle just attack, attack, attack, attack. It’s ridiculous, um, how- now, I don’t want to say easily he gets to the rim because he looks like a running back out there. He works to get to the rim. But he gets there. And when you throw all of that together, Victor Wembanyama getting inside, the Spurs getting to the rim, whether it’s Castle or Dylan Harper or whoever, uh, pushing in transition, getting easy buckets, that was more of a- a local cager type of a game.
Tom Orsborn: Yeah, um, and, you know, they win, they win Game 4, man, [laughter] watch out.
Mike Finger: Watch out. Is it “watch out,” Jeff?
Jeff McDonald: Is it watch out? What’s your question?
Mike Finger: Are- are we- are we in the watch out- you’ve been- you’ve been, uh, a little bit silent over the past minute or so. I- I want to- I want to use my expert podcasting skills to ease into a- a seamless-sounding transition. [laughter] [pause] Uh, the just- the work that goes into, uh, to- to- to pulling this stuff off. I don’t think people understand, uh, everything that goes into it. So, I’m- I’m trying to- to ease into, uh, a Jeff McDonald hot take here. Um, and- and now you have that opportunity, if you’d like.
Jeff McDonald: Okay, do you want to put the- pose the question in, like, uh, English, though?
Mike Finger: No.
Jeff McDonald: I don’t know what you’re asking me.
Tom Orsborn: I basically said if they win Game 4, watch out. And-
Jeff McDonald: Well, that’s correct. If they- if they win Game 4, watch out.
Tom Orsborn: Watch out.
Mike Finger: Why must every question be in English? This is the NBA Finals. There- there, it’s a multi-national, multi-cultural, multi-lingual, uh, extravaganza. At our press conference we go to- [laughter] C’est va.
Jeff McDonald: Uh, oui.
Mike Finger: I see. I see, I see. You’re not pulling it off. Is it- try Spanish. Um, ¿cómo estás? The- the question is, does another- Mitch Johnson says there’s no carryover. There’s no momentum. Tom Orsborn says, if the Spurs win Game 4, watch out.
Tom Orsborn: Watch out.
Mike Finger: Both can be true. Both can be true. I would like the expert, uh, panelist of the Spurs Insider podcast who’s covered the team since 2007 to weigh in on the nuances associated with both there’s no momentum, no carryover, and if they win Game 4, watch out. Like, I’d- I’d like you to expand on- on why both can be true.
Jeff McDonald: I think, um, every game in this series, and maybe every series, is its- is- is a new animal. And the games get started, and I feel like I’m talking like Mitch Johnson now. [laughter] The games get started and they take on a life of their own. They go different directions, you have to change this, change that. You can’t really, uh, paint by numbers and repeat- just repeat what you did in Game 3 and you’ll win Game 4. Like, it doesn’t necessarily work that way. That’s one hand. On the other hand, I mean, like I said, they did figure out a way to win a game, and that’s a psychological breakthrough that you’d think could serve you well going into Game 4. You know know you can do it, you know how to do it. Um, you’ve seen it can be done. These people aren’t immortal. They’re not, they’re not, uh, they’re not a machine, the Knicks. They’re just, they- they- they put their basketball shorts on one leg at a time. So, you can, they- they can be beat.
Mike Finger: They looked like a machine for- again, we talk about this every week. And- and there are people out there, even in- in the press contingent, coming up to, uh, Jeff McDonald during games and saying, uh, “How come there was not a- a more timely version of the Spurs Insider that we could have listened to between the start of the NBA Finals and- and Game 3 at Madison Square Garden?” The answer is, sponsor it. Sponsor it, we’ll do it. Um, but if- if we had taped a- a Spurs Insider podcast after Games 1 or 2, it would have been quite a different tone because the Knicks did look like a machine. Um, and they might look like a machine again. The- last, as Jeff mentioned earlier, the last time they’d lost a game was against the Atlanta Hawks way back in mid-April. And it’s not like the Spurs just completely solved them in one night. This was another game that could have gone either way. Even with Steph- Tom, with Steph Castle at the free-throw line at- at the end of the game, after it looked like the Spurs were okay and then they might not be okay, um, I- I can’t say enough about the game that- that Stephon Castle had in every facet, from defense to getting to the rim, to hitting a three-point- Here’s the other- I’m- I’m rambling. Remember when Stephon Castle was drafted, remember when he was coming into training camp this year, and we were talking about this glaring hole in his game of if he could just make an occasional three-point shot. Like, he- he doesn’t have to be great at making three-point shots, but if he could just make one every now and then to keep teams honest. Not only is he doing that, but he- it seems like he’s shooting with confidence and every time the ball is in his hands in a big spot where he’s- has time to line up, a sort of unorthodox-looking three-point shot, he’s making it. And- and it’s not just that he’s keeping defenses honest. He is making big ones like he did last night. He’s making big free throws. And, um, you know, this is a huge stage for Victor Wembanyama. Dylan Harper’s gotten a lot of love. People forget a little bit about how huge Stephon Castle’s been in his second year.
Tom Orsborn: Yeah, that three with under two minutes left, uh, it was interesting. Shot clock’s winding down. And he said after the game he was looking to crash the boards. Uh, he thought, uh, Victor was going to do something. He gets the ball and, you know, drills it. Um, uh, and afterward, Vic, Vic talks about Steph being maybe the most mature player on the team, uh, to which, uh, to which Steph said, “No, I think that’s Victor. I don’t go to bed at 9:00 every night,” so. [laughter] That was a good exchange.
Mike Finger: That was a good exchange. I wonder, um, if there will be any- speaking of maturity, serenity, Tom. You’re Mr. Serenity. Uh, have you thought about, uh, looking into any, uh, doodling, sketching time in New York City this week? Maybe- maybe getting to- to a park and- and breaking out a notebook and see if you can, uh, draw a picture?
Tom Orsborn: I love the parks. Love the New York parks, big and small, but, uh, no, I won’t be doing any sketching like, uh, Vic did. That was pretty cool.
Mike Finger: I was looking into the, um, uh, background of Gramercy Park, which is where Victor Wembanyama, uh, had a- a lovely afternoon in New York, uh, sketching a- a statue of Edwin Booth, the brother of John Wilkes Booth, Tom.
Jeff McDonald: John Wilkes Booth? Yeah.
Mike Finger: Yep. Um, and you ha- you need a- I- I remember this from an old Law & Order episode, I believe. You need a, uh, a key to get into that park. Like, it’s not a- it’s not a public- you can’t just walk through it. You- it’s for residents of- of buildings there, or you have to know somebody. And I guess Victor Wembanyama knew somebody, and was able to get in there and- and- and sketch. But he said he wanted to clear his head, he wanted to, uh, cool his brain down, I think, and that he said it was important after Games 1 and 2 to sort of get away from it all. And, uh, when we asked about the picture itself of Edwin Booth, he said four words: “Not bad, pretty good.” Um, if we could all have days like that, if we could all do podcasts like that, I think that would be amazing. I’m not sure we’ll ever pull it off, a not bad, pretty good podcast.
Jeff McDonald: It’s- it’s usually, uh, not good and pretty bad. [laughter]
Tom Orsborn: Edwin Booth, uh, resilient guy. Um, [laughter] yeah. You know, he, he was, uh, you know, that was a great acting family, uh, they had chops. And he kept going, after- after his brother kills the president. He- he doesn’t- there’s no drop-off with his popularity. So, he must have been a hell of an actor.
Jeff McDonald: So, the- the Booths were like the- like the- uh, like the Baldwins.
Tom Orsborn: Yeah. Well-
Mike Finger: Maybe the Chalamets, to to put in a- in a new- [laughter] in a new context. But yeah, the- well, much like the Baldwins, there was- there was, uh, uh, I shouldn’t do- that was- never mind, never mind. [laughter] There was- never mind. Um, yeah. Do you think- do you think Edwin Booth was doing the impression of, uh, of, uh, Abraham Lincoln on Saturday Night Live? [laughter]
Mike Finger: That’s outrageous. But also, Tom is right. To have a- to have a sibling, who’s notorious-
Tom Orsborn: Just think about, just think about that.
Mike Finger: Yeah.
Tom Orsborn: Yeah.
Mike Finger: Yeah. I don’t want to make any comparisons because it would be, I’d get myself in trouble. But to have a sibling who’s known for that, and then to be so great of an actor that people are like, “I don’t care what his sibling did, I want to go watch him do Hamlet.” Like, you’ve got to be a pretty good actor.
Tom Orsborn: To plug- to plug a podcast that is in the top million, maybe in the top 10, I’d say, The Bowery Boys. Uh, Bowery Boys podcast, uh, great, uh, history of New York. Um, I think they covered this very topic about the Booths and Edwin’s resiliency, yeah.
Mike Finger: And John Wilkes Booth, man. Tom and I have talked about it before. Like, what- We read the book Manhunt. Great book.
Tom Orsborn: The book Manhunt is, is incredible about, uh, the- the- the time after- after the assassination. But anyway, you didn’t tune in to the Spurs Insider expecting a Civil War turn of the 19th, 20th century, uh, history lesson.
Jeff McDonald: But if you did, we delivered.
Mike Finger: You delivered. You tuned in to the Spurs Insider knowing that at some point we would get to the Jeff McDonald, San Antonio Express-News, he’s going to hate me for bringing this up, keys to victory for Game 4. And I don’t know if you’ve done them.
Jeff McDonald: I haven’t done them. I promise you I haven’t thought about them yet. I promise you. [laughter]
Mike Finger: So, we should go back to, uh, to, like, uh, 1890s actors rather than the keys to victory in Game 4? Something that we know something about.
Jeff McDonald: I spent all morning thinking about Edwin Booth and then you hit me with these keys to victory questions.
Mike Finger: Of the- of the developments in Game 3 that worked in the Spurs’ favor, what was the most noteworthy to you? That might be how you start your keys to victory for the San Antonio Express-News.
Jeff McDonald: Yeah, we- we’ve- we’ve mentioned it all. We’ve mentioned a lot of it throughout the course of our discussion this morning. But, I mean, getting Victor Wembanyama going near the rim early seems to be a good idea. [laughter] Um, and- and Mitch mentioned that way early in the- the series, how they want to play inside-out, not start with outside-in. And for a lot of those Games 1 and 2, and in Game 1 and 2, it was a lot of Vic, it felt like, ISOs, trying to create his own thing off the- off the dribble. Um, getting him rolling and moving towards the basket, moving the defense in that way, forcing the Knicks to, um, respect that roll and go with them, all that makes the Spurs’ offense better. And I think it makes Vic more involved too. When he’s got a couple easy ones to start the game, I think it makes the more difficult shots that come later a little bit easier for him, and- and it gets him started on a really good night. Because what we- what we’ve noticed in- in these Finals games is your stars have got to be a star on both sides in order for you to win the game. You know, Victor had two, I would say, mediocre by his standards, uh, games, especially Game 1, 6-of-21. So, he’s 6-of-21 in Game 1. Starts Game 2 with four shots in the first half. Like, he- he’s figured out more in the last six quarters, I think, and the Spurs have figured out more around him how to use him. And I think if they can keep that going, it- it bodes well for, um, for the Spurs in Game 4. But, uh, all these games have come down to, like, who makes the plays in the fourth quarter. Um, and it- it was the same in Game 3. I mean, if- that- that Castle shot y’all mentioned, I think, puts them up, uh, six or something. And then they immediately give up a three to Jalen Brunson to cut that in half. So, then Fox has to respond with a- with a- with a little free-throw line jumper to put them up five. And then OG responds with a three to make it two. And then Steph Castle has to make the two free throws to seal it. Like, the way the Spurs won that game down the stretch is they just kept answering. They made the- they- when the Knicks made a play to come back, the Spurs made a play to answer that. And you have to keep doing that down the stretch with the Knicks because they’re not going to die. They’re not going to die on their own, you’re going to have to kill them. And- and that’s what the Spurs did in Game 3, wasn’t- weren’t able to do it in Games 1 or 2. So, to me, it’s get Vic started early, and then late-game execution in the fourth quarter is probably two of your three keys right there.
Mike Finger: And it seems like, um, kind of a- a self-evident truth, if you will. But, um, the- the whole “they won’t die, answer, answer, answer.” But that’s something that we did not see in all of the- the series that we covered leading up to the NBA Finals. Like, even against the defending champion Thunder, that was a team that was the best, um, juggernaut in the NBA during the regular season, and won a bunch of- bunch of games in a row before the Cup had- had- had totally earned the number-one seed in the West. They let themselves get blown out twice by the Spurs in- in a seven-game series. The- the Spurs sort of let some games get away from them against the Timberwolves and the Thunder. And I mean, there- there have been blowouts in the playoffs, blowouts happen in the playoffs. Blowouts don’t happen between the Spurs and Knicks, it seems. And maybe this is setting up one in Game 4. But there have been opportunities in all three of the games in the Finals so far where it looked like the Spurs were going to get away from the Knicks, or the Knicks were going to get away from the Spurs, and it’s just not happening. And what- what that turns into is what we’ve mentioned over and over on- on this podcast, is a game where, in the final two minutes, things get decided. And there’s not one of those- there hasn’t been one of those so far where, uh, oh, a run happens and we’ll- we’ll try again next time. Um, I- I think back to- to early in- in Games 1 and 2 in San Antonio, and the Knicks have trailed by 10 in- in all these games, right? Mm-hmm. Including during the regular- the two games they beat the Spurs in the regular season, they trailed by 10. Um, they- they trail by 10 and come back. And they’ve done a great job of that, the Spurs have done a great job of that. And it’s made for a really, really compelling basketball, I think.
Jeff McDonald: It was one of- it was one of the weirder stats before last night. Uh, Spurs and Knicks this year, uh, the Spurs were 0 and 4 against the Knicks when building a 10-point lead in the game, and 1 and 0 when they did not. [laughter] Yeah, last night was the first time they actually had a 10-point lead and beat the Knicks this year. Very odd statistic. But it points to New York is not going to go away. You’re not going to get up 14 and they’re just going to be like, “Oh, well.” And of course, we saw that in Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals when they had that epic comeback, um, against-
Tom Orsborn: Against the Cavs.
Jeff McDonald: Against the Cavs. But, we’ve seen it over and over in this game, man. They just, you- you got them by- by 10, 12, 14, and all of a sudden they’ve make- you- you’ve kind of, uh, given away a couple of possessions, had a couple dry possessions, and they just hit some shots and they’re right back in it like that. It’s- they’re a good team, and they’re not going to be a team that’s going to go quietly, um, I mean, I mean, they’re winning the series. But, um, it’s going to be hard to beat them four times. I don’t think that’s- that’s, uh, a hot take at all.
Mike Finger: And I- I mentioned this, um, in the newspaper, um, online before the- the Spurs were able to get one back. But they- the- the Knicks are to the Spurs what the Spurs were to the Thunder. And that’s how it was looking for a long, and still looks that way. I mean, it’s- it’s a team that just seems built to be a nightmare matchup for them because of, like- like you just mentioned, Jeff, OG Anunoby, who had his best game of the series in Game 3, even in a- in a- in a Knicks loss, like that. That spot of a- of a- of a giant three-and-D guy who’s more of a power forward is- is- is exactly how you beat the Spurs. You get contributions like OG Anunoby had last night, which sounds like I’m contradicting myself because the Knicks lost last night. But the- that’s the type of player that gives the Spurs fits. Um, KAT, Karl-Anthony Towns, was a monster in Games 1 and 2. Again, if we did this podcast two days earlier, we’d be talking about how the Spurs have no answer for him at either end of the court, how he was making Victor Wembanyama work on that end, and he was getting what he wanted, uh, on offense. And, uh, you know, they- to Jeff’s point, this could turn back into a Knicks series victory quite easily, where they- where they pull away for this championship. Uh, it’s still a tough matchup- matchup for the Spurs. But, I- I think winning one, as Jeff said, the first time in MSG this decade, at least gets you a little over that mental hump of, “Can we beat these guys?”
Jeff McDonald: Yeah, it lifts the lid a little bit.
Mike Finger: Lifts the lid, breaks the seal, Tom. Um.
Tom Orsborn: The question is, will your, will Mike Finger’s security detail be there for Game 4?
Mike Finger: That’s a huge, that’s a huge question. I am inclined, Tom, I’m inclined to give them the- the night off because I think it was too- What kind of person would I be if, with all this going on, with all this- with all this joy in this city, one of the greatest cities in the world, um, with everyone with everyone trying to come together, what kind of person would I be if I made it all about me? And- and if I inconvenienced tens of thousands of people just- just so I, as one person, could feel safe? When people really don’t want me there anyway. You know what I’m saying?
Tom Orsborn: I’ve- I’ve never known you to be that way. Yeah, you’re, you’re, you think- you think of other people, so.
Mike Finger: Yeah, like, I- I underst- I’m self-aware enough to know that- that, uh, I’m not the most popular person at Madison Square Garden. And so, I’m not going to- I’m not going to- I’m not going to make it all about me. I’m- and so, I haven’t made up my mind yet, Tom, but I’m leaning toward just letting people enjoy themselves.
Jeff McDonald: Well, last night was such a- such a nightmare, I’m never going to forgive you [laughter] for your security detail and what- what you put us through, leaving the hotel five hours before tip-off for an NBA game and stuff like that. I mean, come on.
Mike Finger: Hey, man, I need to feel safe.
Jeff McDonald: Felt like Edwin Booth was there.
Tom Orsborn: I know, I know this about you, Mike, too, is as hard as you work, you’re always awake. You know, you’re drinking that coffee right now and you- you just stay awake through everything.
Mike Finger: I did not, uh, I did not sleep much last night, Tom. Um, one huge problem, if we want to get into, we’ve talked about, uh, Civil War, we’ve talked about, uh, early era of American acting. Um, if we- if we get into the history of- of the printing press, of- of- of journalism in the United States. The kids might not know this, but there was a time a long, long time ago when you would have a deadline at the end of a night after you’re covering a basketball game. And then, if you- if you typed out some words and sent them into the, uh, the place where there were editors, like that- that story would make the next morning’s paper. And it was great, um, because once that deadline was over, you’d be done for the night and you can go to bed. But now, Tom, as you know, you could write all night and keep adding it online, and have it ready for people to read in the morning. And what that does for a person who does not have good self-discipline in terms of giving themselves deadlines, is you stay up till 5:00 a.m. writing a column for the Express-News, expressnews.com, San Antonio Express-News newspaper. And, uh, and- and- and you’ve got to drink some coffee. So.
Tom Orsborn: Yeah, no shortage of good coffee here.
Mike Finger: Yeah. Well, you- you stayed up rather late as well, didn’t you, Tom?
Tom Orsborn: I did, I did. I, uh, I did. I had a walk back.
Jeff McDonald: He was at Studio 54. [laughter]
Tom Orsborn: I walked halfway back to my hotel in Tribeca, and, uh, I love those late-night New York walks. You see a lot of things. And, uh, last night was no exception.
Mike Finger: You’re not going to share any, you’re not going to share any specific memory from last night with the- with the viewers?
Tom Orsborn: No, but I enjoy it, I enjoy it.
Jeff McDonald: It was a- it was a pretty weird vibe last night, I found, walking back, just in the city. I don’t know if it had to do with the Knicks losing or what, but, or just being 2:00 in the morning in Times Square that I had to pass through, but it was, uh, felt a little, uh, little on the edge last night here in- here in the Big Apple.
Mike Finger: Well, if the people love weird vibes, we’re going to have another Spurs Insider next week. [laughter] And we- we will have all the cheer- all you can handle, we’ll have more coverage, we’ll have more keys to victory. Maybe we’ll be talking about a NBA Finals series that’s still going on, maybe we’ll be talking about one that’s completed. But either way, it’s probably best to keep your gratitude greater than your expectations. Take care of each other, and keep it real.
[music]