Looking at the top teams in the playoffs, how far off do you think the Spurs are from that level?
Marilyn Dubinski: They’re a long way from the true title contenders like the Thunder, Cavs and Celtics (at least before the second round started in disastrous form for the latter two). They just don’t have the offensive firepower or defensive efficiency to contend with those teams yet. That being said, they are not that far from the next tier of upper-seeded playoff teams. They likely would have made the play-in at a minimum this season, possibly even the playoffs had everyone been healthy. The Spurs are probably a few years and pieces away from being true title contenders, but they’re working their way up, tier-by-tier.
Mark Barrington: If you look at the team that finished the season, the gap is immense. But if the entire team were healthy, then they’re a play-in team. The level of play has been extremely high in the first couple of rounds, and there has been some elite shot-making by teams like the Pacers and incredible clutch play by the Knicks, and the Spurs aren’t even in that neighborhood yet.
Jesus Gomez: It depends on Wembanyama and health. If Victor can be a top-3 player next season and most guys stay healthy, they could get a high seed and really test themselves against the elite. If key players miss games and Wemby doesn’t make a leap on offense, the Spurs will likely be nothing more than first-round fodder. There’s no shame in that, especially for a team with young players getting heavy minutes. There’s no rush. But there is a universe where San Antonio has a Houston-like ascent next year and a puncher’s chance of getting to the conference finals if their superstar takes the next step.
Devon Birdsong: It’s an interesting question due to the parity that we’re seeing in the postseason. The standings suggested that there was more separation between top seeds and bottom seeds than in the past (especially in the West, where only 5 teams won 50+ games, and one of the play-in teams didn’t even win 40 — as opposed to last season where both play-in teams won 46 games), but front-runners seem more prone to upset since the play-in was established. I think the Spurs are perhaps due for a season like the one the Rockets had this year, but as we’ve seen, that’s still a season or two away from true contention.
What can the Spurs learn from the most successful teams in the postseason?
Dubinski: Massive comebacks are becoming a lot more common even in the playoffs thanks to pace and teams going nuclear from three at the right time. I would say the ultimate lesson is that the game is 48 minutes long, so never treat it as anything less, whether you’re winning or losing. The Spurs have been on the wrong side of a lot of blown double-digit leads over the last couple of seasons, so they’ve been learning that the hard way, and it’s something they just can’t do anymore, both to make the postseason and then to stay in it.
Barrington: That you have to keep playing. The Knicks have looked out of it a few times, but they kept fighting and have secured some improbable comeback victories. The Pacers have been real-life Hoosiers, somehow pulling off a series of insane last-minute upsets by exploiting opponents’ mistakes.
These kind of game endings make it apparent that you need a star who isn’t afraid of taking the game over in a critical moment. Players like Brunson and Haliburton are showing the value of a finisher, and it’s unclear if the Spurs have that kind of player on their roster yet. Both Castle and Wembanyama could be that kind of player sometime in the future, but they aren’t there now. De’Aaron Fox has shown signs of being an elite clutch player, but he hasn’t been on the same level as we’ve witnessed in this year’s playoffs.
Gomez: The biggest lesson is that you can’t have liabilities. Teams will exploit weak links on both ends to make their game plans easier. If the Spurs are going to have non-shooters, they better be moving constantly and crashing the offensive glass; If they are going to have poor individual defenders, they at least need to play hard and not make mistakes at the team level. Having a glaring weakness might not always hurt you in the regular season, but it puts you in a terrible position in the postseason, when coaching staffs have time to figure out the best way to target it.
Birdsong: That they’re going to have to be able to deal with physicality. It’s been one of the consistent critiques regarding the Spurs over the last two seasons, and while the ‘Wemby’s too frail for it’ narratives are almost certainly bunk, the Spurs have a noticeable tendency to get pushed around when players like Jeremy Sochan and Chris Paul are off the court. They’re going to have to get tougher as a team, both physically and mentally, and I don’t think it would be a bad idea for the Spurs to bring in someone like Stephen Adams to show them how it’s done. Especially since they do have a roster need in that area as well.
After a somewhat lackluster regular season, the playoffs have been fantastic. Why do you think that is?
Dubinski: There have certainly been a lot of unusual happenings, both good and bad, that are bringing intrigue. I’m not sure 40-point blowouts are helpful, but the West featured two first-round upsets, one from the old guard Warriors and another from a younger Timberwolves squad that features one of the young faces of the league, and of course drama from folks like Draymond Green brings some intrigue. I think fans are also excited about seeing some new faces and teams rising back up, such as the Pistons.
Barrington: I don’t know if that’s all that unexpected in the NBA. Good teams know that the real season doesn’t start until the regular season is over, and they coast until it’s time to shine. Star players elevate their play for the post-season—Playoff Jimmy Butler is for real, but so is Playoff Tyrese Haliburton, Playoff Steph Curry, Playoff Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Playoff Julius Randle … need I go on?
Another thing that limited the drama in the regular season was the proliferation of season-ending injuries, and it was pretty clear who was and wasn’t going to the playoffs well before the season came to an end.
Gomez: I feel like it’s a combination of having a tremendous amount of exciting talent, young and old, in the top teams and the truly intriguing narratives that are present but don’t feel forced. How far could the Luka-LeBron Lakers go? Do the Warriors have one last run in them? The banged-up Celtics looked like a favorite to repeat but now look fragile. Young teams on the upswing with exciting stars like the Pistons and Rockets gave neutral fans someone to root for. There are a lot of other stories that I’m probably missing — I didn’t even mention the Thunder and Cavaliers! The biggest thing is that the games seem like they matter, as the league appears to be in the middle of a transition between eras that has brought parity without diluting the quality of the product, which is at an extremely high level.
Birdsong: One of the things I’ve really enjoyed about the postseason as of late has been the decline in foul calls. Partly because foul baiting in the regular season is a consistent source of frustration, but also because of how much it interrupts play. Generally speaking, movement > lots of watching people shoot free throws. However, this emphasis is also forcing teams to veer away from the formula that works best in the regular season. There’s a lot less sprinting from one three-point line to the other, or driving looking for the easy foul. The playoffs are usually indicative of an increase in quality based on team quality, but this change is making it even more cat and mouse than ever, and teams that can’t adjust are losing, no matter how good their strategy was earlier in the year. John Hollinger wrote an excellent piece this week on all the changes in pace, fouls, and shooting that have occurred in the postseason that I highly recommend. It’s pretty illuminating.