San Antonio 114, Houston 119 // 57-19 // 1st in the West
I haven’t watched the game yet, so I have no analysis from it. Plenty of views on that out in the cyberworld. I will watch the game eventually, out of a mixture of some love and perhaps obligation, but you probably understand if I’m not really interested in doing that just yet. Why ruin a perfectly lovely Saturday afternoon?
But there are some thoughts I’ve been chewing on. So I offer these up in the place of a game analysis.
The Justification
Looking at our opponents in the 6 losses–Portland twice, Memphis, Denver, Boston, and Houston–most of them share something in common: they are all fighting tooth and nail for a playoff berth. The Spurs have long had a playoff berth, and while we should still be fighting to not let the top seed slip away and to get better, taken on an individual basis and not as part of a disturbing whole, it’s understandable that the Spurs might lose each of these games. Factor in that we were playing without Duncan for 4 of these games (and without most of our key players for all of them), and each loss, on its own, can be explained away somewhat. In a league when very little can separate two teams on any given night, motivation can often be a tipping factor.
The Fear
The Spurs started the season off hot, clearly as the best team in the league. This is understandable given the high level of corporate knowledge on this team. The Big 3 are still here and healthy; Bonner has been around for a long time now; George Hill is easing into his 3rd season in the system; Blair, McDyess, and Jefferson were all coming into their second season, typically when players have their ‘a-ha!’ moments within the system. Really, only James Anderson, Gary Neal, and Tiago Splitter were new. And because of injuries, only Neal has seen significant minutes and rotation time for the duration of the season.
At the start of the season, then, in a lot of ways, we were months ahead of other teams in terms of understanding what we wanted to do and how we were going to play. So while other teams were figuring each other out, we were beating them. And beating them. And beating them.
But as the season progressed, these teams all started to figure things out and play better. And better. And better. And the Spurs haven’t seemed to be getting better. (Lately, they seem to have been getting worse, sadly.) My fear is this: maybe we were as good as we were ever going to be at the start of the season, and many other teams have gotten better over time and passed us. We were better, but had a lower ceiling. Now all of these teams are reaching their potential, and their best is better than our best.
The Silver Lining
All year long, we’ve all wanted that 1 seed. Having home court advantage throughout the playoffs is obviously a wonderful thing, and may be the only thing that can give us a chance to beat the Lakers in a seven game series. Losing that top seed would be devastating in that regard, and also in the manner in which it happened.
But take away those thoughts for a second and ponder this: Is the second seed really that bad?
As the second seed, we’d face either Portland, New Orleans, or Memphis in the first round (just as we would as the top seed). All 3 present problems for us, but, let’s face it, a 2 seed should still beat a 7 seed most of the time, regardless of match-ups. In the first round, I don’t see much difference between being the 1 seed or the 2 seed.
In the second round, as the 2 seed we’d face Dallas. Ah, a dance we’ve danced so many times. Personally, I hate playing them in the playoffs. But we know them, we know we can beat them, and the games are always a battle, in a way negating any match-up edge. It’s just a war of attrition, a war we know we can win.
As the 1 seed, we’d face Oklahoma City (most likely). Despite the apparent issues they might give us, we have played them consistently well for the last 2 years and have a superior record against them. The addition of Perkins bolsters them for sure, but not so much that we couldn’t beat them, I don’t think. Given my druthers, I’d rather face Oklahoma City than Dallas, but I don’t see the difference as that stark.
But here’s where the difference between the 1 and the 2 seed gets interesting: if we’re the 2 seed, then the Lakers would play the Thunder. The Thunder match-up very well with the Lakers, and in my opinion, offer the greatest threat to beat them. We all saw how tough they played them last year in the first round. A year later and a year better (with Perkins, who is great against the Lakers), who knows what can happen? I do know that The Thunder have a better chance of beating the Lakers than the Mavericks do.
So, as the 2 seed, if we can get past Dallas and Oklahoma City can magically beat the Lakers, then we’d end up against the Thunder in the Western Conference Finals with homecourt advantage. Not too shabby.
Or we’d play the Lakers without homecourt. Very bad.
Obviously, I still want that top seed, as the Lakers probably aren’t losing in the first 2 rounds. But at least there is some sliver of a silver lining in possibly being part of one of the worst late season collapses in NBA history.
