The Spurs kept their composure and closed out Game 7. Should their poise in the Conference Finals finally put to rest the concerns about their inexperience?

Marilyn Dubinski: They’re going to make mistakes, but so is everybody else, and they’ve put this narrative to rest.  They showed that an alleged “lack of experience” can be overcome with maturity, togetherness, chemistry, good coaching, and of course talent. A theory that has been building in my head is that last year was the “experience” year (i.e. win, lose, learn and grow), and they would have gotten that playoff experience had Victor Wembanyama not gotten deep vein thrombosis.  Sure, it got cut short and they came into this season with a lack of “playoff” experience, but they do know what losing feels like, and they also have a lot of guys who have that experience at other levels, whether it’s Wemby in Europe or the Olympics, Castle at UConn, etc.  Maybe even the NBA Cup Finals was that “losing experience” they needed.  That’s my theory, at least.

Mark Barrington: The Silver and Black made a ton of critical mistakes headed down the stretch of Game 7, with turnovers from Harper and Castle giving the Thunder chances to bring the margin down to two scores several times in the last couple of minutes. But partially thanks to Luke Kornet’s timely block and some incredible rebounding and putbacks, they overcame their poor plays with some really good ones. So, I think the inexperience is still a big concern, but the fact is that the team is so talented and resourceful that they were able to overcome it by not dwelling on the mistakes and making more positive plays than the negative ones, assisted by one veteran hustle play from Luke to make it to the end. I still have concerns, but I also have confidence in the team’s mental toughness to work hard and smart enough to win, even with inevitable mistakes along the way.

Jacob Douglas: I’d encourage anyone still considering this narrative to go watch Mitch Johnson’s locker room speech after Game Seven. It puts into perspective everything this team has been through in the last 7-8 months. This is a team that is much more mature than its age. As some of the other writers have pointed out, they are still making some silly, immature mistakes. However, it’s the team’s toughness and resilience that overcome their youth. This is a team that is not afraid of anyone, nor of the moment. That kind of mental willpower overcomes a lot of their “inexperience”. 

Bill Huan: The Spurs have proven that they’re good enough to overcome the experience deficiency, and even if they lose in the finals, I don’t think it will be because of their inexperience. I see their youth as both a blessing and a curse: a blessing because of their athleticism and ability to maintain the energy needed for a long postseason run, but also a curse when they make some boneheaded plays, especially in crunch time. For example, even in game 7, Castle’s lob to Wemby was stolen by Dort on that final inbounds play, which came on the heels of him turning it over on the previous possession. Fox should’ve had the ball down the stretch, and he showed his veteran savviness by fouling to get their defense set, which will go down as one of the most underappreciated plays of this entire run. Still, given that they just beat the defending champs, I don’t think the inexperience card can be played anymore. 

Devon Birdsong: I suppose that depends on what we’re terming experience at this point. If experience just means no previous postseasons, I’d say I think that ignores the value of the current postseason, which has been challenging enough to count for multiple postseasons for some teams. They survived injuries to their superstar. They’ve taken down a recent Western Conference finalist. They took down the defending champions. They’ve pretty much subverted the entire idea of concerns at this point. A game or two will likely slip away because of inconsistency, but it’ll be hard to argue that that’s because of youth alone, because there are plenty of ‘more experienced’ teams who didn’t make it here because they were more inconsistent than these youngsters. I expressed earlier in the postseason that this is a team of assassins, of gangsters, of silent killers. At this point, my biggest concern is that they’ll start taking themselves too seriously.  

Jeje Gomez: I think at this point the concern should be put to rest. If they happen to lose the Finals, it won’t be because they are young and inexperienced. Even if they benefited from key injuries to opponents on their way there, they took down two seasoned teams with impressive, gutsy wins while occasionally dealing with absences of their own. Adversity didn’t deter them, and no one looked afraid of the moment. They are ready.

Wembanyama won MVP of the Conference Finals. Who was the second most important Spur?

Dubinski: It could be any one of the guard trio, as they all had their highs and lows that showed how important they are.  Castle was their second-best scorer in the series, played great defense and was steady across the board, but his limitations as a ball-handler were exposed with 20 TO’s in Games 1 and 2 without Fox.  In turn, that made Fox’s mere presence super important for managing the game and limiting turnovers, even if he struggled to score at times due to his ankle injury. That being said, I’m going to go out on a limb (and probably differ from everyone else) and say Harper because he is the biggest wildcard of the group.  Outside of Wemby, perhaps the biggest deciding factor in each game was if the Spurs’ bench would hold on when he sat, and when Harper was out for most of Game 2 or ineffective from games 3-5 with the sore adductor, it was a much bigger hurdle for them to overcome.  When he was on point in games 1 (which he admittedly started), 6 and 7, the Spurs had the upper hand almost the entire time.

Barrington: Castle’s toughness and relentless effort on both ends of the court makes him the engine of the team, while Harper’s smoothness and patient demeanor allowed him to break down the defense in the paint anytime he wasn’t double teamed, and he made the good teammate play of the game by making sure that Castle didn’t go after Caruso after his dangerous takedown on a breakaway fast break that was puzzlingly ruled to be just a common foul. Stephon was rightfully mad at being knocked out of the air from behind in what looked like a dirty play, but if he had retaliated, it would have been bad for the Spurs, and Dylan stepped in to keep him from getting a costly technical foul or worse. It’s hard for me to choose between those two guys, because they both bring good things to the team, and they have complementary skills. 

Douglas: It’s hard for me to pick between Castle and Vassell. The edge goes to Castle because of his two-way impact and overall toughness, but I am more excited to talk about Vassell. This felt like the first series where we saw the realization of Vassell’s potential. A legit two-way wing who can create his shot off the bounce when needed. He took on a pretty tough defensive challenge in Chet Holmgren and thrived. He spent time guarding SGA and survived. He hit big shots on offense and made game-breaking steals and blocks on the other end. His motor was running at an all-time high. It’s exactly the type of performance that you hope for from your 4th or 5th option. 

Huan: Castle. He had three rough turnover games and two bad shooting nights, but his playmaking, defensive intensity, and overall toughness were always present. In a series where Fox and Harper were either banged up or sidelined, Castle had a huge burden on his shoulders and stepped up as well as one could hope. Outside of Wemby, he’s the primary reason why Shai struggled so much, and there was not a single moment where I thought he was rattled, even during the high turnover games. Vassell deserves a shoutout too, as he made timely buckets and was also a huge reason why the perimeter defense was so suffocating.   

Birdsong: In that series, I think it has to be Harper. Castle is close due to his defensive assignment, but the Spurs were losing when their bench couldn’t outscore the Thunder bench. As important as Keldon is, it was Harper who was keeping the bench afloat most of the time, and it’s no coincidence that the Spurs won when he had great games. Castle is a very close (and highly defensible) second choice, though. He really put SGA in the dungeon (with help) and that was the other gigantic factor in my mind. 

Gomez: I’m tempted to say Vassell, because he made a lot of big plays and even more smaller ones that mattered a lot, but I’ll give Castle the nod. Even when he made mistakes, and there were a lot of them early in the series, he was being aggressive, which is hugely important to set the tone for this team. The two-way production was there, too. It was a team effort, but Wembanyama and Castle led the way in many ways.

If you had to describe why the Spurs won in one word, what would that word be and why?

Dubinski: Determination.  We already talked about how the Spurs overcame the supposed “lack of experience” problem, and this was another way: they just flat-out wanted it more. (This is not to say the Thunder didn’t want it, of course they did, but there’s no denying that in watching those last two games, the Spurs just had more fire in their eyes.)  We saw it in the Big Three era, when we knew that Tim, Tony and Manu all had the right combination of willpower and talent to make what was in their control happen, and that same level of determination can be seen in this group.

Barrington: Resilience. The Thunder threw so many different things at the Spurs and made the Spurs have to adjust and change their approach from game to game to adapt and overcome the different types of OKC strategies. Daigneault did a great job at switching up lineups and defenses (partly necessitated by injuries) to keep the Spurs off balance, and while these strategies often worked as a one-shot, the Spurs would always respond with effective counters the next game. It was a coaching duel until Game 7, at least, where the coaches ran out of ammo and the most talented team took the win. 

Douglas: Strategy. It felt like Mitch Johnson was constantly tweaking the game plan to give his team an edge. Once the Thunder’s role players started to hit shots, the Spurs stopped doubling SGA so early. In Game Six, they went to an empty-side pick-and-roll play that got them multiple good looks early in the game to get their offense in a flow. In Game Seven, they flooded the strong side when SGA had the ball to try to throw off his rhythm and disrupt OKC’s offense. The game plan was constantly evolving to give the Spurs an edge. Yes, OKC was beat up and shorthanded, so Mark Daignault had a more difficult coaching task. But I thought Johnson outcoached him in this series. 

Huan: Poise. We talked about this team’s inexperience, yet somehow the lights never seemed too bright for them. To go into the defending champ’s arena and snatch their soul in one of the most consequential games in recent memory proved that the Spurs are tough as nails, which will bode well now that they’ll be entering the most raucous stadium in perhaps all of sports. 

Birdsong: Attitude. It was one thing to put the defending champions away on their home court. It was another to end it with a statement dunk instead of just running out the clock. Poise, and resilience, and all those other factors are so reliant/dependent on what these Spurs think they’re capable of. Their declaration about ‘not caring’ wasn’t a declaration of apathy so much as a mission statement about their animosity for the very concept of needed experience. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Spurs team with swagger like this. They’re not just looking to beat you, they’re looking to punk you if they catch you sleeping, and they will absolutely embarrass you and put on a display while they do it. In the end, there’s always a possibility that will be their downfall, but I’d also be willing to argue that that’s the only reason that they got where they are in the first place. This team has the audacity. Now we’re going to see if they can turn that into something more substantial.

Gomez: Talent. It might seem like saying they won because they had more talent is somehow shortchanging the coaching staff or the character of the players, but it isn’t. Less talented teams prevail all the time. It takes more to win and the Spurs also had the intangibles. But it shouldn’t be overlooked how good the guys getting minutes for San Antonio were, and that edge was one of the main reasons they advanced. To be fair, the Thunder were missing an All-NBA performer, but the Spurs had more top-end talent in their rotation, which is an impressive feat from the front office.

read more