The sage observer that is Matt Moore asked this same question of ABC’s morning game between the Cavaliers and Celtics, but let’s ask it about the second game — the Spurs at the Lakers. Can we learn anything from this game, heading into the playoffs and a possible first round matchup?
No, not really. I should just basically cut and paste Matt’s comments about the first game here and change the names, because the reasons are basically the same. Darius Soriano of Forum Blue & Gold said this:
I think this game probably just confirms things we already think. We’re
late in the season and these are two teams that are experienced and
familiar to each other.
For today, the Lakers are without Andrew Bynum (for how much longer will be determined by another MRI on Monday). They have all but locked up home court through the Western Conference Finals. There just is not a lot to play for. When not motivated, these Lakers can lose to anyone. But does one more bad performance mean they would lose to San Antonio in the first round? Not exactly, then the Lakers would be motivated and with Bynum.
What does a San Antonio win tell us? That they are still dangerous? We knew that. That Manu Ginobili is very good? Knew that too. That for a game or three, Tim Duncan can defy Father Time? Again, knew that.
But does winning erase how old they have looked this season? Does it erase that come the playoffs guys like Matt Bonner and Malik Hairston and Antonio McDyess are going to have to play well? Does it make you think they have a defensive Kobe stopper anymore?
Would it really make you believe the Spurs could beat the Lakers in a best of seven? One of these teams will be able to say, “look, we’re playing well heading into the playoffs. We’re gearing up.” Aside that…
Should be an entertaining game. Usually is when they meet, close and a little bit of an edge to it. Enjoy it for that. Don’t look for the larger lessons.