I found this interesting.
In a nutshell, the 2-1-1 theory is a playoff philosophy that suggests the winning team requires specific contribution distribution: the best player (superstar) wins you 2 games, the second-best player wins you 1 games, and a role player wins 1, taking the team to the 4 necessary wins to take the series. It underscores the need for
star power paired with critical role performances.
Justin Tinsley hypothesizes that Victor Wembanyama won the Spurs two of the games (Games 1 and 4), Stephon Castle won one (Game 3), and Julian Champagnie shined in the close out at home (Game 5).
Champagnie has been on fire from beyond the arc during the first round of the playoffs.
I can also see how with Fox’s 13-point 4th quarter and 21 total points in Game 5, one consider it his game over Champagnie’s. As Julian said, “It’s [De’Aaron’s] world, we’re kind of living in it.”
Honestly, with so many weapons in their arsenal, the Spurs could have multiple version of the 2-1-1.
The question with swapping Fox for Champagnie is whether Fox is the second best player on the Spurs, or is Castle?
I guess it depends on the night.
Welcome to the Thread. Join in the conversation, start your own discussion, and share your thoughts. This is the Spurs community, your Spurs community. Thanks for being here.
Our community guidelines apply which should remind everyone to be cool, avoid personal attacks, not to troll and to watch the language.
