Mitch Johnson admitted he can improve his use of his coach’s challenge after a decision left the Spurs without a challenge later in Game 3 vs Minnesota.
A late-game call can swing momentum, and for Spurs guard Mitch Johnson, one postseason moment raised tough questions about how and when to deploy the coach’s challenge.
Johnson acknowledged he can do a better job deciding when to use his coach’s challenge after the Spurs’ 115-108 victory over Minnesota in Game 3 of the Western Conference semifinals.. The scrutiny focused on a sequence that began with the Spurs leading 45-43 and having time to potentially apply a challenge later in a tight contest.
With 2:39 left in the first half, Johnson challenged an offensive foul call against guard Stephon Castle. After review, the original call stood, and the Spurs lost the opportunity to challenge again during the remainder of the game.
That mattered quickly.. After the challenge was used on Castle’s charging-related call. Johnson could not challenge a separate decision: the fifth foul called against Victor Wembanyama at 6:18 remaining in the game.. In high-stakes playoff basketball, losing one challenge can narrow a team’s options when late-game decisions start carrying bigger consequences.
Speaking to the media Saturday at the team hotel, Johnson said the team could improve its approach. “We can be better at it,” he told reporters, adding that the reactions from fans and media after the fact are prompting reflection.
Johnson also referenced the type of commentary that often follows close calls in the postseason. where outside observers break down decisions with the benefit of hindsight.. Still. he framed the issue as an ongoing improvement area rather than a one-off mistake. emphasizing that the Spurs have to keep working on game management choices.
In explaining how challenges are weighed, Johnson said the coaching staff considers multiple factors before the decision is made.. He noted that the discussions that happened Friday night included what types of plays are worth challenging. while also accounting for the specific state of the game at the time.
According to Johnson. those considerations can include whether a challenge could remove points or put points on the board. the nature of the foul being reviewed. and who is on the floor when the decision is being contemplated.. He also described how timing matters. with examples ranging from earlier stretches of a quarter to the fourth quarter. along with possession and situational factors that can change the value of using a challenge.
Even with that process, Johnson said the pace of live action complicates matters. At the moment, he described many plays as “bang, bang,” suggesting that decisions can have to be made quickly even when structured discussions have already taken place.
The debate around Johnson’s game management is not new. It has resurfaced in past playoff rounds as critics have questioned earlier challenges and other decisions tied to timeouts, pointing to how small timing choices can become significant under postseason intensity.
Mitch Johnson Spurs challenge Game 3 Western Conference semifinals Stephon Castle Victor Wembanyama playoff officiating