Watching the PBA Finals between Ginebra and San Miguel always feels like witnessing a family reunion where everyone secretly wants to prove they're the favorite child. As someone who's followed Philippine basketball for over a decade, I've developed this theory about what separates championship teams from the rest - and it's not just about having superstars. What fascinates me most about this particular finals matchup is how both teams approach scoring distribution, something that became crystal clear when I rewatched their last elimination game.

I remember sitting courtside during Game 3 of their semifinal series, noticing how San Miguel's defense would immediately collapse whenever Justin Brownlee touched the ball. Three defenders would swarm him like bees to honey, leaving other Ginebra players open. This is where that beautiful quote from their coach really comes to life - "The more distributed the scoring, the better, it means lahat, kailangan bantayan." That's not just coach speak, it's mathematical poetry in motion. When only two players score in double digits, like in their previous encounter where Brownlee and Pringle had 10 each, the offense becomes predictable. But when you add two more players with 8 points each and three others contributing 6 apiece, suddenly the defense can't focus on anyone.

Let me paint you a picture from last Thursday's game. Fourth quarter, 2 minutes remaining, score tied at 85-all. Brownlee drives baseline, draws three defenders, and kicks out to an open Scottie Thompson who immediately swings it to a wide-open Japeth Aguilar for the dunk. That sequence didn't happen because of individual brilliance - it occurred because San Miguel's defense was stretched thin worrying about multiple scoring threats. Contrast this with San Miguel's approach, which often relies heavily on their powerhouse trio of Fajardo, Perez, and Lassiter. Don't get me wrong - having superstars is great, but in a seven-game series, predictability becomes your worst enemy.

What many casual fans don't realize is that distributed scoring isn't just about points. It's about the psychological warfare happening on court. When opponents see seven different players capable of scoring 6-10 points, their defensive assignments become nightmares. They can't cheat off certain players or help aggressively because everyone represents a legitimate threat. I've charted their last five matchups, and the numbers don't lie - in games where Ginebra had at least five players scoring 8+ points, they won four times. When they relied heavily on two primary scorers, they struggled, winning only once.

The beauty of Ginebra's system is how they've built what I like to call "secondary scoring ecosystems." It's not just about the main guys creating shots - it's about role players like Tenorio and Standhardinger being scoring threats within their specific roles. I recall this beautiful possession where Tenorio came off a screen, drew help defense, and found Standhardinger cutting for an easy layup. That's two players who aren't typically primary options creating points because the defense was preoccupied with their main scorers.

San Miguel's counter to this has been fascinating to watch. They've been experimenting with more zone defenses and switching schemes to disrupt Ginebra's ball movement. But here's where Ginebra's system truly shines - against zones, they've been magnificent at finding the soft spots. Their ball movement creates what coaches call "multiple advantage situations," where even after the initial action is stopped, secondary options emerge. I counted at least six possessions in their last game where the ball touched four different players' hands before ending in a score.

Some analysts might argue that having a go-to superstar like Brownlee is more important than balanced scoring, but I respectfully disagree. In playoff basketball, defenses scheme to take away your primary options. What wins championships is having that third, fourth, or fifth option who can punish defenses for overhelping. I've seen too many games where teams with superior individual talent lost because they became too predictable in crunch time.

The chess match between these coaching staffs has been absolutely brilliant. Tim Cone's system versus Leo Austria's adjustments - it's like watching two grandmasters playing speed chess. Cone wants to create multiple threats, while Austria tries to limit them to two primary scorers. In their last encounter, when San Miguel successfully limited Ginebra to two double-digit scorers, they won by 5 points. But when Ginebra managed to get four players to 8+ points, they won comfortably by 12.

What really excites me about this finals matchup is how both teams have evolved their approaches. Ginebra has become more deliberate about creating scoring opportunities for their role players, while San Miguel has developed better defensive schemes to counter this. As a basketball purist, I find this strategic battle more compelling than any individual matchup. The team that can better execute their philosophy - whether it's distributed scoring or superstar dominance - will likely lift the championship trophy. Personally, I'm leaning toward Ginebra's approach, not just because it's more beautiful to watch, but because history shows us that balanced teams tend to have more sustainable success in long series.