Spurs experts talk about team building: Who is suitable for SGA Harry? Which detonator Carlisle is more important?

Translator's note: The original text was published in, and the data in the text were as of the time of publication (June 10th local time), and the date involved has been converted. The views in the article have nothing to do with the translator and the platform. Is

a superstar-driven offense or team basketball? Should we focus on introducing top talents or cultivating underrated players? The finals show that both modes work.

If you were asked to build a team around a player, would you choose Alexander, who had more concentrated ball rights, or Halliburton, who paid more attention to the team?

Marilyn Dubinski: The part of my inner support team basketball wants to choose Halliburton, but he may never be able to fully reach the MVP level, and Alexander has proven himself to be an MVP level player at the moment, and may have a better performance in the future. Moreover, it is inaccurate to say that Alexander does not focus on teamwork, because he can average career-high 6.4 assists per game this season. Halliburton is the kind of player who can play hot, and his key ball ability has undoubtedly exploded in this playoffs, but I need to see him play a more MVP-level regular season and another playoff journey that is more dominant than full of magical reversals before I choose him. The most important thing is that you want to build a team around the best players, and for the moment, that person is Alexander.

Mark Barrington: They are all great players, but you have to choose Alexander. He has the ability to lead the team to victory, and he can be a dominant player throughout his time on the court, even if the others don’t play to their highest level. Halliburton is more like a support player, sometimes stealthy, and sometimes he just doesn't have that much influence in the game. I don't want anyone to do it except Toris, but Alexander has a greater influence in the other three quarters. Neither of them ends better than any player on the Spurs at the moment, and both teams can feel assured that their stars will handle the ball at critical moments.

Jacob Douglas: I will stick to choosing this MVP. Alexander is the first "offensive core" guard in modern basketball who I really think can win the championship with his efforts on the defensive end and his willingness to integrate into the system on the offensive end. He combines Luca Doncic or James Harden's offensive explosiveness with the selfless spirit that Halliburton shows. Halliburton sometimes gets invisible because he is not the kind of particularly decisive star. I think this has had a huge negative impact on the Pacers in Game 2.

Bill Huan: If we had to choose between these two players, it would be crazy not to choose Alexander. When forming a team, you should consider the style of playing, but this only applies to discussing talent at the same level - you should never choose a quasi-best player and give up a sure MVP. However, if we are talking about which style of playing style to build a team without considering talent, then I will choose a style that focuses more on teamwork. History shows that the single-core-driven offense helps win championships, and it’s even more fun to see everyone get involved.

Devon Birdsong: For this team and the Spurs' style of play that will or needs to be played around Vampan Yama, I think I will choose Halliburton. Alexander has been the only player besides Jokic who really deserves a MVP, but Halliburton has been able to take a step back and organize the offense when needed, and can hit hard shots at critical moments. Alexander gave me the impression of a peak with stronger defensive ability James Harden: His entire team's offense really revolves around him, and it seems that it works best. It's hard to say that the Spurs don't need that kind of talent, but I think Vinban Yama needs to operate as the main core of his team, and Halliburton is a more suitable candidate in my opinion. I also think that in the long run, his playing style may be better, as much of Alexander's play relies on his amazing explosiveness and ability to create fouls.

Gomez: I think Alexander is the perfect cornerstone for team building because he is an unstoppable first choice and does not require the team to attack entirely around him. I wouldn't call Halliburton a system player because he's so good, the label isn't right, but to get him to the best, he needs a roster that complements his skills and a style of play that emphasizes his strengths. I don't deny that I prefer the Pacers' style of playing more than the Thunder, but I'm also happy to admit that having a traditional first offensive choice is the easier way to build a winning division.

Do you think Jeremy Sohan is closer to becoming Pascal Siakam, or Devin Vassel is closer to becoming Jaylen Williams?

Dubinski: Siakam has now averaged 20 points per game for six consecutive seasons, and if there is a suitable supporting cast, he can be the best player in a playoff team. Even if Sohan practiced a reliable jump shot, I don't think it was something he would be expected or even asked to do; their roles were completely different and could not be compared. I guess by default, Wassel is closer to Williams, as they both can be the second choice for the offense, although Williams has proven himself more explosive and stable at the moment.

Barrington: I think player templates can have their value in describing player talent, but each player is an independent individual. I don't think there are too many similarities between Pascal Siakam's game and Jeremy Sohan's game.. Young, comprehensive, deep, and he still has a lot of draft assets to continue to strengthen. The Thunder management has been excellent late in the draft or in picking and developing players from abandoned players. Just look at Aaron Wiggins, Lu Dott, Isaiah Joe and Ajay Mitchell. I also think that Nikola Topichi's choice will ultimately pay off a huge reward for them. This is likely to be the best team in the NBA.

Huan: A good question! It was a really tough decision. I usually think having a good management is more important than having a good coach, but I am now more confident in the Spurs management than their coaching staff. It's not because I don't have confidence in Mickey Johnson and his team, but because they're still an unknown, and Rick Carlisle has established himself as one of the league's best coaches over the past two decades. I'd love to be proven wrong, but it's hard to choose a blind box instead of a foregone conclusion Hall of Fame coach.

Birdsong: The Spurs' management is already pretty good, so it feels like the Pacers' coaching staff is the obvious answer, because I'm not as convinced by Mickey Johnson as I do with Rick Carlisle, and I've always been in awe and admiration for him since he almost knocked down the Spurs with his old Dirk Nowitzki and some scrap players in 2014. Carlisle’s preferred style of play (and players) not only fits well with the current and historical vision of the Spurs, but it’s clear that he is still at his best, leading a Pacers team that doesn’t have players like Vinbanyama/Duncan/Diker to the NBA Finals this season. Mickey Johnson may be that kind of coaching genius, but I won't take any risks as Vinban Yama rises. The Spurs have followed the Thunder's practice of hoarding draft picks and have won the No. 1 pick with a lucky chance they have never had before. I would choose the coach who has active (and recent) Finals experience.

Gomez: In the NBA, timing is everything. At the beginning of the reconstruction, the Thunder management could have been easily chosen because Brian Wright was still an unknown person at the time and made some controversial operations, and the Spurs already had a Hall of Fame coach at the time. But now that Popovich has left and Wright has proven that he can spot talent in the draft and make good deals, the answer must be the Pacers’ coaching staff, because it’s Mickey Johnson’s turn to win the trust of the fans.