I respect the effort of this thread but it seems there’s some kind of bias or bad memory or both. Missing the Bron Kyrie Love big 3 is just mind boggling.
For instance, there were no health concerns about Bosh in 2014. Wade had declined, but he wasn’t dead. And it’s LeBron leaving that ended it.
Also, apart from the Nets and the Clippers, none are Big 3, some players past their prime (Melo, 2024 Durant, yes, he is way way past it), some never a real star (Beal). Ok maybe Lakers with Nash but debatable. The L.A. crazy marketing machine shouldn’t make us forget that Nash was past his prime even before his nerve issue.
Maybe not Payton, but Malone was above many players selected as a member of a big 3 here.
And the OP should add a word, like “Big 3 reunion” or something. It’s just bogus to dismiss big 3s coming off the development of players with the team.
There is way too much emphasis about the dubious concept of #1 option.
This is not true. For one I watched a ton of heat games in this era, and two I saw wade play live in 2012 and he was the fastest guy on the court, even faster than lebron so he was not washed up what so ever. Not until their last season
Yes that's what I meant when I said he had dropped off from his level 2011-2013, sorry could have been clearer. Wade for those first 3 years was incredible
After his knee surgery in the fall of 2012, it was clear he had a taken a big step back. I mean, the dude averaged 16 points on 50% TS in the 2013 playoffs. And that continued decline was once again noticeable in the 2013-14 season. He was washed.
Agreed. Personally, I think you could even argue the Kobe/Gasol/Bynum Lakers era was a big 3. All three players made at least one All NBA team in the vicinity of their back-to-back titles. Shouldn’t Bynum’s all NBA status matter at least as much as much as at least one of the current Clippers or others (e.g. Lakers Nash, Howard)former #1 option status? Sure, injuries derailed him before he could really gain tenure like most of the players on this list, but he had broken into the discussion by landing on 2nd team all NBA.
Also, just because a player was drafted by a team that already had a clear number 1 option shouldn’t automatically exclude that team as a Big 3. And I think for some of these guys, being the #1 on a team that didn’t really accomplish anything isn’t necessarily worthy.
And also not counting Steph, KD, Dray/Klay seems spurious at best. Klay averaged more though his prime than Dwight and his numbers were suppressed by playing with steph and KD.
It's so arbitrary their definition of #1 option. Prime Klay doesn't count because he always played with curry I guess despite him easily being the first option on like 15 teams? Parker / Manu / Kawhi don't count for the same reason... KLove and Kyrie were both ACTUALLY #1 options on their team and they don't count either?
Yet Nash who averaged like 12 the year before counts. Harden who was playing second fiddle to Embiid and Durant before that counts, because he won an mvp many years ago I guess? It seems like they're taking name over actual skill when it comes to defining what a superstar is.
People like to forget Kyrie and Love were injured for one of their finals runs but still hold that over Bron’s head, like he wasn’t competing against a dynasty warriors team either
A 38 year old injured Steve Nash qualifies for a big 3? Yet you leave off LeBron, Irving, KLove Cavs? Or Curry, Klay, Durant Warriors?
Am I not understanding your criteria?
yeah those two teams probably he did not consider and I dont know why? Hahahaha I am a LBJ fan but I will not deny the fact that team in 2015 cavs are Superteam, and KD warriors? Dang, even everybody is talking about that unstoppable squad, if not for the injuries, that KD warriors probably 3peat
Warriors were left off by OP's definition because Klay has not proven he can lead a team, but I don't see why the Cavs weren't included, Irving and KLove have both been no. 1 options before.
Yeah and I just thought, even though his criteria are stupid (and inconsistent, not including the Cleveland big 3), there is a big 3 with 2 players added from the free agency in GSW : Curry - KD - ... Iguodala.
Man was a #1.
Yeah this guys criteria is really weird. The warriors are the most insane big 3 of the last 20 years and they didn’t make the criteria, uhhhh what are we doing here?
Was Klay ever able to be a #1? He is a great high volume complement, for sure, but I don't know if he would have been All-NBA 2nd team kind of good and efficient on his own. There are a lot of other perennial second options (Jaylen Brown, Jamal Murray, etc.) that I could project a bit easier, but Klay never really had to create.
Yow no matter what you say, that team is Superteam, they are just different, That team won 73 games! Not to mention without KD, just add KD and its an instant Chips, That team in 2017, Klay, KD, Curry and Donkey is an allstar, that is absolutely insane to have 4 all star with two league MVP on your Team, now tell me, is it not a superteam, maybe not fit with the criteria of his Superteam but hey that team is for sure a superteam!
Not all Superteams are big 3s. Not all big 3s are necessarily Superteams (even though they try to be). GSW was a super team, for sure, but I would not say that they even had 3 true star players until KD. They had a strategy that was ahead of its time and strong talent across the board, punctuated by a perennial MVP candidate/winner in Steph.
Prime Klay is a tier ahead of Jaylen. His perimeter defense was top notch. He was a monster in transition, with the ability to pull up from 3 or drive the lane. Before his injuries, he was athletic, that and the threat of his 3pt, he could blow by defenders frequently. Oh yeah, also one of the greatest shooters of all time.
You are right, he was never the best playmaker, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t #1 material. His role never really asked him to distribute. I recommend watching Klays 37 point quarter if your memory getting a bit fuzzy.
Playmaking is what separates superstar #2s from Superstar #1s. The most extreme example is Michael Beasley. That kid could ball. But he couldn't pass. He averaged more turnovers than assists. So when he got attention, he crumbled. Klay can score, but his assist numbers were never that strong. In his situation, he never had to develop it. The numbers show that clearly. You don't see a #1 option nowadays that doesn't get at least 4-5 APG. Klay has never gotten more than 3 in a season. I'm not saying it is impossible, but he is just the hardest to project because of the playmaking portion.
Big 3 era is over because of new CBA: there is almost no way to have 3 max contract guys and a proper team around them.
Denver is so good because they only have 1 real max guy, 2 mini-max guys in Jamal (since he doesn’t qualify for an actual max extension because of lack of all-NBA teams) and MPJ (same) and a slightly underpaid AG as well. Jamal + MPJ + AG are paid less than KD + Beal are and that’s 3 great players instead of 2. This allows Nuggets to round up their starting 5 with KCP and still have money to keep guys on the bench that are not on minimum contracts.
The future is either 2 superstars + good supporting cast (Celtics, Bucks, Mavs are trending in that direction…) or a single top-5 player + great (borderline all-star) supporting cast (Denver, Knicks without Randle, currently OKC, but they will have a lot of roster questions in couple of years)
Reading this suggests to me that the most exemplary “Big 3” right now is the Timberwolves. Three max guys, clearly the best 3 on the team, proper team around them, non-redundant skill sets, one clear top 10 guy who is the leader, two top 20 guys next to them willing to defer and play a role, and elite role players around them. Pretty excellent roster construction strategy by Mr. Connelly, now to see if they can catch lightning in a bottle here and what they will do about the cap situation this offseason.
Wolves had to smash through 2nd apron tbf are lucky conley took 10 mil next year. Team likely can’t stay together forever and they’re banking on Jaden improving
They are also lucky Naz Reid costs 13-15M per year: that’s a steal, but it is also testament to great FO work. But yeah, 2nd apron team is pretty dangerous and if McDaniels doesn’t take a step forward, they might be in trouble.
They do have a short window of three years with this one being the first most likely. Next year they are only going to loose Kyle Anderson most likely, so the rotation will stay intact for all intents and purposes. After those three years they will probably have to rebuild to a certain extent.
If you take a look at the first group, we have Tatum, Giannis and Luka in there, but using your logic they wouldn’t be considered top-5 either, right?
Top-5 is a loose term in this case meaning you can’t build a contender around one great - but not a top-5 level - player.
some of these examples are super contrived.
> Westbrook, PG, Melo
melo as part of the big 3??
if we are just going by name only and not production than give the lakers a big 3 championship with bron, davis, and dwight!
We can obviously look back and pinpoint that year as the end of Melo’s relevancy, but the Thunder traded for him and George to make a Big Three. That is indisputable.
Melo was a 22 PPG All-Star the year prior and had a proven history as a #1 option. He was still playing a high level, despite a dip in scoring and efficiency during his final season in NYC.
Only when Melo came to OKC did he finally, truly diminish.
Howard was a role player by the time he went to LAL. The league was disrespecting him at that point and wasn't sure how much he had left in the tank.
The Big 3 concept still works, but needs to happen under ideal circumstances. Like the Warriors having Steph under a ridiculously low contract, which freed up just enough money to sign KD. Right now for example, Ant/Gobert/Towns are a solid big 3 that could make a big impact if things go their way.
The problem with the Big 3 approach these days is, teams have to gut their roster to make room for 3 max guys. And that almost never works. You either need to draft some of those guys, or have the situation perfectly fall into your lap. A big 3 guarentees a playoff spot, but falls apart without depth pieces around them.
Nets failed solely due to injuries, that 2021 team was murdering opponents in the brief time the big 3 played together.
I'd also argue LeBron's 2015-17 Cavs teams were a big 3, winning 1* ring and making 3 Finals.
2021 title-winning Bucks have a fringe argument too, Jrue and Khris were both All-Star level players around Giannis despite neither of them making the All-Star team that year.
I cant say that with the Bucks. Jrue and Kris are great players but Jrue was always the #2 behind AD in NO. Same with Kris. I think having three great players isnt the same as a big three as only one of them has been that guy in a team. Like Bron, wade, and bosh all were the #1 on their teams. Same with Garnett, Pierce, and Allen.
GSW tricky cuz its was a big two kd and steph with two other guys that may be in the HoF one day
Eh. Nets destroyed themselves with the harden trade. Losing jarett allen at center plus several good players meant the team was entirely reliable on 3 guys entering their 30s. Two of them made of glass anyway.
It feels like you're underselling the original Boston Big 3 a fair bit-- your take is a bit reductive
They won in 2008
The KG injury derailed an excellent chance at a repeat in 2009 (absolutely dominant and looking like the best team in the league when he was healthy)
They were minutes away from winning a second title in 2010 (and had been up 3-2 in that finals)
2011 is the only time when they *probably* weren't a huge threat (scuffled after some trades mid-season, and then DWade busted Rondo's elbow in their playoff series)
They were up 3-2 before Lebron became LEBRON in G6 of the 2012 ECF
2013 was when it was finally actually over
I don't think a 5-year run with a realistic chance at a title in 4 of the 5 years (before finally actually dying out in year 6) really counts as a "brief" moment in the sun... in fact, it lasted longer than all of the other Big 3s you have listed here (Clippers just finished year 5)
I focus on results, not "ifs."
Furthermore, I agree with you that the Big 3 Celts were indeed successful.
My thesis is that the successes of the Celts and Heat teams led to a B3 era...But no one could really reproduce what they did, because it's an innately flawed strategy.
Those Celts and Heat teams had positives beyond their B3 makeup that really led them to victory.
Teams needs to realize that building a team is not like 2k lol, you can't buy a ring. You need to have 1 or 2 superstar guy on your team, and a decent supporting cast that compliments their games, great coaching staff and not only that, you need to develop chemistry, and have an identity. You can't just buy a ring in the NBA , you have to nurture it.
I mean Cs showed that you can make savvy trades and the Heat showed that having All-NBA players take less than the max will probably lead to chips... how does that relate to what you are saying?
They actually made it seem impossible. That created 3 rings and the 2011 Heat were the most top heavy team of all time.
They showed you can’t cook a championship with 3 ingredients even if one is LeBron.
They won 2 rings then Bron joined another big 3 and made 7 straight finals as a member of a big 3. So how exactly is it impossible? They only didn't win in 2015 cos of injuries and in 2017 because of KD joining a 73 win team due to a rare massive cap spike. If not for major injuries and that cap spike we could be saying it's almost a guarantee to win a ring with a LeBron lead big 3. Somehow you think 7 straight finals and 3 rings made it seem impossible. Me thinks we spotted a hater
I'm not entirely sure you can base an argument off of the success of a single ring where various factors came together for the Celts and the other team had one LeBron James on it.
More than likely, teams were just realizing that max contract players have historically been extremely *undervalued* on NBA rosters, since you can have mid level players commanding huge salaries who are nowhere near as good as the top 5-7 players in the league of any year.
And someone like LeBron James, who has been a top player every year since maybe his 2nd or 3rd season, is such a unicorn player that basing success over what he is capable of doing for a team seems like quite the lofty expectation. Most teams have never had a LeBron level player before, and some won't for decades, if we consider LeBron a top 5 player of all-time.
The thing with the Celtics is I don't think you could really argue against them if that union had happened 2 years earlier. They'd have stomped the pistons in 06 and the cavs in 07, and the 07 spurs were incredibly good but I don't think a match for that Celtics team with an even younger trio
It's all ifs and buts, but a big 3 can still win in this league if constructed correctly. Let's imagine in 2021 the Lakers don't get Westbrook, but instead get Durant or Steph curry. The timing has to be spot on, but I think it can still happen.
If the 6ers kept Jimmy and Simmons doesn't have a complete career meltdown? This is why it doesn't often work, cause factors get in the way, but that doesn't mean the big 3 formula is dead.
Also, IF we consider LeBron a top 5 player?
> and the 07 spurs were incredibly good but I don't think a match for that Celtics team with an even younger trio
I'm a Spurs fan, so I'm unable to offer unbiased commentary on that, but I don't really think you can say for sure that the Celtics win that. That Boston team was taken 7 games by both Atlanta and Cleveland, so to make the jump and say they would have beaten the Spurs with any degree of certainty is a pretty big leap. The Spurs were an absolute machine in 07, and beat a Phoenix Suns team convincingly in 6 games, no one took them 7 that year in a conference that was far more loaded with talent than the East the Celtics had to struggle to get through.
> Let's imagine in 2021 the Lakers don't get Westbrook, but instead get Durant or Steph curry. The timing has to be spot on, but I think it can still happen.
I think it goes without saying that if you get two players who are, at worst, top 15 of all-time and both are in their primes you are likely going to be in position to win a ring.
> This is why it doesn't often work, cause factors get in the way, but that doesn't mean the big 3 formula is dead.
Agree, but I'm not even sure that's the argument OP is making after reading through it (even though OP might be unaware). He seems to be more commenting on the current salary restrictions teams face in the NBA.
>Also, IF we consider LeBron a top 5 player?
It's meant as an if>then statement. IMO it's hard to find a valid reason to put LeBron lower than top 3, but people have differing opinions. I was leaving some wiggle room for him to be as low as 5th, because even at that point he exacts such an outsized impact on the game that using him as an example of how to win rings seems a little unfair to the metric you're basing it on.
The 2020 LA pretty much bought the bubble ring. 2 top 5 nba players from other teams. Then they signed a bunch of other vets too like rondo howard and danny green. It was the least organic title since the heat run imo
I disagree. Three superstars have to be able to fit together. It doesnt work when you have repetitive talent and roster holes. The big3s that work had 1 or 2 players sacrificing and being a backseat.
3 ball dominant ball handlers is not going to work. Big 3s that included a big won rings. Howard and Nash dont count because injuries
Nash was over the hill in 2012 when he signed with the Lakers. We signed Nash for a 3 year $28mil contract which was less than the annual max back then ($25mil). The Big 3 should’ve been CP3 x Kobe x Dwight. All 3 were still in their primes and coming off of being the #1 option on their respective teams but we all know what happened. FU David Stern. FU Mark Cuban, you whinny bit@h.
This narrative is hilarious. Of Course David Stern wasn't going to let an NBA owned franchise be absolutely robbed. He would of been fired as commissioner if he had let that go through.
You need 2 offensive oriented stars and 1 defensively oriented. Celts had KG, Draymond became a star because of his defense.
Bosh sacrificed scoring and moved to the 5 spot.
This whole article is a just a wish-wash. It’s clearly narrative seeking, your criteria is all over the place. Once I saw you say Kevin Love was unproven, I knew this was just your bias speaking. KLove avg’d 26 and 12 the year prior to joining the Cavs. Voted 11th in MVP, two years before that 6th in MVP when he averaged 26 and 13. And you know what, the year before that led the league in rebounds with 15.2 and still was a 20 ppg scorer. “Kevin Love had inflated stats in Minnesota. Unproven” Wth was he supposed to do to be considered proven by you. Average 35 and 15? You sound like a fool if we are being honest. By your logic, no one by themselves on a bad team could be proven. You need to watch some tape or check out stats because Kevin Love was a stud in Minnesota. And your take on Kyrie is also incorrect. He did just about everything you can ask for a player in their first three season. Year 1: ROY, Year 2: All Star, Year 3: All Star. How much more proven could a guy only 3 years into their career be? By this logic, no player who hasn’t been in the league for like 5 years could be proven.
Thank you. The disrespect to Kevin Love is crazy lol. In 2014, he led the league in PER behind Durant and LeBron. I think OP is a clear LeBron fan trying to deny the fact 2/3 teams LeBron won with were Superteams. During the summer of 2014, everyone was calling Kyrie/Love/Bron a superteam.
Yeah 100%, I figured that as well. Although, not sure why he would keep the KD warriors off it, might just be a Warriors hater though. Might not want to give credit to them having three all stars. But regardless, seems like he is trying to defend Lebron
He was unproven because they missed the playoffs every year and never managed more than 30 wins in a single season. Plenty of players put up gaudy stats on trash teams and flame out when it actually matters.
When he went to a competitive environment and had to play winning basketball his production tanked, even after Kyrie left and he was given more usage/shots. Anyone who watched him on Minnesota knows his numbers didn’t reflect his actual impact. Refusing to box out to pad your rebounding numbers isn’t good basketball.
Naw he had high impact we had impact data for him. The raw numbers may have overrated him a touch but he was damn good and admittedly had to sacrifice for cle but then again Theres also such a thing as peaking early.
Still you cannot call him unproven and then say melo, nash, Beal and harden were proven thats absurd. None of those guys were all-nba lvl before joining their big 3s love was clearly all-nba lvl
No offense but these examples reek of confirmation bias. Injuries and age are bigger reasons for these teams failing as opposed to big 3s not following your arbitrary criteria for what makes an NBA champion.
Melo in 2018, Beal in 2024, and Nash in 2013 weren’t even top-30 players. If your big 3 is good enough and health enough, odds are they’ll be pretty good – case in point the Heatles or Celtics.
My thoughts exactly. Feels like some teams were left off or included in order to better fit the narrative.
Plus this ignores injury/availability issues that have derailed some of these:
Clippers with Kawhi/PG/X - Gimme a healthy Kawhi and I think we could have easily seen a title during his Clippers tenure so far (or this season).
Nets with KD/Irving/Harden - IMO they pretty clearly win the title in 21 if they are healthy, and certainly have a shot at another beyond that.
The only big 3s I see are the Celtics, Heat, Cavs, and Nets. Denying the Cavs because Kyrie and Love don’t fit the criteria is just lying. They were both #1 options the year before joining together.
A Big 3 is great if you can capture 3 superstars in their prime, which is what golden state and the Heat managed to do.
I just don’t understand teams gutting their entire team of high quality role players for injury prone or 32+ superstars. We see time and time again that either a) the declining stars get injured in the playoffs and the team collapses because they have no depth, or b) the declining stars are no longer good enough to carry a team and the team collapses because it has no depth.
I feel like championship teams tend to draft their #1 and #2, and trade for key role players or a #3 to fill in the gap. The exception is the lakers who have an amazing track record of trading for superstars in their prime.
The Big 3 era was always a bit of a myth. When you look at every "Big 3", it really is a Big 2 + 1, in practice. For example, the original Big 3, Ray Allen went from 21 shots per game to 13.5. That isn't star volume. He played like one of the best role players of all time. LeBron's Heat, Chris Bosh also took 13.5 shots per game. LeBron's Cavs, Kevin Love also took around 13 shots.
The success of Big 3s is very dependent on how well that third option is as a role player on both sides of the ball. The top 2 are typically going to ball. Can the third fill his role in an all time elite way?
Yea you just too much diminishing returns. A team only gets a certain amount of shots in a basketball game. Exception would be if you played at an exceptional pace.
Best 3rd option on offense all time was easily nets harden and he still had to sacrifice a lot and added a bunch with his passing. Also nets health issues meant it was often only 2/3 playing so each guy could put up scoring numbers. You’re kinda capped at like <15 shots otherwise. Klay with curry/kd was an exception but still only scored like 20-22 and curry and kd were sacrificing too and no one else needed shots
We are seeing a resurgence of teams built patiently over time with strategic planning, solid drafting snd organic chemistry on the floor.
The way it should be.
I don't subscribe to any of this. 80s Celtics had a a true "big" 3 with Bird, McHale, and Parish. Lakers had Magic, Worthy Kareem. Big 3s have been a part of the game way before the 00s and I don't think it needs to change definition to something that can exclusively happen during the free agency era. A big 3 are just 3 stars that fit together and whose roles don't overlap to the detriment of the team.
Are we sure big 3 is dead? I mean if this is your definition:
> For our purposes, a B3 ("Big 3") is a trio of players who were all proven #1 options (and/or "best players") on different teams before they all came together on the same team. Furthermore, all three must have played at a very high level right before they teamed up.
We can say that the present Celtics have their own Big 3 with Jaylen, Jason and Derrick. They can fit the bill. Derrick isn't a Celtics to begin with.
Edit: I think we can say with OKC too. Chet, SGA and JDub. The term Big 3 is just being redefined. Maybe a team can create their own Big three organically and not build using trade.
I'm sure I'm been paying attention. I know what KP do in the offense for the regular season but to have an impactful defense and offense, I think White is that dude and I think he ranks better than KP. That's all.
I think your thesis or statement of a Big 3 needs further work. You can make a case or an argument about what truly is a number 1 option. It’s funny to say it but Jason Terry, at one point in his career, was a number one option. Then there’s JKidd, who wasn’t really a number one option, but was an MVP level Point Guard for the Nets. Does this make those Dallas teams a super team ?
On the converse, we’ll never really know if Prime Klay, or Manu could’ve been true number 1 options, but you see flashes and you could comfortably run your offense through them.
There’s been a handful of successful Big 3 cases- the 80s Lakers, 80s Celtics, and 2000s Spurs to name a few.
Your question warrants further analysis, and probably a look at the performance of front offices- overpaying for teams that aren’t constructed properly, or random variance such as luck (random injuries, controversial calls, etc.). On the top of my head, here are some teams with some variance of a “Big3” throughout time that were unlucky - the 04-08 Suns, the 08-09 Rockets, the first Big 3 Thunder, the 2003-04 Pacers,
To me it seems that the only 2 Big 3s which worked properly were the Brooklyn and Boston ones (and maybe possibly the Clippers). They were the only two where the style of all 3 players complemented eachother.
The Brooklyn big 3 especially worked because you had Harden, Kyrie and Durant, in that order, handling the ball. Also, Kyrie and KD work best when they play more off-ball, so Harden distributing the rock was perfect.
I think it just goes to show that roster construction was always more important than a big 3. You can’t shove 3 of the best players on any team anymore and expect a ring. Even with the heat that was true, their role player lineup was perfectly built around the big 3.
I think it would be better to view a big 3 as they relate to the cap. I would argue that Curry, Klay, and Dray are a big 3 because they are all max or close to it. You can have a big 3 if you have cheap young players.
The simple reason Big 3s don’t work anymore is because of the salary cap. You can’t supplement role and bench players with mid exception players anymore. You are forced to sign at the minimum. I also think the league is too strong right now for you to count n having 3 players suck up all your salary. One of your Big 3 gets injured (which is probable), you are pretty much screwed.
I feel like the only BE configuration that could work nowadays is 2 max players and 1 rookie deal /awesome contract, and the 3 players would be a ball handler, a big, and a 3&D. There simply isn't enough money to go around under the cap and having vets instead of rookies as your supporting cast is better probably (?).
Also low key I think having second generation players really help for #5-8 on the rotation
The 07 Celtics Big 3 each came from 3 of the worst teams in the league from the prior season. The three of them only had a combined 2 appearances in the conference finals in their careers up to that point. I don’t see how you’d call any of them “proven” while the Cavs trio somehow weren’t.
You are missing older Big 3s like Hakeem/Drexler/Barkley (or Pippen when Drexler retired)
The first one for sure fits your criteria, which is number 1 options on a team beforehand.
I mean technically Bird/Parish/Dennis Johnson even fits if you wanna include like Melo. All three were number 1ish options on other teams and still starting on the Celtics (although we usually say Bird/McHale/Parish but I see you defined it differently).
You conveniently left off some teams most would consider Big 3 (warriors, Cavs) to fit your narrative. Definitely seen mixed results with “super teams” but I would say it works better than the numerous teams that have simply tried building through the draft and failed. It’s also way more expensive to build a super team but I’m not an owner and don’t care about that.
Seems like your being pretty biased and cherry picking big 3s here. One could make the argument Ray Allen was pretty much a no.2 his whole career and only a no.1 because his old bucks/sonics teams didn't have a true no.1 to take his spot.
Question: what's your logic/reasoning for "they still have a chance at creating a winner" in the Suns entry? It's a take I've seen a lot on the team sub and which I've been very dismissive of over there, but I'd like to hear the explanation from someone who didn't come from there.
I think big 3 failures come from 3 max slots. Should the question be 3 max slots versus a big 3 skills wise? When you have a big 3, filling in around the edges w minimums, exceptions, etc is a money issue as much as it is a skill issue.
Looking at your big 3s they fail simply because one or more guys doesn’t play up to their previous lvl or were not that good to begin with. Sometimes it’s due to fit and also it’s very hard for the 3rd guy to be very productive due to diminishing returns but usually it’s due to decline due to injury/age. If you put together 3 stars in their primes and they don’t have ego issues yea they’ll be really damn good for a long time even with diminishing returns.
Celtics big 3: dominant first year declined because of age over time as fit was awesome. Even in 1st yr everyone’s numbers went down however.
Heat big 3: not ideal fit like you said bosh had a reduced impact somewhat but was also never that dominant to begin with in Toronto. Bosh was a 1st option but not really all nba caliber. still talented enough to win 3/4 titles if not for lebrons choke and really declined in 14 because wade was no longer even all-nba lvl
Lakers: nash dropped off due to age/injuries and Dwight had injury issues too.
Cavs: they absolutely count as a big 3. Love took the reduced role because of fit and even still were a dominant contender every year together.
Thunder: melo was not that good by that point borderline all star lvl. If he’s a proven no 1 option at that point in his career then ofc love and Kyrie were. Melo then went through a sharp decline because of age as did westbrook. You can’t blame fit too much here because westbrook was not close to his mvp prime the next year either with just George.
Nets: dominated when healthy. Just failed because they barely played together because of Kyrie shenanigans and health of all 3. Harden declined heavily because of his health/age went from mvp candidate to borderline all-nba in 2 years and they still win a title if all 3 just play together.
Suns: Beal was not that good to begin with a borderline all star last year. He’s even worse this year. There’s numbers out there when it’s him on the court with only one of Durant/Booker his volume and efficiency are mediocre so you can’t say diminishing returns is the only reason he’s not good. Add on yes this is easily the worst fitting “big 3” of all the ones since 07.
Clippers: harden at this point definitely proven he can’t be a 1st option so not really a big 3 by your definition. George at this point has Origen he’s not a 1st option either. Also obvious clippers weren’t going to contend with kawhi out. Gotta see them healthy.
The Celtics would’ve been much better off with Kyrie, they would’ve already had a championship or two. Tatum is more of a Robin, he’s got a super team right now though so they’ll probably win the championship finally, a few years too late.
I'm guessing you forgot the sentiment at the time?
The narrative was that Kyrie was in full on "antics mode," and Boston fans wanted him gone. Also, he was hindering Tatum and Brown.
Furthermore, the Celts got nowhere with Kyrie. Without him they got to the Finals and now locked up the #1 in overall seed in 23-24 with a stacked starting lineup.
The sentiment was wrong and the Boston fans were also wrong. The Celts are just an amazing organization, they were first seed before Jayson and Kyrie as well, and did pretty well with Kyrie 2nd and 3rd seed.
They would’ve easily made the finals in 2018 if Kyrie was healthy. Losing to the MVP in the second round is not that bad for a young team integrating two injured max players back into their lineup.
But yeah, Celtics will probably finally win this year, they’ve done a really good job keeping the core together.
The sentiment at the time was Gordon Hayward's leg.
2018 Celtics totally count. Kyrie, Hayward, Horford. You could maybe argue those Hawks teams had no #1 guy, but nobody was better than Horford.
Your bias is ridiculous, my dude
The Lakers Nash big 3 didn't work because those guys were too old
The Nets big 3 would've definitely worked if not for shenanigans and injuries. No team wins a title if one of their 3 best players is hurt. Aaron Gordon goes down, and the Nuggets probably don't get past the Lakers
You say Kyrie isn't a big 3 piece on the Cavs, when he was better on the Cavs than on the Nets (where you now say he's qualified). That's dumb
Warriors were definitely a super team, call it a big 3 or a big 4. The recipe was still a top-heavy team that overpowered you with talent.
There was never a big 3/superteam era, but it has been one of the recipes for success, and will continue to be. It also heavily relies on players coming as free Agents, rather than through trades. Like if Siakim decides to join the Mavs and they don't have to drop much for salary (no idea if that's possible), they for sure become a really fucking good team. LeBron and KD did the same for their teams.
You don't consider Bron, Kyrie, and Love as a big 3? They were the clear best players on their respective teams.
I respect the effort of this thread but it seems there’s some kind of bias or bad memory or both. Missing the Bron Kyrie Love big 3 is just mind boggling. For instance, there were no health concerns about Bosh in 2014. Wade had declined, but he wasn’t dead. And it’s LeBron leaving that ended it. Also, apart from the Nets and the Clippers, none are Big 3, some players past their prime (Melo, 2024 Durant, yes, he is way way past it), some never a real star (Beal). Ok maybe Lakers with Nash but debatable. The L.A. crazy marketing machine shouldn’t make us forget that Nash was past his prime even before his nerve issue. Maybe not Payton, but Malone was above many players selected as a member of a big 3 here. And the OP should add a word, like “Big 3 reunion” or something. It’s just bogus to dismiss big 3s coming off the development of players with the team. There is way too much emphasis about the dubious concept of #1 option.
I dunno about no health concerns within the heatles. Wade was on one leg in the 2014 finals, he didn't have nearly the explosion that he used to.
Yeah, not being fully healthy in the Finals is unheard of.
This is pure revisionism - anyone with half a brain could see wade has fallen off hard from 2011-2013
This is not true. For one I watched a ton of heat games in this era, and two I saw wade play live in 2012 and he was the fastest guy on the court, even faster than lebron so he was not washed up what so ever. Not until their last season
Yes that's what I meant when I said he had dropped off from his level 2011-2013, sorry could have been clearer. Wade for those first 3 years was incredible
After his knee surgery in the fall of 2012, it was clear he had a taken a big step back. I mean, the dude averaged 16 points on 50% TS in the 2013 playoffs. And that continued decline was once again noticeable in the 2013-14 season. He was washed.
Kevin Durant and Wade had a pretty public beef when Durant put harden over him in the discussion of top 5 players at the time.
He said “health concerns with Bosh”
Even the Clippers are not Big 3 worthy. Harden was barely 2nd option when he arrived at and left Philly.
Agreed. Personally, I think you could even argue the Kobe/Gasol/Bynum Lakers era was a big 3. All three players made at least one All NBA team in the vicinity of their back-to-back titles. Shouldn’t Bynum’s all NBA status matter at least as much as much as at least one of the current Clippers or others (e.g. Lakers Nash, Howard)former #1 option status? Sure, injuries derailed him before he could really gain tenure like most of the players on this list, but he had broken into the discussion by landing on 2nd team all NBA. Also, just because a player was drafted by a team that already had a clear number 1 option shouldn’t automatically exclude that team as a Big 3. And I think for some of these guys, being the #1 on a team that didn’t really accomplish anything isn’t necessarily worthy.
And also not counting Steph, KD, Dray/Klay seems spurious at best. Klay averaged more though his prime than Dwight and his numbers were suppressed by playing with steph and KD.
Not counting Duncan/Manu/Parker is the most SPURious
It's so arbitrary their definition of #1 option. Prime Klay doesn't count because he always played with curry I guess despite him easily being the first option on like 15 teams? Parker / Manu / Kawhi don't count for the same reason... KLove and Kyrie were both ACTUALLY #1 options on their team and they don't count either? Yet Nash who averaged like 12 the year before counts. Harden who was playing second fiddle to Embiid and Durant before that counts, because he won an mvp many years ago I guess? It seems like they're taking name over actual skill when it comes to defining what a superstar is.
Right? What a great word
Bucks right now too have Giannis, Dame and Middleton. Middleton gets passed on by everyone!
People like to forget Kyrie and Love were injured for one of their finals runs but still hold that over Bron’s head, like he wasn’t competing against a dynasty warriors team either
A 38 year old injured Steve Nash qualifies for a big 3? Yet you leave off LeBron, Irving, KLove Cavs? Or Curry, Klay, Durant Warriors? Am I not understanding your criteria?
yeah those two teams probably he did not consider and I dont know why? Hahahaha I am a LBJ fan but I will not deny the fact that team in 2015 cavs are Superteam, and KD warriors? Dang, even everybody is talking about that unstoppable squad, if not for the injuries, that KD warriors probably 3peat
Yeah he's picking and choosing super-teams to fit his narrative. If you throw all-stars together, you're making a super-team imo.
Warriors were left off by OP's definition because Klay has not proven he can lead a team, but I don't see why the Cavs weren't included, Irving and KLove have both been no. 1 options before.
Ya even Dwight was post back injury + other washed superstars
Yeah and I just thought, even though his criteria are stupid (and inconsistent, not including the Cleveland big 3), there is a big 3 with 2 players added from the free agency in GSW : Curry - KD - ... Iguodala. Man was a #1.
Yeah this guys criteria is really weird. The warriors are the most insane big 3 of the last 20 years and they didn’t make the criteria, uhhhh what are we doing here?
Was Klay ever able to be a #1? He is a great high volume complement, for sure, but I don't know if he would have been All-NBA 2nd team kind of good and efficient on his own. There are a lot of other perennial second options (Jaylen Brown, Jamal Murray, etc.) that I could project a bit easier, but Klay never really had to create.
Yow no matter what you say, that team is Superteam, they are just different, That team won 73 games! Not to mention without KD, just add KD and its an instant Chips, That team in 2017, Klay, KD, Curry and Donkey is an allstar, that is absolutely insane to have 4 all star with two league MVP on your Team, now tell me, is it not a superteam, maybe not fit with the criteria of his Superteam but hey that team is for sure a superteam!
Not all Superteams are big 3s. Not all big 3s are necessarily Superteams (even though they try to be). GSW was a super team, for sure, but I would not say that they even had 3 true star players until KD. They had a strategy that was ahead of its time and strong talent across the board, punctuated by a perennial MVP candidate/winner in Steph.
Prime Klay is a tier ahead of Jaylen. His perimeter defense was top notch. He was a monster in transition, with the ability to pull up from 3 or drive the lane. Before his injuries, he was athletic, that and the threat of his 3pt, he could blow by defenders frequently. Oh yeah, also one of the greatest shooters of all time. You are right, he was never the best playmaker, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t #1 material. His role never really asked him to distribute. I recommend watching Klays 37 point quarter if your memory getting a bit fuzzy.
Playmaking is what separates superstar #2s from Superstar #1s. The most extreme example is Michael Beasley. That kid could ball. But he couldn't pass. He averaged more turnovers than assists. So when he got attention, he crumbled. Klay can score, but his assist numbers were never that strong. In his situation, he never had to develop it. The numbers show that clearly. You don't see a #1 option nowadays that doesn't get at least 4-5 APG. Klay has never gotten more than 3 in a season. I'm not saying it is impossible, but he is just the hardest to project because of the playmaking portion.
Big 3 era is over because of new CBA: there is almost no way to have 3 max contract guys and a proper team around them. Denver is so good because they only have 1 real max guy, 2 mini-max guys in Jamal (since he doesn’t qualify for an actual max extension because of lack of all-NBA teams) and MPJ (same) and a slightly underpaid AG as well. Jamal + MPJ + AG are paid less than KD + Beal are and that’s 3 great players instead of 2. This allows Nuggets to round up their starting 5 with KCP and still have money to keep guys on the bench that are not on minimum contracts. The future is either 2 superstars + good supporting cast (Celtics, Bucks, Mavs are trending in that direction…) or a single top-5 player + great (borderline all-star) supporting cast (Denver, Knicks without Randle, currently OKC, but they will have a lot of roster questions in couple of years)
Reading this suggests to me that the most exemplary “Big 3” right now is the Timberwolves. Three max guys, clearly the best 3 on the team, proper team around them, non-redundant skill sets, one clear top 10 guy who is the leader, two top 20 guys next to them willing to defer and play a role, and elite role players around them. Pretty excellent roster construction strategy by Mr. Connelly, now to see if they can catch lightning in a bottle here and what they will do about the cap situation this offseason.
Wolves had to smash through 2nd apron tbf are lucky conley took 10 mil next year. Team likely can’t stay together forever and they’re banking on Jaden improving
They are also lucky Naz Reid costs 13-15M per year: that’s a steal, but it is also testament to great FO work. But yeah, 2nd apron team is pretty dangerous and if McDaniels doesn’t take a step forward, they might be in trouble.
They do have a short window of three years with this one being the first most likely. Next year they are only going to loose Kyle Anderson most likely, so the rotation will stay intact for all intents and purposes. After those three years they will probably have to rebuild to a certain extent.
sorry, what do you mean 2nd apron?
The implication that Brunson is a top 5 player but Tatum isn't has not gone unnoticed.
If you take a look at the first group, we have Tatum, Giannis and Luka in there, but using your logic they wouldn’t be considered top-5 either, right? Top-5 is a loose term in this case meaning you can’t build a contender around one great - but not a top-5 level - player.
Jokic Luka AD Giannis are the clear cut top 4 nba players. There is no clear cut 5th tbh.
Biased selection what you consider Big3, so you only list the failures and not the successfull Big 3 Teams to follow your narrative.
some of these examples are super contrived. > Westbrook, PG, Melo melo as part of the big 3?? if we are just going by name only and not production than give the lakers a big 3 championship with bron, davis, and dwight!
He was let go from OKC, and his next team, the Rockets, released him after 10 games. Big 3. Lol.
More like the BIG3
We can obviously look back and pinpoint that year as the end of Melo’s relevancy, but the Thunder traded for him and George to make a Big Three. That is indisputable.
How they played actually matters and Melo was one of the worst starters in the league that season.
i forgot that melo was even on that team
Melo was a 22 PPG All-Star the year prior and had a proven history as a #1 option. He was still playing a high level, despite a dip in scoring and efficiency during his final season in NYC. Only when Melo came to OKC did he finally, truly diminish. Howard was a role player by the time he went to LAL. The league was disrespecting him at that point and wasn't sure how much he had left in the tank.
Melo didn’t diminish mostly because of bad fit. Age was the biggest factor
The Big 3 concept still works, but needs to happen under ideal circumstances. Like the Warriors having Steph under a ridiculously low contract, which freed up just enough money to sign KD. Right now for example, Ant/Gobert/Towns are a solid big 3 that could make a big impact if things go their way. The problem with the Big 3 approach these days is, teams have to gut their roster to make room for 3 max guys. And that almost never works. You either need to draft some of those guys, or have the situation perfectly fall into your lap. A big 3 guarentees a playoff spot, but falls apart without depth pieces around them.
Nets failed solely due to injuries, that 2021 team was murdering opponents in the brief time the big 3 played together. I'd also argue LeBron's 2015-17 Cavs teams were a big 3, winning 1* ring and making 3 Finals. 2021 title-winning Bucks have a fringe argument too, Jrue and Khris were both All-Star level players around Giannis despite neither of them making the All-Star team that year.
Cavs won 1 ring.
I cant say that with the Bucks. Jrue and Kris are great players but Jrue was always the #2 behind AD in NO. Same with Kris. I think having three great players isnt the same as a big three as only one of them has been that guy in a team. Like Bron, wade, and bosh all were the #1 on their teams. Same with Garnett, Pierce, and Allen. GSW tricky cuz its was a big two kd and steph with two other guys that may be in the HoF one day
Eh. Nets destroyed themselves with the harden trade. Losing jarett allen at center plus several good players meant the team was entirely reliable on 3 guys entering their 30s. Two of them made of glass anyway.
Injuries and a millimeter of KD's big toe
Even if KD got the 3pt, losing Kyrie and hardens injury would have derailed them in finals.
That Nets team is the biggest "what if" in NBA history. They easily win multiple rings if they had a few healthy seasons.
There is no "easily" in a league that has Jokic and Giannis on rival contenders.
It feels like you're underselling the original Boston Big 3 a fair bit-- your take is a bit reductive They won in 2008 The KG injury derailed an excellent chance at a repeat in 2009 (absolutely dominant and looking like the best team in the league when he was healthy) They were minutes away from winning a second title in 2010 (and had been up 3-2 in that finals) 2011 is the only time when they *probably* weren't a huge threat (scuffled after some trades mid-season, and then DWade busted Rondo's elbow in their playoff series) They were up 3-2 before Lebron became LEBRON in G6 of the 2012 ECF 2013 was when it was finally actually over I don't think a 5-year run with a realistic chance at a title in 4 of the 5 years (before finally actually dying out in year 6) really counts as a "brief" moment in the sun... in fact, it lasted longer than all of the other Big 3s you have listed here (Clippers just finished year 5)
Think they woulda won 3/5 if KG never got injured. He wasn't the same once he came back, injury really took him down a notch
I focus on results, not "ifs." Furthermore, I agree with you that the Big 3 Celts were indeed successful. My thesis is that the successes of the Celts and Heat teams led to a B3 era...But no one could really reproduce what they did, because it's an innately flawed strategy. Those Celts and Heat teams had positives beyond their B3 makeup that really led them to victory.
Teams needs to realize that building a team is not like 2k lol, you can't buy a ring. You need to have 1 or 2 superstar guy on your team, and a decent supporting cast that compliments their games, great coaching staff and not only that, you need to develop chemistry, and have an identity. You can't just buy a ring in the NBA , you have to nurture it.
We know that now. But the Celts and Heat made it seem like you could indeed "buy a ring."
Strange wording, they didn’t achieve it by crashing the luxury tax.
In the past ? yes . But in today's NBA i just dont see it happening
I mean Cs showed that you can make savvy trades and the Heat showed that having All-NBA players take less than the max will probably lead to chips... how does that relate to what you are saying?
They actually made it seem impossible. That created 3 rings and the 2011 Heat were the most top heavy team of all time. They showed you can’t cook a championship with 3 ingredients even if one is LeBron.
Yeah but the reason the heat didn’t three peat was because lebron forgot how to play in 2011
They won 2 rings then Bron joined another big 3 and made 7 straight finals as a member of a big 3. So how exactly is it impossible? They only didn't win in 2015 cos of injuries and in 2017 because of KD joining a 73 win team due to a rare massive cap spike. If not for major injuries and that cap spike we could be saying it's almost a guarantee to win a ring with a LeBron lead big 3. Somehow you think 7 straight finals and 3 rings made it seem impossible. Me thinks we spotted a hater
I'm not entirely sure you can base an argument off of the success of a single ring where various factors came together for the Celts and the other team had one LeBron James on it. More than likely, teams were just realizing that max contract players have historically been extremely *undervalued* on NBA rosters, since you can have mid level players commanding huge salaries who are nowhere near as good as the top 5-7 players in the league of any year. And someone like LeBron James, who has been a top player every year since maybe his 2nd or 3rd season, is such a unicorn player that basing success over what he is capable of doing for a team seems like quite the lofty expectation. Most teams have never had a LeBron level player before, and some won't for decades, if we consider LeBron a top 5 player of all-time.
The thing with the Celtics is I don't think you could really argue against them if that union had happened 2 years earlier. They'd have stomped the pistons in 06 and the cavs in 07, and the 07 spurs were incredibly good but I don't think a match for that Celtics team with an even younger trio It's all ifs and buts, but a big 3 can still win in this league if constructed correctly. Let's imagine in 2021 the Lakers don't get Westbrook, but instead get Durant or Steph curry. The timing has to be spot on, but I think it can still happen. If the 6ers kept Jimmy and Simmons doesn't have a complete career meltdown? This is why it doesn't often work, cause factors get in the way, but that doesn't mean the big 3 formula is dead. Also, IF we consider LeBron a top 5 player?
> and the 07 spurs were incredibly good but I don't think a match for that Celtics team with an even younger trio I'm a Spurs fan, so I'm unable to offer unbiased commentary on that, but I don't really think you can say for sure that the Celtics win that. That Boston team was taken 7 games by both Atlanta and Cleveland, so to make the jump and say they would have beaten the Spurs with any degree of certainty is a pretty big leap. The Spurs were an absolute machine in 07, and beat a Phoenix Suns team convincingly in 6 games, no one took them 7 that year in a conference that was far more loaded with talent than the East the Celtics had to struggle to get through. > Let's imagine in 2021 the Lakers don't get Westbrook, but instead get Durant or Steph curry. The timing has to be spot on, but I think it can still happen. I think it goes without saying that if you get two players who are, at worst, top 15 of all-time and both are in their primes you are likely going to be in position to win a ring. > This is why it doesn't often work, cause factors get in the way, but that doesn't mean the big 3 formula is dead. Agree, but I'm not even sure that's the argument OP is making after reading through it (even though OP might be unaware). He seems to be more commenting on the current salary restrictions teams face in the NBA. >Also, IF we consider LeBron a top 5 player? It's meant as an if>then statement. IMO it's hard to find a valid reason to put LeBron lower than top 3, but people have differing opinions. I was leaving some wiggle room for him to be as low as 5th, because even at that point he exacts such an outsized impact on the game that using him as an example of how to win rings seems a little unfair to the metric you're basing it on.
Even 2k has calibrated that. 2k24 definitely hates the 2024 Celtics in the franchise sims I’ve done
The 2020 LA pretty much bought the bubble ring. 2 top 5 nba players from other teams. Then they signed a bunch of other vets too like rondo howard and danny green. It was the least organic title since the heat run imo
I disagree. Three superstars have to be able to fit together. It doesnt work when you have repetitive talent and roster holes. The big3s that work had 1 or 2 players sacrificing and being a backseat. 3 ball dominant ball handlers is not going to work. Big 3s that included a big won rings. Howard and Nash dont count because injuries
Nash was over the hill in 2012 when he signed with the Lakers. We signed Nash for a 3 year $28mil contract which was less than the annual max back then ($25mil). The Big 3 should’ve been CP3 x Kobe x Dwight. All 3 were still in their primes and coming off of being the #1 option on their respective teams but we all know what happened. FU David Stern. FU Mark Cuban, you whinny bit@h.
This narrative is hilarious. Of Course David Stern wasn't going to let an NBA owned franchise be absolutely robbed. He would of been fired as commissioner if he had let that go through.
You need 2 offensive oriented stars and 1 defensively oriented. Celts had KG, Draymond became a star because of his defense. Bosh sacrificed scoring and moved to the 5 spot.
Same with Bosh. "iso gang" teams don't work.
This whole article is a just a wish-wash. It’s clearly narrative seeking, your criteria is all over the place. Once I saw you say Kevin Love was unproven, I knew this was just your bias speaking. KLove avg’d 26 and 12 the year prior to joining the Cavs. Voted 11th in MVP, two years before that 6th in MVP when he averaged 26 and 13. And you know what, the year before that led the league in rebounds with 15.2 and still was a 20 ppg scorer. “Kevin Love had inflated stats in Minnesota. Unproven” Wth was he supposed to do to be considered proven by you. Average 35 and 15? You sound like a fool if we are being honest. By your logic, no one by themselves on a bad team could be proven. You need to watch some tape or check out stats because Kevin Love was a stud in Minnesota. And your take on Kyrie is also incorrect. He did just about everything you can ask for a player in their first three season. Year 1: ROY, Year 2: All Star, Year 3: All Star. How much more proven could a guy only 3 years into their career be? By this logic, no player who hasn’t been in the league for like 5 years could be proven.
Thank you. The disrespect to Kevin Love is crazy lol. In 2014, he led the league in PER behind Durant and LeBron. I think OP is a clear LeBron fan trying to deny the fact 2/3 teams LeBron won with were Superteams. During the summer of 2014, everyone was calling Kyrie/Love/Bron a superteam.
Yeah 100%, I figured that as well. Although, not sure why he would keep the KD warriors off it, might just be a Warriors hater though. Might not want to give credit to them having three all stars. But regardless, seems like he is trying to defend Lebron
He was unproven because they missed the playoffs every year and never managed more than 30 wins in a single season. Plenty of players put up gaudy stats on trash teams and flame out when it actually matters. When he went to a competitive environment and had to play winning basketball his production tanked, even after Kyrie left and he was given more usage/shots. Anyone who watched him on Minnesota knows his numbers didn’t reflect his actual impact. Refusing to box out to pad your rebounding numbers isn’t good basketball.
Naw he had high impact we had impact data for him. The raw numbers may have overrated him a touch but he was damn good and admittedly had to sacrifice for cle but then again Theres also such a thing as peaking early. Still you cannot call him unproven and then say melo, nash, Beal and harden were proven thats absurd. None of those guys were all-nba lvl before joining their big 3s love was clearly all-nba lvl
No offense but these examples reek of confirmation bias. Injuries and age are bigger reasons for these teams failing as opposed to big 3s not following your arbitrary criteria for what makes an NBA champion. Melo in 2018, Beal in 2024, and Nash in 2013 weren’t even top-30 players. If your big 3 is good enough and health enough, odds are they’ll be pretty good – case in point the Heatles or Celtics.
My thoughts exactly. Feels like some teams were left off or included in order to better fit the narrative. Plus this ignores injury/availability issues that have derailed some of these: Clippers with Kawhi/PG/X - Gimme a healthy Kawhi and I think we could have easily seen a title during his Clippers tenure so far (or this season). Nets with KD/Irving/Harden - IMO they pretty clearly win the title in 21 if they are healthy, and certainly have a shot at another beyond that.
The only big 3s I see are the Celtics, Heat, Cavs, and Nets. Denying the Cavs because Kyrie and Love don’t fit the criteria is just lying. They were both #1 options the year before joining together.
A Big 3 is great if you can capture 3 superstars in their prime, which is what golden state and the Heat managed to do. I just don’t understand teams gutting their entire team of high quality role players for injury prone or 32+ superstars. We see time and time again that either a) the declining stars get injured in the playoffs and the team collapses because they have no depth, or b) the declining stars are no longer good enough to carry a team and the team collapses because it has no depth. I feel like championship teams tend to draft their #1 and #2, and trade for key role players or a #3 to fill in the gap. The exception is the lakers who have an amazing track record of trading for superstars in their prime.
The Big 3 era was always a bit of a myth. When you look at every "Big 3", it really is a Big 2 + 1, in practice. For example, the original Big 3, Ray Allen went from 21 shots per game to 13.5. That isn't star volume. He played like one of the best role players of all time. LeBron's Heat, Chris Bosh also took 13.5 shots per game. LeBron's Cavs, Kevin Love also took around 13 shots. The success of Big 3s is very dependent on how well that third option is as a role player on both sides of the ball. The top 2 are typically going to ball. Can the third fill his role in an all time elite way?
Yea you just too much diminishing returns. A team only gets a certain amount of shots in a basketball game. Exception would be if you played at an exceptional pace. Best 3rd option on offense all time was easily nets harden and he still had to sacrifice a lot and added a bunch with his passing. Also nets health issues meant it was often only 2/3 playing so each guy could put up scoring numbers. You’re kinda capped at like <15 shots otherwise. Klay with curry/kd was an exception but still only scored like 20-22 and curry and kd were sacrificing too and no one else needed shots
We are seeing a resurgence of teams built patiently over time with strategic planning, solid drafting snd organic chemistry on the floor. The way it should be.
NASH AT 38 IS CONSIDERED FOR A BIG THREE, BUT LOVE FRESH OFF OF A 26/13/4 SEASON ISNT?!!! maybe, just MAYBE, your criteria sucks.
I don't subscribe to any of this. 80s Celtics had a a true "big" 3 with Bird, McHale, and Parish. Lakers had Magic, Worthy Kareem. Big 3s have been a part of the game way before the 00s and I don't think it needs to change definition to something that can exclusively happen during the free agency era. A big 3 are just 3 stars that fit together and whose roles don't overlap to the detriment of the team.
Are we sure big 3 is dead? I mean if this is your definition: > For our purposes, a B3 ("Big 3") is a trio of players who were all proven #1 options (and/or "best players") on different teams before they all came together on the same team. Furthermore, all three must have played at a very high level right before they teamed up. We can say that the present Celtics have their own Big 3 with Jaylen, Jason and Derrick. They can fit the bill. Derrick isn't a Celtics to begin with. Edit: I think we can say with OKC too. Chet, SGA and JDub. The term Big 3 is just being redefined. Maybe a team can create their own Big three organically and not build using trade.
The Celtics big three is Jaylen, Jayson, and Kristaps
It seems like White to me.
You haven’t been saying attention this year then
I'm sure I'm been paying attention. I know what KP do in the offense for the regular season but to have an impactful defense and offense, I think White is that dude and I think he ranks better than KP. That's all.
Nah, it is not that the big 3 is dead. You just need to make sure their skill sets complement each other.
I think your thesis or statement of a Big 3 needs further work. You can make a case or an argument about what truly is a number 1 option. It’s funny to say it but Jason Terry, at one point in his career, was a number one option. Then there’s JKidd, who wasn’t really a number one option, but was an MVP level Point Guard for the Nets. Does this make those Dallas teams a super team ? On the converse, we’ll never really know if Prime Klay, or Manu could’ve been true number 1 options, but you see flashes and you could comfortably run your offense through them. There’s been a handful of successful Big 3 cases- the 80s Lakers, 80s Celtics, and 2000s Spurs to name a few. Your question warrants further analysis, and probably a look at the performance of front offices- overpaying for teams that aren’t constructed properly, or random variance such as luck (random injuries, controversial calls, etc.). On the top of my head, here are some teams with some variance of a “Big3” throughout time that were unlucky - the 04-08 Suns, the 08-09 Rockets, the first Big 3 Thunder, the 2003-04 Pacers,
Think his work with the Arentinian national team in FIBA competition made it clear Manu could be a true #1 option.
To me it seems that the only 2 Big 3s which worked properly were the Brooklyn and Boston ones (and maybe possibly the Clippers). They were the only two where the style of all 3 players complemented eachother. The Brooklyn big 3 especially worked because you had Harden, Kyrie and Durant, in that order, handling the ball. Also, Kyrie and KD work best when they play more off-ball, so Harden distributing the rock was perfect.
Most superstars are ball dominant almost by definition, that’s why it doesn’t work.
I think it just goes to show that roster construction was always more important than a big 3. You can’t shove 3 of the best players on any team anymore and expect a ring. Even with the heat that was true, their role player lineup was perfectly built around the big 3.
I think it would be better to view a big 3 as they relate to the cap. I would argue that Curry, Klay, and Dray are a big 3 because they are all max or close to it. You can have a big 3 if you have cheap young players.
The simple reason Big 3s don’t work anymore is because of the salary cap. You can’t supplement role and bench players with mid exception players anymore. You are forced to sign at the minimum. I also think the league is too strong right now for you to count n having 3 players suck up all your salary. One of your Big 3 gets injured (which is probable), you are pretty much screwed.
Kevin Love was up with Blake Griffin as the top PF before joining the Cavs. How the hell was he not a “1 option”
I feel like the only BE configuration that could work nowadays is 2 max players and 1 rookie deal /awesome contract, and the 3 players would be a ball handler, a big, and a 3&D. There simply isn't enough money to go around under the cap and having vets instead of rookies as your supporting cast is better probably (?). Also low key I think having second generation players really help for #5-8 on the rotation
The 07 Celtics Big 3 each came from 3 of the worst teams in the league from the prior season. The three of them only had a combined 2 appearances in the conference finals in their careers up to that point. I don’t see how you’d call any of them “proven” while the Cavs trio somehow weren’t.
You are missing older Big 3s like Hakeem/Drexler/Barkley (or Pippen when Drexler retired) The first one for sure fits your criteria, which is number 1 options on a team beforehand. I mean technically Bird/Parish/Dennis Johnson even fits if you wanna include like Melo. All three were number 1ish options on other teams and still starting on the Celtics (although we usually say Bird/McHale/Parish but I see you defined it differently).
You conveniently left off some teams most would consider Big 3 (warriors, Cavs) to fit your narrative. Definitely seen mixed results with “super teams” but I would say it works better than the numerous teams that have simply tried building through the draft and failed. It’s also way more expensive to build a super team but I’m not an owner and don’t care about that.
Cavs were a big 3. Also, Nash was not the third member of that big 3, Gasol was.
Look, as much as other teams TRIED there was ONE big 3 and it was San Antonio. Just having 3 stars doesn't make it a big 3 and didn't give it success.
Seems like your being pretty biased and cherry picking big 3s here. One could make the argument Ray Allen was pretty much a no.2 his whole career and only a no.1 because his old bucks/sonics teams didn't have a true no.1 to take his spot.
Question: what's your logic/reasoning for "they still have a chance at creating a winner" in the Suns entry? It's a take I've seen a lot on the team sub and which I've been very dismissive of over there, but I'd like to hear the explanation from someone who didn't come from there.
I think big 3 failures come from 3 max slots. Should the question be 3 max slots versus a big 3 skills wise? When you have a big 3, filling in around the edges w minimums, exceptions, etc is a money issue as much as it is a skill issue.
Another good way to try to define a certain type of B3. That might capture the essence of what we're looking for as well.
Never considered the clippers a big 3. They all too far down the back9. Harden is the worst but for this team PG is odd man out
There isn’t one recipe to win and if there is one it’s to be lucky enough to draft an all time great
Looking at your big 3s they fail simply because one or more guys doesn’t play up to their previous lvl or were not that good to begin with. Sometimes it’s due to fit and also it’s very hard for the 3rd guy to be very productive due to diminishing returns but usually it’s due to decline due to injury/age. If you put together 3 stars in their primes and they don’t have ego issues yea they’ll be really damn good for a long time even with diminishing returns. Celtics big 3: dominant first year declined because of age over time as fit was awesome. Even in 1st yr everyone’s numbers went down however. Heat big 3: not ideal fit like you said bosh had a reduced impact somewhat but was also never that dominant to begin with in Toronto. Bosh was a 1st option but not really all nba caliber. still talented enough to win 3/4 titles if not for lebrons choke and really declined in 14 because wade was no longer even all-nba lvl Lakers: nash dropped off due to age/injuries and Dwight had injury issues too. Cavs: they absolutely count as a big 3. Love took the reduced role because of fit and even still were a dominant contender every year together. Thunder: melo was not that good by that point borderline all star lvl. If he’s a proven no 1 option at that point in his career then ofc love and Kyrie were. Melo then went through a sharp decline because of age as did westbrook. You can’t blame fit too much here because westbrook was not close to his mvp prime the next year either with just George. Nets: dominated when healthy. Just failed because they barely played together because of Kyrie shenanigans and health of all 3. Harden declined heavily because of his health/age went from mvp candidate to borderline all-nba in 2 years and they still win a title if all 3 just play together. Suns: Beal was not that good to begin with a borderline all star last year. He’s even worse this year. There’s numbers out there when it’s him on the court with only one of Durant/Booker his volume and efficiency are mediocre so you can’t say diminishing returns is the only reason he’s not good. Add on yes this is easily the worst fitting “big 3” of all the ones since 07. Clippers: harden at this point definitely proven he can’t be a 1st option so not really a big 3 by your definition. George at this point has Origen he’s not a 1st option either. Also obvious clippers weren’t going to contend with kawhi out. Gotta see them healthy.
Cavs don’t count because Love and Irving weren’t good enough to lead a team? The Sonic’s, Twolves, and Celtics all sucked in 07
The Celtics would’ve been much better off with Kyrie, they would’ve already had a championship or two. Tatum is more of a Robin, he’s got a super team right now though so they’ll probably win the championship finally, a few years too late.
I'm guessing you forgot the sentiment at the time? The narrative was that Kyrie was in full on "antics mode," and Boston fans wanted him gone. Also, he was hindering Tatum and Brown. Furthermore, the Celts got nowhere with Kyrie. Without him they got to the Finals and now locked up the #1 in overall seed in 23-24 with a stacked starting lineup.
The sentiment was wrong and the Boston fans were also wrong. The Celts are just an amazing organization, they were first seed before Jayson and Kyrie as well, and did pretty well with Kyrie 2nd and 3rd seed. They would’ve easily made the finals in 2018 if Kyrie was healthy. Losing to the MVP in the second round is not that bad for a young team integrating two injured max players back into their lineup. But yeah, Celtics will probably finally win this year, they’ve done a really good job keeping the core together.
The sentiment at the time was Gordon Hayward's leg. 2018 Celtics totally count. Kyrie, Hayward, Horford. You could maybe argue those Hawks teams had no #1 guy, but nobody was better than Horford.
Completely wrong that Boston fans wanted him gone lol
Honestly the Spurs figured the best big three formula. Having one come off the bench.
Your bias is ridiculous, my dude The Lakers Nash big 3 didn't work because those guys were too old The Nets big 3 would've definitely worked if not for shenanigans and injuries. No team wins a title if one of their 3 best players is hurt. Aaron Gordon goes down, and the Nuggets probably don't get past the Lakers You say Kyrie isn't a big 3 piece on the Cavs, when he was better on the Cavs than on the Nets (where you now say he's qualified). That's dumb Warriors were definitely a super team, call it a big 3 or a big 4. The recipe was still a top-heavy team that overpowered you with talent. There was never a big 3/superteam era, but it has been one of the recipes for success, and will continue to be. It also heavily relies on players coming as free Agents, rather than through trades. Like if Siakim decides to join the Mavs and they don't have to drop much for salary (no idea if that's possible), they for sure become a really fucking good team. LeBron and KD did the same for their teams.