Sometimes a big 2 is more promising than a big 3 or 4

[Walk on Water]

The reason is that with a big 2, you can build around them easier AND when you have fewer stars, you're less likely to have one of them hurt. That's an underrated factor. Look at Brooklyn. What were the odds they were all going to stay healthy? But when you have MJ and Scottie or Shaq and Kobe, you have better chances of keeping your stars healthy as opposed to needing literally all your best players healthy and relying on every one of them equally.

[FultzNationRISE]

LeBron is the GOAT.

[ScottieQuitting]

Unless you’re LeBron or KD and you need to stack the deck with three or more All Stars.

[Full Court]

By your logic a big 1 team is better than a big 2 team, because the big 2 team has twice as much chance of a star getting injured.

[Thenameless]

Well, the Golden State team of recent memory might have something to say about that. Yes, they got injured on the third try, but they also took home two easy ones. Most teams would take those odds.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Big 2 with role players is better. That's why manu ginobili came off the bench once Tony parker emerged around 2007.

I think in order for Lakers to be at their best, Westbrook should come off the bench.

[DoctorP]

I agree big 2 is better because you can pay to have a better 4th & 5th option, plus a better bench.

The stability creates cohesion and chemistry.

Big 3 keeps the role players thin and extremely specialized.

It's not a definite rule but the Bulls and Lakers dynasties are the only threepeats and were mainly big 2s.

[Axe]

Sometimes a big dicc is more promising, op. :rolleyes:

[And1AllDay]

Sometimes a big dicc is more promising, op. :rolleyes:

pix fakkit

[lxlHoTsAuSelxl]

The reason is that with a big 2, you can build around them easier AND when you have fewer stars, you're less likely to have one of them hurt. That's an underrated factor. Look at Brooklyn. What were the odds they were all going to stay healthy? But when you have MJ and Scottie or Shaq and Kobe, you have better chances of keeping your stars healthy as opposed to needing literally all your best players healthy and relying on every one of them equally.


2018-19 KD, Curry, Klay, Green, Iggy says "Hi".

[ScottieQuitting]

Big 2 with role players is better. That's why manu ginobili came off the bench once Tony parker emerged around 2007.

I think in order for Lakers to be at their best, Westbrook should come off the bench.

He won’t though. Ego is too big. But I agree.

A third “superstar” to form a Big Three Superteam isn’t the best way to go. And honestly doesn’t always work.

Warriors worked because 2x MVP players but the other guys were just stars (Klay and Dray). But those guys play well without the ball in their hand, have low ego and are team first guys with great chemistry fit within their offense.

Early 2000s Lakers. With 2x MVP caliber players.

Late 2000s Lakers with Kobe and Gasol. And of course the 90s Bulls. A superstar MVP with the epitome of perfect sidekick. Clearly defined roles and hierarchy.

And honestly both LeBron and Wade Miami Heat, and the LeBron and Kyrie Cleveland Cavaliers all would’ve been better without that superfluous extra third high end star that was overkill and didn’t fit from a chemistry perspective. If they had more quality role players instead of Bosh and Love, they would’ve been better. Funny because Wiggins would’ve been the better third option to keep as opposed to trading for veteran established perennial all star and franchise guy in K. Love.

[8Ball]

Big 2 is great when the entire field of competition is dog poop and just filled with big 1s like in an era we know of.

[NBAGOAT]

big 2 is screwed if one guy gets injured. The lakers are not if say westbrook missed games and bkn could've won last year with any 2/3

[SaintzFury13]

A big three is, more often than not, completely unnecessary and does little to help whoever the odd man is out. They almost always have to be regulated to a very specific role because when you have three superstar players on the same team, there's only one ball to share at the end of the day. But at the same time, those said adjustments can be extremely beneficial to the team as a whole and can even help improve that player in particular.

The Boston Celtics in 2008 are an example of a team who had a big three but not necessarily to the same degree as Miami and Cleveland did, which I'll go over in a moment. The person who obviously had to give up the most was Ray Allen, because he had to be regulated to just being a spot up three point shooter for most of that time period. And although his defense did improve which helped Boston develop into a dangerous defensive team, his days of being an elite all around scorer were gone. But for the sake of the team, you could argue it was a good thing, especially when you consider some of the performances he was able to deliver in the finals the Big Three in Boston were able to take part in.

The Miami Heat big three of LeBron, Wade and Bosh was a perfect example of a big three that forced one player (Bosh) to make sacrifices to his game but managed to find other ways to be more affective. His scoring and his rebounding both dipped but his defense improved significantly, because Miami decided to go with him as their starting center so he had to put on muscle and improve his defensive instincts. And he had to help stretch the floor out so he developed a three point shot that, while not great, was still enough to the point where you had to respect him and just couldn't keep him open out at the perimeter. That to me was a legitimate big three, one comprised of three guys who all had very different roles and could impact the game at an elite level in multiple ways. But situations like these are so tough to come by and are almost dependent on the three players at hand having different positions and roles for the team.

Cleveland's big three of LeBron, Irving and Love was, before Brooklyns, the worst big three I had ever seen. We all know what LeBron was able to bring to the table, but Irving and Love were both legitimately flawed players. Kyrie had no idea how to run an offense and literally did nothing good outside of scoring, which he was elite in but it wasn't needed, especially on a team that had LeBron, Love and JR Smith. And he had a tendency to make a lot of incredibly idiotic plays on both ends of the floor that would either cost Cleveland possessions or would allow other teams to score with ease. And then of course there's Love, who probably went through the biggest drop off in production out of any of the guys I have mentioned in this post. There was a time when Charles Barkley claimed this man was the best Power Forward in the world. There was a team when many had no problem calling him a top ten player in the league. Before he was traded away from Minnesota, his season averages were 26 PPG and 12 RPG. He had already broken multiple NBA records at that point. He was, without question, a more accomplished and better player than Chris Bosh was before he went to Miami. Hell, I'll go as far as to say that Kevin was a much more valuable player than Kyrie Irving was before he went to Cleveland. But one of the very things that helped him be such a force of nature on offense, his ability to stretch the floor with his shooting, became basically the only thing that he was allowed to do once he came to Cleveland. He was forced to become the third option even though he had better offensive seasons than Kyrie ever did before LeBron came along and he didn't get nearly as many touches in the post as he used to in Minny, despite that being his main point of attack. At least Ray Allen was an elite enough three point shooter for you to warrant having that be his main emphasis of attack when he went to Boston. But for Love, the entire purpose of him being there was to spread the floor out for LeBron. Now sure, Kevin was still an elite rebounder for Cleveland and even became a better defender for them, but his sacrifices on the offensive end basically made him, at best, a very good third option player rather than a legitimate all star PF (even though he did make the all star team in their third year together, and rightfully so).

This is one of the reasons why I can never consider the Cavaliers with LeBron/Irving/Love to be a super team. At the end of the day, what Love brought most to the team could have been replicated by Channing Frye. Even if there were other aspects of the game that Love was good or even great in (rebounding, passing, inside scoring) they were either not used enough or didn't matter enough in the grand scheme of things to warrant wanting someone with his kind of contract on the team. He was a great player, I'm not knocking him for that. But he is a clear cut example of why having a big three can be very unnecessary and at times even a detriment to your team.

Now more than ever, I find myself wondering what would have happened if Chris Paul ended up going to the Lakers like he was supposed to and then the Lakers proceeded to trade for Howard like they eventually did. Even if Howard wasn't the player he was in Orlando at that point, he was still a very good defensive player who could rebound at an elite rate and was hard to defend inside. That to me would have been one of the greatest big threes of all time, because you would have had three players who impacted both ends of the floor at an elite level and had very different roles on the team (Paul running the offense, Kobe being the primary number one option and Howard locking down the paint).

[highwhey]

OPs mom says the same thing when not all the guys show up for her gangbang

[ScottieQuitting]

OPs mom says the same thing when not all the guys show up for her gangbang

No that means she prefers a spit roast over a gang bang

[rmt]

The reason is that with a big 2, you can build around them easier AND when you have fewer stars, you're less likely to have one of them hurt. That's an underrated factor. Look at Brooklyn. What were the odds they were all going to stay healthy? But when you have MJ and Scottie or Shaq and Kobe, you have better chances of keeping your stars healthy as opposed to needing literally all your best players healthy and relying on every one of them equally.

This is some crazy, mixed up logic.

[3ba11]

The reason is that with a big 2, you can build around them easier AND when you have fewer stars, you're less likely to have one of them hurt. That's an underrated factor. Look at Brooklyn. What were the odds they were all going to stay healthy? But when you have MJ and Scottie or Shaq and Kobe, you have better chances of keeping your stars healthy as opposed to needing literally all your best players healthy and relying on every one of them equally.


OP, you're talking about organic teams that have already reached favorite status

2-star teams must BUILD and develop favorite status over many years, while super-teams get favorite status in Year 1 - so they skip to the final level right away, and any building or struggling via injury or whatever is inconsequential - they skipped to the final level and are on the cusp right away - titles are inevitable, but not for organic teams.. there's no guarantee organic teams reach favorite status and they're a big underdog to do so

[ScottieQuitting]

A big three is, more often than not, completely unnecessary and does little to help whoever the odd man is out. They almost always have to be regulated to a very specific role because when you have three superstar players on the same team, there's only one ball to share at the end of the day. But at the same time, those said adjustments can be extremely beneficial to the team as a whole and can even help improve that player in particular.

The Boston Celtics in 2008 are an example of a team who had a big three but not necessarily to the same degree as Miami and Cleveland did, which I'll go over in a moment. The person who obviously had to give up the most was Ray Allen, because he had to be regulated to just being a spot up three point shooter for most of that time period. And although his defense did improve which helped Boston develop into a dangerous defensive team, his days of being an elite all around scorer were gone. But for the sake of the team, you could argue it was a good thing, especially when you consider some of the performances he was able to deliver in the finals the Big Three in Boston were able to take part in.

The Miami Heat big three of LeBron, Wade and Bosh was a perfect example of a big three that forced one player (Bosh) to make sacrifices to his game but managed to find other ways to be more affective. His scoring and his rebounding both dipped but his defense improved significantly, because Miami decided to go with him as their starting center so he had to put on muscle and improve his defensive instincts. And he had to help stretch the floor out so he developed a three point shot that, while not great, was still enough to the point where you had to respect him and just couldn't keep him open out at the perimeter. That to me was a legitimate big three, one comprised of three guys who all had very different roles and could impact the game at an elite level in multiple ways. But situations like these are so tough to come by and are almost dependent on the three players at hand having different positions and roles for the team.

Cleveland's big three of LeBron, Irving and Love was, before Brooklyns, the worst big three I had ever seen. We all know what LeBron was able to bring to the table, but Irving and Love were both legitimately flawed players. Kyrie had no idea how to run an offense and literally did nothing good outside of scoring, which he was elite in but it wasn't needed, especially on a team that had LeBron, Love and JR Smith. And he had a tendency to make a lot of incredibly idiotic plays on both ends of the floor that would either cost Cleveland possessions or would allow other teams to score with ease. And then of course there's Love, who probably went through the biggest drop off in production out of any of the guys I have mentioned in this post. There was a time when Charles Barkley claimed this man was the best Power Forward in the world. There was a team when many had no problem calling him a top ten player in the league. Before he was traded away from Minnesota, his season averages were 26 PPG and 12 RPG. He had already broken multiple NBA records at that point. He was, without question, a more accomplished and better player than Chris Bosh was before he went to Miami. Hell, I'll go as far as to say that Kevin was a much more valuable player than Kyrie Irving was before he went to Cleveland. But one of the very things that helped him be such a force of nature on offense, his ability to stretch the floor with his shooting, became basically the only thing that he was allowed to do once he came to Cleveland. He was forced to become the third option even though he had better offensive seasons than Kyrie ever did before LeBron came along and he didn't get nearly as many touches in the post as he used to in Minny, despite that being his main point of attack. At least Ray Allen was an elite enough three point shooter for you to warrant having that be his main emphasis of attack when he went to Boston. But for Love, the entire purpose of him being there was to spread the floor out for LeBron. Now sure, Kevin was still an elite rebounder for Cleveland and even became a better defender for them, but his sacrifices on the offensive end basically made him, at best, a very good third option player rather than a legitimate all star PF (even though he did make the all star team in their third year together, and rightfully so).

This is one of the reasons why I can never consider the Cavaliers with LeBron/Irving/Love to be a super team. At the end of the day, what Love brought most to the team could have been replicated by Channing Frye. Even if there were other aspects of the game that Love was good or even great in (rebounding, passing, inside scoring) they were either not used enough or didn't matter enough in the grand scheme of things to warrant wanting someone with his kind of contract on the team. He was a great player, I'm not knocking him for that. But he is a clear cut example of why having a big three can be very unnecessary and at times even a detriment to your team.

Now more than ever, I find myself wondering what would have happened if Chris Paul ended up going to the Lakers like he was supposed to and then the Lakers proceeded to trade for Howard like they eventually did. Even if Howard wasn't the player he was in Orlando at that point, he was still a very good defensive player who could rebound at an elite rate and was hard to defend inside. That to me would have been one of the greatest big threes of all time, because you would have had three players who impacted both ends of the floor at an elite level and had very different roles on the team (Paul running the offense, Kobe being the primary number one option and Howard locking down the paint).

Great post. 100% agree on all fronts. It’s a shame we have so many trolls on the inside hoops that a quality basketball post like this gets ignored

[DoctorP]

Great post. 100% agree on all fronts. It’s a shame we have so many trolls on the inside hoops that a quality basketball post like this gets ignored

welcome to insidehoops. A dystopia. An intellectual wasteland. :lol

[72-10]

why not ask Isiah

[Jasper]

The reason is that with a big 2, you can build around them easier AND when you have fewer stars, you're less likely to have one of them hurt. That's an underrated factor. Look at Brooklyn. What were the odds they were all going to stay healthy? But when you have MJ and Scottie or Shaq and Kobe, you have better chances of keeping your stars healthy as opposed to needing literally all your best players healthy and relying on every one of them equally.

Actually I agree with you , because role players can be just as dominate because they may be open in offensive schemes as well as possibly
better defenders.
(I feel Milwaukee has Giannis and Chris --- and Holiday was an addition that was quit frankly a steal)

[Jasper]

A big three is, more often than not, completely unnecessary
Cleveland's big three of LeBron, Irving and Love was, before Brooklyns, the worst big three I had ever seen. We all know what LeBron was able to bring to the table, but Irving and Love were both legitimately flawed players. Kyrie had no idea how to run an offense and literally did nothing good outside of scoring, which he was elite in but it wasn't needed, especially on a team that had LeBron, Love and JR Smith. And he had a tendency to make a lot of incredibly idiotic plays on both ends of the floor that would either cost Cleveland possessions or would allow other teams to score with ease. And then of course there's Love, who probably went through the biggest drop off in production out of any of the guys I have mentioned in this post. There was a time when Charles Barkley claimed this man was the best Power Forward in the world. There was a team when many had no problem calling him a top ten player in the league. Before he was traded away from Minnesota, his season averages were 26 PPG and 12 RPG. He had already broken multiple NBA records at that point. He was, without question, a more accomplished and better player than Chris Bosh was before he went to Miami. Hell, I'll go as far as to say that Kevin was a much more valuable player than Kyrie Irving was before he went to Cleveland. But one of the very things that helped him be such a force of nature on offense, his ability to stretch the floor with his shooting, became basically the only thing that he was allowed to do once he came to Cleveland. He was forced to become the third option even though he had better offensive seasons than Kyrie ever did before LeBron came along and he didn't get nearly as many touches in the post as he used to in Minny, despite that being his main point of attack. At least Ray Allen was an elite enough three point shooter for you to warrant having that be his main emphasis of attack when he went to Boston. But for Love, the entire purpose of him being there was to spread the floor out for LeBron. Now sure, Kevin was still an elite rebounder for Cleveland and even became a better defender for them, but his sacrifices on the offensive end basically made him, at best, a very good third option player rather than a legitimate all star PF (even though he did make the all star team in their third year together, and rightfully so).

This is one of the reasons why I can never consider the Cavaliers with LeBron/Irving/Love to be a super team. .

Every team ,as well as players have to be taken into consideration .
Cav's team had prime Lebron , ball controlling SF , so Irving was a SG , even though he was designated as a PG.
Love had to play off the ball , because spacing was so critical at that time , so he camped at the corner three.
It wasn't the worse 3 player team , look at Miami Bosh was not an offensive threat cause Bron and Wade.
I backed the Cav's and how they played and would never take anything away from their title team.

[Axe]

pix fakkit
You don't have any slicky biatch

[SaintzFury13]

Every team ,as well as players have to be taken into consideration .
Cav's team had prime Lebron , ball controlling SF , so Irving was a SG , even though he was designated as a PG.
Love had to play off the ball , because spacing was so critical at that time , so he camped at the corner three.
It wasn't the worse 3 player team , look at Miami Bosh was not an offensive threat cause Bron and Wade.
I backed the Cav's and how they played and would never take anything away from their title team.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Kevin Love's role on the team could have very easily been replicated by someone like Channing Frye. A guy of Kevin Love's talent was, in the end, unnecessary to Cleveland's overall success because what he brought to the table wasn't exclusive to him. Yeah sure he had a high basketball IQ, was one of the elite rebounders in the game and was one of the best passing big man in the league, but how often did Cleveland take advantage of this to the point where those very strengths were relied on to win games? There were so many occasions during his time with Irving and LeBron where he didn't even play in the fourth quarter of a close game. You needed elite rebounding, you had Thompson for that, who wasn't even a better rebounder than Kevin all things considered but he was almost always in the paint so he thrived down there. You needed a stretch four, you had Channing Frye for that in 2016, who was being paid significantly less than what Kevin Love was. And these two guys by the way? A lot more durable than Kevin Love was.

This isn't me trying to take away from the adjustments Kevin did end up making in the end. He became a better defensive player and even with his limited role on offense, he produced some truly spectacular games for Cleveland, even having 34 points in a single quarter which is outrageous for your third option on offense who has to rely on others to feed him the ball. But I'm not convinced even to this day that Cleveland doesn't win the 2016 title if Kevin Love isn't there. Yes, Kevin was a major factor in Cleveland steam rolling through the Eastern Conference on their way to the finals, but do you really expect me to believe that Cleveland wouldn't have been able to get past Detroit, Atlanta, and Toronto without Kevin's help? You're telling me he was absolutely needed? I'm not buying it. Compare that to Chris Bosh, someone you brought up. Do you really think Miami would have been able to beat San Antonio in 2013 without Chris Bosh? What about 2012 against the Thunder? You're telling me Miami still wins that series if Bosh doesn't play at all? Against that scary frontcourt the Thunder had?

Let me put it to you this way: In the Cleveland big threes final season together, what did all three guys do best? For LeBron it was scoring. For Irving it was scoring. For Love...it was also scoring. You see the problem with this? In Miami that wasn't the case. Obviously LeBron's best trait was scoring but he was also still one of the best defensive players in the league at that point. But let's go with scoring for the sake of argument. For Wade? Yeah it was his scoring. But Bosh? It was his defense, because he developed into a legitimately good, perhaps even great, defensive minded center who could also still score but it wasn't a necessity. He filled a hole that Miami desperately needed because in their first year together as a big three, Miami lacking a legitimate center was a serious problem.

[SaintzFury13]

OP, you're talking about organic teams that have already reached favorite status

2-star teams must BUILD and develop favorite status over many years, while super-teams get favorite status in Year 1 - so they skip to the final level right away, and any building or struggling via injury or whatever is inconsequential - they skipped to the final level and are on the cusp right away - titles are inevitable, but not for organic teams.. there's no guarantee organic teams reach favorite status and they're a big underdog to do so

Look at this dumbshit logic. Titles are most certainly not inevitable for super teams. It didn't happen for OKC when they had Westbrook/Geroge/Melo (which is a super team by your own definition so don't even try to pull that shit), it didn't happen for the 76ers when they had Simmons/Butler/Harris/Embiid, and it didn't happen for the Rockets when they had Paul/Harden/Capela. Titles are not inevitable, for any team under any circumstance. At the end of the day you still have to work hard to reach that point.

[DoctorP]

I just think people say "at the end of the day" way too much.

[tpols]

I generally agree that to ensure max teamwork and total team ceiling that you'd be better off with two stars who fit and a bunch of complimentary role players than 3 stars who just clutter each other.

But if you can make 3 stars fit you have a checkmate.

Boiling it down to injury is stupid. Lakers and Clippers had only 2 superstar teams and both teams lost due to injury.

Its pure bad luck a team with 3 superstars loses 2/3 of their best players to injury.