Is a "Big Two" better than a "Big Three" for NBA teams?

[CelticsElite]

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27533126/is-big-two-better-big-three-nba-teams


It was heralded as the summer of the Big Two. In spurning a galactic Big Three with the Los Angeles Lakers, Kawhi Leonard perhaps unknowingly realigned the NBA's distribution of star power in a way that promised more parity -- and left the league without a bona fide Big Three for the first time since Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen joined Paul Pierce in Boston 12 years ago.

Leonard's power play, plus the subsequent trade of Russell Westbrook to the Houston Rockets, created (arguably) four pairings of top-15 players: LeBron James and Anthony Davis with the Lakers; Leonard and Paul George across Staples Center; Kyrie Irving and Kevin Durant in Brooklyn; and Westbrook and James Harden, reunited in Houston.


Other collections of star talent are harder to classify. Golden State has something like a Big Three with Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson and Draymond Green, but Thompson is out for an extended period. Green does not fit the traditional conception of a top-15 star. Those who value defense more might argue Utah has a chance to form a real Big Two with Rudy Gobert and Donovan Mitchell -- before factoring in Mike Conley -- if Mitchell springboards out of Team USA. Philadelphia has four max or near-max players in Joel Embiid, Ben Simmons, Al Horford and Tobias Harris, but Embiid is the only consensus top-15 guy among them.

But there is nothing at present precisely like the Big Threes (and one Big Four) that dominated the league for a decade-plus in Boston, Miami, Cleveland and Oakland.

Is this a thing? Will more teams choose two stars and legit depth over a real Big Three? Should they? The question is especially relevant for the Clippers, Lakers, Nets and Mavericks.

[Celtics4ever]

No it is not better, and that is pretty absurd.

[Roy H.]

The Warriors were basically unstoppable with Durant / Curry / Thompson.  I’m not sure how you look at that and say a big two is “better”. Easier to assemble, perhaps.

Of course, if Leonard had signed with the Lakers, the media would be talking about how they are the best team of all time.

[td450]

It is possible.

I can't think of any big three situations where the third star is used to their full potential. It may be that the salary and role distributions just work out better. This year will be an interesting experiment.

[Silky]

Big three is always better than a big 2.

Unless, perhaps, the big 2 is complimented by elite role players.

I mean Chicago succeeded with a big 2 back in the day, but 1 was the GOAT and they had elite role players.


Boston had a big three, and all three succeeded, Miami another one, GSW obviously...I dont think Klay, Durant or Curry were downplayed any.


Fit is important though. If you had the 3 best PGs in the game I dont think that works. Or the 3 top centers. You need a balanced roster still

[Wretch]

The 3 elite player archetype predates Garnett, Peirce, Alle.  The 80s Celtics were Bird McHale, Parrish. The Lakers were Magic, Worthy, Kareem.

[td450]

The 3 elite player archetype predates Garnett, Peirce, Alle.  The 80s Celtics were Bird McHale, Parrish. The Lakers were Magic, Worthy, Kareem.

And if you watched those teams, you knew that Allen was a 26 ppg scorer before he came to the C's, then downshifted to a 3rd option role. Parish could have easily scored 6-8 points more per game, and Worthy had the talent to lead the league in scoring on a lesser team.

[Somebody]

It is possible.

I can't think of any big three situations where the third star is used to their full potential. It may be that the salary and role distributions just work out better. This year will be an interesting experiment.

JoJo White of the 70s Celtics dynasty comes to mind, as well as Robert Parish of the 80s Celtics dynasty. Sure they could've put up gaudier counting stats on bad teams due to higher usage, but I don't think they were misused or underutilised. Dennis Rodman of the late 90s Bulls three peat is also one who stands out imo.

A pretty interesting thing to note is that LeBron has never gotten the most out of the third banana of his big 3s, and they were all big men. I think the Lakers will massively disappoint because LeBron really doesn't know how to get the most out of a superstar big man imo.

[footey]

The big two movement is a good thing. As Roy points out, what would the narrative be today if Kawhi signed with the Lakers instead of the Clippers?

[Surferdad]

The big two movement is a good thing. As Roy points out, what would the narrative be today if Kawhi signed with the Lakers instead of the Clippers?

Current NBA Champs won as a Big One, so there's that.

[fairweatherfan]

It's better for fans, for sure. For teams, I doubt it other than that it's easier to get a Big Two.  I guess you could argue that with a more consistent salary cap getting a true Big 3 either means brilliant drafting or gutting the entire team for free agent $ or a trade, then filling it up with bargain basement vets, which isn't ideal. More flexibility with role players with just two max guys. But you still choose the top talent if you can get it.

[MichiganAdam]

BIg three is certainly better, but one of the three needs to be an elite defender and 3rd scorer, or an elite facilitator and 3rd scorer.  3 Alpha scorers will never work, unless all three suffer equally, but we basically haven't seen that yet.  Others have said it, fit is critical, chemistry.  They all have to truly want it to work and basically care less about their own stats.  The C's have a similar issue this year in that their top 6 or 7 are all good enough to want the ball more than they will get it.  Kemba, hayward, and to a lesser degree smart are going to have to be happy to be primary distributors.  Heck, all of these guys need to make assists as important a stat to themselves as points.  THey all need to share alot and often.

[SHAQATTACK]

If Lebron had not signed with fakers , i feel they would have had a much better chance of landing Kawhi or PG And ultimately a better team for the long haul.   

Mnay teams are lucky to get a BIG ONE player and keep him. 

Three unselfish team oriented BIG three is pretty hard to top.

[tazzmaniac]

Using the top 15 criteria, would any of the recent Big 3s actually qualify as a Big 3?  GSW was a Big 4 so with only KD leaving why wouldn't they still be a Big 3 now? 

There really aren't Big 3s.  Someone is taking a back seat.  In Boston, it was Ray.  In Miami, it was Bosh.  In Cleveland, it was Love.  In Golden State, it was Thompson and Green. 

[Moranis]

Very few teams in history actually have 3 top 15 players on them, even recently the Heat and maybe the Durant Warriors fit that criteria (I don't know that I've ever had Klay or Dray in my top 15, but could certainly see arguments for that).  I don't think the Cavs were as Love never quite struck me as a top 15 player in the world.  The Big 3 Celtics were not as Allen was not a top 15 player by then.  Now if you extend the Big 3 Criteria out to all stars (top 25 or so) that happens a fair amount and you could argue several teams could hit that this year (the Warriors seem obvious even without Klay as Steph, D-Lo, and Dray are all arguably top 25 players) and then depending on how you view Harris, Kuzma, etc. there could be several others.