Big three vs a Bigger two

I was curious on everyone's thoughts about this. If you look at the last few years of championship teams you had a big three on the squad, minus the heat. Actually, the heat had 1.5 superstars with Wade and Shaq (my opinion).

Spurs - Parker, Manu, Duncan
Lakers - Kobe, Pau, Bynum
Celtics - Ray, Kevin, Paul

So, is signing two 'of the best talents' better then having a big three.

I have mixed feelings on this.

For example:

Is having superstar, Lee, and Joe Johnson (you can insert anyone in here, you get my gist)

better then

having two superstars?

Your thoughts?

Personally I don't think you can list LA as a "big 3" team. Bynum is good but he's not superstar level at all imo (yet).

So really they have been a "big 2" team with Pau and Kobe arguably the best PF and best SG in the game. So big 2 or big 3 either is fine really.

jeckomaru said:

I was curious on everyone's thoughts about this. If you look at the last few years of championship teams you had a big three on the squad, minus the heat. Actually, the heat had 1.5 superstars with Wade and Shaq (my opinion).

Spurs - Parker, Manu, Duncan
Lakers - Kobe, Pau, Bynum
Celtics - Ray, Kevin, Paul

So, is signing two 'of the best talents' better then having a big three.

I have mixed feelings on this.

For example:

Is having superstar, Lee, and Joe Johnson (you can insert anyone in here, you get my gist)

better then

having two superstars?

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

You have to look deeper than that. You'll notice:

They each have shooters that can hit outside shots, drive to the hole, hit shots down the stretch, creat offense and pass

plus a Big presence in the paint that brings defense, draws fouls, sets screens and causes havoc by throwing people off their games.

finally... they have good coaches that adapt, game plan, and systems with options.

that's the formula!

oh and... and good bench and supporting cast that may not be starters but aren't too much of a drop off when inserted (no homo).

Smokes,

I see your point, but when it was just Pau and Kobe they lost to Boston (Bynum was injured). I included Bynum because he was the next best player when they won.

Red,

I agree with your assessment, I just simplified the argument for the upcoming free agency. We obviously cannot solve all of our problems at once. Right now, July 1st, what we can do is sign our big name free agents.

The trend looks like you need a good core of 3 players. Do we follow that trend?

jeckomaru said:

I was curious on everyone's thoughts about this. If you look at the last few years of championship teams you had a big three on the squad, minus the heat. Actually, the heat had 1.5 superstars with Wade and Shaq (my opinion).

Spurs - Parker, Manu, Duncan
Lakers - Kobe, Pau, Bynum
Celtics - Ray, Kevin, Paul

So, is signing two 'of the best talents' better then having a big three.

I have mixed feelings on this.

For example:

Is having superstar, Lee, and Joe Johnson (you can insert anyone in here, you get my gist)

better then

having two superstars?

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Having a big 3 isn't necessary. What's more important is having a complete team with balanced defense and offense. Also, a bench that understands their role and executes consistently. A coach who can implement a gameplan that: 1)plays to the strengths of his personnel and 2)exploits the opponent.
　
Having at least a big 2 is important when it comes to finishing games. As you can see, Lebron has to do everything himself in crunch time. If he's off his game a bit then it?s a roll of the dice on if they can win or not.
　
This is why having a solid defensive foundation 1st is so important. The Pistons never had a big 3 in terms of superstars, but they did have superstar defense. Prince, Billups and Rip weren't bigtime scorers but they did work very well together and when the team hit a wall offensively they could ALWAYS rely on their defense to hold them down until they got it back.

I know what you're saying jecko but I'd suggest Ariza/Odom had an equal or greater impact on that last title than Bynum did. I was really surprised that the Lakers swapped Ariza for Artest, even though Artest has the better career Ariza was a major factor for them.

Also even when you look at these "big 3" one or two of them are usually aging vets on the decline ala Tim Duncan or Ray Allen even though they are still star players.

I think you'd be fine with a big 2 if it was 2 players in their prime, and also what Red said about having a quality supporting cast/coach.

Don't forget...

You can never overlook your bench. After all, who can forget Big-Shot-Bob Horry and Derek Fisher for that last-second dagger?

It's all pretty circumstantial and relative to depth.

I don't think there's ever really been a legit 2 man show. Obviously people think Jordan & Pippen as the big 2 to end all big 2s, but to leave Horace Grant, Kukoc, The Worm, BJ Armstrong and Paxson unmentioned in those brilliant Bulls teams would be unfair. Especially Rodman and Grant. I don't think you can fairly say that either of them were palming off the greatness of MJ and Scottie.

Same goes for the 80s Pistons, Celtics, Lakers teams and the Spurs and Lakers 2000s teams as well. So many x factors. So much great defence and cohesion to add to their superstars.

It's always been about stars with integral parts. I know that's rhetorical, but it's always been the way.

jeckomaru said:

Smokes,

I see your point, but when it was just Pau and Kobe they lost to Boston (Bynum was injured). I included Bynum because he was the next best player when they won.

Red,

I agree with your assessment, I just simplified the argument for the upcoming free agency. We obviously cannot solve all of our problems at once. Right now, July 1st, what we can do is sign our big name free agents.

The trend looks like you need a good core of 3 players. Do we follow that trend?

Click to expand...

Well, that depends on how you feel about Gallo & Lee. If you consider Lee a star then yes we can effectively field a "big three"- the same goes for Gallo.

If he's a star in your opinion, then again yes we can field a big 3 NEXT YEAR. If we happen to sign 2 Max's and we retain Lee at an affordable price.

What isn't and really can't be anticipated is...

1. the luck needed to win. As in we could luck out and Gallo or Lee or Chandler or TD,could really break out next year by surprise.

2. No injuries

3. Even though I have my reservations- the signing of D'Antoni looks good b/c the teams rumored to be competeing in FAgency don't have coaches as good as him. If Walsh signs LBJ then that signing of D'Ant looks genius.

Good players are obviously need to win in the nba but that is not enough. Chemistry and camaraderie is the key to any championship. This takes time to build and probably the hardest thing to accomplish. We saw the lakers with malone, payton, o'neal, and bryant lose not because they lacked talent, it's because they have no chemistry. However, an exception can be made with the '08 celtics becuase kevin and ray were new additions. The cavs lost becuase of this essential ingredient and boston had it, which is why they won.

smokes said:

Personally I don't think you can list LA as a "big 3" team. Bynum is good but he's not superstar level at all imo (yet).

So really they have been a "big 2" team with Pau and Kobe arguably the best PF and best SG in the game. So big 2 or big 3 either is fine really.

Click to expand...

Odoms and Fisher (passing) are the star ingredients to Kobe & Gasol on the Lakers. Bynum, Ariza (Artest), Walton, and Shannon Brown, are the role-players that showed they can step-up their role of play when needed.
Three years ago the Lakers only added 3 new players to their rotation to make it to the Finals and then the Championship (PG-Fisher, SF-Ariza, and F/C-Gasol).

The Knicks are very far from a dynasty, and 2 years away from becoming a .500 team. Out of the 20 new players added to the Knicks by the new regime salary cap cut plan all but one (Gallo) were considered "problem-players".

Whatever free agents Walsh sign or money he spend for draft picks,
I'm hoping that we add some more coaches (defense) to our staff plus keep C-Barron, PF-Lee, SF-Chandler, and PG-Douglas on the Knicks 2010-11 roster for the rebuilding process.

XH20X said:

Good players are obviously need to win in the nba but that is not enough. Chemistry and camaraderie is the key to any championship. This takes time to build and probably the hardest thing to accomplish.

Click to expand...

Truth. See the 2004 Pistons. That was, really, an all-around above-average team. You compare them on a one-on-one scenario, you'd probably have put Shaq well above Big Ben, Garnett well above Rasheed, Odom well above Prince, etc. -- but they won games. A lot of 'em.

Fantastic four, big three, the dynamic duo, who cares. All we need is the right ONE.

LeFlume said:

Fantastic four, big three, the dynamic duo, who cares. All we need is the right ONE.

Click to expand...

No, I think we're stuck with Dolan/Walsh.

Bynum's NBA career is almost over, his knee injury is getting worse.

This whole superstar thing is getting overrated now.