PDA

View Full Version : Is it better to build a team around duos or trios?



FOBolous
08-07-2013, 09:44 PM
For teams owned by your average millionaires who can't afford to pay the luxury tax (as oppose to a Russian billionaire who don't give a ****) is it better to build around 2 stars or 3 stars?

Teams with good duos:

1. John Stockton and Karl Malone's Jazz
2. Shaq and Kobe's Lakers
3. Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp's Sonics
4. Russel Westbrook and Kevin Durant's Thunder
5. Magic and Kareem's Lakers
6. Hakeem and Drexler's Rockets
7. Duncan and Robinson's Spurs
8. Bob Cousy and Bill Russell's Celtics

Teams with good trios:

1. Lebron, Wade, and Bosh's Heat
2. Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker's Spurs
3. Garnett, Pierce, and Allen's Celtics
4. Jason Kidd, Vince Carter, and Richard Jefferson's Nets
5. Nash, Marion, and Stoudemire's Suns
6. Bird, McHale, and Parish's Celtics
7. Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman's Bulls
8. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson and James Worthy's Lakers

sunsfan88
08-07-2013, 10:20 PM
If you have stars like the Spurs have who don't have always care about money as opposed to winning, then that's better. San Antonio isn't exactly a top market and yet they have kept their big 3 together and been successful for quite sometime.

IndyRealist
08-07-2013, 10:33 PM
They key for teams that can't go into the luxury tax is to draft well. Rookie scale contracts are a joke comparatively. If you can do well two drafts and then sign a big name free agent or trade for one along with veterans to fill out the starters, you can keep payroll down and field a strong team. You then use your future draft picks (hopefully in the 20's) to fill out your bench along with vet min guys and maybe one or two MLE's. If you end up with a dynasty (like the Spurs) you're going to have to pay to keep them together, but they had rings by that point. What kills small market teams is overpaying for middling role players who get 12mpg off the bench. The MLE kills payroll.

And Tony Parker was the #29 draft pick, and Ginobili was a 2nd rounder. So again, draft well.

b@llhog24
08-08-2013, 12:06 AM
Trio.

Six-8-TheWizard
08-08-2013, 12:34 AM
They key for teams that can't go into the luxury tax is to draft well. Rookie scale contracts are a joke comparatively. If you can do well two drafts and then sign a big name free agent or trade for one along with veterans to fill out the starters, you can keep payroll down and field a strong team. You then use your future draft picks (hopefully in the 20's) to fill out your bench along with vet min guys and maybe one or two MLE's. If you end up with a dynasty (like the Spurs) you're going to have to pay to keep them together, but they had rings by that point. What kills small market teams is overpaying for middling role players who get 12mpg off the bench. The MLE kills payroll.

And Tony Parker was the #29 draft pick, and Ginobili was a 2nd rounder. So again, draft well.

This. Especially the bolded

Dade County
08-08-2013, 12:51 AM
I would rather have a prime D Wade & a prime Shaq... They probably would win like 8 titles with each other (because their would be nO drama, EVER!); Wade doesn't have a ego & prime Shaq can take all the finals Mvp's he wants.

ryang
08-08-2013, 01:05 AM
With the new cba I say duo.

waveycrockett
08-08-2013, 01:12 AM
I think it's better to build a TEAM around 6 solid/good players surrounding 1 great player like the Spurs and Mavs have/had done. When you do a big-3 your surrounding them with a bunch of either 1)scrubs or 2)ring chasers on the verge of retirement and when just 1 of the big-3 either gets injured or gets old you are screwed.

chitownredbulls
08-08-2013, 01:22 AM
Duo= thunder....trio=heat....u decide lol

Supreme LA
08-08-2013, 01:39 AM
I would rather have a prime D Wade & a prime Shaq... They probably would win like 8 titles with each other (because their would be nO drama, EVER!); Wade doesn't have a ego & prime Shaq can take all the finals Mvp's he wants.

What does that have to do with anything??

Okay, give me MJ and Shaq in their primes and we go for 12 straight titles.

LegendsNvrDie23
08-08-2013, 02:01 AM
MJ-Pippen
Shaq-Kobe
Magic-Kareem
Close thread.

tredigs
08-08-2013, 02:06 AM
Duo= thunder....trio=heat....u decide lol

Young *** Thunder versus prime/veteran Heat with a top 10 and top 25 All Time. C'mon kid.

But, OKC had 3 themselves. 4 if you include Ibaka.

And @ FOB. Russell and "Cousy", really? There was a few I disagreed with, but c'mon dude.

TrueFan420
08-08-2013, 02:07 AM
It really depends on the players involved

tredigs
08-08-2013, 02:09 AM
Anyway, give me the most dominant players with the easiest conference.

Bostonjorge
08-08-2013, 03:16 AM
I would rather have a prime D Wade & a prime Shaq... They probably would win like 8 titles with each other (because their would be nO drama, EVER!); Wade doesn't have a ego & prime Shaq can take all the finals Mvp's he wants.

Didn't prime shaq and wade get bounced by a Kirk Heinrich lead team in the first rd. The very next season after winning a championship. Kirk number 2 was Ben Wallace. What did wade ever do after that?

dalton749
08-08-2013, 04:55 AM
Kobe - twin towers is a 3

RiceOnTheRun
08-08-2013, 06:12 AM
I think it's better to build a TEAM around 6 solid/good players surrounding 1 great player like the Spurs and Mavs have/had done. When you do a big-3 your surrounding them with a bunch of either 1)scrubs or 2)ring chasers on the verge of retirement and when just 1 of the big-3 either gets injured or gets old you are screwed.

I'll assume this refers to the Heat? I don't think it matters much when the "ring chasers" are guys like Ray Allen or Birdman. Sure, Rashard didn't pan out for them as well as they expected, but I don't think it was too bad a risk either. 2011, you could probably argue that they had several "scrubs" getting playing time, but just from the past year's playoffs their starting center from 2011 was getting 5 mpg.

Also, the thing about having one of the big three getting injured makes no sense either. Arguably the best duo in the league, Westbrook and Durant, got pretty screwed over when Westbrook got injured no? I wouldn't put the Spurs as having 1 great player either. I'm pretty sure TP and Manu were more than just "solid/good" for most of the 2000's and even some of the past few years. Dallas is probably one of the few teams that you could make that "surround one superstar with a solid team" theory for in recent history. Nearly every other team barring the Pistons has had at least two players you would consider "superstars"

PhillyFaninLA
08-08-2013, 06:18 AM
With a duo you need a great supporting cast and clearly defined role players, with a trio you don't need nearly as good a supporting cast. A duo might be a better team overall but a trio if healthy and not in foul trouble can be more dominant.

waveycrockett
08-08-2013, 06:47 AM
I rather have a team like the Pacers that is going to be loaded with a great mix of vets and young studs hitting their prime from 1-7 than a Big-3. I dunno thats just me but it's seems like a better recipe of success long term. A Big-3 has a much shorter window.

mark1125
08-08-2013, 06:51 AM
I'll lobby for 2-3 upper tier players surrounded by TOP role players.

Bad Boy Pistons:

UPPER TIER:
Isiah Thomas
Joe Dumars

Then you had guys that were high level role playes:
Laimbeer
Rodman
Vinne Johnson
Aguirre
Salley
Mahorn

Chronz
08-08-2013, 11:46 AM
I'll lobby for 2-3 upper tier players surrounded by TOP role players.

Bad Boy Pistons:

UPPER TIER:
Isiah Thomas
Joe Dumars

Then you had guys that were high level role playes:
Laimbeer
Rodman
Vinne Johnson
Aguirre
Salley
Mahorn
There are many who would argue that Laimbeer and Rodman were equally important as Dumars/Isiah

D-Leethal
08-08-2013, 12:37 PM
"There is no one way, to eat a Reese's"

It depends who your duo is, and who your trio is. Either one works, either one can be better than the other.

b@llhog24
08-08-2013, 12:39 PM
I think people are confusing "easier" with "better."

TheNumber37
08-08-2013, 01:22 PM
depends who the 3rd player is.

I'd still take 2 top 5 guys over 3 in the top 15-20.

Trueblue2
08-08-2013, 04:34 PM
Anyway, star duos seem to work better because its easier for two stars games to mesh than for 3. Ideal combos have a big playing as a post scorer, rebounder, and defender and a pg/sg/sf that runs the offense, creates looks for himself and others, and is the primary shooter/slasher.


If either of the duo is lacking in any of these aspects then its more efficient and cost effective to use quality role players to make up for it. Like how amare cant defend or rebound so the suns got a declining shaq to play that role, same thing as kg in brooklyn d.jordan on LAC (although both lopez and griffins all around games have been consistently improving since theyve been in the nba). Or with the nash/dirk mavs using finley as the primary guard/wing scorer to allow nash to focus on facilitating. A complete inside game paired with a complete outside game and surrounded by solid role players that compliment the stars is still the recipe for success.

A trio can be successful, but its not nearly as efficient. With 3 star players on a team theres a greater chance of redundant skillsets and one (or two) of the stars regressing due to lack of touches/change in role. If a team has two bigman stars one has to take a back seat to tge other on offense and focus on d and rebounding (which makes rodman an ideal 3rd star). If a team has two stars that play the 1-3 one of them has to give up control of the ball and become a shooter/slasher while the better facilitator runs the offense. Its not impossible for a star to take on a lesser role, its jist much more cost effective to pick up better role players that already excel in said role.

Bostonjorge
08-08-2013, 04:42 PM
3 is better then 2. Example James and wade are the best duo in the league. Both in top 5 discussions every year. Now u add bosh and they have the best duo and trio in league. Bosh makes them better not the other way around.

Bruno
08-08-2013, 04:48 PM
gimme a dominant 1-2 with a stellar supporting cast filled with cold blooded shooters, high IQs, and scrappy defenders and rebounders.

tp13baby
08-08-2013, 04:48 PM
I think it's better to build a TEAM around 6 solid/good players surrounding 1 great player like the Spurs and Mavs have/had done. When you do a big-3 your surrounding them with a bunch of either 1)scrubs or 2)ring chasers on the verge of retirement and when just 1 of the big-3 either gets injured or gets old you are screwed.

Well it helps when Miami has the best player. Put Melo, even Durant, that team isn't a back to back championship team.

Id take duos, with solid role players.

ChicagoJ
08-08-2013, 05:02 PM
Well, my team won 6 championships with trios so ill go with the trio. And yes, the first 3 bulls championships were a trio with mj, Scottie, and Horace.

Dade County
08-09-2013, 12:29 AM
What does that have to do with anything??

Okay, give me MJ and Shaq in their primes and we go for 12 straight titles.

your due is better then my duo... I lose.

I was stating if I had to pick out of a duo or a trio, I would rather a duo of Wade & Shaq, thats all.

Ebbs
08-09-2013, 02:19 AM
Umm 3 > 2 99% of the time.