PDA

View Full Version : Depth or Big 3?



Goose17
11-22-2014, 05:52 PM
This is a tad random and I think I know the answer but whatever...

The recent question marks around the Cavs (and Loves dip in per game averages) got me thinking. Would you rather have a team with three "elite" players or two elite and some extra depth?

For example, (and yes this is complete hypothetical drivel and probably not realistic, stfu and roll with it)... let's say that instead of giving Love 15.7Mil, they used that money to sign two guys like Afflalo and Amir Johnson.

That's just a random example... but in general (Cavs aside), if you were building a team, what would you rather have? A big 3 with some average role players supporting them, or a "Big 2" with a couple of high quality starting caliber players and then some role players?

Am I wrong to assume most would go for the depth? Do you think the "big 3" thing will die out? I mean Lakers tried it and failed, Nash, Kobe, Dwight. Brooklyn tried it and failed, OKC have been trying it and so far failing... is it time for teams to reevaluate the "big 3" concept?



Edit; Can a mod add a poll to this? Can't find a way to do it through the edit button?

abe_froman
11-22-2014, 05:56 PM
depends on the players in your big 3 and what team.my fav team always gets snakebit with injuries ,so for my team i want depth much more. if we didnt have the issues we do every year i think i'd prefer a big 3.

Miltstar
11-22-2014, 06:03 PM
Depends who your big 3 is... Cp3/Lebron/Duncan all day

Jamiecballer
11-22-2014, 06:08 PM
Definitely 2. A big 3 that maximizes the talents of each is almost impossible. Kobe's lakers, MJ's bulls, much better TEAMS.

nastynice
11-22-2014, 06:22 PM
Big 2 plus depth, EASY.

My personal flavor of choice is SG + C, like the Rockets have now. I believe that is the best formula to win championships. Take a high level SG and C, surround them with role players. All have to play defense, and you need to mix your shooters, with your big bodies, and also need a pure athletic scorer (think monta ellis) for your second team.

Sandman
11-22-2014, 06:33 PM
you cant have one without the other

I still think Miami could have been better if they didn't have players with such overlapping skills

but at the same time they could have used more depth at PG and PF/C

The Celtics won right away with KG and Ray Allen and should have won more if KG didnt get hurt.

The Mavericks won with a big 1

gotta list the amazing Gary Payton Lakers and the Steve Nash Lakers, neither of these Big 4s worked out.

Build your team the right way with the strongest players in the best roles

torocan
11-22-2014, 06:34 PM
For me it depends on the coach.

If you have an Elite head coach, then I'll take 2 + depth. It's easier to get 2 Stars than 3 and easier to replace role players than injured stars.

If you don't have an Elite head coach, then I'll take 3 stars.

On the down side, it's just as hard to get an Elite head coach as it is a Superstar player so perhaps it should be 3 stars, ie 3 star players or 2 star players + a star coach.

Sandman
11-22-2014, 06:48 PM
For me it depends on the coach.

If you have an Elite head coach, then I'll take 2 + depth. It's easier to get 2 Stars than 3 and easier to replace role players than injured stars.

If you don't have an Elite head coach, then I'll take 3 stars.

On the down side, it's just as hard to get an Elite head coach as it is a Superstar player so perhaps it should be 3 stars, ie 3 star players or 2 star players + a star coach.

not so sure, Id take it one step further

if I had 2 or 3 big stars I would go for Phil Jackson, and if I had a roster full of guys that could play with anyone, i'd go with Greg Popovich

Phil is good at making everybody play to their strength in a system, and GP will take the strengths and fit that into a system

but I guess I'd be pretty stupid to turn down Popovich no matter who was on the roster

force_within
11-22-2014, 08:25 PM
the Spurs have big 3 who are role players too

Sanjay
11-22-2014, 08:30 PM
2 star players and depth for sure. You need a solid second unit to win. The Heat's big 3 were successful, but came up short against the 'definition of depth' Spurs (although San Antonio also has a 'big 3' there's was not as talented as Miami's). I do not think the coach matters significantly, the NBA is a player's league. If you have skilled players who play together, you will win (although a star coach helps with this, in the end it is up to the players).

celticsman2009
11-22-2014, 10:42 PM
Depends who your big 3 is... Cp3/Lebron/Duncan all day

This wouldn't work. Lebron is the PG. Lebron needs a pushover PG like Chalmers. I'd take a Lebron duncan and like noah or marc gasol. Some really good defensive elite big men.

albertajaysfan
11-23-2014, 02:36 AM
you cant have one without the other

I still think Miami could have been better if they didn't have players with such overlapping skills

but at the same time they could have used more depth at PG and PF/C

The Celtics won right away with KG and Ray Allen and should have won more if KG didnt get hurt.The Mavericks won with a big 1

gotta list the amazing Gary Payton Lakers and the Steve Nash Lakers, neither of these Big 4s worked out.

Build your team the right way with the strongest players in the best roles

I feel like the Celtics were a special case. They added all the right pieces together. Plus they had two other starters that fit perfectly around their big 3. Plus to top it off they had depth. Rondo and Perkins were a perfect compliment to Pierce/KG/Ray.

In response to the OP I have to go with two stars and depth. Unless the third star hangs his hat on elite defense. But generally those players aren't considered stars in this league.

koreancabbage
11-23-2014, 04:13 AM
big 2 + depth

good depth is usually players that have started on other teams in their career.

DillyDill
11-23-2014, 05:39 AM
Big 3 Alldaaayy everydaaaayyy give me the elite players...just imagine if Boston 3 were in their prime when formed. They would of dominated lg for a decade or even Miami

Raps18-19 Champ
11-23-2014, 07:29 AM
Whatever the Raptors are running with.

PurpleJesus
11-23-2014, 07:54 AM
Definitely 2. A big 3 that maximizes the talents of each is almost impossible. Kobe's lakers, MJ's bulls, much better TEAMS.

LBJ, Bosh, Wade

KG, Ray Allen, Pierce

TD, Parker, Ginobli

Goose17
11-23-2014, 08:48 AM
Whatever the Raptors are running with.

lol, definitely depth. Lowry and DeRozan... do they count as a big 2?

Chrisclover
11-23-2014, 11:26 AM
Depth easily gives you a good record but Big 3 can give you a championship banner if it works. So for big cities, they may not settle for the depth but rather go all in for a fantastic star group.

Jamiecballer
11-23-2014, 12:05 PM
LBJ, Bosh, Wade

KG, Ray Allen, Pierce

TD, Parker, Ginobli
The first of those 3 definitely does not qualify.

Chrisclover
11-25-2014, 08:42 PM
Whatever the Raptors are running with.
Wonder how long it will last.

Chrisclover
11-25-2014, 08:43 PM
The first of those 3 definitely does not qualify.
You are clearly singling out the “incompetence” of Bosh.

JEDean89
11-25-2014, 09:54 PM
Depends on the depth and the Big 3. Would I take Clevelands Big 3 over Toronto's whole team? Probably, but it's really close. But if that big 3 is 2010 Wade, Bosh and LBJ, I'm taking them. If it's KG, Pierce and Allen, I'm taking them. If It's Davis, CP3 and LBJ, I'm taking that big 3 everyday. I just think it's inevitable by having a Big 3 that some depth will occur. It's really hard to find C's, but every other position you can acquire guys. **** look at Houston's supporting cast outside their big 3. This is still a star driven league.

PowerHouse
11-25-2014, 10:15 PM
Am I wrong to assume most would go for the depth? Do you think the "big 3" thing will die out? I mean Lakers tried it and failed, Nash, Kobe, Dwight. Brooklyn tried it and failed, OKC have been trying it and so far failing... is it time for teams to reevaluate the "big 3" concept?


You always have to have depth if a championship is your goal.

The Lakers did indeed fail with Nash and D12 but had tremendous success with your Big 2 and depth option (Kobe/Gasol and some nice role players).

Out of curiousity who is the 3rd big three on OKC? I thought you had to at least be an all star or something to be granted "big".

Jeffy25
11-26-2014, 02:04 AM
Depth

I want a team that is strong in depth, and has fewer weaknesses, rather than a team that has three great players and several weaknesses throughout.

Chrisclover
11-26-2014, 08:23 AM
Depth

I want a team that is strong in depth, and has fewer weaknesses, rather than a team that has three great players and several weaknesses throughout.
Are there some teams with both Big 3 and depth? Spurs may be one but statistically, GDP dont seem like superstars.

Jeffy25
11-26-2014, 09:12 AM
Name some. It's not commonplace in recent history.

Great depth teams?

Chrisclover
11-26-2014, 09:37 AM
Great depth teams?
Oh, my mistake. I thought you were saying a perfect team with big 3 and incredible depth.

D-Leethal
11-26-2014, 10:56 AM
There is no right answer here. The best mix of guys will win whether its 2 or 3 he a honchos with the right mix of role players

D-Leethal
11-26-2014, 11:00 AM
One thing is for sure the head honchos need to compliment each other and their games need to be suitable to "dumb down" with success. Kevin Love and Bosh struggled to dumb down into role players but Bosh eventually learned how to thrive as a role player because of his unselfishness, shotmaking and defense.

Look how beautifully KG turned into third option role player and Ray Allen second option sniper. They had the proper skill sets to do that with tremendous success. Love and Kyrie dont. Wade and Bosh really didnt which is why you saw three HOFers underachieve (lets face it, 2 out of 4 was not good enough for a team around LeBron, Wade, Bosh th at only faced a worthy opponent once they reached the finals during that span).

D-Leethal
11-26-2014, 11:01 AM
If KG, Pierce and Allen joined at the respective ages Miami did, they would have done WAY more damage to the league and dominated at a whole nother level.

nycericanguy
11-26-2014, 11:22 AM
I think a better question would be a big 3 or 1 superstar with depth.

Teams have won again and again with 2 superstars... I think it's pretty clear that 2 stars with role players is a better formula. 3 stars is kind of overkill, especially if they all start. There are only so many shots and points to go around and most stars are offensive stars.

Jamiecballer
11-26-2014, 01:28 PM
You are clearly singling out the “incompetence” of Bosh.

no that's not what i meant by that at all. to me you can't have a big three if the fit is such that all 3 can't contribute at the level that made them "big" in the first place. it's a weak analogy for sure, but it's like a team signing 3 of the best relievers in baseball. only one of them will be able to be utilized in the same way they have been utilized in the past.

YAALREADYKNO
11-26-2014, 02:46 PM
2 stars and depth. 2 superstar players could share the ball I think but 3 not so much unless one is willing to sacrifice like how bosh did but it does depend on who your big 3 are though

Chrisclover
11-26-2014, 10:23 PM
I think a better question would be a big 3 or 1 superstar with depth.

Teams have won again and again with 2 superstars... I think it's pretty clear that 2 stars with role players is a better formula. 3 stars is kind of overkill, especially if they all start. There are only so many shots and points to go around and most stars are offensive stars.
Agreed.
Keeping a big 3 is sort of overkill and if it is not handled properly, the atmosphere in the locker room can get tense. Stars have egos, especially superstars. There are not many stars who are willing to sacrifice their shots like Bosh did.

Chrisclover
11-26-2014, 10:31 PM
If KG, Pierce and Allen joined at the respective ages Miami did, they would have done WAY more damage to the league and dominated at a whole nother level.
Why? Because they are selfless? But let's face it---young men have egos and they pursue money. It's not common to see a young star take initiative to take a pay cut just for the sake of a ring, which is just worth a few grands monetarily. The fact is, the vet min is around 1 million, which is hundreds times more than a ring's worth.
Veterans do not care much about the pay checks as the young men do because they have earned a lot. And a ring is a cherry on top to finish their careers.

Chrisclover
11-26-2014, 10:37 PM
If KG, Pierce and Allen joined at the respective ages Miami did, they would have done WAY more damage to the league and dominated at a whole nother level.
You can say that they could have won more rings or built a dynasty had they gathered earlier. But you never know. And in that case, they would have been categorized into the group of ring-chasers, just like Lebron, Wade and Bosh. And subsequently, people's respect towards them would not have been high.

IndyRealist
11-26-2014, 10:54 PM
The Pareto Principle states that 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people. In this case, 20% of a 15 man roster is your top 3 players. The problem is, that 20% of the remaining work still matters. Generally, in the playoffs with tightened rotations you need a strong top 6 with a couple of other subs who aren't going to hurt you. So if the choice is between 3 stars and a bunch of scrubs or 2 stars and 6ish strong players, I'm going with depth every time.

Chrisclover
11-26-2014, 11:49 PM
The Pareto Principle states that 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people. In this case, 20% of a 15 man roster is your top 3 players. The problem is, that 20% of the remaining work still matters. Generally, in the playoffs with tightened rotations you need a strong top 6 with a couple of other subs who aren't going to hurt you. So if the choice is between 3 stars and a bunch of scrubs or 2 stars and 6ish strong players, I'm going with depth every time.

Also it is safer. In the case of a team with big 3, the bulk of playing time is siphoned by the 3 alpha dogs most of the time, so if injuries happen, they will panic and stumble since the mediocre role players have never enjoyed enough playing time to hone their skills. On the other hand, it will be more likely for a dual-core team with capable supporters to handle the unexpected difficulties with aplomb. In other words, a better balanced team may enjoy a smoother schedule.
That said, I guess GMs are easily enticed by the instant impact a big 3 can bring and will do what it takes to pry another superstar to pair with the 2 they already have. The lack of depth can be tinkered with the acquisitions of a few seasoned veterans, which was what Miami did to attain 2 banners.

kobe4thewinbang
11-27-2014, 11:04 PM
Having a "BIG 3" is a more dependable plan because there is likely one scorer in the trio that will be efficient more often than not, whereas if you have an awesome bench, that bench can still shoot like crap and not help at all. It just depends on every game, really. Best example would be the Spurs in the finals last year, but they go cold sometimes. Having a "BIG 3" can help you out of those situations. Overall, I would say a bench is a better investment but you need at least two stars. If James Harden had shown up against the Heat in the finals, OKC might've won. And if OKC had a better bench aside from Reggie Jackson, they would have won a title by now.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
11-28-2014, 11:55 AM
Depends on the big 3 costs. Are they the big max contract? Or they like Cassell's $6m per and Big Dog/Ray Allen $9m to $10m per for a long time while tons of depth like Tim Thomas and Michael Redd and Scott Williams off of the bench? Big 3 is kinda risky when players are on the big max deals. Also have to be together before their prime.

D-Leethal
11-28-2014, 12:23 PM
Why? Because they are selfless? But let's face it---young men have egos and they pursue money. It's not common to see a young star take initiative to take a pay cut just for the sake of a ring, which is just worth a few grands monetarily. The fact is, the vet min is around 1 million, which is hundreds times more than a ring's worth.
Veterans do not care much about the pay checks as the young men do because they have earned a lot. And a ring is a cherry on top to finish their careers.

Because their games were tailored made for each other, thats why, and you saw that when they joined forces all post-30 and won 66 games and played ball like they have been playing together since high school. If they were all in their primes they would have seriously challenged the Bulls 72 wins if you ask me. A guy like KG is the perfect guy for a "third star". Defensive ace, knock down shooter, brings intangible play you typically only get out of role players and is all about winning. I think for a true "Big 3" you need a guy like that involved because three offensive stars don't seem to mold quite as well. An offensive star that doesn't bring the D or intangibles watering his game down to role player status doesn't tend to translate to success.

IndyRealist
11-28-2014, 12:58 PM
Depends on the big 3 costs. Are they the big max contract? Or they like Cassell's $6m per and Big Dog/Ray Allen $9m to $10m per for a long time while tons of depth like Tim Thomas and Michael Redd and Scott Williams off of the bench? Big 3 is kinda risky when players are on the big max deals. Also have to be together before their prime.

That was a LONG time ago. Prices have inflated and the cap rules are very different.

Chrisclover
11-28-2014, 08:24 PM
Because their games were tailored made for each other, thats why, and you saw that when they joined forces all post-30 and won 66 games and played ball like they have been playing together since high school. If they were all in their primes they would have seriously challenged the Bulls 72 wins if you ask me. A guy like KG is the perfect guy for a "third star". Defensive ace, knock down shooter, brings intangible play you typically only get out of role players and is all about winning. I think for a true "Big 3" you need a guy like that involved because three offensive stars don't seem to mold quite as well. An offensive star that doesn't bring the D or intangibles watering his game down to role player status doesn't tend to translate to success.
Their regular season record might be impressive but you might have ignored the fact that they sort of “struggled” in the playoffs. IIRC, it took them 7 games to get passed the first round. Not saying that they were weak, but they were just not athletic enough to enjoy a cakewalk like the 2014 Lakers did(except the unexpected loss in the finals)

TrueFan420
11-28-2014, 09:56 PM
Because their games were tailored made for each other, thats why, and you saw that when they joined forces all post-30 and won 66 games and played ball like they have been playing together since high school. If they were all in their primes they would have seriously challenged the Bulls 72 wins if you ask me. A guy like KG is the perfect guy for a "third star". Defensive ace, knock down shooter, brings intangible play you typically only get out of role players and is all about winning. I think for a true "Big 3" you need a guy like that involved because three offensive stars don't seem to mold quite as well. An offensive star that doesn't bring the D or intangibles watering his game down to role player status doesn't tend to translate to success.
You're also forgetting that Ray Allen was fantastic with his off the ball movement. Which helped greatly as well.

slashsnake
11-29-2014, 02:18 AM
I'd go big 3. If one leaves you can go 2 and depth (see the heat now) and can still be a destination for good coaches/players. If you are 2 and depth and lose one of the two, it's all about how much longer is that other star going to be there before leaving rather than who else will come in.

Maybe not if I was NY or LA, where you can get the best coaches for that depth, and great players at times for less than market value, or have your pick of the depth at times.

Sure there's a lot of success stories for 2 and depth because it is so tough to get 3 superstars under the cap but there's PILES of failures out there.

Walker and Pierce get forgotten Pierce, Garnett, and Allen don't even if they didn't win it all.

It isn't often you can get a big three but when you do it's a failure if you don't win a ring. Rockets, Knicks, Warriors, Blazers, Thunder, Clippers.. Big 2's with depth are everywhere of course they win a lot. We'll remember the one that wins, the other half dozen will fade.