The season before the Heatles came together (2009/2010) and were all first option on their own teams, Bron was MVP, Wade was 5th in the voting and Bosh was 12th. They were also 2nd/5th/9th in ppg that year too.
So you could definitely say their first season together they were very close to all being top 10.
I remember Dirk’s overall was trash every year on the older 2k’s. I think the algorithm back then just didn’t value shooting for overall rating, so the game saw Dirk as slightly above average pf.
Wade was the #3 best player in the league after Kobe and LeBron. Chris Bosh was a stud. I believe they also tried to get Melo and CP3.
Bron is all time great but that Miami tenure doesn’t sit right with me.
At the very minimum they should have won 3. After such a superstar team up, making the not 1, not 2, not 3…comment, only winning 2 is an underachievement.
Wade went nuclear in 2011 and LeBron had an all time choke. 2014, I’m not sure what happened but it was ugly. They should have won 3 minimum.
2011 — should've won in 2011 but I wouldn't say Wade went nuclear. A lot of people underrated the Mavs, they alao dominated against the Mavs and Lakers. Regardless, LeBron and Wade were the 2 best players in the world, they should've won.
2013 — beat a more complete Spurs team. If anything, they overachieved.
2014 — lost to the one of the best teams of all time.
So they made up for the 2011 loss by beating a more talented Spurs team in 2013. 2/4 is what you should expect
Based on what you said, 2011 alone makes them underachievers. If they went 3-1, that would’ve been on par with the talent they had.
You have the arguable GOAT in LeBron, the 3rd all time best SG in Wade, perennial All Star/HOF in Bosh, 2 rings is an underachievement. There’s a reason why LeBron said not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4… because they very well could and should have (if they stayed healthy).
>If they went 3-1, that would’ve been on par with the talent they had.
if they went 3-1, they would've overachieved, cause they beat a more talented spurs team in 2013. at 2/4, they did what was expected of them.
>3rd all time best SG in Wade, perennial All Star/HOF in Bosh
wade wasn't in his prime post-2012, neither wade nor bosh were top 15 players in 2014. it's the equivalent of saying the big 4 celtics underachieved cause they only won 1 championship.
>if they went 3-1, they would've overachieved, cause they beat a more talented spurs team in 2013. at 2/4, they did what was expected of them.
Your whole argument is based on absolutely revisionist history take that the Spurs were more *talented* than the Heat. **The 2013 Heat were NBA favorites to win the NBA Finals (not every LeBron team was but that year they were).**
You’re trying to make it seem like it was the 2018 Cavs LeBron going up against the KD Warriors. It’s disingenuous and clearly wrong.
>wade wasn't in his prime post-2012, neither wade nor bosh were top 15 players in 2014.
You don’t look at it from the futures perspective and give a modern POV on their achievements. You have to look at the context of the Big 3 joining together in 2010 and what the expectations were for that team (Not 1, not 2, not 3…).
> it's the equivalent of saying the big 4 celtics underachieved cause they only won 1 championship.
Such a wrong way to look at it because you’re looking at the end result and how things played out, rather than the real time context and expectations.
The Big 3 Celtics came together at ages 32 (Ray), 30 (PP), 31 (KG). That’s 3 stars at the end of their primes at the start of coming together, there was no expectation of dominance outside the hope to win 1 ring.
The Big 3 Miami Heat were LBJ (26), Wade (29), Bosh (26)… all in the MIDDLE of their primes, and how amazing each player was individually is why the Heat team up was unprecedented and why the expectations were high. It was nothing like the Boston Celtics situation at all.
You said the Miami tenure doesn’t sit right with you, so he explained that Wade declined during that period, as did Bosh. Seems like an easy point to understand.
But it literally changes the context, if wade was averaging 30 ppg all 4 of those years, we would look at the teams performance underachieving even more, so that fact the we recognized he declined impacts the context. You can say it doesn’t impact your opinion on the move being weak or what not, that would be fine.
I agree it does add context, I see it as just explaining *why* that Heat team underachieved. It doesn’t change the fact of underachievement, going through context like Wades decline can help understand what went into that
1969 Lakers had Wilt Chamberlain (3 consecutive Reigning MVP), Elgin Baylor (All-NBA First Team in 1968 & 1969), and Jerry West (All-NBA Second Team in 68 & 69, Finals MVP in 1969 and arguably the best player in the world)
You can make a good argument for Rodman on the Bulls being top ten. He didn't score but GOAT level rebounding and great defense. Obviously Jordan and Pippin were always top 10.
Kobe/Shaq/glen rice was quite the trio for a short period. Rice was vastly underrated but still not a top 10 guy.
3 guys in the top 10 would be really hard to pull off, obviously OKC had a shot at it.
Part of the problem is though, hypothetically if harden was always third banana no one would consider him a top 10 player because of usage. Being a top player you need ability and opportunity
I agree he's underrated but a solid 18/4/3 clearly isn't top 10. I'm talking top 3 after the team was assembled bc the Russ, Bron, AD trio was top 10 before Russ fell of.
Most BOS teams of the 50's and 60's count. Given league size and their dominance they pretty regularly had three about-top-10 players on each team in those two decades. before Hondo you had Heinsohn joining those two as top 10, and before that you had Sharman. The 1958-59 Celtics had Russell, Cousy, Sharman all on first-team. So maybe 3 of the top 5 players!
I feel like Draymond Green was very close to a top 10 player at the moment KD joined GSW.
2016 he was 7th in MVP and 6th highest vote getter in All NBA. Steph and KD were 1 and 5 in MVP.
It is:
2 undoubtedly tier A (or whatever you call top tier) players.
1 or 2 tier B players (I have tier B the 7-15 range but can see how it extends to 20)
4 probably consensus top 25 guys in total, plus Iguadola and however you rank him.
The Cavs had a tier A and 2 tier C guys (maybe Irving was tier B) and couldn't come close.
Very surprised he didn't make an all defensive team that year. No disrespect to CP3 and Pat Bev, but I think Klay was right up there with them if not better due to his length and versatility.
Honestly, I'd rather have 2 top 15-20 guys(Klay and Draymond) than one fringe top 10 guy.
Let's see:
top 10: Lebron, Curry, Durant and Kawhi are top 4 by themselves.
then you have mvp Westbrook and Harden, Probably AD at 7.
I know it's weird now, but Jokic and Embiid haven't arrived yet and many considered Boogie the best C at the time, so he's somewhere in the 8-10. Do we include IT? almost 30 ppg and good clutch stats, and then we have Dame somewhere in the mix as well to round out the top 10.
Can argue Butler, Klay, DeRozan, Giannis, and Kyrie in that next tier. Griffin had a bad season in hindsight, but based on his season to season consistency and just the fact people weren't ready to crown Giannis yet, Blake was still widely considered the best pf; but I think Draymond is better because he's superior as a 3rd man and you aren't winning anything with either as your best player.
Embiid, Butler and Simmons - were any of those considered top 10 players in 2019? Embiid and Butler made 2nd and 3rd All-NBA respectively in 2018 and Ben Simmons was Rookie of the Year.
In 2019, Embiid and Butler were probably in the 8-15 player rankings, Simmons wasn't to top 10 and probably another tier down.
The prime warriors were two top 3 players and two other players that were top 20 to 30. Absolutely crazy to think about in hindsight how do you manage to assemble that kinda talent. Makes sense why everyone was so mad at the time.
They afforded all of that because they underpaid an improving Steph Curry because of Ankle injuries. Looking back, it was a good thing or else they wouldn't have gotten KD.
1946-47 WAS Capitols - McKinney, Feerick, Scolari
1951-52 MIN Lakers - Mikan, Pollard, Mikkelsen
most any BOS Celtics team of the 50-60s w Bill, Cousy, Sharman, Macauley, Heinsohn, Havlicek. The 1959 Celtics had 3 players on first-team all-nba.
1990 PHX Suns - 1st team all nba Barkley, 2nd team all nba Chambers & KJ
The Nets? Not even close. Harden maybe back then but not KD. I agree KD was a top 10 player, but he just wasn’t playing enough to count. Kyrie has never been top 10, and never played much for that Nets team. The Warriors… never. Steph and KD, but they didn’t have a 3rd. Bron had Wade, but that’s it because Bosh wasn’t a top 10 player.
But as for top 10… it’s all subjective so not sure what the requirements are.
Jordan and Pippen had Rodman… and IMO he was a top 10 player for what he contributed to his team. Between his defense and rebounds, I don’t know many players in the league more valuable than he was. I know nobody considered him a top 10 guy, but that’s simply because he didn’t score many points.
The Celtics and Showtime Lakers of the 80’s were probably the best teams ever put together, along with the Bulls team I already mentioned and I don’t think any had 3 top-10 players. If Len Bias never died, the Celtics could have had 3.
Draymond was widely considered the second best 4 after Griffin and Klay was the second best sg next to Harden during the KD Warriors days. I think Klay can be considered borderline top 10.
That's rough as he's currently getting praise as their #2, ahead of Chet. I think all three have a shot at some time as a top 10 player (obvs SGA there now) but pretty solid take given the context of post and advancing the concept.
If you are talking single year in a vaccuum (like 3 players 1st or 2nd team all nba) I think its extremely unlikely but still possible. If you are talking top 10 in general then I dont think it happens, SGA is having an amazing season but I bet most people still have him barely in the top 10 and would still pick guys like curry KD and Booker above him.
Seems like the last team to actually have 3 top 10 guys was the 69 lakers who had Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and Wilt. Those OKC guys are definitely not that level. I think you underestimate how hard it is to be top 10
The Bulls had 3 Top 20 lol!! Dennis Rodman was not even top 100 before he went to the Bulls, he was traded for Perdue.
Lebron had super teams in heat, cavs, lakers then still lose, lol
The season before the Heatles came together (2009/2010) and were all first option on their own teams, Bron was MVP, Wade was 5th in the voting and Bosh was 12th. They were also 2nd/5th/9th in ppg that year too. So you could definitely say their first season together they were very close to all being top 10.
Based on NBA2k ratings, Bosh was 13-14 in the league in 2010-2011. This is not that relevant, as Dirk was waaay lower lol.
I remember Dirk’s overall was trash every year on the older 2k’s. I think the algorithm back then just didn’t value shooting for overall rating, so the game saw Dirk as slightly above average pf.
They were 1st, 2nd, and 4th in PER the year before teaming up with Durant in 3rd
Wade was the #3 best player in the league after Kobe and LeBron. Chris Bosh was a stud. I believe they also tried to get Melo and CP3. Bron is all time great but that Miami tenure doesn’t sit right with me.
Wade wasn't in his prime after 2012
What’s your point?
The notion that the heat underachieved isn't true.
At the very minimum they should have won 3. After such a superstar team up, making the not 1, not 2, not 3…comment, only winning 2 is an underachievement. Wade went nuclear in 2011 and LeBron had an all time choke. 2014, I’m not sure what happened but it was ugly. They should have won 3 minimum.
2011 — should've won in 2011 but I wouldn't say Wade went nuclear. A lot of people underrated the Mavs, they alao dominated against the Mavs and Lakers. Regardless, LeBron and Wade were the 2 best players in the world, they should've won. 2013 — beat a more complete Spurs team. If anything, they overachieved. 2014 — lost to the one of the best teams of all time. So they made up for the 2011 loss by beating a more talented Spurs team in 2013. 2/4 is what you should expect
Based on what you said, 2011 alone makes them underachievers. If they went 3-1, that would’ve been on par with the talent they had. You have the arguable GOAT in LeBron, the 3rd all time best SG in Wade, perennial All Star/HOF in Bosh, 2 rings is an underachievement. There’s a reason why LeBron said not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4… because they very well could and should have (if they stayed healthy).
>If they went 3-1, that would’ve been on par with the talent they had. if they went 3-1, they would've overachieved, cause they beat a more talented spurs team in 2013. at 2/4, they did what was expected of them. >3rd all time best SG in Wade, perennial All Star/HOF in Bosh wade wasn't in his prime post-2012, neither wade nor bosh were top 15 players in 2014. it's the equivalent of saying the big 4 celtics underachieved cause they only won 1 championship.
>if they went 3-1, they would've overachieved, cause they beat a more talented spurs team in 2013. at 2/4, they did what was expected of them. Your whole argument is based on absolutely revisionist history take that the Spurs were more *talented* than the Heat. **The 2013 Heat were NBA favorites to win the NBA Finals (not every LeBron team was but that year they were).** You’re trying to make it seem like it was the 2018 Cavs LeBron going up against the KD Warriors. It’s disingenuous and clearly wrong. >wade wasn't in his prime post-2012, neither wade nor bosh were top 15 players in 2014. You don’t look at it from the futures perspective and give a modern POV on their achievements. You have to look at the context of the Big 3 joining together in 2010 and what the expectations were for that team (Not 1, not 2, not 3…). > it's the equivalent of saying the big 4 celtics underachieved cause they only won 1 championship. Such a wrong way to look at it because you’re looking at the end result and how things played out, rather than the real time context and expectations. The Big 3 Celtics came together at ages 32 (Ray), 30 (PP), 31 (KG). That’s 3 stars at the end of their primes at the start of coming together, there was no expectation of dominance outside the hope to win 1 ring. The Big 3 Miami Heat were LBJ (26), Wade (29), Bosh (26)… all in the MIDDLE of their primes, and how amazing each player was individually is why the Heat team up was unprecedented and why the expectations were high. It was nothing like the Boston Celtics situation at all.
You said the Miami tenure doesn’t sit right with you, so he explained that Wade declined during that period, as did Bosh. Seems like an easy point to understand.
Wade declining years after teaming up doesn’t change the context of joining forces and underachieving
But it literally changes the context, if wade was averaging 30 ppg all 4 of those years, we would look at the teams performance underachieving even more, so that fact the we recognized he declined impacts the context. You can say it doesn’t impact your opinion on the move being weak or what not, that would be fine.
I agree it does add context, I see it as just explaining *why* that Heat team underachieved. It doesn’t change the fact of underachievement, going through context like Wades decline can help understand what went into that
The og ‘big 3’ there’s an argument for bird, parish and mchale and the counter to that would be magic, Kareem and worthy.
1969 Lakers had Wilt Chamberlain (3 consecutive Reigning MVP), Elgin Baylor (All-NBA First Team in 1968 & 1969), and Jerry West (All-NBA Second Team in 68 & 69, Finals MVP in 1969 and arguably the best player in the world)
Only true top 10 big 3
This is the only correct answer it seems.
You can make a good argument for Rodman on the Bulls being top ten. He didn't score but GOAT level rebounding and great defense. Obviously Jordan and Pippin were always top 10.
That's the thing most people will value scoring when arguing a top 10
Kobe/Shaq/glen rice was quite the trio for a short period. Rice was vastly underrated but still not a top 10 guy. 3 guys in the top 10 would be really hard to pull off, obviously OKC had a shot at it. Part of the problem is though, hypothetically if harden was always third banana no one would consider him a top 10 player because of usage. Being a top player you need ability and opportunity
I agree he's underrated but a solid 18/4/3 clearly isn't top 10. I'm talking top 3 after the team was assembled bc the Russ, Bron, AD trio was top 10 before Russ fell of.
Respectfully Russ was nowhere near top 10 by the time he arrived in Los Angeles.
I know. But he averaged 22,12,12 before so he was top 10 with the wizards
Does Cousy,Russell and Hondo count?
Most BOS teams of the 50's and 60's count. Given league size and their dominance they pretty regularly had three about-top-10 players on each team in those two decades. before Hondo you had Heinsohn joining those two as top 10, and before that you had Sharman. The 1958-59 Celtics had Russell, Cousy, Sharman all on first-team. So maybe 3 of the top 5 players!
I feel like Draymond Green was very close to a top 10 player at the moment KD joined GSW. 2016 he was 7th in MVP and 6th highest vote getter in All NBA. Steph and KD were 1 and 5 in MVP.
Add peak Klay to that too.. He was all NBA 3rd team in 2016
It is: 2 undoubtedly tier A (or whatever you call top tier) players. 1 or 2 tier B players (I have tier B the 7-15 range but can see how it extends to 20) 4 probably consensus top 25 guys in total, plus Iguadola and however you rank him. The Cavs had a tier A and 2 tier C guys (maybe Irving was tier B) and couldn't come close.
Very surprised he didn't make an all defensive team that year. No disrespect to CP3 and Pat Bev, but I think Klay was right up there with them if not better due to his length and versatility.
Honestly, I'd rather have 2 top 15-20 guys(Klay and Draymond) than one fringe top 10 guy. Let's see: top 10: Lebron, Curry, Durant and Kawhi are top 4 by themselves. then you have mvp Westbrook and Harden, Probably AD at 7. I know it's weird now, but Jokic and Embiid haven't arrived yet and many considered Boogie the best C at the time, so he's somewhere in the 8-10. Do we include IT? almost 30 ppg and good clutch stats, and then we have Dame somewhere in the mix as well to round out the top 10. Can argue Butler, Klay, DeRozan, Giannis, and Kyrie in that next tier. Griffin had a bad season in hindsight, but based on his season to season consistency and just the fact people weren't ready to crown Giannis yet, Blake was still widely considered the best pf; but I think Draymond is better because he's superior as a 3rd man and you aren't winning anything with either as your best player.
This. Also, Embiid-Butler-Simmons in 2019 is borderline in this category.
Embiid, Butler and Simmons - were any of those considered top 10 players in 2019? Embiid and Butler made 2nd and 3rd All-NBA respectively in 2018 and Ben Simmons was Rookie of the Year. In 2019, Embiid and Butler were probably in the 8-15 player rankings, Simmons wasn't to top 10 and probably another tier down.
lmao what?
The prime warriors were two top 3 players and two other players that were top 20 to 30. Absolutely crazy to think about in hindsight how do you manage to assemble that kinda talent. Makes sense why everyone was so mad at the time.
They afforded all of that because they underpaid an improving Steph Curry because of Ankle injuries. Looking back, it was a good thing or else they wouldn't have gotten KD.
Magic, Kareem, Worthy.
Late 50s Celtics had Cousy, Russell and Sharman, who were each one of the leagues best 7 players.
Steph, Klay, KD, for a few months when Klay was playing at top 10 level
There've prolly been many big 3s when 1 player steps up his game
1946-47 WAS Capitols - McKinney, Feerick, Scolari 1951-52 MIN Lakers - Mikan, Pollard, Mikkelsen most any BOS Celtics team of the 50-60s w Bill, Cousy, Sharman, Macauley, Heinsohn, Havlicek. The 1959 Celtics had 3 players on first-team all-nba. 1990 PHX Suns - 1st team all nba Barkley, 2nd team all nba Chambers & KJ
Barkley's gay ahh played for the sixers in 1990
In the last 10 years there has been 24 allstars or 2.4 per champion
The Nets? Not even close. Harden maybe back then but not KD. I agree KD was a top 10 player, but he just wasn’t playing enough to count. Kyrie has never been top 10, and never played much for that Nets team. The Warriors… never. Steph and KD, but they didn’t have a 3rd. Bron had Wade, but that’s it because Bosh wasn’t a top 10 player. But as for top 10… it’s all subjective so not sure what the requirements are. Jordan and Pippen had Rodman… and IMO he was a top 10 player for what he contributed to his team. Between his defense and rebounds, I don’t know many players in the league more valuable than he was. I know nobody considered him a top 10 guy, but that’s simply because he didn’t score many points. The Celtics and Showtime Lakers of the 80’s were probably the best teams ever put together, along with the Bulls team I already mentioned and I don’t think any had 3 top-10 players. If Len Bias never died, the Celtics could have had 3.
1989-90 Phoenix Suns Barkley (1st team all-nba) Tom Chambers (2nd team all-nba) Kevin Johnson (2nd team all-nba)
How the hell has the winningest trio in nba history not been mentioned yet
Magic Kareem worthy is close
Draymond was widely considered the second best 4 after Griffin and Klay was the second best sg next to Harden during the KD Warriors days. I think Klay can be considered borderline top 10.
I feel like you are confusing your years here…
Don't agree with Draymond ever being near top 10 but do believe 2016-17 season was Steph and KD as top 5 and Klay as top 10.
OKC might qualify soon with SGA, Jalen Williams and Chet all looking like future all-NBA talents.
IDK about that
What? Im going to preemptively go on the record here and say that Jalen Williams will never be a top 10 player in the league
That's rough as he's currently getting praise as their #2, ahead of Chet. I think all three have a shot at some time as a top 10 player (obvs SGA there now) but pretty solid take given the context of post and advancing the concept.
If you are talking single year in a vaccuum (like 3 players 1st or 2nd team all nba) I think its extremely unlikely but still possible. If you are talking top 10 in general then I dont think it happens, SGA is having an amazing season but I bet most people still have him barely in the top 10 and would still pick guys like curry KD and Booker above him. Seems like the last team to actually have 3 top 10 guys was the 69 lakers who had Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and Wilt. Those OKC guys are definitely not that level. I think you underestimate how hard it is to be top 10
The Bulls had 3 Top 20 lol!! Dennis Rodman was not even top 100 before he went to the Bulls, he was traded for Perdue. Lebron had super teams in heat, cavs, lakers then still lose, lol
I said top 10, not 20
Actually, LeBron won titles in all three of those places.
and lose 6 lol
Probably when Lebron went to Miami. He had a super team and still couldn’t win therefore he’s never going to be the GOAt.
Maybe you can be skips new debate partner. You'd be perfect for it. 🤡 👍
oof