The Big Three: Does the Philosophy Work in Today's NBA?

Specific events are always mentioned in history classes as turning points: Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire, The Magna Carta, the Battle of Stalingrad, LeBron James' 'The Decision' special on ESPN. Wait---LeBron James' 'The Decision' special on ESPN? Yes, you read that right. Why is that moment in the same league as the Magna Carta? The assembling of the Miami Heat’s ‘Big Three’, in 2010, was a major turning point by popularizing the concept of a team with three bona fide superstars, which quickly caught on as a practiced philosophy and ushered in the Superteam era, in my opinion. (I define a superteam team to be one assembled primarily through free agency). Plus, the NBA is equally as important as any religion, government, or war, in case you didn’t know. Since that day when LeBron took his talents to South Beach, Big Threes have been formed and broken, and some teams have bought into the system more eagerly and confidently than others. Most recently, LeBron and his talents went to Cleveland (it just doesn’t have the same ring to it does it?), along with brilliant big man Kevin Love, to start a big three with Kyrie Irving, the young point guard already in Cleveland. What has followed has not been the performance expected of a team that was projected to be an Eastern Conference and NBA Finals contender. Of course, the season is still young and the Cavs are currently on a three-game win streak after dropping to 5-7, but their disorganized play and ‘fragile’ quality, as James called it, begs concern. Is the Big Three method worth the investment in the NBA today?

            The Big Three that started it all, Miami’s core of James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh from 2010-2014, saw plenty of success. They went to the NBA Finals every one of those years, winning two. Obviously, the assembly of star power took the team far, but hindered them in three crucial areas: starting the 2010 season, a lack of a good supporting cast, and no future guarantee. Pretty much every superteam had struggled out of the gate, for obvious reasons. Most of the free agent talent coming in is used to being the top dog on their team, so obviously with three major stars, there is some confusion and hesitation initially, something the Cavaliers currently struggle with and the Heat had issues with as well. With so much talent, time is needed to effectively blend playing styles and overcome initial awkwardness. For major markets like Los Angeles or New York, patience is not a practiced virtue, and this adjustment period can be too much for fans or front offices to handle. Secondly, superteams are wildly expensive to assemble. With so much money being spent on stars, there is little room to add a quality supporting cast. Miami struggled with this problem all four years, going through at least four different starting backcourt mates for Wade and about another four different starting frontcourt mates for Bosh. Miami was forced to get older, washed-up players like Mike Miller, or use young, and frankly mediocre players such as Mario Chalmers. The disparity of talent hindered the Heat against the two teams they lost the Finals to: the well-balanced 2010-2011 Mavericks and the talented, ball-sharing 2013-2014 Spurs. Lastly, with assembled talent there’s a lesser guarantee for the future, as exhibited by LeBron’s departure following the Heat’s embarrassing play in the 2014 Finals.

While the Heat had tons of fans during the days when they had Big Three, their interest has declined without LeBron. With a team that builds itself from the ground up, like current powerhouses San Antonio and Oklahoma City (once Durant returns) and teams recently becoming elite like Golden State and Washington. The players on those teams feel more personal to the fans and the city, as they have endured bad times and stuck with the team anyway. Especially for a franchise like San Antonio, who has kept the same core of players for nearly 15 years, the loyalty shown results in a feel-good quality for both the team and the fans. In the NBA of yore, players would stick with the team that drafted them for their whole careers much more often, so players staying put nowadays feels like a refreshing novelty act. With the money becoming an increasingly more influential factor to players in terms of whether to go to a new team, players who don’t leave are applauded for staying true, while those that leave seeking more money are criticized for selling out.

Superteams have had varying levels of success this decade. Obviously the Heat had a great run while it lasted, but teams like the 2012-2013 Lakers (Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, Steve Nash) and the 2011-2013 Knicks (Carmelo Anthony, Tyson Chandler, Amar’e Stoudemire) and epically failed trying to use the model. So what went wrong? For starters, a smart coach is needed to balance all of the egos and talent. Mike D’Antoni and Mike Woodson were not effective in that regard. Secondly, the players can’t be old. That’s just a fact that’s been proven by the Lakers superteam, as Steve Nash played a grand total of 65 games in three years. The positioning has to work as well, something the Knicks struggled with, as all of their big three were primarily post players. Their backcourt always struggled, as it was hard to afford guards with three stars, including the incredibly pricey Anthony, on the payroll. Also with the positioning, Chandler was a defensive specialist who didn’t contribute that much on offense, and Anthony is a scoring machine but a liability on defense. When either paired with Stoudemire, it didn’t go too well.

If you’re going to assemble a superteam, the Heat model of three players in their prime who make sense together on the court, with a smart and effective coach to orchestrate the system, it can work. This is possible primarily for large-market teams, and in the most demand for those markets as well. As a GM of a large-market team, I would say assembling a superteam is acceptable, and maybe even encouraged if you do it right. However, superteams tend to disband quickly, so for smaller markets or GMs looking for a dynasty and longevity of success, building from the ground up, with added veteran pieces as needed, is the most effective model.