RealGM

Is it time to start thinking about the GSW big 3 in similar terms to the Spurs big 3? Obviously longevity isn't there atm, but how do they stack up otherwise?

the big difference in those trios is that duncan, ginobili and parker all peaked at different periods while warriors trio all mostly shared their primes

i imagine that if parker, duncan amd ginobili peaked at the same time and then got peak kawhi for 3 seasons alongside that they could have done even mpre damage than they did

interestingly enough ginobili and draymond share the distinction of being players with superstar impact metrics but with elite role player reputations

i like duncan over curry as i think he was more resilient in the post season (he was hakeem 2.0 in increasing his production without losing efficiency) but both had all-time great impact (impact metrics have them as two of the best ever in that regard up there with anyone sans maybe peak james)

i may honestly prefer what parker brings to the table over klay who i am not too high on

i think parker and klay are in such different ends of the portability ideal that most people would pick klay (big, spacing, off ball) over parker (ball dominant, small, weak spacing) but i am underwhelmed by klay evidence of impact

parker skillset looks less sexy but i may prefer him regardless

may pick draynond over ginobili as i feel his prime has been more consistent play and health wise

overall is close as spurs trio played together for longer while warriors trio peaked at the same time but i prefer the spurs trio individually

One real superstar (Curry/Duncan), high impact player who gets a bit overlooked at times (Green/Manu) and another All-Star who gets overrated by virtue of playing next to the other two guys (Klay/Parker). I can see it.

Well, 2005-07 Spurs vs 2015-17 Warriors trios is interesting talk indeed. Duncan wasn't in his peak form anymore, but he was still ATG.

I don't think it's too soon! This comparison has also been in my mind as Golden State solidifies itself as the iconic trio who stuck together on the team that drafted them of this generation.

falcolombardi already beat me to most of my takes in terms of comparing the players in the trio, and how the Dubs had parallel primes while the Spurs peaked at 3 different times.

I like the semi-parallel of Durant's interruption and Kawhi's rise. For a few seasons, they had a 4th-star grabbing the finals MVPs, filling a major hole on the wing, and making their team pretty unbeatable.

Spurs still have my vote though, if only for health. Tony Parker never missed 2 full seasons with a torn acl and ruptured Achilles, and Tim Duncan never broke his hand at the same time. I have a hard time picturing the Spurs ever missing the playoffs with a healthy Tim Duncan. Tim Duncan had some less healthy seasons, and Manu missed half the season and the playoffs in 2009.

The Spurs Big 3 peaking at different times is a really interesting detail that isn't often acknowledged. The Duncan detractors point out that he was "always" surrounded by great teammates, but gloss over the fact that they were never great at the same time (all three never made the All Star team in the same season). The different trajectories allowed them to stay good for longer than just about any core in NBA history, but it also meant that no individual Spurs team reached the GOAT team conversation.

That 2016 Warriors team is better than any Big 3 Spurs team IMO, but as OP acknowledged the longevity for the Spurs Big 3 is clearly superior. I understand the Durant/Kawhi comparison, but the 2014 version of Kawhi that won FMVP is closer to 2022 Wiggins than 2017/2018 KD. I think Duncan vs. Curry is a solid debate and I think of Parker, Ginobili, Draymond and Klay as all roughly the same caliber of player. If the Warriors win another title and stay competitive for a few more years it might be even, but I'll take the Spurs Big 3 until then.