RealGM

Would you rather have a core of Lebron/KG or CP3/Kawhi/Ewing?

Assumptions:

Current era
Everyone at their peak
Remainder of each roster is filled out with average players

Edit: Assume good health and that this is for a 3 year period.

The first duo. How many man games lost will the trio have by their careers end

If all healthy like you say, i’ll take the 3 superstars over 2 in this case.

For one season at their peaks CP3/Kawhi/Ewing. Build a team Lebron/KG.

No way is the trio losing at their peaks except maybe against the 17 Warriors. LeBron/KG could be beaten but they contend as probably favorites every year for like 10-12 years straight. The trio long term has way too many health issues.

If LeBron/KG played on 2000s Minnesota they could probably manage to not win a single title. I'd like a glimpse into that parallel universe.

I'd take them in most cases, still.

Jaivl wrote:If LeBron/KG played on 2000s Minnesota they could probably manage to not win a single title. I'd like a glimpse into that parallel universe.

I'd take them in most cases, still.

pairing a one-man 66 win guy with a well-fitting one man 57-win guy seems hard to mess up tbh, even for Minesotta

OhayoKD wrote:pairing a one-man 66 win guy with a well-fitting one man 57-win guy seems hard to mess up tbh, even for Minesotta

When KG was a one man team they weren't winning 57 games.

I’ll take the former. LeBron/KG as a 1-2 punch on both ends + role players is deadly. You get an ATG peak/prime w/ ATG impact, plus longevity. Plus you have more salary to spread for role players.

With the trio, they’re great obviously, but less flexibility with filling out the rest of the roster.

Lost92Bricks wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:pairing a one-man 66 win guy with a well-fitting one man 57-win guy seems hard to mess up tbh, even for Minesotta

When KG was a one man team they weren't winning 57 games.

TWolves won 58 games in 2004.

Lebron/garnett is too perfect of a pairing to build around

But 3 superstars is a tough thingh to turn away

homecourtloss wrote:

Lost92Bricks wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:pairing a one-man 66 win guy with a well-fitting one man 57-win guy seems hard to mess up tbh, even for Minesotta

When KG was a one man team they weren't winning 57 games.

TWolves won 58 games in 2004.

Not to assume this was supporting the original post, but probably providing context. That being stated ...

So I think the thing there is no "one man" or "one man team" wins 66 or 57 games. I guess it's not well established what a "zero man team" wins, but then that's part of the probalem with the terminology with that phrasing in the first place. Certainly the zero man team could be '93 Mavs and that would mean a very substantial turn around to get to 66 or 57 wins...

Off reversing an SRS pythag wins posted on this board (I think originally from Ben Taylor) getting to 66 win level would be circa +10 SRS, 57 circa 5.66. With the Mavs at -13.96 that would require circa 20 to 25 SRS turnaround and no player does that. The Mavs would be and extreme example but as I say that merely illustrates further problems with the terminology.

Both those guys are huge impact players of course, as well as legends of the game, but it does them no good to pretend that, for instance, '04 Cassell is a nobody contributing nothing.

homecourtloss wrote:TWolves won 58 games in 2004.

...because they acquired Sam Cassell.

Since you said good health and peak I would take the 2nd trio. The only question was CP3 and Kawhi being healthy or not.

3 beats 2 even though the best 2 players are the 2.

Chris Paul will do more to get the most out of his average teammates than LeBron will to get outbof his average teammates. We are not surrounding LeBron with reliable high quality 3 point shooters are we?