RealGM

Which trio would you take for a single season in the modern NBA? All players are in their average prime condition.

I'll take CP3-Jordan-KG because of the defensive edge. I'm not sure of the Steph-Kobe synergy either - it'll probably work but not smoothly.

The difference between Jordan and Kobe seems larger than that of the other positions, also KG is arguably better in today’s game than Duncan’s anyhow.

Usually I go with Jordan but Steph/Kobe/Duncan in this case - three corner stones anchoring three winningest franchises. Steph and Duncan are also the perfect team players who can work with Kobe.

CP3 and Steph are pretty much equal. KG and Duncan are pretty much equal. Jordan >>>>> Kobe. Seems pretty clear.

I really prefer the fit of CP3/Jordan/KG more than Steph/Kobe/Duncan.

dygaction wrote:Usually I go with Jordan but Steph/Kobe/Duncan in this case - three corner stones anchoring three winningest franchises. Steph and Duncan are also the perfect team players who can work with Kobe.

Why does that matter?

TheLand13 wrote:

dygaction wrote:Usually I go with Jordan but Steph/Kobe/Duncan in this case - three corner stones anchoring three winningest franchises. Steph and Duncan are also the perfect team players who can work with Kobe.

Why does that matter?

That's all you want in basketball and should go way before rapm, ppg or rpg, no?

dygaction wrote:

TheLand13 wrote:

dygaction wrote:Usually I go with Jordan but Steph/Kobe/Duncan in this case - three corner stones anchoring three winningest franchises. Steph and Duncan are also the perfect team players who can work with Kobe.

Why does that matter?

That's all you want in basketball and should go way before rapm, ppg or rpg, no?

Is this why you have Bill Russell outside of top 10?

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:

TheLand13 wrote:
Why does that matter?

That's all you want in basketball and should go way before rapm, ppg or rpg, no?

Is this why you have Bill Russell outside of top 10?

Yes, right out of top 10 considering the championships' competition and difficulty, and that's also why I don't have Gobert top 100.

dygaction wrote:Yes, right out of top 10 considering the championships' competition and difficulty, and that's also why I don't have Gobert top 100.

When in the league history do you think competition stopped being important?

Trio a due to much higher defensive ceiling and MJ over Kobe in the playoffs but the only drawback is whether CP3 will make it to the finals. Even then though, you still have MJ/KG which means your team probably still wins in 5-6 games anyhow. The chances of either trio losing in today's league are slim to none with even mediocre coaching/roster construction.

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:Yes, right out of top 10 considering the championships' competition and difficulty, and that's also why I don't have Gobert top 100.

When in the league history do you think competition stopped being important?

We have visited this several times. I just don't think championships from a league in its primitive state carries the same competition or weight with its full bloomed stage. A title from a 8-team league 60 yrs ago composed of domestic players with racial profile limitations is not the same with a title from a 30 team league drawing talents globally.

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:Yes, right out of top 10 considering the championships' competition and difficulty, and that's also why I don't have Gobert top 100.

When in the league history do you think competition stopped being important?

We have visited this several times. I just don't think championships from a league in its primitive state carries the same competition or weight with its full bloomed stage. A title from a 8-team league 60 yrs ago composed of domestic players with racial profile limitations is not the same with a title from a 30 team league drawing talents globally.

Sure, but you still have players that won twice or thrice less titles than Russell in the 20 teams league composed of domestic players. If we talked so much about it, then you should remember by now that the majority of Russell titles were won in a league with more than 8 teams with no racial profile limitations.

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:When in the league history do you think competition stopped being important?

We have visited this several times. I just don't think championships from a league in its primitive state carries the same competition or weight with its full bloomed stage. A title from a 8-team league 60 yrs ago composed of domestic players with racial profile limitations is not the same with a title from a 30 team league drawing talents globally.

Sure, but you still have players that won twice or thrice less titles than Russell in the 20 teams league composed of domestic players. If we talked so much about it, then you should remember by now that the majority of Russell titles were won in a league with more than 8 teams with no racial profile limitations.

Things take time to evolve. The sudden dilute of a league does not make it immediately more competitive. NBA has opened to international players for more than a few decades and the best players are increasing disproportionally over the years. It is not like you remove the limitation and suddenly you have a gush of talents getting in. It takes time for people to recognize the opportunity and talents to develop from early age.

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:
We have visited this several times. I just don't think championships from a league in its primitive state carries the same competition or weight with its full bloomed stage. A title from a 8-team league 60 yrs ago composed of domestic players with racial profile limitations is not the same with a title from a 30 team league drawing talents globally.

Sure, but you still have players that won twice or thrice less titles than Russell in the 20 teams league composed of domestic players. If we talked so much about it, then you should remember by now that the majority of Russell titles were won in a league with more than 8 teams with no racial profile limitations.

Things take time to evolve. The sudden dilute of a league does not make it immediately more competitive. NBA has opened to international players for more than a few decades and the best players are increasing disproportionally over the years. It is not like you remove the limitation and suddenly you have a gush of talents getting in. It takes time for people to recognize the opportunity and talents to develop from early age.

Of course, which is why having Jordan as the GOAT and plenty of 1980s and 1990s players inside top 10 with your logic makes no sense.

dygaction wrote:
We have visited this several times. I just don't think championships from a league in its primitive state carries the same competition or weight with its full bloomed stage. A title from a 8-team league 60 yrs ago composed of domestic players with racial profile limitations is not the same with a title from a 30 team league drawing talents globally.

I think there is more room for coaching and things like roster strategy to be well ahead of the curve the younger a sport is. Which is part of how and why the Celtics were able to be a dynasty I'd say. Just like Paul Brown was really far ahead of most all the other pro coaches in the 50's on top of being a great scout. Which is a lot how Red operated in terms of having a better idea how to build teams and a great eye for talent on top of his coaching ideas. In today's game teams can be ahead of the curve but due to how quickly things get analyzed it doesn't last as long.
Then again, no other team had Russell though Wilt with arguably worse casts very nearly beat the Celtics once or twice. It's just hard to me to say how much a sport has advanced without acknowledging how a sport got to that more advanced place. Is Paul Brown somehow a worse coach due to being so far ahead of the time for around 10 years? If anything, I think that's the sign of greatness when you innovate in a way that gives you a sustained advantage.
Personally, I'm not sure I see much difference in dominating a 30 team league compared to an 8 team one. Either way, you're going against what is the best players in the world for the most part. I think what it comes down to is a need to put today's players above the ones from the past on the basis that they are better in a vacuum. If the league had been at 25 teams back then and for whatever reason had contracted down to 12 teams today I seriously doubt people would use the difference in the number of teams to argue it the other way(ie more impressive due to more teams).

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:Sure, but you still have players that won twice or thrice less titles than Russell in the 20 teams league composed of domestic players. If we talked so much about it, then you should remember by now that the majority of Russell titles were won in a league with more than 8 teams with no racial profile limitations.

Things take time to evolve. The sudden dilute of a league does not make it immediately more competitive. NBA has opened to international players for more than a few decades and the best players are increasing disproportionally over the years. It is not like you remove the limitation and suddenly you have a gush of talents getting in. It takes time for people to recognize the opportunity and talents to develop from early age.

Of course, which is why having Jordan as the GOAT and plenty of 1980s and 1990s players inside top 10 with your logic makes no sense.

While, eventually many of them may need to step down with players like Curry, Jokic, and Giannis panning out. I just would not dish those spots to players who could not dominate their contemporaries.

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:
Things take time to evolve. The sudden dilute of a league does not make it immediately more competitive. NBA has opened to international players for more than a few decades and the best players are increasing disproportionally over the years. It is not like you remove the limitation and suddenly you have a gush of talents getting in. It takes time for people to recognize the opportunity and talents to develop from early age.

Of course, which is why having Jordan as the GOAT and plenty of 1980s and 1990s players inside top 10 with your logic makes no sense.

While, eventually many of them may need to step down with players like Curry, Jokic, and Giannis panning out. I just would not dish those spots to players who could not dominate their contemporaries.

But Curry and LeBron dominated their contemporaries, why don't you have them ahead of Jordan?

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:Of course, which is why having Jordan as the GOAT and plenty of 1980s and 1990s players inside top 10 with your logic makes no sense.

While, eventually many of them may need to step down with players like Curry, Jokic, and Giannis panning out. I just would not dish those spots to players who could not dominate their contemporaries.

But Curry and LeBron dominated their contemporaries, why don't you have them ahead of Jordan?

LeBron has an argument but slow down a bit with Curry, let his career play out. I don't have LeBron but don't mi d others have him ahead MJ.