Do you see the Bucks as having a "big 3" in the same way the 00s Spurs had a "big 3"?

[ardee]

Both have an elite all-time level PF flanked by two very good perimeter players who were at best mid-level All-Stars and certainly not historically good players.

It's funny because calling it a "big 3" implies all 3 players are on a similar level, when that is obviously not the case... but it is what is used a lot to describe both teams in the media anyway.

[TheGOATRises007]

Not at all.

I think Manu is clearly better than Middleton.

I think Parker is also better than Jrue.

The Spurs big 3 was better.

[ardee]

Not at all.

I think Manu is clearly better than Middleton.

I think Parker is also better than Jrue.

The Spurs big 3 was better.

I'm not saying otherwise. I was asking if you count one ATG MVP level player + two lower level All Stars as a "big 3".

[penbeast0]

I'd take Jrue over Parker as a #2 guys, the better defense and versatility to move to the 2 makes him the better player. Manu over Middleton, sure.

[Colbinii]

Not at all.

I think Manu is clearly better than Middleton.

I think Parker is also better than Jrue.

The Spurs big 3 was better.

You have Parker [06 and 07] over 2021 and 2022 Jrue?

[Ginoboleee]

No, no I do not.
The Spurs didn't even have a Big 3 until a bit later in their run.
The Bucks have a Top 3, just like every other team in the history of the sport.
And their Top 3 had a great run for a season or so.

I'd take Jrue over Parker as a #2 guys, the better defense and versatility to move to the 2 makes him the better player. Manu over Middleton, sure.

I'd take Parker over Jrue, but it is close enough that I can easily respect other points of view.
And here's the deal, I basically agree with what you wrote!
Yes, there is better defense.
Yes, there is greater versatility.
And in most respects, and perhaps even overall, it is fair to say that he is the more talented player.
And yet I wouldn't pick Jrue over Parker.
Why not?...

Time for a Multiple Choice question!

(a) I care so much more about offense that Parker's shooting/driving easily outweighs Jrue's defense/versatility.
(b) Parker's defense is under-rated, the gap is not as huge as we imagine.
(c) Jrue's offense is over-rated, because we keep implicitly keep assuming it is average, when in fact it is significantly below average (fluky)
(d) Parker's leadership/experience in multiple playoff runs, plus being molded by Pop's teachings, not to mention his many French Team feats, all combine to shape not only one of the most reliable clutch battle-tested PGs, but actually one of the sneaky-greatest ones ever. Parker isn't a Top 10 PG of all time, maybe not even Top 20, but he is a great, and ahead of Jrue overall, and perhaps by miles (once you weigh playoff history like I do).

The answer, of course is D.

Folks here will largely reject that answer/assertion, as being too subjective, fuzzy, and based in team accomplishments (if not nostalgic romanticization). But such a reply would say more to me about the limits of analytics, and the conditions under which it is or is not sensible to abstract/compare players. Bottom line: analytics is somewhat useful as a predictive tool, to help peer into the future/unknown. I'm far from sold that it helps us much with the past. And insofar as it does help with that, then we have to wait for both careers to be completed, instead of chasing our tails with apples and oranges.

If Jrue had Parker's professional experiences (and thus accomplishments) would he have ended up better, yeah, probably.
But that doesn't make a whit of sense to me.

If Parker had been some rando prospect on a rando team, does he end up even close to better than Jrue? Unlikely perhaps, but also hard to say, as maybe he would have developed into a different kind of star with his own team. Again, this Alt Timeline just doesn't make sense to me.

Westworld Robot Parker should be drafted after Actual Real World Jrue, fair enough.
But Actual Real World Parker is a battle-tested winner, a champion, a legend, a great.
Jrue did all of that just once (albeit with an extended streak just days later into the Olympics too).
Parker did it lots of times (with some epic near-misses too; that is what a dynasty is really about, being close so many times).

So, let's not go crazy here, ok?
I like Jrue as much as the next guy, but 'cmon now.

Finally, as per my UserName, Manu is so much better than Kris Middleton that I'm not even going to both writing another sentence.

[sp6r=underrated]

Both have an elite all-time level PF flanked by two very good perimeter players who were at best mid-level All-Stars and certainly not historically good players.

It's funny because calling it a "big 3" implies all 3 players are on a similar level, when that is obviously not the case... but it is what is used a lot to describe both teams in the media anyway.

Tony Parker was a mid-level all star but Manu was historically good from (05-07) when his body held up. People just didn't appreciate how good Manu was back then because the analytics revolution had barely begun.


2 Historic (top 5 guys) and one secondary all star mirrors most of the Big 3s I see. Curry/Dray and Klay, Durant/Harden and Kyrie. And from previous eras mid 80s Bird/McHale and Parish. The only major exception was the greatest team of all time Curry/Dray/Durant.

[JordansBulls]

Could be similar as both Manu and Parker were late picks.