Comparing the Kings big 3 to the big 3s of good teams

[RookieOfTheDay]

The general consensus is that the Kings “big 3" is Cousins/Evans/Thornton.

I thought it would be interesting to compare them to the big 3s of good teams.

The goal here is not to bash the Kings but rather to see if we’re kidding ourselves by believing this team even has the “potential” to be good.

I think we can all agree that any team is only as good as their top 3 players.

So let’s look at good team’s rosters and see if anyone of the Kings could even crack the top 3.


Grizzlies

Randolph/Gay/Gasol

No chance here. Any of the Kings top 3 would be the 4th option here

Thunder

Durant/Westbrook/Harden

Arguably anyone of the Kings top 3 could take Harden’s place as 3rd option, but that’s it

Clippers

Paul/Griffen/Billups

No chance again here. All three of those guys are better than any King.

Trailblazers

Not sure what exactly they’re big 3 is, but I’ll go with Aldridge/Wallace/Felton

Again, the best Kings player would be a 3rd option at best here.

Nuggets

Hard to define a big 3 here, they’re just a really well balanced team overall. Greater than the sum of the parts. But for the sake of this argument let’s go with Nene/Gallinari/Harrington

The Kings top 3 stack up comparably here, at least on paper, but the results are obviously much less successful. Just goes to show how important team fit is.

Jazz

Milsap/Jefferson/(Harris?)

Another case where the best King would be the 3rd option.

Pacers

Granger/Hibbert/West

Another case where no King cracks the top 3

76ers

This is another case where it's hard to define a big 3. Just a team with no weak links that fits together and plays well together.

No need even going over the Lakers, Spurs, Mavericks, Celtics, Knicks, Heat, and Bulls big 3s, as they're clearly all much better than the Kings. Yes, I know the Knicks suck and are struggling, so no need to point that out, but on paper at least, they have a better big 3 by far.

You could even make arguments that the Rockets, Timberwolves, Wizards, Bucks, Pistons, and Warriors all have AT LEAST as good a big 3 as the Kings.

The only teams where I can say the Kings clearly have the better big 3 would be New Orleans, Toronto, Charlotte, Cleveland, and possibly New Jersey.

I know y'all all big on "points" here so you're probably asking yourselves, what's my point?

Well, my point is this. If you have any kind of hope, argument, case, etc. that the Kings will be a good team anytime in the foreseeable future, just what the heck is it based on?

Are you banking on Tyreke and Cousins becoming legit all stars? Because that's the ONLY way I see this current roster ever being any good and quite frankly, I think it's a long shot that those two will ever attain that level of play while on the same team.

So tell me, why should we have hope? Why should not throw our hands up in disgust?

And please, PLEASE, don't say that they're young!

 

[Section 101]

The general consensus is that the Kings “big 3" is Cousins/Evans/Thornton.

I thought it would be interesting to compare them to the big 3s of good teams.

The goal here is not to bash the Kings but rather to see if we’re kidding ourselves by believing this team even has the “potential” to be good.

I think we can all agree that any team is only as good as their top 3 players.

So let’s look at good team’s rosters and see if anyone of the Kings could even crack the top 3.


Grizzlies

Randolph/Gay/Gasol

No chance here. Any of the Kings top 3 would be the 4th option here

Thunder

Durant/Westbrook/Harden

Arguably anyone of the Kings top 3 could take Harden’s place as 3rd option, but that’s it

Clippers

Paul/Griffen/Billups

No chance again here. All three of those guys are better than any King.

Trailblazers

Not sure what exactly they’re big 3 is, but I’ll go with Aldridge/Wallace/Felton

Again, the best Kings player would be a 3rd option at best here.

Nuggets

Hard to define a big 3 here, they’re just a really well balanced team overall. Greater than the sum of the parts. But for the sake of this argument let’s go with Nene/Gallinari/Harrington

The Kings top 3 stack up comparably here, at least on paper, but the results are obviously much less successful. Just goes to show how important team fit is.

Jazz

Milsap/Jefferson/(Harris?)

Another case where the best King would be the 3rd option.

Pacers

Granger/Hibbert/West

Another case where no King cracks the top 3

76ers

This is another case where it's hard to define a big 3. Just a team with no weak links that fits together and plays well together.

No need even going over the Lakers, Spurs, Mavericks, Celtics, Knicks, Heat, and Bulls big 3s, as they're clearly all much better than the Kings. Yes, I know the Knicks suck and are struggling, so no need to point that out, but on paper at least, they have a better big 3 by far.

You could even make arguments that the Rockets, Timberwolves, Wizards, Bucks, Pistons, and Warriors all have AT LEAST as good a big 3 as the Kings.

The only teams where I can say the Kings clearly have the better big 3 would be New Orleans, Toronto, Charlotte, Cleveland, and possibly New Jersey.

I know y'all all big on "points" here so you're probably asking yourselves, what's my point?

Well, my point is this. If you have any kind of hope, argument, case, etc. that the Kings will be a good team anytime in the foreseeable future, just what the heck is it based on?

Are you banking on Tyreke and Cousins becoming legit all stars? Because that's the ONLY way I see this current roster ever being any good and quite frankly, I think it's a long shot that those two will ever attain that level of play while on the same team.

So tell me, why should we have hope? Why should not throw our hands up in disgust?

And please, PLEASE, don't say that they're young!

Uh, Harden is beasting it up right now.

Billups is stinking it up. He's hit a few clutch shots, but has been pretty bad the rest of the time.

 

[Bricklayer]

You don't compare the Big 3 of a young team to the Big 3 of a good team TODAY. You compare them in the future. In 2009 you could have done the same thing wiht the Thunder and said well, nobody cracks Boston's Top 3. I mean obviously. If somebody did, we'd be winning and they'd be losing.

I am going to start merging some of these threads now. These really are just all takes on the same couple of issues. Every post doesn't need its own thread.

 

[Arkitect]

I think you are way over valuing other teams big 3 and way undervaluing our current big 3. There is no analysis beyond your gut feeling. Put efficiency or PPG or something. Of course our big 3 come out much worse. We are a worse team than the others and our record reflects it.

Also the comparison is not a valid comparison. You cherry picked a bunch of experienced cores. Now if you were to compare our big 3 to other teams big 3's at similar points in their careers, I think you would have a more interesting comparison. Hard to do since none of them were playing together at that point in their careers. And I think what you would find is that in many cases our big 3 would out perform other big 3 if all of them were in their 2nd or 3rd year.

For example:

Kings:

PPG Rebounds Assists Year
DMC 14.4 11 0.8 2nd
Reke 15.9 4.8 4.5 3rd
Thornton 16.4 3.6 1.8 3rd

46.7 19.4 7.1

Indiana
Granger 19.6 6.1 2.1 3rd
Hibbert 11.7 5.7 2.0 2nd
West 17.1 7.4 1.2 3rd
48.4 19.2 5.3

I used Indiana because Granger and Hibbert played together as they were developing. West was the 2nd option on NOH that year so his stats are inflated. So if you had Indiana's core at the same point that our core is at, they would basically be the same production wise, if not slightly worse.

 

[Kingster]

The general consensus is that the Kings “big 3" is Cousins/Evans/Thornton.

I thought it would be interesting to compare them to the big 3s of good teams.

The goal here is not to bash the Kings but rather to see if we’re kidding ourselves by believing this team even has the “potential” to be good.

I think we can all agree that any team is only as good as their top 3 players.

So let’s look at good team’s rosters and see if anyone of the Kings could even crack the top 3.


Grizzlies

Randolph/Gay/Gasol

No chance here. Any of the Kings top 3 would be the 4th option here

Thunder

Durant/Westbrook/Harden

Arguably anyone of the Kings top 3 could take Harden’s place as 3rd option, but that’s it

Clippers

Paul/Griffen/Billups

No chance again here. All three of those guys are better than any King.

Trailblazers

Not sure what exactly they’re big 3 is, but I’ll go with Aldridge/Wallace/Felton

Again, the best Kings player would be a 3rd option at best here.

Nuggets

Hard to define a big 3 here, they’re just a really well balanced team overall. Greater than the sum of the parts. But for the sake of this argument let’s go with Nene/Gallinari/Harrington

The Kings top 3 stack up comparably here, at least on paper, but the results are obviously much less successful. Just goes to show how important team fit is.

Jazz

Milsap/Jefferson/(Harris?)

Another case where the best King would be the 3rd option.

Pacers

Granger/Hibbert/West

Another case where no King cracks the top 3

76ers

This is another case where it's hard to define a big 3. Just a team with no weak links that fits together and plays well together.

No need even going over the Lakers, Spurs, Mavericks, Celtics, Knicks, Heat, and Bulls big 3s, as they're clearly all much better than the Kings. Yes, I know the Knicks suck and are struggling, so no need to point that out, but on paper at least, they have a better big 3 by far.

You could even make arguments that the Rockets, Timberwolves, Wizards, Bucks, Pistons, and Warriors all have AT LEAST as good a big 3 as the Kings.

The only teams where I can say the Kings clearly have the better big 3 would be New Orleans, Toronto, Charlotte, Cleveland, and possibly New Jersey.

I know y'all all big on "points" here so you're probably asking yourselves, what's my point?

Well, my point is this. If you have any kind of hope, argument, case, etc. that the Kings will be a good team anytime in the foreseeable future, just what the heck is it based on?

Are you banking on Tyreke and Cousins becoming legit all stars? Because that's the ONLY way I see this current roster ever being any good and quite frankly, I think it's a long shot that those two will ever attain that level of play while on the same team.

So tell me, why should we have hope? Why should not throw our hands up in disgust?

And please, PLEASE, don't say that they're young!

They're young. And they are talented (meaning they have high upside potentials). So because they are young they have the time to develop before age takes over resulting in no chance to get better. And because they are talented, they have the opportunity to get considerably better during their youth. The missing ingredient that nobody really knows is what's inside. What kind of drive they have to get better? Work ethic, discipline, competitive desire and all that old-fashioned stuff is going to determine the outcome. Personally, I don't think a coach can inspire someone to work; they can just provide some guidelines on how to work intelligently. So, coaching is a part of it, though not the central part of the question mark of their development going forward. Maybe the presence or absence of a significant role model on this team will factor into the equation going forward. (Hypothetically, if we did have Kobe on this team, might he influence the work ethic of others on this team?) Maybe Tyreke and Cousins become All-Stars and Thornton Sixth Man of the Year. Maybe they don't and are moderate to big dissapointments. All we know know is there is the potential for doing so that the other Kings player don't have. There are no guarantees.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I think you are way over valuing other teams big 3 and way undervaluing our current big 3

Yeah, it couldn’t be the case that Kings fans have just overrated our big 3.

There is no analysis beyond your gut feeling

Detailed analysis isn’t necessary here. It’s my view that most of the teams I mentioned have big 3s that are so obviously better than the Kings big 3 that it’s to the point of being self evident to anyone who knows a lick about basketball and isn’t a delusional homer.

Also the comparison is not a valid comparison. You cherry picked a bunch of experienced cores

LOL. I covered darn near every team in the league. That would be pretty much the polar opposite of cherry picking. It just happens to be the case that the majority of them have a better core 3.

Now if you were to compare our big 3 to other teams big 3's at similar points in their careers, I think you would have a more interesting comparison. Hard to do since none of them were playing together at that point in their careers. And I think what you would find is that in many cases our big 3 would out perform other big 3 if all of them were in their 2nd or 3rd year.

Minnesota’s core is as young and actually has less time together than the Kings, yet they’re a much better team.

Oklahoma City’s young core was gelling and winning games by the time they’d been together as long as the Kings.

But basically it sounds like you’re saying that the Kings big 3 will be better than a lot ot teams in time, which I covered here, “Are you banking on Tyreke and Cousins becoming legit all stars? Because that's the ONLY way I see this current roster ever being any good and quite frankly, I think it's a long shot that those two will ever attain that level of play while on the same team.”

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

It's also worth mentioning that many of the teams I mentioned have cores that actually have lass playing time together than the Kings, yet are still better. But I'm sure it would be promptly dismissed with the one size fits all "they're young" card, so I don't even know why I bother.

You guys are like the parents of a degenerate druggie failure who just keep making excuses for them rather than just admitting the cold hard truth that your kid is a **** up.

 

[upinsmoke]

Big 3

ROTFL

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Big 3

ROTFL

There's a reason i put big 3 in quotes when referring to the Kings...

 

[Arkitect]

Do you think that our core will never get better than it is right now? And if not why not?

 

[Bricklayer]

It's also worth mentioning that many of the teams I mentioned have cores that actually have lass playing time together than the Kings, yet are still better. But I'm sure it would be promptly dismissed with the one size fits all "they're young" card, so I don't even know why I bother.

You guys are like the parents of a degenerate druggie failure who just keep making excuses for them rather than just admitting the cold hard truth that your kid is a **** up.

You're going to really struggle as a parent unless you learn some patience.

Adn name me teams with cores that have played with each other for less time than the Kings? By my count our core has maybe half a season of actually playing together as starters, even less as a trio. Name the other team with that situation who's guys aren't primarily veterans?

KIDS. Young. Inexperienced playing together, or even in the league. No appreciable veterans on the team to steady and provide guidance. This is truly hardknock city.

 

[pshn80]

In the terms you use we don't have a 'big 3'. We have the two, Evans and Cousins, and they are only puppies, great potential those puppies, but just puppies. Our two are just too inexperienced to be judged against others except maybe their puppies.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Do you think that our core will never get better than it is right now? And if not why not?

I think they have room for improvement but i have SERIOUS doubts whether their ceiling is high enough to EVER be the core of a championship contending team, even if they're together until they're 30.

That’s discouraging because if the goal isn’t eventually championship caliber, then why bother with a rebuild?

Might as well just hire a bunch on MLE guys and build a perennial first round exit team.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

You're going to really struggle as a parent unless you learn some patience.

Adn name me teams with cores that have played with each other for less time than the Kings? By my count our core has maybe half a season of actually playing together as starters, even less as a trio. Name the other team with that situation who's guys aren't primarily veterans?

KIDS. Young. Inexperienced playing together, or even in the league. No appreciable veterans on the team to steady and provide guidance. This is truly hardknock city.

Give me a break. I've been patient for years. There comes a point where you run out of patience when there's no signs of progress. I don't expect this team to be great, make the playoffs, or anything like that right now. But I DO expect to at least see some signs of improvement and basketball that isn't a flat out disgrace. As for young/inexperienced cores that are better, how about the Wolves? Their starting five is actually younger than the Kings starting five. They're 8 and 10. Not a bad record. They also play some pretty fun to watch, non embarrassing basketball.

 

[Italics]

Do Kings really have a "big 3?" I honestly don't even consider Thornton a "good" player. He is a guy who shoots a lot and therefore occasionally has high scoring games. He can't assist. He can't drive it to the hoop. He's not a team player. There's nothing special about his defense. He can't run an offense.

 

[Larry David]

You're going to really struggle as a parent unless you learn some patience.

Adn name me teams with cores that have played with each other for less time than the Kings? By my count our core has maybe half a season of actually playing together as starters, even less as a trio. Name the other team with that situation who's guys aren't primarily veterans?

KIDS. Young. Inexperienced playing together, or even in the league. No appreciable veterans on the team to steady and provide guidance. This is truly hardknock city.

This is what the Clippers kept telling their fans during the 80s and 90s.

You can't overcome bad ownership, bad management, and a bad market. Something is going to have to give before things get good around here.

 

[SacTownKid]

Man, people are really starting to go overboard with the wrong reasons as to why this team is doing poorly. You take a bunch of big "3's" and compare it to a "big 3" that has 3 years or less of NBA experience. Just hilarious.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Do Kings really have a "big 3?" I honestly don't even consider Thornton a "good" player. He is a guy who shoots a lot and therefore occasionally has high scoring games. He can't assist. He can't drive it to the hoop. He's not a team player. There's nothing special about his defense. He can't run an offense.

I fear Thornton will be the Kings next bad contract. I thought they overpaid him by about 1/3 at the time. Were there really any other teams offering him near what the Kings paid him? I find it hard to imagine there were any.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Man, people are really starting to go overboard with the wrong reasons as to why this team is doing poorly. You take a bunch of big "3's" and compare it to a "big 3" that has 3 years or less of NBA experience. Just hilarious.

So you think the only reason those other big 3s are better is that they're older? It can't be the case that they're just better, regardless of age? You think that in a few years the Kings big 3 will be better than the Grizzlies, Thunder, Clippers, Pacers, etc. big 3s?

 

[Rookie]

You guys are like the parents of a degenerate druggie failure who just keep making excuses for them rather than just admitting the cold hard truth that your kid is a **** up.

I wouldn't go that far but overall I do agree with you. However a **** up kid is usually the fault of a **** up parent IMO. Stable and control environment give kids a better chance at succeeding. Patience as well but I also understand when people are losing their patience. So let's see if Smart able to turn this thing around...it's still way too early to fix what was wrong through 3-4 different bad coaches.

I also agree that we don't have "big 3". .

 

[SacTownKid]

Give me a break. I've been patient for years. There comes a point where you run out of patience when there's no signs of progress. I don't expect this team to be great, make the playoffs, or anything like that right now. But I DO expect to at least see some signs of improvement and basketball that isn't a flat out disgrace. As for young/inexperienced cores that are better, how about the Wolves? Their starting five is actually younger than the Kings starting five. They're 8 and 10. Not a bad record. They also play some pretty fun to watch, non embarrassing basketball.

How can you be "patient for years" with a "core" or "big 3" as you put it that has been together for less than half a season as pointed out to you previously? You're compairing completely different situations and lumping them together as one timeline of utter disappointment in your mind. You're killing the son for the sins of the father. They finally did the right thing and made moves to ensure that they would enter the portion of the draft you almost always have to in order to obtain the necessary talent to have a real chance to succeed in time. The only time I've been truly disenchanted with this organization is when I didn't think they understood the idea of a REBUILD. Hate to tell you, it took pretty long to get here, but at least it's finally here.

The Wolves also have a system and last I checked were bad enough to draft Kevin Love in the top half of the lotto when this team was looking at picks 10-12. They sucked in a good way before this team did and it does make a difference. The system is the main thing the Kings lack right now. Possibly the only thing but as you can see, it's pretty stinking important.

 

[Arkitect]

So you think the only reason those other big 3s are better is that they're older? It can't be the case that they're just better, regardless of age? You think that in a few years the Kings big 3 will be better than the Grizzlies, Thunder, Clippers, Pacers, etc. big 3s?

I pointed out earlier that statistically speaking the Pacers current big 3 were at about the same production when they were our age as our current big 3. No obvious reason we can't be equal to that in a few years. Interesting to point out though that every other big 3 has a SF as the centerpiece. The major doubt I have about us is that without a somewhat dominant SF, we are going to have a tough time competing. Which is why I have my doubts about Thornton as the third piece.

 

[SacTownKid]

So you think the only reason those other big 3s are better is that they're older? It can't be the case that they're just better, regardless of age? You think that in a few years the Kings big 3 will be better than the Grizzlies, Thunder, Clippers, Pacers, etc. big 3s?

If you'd like to go that route be my guest, I'm not. I won't say that every member of the Kings big 3 is more talented but you can't tell me you don't see a correlation between almost every contending team being loaded with multiyear vets and their level of success? There is a saying about old age and cunning, you should check it out sometime.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I wouldn't go that far but overall I do agree with you. However a **** up kid is usually the fault of a **** up parent IMO. Stable and control environment give kids a better chance at succeeding. Patience as well but I also understand when people are losing their patience. So let's see if Smart able to turn this thing around...it's still way too early to fix what was wrong through 3-4 different bad coaches.

I also agree that we don't have "big 3". .

That's a fair point but sometimes good parent have bad kids. Not that the Kings are good parents, mind you. But the analogy really doesn't work too well I suppose because the problem with the Kings, as I tried to articulate, is that they're just under talented. Development, coaching, etc. may help them to a degree but I don't this group as currently assembled will ever be any better than a .500 ball club. Most of that lies on the shoulders of Tyreke. Not to single put one guy, but he is the players they were supposed to be building around and he's done nothing but regress since his rookie year. Unless he snaps out of it, they Kings are never going anywhere.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

How can you be "patient for years" with a "core" or "big 3" as you put it that has been together for less than half a season as pointed out to you previously? You're compairing completely different situations and lumping them together as one timeline of utter disappointment in your mind. You're killing the son for the sins of the father. They finally did the right thing and made moves to ensure that they would enter the portion of the draft you almost always have to in order to obtain the necessary talent to have a real chance to succeed in time. The only time I've been truly disenchanted with this organization is when I didn't think they understood the idea of a REBUILD. Hate to tell you, it took pretty long to get here, but at least it's finally here.

The Wolves also have a system and last I checked were bad enough to draft Kevin Love in the top half of the lotto when this team was looking at picks 10-12. They sucked in a good way before this team did and it does make a difference. The system is the main thing the Kings lack right now. Possibly the only thing but as you can see, it's pretty stinking important.

Even if you count 2009/2010 as the start of the current rebuild, that's still two and a half years. At what point is OK to stop being patient and say eff this, I want to see improvement and I want to see it now. How many more years do we accept stagnation before we say enough is enough, this isn't working?

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I pointed out earlier that statistically speaking the Pacers current big 3 were at about the same production when they were our age as our current big 3. No obvious reason we can't be equal to that in a few years. Interesting to point out though that every other big 3 has a SF as the centerpiece. The major doubt I have about us is that without a somewhat dominant SF, we are going to have a tough time competing. Which is why I have my doubts about Thornton as the third piece.

I don't think the numbers tell the whole story, though. Tyreke and Thornton both put up decent numbers but they both have glaring holes in their games that don't always show up on the stat sheet. That's the larger problem and what I'm worried about. What if Tyreke never gets a jump shot or learns to run the point? What if Thornton never progresses beyond a hot/cold shooter? Then they're screwed, that's what.

 

[rainmaker]

I don't see the point in this until we see comparable stats for other "big 3's" at the same stage in their careers as our big 3.

Thornton as played 160 games.
Reke has played 148 games.
Cousins is at 99 games.

Considering Reke's rookie year neither of the other two were on the team, and that Thornton wasn't here until the latter half of last year, the games they've played together are less than 50.

So comparing our trio to veteran trios is fruitless. Of course they'll be better. But it isn't just that most veteran trios consist of 3 guys who've been in the league and played hundreds more games than our trio in the league, but they've also for the most part played considerably longer as a trio as well.

This situation is frustrating as hell. But what is the larger issue is what Petrie has surrounded our young 3 with. They're so damn young, I have zero clue as to why we didn't bring in better role players and vets we can actually count on.

I don't however see the point in comparing our big 3 to veteran big 3's. Let's see some stats which compare our big 3, to other big 3's when not a single member of other big 3's has played more than 160 career games. Otherwise, what the hell is the point? Of course a veteran big 3 will have more experience and produce more. And the handful of successful younger big 3's, have far better support players and better/more consistent coaching for the last few years as well.

If we resigned Daly, and signed AK, we'd be far better. But that wouldn't mean all the sudden our young big 3 is any better. It would most likely mean the role players are far more productive, and actually fit in.

 

[SacTownKid]

Even if you count 2009/2010 as the start of the current rebuild, that's still two and a half years. At what point is OK to stop being patient and say eff this, I want to see improvement and I want to see it now. How many more years do we accept stagnation before we say enough is enough, this isn't working?

I'd say at least a full season with your current crop of young talent maybe? I'll wait until the END of the year before throwing stones in Petrie or the Maloofs direction. Smart has less time but he has time left on the clock in my book. There needs to be somewhat of a turning point this year and my opinion is that it will come when this team gets some home games and practice time. If not, time to start looking eslewhere and if it were me, that means the best way to build a team around Demarcus Cousins.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

If you'd like to go that route be my guest, I'm not. I won't say that every member of the Kings big 3 is more talented but you can't tell me you don't see a correlation between almost every contending team being loaded with multiyear vets and their level of success? There is a saying about old age and cunning, you should check it out sometime.

As if I'd claimed that there's no correlation between age and success in the NBA. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that just being young isn't sufficient to account for complete failure that is this team. The young excuse worked last year when they played good team close, then choked at the end of the 4th. It doesn't work this year when the're getting blown out by 30 by those same teams. They've actually regressed since last season, that's the problem. Young teams are supposed to bet better as they get older, not worse.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I don't see the point in this until we see comparable stats for other "big 3's" at the same stage in their careers as our big 3.

Thornton as played 160 games.
Reke has played 148 games.
Cousins is at 99 games.

Considering Reke's rookie year neither of the other two were on the team, and that Thornton wasn't here until the latter half of last year, the games they've played together are less than 50.

So comparing our trio to veteran trios is fruitless. Of course they'll be better. But it isn't just that most veteran trios consist of 3 guys who've been in the league and played hundreds more games than our trio in the league, but they've also for the most part played considerably longer as a trio as well.

This situation is frustrating as hell. But what is the larger issue is what Petrie has surrounded our young 3 with. They're so damn young, I have zero clue as to why we didn't bring in better role players and vets we can actually count on.

I don't however see the point in comparing our big 3 to veteran big 3's. Let's see some stats which compare our big 3, to other big 3's when not a single member of other big 3's has played more than 160 career games. Otherwise, what the hell is the point? Of course a veteran big 3 will have more experience and produce more. And the handful of successful younger big 3's, have far better support players and better/more consistent coaching for the last few years as well.

As if I'd only compared them to veteran trios. I compared them to young trios as well. It just happens that most NBA trios have at least one, maybe two veterans. That the Kings don't is part of the problem and part of my overall point.