Since the Celtics new Big 3 (Garnett, Pierce, Allen) came to the Celtics, ESPN seems to have a “big 3” for every team. While watching the Miami vs Oklahoma City game, one of the announcers said Westbrook was one of the Thunder’s “big 3.” Other than Durant who else could be in a “big 3” for the Thunder? I can barely name the starting 5. Another example, when the Spurs were winning championships, ESPN never referred to Duncan, Ginobli, and Parker as a “big 3.” Since the Celtics real Big 3 came, all of sudden the Spurs and some other teams somehow had a “big 3” and it kind of ruined the uniqueness of Boston. Shouldn’t a “big 3” be, a group of players who have already won a championship together? Ok, San Antonio has already done that. To say the Thunder or even Miami has a “big 3” seems to be a little premature at this stage, especially when we have seen teams with all-stars crumble or not win a championship. The Magic have had some great players, but other than their brief Finals appearance what have they won? I hate to say it but the Lakers have had many “big 3’s” last decade and same with Michael Jordan’s Bulls. I don’t know how most of you think about the over usage of the word “big 3” and if you have an example of one, I would like to know. It just makes me laugh, everyone hates the Celtics but they want to be exactly like us.