With what the OP is talking about, I think the logic can apply to a big 2 vs 1 superstar led team:
And that's that it all comes down to the role players. '01 Lakers swept the Spurs, '02 it was 4-1. '03 the Lakers supporting cast was :larry: and the Spurs finally overcame them, which led to Shaq throwing that hissy fit that they needed more help. Shaq, Kobe Duncan were relatively the same during those 3 years so if all things are close to equal role player wise, Shaq Kobe were going to win if not dominate more times than not.
We also saw in Miami's year 1 how they out-talented both Boston's big 3 and D-Rose's team in the playoffs 4-1 apiece, with a supporting cast that was pretty trash compared to what they had in '12 and '13. Only thing for them is that after year 1, Wade fell off a bit.. and then injuries to him and Bosh during playoff runs.
Golden State pretty much has a complete versatile supporting cast, plus Steph, Klay, Durant, Draymond in their respective primes. It's gonna cost ownership a shyt ton of money but it's probably making ownership a shyt ton of money too