PDA

View Full Version : Where does Jason Kidd rank as a PG?



OceanSpray
06-04-2013, 01:49 AM
I wouldn't know where to put him against Magic, Stockton, and Isiah. Where do you think he ranks?

Swashcuff
06-04-2013, 02:14 AM
Top 10

Magic, Oscar, West, Frazier, Stockton, GP, Nash and Isaiah all have solid cases ahead of him.

Swashcuff
06-04-2013, 02:15 AM
Also in before Jerry West wasn't a point guard. He was.

ThaDubs
06-04-2013, 02:18 AM
Definitely top 10. Possibly top 5. Maybe top 3.

carlthack
06-04-2013, 02:19 AM
Magic, Stockton, Isiah, Nash all rank ahead of him and of course don't forget perhaps the greatest basketball player of all-time Oscar Robertson also ranks ahead. Kidd had great longevity, rarely got hurt, great leader, solid defender, exceptional ball distributor and rebounder for a PG. I believe he is 2nd all time in triple doubles. So despite the fact that he was a very bad shooter I will say he is in the top 10 all time PGs which is a very honorable list to be a part of.

carlthack
06-04-2013, 02:25 AM
Also in before Jerry West wasn't a point guard. He was.

True in his last few seasons he was. But before that he played the 2 guard.

ThaDubs
06-04-2013, 02:35 AM
Magic, Stockton, Isiah, Nash all rank ahead of him and of course don't forget perhaps the greatest basketball player of all-time Oscar Robertson also ranks ahead. Kidd had great longevity, rarely got hurt, great leader, solid defender, exceptional ball distributor and rebounder for a PG. I believe he is 2nd all time in triple doubles. So despite the fact that he was a very bad shooter I will say he is in the top 10 all time PGs which is a very honorable list to be a part of.

Isn't he like 3rd all time in 3 pointers made or something ?

BKdoubleStacker
06-04-2013, 02:44 AM
kidd was more than a solid defender, and I think i might put kidd over nash, but its close

waveycrockett
06-04-2013, 02:46 AM
In his prime Kidd was an elite defender, he would often draw the opponents best guard either PG or SG. He's top-3 or 4 for sure.

waveycrockett
06-04-2013, 02:49 AM
kidd was more than a solid defender, and I think i might put kidd over nash, but its close

Nash was great but D'Antoni and Nellie Ball inflated his stats tremendously and he played no defense.

OceanSpray
06-04-2013, 02:56 AM
Nash was great but D'Antoni and Nellie Ball inflated his stats tremendously and he played no defense.

Which Nash were you watching? He's not a great defender but in his prime, he wasn't horrible.

waveycrockett
06-04-2013, 03:03 AM
Nash was great but D'Antoni and Nellie Ball inflated his stats tremendously and he played no defense.

Which Nash were you watching? He's not a great defender but in his prime, he wasn't horrible.
He was always god awful on defense. Been watching ball since 93 he is easily the worse defender Ive seen. Always played about 3 feet off his man.

bholly
06-04-2013, 03:15 AM
Isn't he like 3rd all time in 3 pointers made or something ?

Mostly because he's also 3rd in attempts. Shot .349 for his career, which is about average. He was only once in the season top 10, and never in the season top 10 for 3FG%.

carlthack
06-04-2013, 03:15 AM
Isn't he like 3rd all time in 3 pointers made or something ?

Yea but the 19 seasons has a lot to do with it. His .400 career fg% and .349 career 3ptfg% are not very impressive numbers. But had he been a good shooter we might be saying he's the greatest of all time.

waveycrockett
06-04-2013, 03:19 AM
Jason Kidd was a pretty bad/average 3P shooter the majority of his career . The end of his career where he finely found a stroke picked his % but at his best he was alot like rubio/rondo. Teams left him wide open out there.

JEDean89
06-04-2013, 05:36 AM
3rd in 3 pointers made all time
8th in assists all time
20th steals all time
3rd in triple doubles

definitely can make a case as top 5 pg

JJ_JKidd
06-04-2013, 05:44 AM
Him being ahead of Nash?

OK...

JJ_JKidd
06-04-2013, 05:45 AM
Top 10

Magic, Oscar, West, Frazier, Stockton, GP, Nash and Isaiah all have solid cases ahead of him.

Detailed explanation why is Nash ahead of him?

Chrisclover
06-04-2013, 06:01 AM
probably you overrated him, can't be top3

Definitely top 10. Possibly top 5. Maybe top 3.

b@llhog24
06-04-2013, 06:19 AM
Magic
Oscar
Stockton/Walt
Nash/Kidd/Payton/Isiah

BklynKnicks3
06-04-2013, 09:03 AM
1. magic
2. Zeke
3.kidd

Becks2307
06-04-2013, 09:23 AM
Im sorry I cant put Nash ahead of him. Kidd is a better all round PG.

Swashcuff
06-04-2013, 09:47 AM
Detailed explanation why is Nash ahead of him?

2 MVPs > 0 MVPs :shrug:

:laugh2:

I'm better than that so I'll give you what you asked for. 1st off I'll start off by saying you're a J.Kidd fanboy so its gonna be tougher to prove to you than it is to a others but if you're rational about it you can see where I'm coming from (I'm an A.I. fanboy and I can see a case for Nash being ahead of him as well).

Nash is a top 5 offensive player all time in this game, don't agree with me look a little further. He ran the point for 3 of the top 5 offenses of all time and 5 of the top 11.

Here are two articles explaining his value to his teams offensively.
http://www.82games.com/pelton15.htm (the impact he had on all his teammates offense)
http://chasing23.com/why-steve-nash-is-the-greatest-offensive-player-ever/
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7225
http://www.fullcourtpest.com/2012/01/in-defence-of-steve-nash-part-1.html

If anyone is so say that Steve Nash is a product of X coach (like that dude who said Nellie and D'Antoni inflated Nash's numbers) then they clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about. When D'Antoni left Phoenix they still ran a better offense than any team Kidd has ever played for and that's despite the fact that they completely revamped the offense. Also its not because of his team's run and gun style that Nash's teams are so efficient offensively, pace and efficiency has basically zero correlation.

Major reason why Nash is ahead of Kidd in my mind (and the mind of most) is because of the fact that as a point guard your primary responsibility is to score efficiently (which Kidd has never done, run an efficient offense (no one has done so better than Nash) and be a leader/floor general (no one was a better general for his team than Nash since he came into the league IMO) but that point can go either way depending on who you talk to, I would have no beef if you took Kidd there.

Kidd just couldn't stack up to Nash when it comes to offense, yeah he could pass as good as anyone but his inability to score efficiently hurt his team where as in Nash's case was one of the biggest reasons why his teams were so great offensively. That's why Rondo's teams really aren't much different in terms of PPG, FG% and especially ORTG when he isn't playing, yeah playmaking is great but if you're not scoring well enough to match that your team's offense would be lacking. That IMO is Kidd's biggest drawback, could you imagine if he shot as well as Nash in his finals runs? His team would still get beaten but they'd have a completely different dynamic.

Now let's talk about D, shouldn't be a long convo since no human being would ever accuse Steve Nash of being a better defensive player than Jason Kidd. Kidd is lightyears better than Nash, the question I ask you however and please be as objective as you can, in terms of positions on the basketball floor which to you is most least important defensively. IMO its the PG and yes being a great defensive player is always a very very very good thing but when you play the PG its not as important as say the C/PF or SF. Kidd was a better rebounder and the best of his time at getting triple doubles. Nash was the best ever at getting 50/40/90 seasons, pick your poison.

I understand that you may feel that Kidd was better than Nash in their prime but I just think because of his ability to run such great offenses (look as his team his last year in Phoenix and they were still top 10 in offense). Outside of his Dallas days (where he was still a top 15 PG but no where near Elite) Kidd's teams only had a better offense than Steve Nash's 2012 Suns just once and in his real elite years his Nets were never very good offensively.

Nash truly raised his teammates games and his teams games to a level that I never really saw from Kidd. That's why he's ahead of him in my eyes.

Swashcuff
06-04-2013, 09:50 AM
Im sorry I cant put Nash ahead of him. Kidd is a better all round PG.

Andre Iguodala is a better all round SF than Melo, would you put Iggy ahead of him?

Now don't get me wrong I understand your POV but TBH being a better all round player does not always make you a better player. If Kidd was able to shoot anywhere near a respectful clip for the majority of his career I'd take him hands down over Nash, in as many ways as he helped his offense by being such a great passer he hurt them by being such a poor shooter.

Pierzynski4Prez
06-04-2013, 10:12 AM
Top 10 for sure. But that's about it. Much respect for his career.

heyman321
06-04-2013, 10:32 AM
kidd was more than a solid defender, and I think i might put kidd over nash, but its close

Jason Kidd is undoubtedly better than Steve Nash.

Sandman
06-04-2013, 10:37 AM
Kidd over Nash and I don't think twice. Way better playoff resume, plays really good defense where Nash doesn't at all,.

Rockice_8
06-04-2013, 10:50 AM
Magic, Stockton and Zeke all rank ahead of Kidd. The Big O played in a completely different era but I guess his numbers were just so crazy that you have to rank him up there. That's 4 that are better than Kidd. After that it's all a matter of opinion. The next grouping of guys like (Kidd, Nash, Payton, Cousy, Clyde) can flip depending on what you want from your PG.

I think Kidd is at the top of that group with Nash and Payton. So realistically Kidd would fall somewhere around 5th (at best) and 7th (at worst).

I know it's hard to judge players on this but Kidd's influence on the game went far beyond the boxscore and that's why I put him at #5 on the all time ranks.

JerseyPalahniuk
06-04-2013, 11:12 AM
Nash truly raised his teammates games and his teams games to a level that I never really saw from Kidd. That's why he's ahead of him in my eyes.

Later tonight, I'll get back to the rest of your post (agree with some parts as I consider myself a rational Nets fan even though I am definitely what you would consider a Kidd "homeboy").

This quote caught me off guard and kinda pissed me off. Are you serious? He single-handedly turned around an entire franchise the moment he walked in the door. We were a LOTTERY team that went to the Finals. You can say all you want about the weak East and all but you CANNOT question him "raising his teammates' game" to a whole different level.


"He changed the whole culture and perception of the whole organization. He's all about winning. He's one of a kind, one of the greats. He made players better. He made coaches better. He made management better. There aren't a lot of people who can do that."

Players of all kinds come and go in the NBA, “But a guy like this?” Lawrence Frank once asked. “A guy who changes your entire culture overnight? Maybe you find one once every 30 years. Maybe.”
-- Lawrence Frank.


"It’s hard to describe a guy’s aura, but the amazing thing is how you could see it and feel its impact in other guys. First, he was the toughest player -- by far -- I have ever worked with. But it was also the tone he set just by competing so hard all the time. It was obvious: The other players didn’t want to let him down. So they elevated their game, changed their approach to practice, and improved their attitudes – it just grew organically." -- Tim Walsh.


"The second practice in that first training camp, Jason dove headfirst for a loose ball. He talked so little on the floor, but guys would play just to not let him down. Besides changing the course of the Nets on the court, he changed the career paths of players and coaches." - Gary Sussman


Jason Kidd’s wife had just given birth to twin girls, so he was a late arrival to Nets training camp in 2001. Still, he attended the team dinner the night before the real work began. Coming off a typically dreadful 26-victory season, Nets coach Byron Scott addressed the players. When he was finished, Kidd asked if he could say a few words.

“He said, ‘We’re going to the playoffs,’ ” Lawrence Frank, who succeeded Scott as coach, recalled yesterday after Kidd announced his retirement following 19 brilliant NBA seasons. “The guys in the room didn’t know what they were hearing.”

“Nets” and “playoffs” were two words that prior to Kidd went together like “jelly” and “liver.” Kidd soon repeated the promise to the media. People thought Kidd was nuts.

“The minute he walked in the door, you could feel the entire mood change,” Richard Jefferson said. “You could feel the air in the gym completely change.”

Swashcuff
06-04-2013, 11:25 AM
Later tonight, I'll get back to the rest of your post (agree with some parts as I consider myself a rational Nets fan even though I am definitely what you would consider a Kidd "homeboy").

This quote caught me off guard and kinda pissed me off. Are you serious? He single-handedly turned around an entire franchise the moment he walked in the door. We were a LOTTERY team that went to the Finals. You can say all you want about the weak East and all but you CANNOT question him "raising his teammates' game" to a whole different level.

-- Lawrence Frank.

-- Tim Walsh.

- Gary Sussman



I am an Allen Iverson fanboy (a rational one if that even makes sense lol) so no I won't speak too much on the weak East but let's be honest it can't be ignored because its factor that can't be forgotten. There have been teams out West during Nash's tenure that didn't make the playoffs that could probably beat those Nets teams.

I never once said Kidd didn't make his teammates better. I said Nash did it at a level that I didn't see from Kidd, meaning Nash was better than Kidd at doing so. Honestly speaking you'd be hard pressed to find many knowledgeable NBA fans that would disagree with that. Don't agree with what I said? Look at the 2nd and 3rd links that I posted.

All those quotes in which you shared help your argument don't get me wrong but honestly I can bring you 3 times that amount for Nash's. Upon Nash's arrival the Suns went from a 29 win team to a 62 win team (33 game turn around) in a tougher WC (let's be honest about this dude this cannot be ignored I'm quite certain you can agree with that) upon Kidd's arrival the Nets went from a 26 win to a 52 win team (26 game turn around). I really don't see how that sells your argument that Kidd was better than Nash in that regard.

ManRam
06-04-2013, 11:39 AM
top 10, closer to 10 than 5 though.

JerseyPalahniuk
06-04-2013, 12:01 PM
I am an Allen Iverson fanboy (a rational one if that even makes sense lol) so no I won't speak too much on the weak East but let's be honest it can't be ignored because its factor that can't be forgotten. There have been teams out West during Nash's tenure that didn't make the playoffs that could probably beat those Nets teams.

I never once said Kidd didn't make his teammates better. I said Nash did it at a level that I didn't see from Kidd, meaning Nash was better than Kidd at doing so. Honestly speaking you'd be hard pressed to find many knowledgeable NBA fans that would disagree with that. Don't agree with what I said? Look at the 2nd and 3rd links that I posted.

All those quotes in which you shared help your argument don't get me wrong but honestly I can bring you 3 times that amount for Nash's. Upon Nash's arrival the Suns went from a 29 win team to a 62 win team (33 game turn around) in a tougher WC (let's be honest about this dude this cannot be ignored I'm quite certain you can agree with that) upon Kidd's arrival the Nets went from a 26 win to a 52 win team (26 game turn around). I really don't see how that sells your argument that Kidd was better than Nash in that regard.

I obviously won't refute the whole weak East thing because we both know the huge differences between them. So to get back to the turnaround difference between the Suns and the Nets. I took a look at the roster before and after both Kidd and Nash arrived. One thing in common: Stephon Marbury was the first point guard hahaha. We can both agree he was awful at everything Nash and Kidd were good at so let's leave it at that. When I see both rosters I evaluate the potential the roster could have had.

I see that the year BEFORE nash came they still had Amare, Joe Johnson, and Shawn Marion. Amare also missed 28 games that season, which could've led to the 29 win total.. Anyway, he put up 20 and 9 that year, and Shawn marion put up 19 and 9. If you a fan of fantasy basketball, I'd like to remind you that the Matrix was consistently the #1 overall fantasy draft pick for years before Lebron started his rise. He was the PERFECT complimentary player to a pass first point guard like Nash. If Kidd came to the Suns that year, I wouldn't be surprised if he had exceeded that 62 win total. Anyways, the Suns were 21st in offensive rating and 24th in defensive. The year after Nash came? 1st and 17th respectively. HUGE difference.

Now we get to Kidd. Marbury also led the Nets in MPG first year so we'll just take him out for comparison purposes. Next on that list? Rookie Kenyon Martin, Keith Van Horn, Johnny Newman, and Aaron Williams. The year Kidd came? Same players but sub in Kerry Kittles for Johnny Newman. If you are saying WHO? than you might be on to something. Kmart averaged 12 and 8 the year before, and we our only new addition was a Rookie Richard jefferson who only played 24 mpg and started 9 games the whole year. Yes, the East was much weaker but those Roster differences SHOULD balance out that record difference. And LEADING/willing his very, very unexperienced group all the way through some of those conference differences. Oh and back to the stats: Nets finished 23rd and 24th in team ratings the year before Kidd came. The year after? 17th in Offensive rating, and 1st in defensive rating. (Pretty cool that a point guard can anchor a defense like him).

You say 2 MVPs? I say very controversial MVP that year that many writers thought should've gone to Kidd. I don't need to mention the amount of debate that went over Nash's back to back MVPs do I? Kidd had 5 first team all NBA teams. He was considered the best player at his positions FIVE years. Nash? 3 first team.

You say best offensive player? I won't mention Kidd's offensive numbers at this point (lol have to say leading league in assists 5 years but besides that you can look up rest for yourself) but how about the nine all-defensive teams?

You say 50/40/90 seasons? I say 107 triple doubles. You can use that Iggy vs Melo counter-argument all you want but Jason Kidd was the more COMPLETE Nba player.

bagwell368
06-04-2013, 12:01 PM
Definitely top 10. Possibly top 5. Maybe top 3.

Top 10 is a reasonable argument. Top 3 is beyond ridiculous.

FYL_McVeezy
06-04-2013, 12:17 PM
Top 5 of all time....behind Magic, Stockton, Big O, West

Swashcuff
06-04-2013, 12:34 PM
I see that the year BEFORE nash came they still had Amare, Joe Johnson, and Shawn Marion. Amare also missed 28 games that season, which could've led to the 29 win total.. Anyway, he put up 20 and 9 that year, and Shawn marion put up 19 and 9. If you a fan of fantasy basketball, I'd like to remind you that the Matrix was consistently the #1 overall fantasy draft pick for years before Lebron started his rise. He was the PERFECT complimentary player to a pass first point guard like Nash. If Kidd came to the Suns that year, I wouldn't be surprised if he had exceeded that 62 win total. Anyways, the Suns were 21st in offensive rating and 24th in defensive. The year after Nash came? 1st and 17th respectively. HUGE difference.

Tell me something. What happened the year Amar'e got injured and missed the entire season? I get your fantasy point (really can't remember how good Matrix was but its understandable given his all round game). IMO there is absolutely NO CHANCE in hell Kidd wins more games with that team than Nash did, Nash offensive efficiency was unmatched by Kidd's there is more to running an effective Point than running and passing scoring efficiently also goes a LONG LONG way.

I can use the very same hypothetical argument the other way around. Would that make me right? Nash MADE that team offensively that's no question, and they were the best offensive team of all time. What was the biggest difference? Nash.


Now we get to Kidd. Marbury also led the Nets in MPG first year so we'll just take him out for comparison purposes. Next on that list? Rookie Kenyon Martin, Keith Van Horn, Johnny Newman, and Aaron Williams. The year Kidd came? Same players but sub in Kerry Kittles for Johnny Newman. If you are saying WHO? than you might be on to something. Kmart averaged 12 and 8 the year before, and we our only new addition was a Rookie Richard jefferson who only played 24 mpg and started 9 games the whole year. Yes, the East was much weaker but those Roster differences SHOULD balance out that record difference. And LEADING that very very unexperienced group all the way through the rigors and playoff intensity should also negate some of those conference differences. Oh and back to the stats: Nets finished 23rd and 24th in team ratings the year before Kidd came. The year after? 17th in Offensive rating, and 1st in defensive rating. (Pretty cool that a point guard can anchor a defense like him).

Jason Kidd was amazing defensively that season, calling him the anchor? I can get on board with that, let's not act as if he didn't have solid help on that end of the floor (in much the same way that Nash had help offensively) and was as having a solid defensive system in place.

Nash's group was also very inexperienced but that doesn't change the fact that his offense was as epic as it gets.


You say 2 MVPs? I say very controversial MVP that year that many writers thought should've gone to Kidd. I don't need to mention the amount of debate that went over Nash's back to back MVPs do I? Kidd had 5 first team all NBA teams. He was considered the best player at his positions FIVE years. Nash? 3 first team.

Controversial or not, he won the MVP. He was more deserving of an MVP award than Kidd ever was IMO. The stats, teams records and impact tells us that.

Why can we argue MVP and ALL NBA? IMO that's a severe double standard, you chastise Nash for being a double MVP but then praise Kidd for making more 1st teams, that's a bit confusing IMO.

Nash finished top 10 in MVP award shares on 6 occasions, as compared to Kidd's 5 times. Top 3 however he finished in there on 3 occasions Kidd however just once. For their career overall Kidd doesn't stack up.

A forum (that has a wealth of mature/knowledgeable) that is banned here did a retro player of the year project gauging the top players in every season since the NBA's inception their findings were that Nash was consistently a better and more instrumental in his teams' success than Kidd was here (http://rpoy.dolem.com/) are some of their conclusions.


You say best offensive player? I won't mention Kidd's offensive numbers at this point (lol have to say leading league in assists 5 years but besides that you can look up rest for yourself) but how about the nine all-defensive teams?

I beg of you to please answer this question in a none condescending way and please just answer what I ask, SIMPLE answer offense or defense okay. Simple answer and you can explain your reasoning after. Simple question one word answer just answer it okay. What is more important of the player who runs your point? To be a great defensive player holding your D together or being a great offensive player running some of the better offenses of all time?

Offense or Defense? Simple answer required.

If you want to speak of passing I counter this, Nash lead the NBA is assist% in 5 different seasons, was top 3 on 4 other occasions and is 4th all time in NBA history in that regard, Kidd is 11th and finished top 3 on 4 occasions (Nash 9).

Nash is 11th all time in career ORTG, Kidd? Well lets just say he isn't in the top 300 all time in that regard. Again speaks VOLUMES to Kidd's inability to score at anything resembling an efficient clip.

Honestly dude I left individual stats out of the argument for a reason. Why? because it in no ways helps Kidd. Nash slaughters him in that regard, triple doubles or not.


You say 50/40/90 seasons? I say 107 triple doubles. You can use that Iggy vs Melo counter-argument all you want but Jason Kidd was the more COMPLETE Nba player.

Complete NBA players know how to shoot the basketball at a clip better than 40% for their careers in the modern era. 50/40/90 seasons are much harder to come by than a 6'4 PG grabbing that man rebounds. Nash is arguably the greatest shooter in the history of the game, a top 10 passer and one of the most efficient scorers ever. What more can you want out of your PG?

I feel like I'm typing things that I shouldn't so hear what you should do, you say you're a rational fan, well then I'm confident that if you take a gander at the articles in which I shared earlier you'd understand my POV and see the holes in your argument.

I urge you before you reply to this post take a read of those articles bro. Then if you still feel the exact same way you can come back and refute everything I said.

Lo Porto
06-04-2013, 12:43 PM
Magic and Stockton are at the top of the class. Magic due to his winning and total basketball skills. Stockton due to his winning and excellence in all PG measures (passing, stealing, defense, shooting percentage, etc.). Then there is the next level that has Nash, Kidd, Isaiah, and a few others.

jericho
06-04-2013, 12:55 PM
Really?? Some of you guys would pick Nash over Kidd. Why just why?? I really dont get it. The only thing that Nash was better at than Kidd was scoring on everything else Kidd has him beat.

bagwell368
06-04-2013, 01:08 PM
KJ is arguably better than Kidd - outside of career length. Billups too. Certainly on the O side they kill Kidd. On the D Kidd has them, but not by as much as they have him on O.

Kidd however > Iverson

FOBolous
06-04-2013, 01:14 PM
definitely in the top 10 but on the outside of the top 10.

Bravo95
06-04-2013, 01:24 PM
Top 10. Haven't sorted 'em all out but I will say Nash's best was better than Kidd at his best.

cuttydoesit6
06-04-2013, 01:33 PM
imo id take kidd over nash. Nash is definetly winning in the mvp department and rightfully so but some could say his numbers were a little inflated in da's system.
kidd was great at just about ever part of the game from boards to dishes to defense you name it. in his prime he helped take his nets to the finals a few times.
and although he wasnt the man at the time...he does win the ring argument...& these days thats a big deal to ppl. id have him in my top 5 pgs all time. hof'er fasho

jericho
06-04-2013, 01:38 PM
2 MVPs > 0 MVPs :shrug:

:laugh2:

I'm better than that so I'll give you what you asked for. 1st off I'll start off by saying you're a J.Kidd fanboy so its gonna be tougher to prove to you than it is to a others but if you're rational about it you can see where I'm coming from (I'm an A.I. fanboy and I can see a case for Nash being ahead of him as well).

Nash is a top 5 offensive player all time in this game, don't agree with me look a little further. He ran the point for 3 of the top 5 offenses of all time and 5 of the top 11.

Here are two articles explaining his value to his teams offensively.
http://www.82games.com/pelton15.htm (the impact he had on all his teammates offense)
http://chasing23.com/why-steve-nash-is-the-greatest-offensive-player-ever/
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7225
http://www.fullcourtpest.com/2012/01/in-defence-of-steve-nash-part-1.html

If anyone is so say that Steve Nash is a product of X coach (like that dude who said Nellie and D'Antoni inflated Nash's numbers) then they clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about. When D'Antoni left Phoenix they still ran a better offense than any team Kidd has ever played for and that's despite the fact that they completely revamped the offense. Also its not because of his team's run and gun style that Nash's teams are so efficient offensively, pace and efficiency has basically zero correlation.

Major reason why Nash is ahead of Kidd in my mind (and the mind of most) is because of the fact that as a point guard your primary responsibility is to score efficiently (which Kidd has never done, run an efficient offense (no one has done so better than Nash) and be a leader/floor general (no one was a better general for his team than Nash since he came into the league IMO) but that point can go either way depending on who you talk to, I would have no beef if you took Kidd there.

Kidd just couldn't stack up to Nash when it comes to offense, yeah he could pass as good as anyone but his inability to score efficiently hurt his team where as in Nash's case was one of the biggest reasons why his teams were so great offensively. That's why Rondo's teams really aren't much different in terms of PPG, FG% and especially ORTG when he isn't playing, yeah playmaking is great but if you're not scoring well enough to match that your team's offense would be lacking. That IMO is Kidd's biggest drawback, could you imagine if he shot as well as Nash in his finals runs? His team would still get beaten but they'd have a completely different dynamic.

Now let's talk about D, shouldn't be a long convo since no human being would ever accuse Steve Nash of being a better defensive player than Jason Kidd. Kidd is lightyears better than Nash, the question I ask you however and please be as objective as you can, in terms of positions on the basketball floor which to you is most least important defensively. IMO its the PG and yes being a great defensive player is always a very very very good thing but when you play the PG its not as important as say the C/PF or SF. Kidd was a better rebounder and the best of his time at getting triple doubles. Nash was the best ever at getting 50/40/90 seasons, pick your poison.

I understand that you may feel that Kidd was better than Nash in their prime but I just think because of his ability to run such great offenses (look as his team his last year in Phoenix and they were still top 10 in offense). Outside of his Dallas days (where he was still a top 15 PG but no where near Elite) Kidd's teams only had a better offense than Steve Nash's 2012 Suns just once and in his real elite years his Nets were never very good offensively.

Nash truly raised his teammates games and his teams games to a level that I never really saw from Kidd. That's why he's ahead of him in my eyes.

Swashcuff you one of the better poster over here but ill have to repectfully disagree with this. Kidd is one of the only players that could impact the game without scoring at all and thats with him not having a not so great of a supporting cast.

Another thing swap Kidd with Nash on those Suns and i trully believe the Suns would be better with Kidd. Outside of Kidd on those nets team had nobody keith van horn kenyon martin kerry kittle after that he had richard jeferson and vince carter. Nash had stat marion joe johnson barbosa shaq grant hill and the list goes on. He always had a better supporting cast than Kidd hence making his job easier.

I aint gonna argue bout the system because that aint the players fault of taking advantege of something that would making him better hell im all for it.

Swashcuff
06-04-2013, 02:05 PM
Swashcuff you one of the better poster over here but ill have to repectfully disagree with this. Kidd is one of the only players that could impact the game without scoring at all and thats with him not having a not so great of a supporting cast.

Another thing swap Kidd with Nash on those Suns and i trully believe the Suns would be better with Kidd. Outside of Kidd on those nets team had nobody keith van horn kenyon martin kerry kittle after that he had richard jeferson and vince carter. Nash had stat marion joe johnson barbosa shaq grant hill and the list goes on. He always had a better supporting cast than Kidd hence making his job easier.

I aint gonna argue bout the system because that aint the players fault of taking advantege of something that would making him better hell im all for it.

Got no beef with you disagreeing with me, I can see other posters POV, I'd like however for them to see mine.

I'd like for you to understand something, those Suns teams weren't as great as they were just because they had such a good supporting cast around Nash (if you click on those 4 links that I posted you'd see the impact Nash had on his teammates offense just take 15 minutes and skim through them), not because of the system in which was ran (the Suns didn't miss a beat offensively when D'Antoni left) nor was it because Nash was just a good playmaker, Nash's ability to score when needed and efficiently at that is what sets him apart from Kidd in terms of their differences offensively.

Nash's ability to shoot didn't allow opposing teams to double Amar'e (whose offensive efficiency has been proven to be a direct effect of playing with Nash), because if they did he'd burn them if open. This allowed the Suns offense to take greater advantage of opposing teams D.

Honestly I can understand the all round/triple double type argument in Kidd's favour but IMO Nash's superior scoring ability (shooting, finishing, clutch) is what sets him and his teams apart from Kidd's. Even when Nash didn't have a single all star talent on his roster he ran more efficient offenses than prime Kidd ever did (with better offensive support).

I urge you before replying to just go throw the links that I posted, especially the 4th one. It addresses all the gripes you have with Nash's game. You may not agree with them all but it would help you understand why I feel the way I do.

JerseyPalahniuk
06-04-2013, 02:18 PM
Swashcuff, I'm sorry if you that I was being condescending in my argument. I was just trying out a format I had read in this other article comparing Barkely/Malone haha (the whole you say? I say). It wasn't meant to seem as though my points were STRONGER rather than Kidd excels in fields Nash doesn't.

Looks like we value different aspects of a point guard. You seem to value point guards who can score shoot (Iverson, Nash) while I value point guard that actually has a defensive game even more so (Kidd, Payton). Trust me, I WISHED Kidd would've worked on his shooting a lot more in the off-season. It would've paid off greatly. To each his own. If I had to pick between either point guard to start my franchise (in their primes), I would pick Jason Kidd 9 times out of 10. I still don't see anyway Nash would've had gotten hat Nets team in 2001 to the NBA Finals. NO WAY. On the other hand, I could see Kidd slowing down Parker in that conference finals and making it

p.s. Atleast I didn't resort to the superficial 1 ring > 0 ring argument hahaha.

Sandman
06-04-2013, 02:18 PM
Swash you keep talking about offense, though

Is the gap between Nash and Kidd offensively bigger than the gap between Kidd and Nash defensively? Nash routinely gets blown by but Kidd is an all-timer on defense.

jericho
06-04-2013, 02:44 PM
Got no beef with you disagreeing with me, I can see other posters POV, I'd like however for them to see mine.

I'd like for you to understand something, those Suns teams weren't as great as they were just because they had such a good supporting cast around Nash (if you click on those 4 links that I posted you'd see the impact Nash had on his teammates offense just take 15 minutes and skim through them), not because of the system in which was ran (the Suns didn't miss a beat offensively when D'Antoni left) nor was it because Nash was just a good playmaker, Nash's ability to score when needed and efficiently at that is what sets him apart from Kidd in terms of their differences offensively.

Nash's ability to shoot didn't allow opposing teams to double Amar'e (whose offensive efficiency has been proven to be a direct effect of playing with Nash), because if they did he'd burn them if open. This allowed the Suns offense to take greater advantage of opposing teams D.

Honestly I can understand the all round/triple double type argument in Kidd's favour but IMO Nash's superior scoring ability (shooting, finishing, clutch) is what sets him and his teams apart from Kidd's. Even when Nash didn't have a single all star talent on his roster he ran more efficient offenses than prime Kidd ever did (with better offensive support).

I urge you before replying to just go throw the links that I posted, especially the 4th one. It addresses all the gripes you have with Nash's game. You may not agree with them all but it would help you understand why I feel the way I do.

Alright ill take a look at them when I get the chance rite now I'm on the phone. But 2 things Kidd never had a better offensive supporting cast than Nash and 2nd regarding to another one of your posts if its so easy for a 6'4" point guard to get as many rebounds as Kidd did why haven't we seen any other pg with similar rebounding numbers he has even rebounded better than some sg sf pf and centers. I'd say that is more dificult then getting the 90 40 50. Yeah Nash is an efficient scorer but all the other stuff that Kidd brought to the table was better than that specially on the defensive side.

Lo Porto
06-04-2013, 03:02 PM
I'll chime in on this Nash vs Kidd thing. Just like a lot of NBA debates, I don't think there has to be a ranking system per player. For example, I don't think there is a Greatest of All Time. There's no way that MJ had a bigger affect on the game than Wilt. The Stilt to the actual game was revolutionary to a point where they changed the rules due to his dominance. Then you have Bill Russell whose titles can't be ignored. His stats weren't Kareem or Wilt like, but they were great. Then you have Kareem who has stats and titles. You have those 4 and everyone else. You don't have to rank them.

The same for PG's. Magic and Stockton reign supreme. Magic was a PG who could do anything and he won titles. Stockton was the best prototypical PG of all time who was always a winner. Both of their stats were in the upper echelon and their impact on the game was incredible. After that level, you have guys who are all on the same plain - Nash, Oscar, Kidd, West, Isaiah and I'm sure a couple others. All of those guys were great but not up for greatest PG of all time discussion. All of those had strengths and weaknesses.

So if I'm looking at the careers of Kidd and Nash at this point, I'd say they are pretty much equals.

LongWayFromHome
06-04-2013, 04:19 PM
Kidd vs Nash

I don't care about who was "greater" but if I could have had one of them on my team from start to finish it would be Kidd. His prime was awesome.

calmunderfireKO
06-04-2013, 05:10 PM
The PG position is so weak all time.

When you think about it, the amount of franchise changers at that position, it's just bare.

OceanSpray
06-04-2013, 05:15 PM
The PG position is so weak all time.

When you think about it, the amount of franchise changers at that position, it's just bare.

What?
Magic
Stockton
Isiah
Kidd
Nash
GP
Oscar Robertson

It's far from weak.

calmunderfireKO
06-04-2013, 05:19 PM
What?
Magic
Stockton
Isiah
Kidd
Nash
GP
Oscar Robertson

It's far from weak.

That's 1 player in the top 20 players of all time. Not a lot of titles in that group.

Robertson is so overrated. He has 1 title.

Swashcuff
06-04-2013, 06:09 PM
Swash you keep talking about offense, though

Is the gap between Nash and Kidd offensively bigger than the gap between Kidd and Nash defensively? Nash routinely gets blown by but Kidd is an all-timer on defense.

I spoke about D but quite honestly why should I have to that's like me trying to convince someone that is better than Bron defensively haha, never going to happen, if I'm gonna make a case for Nash I'd have to concede that he's no where Kidd and move on.

Being a great defensive PG is good and everything don't get me wrong but in terms of the make up of basketball it's the least important and impactful position. Would you agree on that?

Running an offense is your primary responsibility and hypotheticals aside Nash has done that better than anyone not named Stockton or Magic and even so those are both debateable.

People keep speaking of Nash's strong teams and not the weak ones who were routinely among the best offenses when his teams support was worse than Kidds prime years his teams offense was still way better.

IMO the gap defensively is bigger than the one offensively I'd be a fool not to admit that but what Steve Nash did with that little gap he had over the course of his career is more than what Kidd was able to do with his.

Swashcuff
06-04-2013, 06:12 PM
That's 1 player in the top 20 players of all time. Not a lot of titles in that group.

Robertson is so overrated. He has 1 title.

You do realize that this is a sport that the bigger players reign supreme right, so don't you think that it's basic common sense that you'd see bigger players ranking in the top 20? How many SGs are in there? How many would be there if MJ didn't exist?

The PG position isn't weak the men closer to the bucket are obviously going to have more impact on both ends of the floor and in the end end up being better overall players. Think however where'd they'd be without the point guard finding them open looks and in good positions.

xxplayerxx23
06-04-2013, 06:22 PM
I can't believe I read Oscar was over rated dumbest thing I've read on here.
Anyway Kidd was fantastic prob 6-7 range
Magic
Oscar
Stockton
Thomas
Clyde
Nash and Kidd are close

NJrockPD
06-04-2013, 06:33 PM
I would say top 5 -10 ever. Great long career. He evolved as a player over time. Great distributor, facilitator, and defender. Led a great Nets team for years, but couldn't get them over the hump. He aged and became a great role player. Improved his shot and lengthened an already fantastic career. J. Kidd you will be missed.

Swashcuff
06-04-2013, 06:36 PM
Swashcuff, I'm sorry if you that I was being condescending in my argument. I was just trying out a format I had read in this other article comparing Barkely/Malone haha (the whole you say? I say). It wasn't meant to seem as though my points were STRONGER rather than Kidd excels in fields Nash doesn't.

Looks like we value different aspects of a point guard. You seem to value point guards who can score shoot (Iverson, Nash) while I value point guard that actually has a defensive game even more so (Kidd, Payton). Trust me, I WISHED Kidd would've worked on his shooting a lot more in the off-season. It would've paid off greatly. To each his own. If I had to pick between either point guard to start my franchise (in their primes), I would pick Jason Kidd 9 times out of 10. I still don't see anyway Nash would've had gotten hat Nets team in 2001 to the NBA Finals. NO WAY. On the other hand, I could see Kidd slowing down Parker in that conference finals and making it

p.s. Atleast I didn't resort to the superficial 1 ring > 0 ring argument hahaha.

Haha indeed

Na I don't value scoring over D my irrational love for A.I. was because of the type of heart he displayed on the floor each and every game, he could be Royal Ivey for all I care I'd still admire him for that. TBH I usually go for the all round guy (eg CP3 over Tony Parker) but I really do think that people underrate Nash's career. I won't lie I LOVED Kidd growing up being and EC fan and hated Nash because I thought he stole MVPs that were for other players (and secretly because he got more than A.I.) but then I grew a bit wiser stopped disliking Nash for idiotic reasons and did my own research as to why he won those MVPs, what made a guy who couldn't even score 20 ppg or rebound to save his life so special. The more I read about the breakdown of his career, support and offenses the more I realized how good he was and how foolish I was for disliking him.

If I had to pick between them as in any case I'd have to look at the make up of my team, if I'm starting a team from scratch in their prime I'd go Nash. Greatest shooter ever, clutch, great passer, epitomizes what it means to make everyone around you better, efficient scorer and can put up points in bunches when needed as a point guard yeah I'll take that, I'll leave the defending and rebounding up the the paint protectors.


Alright ill take a look at them when I get the chance rite now I'm on the phone. But 2 things Kidd never had a better offensive supporting cast than Nash and 2nd regarding to another one of your posts if its so easy for a 6'4" point guard to get as many rebounds as Kidd did why haven't we seen any other pg with similar rebounding numbers he has even rebounded better than some sg sf pf and centers. I'd say that is more dificult then getting the 90 40 50. Yeah Nash is an efficient scorer but all the other stuff that Kidd brought to the table was better than that specially on the defensive side.

Thing is even though Nash had better support in the years where he didn't his team's offense was still better than Kidd's teams (when he was the best player not the Knicks team or the Mavs teams) even when Nash's 2nd best player was Marcin Gortat or when old men Grant Hill and Vince Carter were his other go to guys. Even when Kidd had Carter still in his prime he couldn't run a better offense than Nash did.

I don't know which is more different tbh to shoot that over the course of a season speaks VOLUMES to your consistency in the least consistent part of basketball (shooting) but to have over 100 career triple doubles in this era at 6'4 is absolutely amazing, they are both arbitrary #s which look good when we look at them in all honesty because 10, 10, 10 could never be better than 14, 8, 12 (games which Kidd had more than a few of) and nor is 50, 40, 90 better than 55, 45, 88 all objective with arbitrary cut offs but remarkable achievements none the less.

Reason why I keep urging guys to read those articles is because before I looked back on Nash's career I would be in here in Kidd's defense without question, after I did though and compared their careers I appreciate Nash so much more. To the point where I rank him ahead of A.I. (this would NEVER have happened if I didn't attempt to put Nash's career in perspective) in my top 50 all time. Kidd that's another debate.

waveycrockett
06-04-2013, 07:01 PM
KJ is arguably better than Kidd - outside of career length. Billups too. Certainly on the O side they kill Kidd. On the D Kidd has them, but not by as much as they have him on O.

Kidd however > Iverson
Stick to baseball

waveycrockett
06-04-2013, 07:07 PM
2 MVPs > 0 MVPs :shrug:

:laugh2:

I'm better than that so I'll give you what you asked for. 1st off I'll start off by saying you're a J.Kidd fanboy so its gonna be tougher to prove to you than it is to a others but if you're rational about it you can see where I'm coming from (I'm an A.I. fanboy and I can see a case for Nash being ahead of him as well).

Nash is a top 5 offensive player all time in this game, don't agree with me look a little further. He ran the point for 3 of the top 5 offenses of all time and 5 of the top 11.

Here are two articles explaining his value to his teams offensively.
http://www.82games.com/pelton15.htm (the impact he had on all his teammates offense)
http://chasing23.com/why-steve-nash-is-the-greatest-offensive-player-ever/
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7225
http://www.fullcourtpest.com/2012/01/in-defence-of-steve-nash-part-1.html

If anyone is so say that Steve Nash is a product of X coach (like that dude who said Nellie and D'Antoni inflated Nash's numbers) then they clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about. When D'Antoni left Phoenix they still ran a better offense than any team Kidd has ever played for and that's despite the fact that they completely revamped the offense. Also its not because of his team's run and gun style that Nash's teams are so efficient offensively, pace and efficiency has basically zero correlation.

Major reason why Nash is ahead of Kidd in my mind (and the mind of most) is because of the fact that as a point guard your primary responsibility is to score efficiently (which Kidd has never done, run an efficient offense (no one has done so better than Nash) and be a leader/floor general (no one was a better general for his team than Nash since he came into the league IMO) but that point can go either way depending on who you talk to, I would have no beef if you took Kidd there.

Kidd just couldn't stack up to Nash when it comes to offense, yeah he could pass as good as anyone but his inability to score efficiently hurt his team where as in Nash's case was one of the biggest reasons why his teams were so great offensively. That's why Rondo's teams really aren't much different in terms of PPG, FG% and especially ORTG when he isn't playing, yeah playmaking is great but if you're not scoring well enough to match that your team's offense would be lacking. That IMO is Kidd's biggest drawback, could you imagine if he shot as well as Nash in his finals runs? His team would still get beaten but they'd have a completely different dynamic.

Now let's talk about D, shouldn't be a long convo since no human being would ever accuse Steve Nash of being a better defensive player than Jason Kidd. Kidd is lightyears better than Nash, the question I ask you however and please be as objective as you can, in terms of positions on the basketball floor which to you is most least important defensively. IMO its the PG and yes being a great defensive player is always a very very very good thing but when you play the PG its not as important as say the C/PF or SF. Kidd was a better rebounder and the best of his time at getting triple doubles. Nash was the best ever at getting 50/40/90 seasons, pick your poison.

I understand that you may feel that Kidd was better than Nash in their prime but I just think because of his ability to run such great offenses (look as his team his last year in Phoenix and they were still top 10 in offense). Outside of his Dallas days (where he was still a top 15 PG but no where near Elite) Kidd's teams only had a better offense than Steve Nash's 2012 Suns just once and in his real elite years his Nets were never very good offensively.

Nash truly raised his teammates games and his teams games to a level that I never really saw from Kidd. That's why he's ahead of him in my eyes.
So Kidd played in a weak East. Nash's stats were insanely inflated and his 2 MVP's were a farce he won because he was the next great white hope.

Swashcuff
06-04-2013, 07:11 PM
So Kidd played in a weak East. Nash's stats were insanely inflated and his 2 MVP's were a farce he won because he was the next great white hope.

Give me a statistical breakdown as to how Nash's #s were insanely inflated.

All the links in which I posted in that thread refute that baseless claim, now let me see you back it up. I'm not even going to look bother with the white hope bull****. With that kind of reasoning A.I. would have never been chosen.

b@llhog24
06-04-2013, 07:27 PM
So Kidd played in a weak East. Nash's stats were insanely inflated and his 2 MVP's were a farce he won because he was the next great white hope.

Lmao, so Kidd isn't white? At least Nash has some African in him.

D-Leethal
06-04-2013, 07:47 PM
Best winner of all time. And I know Ws don't mean everything, but this guy was the sole reason his teams turned around twice. Got trade to PHX when they were 7-20. They end up 42-40 that season and 56-26 the next. We all know what he did for the Nets who were a laughing stock turned back to back finals team. He was able to help Dirk and the Mavs get over the hump. Kidd just wins. Even the Knicks finally cracked 50 wins when he came along.

calmunderfireKO
06-04-2013, 07:53 PM
You do realize that this is a sport that the bigger players reign supreme right, so don't you think that it's basic common sense that you'd see bigger players ranking in the top 20? How many SGs are in there? How many would be there if MJ didn't exist?

The PG position isn't weak the men closer to the bucket are obviously going to have more impact on both ends of the floor and in the end end up being better overall players. Think however where'd they'd be without the point guard finding them open looks and in good positions.

They'd go ham like Duncan did in 2003 and win the title with a lottery team.

Swashcuff
06-04-2013, 08:02 PM
They'd go ham like Duncan did in 2003 and win the title with a lottery team.

Its funny that you made that point because in the 03 post season Duncan was assisted on more field goals (112-218 good for 51.4%) than he was in any of his other titles runs. That was the year he relied on his PG the most to be effective offensively. Try again.

calmunderfireKO
06-04-2013, 08:11 PM
Its funny that you made that point because in the 03 post season Duncan was assisted on more field goals (112-218 good for 51.4%) than he was in any of his other titles runs. That was the year he relied on his PG the most to be effective offensively. Try again.

Dude. It's not hard to get assists when you have the most dominant player in the game. Anyways assists are assists for a reason. You are assisting, (not being the star).

Swashcuff
06-04-2013, 08:24 PM
Dude. It's not hard to get assists when you have the most dominant player in the game. Anyways assists are assists for a reason. You are assisting, (not being the star).

It refutes your point however. I guess Jordan assisting Kerr didn't make him Jordan a star? That's about the stupidest thing I've read all day.

The guy who was seen by many as the G.O.A.T. before MJ/sickness Magic Johnson wasn't a star either despite being the best passer (assister) to ever play the game. Yeah he wasn't a star either.

Anywho back to what you said earlier, the point guard position is not weak, this is a big man's game its common sense when you think of how the best players of the game (top 20 all time) would stack up.

How many SGs are in the top 20? Jordan and Kobe? West played more PG than SG (even led the league in assists once yeah he wasn't a star then) than he did in his career, then there is Magic and Oscar.

bagwell368
06-04-2013, 08:43 PM
That's 1 player in the top 20 players of all time. Not a lot of titles in that group.

Robertson is so overrated. He has 1 title.

Robertson played for a crappy Royals team most of his career. He was far more valuable to his teams than Russell was to his.

Clearly top 20, and not over rated.

bagwell368
06-04-2013, 08:47 PM
Stick to baseball

I said arguably, and he is in the same range as Kidd.

OceanSpray
06-04-2013, 08:59 PM
I don't like including ABA players. I feel the competition back then was severely lacking. Boston won everything, Bill Russell went to a player coach approach and still managed to win 2 rings.. Don't think if LeBron became a player coach, Miami could've won 2 rings.

KnickaBocka.44
06-04-2013, 09:04 PM
I don't like including ABA players. I feel the competition back then was severely lacking. Boston won everything, Bill Russell went to a player coach approach and still managed to win 2 rings.. Don't think if LeBron became a player coach, Miami could've won 2 rings.

Well Lebron only has one, so to ask him to be more successful than he has been while handling more responsibility would be pretty ridiculous.

Hawkeye15
06-04-2013, 09:14 PM
top 10. By the time his shot came around, his other skills were diminishing, so he was never a guy you would consider an MVP candidate (I am aware of the year he was getting mention, please). But excellent player for a long time, and I am hoping my boy Rubio sort of follows his career path.

jam
06-04-2013, 09:58 PM
Dude was just flat out dismal at the end. He was literally an embarrassment to the game and to himself.

RB#20
06-04-2013, 11:23 PM
Dude made Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson look like they could play in this league. That might be J-Kidd's greatest career accomplishment. #7 greatest PG of all time.

waveycrockett
06-05-2013, 12:23 AM
Give me a statistical breakdown as to how Nash's #s were insanely inflated.

All the links in which I posted in that thread refute that baseless claim, now let me see you back it up. I'm not even going to look bother with the white hope bull****. With that kind of reasoning A.I. would have never been chosen.
Seems like you've just started watching basketball so I'll take it easy on you. You think Nash's MVP just coincidentally came under D'Antoni and his rule of 7 seconds or less on offense. Suns lead the NBA possession by FARRRR ever year under him and were instructed to not play any defense. And his MVP's are a farce as Bill who is a voter points out.

You think it was coincidence below average PG's like Raymond Felton and Chris Duhon put up top-10 PG numbers under D'Antoni??




Look, I love watching Nash and I remain grateful that he helped make the NBA entertaining again. But there are two objectives in basketball (score and defend) and over the years he was exploited defensively more times than Lindsay Lohan. That meant we were voting a DH as MVP. Twice. I voted for Shaq in 2005 and Kobe in 2006—well, in my mind I did—and Nash didn't make my top four either year. Begrudgingly, I grew to accept Nash's stature even if I disagreed with it: He made teammates better and made a seemingly frantic style work for a contender, and his numbers/percentages appealed to stat geeks everywhere (17 points, 11 assists, 51%-91%-44% FG-FT-3FG in his MVP years). Fine. In the big scheme, rewarding an exceedingly likable player twice didn't rank among the 200 worst sports atrocities of this decade.

Then D'Antoni left and Nash's numbers quickly and not-so-coincidentally dropped back to his pre-Phoenix numbers in Dallas. You know, when the Mavericks decided to let him leave after Mike Bibby torched him in the 2004 playoffs. Check it out:

Nash, 2003-04: 78 games, 14.5 PPG, 8.8 APG, 47% FG, 41% 3FG, 92% FT.
Nash, 2008-09: 24 games, 15.5 PPG, 8.5 APG, 48% FG, 42% 3FG, 94% FT.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3797805

Swashcuff
06-05-2013, 12:33 AM
Seems like you've just started watching basketball so I'll take it easy on you. You think Nash's MVP just coincidentally came under D'Antoni and his rule of 7 seconds or less on offense. Suns lead the NBA possession by FARRRR ever year under him and were instructed to not play any defense. And his MVP's are a farce as Bill who is a voter points out.





http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3797805

Here is what I posted 4 links earlier, take the time to click.

You can't take it easy, hard or anything on me you don't know me and better yet you don't know JACK about basketball. You're an internet troll how can you tell me you're gonna take it easy on me :laugh2:

That was the view of one voter too bad many others didn't hold his view. But hey if Nash was black he would not have won the MVP you're completely right.

You really need to come better than that dude if you're going to do anything more than be a troll.

Do you know who ran the most efficient offense of the last 20 years? Steve Nash. Do you know who was the coach of his team? Alvin Gentry.

Somehow with D'Antoni's system in place Nash still managed to run the best offense any of us has ever seen live. http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tsl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=team_totals&lg_id=NBA&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=off_rtg

Nash without D'Antoni still managed to lead his team to the conference finals with no Marion, and having one of the best seasons of his career.

Nash a product of D'Antoni? Puhlease.

Click on the links I posted earlier they refute that idiotic belief.

JerseyPalahniuk
06-05-2013, 12:38 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3797805

LOL at the numbers in the article.
You realize the year right after they went back up to 16.5 PPG, 11.0 APG, 50.7% FG, 43% 3pt, and 94% FT?

He also bumped that assist total back up to 9.7apg by the end of the season (and fg to 50.3%)

JerseyPalahniuk
06-05-2013, 12:40 AM
Also Swashcuff, I finally got around to looking at those articles, I was VERY impressed by the 2nd and 4th. Didn't buy into the defensive numbers put in the 4th one but his own offense as well as the team offense was truly amazing. No idea he did all that. I will concede the fact that Kidd and Nash had equal impacts on a team but nothing more. I still would start a franchise with Kidd over Nash but like I said before, that's just the type of player I value more.

Swashcuff
06-05-2013, 12:44 AM
Also Swashcuff, I finally got around to looking at those articles, I was VERY impressed by the 2nd and 4th. Didn't buy into the defensive numbers put in the 4th one but his own offense as well as the team offense was truly amazing. No idea he did all that. I will concede the fact that Kidd and Nash had equal impacts on a team but nothing more. I still would start a franchise with Kidd over Nash but like I said before, that's just the type of player I value more.

Thanks for being straight for and rational bro. I can certainly respect that. I can't blame you for your opinion of taking Kidd over Nash I can certainly see why and you're completely right in doing so. I enjoyed the chat we had :cheers:

JJ_JKidd
06-05-2013, 03:08 AM
Swashbuck I have to say that you have done a great great job lawyering for Steve Nash being better than Jason Kidd. However, this "fanboy" hereby presents to this courtroom some slam-dunk, irrefutable statistics, and hard and tangible evidence on who is better based on box score categories dating from their entry into the league up until the '12-'13 season.

Assists

Kidd (since 94-95): 12,091
Nash (since '96-97):10,249

* Maybe you are going to argue that Nash came into the league later than Kidd. For comparison's sake, let us therefore assume that with Nash's career averages of 8.5 apg, we multiply this by 82 games, and further multiply this by 2 seasons, since Nash came in two seasons later, which will then give us 1,394. Add this to Nash career assist total and it gives us 11,643. Still less than Kidd's total of 12,091. So this category therefore, goes to Jason Kidd. This does not include the playoffs by the way. If you include it, its Kidd with 1,263 assists compared to Nash with 1,061.

Maybe you are still going to argue that my assumption is wrong, and I just cant take 8.5 apg as representative of the two seasons, but let me just say that Nash's first season in the league, because he is such a late-bloomer, he averaged just 2.1 apg compared to Kidd's 7.7 apg so I think that the 8.5 apg in the two seasons I gave Nash is a bit higher. But that's ok.

Points

Kidd: 17,529
Nash : 17,285

No need to make computations, including those two seasons and the fact that Nash is the better offensive player, this category goes to Nash.

Rebounds

Kidd: 8,725
Nash: 3,613

Kidd's rebound numbers are more than twice that of Nash, and those two seasons clearly will not matter.

Steals

Kidd: 2,684
Nash: 892

Kidd's totals are thrice that of Nash's.

Blocks

Kidd: 450
Nash: 100

Kidd by a mile.

Turnovers

Kidd: 4,003
Nash: 3,447

Advantage Nash.


Summary

Assists: Kidd
Points: Nash
Rebounds: Kidd
Steals: Kidd
Blocks: Kidd
Turnovers: Nash

Now tell me how a player who wins two out of six categories, is better than the player who wins four out of six categories. Again, these are just box score statistics. I dont need to include triple-doubles, because Kidd owns Nash in this category hands down, and not to mention the NBA Rating, as well as Kidd's rankings in the NBA's All-Time leaders in statistics, gold medals, All NBA Team Selections.

I am just talking about numbers here.

Want to include Nash's 2 MVPs? Hell yeah ask Malone and Barkley, and all the MVP non-champions if they want to trade their Maurice Podoloff Trophy to the Larry O' Brien Trophy and ill tell you that its an instant YES.

But that's not the point. The truth are in numbers and these numbers are irrefutable, something that the courtroom judge will undoubtedly appreciate more than the arguments that you raised. And statistics show that Kidd has the better number in four out of six box score categories, thus he is the better player.

sunsfan88
06-05-2013, 05:09 AM
Nash was great but D'Antoni and Nellie Ball inflated his stats tremendously and he played no defense.

And...?

Fine so if you wanna discredit Nash cause of the SSOL offense, then I'm gonna say that Kobe and Shaq's stats were inflated due to the triangle offense.

Makes no sense right? Yea and neither does trying to discredit Nash cause of their style of offense.

bagwell368
06-05-2013, 06:29 AM
Swashbuck I have to say that you have done a great great job lawyering for Steve Nash being better than Jason Kidd. However, this "fanboy" hereby presents to this courtroom some slam-dunk, irrefutable statistics, and hard and tangible evidence on who is better based on box score categories dating from their entry into the league up until the '12-'13 season.

Assists

Kidd (since 94-95): 12,091
Nash (since '96-97):10,249

* Maybe you are going to argue that Nash came into the league later than Kidd. For comparison's sake, let us therefore assume that with Nash's career averages of 8.5 apg, we multiply this by 82 games, and further multiply this by 2 seasons, since Nash came in two seasons later, which will then give us 1,394. Add this to Nash career assist total and it gives us 11,643. Still less than Kidd's total of 12,091. So this category therefore, goes to Jason Kidd. This does not include the playoffs by the way. If you include it, its Kidd with 1,263 assists compared to Nash with 1,061.

Maybe you are still going to argue that my assumption is wrong, and I just cant take 8.5 apg as representative of the two seasons, but let me just say that Nash's first season in the league, because he is such a late-bloomer, he averaged just 2.1 apg compared to Kidd's 7.7 apg so I think that the 8.5 apg in the two seasons I gave Nash is a bit higher. But that's ok.

Points

Kidd: 17,529
Nash : 17,285

No need to make computations, including those two seasons and the fact that Nash is the better offensive player, this category goes to Nash.

Rebounds

Kidd: 8,725
Nash: 3,613

Kidd's rebound numbers are more than twice that of Nash, and those two seasons clearly will not matter.

Steals

Kidd: 2,684
Nash: 892

Kidd's totals are thrice that of Nash's.

Blocks

Kidd: 450
Nash: 100

Kidd by a mile.

Turnovers

Kidd: 4,003
Nash: 3,447

Advantage Nash.


Summary

Assists: Kidd
Points: Nash
Rebounds: Kidd
Steals: Kidd
Blocks: Kidd
Turnovers: Nash

Now tell me how a player who wins two out of six categories, is better than the player who wins four out of six categories. Again, these are just box score statistics. I dont need to include triple-doubles, because Kidd owns Nash in this category hands down, and not to mention the NBA Rating, as well as Kidd's rankings in the NBA's All-Time leaders in statistics, gold medals, All NBA Team Selections.

I am just talking about numbers here.

Want to include Nash's 2 MVPs? Hell yeah ask Malone and Barkley, and all the MVP non-champions if they want to trade their Maurice Podoloff Trophy to the Larry O' Brien Trophy and ill tell you that its an instant YES.

But that's not the point. The truth are in numbers and these numbers are irrefutable, something that the courtroom judge will undoubtedly appreciate more than the arguments that you raised. And statistics show that Kidd has the better number in four out of six box score categories, thus he is the better player.

Totals? Really? What about per game, and percentages?

Also these categories are NOT equally important. I.E. Blocks and Rebounds combined times 2 are not as important as scoring (please use percentages here), defense, or passing.

Redrum187
06-05-2013, 07:32 AM
I spoke about D but quite honestly why should I have to that's like me trying to convince someone that is better than Bron defensively haha, never going to happen, if I'm gonna make a case for Nash I'd have to concede that he's no where Kidd and move on.

Being a great defensive PG is good and everything don't get me wrong but in terms of the make up of basketball it's the least important and impactful position. Would you agree on that?

Running an offense is your primary responsibility and hypotheticals aside Nash has done that better than anyone not named Stockton or Magic and even so those are both debateable.

People keep speaking of Nash's strong teams and not the weak ones who were routinely among the best offenses when his teams support was worse than Kidds prime years his teams offense was still way better.

IMO the gap defensively is bigger than the one offensively I'd be a fool not to admit that but what Steve Nash did with that little gap he had over the course of his career is more than what Kidd was able to do with his.

I'm a bit confused. You mentioned that defense (for a PG) has the least impact in reference to skill-set yet you say, as supporting evidence, how Nash lead the best offensive teams... Wouldn't you want a good PG to defend someone of Nash's caliber as to stop him from being such a bad ***? How would/could you not put a premium on defense when it comes to stopping such an offensive force? I understand PFs and Cs are generally the anchors, but are they going to chase the elite PGs on the perimeter? Are they going to put pressure defense on the playmakers throughout the game and on the last possession of the game to force the steal on the opposing team's wings?

Also, lets make a huge revelation: Kidd didn't just guard PGs; He guarded SGs and SFs (from Steve Nash to LeBron James). This is incredibly important and valuable.

I think Nash is an amazing PG all-time, but Kidd has him beat by a decent margin for me.

Greet
06-05-2013, 08:46 AM
And...?

Fine so if you wanna discredit Nash cause of the SSOL offense, then I'm gonna say that Kobe and Shaq's stats were inflated due to the triangle offense.

Makes no sense right? Yea and neither does trying to discredit Nash cause of their style of offense.

Well D'Antoni's system is notoriously known for INFLATING stats.

Jason Kidd and Steve Nash comparison is one of the best ones ever. Both came in the league relatively the same time, one being an offensive superstar and the other being a defensive superstar. It really is a pick your poison situation.

But I do think if you gave most GMs now the option of starting their franchise with a prime Jason Kidd or a prime Steve Nash.... You're going to get a majority JKidd. Steve Nash did make his teammates better offensively, but as it has been said by countless coaches/players etc. Jason Kidd made his teammates better, his coaches better, his management better. He made his players become better people as long as better players. The impact Jason Kidd had towards the Nets franchise is unmatched.

JerseyPalahniuk
06-05-2013, 09:40 AM
Assists

Kidd (since 94-95): 12,091
Nash (since '96-97):10,249


Points

Kidd: 17,529
Nash : 17,285


Rebounds

Kidd: 8,725
Nash: 3,613


Steals

Kidd: 2,684
Nash: 892

Blocks

Kidd: 450
Nash: 100


Turnovers

Kidd: 4,003
Nash: 3,447

Summary

Assists: Kidd
Points: Nash
Rebounds: Kidd
Steals: Kidd
Blocks: Kidd
Turnovers: Nash

I am just talking about numbers here.



Dude. LOL @ ur attempt of arguing for Kidd by using Total numbers.

Totals
Assists: Kidd > Magic
Rebounds: Kidd > Magic
Steals: Kidd > Magic
Blocks Kidd > Magic

hell, even points Kidd is only 200 career points away from Magic.

Would I pick Kidd over Magic? HELL NO.

As I said earlier, I'm a Kidd homeboy but I like to justify my reasons for Kidd over Nash rationally and not just spitting stats that shouldn't be compared.

JerseyPalahniuk
06-05-2013, 09:56 AM
Also, lets make a huge revelation: Kidd didn't just guard PGs; He guarded SGs and SFs (from Steve Nash to LeBron James). This is incredibly important and valuable.


THAT is something that I seemed to have forgotten to argue earlier. I remember the Knicks during the regular season (AT AGE 39) trusting Kidd on Lebron. Not saying he stopped him in anyway but when you have Shumpert, Melo, other people his size and quickness, there must be a reason coaches trust him with that sort of responsibility.

People tend to underestimate his impact on the Mavs as well. It was HIM who would shift off guarding Lebron and Wade along with Marion. Obviously they had Chandler as the final stopper but Kidd was a large part in slowing them down on the way to the hoop.

Just looked up the players he was compared against for the All-Defensive teams:
1998-99 1st team (tied with Gary Payton - I'm sure you all know about the Glove)
1999-00 2nd team (beat out by Payton, again, nothing to be upset about)
2000-01 1st team (with Payton, beat out Bruce Bowen)
2001-02 1st team (with Payton, beat out Bowen) - that team was Payon, Kidd, Garnett, Duncan, Ben Wallace :speechless:
2002-03 2nd team (beat out by Kobe (ahhhh) , Doug Christie)
2003-04 2nd team (beat out by Kobe and Bowen)
2004-05 2nd team (beat out by Kobe, Larry Huges (steals leader that year))
2005-06 1st team (tied with Kobe, rest of team: Bowen, AK47, Ben Wallace, Ron Artest)
2006-07 2nd team (beat out by Kobe, Bowen, Raja Bell)

You may dislike the voting process for these All-Defensive teams (which I tend to as well now that Kobe is still getting those nods), but I just wanted to show you the company he was with/compared against at the time. "Elite" is pretty awesome.

The "You" here isn't just directly at you Swashcuff haha, I just like to present my arguments that way. Agreed, we've had a good conversation. Where would you put these two though on your all-time PG list?
and that was all she wrote.

Sandman
06-05-2013, 10:18 AM
Being a great defensive PG is good and everything don't get me wrong but in terms of the make up of basketball it's the least important and impactful position. Would you agree on that?
Maybe in terms of the amount of impact players in the league, but I think PG has the most athletic players in the league. I think it's easier to get burned by an average player thats just a better pure athlete.

Running an offense is your primary responsibility and hypotheticals aside Nash has done that better than anyone not named Stockton or Magic and even so those are both debateable.

People keep speaking of Nash's strong teams and not the weak ones who were routinely among the best offenses when his teams support was worse than Kidds prime years his teams offense was still way better.

IMO the gap defensively is bigger than the one offensively I'd be a fool not to admit that but what Steve Nash did with that little gap he had over the course of his career is more than what Kidd was able to do with his.
What teams were weak? The Suns were stacked on offense the same way the Nets were stacked on defense. JJ, Stat, Marion these are all guys that had the same success without Nash. So yes, Nash operated the system most efficiently and perhaps more efficiently than anybody else could have, but did he make the guys around him better? Kidd had to be that team's offense and they didn't really have anything else.

Swashcuff
06-05-2013, 12:15 PM
Order in the court Ladies and Gents


Swashbuck I have to say that you have done a great great job lawyering for Steve Nash being better than Jason Kidd. However, this "fanboy" hereby presents to this courtroom some slam-dunk, irrefutable statistics, and hard and tangible evidence on who is better based on box score categories dating from their entry into the league up until the '12-'13 season.

Thanks for being rational bro. You're doing your JOB as a fanboy by repping your own haha. Now let me address each one of your points.


Assists

Kidd (since 94-95): 12,091
Nash (since '96-97):10,249

* Maybe you are going to argue that Nash came into the league later than Kidd. For comparison's sake, let us therefore assume that with Nash's career averages of 8.5 apg, we multiply this by 82 games, and further multiply this by 2 seasons, since Nash came in two seasons later, which will then give us 1,394. Add this to Nash career assist total and it gives us 11,643. Still less than Kidd's total of 12,091. So this category therefore, goes to Jason Kidd. This does not include the playoffs by the way. If you include it, its Kidd with 1,263 assists compared to Nash with 1,061.

Would you care to take into consideration their minutes played for their career? The fact that Kidd is 3rd all time in minutes played in NBA history and played 5 minutes more a game than Nash did? Do you think if you adjust their assists on a per minute basis that that would make any difference? Well lets see.

Per36 Nash vs Kidd

Player MP AST TOV
Jason Kidd 50111 8.7 2.9
Steve Nash 37756 9.8 3.3

For his career Nash averages 1.1 more assists per36 minutes than Jason Kidd, thus meaning that had they played a similar amount of minutes Nash would have more assists than Kidd. Lets not just stay there however lets go a bit further why don't we. With an even better metric, AST%.


Player AST% TOV%
Jason Kidd 38.5 18.8
Steve Nash 41.5 19.4

Nash has a better career AST% than Kidd as well. Kidd is 11th all time in NBA history with an AST% of 38.5% Nash on the other hand is 4th all time with 41.5%. Nash peaked at 53.1% on two occasions, both coming in his last two years in Phoenix with NO D'Antoni and NO all stars on his team so lets not baselessly say that he did that because he had the help, he made those players better . He lead the league in assists % on 5 occasions. Kidd peaked at 44.8% and lead the league just once.

Nash wasn't only a better career passer than Kidd but he was better at his peak, in his prime and even in his twilight with Marcin Gortat (who he basically made) as his second best player.



Maybe you are still going to argue that my assumption is wrong, and I just cant take 8.5 apg as representative of the two seasons, but let me just say that Nash's first season in the league, because he is such a late-bloomer, he averaged just 2.1 apg compared to Kidd's 7.7 apg so I think that the 8.5 apg in the two seasons I gave Nash is a bit higher. But that's ok.

Didn't need to. Nash is better at getting assists and making those around him better, he's proven it his entire career and has the numbers to back it up.


Points

Kidd: 17,529
Nash : 17,285

No need to make computations, including those two seasons and the fact that Nash is the better offensive player, this category goes to Nash.

Nash took almost 3 thousand less shots for his career and has almost as much points as Kidd despite playing in 189 less career games. There is absolutely now question who is the better scorer.

Per36

Player FG 3P FT PTS
Jason Kidd 0.400 0.349 0.785 12.6
Steve Nash 0.491 0.428 0.904 16.5

Advanced

Player TS% eFG% USG% ORtg OWS
Jason Kidd 0.507 0.464 19.2 107 63.4
Steve Nash 0.605 0.557 21.0 118 113.6

In terms of scoring there is absolutely no doubt who's better. Moving on.


Rebounds

Kidd: 8,725
Nash: 3,613

Kidd's rebound numbers are more than twice that of Nash, and those two seasons clearly will not matter.

Steals

Kidd: 2,684
Nash: 892

Kidd's totals are thrice that of Nash's.

Blocks

Kidd: 450
Nash: 100

Kidd by a mile.

Just as there is no arguing who is the better shooter/scorer between Nash and Kidd there is no arguing who is the better defender/rebounder.

My question to you however is this. In a PG what is more important. Passing, scoring and shooting efficiently or defending and rebounding?

Now you know traditionally with the make up of a basketball team you have Bigs to rebound and defend but if your PG can do that as well that's GREAT but what if you had a PG who made those bigs better on offense? A PG who made his wings better on offense, a PG who could score from any part of the floor when needed and do so at an efficient rate, a PG who you can send to the line in the clutch or even ask to take a clutch off balanced contested three at the buzzer and be confident that it would go in, which of those are more important out of your PG? Maybe that's why Nash won two MVPs?


Turnovers

Kidd: 4,003
Nash: 3,447

Advantage Nash.

Not really. Nash turned the ball over more over the course of his career. Recent evidence however has indicated that Nash's turnovers were less of the passing variety and more of the ball handling variety/offensive fouls. Wasn't that Nash was a bad passer in the very least. The new data actually suggests that statistically speaking only CP3 was a more efficient passer than Nash.



Summary

Assists: Kidd
Points: Nash
Rebounds: Kidd
Steals: Kidd
Blocks: Kidd
Turnovers: Nash

Nash won assists. You somehow neglected to mention FG%, 3P% and FT% but you include blocks? Do you think PGs blocking shots are more important than them scoring efficiently? Do you think PGs getting rebounds is better than scoring efficiently? I really don't understand that POV.

Statistically speaking Nash trumps Kidd quite handily.


Player PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48
Jason Kidd 17.9 0.507 0.464 4 16 10 38.5 2.8 0.7 18.8 19.2 107 102 63.4 75.1 138.6 0.133
Steve Nash 20.0 0.605 0.557 1.9 8.6 5.4 41.5 1.2 0.2 19.4 21 118 111 113.6 16 129.6 0.165

What these stats tell us is that Nash is MUCH better than Kidd offensively and Kidd is MUCH better than Nash defensively. Stuff we knew already didn't need any stats for that, what they also tell us however is that Nash is more valuable to his teams than Kidd has been to his (remember you started a statistical argument not me) and overall a way more efficient player.


Now tell me how a player who wins two out of six categories, is better than the player who wins four out of six categories. Again, these are just box score statistics. I dont need to include triple-doubles, because Kidd owns Nash in this category hands down, and not to mention the NBA Rating, as well as Kidd's rankings in the NBA's All-Time leaders in statistics, gold medals, All NBA Team Selections.

Kidd is American Nash is Canadian are you seriously going to use Gold Medals as your argument? Because of Nash's range he would have probably been those teams ahead of Kidd on more than a few occasions had he been American.


I am just talking about numbers here.

Wanna talk numbers? Let's talk.

Lets talk playoff #s (again where Kidd doesn't compare), you know that time of the year where the best players shine the brightest.

In 158 career playoff games Jason Kidd has had a game score of 20 (seen as having a really good game) or better on just 29 occasions. That's roughly 1 good game out of every 5 played. Steve Nash on the other hand in 120 playoff games has had 30 such games with a game score of 20 or more. That's 1 really good game out of every 4.

Now this is a stat that Kidd should have the advantage in shouldn't he, I mean he is a better rebounder, stealer and blocker than Nash is but yet still in more career games (more career playoff games in his prime as well so lets not act as if he stacked them up only when he got older) he has one less such game.

Nash has been the better/more consistent playoff performer as well and every stats points to that. Box score and advanced as well.

Sandman this point is for you I saw that you said Kidd was a better playoff performer this is not true.


Want to include Nash's 2 MVPs? Hell yeah ask Malone and Barkley, and all the MVP non-champions if they want to trade their Maurice Podoloff Trophy to the Larry O' Brien Trophy and ill tell you that its an instant YES.

I would slaughter you on this but I won't even bother. Kidd won that trophy as his team's 5 best player. Are you really going to say that that's something to scream about? Any other top 10 PG would have won with Dallas that year.


But that's not the point. The truth are in numbers and these numbers are irrefutable, something that the courtroom judge will undoubtedly appreciate more than the arguments that you raised. And statistics show that Kidd has the better number in four out of six box score categories, thus he is the better player.

Actually the arguments that I raised were without stats because the fact of the matter is Kidd isn't as good as Nash statistically, yeah Kidd has the triple doubles on his side but Nash has the 50,40,90 seasons (more than anyone else) on his. Pick your poison but if you wanna take me to a courtroom for a statistical argument between Kidd and Nash you better be ready to lose and lose quite handily as well.

If arguing in favour of Kidd stats isn't the way to go, try another means.

Swashcuff
06-05-2013, 12:27 PM
Maybe in terms of the amount of impact players in the league, but I think PG has the most athletic players in the league. I think it's easier to get burned by an average player thats just a better pure athlete.

What teams were weak? The Suns were stacked on offense the same way the Nets were stacked on defense. JJ, Stat, Marion these are all guys that had the same success without Nash. So yes, Nash operated the system most efficiently and perhaps more efficiently than anybody else could have, but did he make the guys around him better? Kidd had to be that team's offense and they didn't really have anything else.

Stat and Marion surely didn't have the same success without Nash, their numbers faultered, same goes for Barbosa, Richardson, Bell, Diaw, etc.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the links that I posted earlier in this thread. Especially the 1st, 2nd and 4th. You'd see what I'm talking about. Just click on the articles and read them through dude you'd see for yourself. Nash certainly made those around him better, look at Stoudemire's TS% with and without Nash, same for Marion, same for Johnson when they played together etc

Also what about the last two seasons when Nash played with Gortat, Hill, Carter and Beasley as his best offensive players? Surely Kidd had better support than that, in those two seasons Nash put up an AST% of 53.15% and 53.11% respectively the 7th and 8th highest of all time, Kidd has never come anywhere close to that. Nash did that under Alvin Gentry NOT Mike D'Antoni and still ran a more efficient offense than Kidd ever did at any time in his prime/peak years.

Nash is flat out better at making those around him better and at running an offense. Don't wanna take my words for it? Fine but click on those 4 articles and I bet you'd change your mind.

Swashcuff
06-05-2013, 12:35 PM
THAT is something that I seemed to have forgotten to argue earlier. I remember the Knicks during the regular season (AT AGE 39) trusting Kidd on Lebron. Not saying he stopped him in anyway but when you have Shumpert, Melo, other people his size and quickness, there must be a reason coaches trust him with that sort of responsibility.

People tend to underestimate his impact on the Mavs as well. It was HIM who would shift off guarding Lebron and Wade along with Marion. Obviously they had Chandler as the final stopper but Kidd was a large part in slowing them down on the way to the hoop.

Just looked up the players he was compared against for the All-Defensive teams:
1998-99 1st team (tied with Gary Payton - I'm sure you all know about the Glove)
1999-00 2nd team (beat out by Payton, again, nothing to be upset about)
2000-01 1st team (with Payton, beat out Bruce Bowen)
2001-02 1st team (with Payton, beat out Bowen) - that team was Payon, Kidd, Garnett, Duncan, Ben Wallace :speechless:
2002-03 2nd team (beat out by Kobe (ahhhh) , Doug Christie)
2003-04 2nd team (beat out by Kobe and Bowen)
2004-05 2nd team (beat out by Kobe, Larry Huges (steals leader that year))
2005-06 1st team (tied with Kobe, rest of team: Bowen, AK47, Ben Wallace, Ron Artest)
2006-07 2nd team (beat out by Kobe, Bowen, Raja Bell)

You may dislike the voting process for these All-Defensive teams (which I tend to as well now that Kobe is still getting those nods), but I just wanted to show you the company he was with/compared against at the time. "Elite" is pretty awesome.

The "You" here isn't just directly at you Swashcuff haha, I just like to present my arguments that way. Agreed, we've had a good conversation. Where would you put these two though on your all-time PG list?
and that was all she wrote.

I can't argue the defense man. There is no plausible argument in Nash's favour, Kidd is flat out better.

On my all time PG list I have Magic, West, (yes he played PG but because of his style and the era in which he played in where they never really defined the 1 or 2 guard he's seen as an SG because of his scoring) Oscar, Stockton and Frazier (ran a great offense, shot well, above average passer, deserved the 2 finals MVPs given to Reed and was probably the 2nd best defensive PG ever behind Payton) would be my top 5. After that Nash, Payton, Kidd, Zeke, KJ (hella underrated) and Cousy would probably duke it out for the other spots.

Swashcuff
06-05-2013, 12:50 PM
I'm a bit confused. You mentioned that defense (for a PG) has the least impact in reference to skill-set yet you say, as supporting evidence, how Nash lead the best offensive teams... Wouldn't you want a good PG to defend someone of Nash's caliber as to stop him from being such a bad ***? How would/could you not put a premium on defense when it comes to stopping such an offensive force?

Because there is no stopping it. How does a PG stop Nash from setting his teammates up AND draining open jumpshots? Its pick your poison, the man passes like Magic and shoots like Bird how would anyone defend that? No one has, you can sag off, play the lanes and attempt to defend the angles like was done with Kidd and now done with Rondo because he'd kill you can get up in his grill or double because his vision is impectable and his ability to pass the ball with both hands read defenses and find open men is astounding he'd pick your D apart with his playmaking and hurt you even worse than he does with his shot.

Defenses tried and failed to stop the Suns what makes you think one man (great defender I'm not going to sell him short) is going to change that? In order to stop the Suns offense you needed a team effort defensively not a great defensive PG.


I understand PFs and Cs are generally the anchors, but are they going to chase the elite PGs on the perimeter? Are they going to put pressure defense on the playmakers throughout the game and on the last possession of the game to force the steal on the opposing team's wings?

Chase him off the perimeter? Yeah that was tried countless time he'd simply find someone in motion, call a play for an open man, read your D before you can even set up and find a way for his team to get an easy bucket. What if on the last possession that guy forces too much and over plays his man leaving him open for an easy shot? How do you think Nash got so many easy jumpers late in games over his career? When Nash ran the offense for his team EVERYONE was a threat to score at any time. Teams were afraid leave Kurt Thomas open to double Amar'e because Thomas would nail an open J assisted on by Nash or an easy look under the basket.


Also, lets make a huge revelation: Kidd didn't just guard PGs; He guarded SGs and SFs (from Steve Nash to LeBron James). This is incredibly important and valuable.

That's cool and everything but haven't I already conceded that Kidd is lightyears better than Nash defensively?


think Nash is an amazing PG all-time, but Kidd has him beat by a decent margin for me.

That's cool, I think Nash has Kidd beat by a slight margin for me. :shrug:

IMO anyone who thinks the difference between these two players is really big don't have a full grasp on what both those players meant to their teams and what the were able to do with them.

waveycrockett
06-05-2013, 02:37 PM
And...?

Fine so if you wanna discredit Nash cause of the SSOL offense, then I'm gonna say that Kobe and Shaq's stats were inflated due to the triangle offense.

Makes no sense right? Yea and neither does trying to discredit Nash cause of their style of offense.

Everybody knows SSOL inflates stats it's pretty simple. There is no basis for the triangle inflating stats.

Chronz
06-05-2013, 02:49 PM
Everybody knows SSOL inflates stats it's pretty simple. There is no basis for the triangle inflating stats.
not true

Kashmir13579
06-05-2013, 05:58 PM
Everybody knows SSOL inflates stats it's pretty simple. There is no basis for the triangle inflating stats.

empty unfounded statement

Swashcuff
06-05-2013, 06:02 PM
empty unfounded statement

That he will NEVER attempt to back up.

sunsfan88
06-05-2013, 06:12 PM
Well D'Antoni's system is notoriously known for INFLATING stats.

Jason Kidd and Steve Nash comparison is one of the best ones ever. Both came in the league relatively the same time, one being an offensive superstar and the other being a defensive superstar. It really is a pick your poison situation.

But I do think if you gave most GMs now the option of starting their franchise with a prime Jason Kidd or a prime Steve Nash.... You're going to get a majority JKidd. Steve Nash did make his teammates better offensively, but as it has been said by countless coaches/players etc. Jason Kidd made his teammates better, his coaches better, his management better. He made his players become better people as long as better players. The impact Jason Kidd had towards the Nets franchise is unmatched.
D'Antoni's system may inflate stats but it doesn't guarantee success. How many successful seasons has D'Antoni had since leaving PHX? NY hates him and now LAL hates him too.

Nash made D'Antoni look better than he is. Without Nash, D'Antoni was never able to have the same success he had in PHX. Nash made Robert Sarver look good even while Sarver made idiotic decisions like selling away 1st round picks and the Kurt Thomas trade. Most teams wouldn't be able to recover quickly from those kinds of mistakes and yet the Suns did.

The Suns were an absolute trash team when Nash got here. He changed that right away and won 2 consecutive MVPs for his work. What Nash has done for the Suns franchise is far greater than what Kidd did for the Nets imo.

Bruno
06-05-2013, 06:15 PM
I just realized that Kidd only has two season where he posted a PER above 20.0. his career TS% barley cracks .500, he never once posted a WS/48 figure above .190.

what do the statistical purists have to say about his surprisingly pedestrian career advanced stat line?

(I know Kidd was a baller, and that advanced stats only carry so much weight- i'm certainly not kidd bashing here- i was simply surprised and want to hear opinions on this). he's had a great career. indisputably top ten, has a case for top five due to his longevity and defense.

waveycrockett
06-05-2013, 07:11 PM
Everybody knows SSOL inflates stats it's pretty simple. There is no basis for the triangle inflating stats.

empty unfounded statement

Empty unbounded? Chris Duhon and Ramond Felton would like a word with you. And I posted an article from Espn about it.

JJ_JKidd
06-05-2013, 11:48 PM
Your honor,

Assists

I refuse to comment on your claims that Nash is the best passer due to your use of the flawed PER 36. Per 36 and other advanced statistic for that matter is just used to ASSUME and ESTIMATE, not that mainstream, and this type of measurement is even not used by the NBA League itself for christ sake! Under any court of law, we can never make assumptions and estimates to try to prove something.

Scoring

I though I said Nash was the better scorer?


Rebounding, Steals, and Blocks

So would you rather have a player who contributes to the team on just two categories (e.g. scoring, passing), or a player who contributes to the team on more than two categories? Since when is not specializing in every facet of the game not important? Or since when is a player that can impact the game on offense and defense not better or desirable?

I know that this is not MMA, but why do fighters NOW train on not just one discipline? Why do they desire to be "well-rounded," or good at several disciplines?

Since when did you not want to have a Swiss knife?


Nash won assists. You somehow neglected to mention FG%, 3P% and FT% but you include blocks? Do you think PGs blocking shots are more important than them scoring efficiently? Do you think PGs getting rebounds is better than scoring efficiently? I really don't understand that POV.

You really will never because you do not clearly appreciate a player that is good at doing multiple things than someone who is just confined to scoring and passing. And I thought there is more to basketball than just scoring?


I would slaughter you on this but I won't even bother. Kidd won that trophy as his team's 5 best player. Are you really going to say that that's something to scream about? Any other top 10 PG would have won with Dallas that year.

Why wouldnt you bother? Kidd winning the Chip as a starter and a crucial contributor is what matters. Any other Top Ten PG would win with that Dallas team? Really? I dont have a statistic on that. That is another ASSUMPTION coming from you.
***
And to that guy who thinks im comparing Kidd over Magic, you should read again.

Swashcuff
06-06-2013, 12:02 AM
Your honor,

Assists

I refuse to comment on your claims that Nash is the best passer due to your use of the flawed PER 36. Per 36 and other advanced statistic for that matter is just used to ASSUME and ESTIMATE, not that mainstream, and this type of measurement is even not used by the NBA League itself for christ sake! Under any court of law, we can never make assumptions and estimates to try to prove something.

Scoring

I though I said Nash was the better scorer?


Rebounding, Steals, and Blocks

So would you rather have a player who contributes to the team on just two categories (e.g. scoring, passing), or a player who contributes to the team on more than two categories? Since when is not specializing in every facet of the game not important? Or since when is a player that can impact the game on offense and defense not better or desirable?

I know that this is not MMA, but why do fighters NOW train on not just one discipline? Why do they desire to be "well-rounded," or good at several disciplines?

Since when did you not want to have a Swiss knife?



You really will never because you do not clearly appreciate a player that is good at doing multiple things than someone who is just confined to scoring and passing. And I thought there is more to basketball than just scoring?



Why wouldnt you bother? Kidd winning the Chip as a starter and a crucial contributor is what matters. Any other Top Ten PG would win with that Dallas team? Really? I dont have a statistic on that. That is another ASSUMPTION coming from you.
***
And to that guy who thinks im comparing Kidd over Magic, you should read again.

When you reply to my entire post I'd bother to reply to this, as it stands now however your case wouldn't go to trial. You need to put forth a better argument than this.

I have gms, coaches, analysts and statisticians all as witnesses who can testify for the value of advanced and per minute #s who do you have?

PS reply to my entire post if you want to this to go to trail.

waveycrockett
06-06-2013, 12:39 AM
And to that guy who thinks im comparing Kidd over Magic, you should read again.

You aren't the only one. During Kidds back to back finals run. Magic Johnson was comparing Kidd to himself. Everyone was. Alot of these people looking in hindsight have just starting watching the NBA relatively.

Greet
06-06-2013, 08:19 AM
D'Antoni's system may inflate stats but it doesn't guarantee success. How many successful seasons has D'Antoni had since leaving PHX? NY hates him and now LAL hates him too.

Nash made D'Antoni look better than he is. Without Nash, D'Antoni was never able to have the same success he had in PHX. Nash made Robert Sarver look good even while Sarver made idiotic decisions like selling away 1st round picks and the Kurt Thomas trade. Most teams wouldn't be able to recover quickly from those kinds of mistakes and yet the Suns did.

The Suns were an absolute trash team when Nash got here. He changed that right away and won 2 consecutive MVPs for his work. What Nash has done for the Suns franchise is far greater than what Kidd did for the Nets imo.

It works both ways. D'Antoni made Nash look better than he was, and Nash made D'Antoni look better than he was. Statistically wise, there is no doubt that his system inflated Nash stats.

Of course as a Suns fan you think Nash had more of an impact, and of course as a Nets fan I think Kidd did. The thing I think that separates their impact is how they both effected the market. Nets where a small market team in a high market area pre-Kidd, with Jason they became a much much bigger market.

bagwell368
06-06-2013, 02:37 PM
I just realized that Kidd only has two season where he posted a PER above 20.0. his career TS% barley cracks .500, he never once posted a WS/48 figure above .190.

what do the statistical purists have to say about his surprisingly pedestrian career advanced stat line?

PER sucks - that's a guy's idea of advanced stats that doesn't know dick (not you, the guy that invented it) about advanced stats. It's very biased. Also Kidd didn't shoot well the first 5 years of his career and the last few years (decline). How did he do in his prime?

Any WS figure is obviously tied to team wins - and he played for some crap teams. Take his best 10 years and get his WS percentage of his team, and compare with other PS's, that will tell you more than just raw WS numbers.

JasonJohnHorn
06-06-2013, 04:52 PM
It depends on a couple of things. Do you consider Iverson and The Big O to be point guards?

Stockton and Magic are 1 and 2 in whatever order you want to put them is fine with me, unless the Big O is a point guard, then they are 1, 2 and 3 in whatever order you like.

After them... whatever floats your boat.

waveycrockett
06-07-2013, 12:10 AM
I dont consider Big O a point Guard. From everything I've heard about that guy he was LeBron 1.0 meaning an extremely versatile wing man who got play alot of PG but was really a wing.

JerseyPalahniuk
06-07-2013, 12:17 AM
I dont consider Big O a point Guard. From everything I've heard about that guy he was LeBron 1.0 meaning an extremely versatile wing man who got play alot of PG but was really a wing.

Yeah but 3 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter... He was literally the size of Jason Kidd. Do you consider him a wing player just because he got a lot of triple doubles too?

Chitownhero1992
06-07-2013, 12:18 AM
This is hard for me to rank Kidd. Jason Kidd has been my favorite player of all time (not the best by far). But I've always been a big fan of his. I think he is a Top 5 PG though all time. I don't include West or Robertson because they were hybrid guards that played more of SG.

1-Magic
2-Stockton
3-Maravich
4-Kidd

JerseyPalahniuk
06-07-2013, 12:24 AM
This is hard for me to rank Kidd. Jason Kidd has been my favorite player of all time (not the best by far). But I've always been a big fan of his. I think he is a Top 5 PG though all time. I don't include West or Robertson because they were hybrid guards that played more of SG.

1-Magic
2-Stockton
3-Maravich
4-Kidd

Kind of funny for you not including West/Robertson as PG's while keeping Maravich. Maravich (as you know from actually including him on an all-time list) was primarily a shooter and averaged around 5 assists per game while always leading his team (and sometimes the league) in scoring. I'd say he fits the SG mold just as much if not more than Jerry West who had seasons of almost 10 APG and averaged 7 for his career.

Chitownhero1992
06-07-2013, 12:30 AM
Kind of funny for you not including West/Robertson as PG's while keeping Maravich. Maravich (as you know from actually including him on an all-time list) was primarily a shooter and averaged around 5 assists per game while always leading his team (and sometimes the league) in scoring. I'd say he fits the SG mold just as much if not more than Jerry West who had seasons of almost 10 APG and averaged 7 for his career.

Maravich barely got to play in the NBA, in the ABA and College he was a PG, he scored tons and tons no doubt about it, but he was one of the best play makers, passers and ball handlers ever, maybe even the best.

JerseyPalahniuk
06-07-2013, 12:35 AM
Maravich barely got to play in the NBA, in the ABA and College he was a PG, he scored tons and tons no doubt about it, but he was one of the best play makers, passers and ball handlers ever, maybe even the best.

Yeah, I'm a huge Maravich fan and have watched a lot of tape on him. Just saying that you are kind of setting a double standard there. Jerry West and Oscar Robertson were also incredible play makers. They might not have had the same ball handling skills as Maravich (one of the best ever) but their assist numbers (and high scoring) speak for themselves.

Swashcuff
06-07-2013, 12:39 AM
Maravich barely got to play in the NBA, in the ABA and College he was a PG, he scored tons and tons no doubt about it, but he was one of the best play makers, passers and ball handlers ever, maybe even the best.

Pte never played in the ABA dude, he chose the Hawks over the cougars and came to the NBA instead. He was not a PG if you actually followed his career you'd know this. If you followed Oscar's and West's careers you'd know that they played PG more than any other position and Maravich rarely did, being a great ball handler and a flashy passer doesn't make him a PG.

KingPosey
06-07-2013, 12:41 AM
Isn't he like 3rd all time in 3 pointers made or something ?

Ya but his quality shooting came after the rest of his talents had diminished greatly. Playing for two years will do wonders for your counting stats.

KingPosey
06-07-2013, 12:44 AM
Which Nash were you watching? He's not a great defender but in his prime, he wasn't horrible.

Idk what Nash you watched, but he was always bad defensively.

JJ_JKidd
06-17-2013, 12:06 AM
When you reply to my entire post I'd bother to reply to this, as it stands now however your case wouldn't go to trial. You need to put forth a better argument than this.

I have gms, coaches, analysts and statisticians all as witnesses who can testify for the value of advanced and per minute #s who do you have?

PS reply to my entire post if you want to this to go to trail.

Who are these supposed "gms, coaches, analysts and statisticians?" Mind naming, okay just a few, for your sake? And even if you manage to name names, the question still is: Why hasn't the NBA, or any other pro league, institutionalize the use of it?

Another question: In what way do these "gms, coaches, analysts and statisticians" use this supposed "valuable" tool? Can you cite numerous examples, say, when a GM wanted to execute a trade or re-sign a particular player, that the use of PER or any other advanced statistic was relied upon?

krisxsong
06-17-2013, 01:37 AM
2 MVPs > 0 MVPs :shrug:

:laugh2:

I'm better than that so I'll give you what you asked for. 1st off I'll start off by saying you're a J.Kidd fanboy so its gonna be tougher to prove to you than it is to a others but if you're rational about it you can see where I'm coming from (I'm an A.I. fanboy and I can see a case for Nash being ahead of him as well).

Nash is a top 5 offensive player all time in this game, don't agree with me look a little further. He ran the point for 3 of the top 5 offenses of all time and 5 of the top 11.

Here are two articles explaining his value to his teams offensively.
http://www.82games.com/pelton15.htm (the impact he had on all his teammates offense)
http://chasing23.com/why-steve-nash-is-the-greatest-offensive-player-ever/
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7225
http://www.fullcourtpest.com/2012/01/in-defence-of-steve-nash-part-1.html

If anyone is so say that Steve Nash is a product of X coach (like that dude who said Nellie and D'Antoni inflated Nash's numbers) then they clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about. When D'Antoni left Phoenix they still ran a better offense than any team Kidd has ever played for and that's despite the fact that they completely revamped the offense. Also its not because of his team's run and gun style that Nash's teams are so efficient offensively, pace and efficiency has basically zero correlation.

Major reason why Nash is ahead of Kidd in my mind (and the mind of most) is because of the fact that as a point guard your primary responsibility is to score efficiently (which Kidd has never done, run an efficient offense (no one has done so better than Nash) and be a leader/floor general (no one was a better general for his team than Nash since he came into the league IMO) but that point can go either way depending on who you talk to, I would have no beef if you took Kidd there.

Kidd just couldn't stack up to Nash when it comes to offense, yeah he could pass as good as anyone but his inability to score efficiently hurt his team where as in Nash's case was one of the biggest reasons why his teams were so great offensively. That's why Rondo's teams really aren't much different in terms of PPG, FG% and especially ORTG when he isn't playing, yeah playmaking is great but if you're not scoring well enough to match that your team's offense would be lacking. That IMO is Kidd's biggest drawback, could you imagine if he shot as well as Nash in his finals runs? His team would still get beaten but they'd have a completely different dynamic.

Now let's talk about D, shouldn't be a long convo since no human being would ever accuse Steve Nash of being a better defensive player than Jason Kidd. Kidd is lightyears better than Nash, the question I ask you however and please be as objective as you can, in terms of positions on the basketball floor which to you is most least important defensively. IMO its the PG and yes being a great defensive player is always a very very very good thing but when you play the PG its not as important as say the C/PF or SF. Kidd was a better rebounder and the best of his time at getting triple doubles. Nash was the best ever at getting 50/40/90 seasons, pick your poison.

I understand that you may feel that Kidd was better than Nash in their prime but I just think because of his ability to run such great offenses (look as his team his last year in Phoenix and they were still top 10 in offense). Outside of his Dallas days (where he was still a top 15 PG but no where near Elite) Kidd's teams only had a better offense than Steve Nash's 2012 Suns just once and in his real elite years his Nets were never very good offensively.

Nash truly raised his teammates games and his teams games to a level that I never really saw from Kidd. That's why he's ahead of him in my eyes.

Major reason why Nash is ahead of Kidd in my mind (and the mind of most) is because of the fact that as a point guard your primary responsibility is to score efficiently (which Kidd has never done, run an efficient offense (no one has done so better than Nash) and be a leader/floor general (no one was a better general for his team than Nash since he came into the league IMO) but that point can go either way depending on who you talk to, I would have no beef if you took Kidd there.

No it is not. The point guard's primary responsibility is to run the team, run the offense the coach wants to run. It's to deliver the ball to your teammates so that they have to make minimal effort to score.

Nash truly raised his teammates games and his teams games to a level that I never really saw from Kidd. That's why he's ahead of him in my eyes.

Then you've probably never seen Kidd play. Richard Jefferson? Fringe All-Star, great player with Kidd. What happens when he leaves? Bum. Kenyon Martin? Sure he had bad knees but he basically gave Kmart a max deal. Kenyon Martin wouldn't have been anything more than decent if it weren't for Kidd.

Find me a player who played with Kidd in his days in NJ where he was actually better without him, or anything more than average without him while being solid or very good with him. Vince Carter is probably the only one.

Keith Van Horn, Kenyon Martin, Richard Jefferson, Lucious Harris, Nenad Krstic, Kerry Kittles(a little unfair due to his entire career being in NJ and his bad back forcing him to retire) the list goes on and on.

Here is the starting lineup Kidd took to the Finals back to back seasons. Richard Jefferson, Keith Van Horn, Kenyon Martin, Jason Collins, Kerry Kittles.

Richard Jefferson was a rookie and was as bad a shooter as Rajon Rondo is now. KVH was solid. Kenyon Martin had zero post moves and couldn't shoot to save his life, Jason Collins might be the worst starting player in history in terms of offense, and Kerry Kittles couldn't do anything if he wasn't spotting up.

Let's look at it this way. Jason Kidd took a team to the Finals twice in his prime, Nash never did. Jason Kidd turned his supporting cast into a solid offensive cast without much of a single teammate who could score on his own. Nash had Marion, STAT, Barbosa, and Joe Johnson and they couldn't go anywhere.

Nash's defensive woes are far worse than Kidd's offensive woes.

krisxsong
06-17-2013, 01:43 AM
You want to say Magic Johnson? Fine. But I can make an argument against him.
You want to say Stockton? Fine. But I can make an argument against him.
You want to say Isiah? Fine. But I can make an argument against him.

Nobody else should ever been considered ahead of Kidd.

Magic had a legendary supporting cast, Stockton had a legendary offensive system, and Isiah...well I actually have Isiah and Kidd neck and neck.

SO if you have those 3 ahead of Kidd you won't hear any bickering from me(unless your reasoning is baffling).

Jtirado16
06-17-2013, 01:45 AM
He's Top 10 for sure. I have at like 7

utahjazzno12fan
06-17-2013, 07:33 AM
Kidd shot .400 for his career.
Stockton shot .515 for his.

Kidd was .349 from 3 point.
Stockton was .384.

Kidd was .785 from FT.
Stockton was .826.

Kidd had 12,091 career assists in 19 seasons.
Stockton had 15,806 in 19 seasons.

Kidd had 2684 steals.
Stockton had 3265.

Kidd had 17,529 points.
Stockton had 19,711.

I am not much on advanced statistics, but here you go with that too.

Kidd had 17.9 PER for his career with one season above 20.
Stockton had 21.8 with only his first 3 seasons below a 20.

ORating is 107 to 121 with Stockton having the higher numbers.
DRating is 102 to 104 with Stockton being higher.

Win Shares is 138.6 to 207.7, Stockton over Kidd.

In play-off games, it is much more the same with Stockton having better stats than Kidd.

I liked Kidd. He was fun to watch and a great player in his time. He was no John Stockton, however.

NYKalltheway
06-17-2013, 07:43 AM
Top 6 along with Magic, Stockton, Frazier, Oscar and Isiah.

Dash86
06-17-2013, 09:05 AM
Oscar and Magic ahead of him for sure...personally I'd put him at about the same range as stockton. Isiah after them. Nash behind all of them.

QueensG_718
06-17-2013, 11:52 AM
Top 3 all time ...alltime steals leader 2nd alltime in triple doubles seconds in assists i believe. Maybe 2nd alltime

c.c.
06-17-2013, 12:21 PM
He's a top 10, would of been better if he was with one team for the majority of his career though.

Heediot
06-17-2013, 12:46 PM
I'd take Kidd over Nash.

Heediot
06-17-2013, 01:14 PM
I spoke about D but quite honestly why should I have to that's like me trying to convince someone that is better than Bron defensively haha, never going to happen, if I'm gonna make a case for Nash I'd have to concede that he's no where Kidd and move on.

Being a great defensive PG is good and everything don't get me wrong but in terms of the make up of basketball it's the least important and impactful position. Would you agree on that?

Running an offense is your primary responsibility and hypotheticals aside Nash has done that better than anyone not named Stockton or Magic and even so those are both debateable.

People keep speaking of Nash's strong teams and not the weak ones who were routinely among the best offenses when his teams support was worse than Kidds prime years his teams offense was still way better.

IMO the gap defensively is bigger than the one offensively I'd be a fool not to admit that but what Steve Nash did with that little gap he had over the course of his career is more than what Kidd was able to do with his.

Kidd defended two positions, the better back-court player. He could even defend smaller 3's. He wasn't limited to defending the PG position, so you have to give his defensive impact more credit.

Honestly it depends on the structure of the team. A Kidd-Durant combo would produce more wins than say a Nash-Durant combo. A Nash-Marion combo would produce more wins than a Kidd-Marion combo. For me I take Kidd over Nash from scratch. I would even take Gary Payton, who I feel is not as good as Nash over Nash from scratch. Like JerseyPal I prefer defense as my foundation over offense.

Hawkeye15
06-17-2013, 01:22 PM
PER sucks - that's a guy's idea of advanced stats that doesn't know dick (not you, the guy that invented it) about advanced stats. It's very biased. Also Kidd didn't shoot well the first 5 years of his career and the last few years (decline). How did he do in his prime?

Any WS figure is obviously tied to team wins - and he played for some crap teams. Take his best 10 years and get his WS percentage of his team, and compare with other PS's, that will tell you more than just raw WS numbers.

Kevin Love says sup