PDA

View Full Version : CP3 vs. Kidd & Nash



ChI_ShIzzLe
11-19-2014, 01:17 AM
So I'm having a heated conversation with this dude on Facebook about Chris Paul vs. Jason Kidd and Steve Nash. My argument is that Paul isn't on the level Kidd and Nash were in their primes, especially how they were able to lead their teams and make their teammates better. Now to be fair, Kidd and Nash probably had a better supporting cast but my question is, what are your opinions when comparing Paul to the two future HOFers? Is he on their level? Is he already better than them? You can talk about individual skills and intangibles. Thanks.

jerellh528
11-19-2014, 01:20 AM
I like to think cp3 is better than both but I just hate how he hasn't done more with his cast in la. I mean, it's pretty solid.

Kaner
11-19-2014, 01:41 AM
I'd rather Chris Paul, he has all of the strengths that made each of those guys great and none of the weakness's. Offensively he runs the point almost as well as Nash did, Nash was a little bit better on that end mostly because of his shooting and court-vision but it's close, while Paul is obviously miles better defensively then Nash ever was. While Paul offensively is significantly better then Kidd at breaking down defenses and running an offense, and both are all-time great defenders for the pg position even if Paul doesn't always get recognized as one.

abe_froman
11-19-2014, 01:56 AM
on their level? yes,easily;better? its debatable.when we were doing the all time list i posted my thoughts that he was in that group of 2nd/3rd tier all time great pgs in which i can go any order on

JLynn943
11-19-2014, 02:15 AM
I don't think that he's better than either them. Could he end up being better? Yeah, it's a possibility. He's probably more well-rounded than either, but there just seems to be something missing from his game imo. Can't pinpoint it, but I guess the eye test (which I don't swear by by any means) just doesn't let me think he's better than them.

Sadds The Gr8
11-19-2014, 02:48 AM
better than both

numba1CHANGsta
11-19-2014, 04:07 AM
If he went to the Lakers then yes he would have been a HOF

rhino17
11-19-2014, 04:54 AM
He's not better than them. Paul's supporting cast in LA is way better than anything Kidd ever had. Nash had some talented teams so its more comparable. But Paul just doesn't make his team better the way those guys did, he doesn't absolutely dominate his opponents the way those guys did. He has the skills to do it, but not the mentality. Nash was obviously a garbage defender, but he still impacted the game sooooo much more offensively. Paul has still only made it out of the 1st round like once, until he fixes that, he will never make it to their level

Goose17
11-19-2014, 05:32 AM
Nash in his prime is probably the most efficient point guard (offensively) that has ever graced the court.

CP3 is more well rounded than both. In fact he might be the most well rounded PG in a couple of decades... possibly ever.

But give me Nash at his peak over CP3.

Ty22Mitchell
11-19-2014, 05:44 AM
Nash in his prime is probably the most efficient point guard (offensively) that has ever graced the court.

CP3 is more well rounded than both. In fact he might be the most well rounded PG in a couple of decades... possibly ever.

But give me Nash at his peak over CP3.



This.

Mr.B
11-19-2014, 09:05 AM
Of the 3 I would put Chris Paul third. Kidd has a ring and Nash was a back to back league MVP. It might be because of the offenses he's been in but his career is not quite at the level that Kidd and Nash reached.

YAALREADYKNO
11-19-2014, 10:18 AM
Paul is probably the most talented of the 3 but as of right now I'd take kidd 1 nash 2 paul 3. Idk why a lot of people on PSD were saying cp3 was better than nash and kidd and was at the level of isiah Thomas smh Kidd led his teams to two finals and at least nash has gotten to conference finals before. Cp3 cant even get out of the 2nd round

jericho
11-19-2014, 10:23 AM
I would still pick Kidd over both of them. Out of those 3 he is the only one that is able to affect the game without scoring. Just look at the Nets when he got traded there.

Thumper 88
11-19-2014, 10:41 AM
He's not better than them. Paul's supporting cast in LA is way better than anything Kidd ever had. Nash had some talented teams so its more comparable. But Paul just doesn't make his team better the way those guys did, he doesn't absolutely dominate his opponents the way those guys did. He has the skills to do it, but not the mentality. Nash was obviously a garbage defender, but he still impacted the game sooooo much more offensively. Paul has still only made it out of the 1st round like once, until he fixes that, he will never make it to their level

2011 Dallas mavericks was a pretty good cast eh?

Chrisclover
11-19-2014, 10:44 AM
In term of versatility, CP3 is no doubt the superior one. Kidd and Nash were more of transcendent passers, whereas CP3 can both score and facilitate.

YAALREADYKNO
11-19-2014, 10:54 AM
2011 Dallas mavericks was a pretty good cast eh?

kidd also had 2 finals appearances before he joined the mavs though

JasonJohnHorn
11-19-2014, 10:57 AM
Are you kidding? He made David West an All-star! He took the Clippers to one of the biggest single-season improvements in recent memory and then led them to the franchises best record.

This is the guy that had Chandler looking like he could score! And DaJ!

He is a FAR better two-way player than Nash, and a much better scorer than Kidd could ever hope to be.

You give CP3 JJ, Marion and Amare in their prime? Watch out! Or CP3 with Dirk and Finley?

You put CP3 on any roster that Kidd and Nash did well with in their primes, and CP3 does at least as well if not better. Granted, I don't think he would have taken the Nets to a championship, but he would have at least managed to win a couple of games in the finals.

CP3 > Kidd or Nash

valade16
11-19-2014, 11:17 AM
Are you kidding? He made David West an All-star! He took the Clippers to one of the biggest single-season improvements in recent memory and then led them to the franchises best record.

This is the guy that had Chandler looking like he could score! And DaJ!

He is a FAR better two-way player than Nash, and a much better scorer than Kidd could ever hope to be.

You give CP3 JJ, Marion and Amare in their prime? Watch out! Or CP3 with Dirk and Finley?

You put CP3 on any roster that Kidd and Nash did well with in their primes, and CP3 does at least as well if not better. Granted, I don't think he would have taken the Nets to a championship, but he would have at least managed to win a couple of games in the finals.

CP3 > Kidd or Nash

1st David West has shown he's a capable scorer on Indiana. His offensive output is virtually identical to his NOH days and Tyson Chandler actually got better on offense without CP3 so those are pretty poor examples.

Also, now we're going with the lie that CP3 has worked with inferior talent and that's why he hasn't done as good? The Clippers are and have been one of the most talented (not to mention deepest) rosters in the NBA almost since the moment he got there.

2-ONE-5
11-19-2014, 11:25 AM
Paul is overrated, has been for a while now. He looks good on paper but he has accomplished nothing in his career

jericho
11-19-2014, 11:29 AM
Are you kidding? He made David West an All-star! He took the Clippers to one of the biggest single-season improvements in recent memory and then led them to the franchises best record.

This is the guy that had Chandler looking like he could score! And DaJ!

He is a FAR better two-way player than Nash, and a much better scorer than Kidd could ever hope to be.

You give CP3 JJ, Marion and Amare in their prime? Watch out! Or CP3 with Dirk and Finley?

You put CP3 on any roster that Kidd and Nash did well with in their primes, and CP3 does at least as well if not better. Granted, I don't think he would have taken the Nets to a championship, but he would have at least managed to win a couple of games in the finals.

CP3 > Kidd or Nash

I would make the same argument for Kidd with the Nets.

He made K-Mart look like a competent scorer.
He made Richard Jefferson.
He made Kerry Kittles have one of his best careers offensively.
Even Todd McCulloch, Aaron Williams and Lucious Harris were playing good around him.

Like i said before Kidd is one of the only players that didnt need to score to make his presence felt. Passing, rebounding and in defense Kidd has them beat both. Scoring well yeah they got him.

Hawkeye15
11-19-2014, 11:34 AM
Paul is in more desperate need for team success than any player I can think of, to validate what the numbers and eye says. I don't think there is a question he is more impactful than either Nash or Kidd, but it just hasn't translated yet for some reason.

jerellh528
11-19-2014, 11:48 AM
Paul is in more desperate need for team success than any player I can think of, to validate what the numbers and eye says. I don't think there is a question he is more impactful than either Nash or Kidd, but it just hasn't translated yet for some reason.

I dunno about eye. He doesn't look as good as his stats suggest.

Kaner
11-19-2014, 12:20 PM
If he went to the Lakers then yes he would have been a HOF

:confused: Chris Paul has a 99.9% HOF probability according to basketball reference. He's a lock to go to the hall of fame if he retired today.

KnicksorBust
11-19-2014, 12:20 PM
In terms of skills?
#1.) Chris Paul
#2.) Steve Nash
#3.) Jason Kidd

Nothing that happens for the rest of time will change that for me. In terms of career legacy Paul goes to the bottom and that is mostly because of a harsh (over?)reaction that I have to his failures of last year in the post-season. I completely agree that he over-achieved and was a stud performer for the Hornets, even in the playoffs (lakers series?) he has looked good in defeat. Last year was the first time that he had a real chance to go on a run with nothing holding him back and he dropped the ball big time. Blake Griffin is more than enough of a co-anchor to make it to the Finals. If Chris Paul really wants to start passing people than he needs to get it done in the playoffs because there is nothing else he needs to show me in the regular season. He can drive, shoot, pass, defend, etc. Now it's all about rising your game to historic levels in the moments that matter most and maybe it will turn out he's just another guy that can't cut it but it would be a shame because the skills are there.

Mr.B
11-19-2014, 01:34 PM
Are you kidding? He made David West an All-star! He took the Clippers to one of the biggest single-season improvements in recent memory and then led them to the franchises best record.

This is the guy that had Chandler looking like he could score! And DaJ!

He is a FAR better two-way player than Nash, and a much better scorer than Kidd could ever hope to be.

You give CP3 JJ, Marion and Amare in their prime? Watch out! Or CP3 with Dirk and Finley?

You put CP3 on any roster that Kidd and Nash did well with in their primes, and CP3 does at least as well if not better. Granted, I don't think he would have taken the Nets to a championship, but he would have at least managed to win a couple of games in the finals.

CP3 > Kidd or Nash

CP3 MIGHT have done better with the teams Nash and Kidd played on but we'll never know. All we do know is that he hasn't been able to get any of the teams he did play on to the Finals. It's very possible that Kidd could have already won a title or two with the Clippers team that Paul has. Again, we'll never know. All we know is that Kidd has been to 3 Finals while winning 1 and Nash has back to back MVP's. Paul has none of those.

Hawkeye15
11-19-2014, 02:10 PM
I dunno about eye. He doesn't look as good as his stats suggest.

he does though. He just toys with defenders, and has a perfect understanding of how to run an offense, when to score, who to get going, how to take advantage of matchups, and disrupt on defense.

Hawkeye15
11-19-2014, 02:17 PM
In terms of skills?
#1.) Chris Paul
#2.) Steve Nash
#3.) Jason Kidd

Nothing that happens for the rest of time will change that for me. In terms of career legacy Paul goes to the bottom and that is mostly because of a harsh (over?)reaction that I have to his failures of last year in the post-season. I completely agree that he over-achieved and was a stud performer for the Hornets, even in the playoffs (lakers series?) he has looked good in defeat. Last year was the first time that he had a real chance to go on a run with nothing holding him back and he dropped the ball big time. Blake Griffin is more than enough of a co-anchor to make it to the Finals. If Chris Paul really wants to start passing people than he needs to get it done in the playoffs because there is nothing else he needs to show me in the regular season. He can drive, shoot, pass, defend, etc. Now it's all about rising your game to historic levels in the moments that matter most and maybe it will turn out he's just another guy that can't cut it but it would be a shame because the skills are there.

exactly my opinion on it.

Chronz
11-19-2014, 02:21 PM
So I'm having a heated conversation with this dude on Facebook about Chris Paul vs. Jason Kidd and Steve Nash. My argument is that Paul isn't on the level Kidd and Nash were in their primes, especially how they were able to lead their teams and make their teammates better. Now to be fair, Kidd and Nash probably had a better supporting cast but my question is, what are your opinions when comparing Paul to the two future HOFers? Is he on their level? Is he already better than them? You can talk about individual skills and intangibles. Thanks.
Well, what about the way they lead their teams do you prefer? Its more than just a blind glance at an arbitrary round they have yet to reach, right?

Also when you ask if hes "already better than them" Im assuming you're ranking players by career worth, where things like longevity and how far your team gets matter as much if not more than what the individual can control most, like their own level of play.

At his absolute apex, CP3 is better than any of them IMO, what people cant seem to grasp is that hes no longer that player. Hes still around his prime, but hes entering that stage (especially because of his injuries) where the best days are already behind him.

Hes still comparable to those players so its fair to hold him to the same standard, but lets say a lesser version of the same player ends up having more success, are you really going to try and convince yourself that the younger version couldn't have accomplished the same task? Thats why team success matters less to me, I've seen inferior PG's win more than CP3 since day 1. If CP3 ends up going to the Western Finals, are you guys going to turn around and say hes a better leader now or realize the fact that winning boils down to what all 10 players on the court are doing.

Thats whats so tricky about trying to gauge a players impact on winning. Thats why team success should matter less than it appears to, thats why the best writer I've ever read broke out this bland yet true piece.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/death-to-ringz-chris-paul-and-the-nbas-broken-narrative-of-success/



And by making teammates better, what exactly do you mean and how are you gauging that? Because if we are strictly focusing on making teammates better offensively, Kidd isn't my type of PG. Hes arguably the best because of his defensive impact with the combination of volume scoring+playmaking being next in line. His teams were rarely elite offensively iirc.


In terms of career legacy, both Kidd and Nash obviously have the better story.
In terms of peak performance, Ill take CP3.

In terms of a subjective combo of both, Nash and Kidd have the edge but CP3 being on that tier despite (hopefully) having many more years left to play is a great advantage.





1st David West has shown he's a capable scorer on Indiana. His offensive output is virtually identical to his NOH days and Tyson Chandler actually got better on offense without CP3 so those are pretty poor examples.

The argument that one player can make another is a tired cliche that I thought had been killed already. I totally get enhancing/diminishing a players efficiency, but people make it seem like these guys can transform players and should make everyone better. Facts are, personalities and skill sets dont all mesh equally. Talent and role dictate performance just as much, if not more than who your PG is. That said, the difference can be in the margins and I do think Nash was the absolute best at making most players better. Its why I feel his teams offenses have a tendency to decline without him to an almost unthinkable degree despite him not producing as much individually.

That said, you're wrong about West producing anywhere near the rates he did in NOH, but that has very little to do with CP3 and more to do with him declining athletically.


Also, now we're going with the lie that CP3 has worked with inferior talent and that's why he hasn't done as good? The Clippers are and have been one of the most talented (not to mention deepest) rosters in the NBA almost since the moment he got there.
I dont see anything to support this. Clippers have seen their depth decline yearly and the health/performance of that roster in the playoffs still matters.

Outside of last years G5 blunder, Ive never blamed CP3 for us losing, for the most part hes gotten his teams to overachieve and even then, losing to the Thunder (who have a player better than CP3 leading them, and also happen to have a secondary player who is arguably also better than CP3, and also happen to have a defensive big who can totally shut down Blake's 1 on 1 game) is not a giant failure.

MTar786
11-19-2014, 02:23 PM
kidd is better than both. Nash was a GREAT offenisve player.. but his lack of anything remotely defensive eliminates him from a top 5 pg list. Kidd was just incredible.. i guess people forgot. and someone here said paul and kidd are equals on defense? lol thats a joke. kidd was wayyyyyy better than paul on defense.

individually paul is better than both. but bball is a team sport. and what kidd had to offer that translated to team play was better than both.

Chronz
11-19-2014, 02:24 PM
In terms of skills?
#1.) Chris Paul
#2.) Steve Nash
#3.) Jason Kidd

Nothing that happens for the rest of time will change that for me. In terms of career legacy Paul goes to the bottom and that is mostly because of a harsh (over?)reaction that I have to his failures of last year in the post-season. I completely agree that he over-achieved and was a stud performer for the Hornets, even in the playoffs (lakers series?) he has looked good in defeat. Last year was the first time that he had a real chance to go on a run with nothing holding him back and he dropped the ball big time. Blake Griffin is more than enough of a co-anchor to make it to the Finals. If Chris Paul really wants to start passing people than he needs to get it done in the playoffs because there is nothing else he needs to show me in the regular season. He can drive, shoot, pass, defend, etc. Now it's all about rising your game to historic levels in the moments that matter most and maybe it will turn out he's just another guy that can't cut it but it would be a shame because the skills are there.

You mean raise his teams level of play because individually, there are few players in nba history who raise their game come playoffs the way CP3 has. Just a shame he cant anchor his teams defense because offensively, there is no question hes done everything humanly possible.

Chronz
11-19-2014, 02:36 PM
He's not better than them. Paul's supporting cast in LA is way better than anything Kidd ever had. Nash had some talented teams so its more comparable. But Paul just doesn't make his team better the way those guys did, he doesn't absolutely dominate his opponents the way those guys did. He has the skills to do it, but not the mentality. Nash was obviously a garbage defender, but he still impacted the game sooooo much more offensively. Paul has still only made it out of the 1st round like once, until he fixes that, he will never make it to their level

FYI, hes been beyond the 1st round 3x (lol, once?)

Dont see why that should matter but it seems like you feel Kidd wasn't in as good a position as CP3 was. I can only see that argument if we completely ignore the level of competition. How many times did Kidd lead his team to the Finals out West? When he was in his prime, he regularly lost out to superior teams and I dont recall him ever rising through the odds and beating one of those superior clubs. This was during the time when he was getting bad press and most people didn't think they were looking at one of the greatest ever.

Then he went out East and turned a hapless team around (very similar to what CP3 has done with the Clips out here in the brutal West), but again, why should we ignore the competition he faced?

42-40 Pacers, 44 Win Hornets, 49 Win Celtics
42 Win Bucks, 44 Win Celtics, 50 win Pistons


So yes, CP3 does have more support than Kidd, but I'd argue hes also playing on a better team than any Kidd has ever led. Its just that instead of facing weak teams, these Clippers have to play every series against a club that is either equally talented to them or far more talented than those out East.



So to me, CP3 has already proven he can lead a team better than Kidd, he just doesn't play in a conference where that means an easy road to the Finals.

YAALREADYKNO
11-19-2014, 02:40 PM
kidd is better than both. Nash was a GREAT offenisve player.. but his lack of anything remotely defensive eliminates him from a top 5 pg list. Kidd was just incredible.. i guess people forgot. and someone here said paul and kidd are equals on defense? lol thats a joke. kidd was wayyyyyy better than paul on defense.

individually paul is better than both. but bball is a team sport. and what kidd had to offer that translated to team play was better than both.

Agreed!

valade16
11-19-2014, 02:52 PM
The argument that one player can make another is a tired cliche that I thought had been killed already. I totally get enhancing/diminishing a players efficiency, but people make it seem like these guys can transform players and should make everyone better. Facts are, personalities and skill sets dont all mesh equally. Talent and role dictate performance just as much, if not more than who your PG is. That said, the difference can be in the margins and I do think Nash was the absolute best at making most players better. Its why I feel his teams offenses have a tendency to decline without him to an almost unthinkable degree despite him not producing as much individually.

That said, you're wrong about West producing anywhere near the rates he did in NOH, but that has very little to do with CP3 and more to do with him declining athletically.


I dont see anything to support this. Clippers have seen their depth decline yearly and the health/performance of that roster in the playoffs still matters.

Outside of last years G5 blunder, Ive never blamed CP3 for us losing, for the most part hes gotten his teams to overachieve and even then, losing to the Thunder (who have a player better than CP3 leading them, and also happen to have a secondary player who is arguably also better than CP3, and also happen to have a defensive big who can totally shut down Blake's 1 on 1 game) is not a giant failure.

West:

Ortg:
Hornets 110
Pacers 109

TS%:
Hornets 54.4%
Pacers 53.7%

Per36 PPG:
Hornets 18.2
Pacers 16.9

He has seen his performance decline slightly (I mean, very slightly) as you said most likely due to age and injuries. He is every bit as adept a scorer now than he was in NO and Paul certainly didn't make him a superior scorer than he was.

You don't have to see that fact for it to be true. Every year the Clippers are ranked at or near the top of the league in terms of talent. There is no arguing that. Heck, coming into this year there were like 3, maybe 4 teams people listed as having more talent (SA, OKC, CLE, maybe GS).

I'm not blaming CP3 for their losses. I am saying he and his team have simply not gotten it done despite being among the most talented teams in the league. Essentially, if we switch CP3 with Kidd on the Nets or Nash on the Suns I don't think either of those teams win the title. Could I see this current Clippers team doing better with a prime Nash or Kidd? Nash possibly.

Chronz
11-19-2014, 03:20 PM
West:

Ortg:
Hornets 110
Pacers 109

TS%:
Hornets 54.4%
Pacers 53.7%

Per36 PPG:
Hornets 18.2
Pacers 16.9

He has seen his performance decline slightly (I mean, very slightly) as you said most likely due to age and injuries. He is every bit as adept a scorer now than he was in NO and Paul certainly didn't make him a superior scorer than he was.
What are these numbers? Some kind of average? Looks pretty selective, either way, he was definitely at his best before Indy. Not sure how much of that was CP3 but it was definitely mostly West's doing.




You don't have to see that fact for it to be true.
This argument works both ways, if you want to agree to disagree just say that but if you have more than just conjecture, plz provide it.


Every year the Clippers are ranked at or near the top of the league in terms of talent. There is no arguing that. Heck, coming into this year there were like 3, maybe 4 teams people listed as having more talent (SA, OKC, CLE, maybe GS).
OK well if this is all you got then may I know whos doing the ranking and how are they accounting for the differences come playoffs, would like to hear your argument because I've been correcting people on this issue a long time now. If thats not possible, just reference other peoples opinion that deal with the issue. Whatever works best for you.


I'm not blaming CP3 for their losses. I am saying he and his team have simply not gotten it done despite being among the most talented teams in the league.
LOL that tends to happen when you face MORE TALENTED TEAMS. Talent is a subjective interpretation but we do have quantifiable facts to support it. I have mine ready, all I need is to see why this would be a legit complaint. Its hard for 1 man and his team to defeat a superior club. Not impossible because upsets do happen (CP3 pulled one already), its just not expected and thus an empty complaint.


Essentially, if we switch CP3 with Kidd on the Nets or Nash on the Suns I don't think either of those teams win the title. Could I see this current Clippers team doing better with a prime Nash or Kidd? Nash possibly.
LOL no way. Nash would make the defense even worse than it already was, and offense is the last reason these guys have failed. You would have a better argument with Kidd simply because he excels at the area the Clips have struggled. Offensively they would take a hit but its a better argument for sure.

nandovelez
11-19-2014, 03:29 PM
Jason kidd made kenyon martin a 80 million dollar player enough said. He took a horrible nets team and made them contenders who gave san antonio a run for their money. And that spurs team was awesome. Some people realltly undervalue kidd who is one of the few players in history that can affect the game and score just ten points. Definetly to a guy who hasnt won anything even tho he has great talent in la. Put nash or kidd in his place and they probably couldve gone to a nba final by now. And i like chris paul

Chronz
11-19-2014, 03:43 PM
Jason kidd made kenyon martin a 80 million dollar player enough said. He took a horrible nets team and made them contenders who gave san antonio a run for their money. And that spurs team was awesome. Some people realltly undervalue kidd who is one of the few players in history that can affect the game and score just ten points. Definetly to a guy who hasnt won anything even tho he has great talent in la. Put nash or kidd in his place and they probably couldve gone to a nba final by now. And i like chris paul
Its an argument for sure but K-Mart played just as well once he left NJ. The guy just got injured and was never worth the investment anyways. That Spurs team was definitely its weakest title team IMO, not even better than the Kawhi era Spurs .

Want to know a fun fact about Kidd's Finals run. He NEVER once beat a team that was better than the Grizzlies team CP3's Clips put down. Only in the West that means you're in R.2 instead of feasting on sub 50 win teams all the way to the Finals.

KingstonHawke
11-19-2014, 04:24 PM
Nash is the most overrated player to ever have lived... literally! I'm not saying he's complete trash, but he should've NEVER won an MVP, and he shouldn't be in the HOF discussion. As much as people don't care about defense, last time I checked, it's still 50% of the game!!! He was consistently horrible at it his whole career. That already should cancel him from being in MVP talks. At least guys like Iverson who were undersized played passing lanes, Nash doesn't even give you that. I wish they had a stat that showed a players solo defense. Nash would probably be the lowest of any MVP of all time.

Nash was never even the best player on his team when they were good. Stoudmire was. People hate to bring up race, but this is the reason why he won not just one but two MVPs. His image at that time was perfect for what the NBA needed to push.

Look at the numbers. Who seems more valuable to their team... 18.8 pts, 10.5 ast, 4.2 rbs, and 3.5 tos. OR... 33 pts, 7.4 ast, 3.2 rbds, 3.4tos. Keep in mind player one is playing with two all star level big men.

This isn't even close. You switch the roles and Iverson loses some points, but his assist jump. So his numbers still blow Nash's away from that MVP year Nash had. And Nash's teams played so fast that always gave an increase to his stats as well.

Not even going to bring up the next year when Kobe completely destroyed the league but Nash got the MVP again. Even now, when we talk about Kobe at his best, we point to this season! And he didn't get the MVP because Nash was busy giving us 19-12-4 on a loaded team.

How come Nash's highest assist mark was 8.8 until he was given all the superstar finishers. Dirk isn't a slouch. But he's not going to boost your assist the way one of the best P&R big men of all time will.

Kevin Love is overrated too. If MN was a top 4 seed, they'd of been giving him MVPs too. Guess white people don't have to play defense. Then again, with such a loaded team (Stat, Matrix, Joe Johnson, etc) there's a reason Nash teams always sucked in the playoffs. Nash's assist are like a Texas Tech QBs passing yards in the 90s.

KingstonHawke
11-19-2014, 04:31 PM
Jason kidd made kenyon martin a 80 million dollar player enough said. He took a horrible nets team and made them contenders who gave san antonio a run for their money. And that spurs team was awesome. Some people realltly undervalue kidd who is one of the few players in history that can affect the game and score just ten points. Definetly to a guy who hasnt won anything even tho he has great talent in la. Put nash or kidd in his place and they probably couldve gone to a nba final by now. And i like chris paul

You sound silly. That Nets team had talent, and Kenyon was a beast. If he'd of stayed healthy he'd of been a HOFer. Dude was the undisputed first overall selection. And for good reason. He was AMAZING at Cincy! A PF/C with good size, that can run the floor, defend everyone, amazing finisher, great shooter for his position, etc. For a PF he had no holes. He was a destined to be a 15-10 career guy with elite defense. ****, if Anthony Davis' knees crap out in two years are you gonna be shatting on him?

sammyvine
11-19-2014, 05:15 PM
Paul is overrated

If he is that good and a 'historic PG' he should have made the conference finals by now. Blake Griffin is a legit player. He also has a great coach and some decent role players....if anything wasn't it his blunder in the end that cost the clippers against the thunder?

Like it or not you are judged by what you win and he hasn't won anything. His playoff record is no better than Steph Curry's.

sammyvine
11-19-2014, 05:16 PM
Its an argument for sure but K-Mart played just as well once he left NJ. The guy just got injured and was never worth the investment anyways. That Spurs team was definitely its weakest title team IMO, not even better than the Kawhi era Spurs .

Want to know a fun fact about Kidd's Finals run. He NEVER once beat a team that was better than the Grizzlies team CP3's Clips put down. Only in the West that means you're in R.2 instead of feasting on sub 50 win teams all the way to the Finals.

So CP3's playoff woes are all to blamed on the western conference?
Yes the West is tough...but surely if he is that good he can take them there with the decent team he has around him. Isn't he too passive in playoff games and doesn't take over enough?

Chronz
11-19-2014, 05:56 PM
Paul is overrated

If he is that good and a 'historic PG' he should have made the conference finals by now.
Based on what?


Blake Griffin is a legit player.
Other teams have legit players too. Thats the thing about the NBA, its more than just 2 players that determine the game.


He also has a great coach and some decent role players....if anything wasn't it his blunder in the end that cost the clippers against the thunder?

It cost them down the stretch of a single game and yes he was completely at fault. Just like when Magic Johnson became Tragic Johnson for his blunders, it happens to the best. Imagine being CP3 and only getting 1 decent crack at the Finals, and it comes while facing a superior team. Thats pretty hard to pin and entire career legacy on.


Like it or not you are judged by what you win and he hasn't won anything. His playoff record is no better than Steph Curry's.
Like it or not, this isn't tennis, 1 player doesn't control his teams entire destiny. So long as all you have are raw/blind glances at win-loss records, you have nothing to stand on.

Goose17
11-19-2014, 06:08 PM
Nash was never even the best player on his team when they were good.


Hmm... I would argue against that. Stoudemire wouldn't have been as productive if he wasn't playing with such an elite play maker.

And you could say the same thing about CP3 and Blake. Griffin is clearly the better player of the two.



Nash is the most overrated player to ever have lived... literally! I'm not saying he's complete trash, but he should've NEVER won an MVP, and he shouldn't be in the HOF discussion. As much as people don't care about defense, last time I checked, it's still 50% of the game!!! He was consistently horrible at it his whole career. That already should cancel him from being in MVP talks. At least guys like Iverson who were undersized played passing lanes, Nash doesn't even give you that. I wish they had a stat that showed a players solo defense. Nash would probably be the lowest of any MVP of all time.


That's sort of stupid. I mean he was a crap defender. But he is arguably the most efficient offensive point guard that has ever lived. He was an absolute BEAST on that end, which should really negate the lack luster defense. Just like an elite defender might not be much of an offensive player. You don't have to be great on both ends to be an MVP caliber player.

I mean Iverson won the MVP award and he was overrated on both ends. Nowitzki won it and he's as bad defensively for his position as Nash was for the PG.

Chronz
11-19-2014, 06:11 PM
So CP3's playoff woes are all to blamed on the western conference?
Yes the West is tough...but surely if he is that good he can take them there with the decent team he has around him. Isn't he too passive in playoff games and doesn't take over enough?
I dont consider them woes considering just how much he has elevated his inferior clubs. And I wont speak for what he did in New Orleans because quite frankly, I wasn't paying close enough attention outside of his 2 series vs LA/San Antonio, but for his Clipper career, hes actually done the opposite.

Hes gets overly aggressive, in fact, I still remember mzgrizz or fadeawayfosho telling me that CP3 coming out guns blazing (as opposed to getting his teammates involved) is what they wanted as Grizz fans. Come playoffs there are usually bodies banged up or guys whos games tend not to translate into the post season (DJ/Jamal Crawford for example, have been the definition of regular season players, and are very dependent on matchups) so CP3 has actually forced the issue more come playoffs. Its never been to the detriment of the team considering that their offense hasn't been the reason for their exits. I mean the degree of difficulty on CP3 carrying his teams over the years and still producing at an excellent rate has been off the charts good, yet somehow people only bring up the 1 time he utterly failed in the clutch.

Hes passive in the regular season because hes has mastered how to pace himself, especially at this age. What he needs is a team that can defend at an elite level, thats what EVERY great PG outside of Magic Johnson has needed to win or even reach the Finals. The reason for this is because its really hard to build a perfect offense first team and smaller players have less of an impact defensively. CP3 is about as good as it gets with regards to a star PGs defense today, but even he cant anchor a defense. Thats what makes guys like Kidd/GP so special, they were absolute game changers defensively. But they werent of your typical PG height. They had more versatility to them. As much as I admire when CP3 takes the challenge of guarding guys +6 inches taller, I know it takes a toll on him. I hate that the Clippers have never found a stud defender for him on the perimeter, hes constantly battling the Klay Thompsons, Pondexters/Allens of the world, all while simultaneously guarding the best on the other end. Really, people thinking CP3 has this stacked team pay no attention to detail and focus solely on the highlight reel and flash of those players.

Goose17
11-19-2014, 06:11 PM
The ring/playoff experience argument is just a terrible argument, I don't care who you're arguing for or against. People need to learn that basketball is a team sport. You can't put an entire teams failures on the shoulders of an individual.

Chronz
11-19-2014, 06:19 PM
And you could say the same thing about CP3 and Blake. Griffin is clearly the better player of the two.
LOL, was this a typo?


Nowitzki won it and he's as bad defensively for his position as Nash was for the PG.
You're making all sorts of outlandish claims today. What makes you believe any of this?

Goose17
11-19-2014, 06:24 PM
LOL, was this a typo?


Nope.



You're making all sorts of outlandish claims today. What makes you believe any of this?

Facts?

Dirk developed into a good defender, but it only happened AFTER his MVP year.

Chronz
11-19-2014, 06:27 PM
Nope.
Dear god..... As a Clippers fan, can you explain why you feel that way?


Facts?
If you have facts available, why not present them? All I've seen from you is conjecture, and given the amount of straws you've dished out today, I would love to see a credible argument from you for a change.


Dirk developed into a good defender, but it only happened AFTER his MVP year.
But you said he was Nash bad. What are you basing that on?
Nash NEVER developed into a good defender either so its not like theres a subjective argument for you to point to, Dirk was a poor defender in his youth and became a credible defender well before his MVP season.

Chronz
11-19-2014, 06:33 PM
Nash is the most overrated player to ever have lived... literally! I'm not saying he's complete trash, but he should've NEVER won an MVP, and he shouldn't be in the HOF discussion. As much as people don't care about defense, last time I checked, it's still 50% of the game!!! He was consistently horrible at it his whole career. That already should cancel him from being in MVP talks. At least guys like Iverson who were undersized played passing lanes, Nash doesn't even give you that. I wish they had a stat that showed a players solo defense. Nash would probably be the lowest of any MVP of all time.

Nash was never even the best player on his team when they were good. Stoudmire was. People hate to bring up race, but this is the reason why he won not just one but two MVPs. His image at that time was perfect for what the NBA needed to push.

Look at the numbers. Who seems more valuable to their team... 18.8 pts, 10.5 ast, 4.2 rbs, and 3.5 tos. OR... 33 pts, 7.4 ast, 3.2 rbds, 3.4tos. Keep in mind player one is playing with two all star level big men.

This isn't even close. You switch the roles and Iverson loses some points, but his assist jump. So his numbers still blow Nash's away from that MVP year Nash had. And Nash's teams played so fast that always gave an increase to his stats as well.

Not even going to bring up the next year when Kobe completely destroyed the league but Nash got the MVP again. Even now, when we talk about Kobe at his best, we point to this season! And he didn't get the MVP because Nash was busy giving us 19-12-4 on a loaded team.

How come Nash's highest assist mark was 8.8 until he was given all the superstar finishers. Dirk isn't a slouch. But he's not going to boost your assist the way one of the best P&R big men of all time will.

Kevin Love is overrated too. If MN was a top 4 seed, they'd of been giving him MVPs too. Guess white people don't have to play defense. Then again, with such a loaded team (Stat, Matrix, Joe Johnson, etc) there's a reason Nash teams always sucked in the playoffs. Nash's assist are like a Texas Tech QBs passing yards in the 90s.
AI has nothing to do with this and your statistical argument ignores efficiency/pace altogether, so its null and void. Efficiency matters, cohesion matters. Players had a far greater likelihood of reaching optimal efficiency alongside Nash than they ever did alongside AI.

Nash was smart enough to play PG, AI was dumb enough to think building around a diminutive SG was easy. AI was more of a defensive liability than Nash was for the simple fact that his teams never had to find a tall PG to pair with him.

With AI you either had to play him at the 1 and sacrifice ball movement, or play him at the 2 and force your poor PG into defending bigger players. Poor Anthony Carter .

Goose17
11-19-2014, 06:36 PM
Dear god..... As a Clippers fan, can you explain why you feel that way?


I just do. I think he outperformed him in the playoffs (significantly), I think he's more valuable due to the position he plays and the depth of the PG. I think Blake really showed what he's capable of last year. When all is said and done, when their careers are over and the dust has settled. I believe Griffin will be viewed as the superior player of the two.

We're allowed to disagree though, it's okay.




If you have facts available, why not present them? All I've seen from you is conjecture, and given the amount of straws you've dished out today, I would love to see a credible argument from you for a change.


I didn't think I needed to. Everyone I know that follows ball accepts that Dirk was a crappy defender back in the day.

And please point to one straw I've used today? People on PSD love to dismiss arguments as straw arguments when they have no rebuttal for them, I've noticed that recently.




But you said he was Nash bad. What are you basing that on?
Nash NEVER developed into a good defender either so its not like theres a subjective argument for you to point to, Dirk was a poor defender in his youth and became a credible defender well before his MVP season.

He was NOT a good defender before his MVP season, not even close. He was garbage that year defensively. But elite offensively.

I wasn't saying he was as bad as Nash, maybe I should have been clearer. I was saying he was one of the weaker players at his position but his elite offensive abilities trumped that and earned him the MVP. Just like Nash.

Chronz
11-19-2014, 06:55 PM
I just do. I think he outperformed him in the playoffs (significantly), I think he's more valuable due to the position he plays and the depth of the PG.
That makes no sense to me, much of our playbook was wiped away because Blake couldn't go 1 on 1 vs Ibaka. His production was inferior to CP3's, and its not like we can point to defense being the difference maker considering what his position demands of players. So , the "I just do" argument doesn't cut it for me. Agree to disagree.

My other question is this tho, do you think hes just recently passed CP3 or do you believe this has always been the case? Because if you do, then Im thoroughly disappointed.


I think Blake really showed what he's capable of last year. When all is said and done, when their careers are over and the dust has settled. I believe Griffin will be viewed as the superior player of the two.

Im sure you believe that, just wake me up when the objective evidence aligns with that unsubstantiated opinion. Until then, I GLADLY agree to disagree.



We're allowed to disagree though, it's okay.
LOL obviously. I actually post on here to find members who can make me rethink things, but so long as you're speaking about my team and you have absolutely zero in the way of objective evidence, Im going to stick with the most realistic standing.





I didn't think I needed to. Everyone I know that follows ball accepts that Dirk was a crappy defender back in the day.
LOL. You dont NEED to do anything, but when you say you have facts behind you, when in reality all you have are the opinions of ur peeps, you should learn the difference between truth and conjecture.


And please point to one straw I've used today? People on PSD love to dismiss arguments as straw arguments when they have no rebuttal for them, I've noticed that recently.
Check out the Davis thread. Several of us are waiting for you to connect the dots.


He was NOT a good defender before his MVP season, not even close. He was garbage that year defensively. But elite offensively.
Forget proving this, you have said nothing to even support it.


I wasn't saying he was as bad as Nash, maybe I should have been clearer. I was saying he was one of the weaker players at his position but his elite offensive abilities trumped that and earned him the MVP. Just like Nash.
Except it wasn't like Nash, because Dirk was both the better defender and more productive.

Rain City
11-19-2014, 07:07 PM
kidd, CP, nash

kidd's intangibles, defensive versatility, and strong rebounding for the position made him so unique. nets to me were LAC West, a team that always underachieved, kidd flipped that, and CP is still apart of an underachieving LAC team.

its hard to put your finger on it, CP puts up great numbers, is above average defender, i think there has been streaks throughout his career where he smokes both of these guys in their prime, and in the context of winning basketball. i think there still might be some selfishness to him preventing this LAC team to hit its expectation.

this debate is still being written and i think with most people's opinion comes down to team success. LAC has no excuse. 2 top 15 caliber NBA players, championship coach, DPOY, 6th man of the yr, veteran experience, continuity. anything less that a top WC 3 seed is a big disappointment. its championship or bust and if they don't, i think it taints CP3s legacy kinda like the lack of rings does for melo.

Goose17
11-19-2014, 07:10 PM
My other question is this tho, do you think hes just recently passed CP3 or do you believe this has always been the case? Because if you do, then Im thoroughly disappointed.


As far as I'm concerned he surpassed him last season. CP3 is arguably the most well rounded point guard this league has ever seen, so it's no small feat.



LOL. You dont NEED to do anything, but when you say you have facts behind you, when in reality all you have are the opinions of ur peeps, you should learn the difference between truth and conjecture.


But the facts are out there, I don't need to provide them, it's not in some top secret evidence locker. If you followed the NBA then or look at the numbers you can see it for yourself.




Check out the Davis thread. Several of us are waiting for you to connect the dots.


And I'm waiting for them to realise that comparing a players third year in the league to a rookie isn't a logical or fair comparison to make.




Except it wasn't like Nash, because Dirk was both the better defender and more productive.

It's exactly like Nash. A poor defender with incredible offensive output and amazing efficiency.

Actually you're right it's not quite the same, in the years he won an MVP Nash led his team beyond the first round, Nowitzki choked and fell to the mighty Dubs!

Chronz
11-19-2014, 07:24 PM
But the facts are out there, I don't need to provide them, it's not in some top secret evidence locker. If you followed the NBA then or look at the numbers you can see it for yourself.
If they are out there, it shouldn't be hard to provide them. Sorry but when it comes to statistics, I only trust those who actually provide statistics. Until then, I dont know anything about your analysis. I dont know if you even comprehend the numbers until you provide more than conjecture.


And I'm waiting for them to realise that comparing a players third year in the league to a rookie isn't a logical or fair comparison to make.
I agreed with that one. Its the other straws, like you saying people are claiming for AD to already have the better career, that I wonder about. Like jeffy said, show us who has argued that.


It's exactly like Nash. A poor defender with incredible offensive output and amazing efficiency.
Except its not like Nash because he has both superior production and defense.


Actually you're right it's not quite the same, in the years he won an MVP Nash led his team beyond the first round, Nowitzki choked and fell to the mighty Dubs!
Dubs have done that alot over the decades. They've conquered Kareem at his apex, D-Rob and Dream IIRC. Kareem was the MVP 3 of the 4 years during that stretch, he and his team choked against the mighty Dubs too. Nobody doubted that he was the best player in the game tho.

Similar phenomena here. Dirk was met by the ultimate under dog. He should have won the MVP the year before that tho.

Goose17
11-19-2014, 07:31 PM
Except its not like Nash because he has both superior production and defense.

Crap defense is better than zero defense but it's still not a positive.

And superior production? What? Offensively? Are you for real? Are you taking strictly points here? Last I checked creating for others was a big part of the offense.

But if you're just talking about scoring points then fair enough, I guess that's all there is to offense.

Chronz
11-19-2014, 07:37 PM
Crap defense is better than zero defense but it's still not a positive.
Assuming I agreed with your (continuously) unsubstantiated opinion, its STILL a differentiating factor.


And superior production?
Yes.


What? Offensively?
LOL, when I go through the trouble of separating DEFENSE from PRODUCTION, it should be obvious that Im primarily speaking about his offensive contributions. But to be clear, YES OFFENSIVELY.


Are you for real? Are you taking strictly points here?
LOL here come the straws. No Im talking production. Points are but 1 element that go into the barometers we have for offensive contributions.


Last I checked creating for others was a big part of the offense.
Who said it wasn't? Strawmen?


But if you're just talking about scoring points then fair enough, I guess that's all there is to offense.
Sorry but the straws are wasted on me, I was talking about PRODUCTION. Feel free to engage in the actual statistical comparison if you want, but you're not scaring me off with these newb tactics.

Chronz
11-19-2014, 07:39 PM
Ughhh forget it.

To be clear, since it seems you want me to do all the heavy lifting in this debate, can you tell me what stretch of years you are specifically comparing with regards to anything you still wish to debate.

YAALREADYKNO
11-19-2014, 07:42 PM
If they are out there, it shouldn't be hard to provide them. Sorry but when it comes to statistics, I only trust those who actually provide statistics. Until then, I dont know anything about your analysis. I dont know if you even comprehend the numbers until you provide more than conjecture.


I agreed with that one. Its the other straws, like you saying people are claiming for AD to already have the better career, that I wonder about. Like jeffy said, show us who has argued that.


Except its not like Nash because he has both superior production and defense.


Dubs have done that alot over the decades. They've conquered Kareem at his apex, D-Rob and Dream IIRC. Kareem was the MVP 3 of the 4 years during that stretch, he and his team choked against the mighty Dubs too. Nobody doubted that he was the best player in the game tho.

Similar phenomena here. Dirk was met by the ultimate under dog. He should have won the MVP the year before that tho.

what year are you talking about in which Dirk should've won MVP?

Chronz
11-19-2014, 07:51 PM
what year are you talking about in which Dirk should've won MVP?

The year Nash won his 2nd.

ChI_ShIzzLe
11-19-2014, 08:45 PM
Wow this topic certainly has gone in all directions..lol

Redrum187
11-19-2014, 08:54 PM
Chris Paul is a phenomenal player, but I would take prime Jason Kidd any day over Paul or Nash. Kidd's versatility on the defensive end (guarding PG/SG), elite rebounding and passing while being the best team leader of the 3 is what separates him from Paul and Nash.

Mr.B
11-20-2014, 01:08 AM
FYI, hes been beyond the 1st round 3x (lol, once?)

Dont see why that should matter but it seems like you feel Kidd wasn't in as good a position as CP3 was. I can only see that argument if we completely ignore the level of competition. How many times did Kidd lead his team to the Finals out West? When he was in his prime, he regularly lost out to superior teams and I dont recall him ever rising through the odds and beating one of those superior clubs. This was during the time when he was getting bad press and most people didn't think they were looking at one of the greatest ever.

Then he went out East and turned a hapless team around (very similar to what CP3 has done with the Clips out here in the brutal West), but again, why should we ignore the competition he faced?

42-40 Pacers, 44 Win Hornets, 49 Win Celtics
42 Win Bucks, 44 Win Celtics, 50 win Pistons


So yes, CP3 does have more support than Kidd, but I'd argue hes also playing on a better team than any Kidd has ever led. Its just that instead of facing weak teams, these Clippers have to play every series against a club that is either equally talented to them or far more talented than those out East.



So to me, CP3 has already proven he can lead a team better than Kidd, he just doesn't play in a conference where that means an easy road to the Finals.

Kidd was one of the key leaders on a team that won a title. He also did it in the West in 2011. The Mavs play in the West so Kidd won a title facing the same competition as Paul. In fact most say he did it with an inferior team.

Duncan = Donkey
11-20-2014, 01:14 AM
1. Nash
2. Kidd
3. Flopping *****

JJ_JKidd
11-20-2014, 05:49 AM
So I'm having a heated conversation with this dude on Facebook about Chris Paul vs. Jason Kidd and Steve Nash. My argument is that Paul isn't on the level Kidd and Nash were in their primes, especially how they were able to lead their teams and make their teammates better. Now to be fair, Kidd and Nash probably had a better supporting cast but my question is, what are your opinions when comparing Paul to the two future HOFers? Is he on their level? Is he already better than them? You can talk about individual skills and intangibles. Thanks.

Kidd in his prime had (Nets Finals teams):

Keith Van Horn
Kerry Kittles
Kenyon Martin
Jason Collins
Todd Macculloch
Luscious Harris
Richard Jefferson

Nash in his prime had (Phoenix run; Nash MVPs):

Amare Stoudemire
Jim Jackson
Raja Bell
Leandro Barbosa
Boris Diaw
Shawn Marion
Quentin Richardson

CP3 now has:

Blake Griffin
DeAndre Jordan
Jamal Crawford
Matt Barnes
Glenn Davis
Darren Collison
JJ Redick

Among the three, Kidd had the least talent on his team in his prime. Looking at CP3's roster on paper though, I am kinda wondering why it don't get past the second round with all that talent. For Nash, IMHO he had the second best available talent on his team. Just cant get past the Conference Finals tho.

JJ_JKidd
11-20-2014, 05:53 AM
2011 Dallas mavericks was a pretty good cast eh?

Would you still consider them pretty good if they didn't win the Chip?

Duncan = Donkey
11-20-2014, 06:16 AM
Kidd in his prime had (Nets Finals teams):

Keith Van Horn
Kerry Kittles
Kenyon Martin
Jason Collins
Todd Macculloch
Luscious Harris
Richard Jefferson

Nash in his prime had (Phoenix run; Nash MVPs):

Amare Stoudemire
Jim Jackson
Raja Bell
Leandro Barbosa
Boris Diaw
Shawn Marion
Quentin Richardson

CP3 now has:

Blake Griffin
DeAndre Jordan
Jamal Crawford
Matt Barnes
Glenn Davis
Darren Collison
JJ Redick

Among the three, Kidd had the least talent on his team in his prime. Looking at CP3's roster on paper though, I am kinda wondering why it don't get past the second round with all that talent. For Nash, IMHO he had the second best available talent on his team. Just cant get past the Conference Finals tho.

None of Kidds or Pauls would beat those Spurs or Laker teams in a playoff match up though.

ilovesports
11-20-2014, 08:46 AM
the scary thing with Nash is that he really could/should have posted back to back to back MVPs. After winning twice, he put up better numbers in 06-07 and lost to Dirk. I remember some of the best PSD debates in history over who should have been MVP and despite Dirk being awesome, there were many who were just afraid to vote for Nash. You just couldnt put Steve Nash in the 3-peat MVP class with Russell Chamberlain and Bird or ahead of so many of the greats that only won twice, even once. I was a huge Nash fan so I thought he deserved it:

Nash 06-07

GP GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG SPG BPG PPG PER
76 76 35.3 .532 .455 .899 3.5 11.6 .8 .1 18.6 23.8

Dirk 06-07

GP GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG SPG BPG PPG PER
81 81 38.1 .480 .406 .901 9.0 2.8 .7 1.0 26.6 27.6

If he did 3 peat, would we even be talking about this?

oh, and I have Kidd at 2.

valade16
11-20-2014, 10:24 AM
the scary thing with Nash is that he really could/should have posted back to back to back MVPs. After winning twice, he put up better numbers in 06-07 and lost to Dirk. I remember some of the best PSD debates in history over who should have been MVP and despite Dirk being awesome, there were many who were just afraid to vote for Nash. You just couldnt put Steve Nash in the 3-peat MVP class with Russell Chamberlain and Bird or ahead of so many of the greats that only won twice, even once. I was a huge Nash fan so I thought he deserved it:

Nash 06-07

GP GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG SPG BPG PPG PER
76 76 35.3 .532 .455 .899 3.5 11.6 .8 .1 18.6 23.8

Dirk 06-07

GP GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG SPG BPG PPG PER
81 81 38.1 .480 .406 .901 9.0 2.8 .7 1.0 26.6 27.6

If he did 3 peat, would we even be talking about this?

oh, and I have Kidd at 2.

Nash is closer to having 1 MVP than he is to having 3. I don't remember really anyone saying he deserved a 3rd that season.

jericho
11-20-2014, 10:51 AM
None of Kidds or Pauls would beat those Spurs or Laker teams in a playoff match up though.

I dont get your point. Switch Nash team with Kidds and those years that they made it to the finals. Yes they would make it to the finals but it would be the same, they would lose to the Lakers and Spurs.

YAALREADYKNO
11-20-2014, 11:17 AM
Would you still consider them pretty good if they didn't win the Chip?

exactly. I hate it when people act like the mavs were the showtime lakers with kareem magic worthy cooper McAdoo and that whole team in LA. People forget once Dirk went out the mavs went 2-7.

YAALREADYKNO
11-20-2014, 11:18 AM
I dont get your point. Switch Nash team with Kidds and those years that they made it to the finals. Yes they would make it to the finals but it would be the same, they would lose to the Lakers and Spurs.

no just no. Nash would not have shooters like how he did in new jersey and martin wasn't the beast amare was in his prime

valade16
11-20-2014, 11:40 AM
no just no. Nash would not have shooters like how he did in Cleveland and martin wasn't the beast amare was in his prime

Why do people assume Nash's success in Phoenix was solely because of Amare? Did people forget that Nash won his second MVP because Amare was lost the entire season and the Suns didn't miss a beat.

YAALREADYKNO
11-20-2014, 12:06 PM
Why do people assume Nash's success in Phoenix was solely because of Amare? Did people forget that Nash won his second MVP because Amare was lost the entire season and the Suns didn't miss a beat.

I'm not saying it was based just on amare. I'm saying you put nash on those Jason kidd nets teams they don't make the finals. If amare doesn't miss that entire season the suns probably end up with the best record in the NBA again

jericho
11-20-2014, 12:29 PM
no just no. Nash would not have shooters like how he did in new jersey and martin wasn't the beast amare was in his prime

Sorry i wasnt clear enough lol. I meant replace the hole Phoenix team with New Jersey. I know that if Nash was on that Nets team it would have been a first round exit at best.

Goose17
11-20-2014, 01:07 PM
I'm saying you put nash on those Jason kidd nets teams they don't make the finals.

Those arguments are silly really. You could do that for almost any player. Teams are built with the current talent they have in mind, you build around Nash, you build around Kidd. You don't build a team for Kidd and then trade him for Nash.

Just like you wouldn't build a team for Kobe and then trade Kobe for Lebron, the team wouldn't be built right to compliment his game. From the starters right to the 15th man. You build a team with the current talent and coaching style in mind.

Plus you can't really prove either way if they would have made the finals. It's all subjective.

Goose17
11-20-2014, 01:08 PM
I know that if Nash was on that Nets team it would have been a first round exit at best.

There's no way you can possibly know that. Believe it sure, know it? Nope.

But okay, I know that if Jason Kidd was on that Phoenix team they would have been the worst team in the league for 56 years. Since we're just making **** up.

alexander_37
11-20-2014, 01:13 PM
People really need to go back and watch Nash play, maybe the best playmaker ever. At least on Magic's heels if he isn't.

Goose17
11-20-2014, 01:16 PM
People really need to go back and watch Nash play, maybe the best playmaker ever. At least on Magic's heels if he isn't.

This^

ghettosean
11-20-2014, 01:26 PM
Nash in his prime is probably the most efficient point guard (offensively) that has ever graced the court.

CP3 is more well rounded than both. In fact he might be the most well rounded PG in a couple of decades... possibly ever.

But give me Nash at his peak over CP3.

Well said

jericho
11-20-2014, 01:57 PM
There's no way you can possibly know that. Believe it sure, know it? Nope.

But okay, I know that if Jason Kidd was on that Phoenix team they would have been the worst team in the league for 56 years. Since we're just making **** up.

Dude dont get so touchy lol. Kidd with that Phoenix team that Nash had would have done wonders. There is now way you can possibly deny this. I know we are basing this on what if's, but seriously compare that Phoenix roster to the one in New Jersey and its no contest. You really cant tell me that that Nets team was built for Kidd because if was built for Kidd it would have looked way different. Now for a player that doesnt need to shoot to make an impact you put him in one of the most offensively talented teams the NBA has ever had and i could argue that they could have made it to the finals even win a tittle with him. The only drop off the Suns would have gotten his Nash scoring but they would have gotten a way better defender and rebounder with equal court vision and passing skills to Nash.

Goose17
11-20-2014, 02:07 PM
Dude dont get so touchy lol.

lol not being touchy, your argument is terrible and you need to be made aware of the fact.



Kidd with that Phoenix team that Nash had would have done wonders. There is now way you can possibly deny this. I

There's no way you can know this. No way to prove this. It's just pure speculation on your part. Based on pretty much nothing. It's a terrible argument.



The only drop off the Suns would have gotten his Nash scoring but they would have gotten a way better defender and rebounder with equal court vision and passing skills to Nash.

LOL... equal court vision to Nash? Nash might have the greatest court vision of any point guard that has ever lived. Kidd wasn't equal to him at all.

And rebounding? At the point? Who cares.

I'll take Steve's uber efficient scoring over Kidds defensive prowess.

Goose17
11-20-2014, 02:08 PM
If you put Kobe on the Miami heat with Wade and Bosh they wouldn't have won a chip. There is no way you can possibly deny this.

Don't you realise how moronic that argument is?

jericho
11-20-2014, 03:10 PM
If you put Kobe on the Miami heat with Wade and Bosh they wouldn't have won a chip. There is no way you can possibly deny this.

Don't you realise how moronic that argument is?

But that is true lol

jericho
11-20-2014, 03:17 PM
Dude dont get so touchy lol.

lol not being touchy, your argument is terrible and you need to be made aware of the fact.



Kidd with that Phoenix team that Nash had would have done wonders. There is now way you can possibly deny this. I

There's no way you can know this. No way to prove this. It's just pure speculation on your part. Based on pretty much nothing. It's a terrible argument.



The only drop off the Suns would have gotten his Nash scoring but they would have gotten a way better defender and rebounder with equal court vision and passing skills to Nash.

LOL... equal court vision to Nash? Nash might have the greatest court vision of any point guard that has ever lived. Kidd wasn't equal to him at all.

And rebounding? At the point? Who cares.

I'll take Steve's uber efficient scoring over Kidds defensive prowess.

I want to see what statistical evidence you have that proves that Nash had better court vision than Kidd. Because other wise you are just doing the same thing that you are criticizing me for. There is no stat that you can bring that shows this. So to use your own words against you. There is no way you can know this. No way to prove this. It's just pure speculation on your part. Based on pretty much nothing. It's a terrible argument. I would still pick Kidds better all around game (not just defense) over Nash better scoring.

Goose17
11-20-2014, 03:26 PM
But that is true lol

Of course it's true because the team wasn't built with Kobe in mind. You REALLY don't see why that's a stupid argument to make? I mean come on just think about it for a second.

You can't just have players switch teams to decide who is better.

Goose17
11-20-2014, 03:28 PM
I want to see what statistical evidence you have that proves that Nash had better court vision than Kidd. Because other wise you are just doing the same thing that you are criticizing me for. There is no stat that you can bring that shows this.

There is no stat for measuring court vision, I know from watching them play. You never watched Nash and Kidd swap teams, you're basing your argument on nothing. I'm basing my argument on what actually happened.

alexander_37
11-20-2014, 03:32 PM
I think you also forget how much better of a 3 point shooter Nash was. Heck shooter overall his EFG % and TS % it's literally insane.

Combine that with maybe being the greatest ever at just running and offense and putting up points in whatever way it takes. I'll take Nash every time in his prime, and this is coming from a MASSIVE CP3 fan when he was a Hornet.

albertajaysfan
11-20-2014, 03:38 PM
In terms of skills?
#1.) Chris Paul
#2.) Steve Nash
#3.) Jason Kidd

Nothing that happens for the rest of time will change that for me. In terms of career legacy Paul goes to the bottom and that is mostly because of a harsh (over?)reaction that I have to his failures of last year in the post-season. I completely agree that he over-achieved and was a stud performer for the Hornets, even in the playoffs (lakers series?) he has looked good in defeat. Last year was the first time that he had a real chance to go on a run with nothing holding him back and he dropped the ball big time. Blake Griffin is more than enough of a co-anchor to make it to the Finals. If Chris Paul really wants to start passing people than he needs to get it done in the playoffs because there is nothing else he needs to show me in the regular season. He can drive, shoot, pass, defend, etc. Now it's all about rising your game to historic levels in the moments that matter most and maybe it will turn out he's just another guy that can't cut it but it would be a shame because the skills are there.


Exactly this.

More talented less accomplished. In my opinion that makes you an inferior player. If you have more skills but accomplish then other players that is a huge knock on your legacy.

jericho
11-20-2014, 03:38 PM
But that is true lol

Of course it's true because the team wasn't built with Kobe in mind. You REALLY don't see why that's a stupid argument to make? I mean come on just think about it for a second.

You can't just have players switch teams to decide who is better.

Now you are just contradicting your self with your second post. I wish I could quote 2 posts from my phone at the same time. Anyways back to the main point. It is ok for us to say switch Kobe with Lebron and say that Miami wouldn't do good but it ain't ok to say that Kidd would do good with the Suns team that Nash had. That Suns team was made for a passing PG not for Nash. So to assume that the Suns could do better with Kidd running the PG ain't to far of a stretch.

jericho
11-20-2014, 03:44 PM
I want to see what statistical evidence you have that proves that Nash had better court vision than Kidd. Because other wise you are just doing the same thing that you are criticizing me for. There is no stat that you can bring that shows this.

There is no stat for measuring court vision, I know from watching them play. You never watched Nash and Kidd swap teams, you're basing your argument on nothing. I'm basing my argument on what actually happened.

I washed them both play 2. You are basing your argument on biased fandom. Not who was better suited to run the PG. Just because he could score 10 more points and play way less defense doesn't make him a better player. But nice try I really love how you went from no evidence to eye test. Again bring me some stats that show why Nash had a better court vision than Kidd or else you are just talking from your behind.

Goose17
11-20-2014, 03:48 PM
Now you are just contradicting your self with your second post. I wish I could quote 2 posts from my phone at the same time. But it is ok for us to say switch Kobe with Lebron and say that Miami wouldn't do good but it ain't ok to say that Kidd would do good with the Suns team that Nash had. That Suns team was made for a passing PG not for Nash. So to assume that the Suns could do better with Kidd running the PG ain't to far of a stretch.

LOL... I'll say this one more time, read it carefully, take your time, clearly you're struggling with this;

Teams are built with the talent they have in mind, you CANNOT lift a player from one team, swap him with another and expect the same results regardless of how great they are. And there's no way to know for sure how it would because we never saw it happen. It's completely hypothetical. There's no facts being used at all. None. It's all subjective ********.

And there are no stats that measure court vision. It's impossible to measure such a thing mathematically, it's like measuring anticipation or good positioning for boxing out.

How can I provide a stat that doesn't exist? Let's be clear; How about you provide me with a stat that says he didn't have better court vision? You can't, can you? Because such a stat does not exist.


I'm done. Clearly you don't know spit about basketball or how building a team works. I'm not going in circles with you, go do whatever you need to and believe whatever you want, this is a waste of my time. Bye.

valade16
11-20-2014, 03:54 PM
I washed them both play 2. You are basing your argument on biased fandom. Not who was better suited to run the PG. Just because he could score 10 more points and play way less defense doesn't make him a better player. But nice try I really love how you went from no evidence to eye test. Again bring me some stats that show why Nash had a better court vision than Kidd or else you are just talking from your behind.

Kidd's highest AST% was 48.4%. He led the league in AST% once. Nash's highest AST% was 53.1% and he had 4 seasons of 50%+ and 5 seasons better than Kidd's best.

Obviously that also is how good of a passer they were but the stats coupled with the eye test it should be very obvious Steve Nash had superior court vision to Jason Kidd.

Chronz
11-21-2014, 01:47 PM
Kidd was one of the key leaders on a team that won a title. He also did it in the West in 2011. The Mavs play in the West so Kidd won a title facing the same competition as Paul. In fact most say he did it with an inferior team.

Yeah but Im not talking about being one of the key leaders, Im talking about being THE LEADER of the team. If not that, then at least during his prime/productive years.

jericho
11-21-2014, 03:30 PM
Now you are just contradicting your self with your second post. I wish I could quote 2 posts from my phone at the same time. But it is ok for us to say switch Kobe with Lebron and say that Miami wouldn't do good but it ain't ok to say that Kidd would do good with the Suns team that Nash had. That Suns team was made for a passing PG not for Nash. So to assume that the Suns could do better with Kidd running the PG ain't to far of a stretch.

LOL... I'll say this one more time, read it carefully, take your time, clearly you're struggling with this;

Teams are built with the talent they have in mind, you CANNOT lift a player from one team, swap him with another and expect the same results regardless of how great they are. And there's no way to know for sure how it would because we never saw it happen. It's completely hypothetical. There's no facts being used at all. None. It's all subjective ********.

And there are no stats that measure court vision. It's impossible to measure such a thing mathematically, it's like measuring anticipation or good positioning for boxing out.

How can I provide a stat that doesn't exist? Let's be clear; How about you provide me with a stat that says he didn't have better court vision? You can't, can you? Because such a stat does not exist.


I'm done. Clearly you don't know spit about basketball or how building a team works. I'm not going in circles with you, go do whatever you need to and believe whatever you want, this is a waste of my time. Bye.

I did read and understood what you said. When somebody doesn't have an argument they resort to trying to make the competition feel stupid. News flash it ain't happening here.

My main problem with your argument is that you placed Kobe in the heat and admitted that the heat wouldn't do as good as Lebron did.

So again is it ok for us to say Kobe wouldn't do good with Bosh and Wade but it ain't ok for us to say Kidd with Nash team would do great?

jericho
11-21-2014, 03:37 PM
I washed them both play 2. You are basing your argument on biased fandom. Not who was better suited to run the PG. Just because he could score 10 more points and play way less defense doesn't make him a better player. But nice try I really love how you went from no evidence to eye test. Again bring me some stats that show why Nash had a better court vision than Kidd or else you are just talking from your behind.

Kidd's highest AST% was 48.4%. He led the league in AST% once. Nash's highest AST% was 53.1% and he had 4 seasons of 50%+ and 5 seasons better than Kidd's best.

Obviously that also is how good of a passer they were but the stats coupled with the eye test it should be very obvious Steve Nash had superior court vision to Jason Kidd.

Now see Goose17. This is how you make an argument. While he did use the eye test. Which I have no problem with he also brought stats to back his argument 2.

Now on to you valade16. While yes Nash did have better numbers than Kidd during that time I would say it was more due to the type of basketball the Phoenix Suns had. Ex: what did Nash do before getting into the Suns? Yes he was still a good shooter but he wasn't the passer that he was until he got to play D'anthony ball. Kidd in his prime didn't have the offensive options tha Nash had in his prime. And Kidd still managed to make those players around him at that time to look like competent scorers.

Shlumpledink
11-21-2014, 03:55 PM
If David Stern were better at his job then Chris Paul would have been a Laker and multiple championship winner. Instead he has to play for the clippers who are doomed to fail no matter how good their teams are. If Chris Paul was a winner of 1 or 2 championships as a major contributor if not main contributor then Chris Paul could be top 2 or 3 Pg of all time.

Munkeysuit
11-21-2014, 04:12 PM
Nash is a legend, so please don't take this comment wrong, but, J Kidd (in his prime) was head and shoulders above both Nash and CP3 (in their respective primes) in fact? CP3 has yet to accomplish half of what Nash and Kidd has in their careers.

Goose17
11-21-2014, 04:24 PM
Now see Goose17. This is how you make an argument. While he did use the eye test. Which I have no problem with he also brought stats to back his argument 2.


LOL... I'm sorry I didn't realise court vision meant AST%... there's more to court vision than getting assists.

There is no stat for "court vision"... I already asked you to point one out, you haven't done so yet.

And if that's how to make an argument, how come your response to him contained no stats? You didn't back your argument bro. What's up with that?

jericho
11-21-2014, 05:33 PM
LOL... I'm sorry I didn't realise court vision meant AST%... there's more to court vision than getting assists.

There is no stat for "court vision"... I already asked you to point one out, you haven't done so yet.

And if that's how to make an argument, how come your response to him contained no stats? You didn't back your argument bro. What's up with that?

So now you are picking your arguments lol. You totally ignored the Kobe Miami one and went straight to this one haha. But ok at least he brought something up. Again he brought up eye test and used stats as well. You on the other hand have not brought anything that proves your point as right. Don't come with that lame cop-out of asking me for the evidence when i asked you first for it. Also it is a fact that Steve Nash with the Phoenix Suns had a better offensive supporting cast around him and played D'Antoni ball which helped players get more opportunities on the floor. Jason Kidd not so much.

During Steve Nash era with the Suns he had:
Leandro Barbosa
Jim Jackson
Joe Johnson
Shawn Marion (prime)
Quentin Richardson
Amare Stoudemire (prime)
Tim Thomas
Boris Diaw
Shaq
Grant Hill
Jason Richardson
Goran Dragic

Jason Kidd with the Nets had:
Kenyon Martin
Keith Van Horn
Vince Carter
Richard Jefferson
And i really dont know who else.
That was of the top of my head.

It is easier to rack up more assists when you have better offensive options to pass to plain and simple.

Last thing. I ain't like you i wasn't gonna put him down because AST% doesn't equal court vision. That's some that you would do. I respect his post but don't agree with it hence my argument. At the end of the day we are here to have discussions.

FlashBolt
11-21-2014, 09:08 PM
CP3 statistically and peak wise is probably a top three PG... Statistically, as a first PG, he is the best. That's a fact. He's a great defender, can score, can pass, can rebound. He's already above them if we're strictly speaking about peak vs peak. Nash's two MVP's doesn't really mean two MVP's IMO. I don't think he deserved either of them, tbh.

FlashBolt
11-21-2014, 09:10 PM
Don't get me wrong, they are all great. But the overall package is clearly CP3. If you're looking for the best passer, Nash. Rebounder, Kidd. Leadership is pretty much a tie.. I can't see how you differentiate leadership roles for these three. But defense, rebounding, scoring, passing? C'mon. That's easily CP3. The most statistically gifted PG. He hasn't won anything but neither has Stockton - and Stockton is regarded as the second best PG.

jericho
11-22-2014, 03:53 AM
Don't get me wrong, they are all great. But the overall package is clearly CP3. If you're looking for the best passer, Nash. Rebounder, Kidd. Leadership is pretty much a tie.. I can't see how you differentiate leadership roles for these three. But defense, rebounding, scoring, passing? C'mon. That's easily CP3. The most statistically gifted PG. He hasn't won anything but neither has Stockton - and Stockton is regarded as the second best PG.

If you want to talk about Defense rebounding and passing that's Kidd. Scoring it could go between Nash and Paul but everything else Kidd got them.

YAALREADYKNO
11-26-2014, 09:21 AM
Don't get me wrong, they are all great. But the overall package is clearly CP3. If you're looking for the best passer, Nash. Rebounder, Kidd. Leadership is pretty much a tie.. I can't see how you differentiate leadership roles for these three. But defense, rebounding, scoring, passing? C'mon. That's easily CP3. The most statistically gifted PG. He hasn't won anything but neither has Stockton - and Stockton is regarded as the second best PG.

cp3's the most talented PG of the 3 but that doesn't mean he's had a better career

GritGrind7
11-28-2014, 03:57 AM
Kidd lead his team to the finals twice. Paul hasn't come close to that with better team.

Mr.B
11-28-2014, 09:01 PM
Kidd lead his team to the finals twice. Paul hasn't come close to that with better team.

Kidd actually has lead his team to the Finals 3 times. Twice with New Jersey and once with Dallas.

I agree though that Paul hasn't done what Kidd has done while playing with better talent around him. Kidd was also probably a better defender in his prime (at very least equal), and Kidd was a much better rebounder. Of the 3 who has more triple doubles?

Pfeifer
11-28-2014, 09:23 PM
Steve Nash won back to back MVP awards and could have won three. Let's not forget the impact he had on his team and the league quite honestly. Nobody was playing like that and Nash could do anything he wanted at times on the offensive end. Underrated scorer. He would just hit daggers from 3. Kill you inside. One of the top passers ever. Not a good defender though lol.

Chronz
11-28-2014, 11:30 PM
Kidd lead his team to the finals twice. Paul hasn't come close to that with better team.

Check the competition, Kidd's Nets have never defeated a team better than the opponents the Clips have faced.

Mr.B
11-29-2014, 12:14 AM
Check the competition, Kidd's Nets have never defeated a team better than the opponents the Clips have faced.

The Mavs did with Kidd leading them. They beat all of the toughest teams (toughest teams that year) on their way tons title with Kidd leading them.

Chronz
11-29-2014, 12:30 AM
The Mavs did with Kidd leading them. They beat all of the toughest teams (toughest teams that year) on their way tons title with Kidd leading them.

Someone tried that one already, except he more aptly defined him as one of the "key leaders" on the team. The reason this Mavs fan did so is because you and I both know there are various levels of leadership. And in the scope that I speak of, Kidd did not lead those Mavs, Dirk led them. Chandler led them defensively. Kidd was a great role player but he was well past his prime and not overly productive. He was arguably the 5th or 6th most important player during that run. If thats all you need to be considered a leader then Im not terribly impressed with that barometer. We could point to lots of players as superior simply because they had better teammates.

Its not that different to pointing to Gary Payton winning his sole chip with Miami, but Im sure that you would find that an insulting comparison to make. Hell, I would feel bad if we looked at the year CP3 destroyed Kidd in the playoffs and that was when Kidd was closer to his prime, tho obviously well off.

Mr.B
11-29-2014, 12:41 AM
Someone tried that one already, except he more aptly defined him as one of the "key leaders" on the team. The reason this Mavs fan did so is because you and I both know there are various levels of leadership. And in the scope that I speak of, Kidd did not lead those Mavs, Dirk led them. Chandler led them defensively. Kidd was a great role player but he was well past his prime and not overly productive. He was arguably the 5th or 6th most important player during that run. If thats all you need to be considered a leader then Im not terribly impressed with that barometer. We could point to lots of players as superior simply because they had better teammates.

Its not that different to pointing to Gary Payton winning his sole chip with Miami, but Im sure that you would find that an insulting comparison to make. Hell, I would feel bad if we looked at the year CP3 destroyed Kidd in the playoffs and that was when Kidd was closer to his prime, tho obviously well off.

Dirk would disagree with you, so would Carlisle. Dirk was the #1 leader on that team but you're fooling yourself if you think he was only a role player with minimal impact. He was basically a coach on the floor.

So Kidd has 3 a Finals appearances with 1 win, he was a better rebounder, and was at very least Paul's equal on defense (although I think he was better), and has more career triple doubles. Paul is a better offensive player than Kidd was in his prime. So Paul is a better shooting guard but not point guard.

jericho
11-29-2014, 10:54 AM
Kidd lead his team to the finals twice. Paul hasn't come close to that with better team.

Check the competition, Kidd's Nets have never defeated a team better than the opponents the Clips have faced.

To your point check the rosters Kidd had compared to the ones that Paul had. While yes the teams that the Nets played were inferior (except the Pistons and Pacers) the lack of talent that the Nets had makes them equal. Clippers Paul team is stacked and yes they went against better teams. Better team better competition vs worst team worst competition makes it a wash.

jericho
11-29-2014, 11:50 AM
Dirk would disagree with you, so would Carlisle. Dirk was the #1 leader on that team but you're fooling yourself if you think he was only a role player with minimal impact. He was basically a coach on the floor.

So Kidd has 3 a Finals appearances with 1 win, he was a better rebounder, and was at very least Paul's equal on defense (although I think he was better), and has more career triple doubles. Paul is a better offensive player than Kidd was in his prime. So Paul is a better shooting guard but not point guard.

Dude no matter how you try to spin his Mavs day don't count here. I am a Kidd fan but that was a past his prime Kidd we are talking a Kidd with the Nets. I mean i would still pick Kidd over Paul and Nash but your argument kinda doesn't make sense here.

Chronz
11-29-2014, 01:06 PM
Dirk would disagree with you, so would Carlisle. Dirk was the #1 leader on that team but you're fooling yourself if you think he was only a role player with minimal impact. He was basically a coach on the floor.
I doubt they would disagree, hell you yourself just proved my point by naming Dirk. Feel free to tell me how Im "fooling myself" because I'd love to know where exactly you had Kidd's contributions on the totem pole. Surely below both Dirk and Tyson. Then it comes down to Jason Terry and Marion as quasi big-time producers, Terry especially had a very efficient showing and Marion did a great job defensively. Kidd was basically just a coach on the floor (as most great PG's are) with very little responsibility in comparison to the players I mentioned. But feel free to actually provide an argument as to why not. GP was also a coach on the floor during his very mediocre run, still not a leadership role I would tout above the guys most responsible. Again, if thats your barometer, then Im not impressed.


So Kidd has 3 a Finals appearances with 1 win, he was a better rebounder, and was at very least Paul's equal on defense (although I think he was better), and has more career triple doubles.
Yes and Kidd was only in his prime for 2 of those runs, during which he never faced any competition as fierce as what we have out west. And Kidd was a MUCH better defender, all the metrics we have point to a monstrous impact on that end, again tho, that was during his prime.


Paul is a better offensive player than Kidd was in his prime. So Paul is a better shooting guard but not point guard.
LMFAO, so you're argument is that its better to be limited offensively? Lemme guess, Steve Nash and Magic Johnson were also better SG's huh.... well I dont see how thats a weakness. Being able to provide more than just passing isn't something to be ashamed of. Especially when it leads to a superior offensive system.

Ironically, Jason Kidd in NJ actually chucked more than CP3 has, he just turned it over more and missed the shots he took so your fooled into thinking it wasn't all that important to him, when in reality, his teams were rarely elite offensively so its not like they didn't need help in that department, Kidd just lacked the efficiency to provide it. Going by your logic, Jason Kidd was a better PG in Dallas but he was obviously in his prime with NJ. So which do you think is more important, being a better PG (by your standard) or being the better player?

Mr.B
11-29-2014, 01:27 PM
The topic doesn't say CP3 vs Kidd with the Nets & Nash. Everyone has been talking about the careers of each and who is better. Since we're talking about the careers of each you have to factor in his accomplishments in Dallas. It's part of his career. I understand some of you have a hard on for Chris Paul but you can look at number of titles each one has (in their career) and number of triple doubles (in their career) to see who was better. Now it's possible Paul could win a title or two and have a string of triple doubles but until he does that he's not better than Kidd was (in his career).

And again if you think Kidd was just a role player and had minimal impact on that Mavs title again you're fooling yourself or trying to fool everyone here for the sake of your argument. Anyone who watch Kidd in his second tour with Dallas would know that even with Dirk and Tyson in the team there was no way in hell they would have won the title without Kidd. And I don't mean a game here or there, I mean watched every game or almost every game. As I said before he was a coach on the floor. He probably had the highest basketball IQ out of all the players in the league when he played.

D-Leethal
11-29-2014, 03:07 PM
Kidd > Paul but not Nash.

D-Leethal
11-29-2014, 03:10 PM
CP3 has stiffer competition yes but Kidd also had nowhere near the help CP3 has. The teams Kidd beat were teams that were on the same level as his Nets and he beat them. CP3 consistently loses to teams he should beat and teams with the same or less talent on the roster than he has at his disposal.

D-Leethal
11-29-2014, 03:10 PM
CP3s teams underperform when it matters most, you can't really say that for Kidd.

Chronz
11-29-2014, 03:31 PM
To your point check the rosters Kidd had compared to the ones that Paul had. While yes the teams that the Nets played were inferior (except the Pistons and Pacers) the lack of talent that the Nets had makes them equal.
My only point was that its not as easy as the guy I quoted made it sound. The equation on both ends being subjective is something we agree on. We can agree to disagree on that front but its a better argument to investigate the matter.

For example, you think the Pacers and Pistons were on par with what we have today, but I challenge you to find a way to back that up outside of what they would become later. I dont know if you remember but those Pacers suffered from a similar phenomena to last years version, they completely fell off once the lofty expectations arose. They were easily dispatched by teams you deemed not worthy of naming. In fact, Kidd's Nets only faced them the year they finished with 42 wins. If 42 wins is enough for you to deem them on par with what we've seen recently, I dont think we are going to agree on anything, there is simply no objective evidence to back it and we definitely dont gauge a teams talent/efficiency the same either.


Clippers Paul team is stacked and yes they went against better teams. Better team better competition vs worst team worst competition makes it a wash.
I disagree, its fairly clearly still in Kidd's favor. Would love to see what makes you think those Clips have been "stacked". Given that you named a 42-Win Eastern club, I would like to see more than just conjecture for this breakdown.

Chronz
11-29-2014, 03:40 PM
The topic doesn't say CP3 vs Kidd with the Nets & Nash.
Nobody is suggesting that, the point of mentioning that is to stress the fact that what a player accomplishes during his BEST days is what matters most. GP winning a ring with Miami was a nice tidbit, but its not going to weigh more than what he accomplished during his prime. Kidd was more important to his title quest but its not going to overtake what we know about these guys during their best days.


Everyone has been talking about the careers of each and who is better. Since we're talking about the careers of each you have to factor in his accomplishments in Dallas. It's part of his career. I understand some of you have a hard on for Chris Paul but you can look at number of titles each one has (in their career) and number of triple doubles (in their career) to see who was better. Now it's possible Paul could win a title or two and have a string of triple doubles but until he does that he's not better than Kidd was (in his career).
Arbitrary statistics (like triple doubles) are meant for trivia, any REAL statistical evaluation between the 2 depends on how you value the peak vs longevity argument, at least to this point.


And again if you think Kidd was just a role player and had minimal impact on that Mavs title again you're fooling yourself or trying to fool everyone here for the sake of your argument. Anyone who watch Kidd in his second tour with Dallas would know that even with Dirk and Tyson in the team there was no way in hell they would have won the title without Kidd. And I don't mean a game here or there, I mean watched every game or almost every game. As I said before he was a coach on the floor. He probably had the highest basketball IQ out of all the players in the league when he played.
Agree to disagree, I saw the Mavs plenty to know how much of a swiss army knife they were. Depending on the series, they would utilize different role players, Carlisle was brilliant in that respect. Still, this was a squad with 2 clear leaders, Dirk on O and Chandler on D. Without Dirk, that team struggles to make the playoffs let alone contend for the chip. Dont see how Kidd was anything more than a role player, I really hope you're not suggesting he was an All-Star caliber player.... are you?

Chronz
11-29-2014, 03:42 PM
CP3 has stiffer competition yes but Kidd also had nowhere near the help CP3 has. The teams Kidd beat were teams that were on the same level as his Nets and he beat them. CP3 consistently loses to teams he should beat and teams with the same or less talent on the roster than he has at his disposal.
Only the bolded is true. Fix dat ratio

D-Leethal
11-29-2014, 04:18 PM
Only the bolded is true. Fix dat ratio

Nope. Not surprised your going down swinging with CP3 tho. Dats your boi and dats what yu do with yur favs.

Chronz
11-29-2014, 04:29 PM
Nope. Not surprised your going down swinging with CP3 tho. Dats your boi and dats what yu do with yur favs.

Who should CP3 have beaten? What makes you think he has so much help?

Mr.B
11-29-2014, 05:09 PM
Nobody is suggesting that, the point of mentioning that is to stress the fact that what a player accomplishes during his BEST days is what matters most. GP winning a ring with Miami was a nice tidbit, but its not going to weigh more than what he accomplished during his prime. Kidd was more important to his title quest but its not going to overtake what we know about these guys during their best days.


Arbitrary statistics (like triple doubles) are meant for trivia, any REAL statistical evaluation between the 2 depends on how you value the peak vs longevity argument, at least to this point.


Agree to disagree, I saw the Mavs plenty to know how much of a swiss army knife they were. Depending on the series, they would utilize different role players, Carlisle was brilliant in that respect. Still, this was a squad with 2 clear leaders, Dirk on O and Chandler on D. Without Dirk, that team struggles to make the playoffs let alone contend for the chip. Dont see how Kidd was anything more than a role player, I really hope you're not suggesting he was an All-Star caliber player.... are you?

Obviously his prime years are what matter most, I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is that you have to look at the whole body of work. If you're looking at the whole body of work both his stints in Dallas have to be factored in. And as for career triple doubles being arbitrary... Like you said. We will have to agree to disagree. When you factor in the success Kidd has had throughout his career the number of triple doubles is a huge factor when comparing Kidd to Paul. Kidd was racking them up while getting to the playoffs and Finals multiple times. Paul hasn't had anywhere near that level of success. I'm not saying Paul is a bum or anything like that, I think he's the best PG in the NBA he's just not as good as Kidd was.

Mr.B
11-29-2014, 06:09 PM
All time I would take...
Magic
Stockton
Kidd
Oscar
Payton
Isaiah
Paul
Nash

That has nothing to do with statistics, that's strictly based on my eyeballs. Well not Oscar, never saw him play. Anyone that averaged a triple double for an entire season has to be pretty high up on this list though.

D-Leethal
11-29-2014, 08:33 PM
Who should CP3 have beaten? What makes you think he has so much help?

They SHOULD have beat the Grizz in '13 and they COULD have beat the Spurs in '12 and OKC in '14 (requisite talent to win). He is playing with your boy Blake who is a top 3 PF, he is playing with a top 7 C, the best 6th man in the league over their contendership span to date, with plenty of winning role player sprinkled across throughout that period. He has more than enough help (multiply that if you think Kidd had a legitimate squad in NJ), what makes you think he doesn't?

Chronz
12-01-2014, 12:11 PM
They SHOULD have beat the Grizz in '13 and they COULD have beat the Spurs in '12 and OKC in '14 (requisite talent to win)
You have it all wrong, they should have never advanced past the superior Grizz in 2012, so how could they have beaten the Spurs? Im not seeing why they should have beaten the Grizz. When you evaluate talent, does team health/efficiency and playoff performance matter one iota? If not, I dont care about a baseless claim, if so, plz show me ANYTHING that at least hints that they had the requisite talent. The OTHER team had more talent so even if they could have won, its not a damning defeat to lose. I mean, was CP3 suppose to anchor his teams defense because even with Blake being a complete non-factor, he was able to lift the Clips offense against SUPERB defensive clubs. That Memphis series should have been a sweep, if not for a miracle Game winner from CP3 himself, it wouldn't have been that close.

Lemme put it this way, we both know that Durant is better than CP3. We both know that Westbrook is arguably better than CP3. So their top-2 players are better or on par with our best player. That means the rest of the crew has to make up the difference. Sad thing is, half of the Clips playbook was wiped away because Griffin could not take Ibaka 1 on 1. Thats been the problem for most of his playoff encounters, take away the physical superiority (especially if hes injured) that Blake has against many regular season foes and have him square off against 7'fters, he has had to rely more on a shaky skill game. Hes not going to impact a game defensively so without his dominating offense, your basically expecting Crawford to make up the gap. Ibaka is infinitely better than DJ, especially come playoffs.



He is playing with your boy Blake who is a top 3 PF
Depending on the year and matchups, that top-3 PF was either banged up or completely negated come playoffs. You would know this if you looked beyond the regular season. LOL at should have beaten the Grizz considering the state of Blake. When did Kidd ever beat a superior team with his 2nd best player hobbled and his best sidekick being his backup? Hell, you could argue that the team was at its best with Blake on the bench. Particularly with how the immortal Reggie Evans and K-Mart were playing.



he is playing with a top 7 C
Even if I agree with your completely unsubstantiated claim (which I dont). Hes not even remotely that player come playoffs. And about that claim, I seriously hope ur not suggesting that DJ was the same player Y1 (w/ CP3) thru Y3. If you are, you're beyond hopeless, if you're not, then you should understand why sweeping generalizations provide zero context. Truth is, DJ was so useless, that he lost minutes to 2 players under 6"9 and has been unreliable with the closing unit. I still remember poor Odom battling Gasol/Z-Bo.



the best 6th man in the league over their contendership span to date
I love me some Crawford, not sure what to make of his playoff career, hes never shot above 40% so his volume shooting isn't of as much use as it is during the regular season against bench units. He wasn't around in Y1 and thanks to the dunce of a coach Memphis had in 2012, he was able to impact the game against reserves. Once Hollins had the brilliant revelation of assigning Tony Allen on him, the dude was finished. Thats the thing about winning with depth, come playoffs, everyone shortens up the rotations and thats when the warts pop up. You dont get those easy pin-downs and 1 on 1 play as much.

Still, I'll agree that JC has been a positive contributor but a 1-way player who is matchup dependent none the less.


with plenty of winning role player sprinkled across throughout that period. He has more than enough help (multiply that if you think Kidd had a legitimate squad in NJ), what makes you think he doesn't?
Has something to do with watching them play beyond a highlight reel and understanding their statistical/physical makeup. Plenty of winning role players? You mean the same caliber of guys that every other team has? Just curious, did you consider the likes of Chauncey and Granger to be "winning" role players? What about Reggie Evans/Odom.

I like the use of the word multiply tho, almost gives your post an air of statistical certainty. Anyways, I dont think Kidd had a legit squad in NJ, my point this entire time has been that we've already seen CP3 lead his team beyond any kind of comp that Kidd faced in his prime. The Clips are definitely the better squad, they just aint making the Finals because instead of facing .500 squads out East, we're taking on behemoths out West with our best players injured. CP3 had more help, hes also a superior contributor to that better team.






All time I would take...
Magic
Stockton
Kidd
Oscar
Payton
Isaiah
Paul
Nash

That has nothing to do with statistics, that's strictly based on my eyeballs. Well not Oscar, never saw him play. Anyone that averaged a triple double for an entire season has to be pretty high up on this list though.
2 Questions, do you consider West a SG? Where is Clyde?
Would your list change if you factored in more than just 1 pair of eyeballs?


Obviously his prime years are what matter most, I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is that you have to look at the whole body of work. If you're looking at the whole body of work both his stints in Dallas have to be factored in. And as for career triple doubles being arbitrary... Like you said. We will have to agree to disagree. When you factor in the success Kidd has had throughout his career the number of triple doubles is a huge factor when comparing Kidd to Paul. Kidd was racking them up while getting to the playoffs and Finals multiple times. Paul hasn't had anywhere near that level of success. I'm not saying Paul is a bum or anything like that, I think he's the best PG in the NBA he's just not as good as Kidd was.

You're bringing up his entire body of work in an argument where it has no merit, thats the problem. Again, the leadership Im speaking of did not take place in Dallas. I've already explained why, feel free to tackle the issue if you disagree with it.

And triple doubles are the definition of arbitrary, you can disagree but it wont change that fact. Again, Kidd never led any team to the Finals whilst facing the comp CP3 has so I dont really see why its a huge success.

YAALREADYKNO
12-01-2014, 12:21 PM
the clippers should've beaten the grizzlies back in 2012 and could've beaten the thunder in 2014 but the spurs series they had no shot at all

YAALREADYKNO
12-01-2014, 12:23 PM
one thing about the clippers is that they have been getting every excuse in the book. First it was blake needs to develop his offensive game. He's done that. Then it was a "coaching problem" and they fired vinny del negro and brought in Doc Rivers who immediately everyone said they're a championship caliber team with him as head coach. Now its they don't have enough on the bench and they don't have a capable Small Forward. The clippers are still one of the deepest teams in the NBA so it comes down to there players and cp3 is apart of that. Nobody can never say he doesn't have help or enough talent to get it done because he does.

Chronz
12-01-2014, 01:00 PM
one thing about the clippers is that they have been getting every excuse in the book. First it was blake needs to develop his offensive game. He's done that. Then it was a "coaching problem" and they fired vinny del negro and brought in Doc Rivers who immediately everyone said they're a championship caliber team with him as head coach.
Curious, just when do you feel Blake developed his offensive game? What is it you think he added?


Now its they don't have enough on the bench and they don't have a capable Small Forward. The clippers are still one of the deepest teams in the NBA so it comes down to there players and cp3 is apart of that. Nobody can never say he doesn't have help or enough talent to get it done because he does.
I dont agree with anything you've posted but just how do we quantify ones help? Individual production, team influence (aka +/-). Cuz those pretty much paint CP3 and his cast in a different light than you portray. Even if I agreed with you on their depth (I dont), I would trade in all that depth for a better starting 5 any day. We may not win as many regular season games but its definitely the better formula to win in the Post season.

I would agree he has the help to win, but you definitely have to agree that other teams/players have MORE help. The Clips have never lost to a team with less talent, they've always lost to healthier/superior teams. Last year was the only year in which you could say the Clips had the cast to do damage and they achieved the bar minimum. Had they beaten the Thunder/Spurs, then they would have overachieved. I dont consider it as damaging as the rest of you do, to lose to a team like the Thunder that have the perfect cast to neuter Blake's 1 on 1 game and the star power of 2 to combat CP3.

Chronz
12-01-2014, 01:03 PM
the clippers should've beaten the grizzlies back in 2012 and could've beaten the thunder in 2014 but the spurs series they had no shot at all

You meant to say 2013 since we actually did beat the Grizz in 2012. And no, they shouldn't have beaten them. Unless you pay absolutely no attention to detail, in which case, who cares?

valade16
12-01-2014, 04:39 PM
So what I got out of this is that it turns out the Clippers really aren't that good?

Chronz
12-01-2014, 05:22 PM
So what I got out of this is that it turns out the Clippers really aren't that good?
Last year they were the 3rd best team in the league IMO. Sadly the other 2 good teams play in the same conference.

YAALREADYKNO
12-02-2014, 10:26 AM
You meant to say 2013 since we actually did beat the Grizz in 2012. And no, they shouldn't have beaten them. Unless you pay absolutely no attention to detail, in which case, who cares?

yeah you're right 2013 that was my bad. The clips should've beaten them

YAALREADYKNO
12-02-2014, 10:31 AM
Curious, just when do you feel Blake developed his offensive game? What is it you think he added?


I dont agree with anything you've posted but just how do we quantify ones help? Individual production, team influence (aka +/-). Cuz those pretty much paint CP3 and his cast in a different light than you portray. Even if I agreed with you on their depth (I dont), I would trade in all that depth for a better starting 5 any day. We may not win as many regular season games but its definitely the better formula to win in the Post season.

I would agree he has the help to win, but you definitely have to agree that other teams/players have MORE help. The Clips have never lost to a team with less talent, they've always lost to healthier/superior teams. Last year was the only year in which you could say the Clips had the cast to do damage and they achieved the bar minimum. Had they beaten the Thunder/Spurs, then they would have overachieved. I dont consider it as damaging as the rest of you do, to lose to a team like the Thunder that have the perfect cast to neuter Blake's 1 on 1 game and the star power of 2 to combat CP3.


if you cant see that blake has developed his game you really don't watch basketball smh. The Clippers have lost to teams with less talent over the past 2 yrs. The thunder last yr were a 2 man show with Durant and westbrook. Cp3 was still considered the best PG last yr and blake always gets the better of ibaka. Jordan>perkins the clippers bench>>okc's bench. The clippers had more talent last yr the difference was that Durant and westbrook stepped up their games where as the clippers player didn't. The clippers not having as much talent as the teams they've lost to? LOL funny joke

Chronz
12-02-2014, 01:13 PM
yeah you're right 2013 that was my bad. The clips should've beaten them
Nonsense. How do you best an equally strong team with Blake badly hobbled?

Chronz
12-02-2014, 01:22 PM
if you cant see that blake has developed his game you really don't watch basketball smh. The Clippers have lost to teams with less talent over the past 2 yrs. The thunder last yr were a 2 man show with Durant and westbrook. Cp3 was still considered the best PG last yr and blake always gets the better of ibaka. Jordan>perkins the clippers bench>>okc's bench. The clippers had more talent last yr the difference was that Durant and westbrook stepped up their games where as the clippers player didn't. The clippers not having as much talent as the teams they've lost to? LOL funny joke
Lmfao
The Clippers are my team bro, drop the straws and answer the q plz.
The reason I'm asking it's because i know his progression better than most and that you got so defensive isnt a good look .

As for the rest of ur post, cp3 being the best (ur opinion) doesn't mean rwb isn't on that level. Then you have Durant on top of that. Lol @ Blake owning ibaka, now i KNOW you don't have anything to back ur opinion. Even the Clipper announcers aren't biased enough to ignore how Blake struggles 1 v1 vs Ibaka.

I've expanded on this in other posts. I would write it out but I'm on my phone. Plz check out those posts .

YAALREADYKNO
12-02-2014, 04:13 PM
Lmfao
The Clippers are my team bro, drop the straws and answer the q plz.
The reason I'm asking it's because i know his progression better than most and that you got so defensive isnt a good look .

As for the rest of ur post, cp3 being the best (ur opinion) doesn't mean rwb isn't on that level. Then you have Durant on top of that. Lol @ Blake owning ibaka, now i KNOW you don't have anything to back ur opinion. Even the Clipper announcers aren't biased enough to ignore how Blake struggles 1 v1 vs Ibaka.

I've expanded on this in other posts. I would write it out but I'm on my phone. Plz check out those posts .


you're a clippers fan and you cant see that blake has developed his game to where he was 2-3 yrs ago? Blake has always had ibaka's number and you're crazy to think other wise. He's always usually scoring 20-27 against ibaka smh. Also blake was 3rd in mvp voting last yr due to carrying the clippers for a good part of the season last yr when paul was injured. If you cant win with that then you're clearly doing something wrong. A top 5 Power Forward , the 6th man of the yr, and a center who blocks shots and rebound. That's a lot deeper than what okc had. Until proven other wise cp3 will always be an underachiever.

D-Leethal
12-02-2014, 04:40 PM
Chronz, your are being an apologetic joke man. All you would do is tell everyone how great Blake was, how improved he was when they would dog his Dwight Howard-esque inability to add moves to his skillset. The Clips lose and to apologize for your boy CP3 you just throw Blake back in the dog house.

All you did was dog Rudy Gay while he was on the Grizz now your talking about the 2013 Grizz as a powerhouse led by your boy Rudy. Go back to the game threads for that series and tell me the Clips weren't perceived as the favorites.

All you want is "proof" for every claim made on here and you don't provide any in return. Its like you need a math formula to tell you if its sunny outside.

CP3 has had a stacked team capable of making the finals for awhile now - he hasn't done squat come playoff time with the talent at his disposal. He has had requisite talent to win - requisite talent means your capable of beating the other team, its not a huge disparity and arguably not a disparity. I am sure the vegas odds have been near dead even for almost all of those playoff series (maybe not because they probably account for CP3s putrid playoff resume).

Chronz:

When Clips are winning 55+ games and tearing up the regular season: Blake is constantly improving every day and the best PF in league and CP3's WS/48 make my legs stick together. Rudy Gay is the biggest chucker in the league.

When Clips underperform and get smoked in the playoffs: OMG plz tell me if you saw any improvement from Blake? How would you expect CP3, Blake, DeAndre Jordan, Eric Bledsoe, Caron Butler, Chauncey Billups to beat a team led offensively by Rudy Gay? CP3's WS/48 still make my legs stick together tho.

Your opinion on players and situations change with the clock depending on which narrative you're looking to support. Nothing more than a glorified homer with a mega hardon for your high school math teacher.

D-Leethal
12-02-2014, 04:49 PM
Three quick examples of an "underdog" having the requisite talent to win = 2011 Grizz beating the Spurs, 2011 Dallas beating LA, OKC, MIA, 2014 Portland Trail Blazers beating the Rockets.

You don't need to be a heavy favorite to have the requisite talent to win. You need to be good enough talent wise. CP3 has had that every single freakin' year and he can't get it done like those three off the top of my head without putting an iota of thought into a full list of recent teams had. His teams don't get it done, you can come up with every apologetic excuse you can think of but the fact remains. A slew of other teams have in similar scenarios with similar balance of talent (or talent discrepancy if you prefer that) but CP3's haven't even come close.

You only claim the talent isn't there after they lose. Its all unicorns and roses right up until they walk off the court with jerseys over their heads, then all of a sudden you claim it was doomed from the start and they had no shot to begin with.

valade16
12-02-2014, 04:57 PM
you're a clippers fan and you cant see that blake has developed his game to where he was 2-3 yrs ago? Blake has always had ibaka's number and you're crazy to think other wise. He's always usually scoring 20-27 against ibaka smh. Also blake was 3rd in mvp voting last yr due to carrying the clippers for a good part of the season last yr when paul was injured. If you cant win with that then you're clearly doing something wrong. A top 5 Power Forward , the 6th man of the yr, and a center who blocks shots and rebound. That's a lot deeper than what okc had. Until proven other wise cp3 will always be an underachiever.

To be fair, it's not keeping him from being among the all-time greats, just keeping him from surpassing them.

I mean, Stockton nor Malone ever won a ring and it hasn't stopped people from thinking Stockton is a Top 5 PG all-time.

D-Leethal
12-02-2014, 05:03 PM
I could have sworn Chronz was a Laker fan when I joined this forum.

YAALREADYKNO
12-02-2014, 05:57 PM
To be fair, it's not keeping him from being among the all-time greats, just keeping him from surpassing them.

I mean, Stockton nor Malone ever won a ring and it hasn't stopped people from thinking Stockton is a Top 5 PG all-time.

but at least they've been in conference finals or NBA finals where as paul has never been past the 2nd round and some people are already saying he's better than Nash and Kidd and even a few are saying he's better than isiah Thomas smh

Hawkeye15
12-02-2014, 06:49 PM
I could have sworn Chronz was a Laker fan when I joined this forum.

nah, always a Clips fan.

Chronz
12-03-2014, 04:43 AM
Chronz, your are being an apologetic joke man.
I love you too bro.


All you would do is tell everyone how great Blake was, how improved he was when they would dog his Dwight Howard-esque inability to add moves to his skillset. The Clips lose and to apologize for your boy CP3 you just throw Blake back in the dog house.
Actually, I would correct people on the Dwight hate as well. Its all about context. People were so ignorant on Blake that they actually felt he improved his passing/handle when in reality, its what stood out from day 1. So when people said all he could do was dunk, I would cite his superior post up numbers. When people said he was reliant on CP3, I would cite his improved production without him. It really depends on the argument so you relying on blanket statements isn't proving anything. BE SPECIFIC for once.


All you did was dog Rudy Gay while he was on the Grizz now your talking about the 2013 Grizz as a powerhouse led by your boy Rudy. Go back to the game threads for that series and tell me the Clips weren't perceived as the favorites.
Powerhouse? LMFAO, save the straws for the newbs plz. How about you actually do some of the grunt work and show me these things I have said. LMFAO @ the line "led by Rudy". Did you not watch that series? I was at the games bro, I saw first hand how he cost his superior team the series. Just because you chuck the most doesn't make you the leader, really hope you've been drinking tonight.



All you want is "proof" for every claim made on here and you don't provide any in return. Its like you need a math formula to tell you if its sunny outside.
Sorry but I put in as much effort as the argument laid out in front of me, if anyone has the intelligence to actually state quantifiable facts, Ill return the favor.



CP3 has had a stacked team capable of making the finals for awhile now
Forget proof, you have said absolutely nothing to even support the argument. Its why you chose to summarize my post instead of actually attacking the individual points raised, as I have.


- he hasn't done squat come playoff time with the talent at his disposal. He has had requisite talent to win - requisite talent means your capable of beating the other team, its not a huge disparity and arguably not a disparity. I am sure the vegas odds have been near dead even for almost all of those playoff series (maybe not because they probably account for CP3s putrid playoff resume).
Funny how only CP3's playoff resume is what you consider in that unknown algorithm, but if you want to state stats, plz do so. Do not hide behind formulas you admittedly dont comprehend.


Chronz:

When Clips are winning 55+ games and tearing up the regular season: Blake is constantly improving every day and the best PF in league and CP3's WS/48 make my legs stick together. Rudy Gay is the biggest chucker in the league.

When Clips underperform and get smoked in the playoffs: OMG plz tell me if you saw any improvement from Blake? How would you expect CP3, Blake, DeAndre Jordan, Eric Bledsoe, Caron Butler, Chauncey Billups to beat a team led offensively by Rudy Gay? CP3's WS/48 still make my legs stick together tho.

So much wrong here I dont know where to begin. Hate to break the news to both of you guys but the playoffs are different than the regular season, health, matchups and overall efficiency going into the games still matter. Even the coaches they compete against will cite the injuries.


Your opinion on players and situations change with the clock depending on which narrative you're looking to support. Nothing more than a glorified homer with a mega hardon for your high school math teacher.
Proof?




you're a clippers fan and you cant see that blake has developed his game to where he was 2-3 yrs ago?
Ur still not getting it. Im asking for a timeline of events. Unless you can show me where I said he hasn't improved, plz stop wasting both our time with these straws.



Blake has always had ibaka's number and you're crazy to think other wise.
LMFAO. Nope. Even the most homerish Clipper fans (our announcers) have stated otherwise. That you dont know how much Blake struggles against Ibaka's length 1v1 isn't surprising tho.


He's always usually scoring 20-27 against ibaka smh.
Is that suppose to pass as statistical analysis? LMFAO, smh indeed. Wheres the context? Why did we have to scrap half our playbook because Blake couldn't take Ibaka 1 on 1? Why do the announcers not agree with you? What reason would they have to diminish Blake?



Also blake was 3rd in mvp voting last yr due to carrying the clippers for a good part of the season last yr when paul was injured. If you cant win with that then you're clearly doing something wrong. A top 5 Power Forward , the 6th man of the yr, and a center who blocks shots and rebound. That's a lot deeper than what okc had. Until proven other wise cp3 will always be an underachiever.

You have said nothing to back your case. Until you start looking at the actual PLAYOFF games, regular season accolades dont explain anything. Hate to break the news to you but the post season is actually a different beast from the regular season.

CP3 cant anchor a defense bro, until you drop the straws, you have nothing to stand on.

Chronz
12-03-2014, 04:45 AM
I could have sworn Chronz was a Laker fan when I joined this forum.
Your memory is as reliable as your analysis.

I've ALWAYS been a fan of the NBA first and foremost. I only pledged allegiance to the Clips because of the cheap seats they provided. If it wasn't for them, I would have never fell in love with the NBA. If I was ever a Laker fan, it was when I was too young to think for myself, and most certainly never during the online portion of my life.

Chronz
12-03-2014, 04:53 AM
Three quick examples of an "underdog" having the requisite talent to win = 2011 Grizz beating the Spurs,
So we're just going to ignore Manu and Duncan's injury? Not even worth considering?


2011 Dallas beating LA, OKC, MIA, 2014 Portland Trail Blazers beating the Rockets.
Upsets happen, that doesn't mean we should expect it nor is it a failure to upset a superior team, particularly when your best teammates are hobbled.


You don't need to be a heavy favorite to have the requisite talent to win.
No offense but I dont trust your opinion on gauging requisite talent, you named Chauncey and Caron ffs man.



You need to be good enough talent wise. CP3 has had that every single freakin' year and he can't get it done like those three off the top of my head without putting an iota of thought into a full list of recent teams had. His teams don't get it done, you can come up with every apologetic excuse you can think of but the fact remains. A slew of other teams have in similar scenarios with similar balance of talent (or talent discrepancy if you prefer that) but CP3's haven't even come close.
A fact devoid of context means nothing. And yeah, CP3 isn't an entire team so why would I care about a thoughtless opinion?



You only claim the talent isn't there after they lose. Its all unicorns and roses right up until they walk off the court with jerseys over their heads, then all of a sudden you claim it was doomed from the start and they had no shot to begin with.
False, I never said they had no shot. In fact if you look through this thread, I openly admit that 2014 was the only year where he had enough talent to overcome the odds. The only difference is that I dont consider it this dooming failure to lose to a superior team. Just because upsets have happened in the past doesn't mean we should expect them nor does it affirm a failure on any individual. 1 player does not control the entire fate of his team, its time you learn that.

Chronz
12-03-2014, 04:55 AM
To be fair, it's not keeping him from being among the all-time greats, just keeping him from surpassing them.

I mean, Stockton nor Malone ever won a ring and it hasn't stopped people from thinking Stockton is a Top 5 PG all-time.
Hes passed many greats already if you want to be that vague.

CityofChaos
12-03-2014, 04:59 AM
People forget Paul carried some bad teams to the playoffs while he was in his prime with NO and he's no where close to how great he was during his early years there because injuries have slowed him down as well as age. He's more well rounded than both Nash and Kidd like some members have noted already.

valade16
12-03-2014, 08:04 AM
Hes passed many greats already if you want to be that vague.

He meaning Chris Paul and not Blake Griffin correct? Of course he has. He's fighting to get into the Top 5 or move up (depeneding on how the rest of his career shakes out). But like it or not getting at or near #1 requires more than just stats.

But yeah his place in history is firmly grounded, now we just need to see where the ceiling is.