Steve Nash or Jason Kidd, better player at their peak?

[picc84]

Which one?

Not who had the better career. Who was the more effective basketball player at the height of their abilities?

Who would you take to start a team with?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Nash better at his peak, Kidd had the better overall career

Wouldn't matter who you started a team with because PGs lose championships

[Jodelo]

Kidd, at his peak he was a great defender too, Nash never was... Nash the better scorer, Kidd the better playmaker!

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Nash at his peak had 3 seasons where he averaged 11.4 APG, 10.5 APG, and 11.6 APG. Kid's best 3 year run in assists was 10.8 APG, 10.1 APG, and 9.8 APG. At his peak, Nash was the better playmaker. Kidd is the better one overall because of longevity, but Nash at his peak was better.

[Leetonidas]

I think that's debatable. Kidd was regularly racking up triple doubles and playing good defense while Nash at his peak was getting his shit pushed in by Tony Parker. He does have the two MVPs so I'll give him the edge though.

[picc84]

I don't think defense at the PG position is that important. But Kidd was SO good in that area. Even at his ancient age he was defending Kobe, Durant, James, and Wade. And Wade is really the only one who took advantage.

Offensively, Kidd's impact has always gone way beyond his stats. But Nash is better offensively than his stats too.

Such a tough choice.

[FkLA]

I think I would go with Kidd because of his all-around game. Playmaking and running teams was pretty close, offensively Nash was a more efficient and explosive scorer but Kidd still put up his points. I think the other side of the ball is where the tide turns in Kidd's favor...Kidd was a way better rebounder and defender, like Lee said that nigga was putting up a few triple-dubs a season during his prime.

[baseline bum]

I'm going to have to go with Kidd here. He was a pretty good defender and may have been even better than Nash in the open court. Obviously Nash's 3 point shooting gives him an edge in the halfcourt, but look at how good Kidd made so-so players like Richard Jefferson, Kenyon Martin, and Kerry Kittles look. I can't imagine the numbers Amare would have put up with Kidd feeding him alley-oops all day.

[ElNono]

3 NBA Finals for Kidd, 2 being the main man. That IMO says it all.

[baseline bum]

3 NBA Finals for Kidd, 2 being the main man. That IMO says it all.

No doubt the 05 and 07 Suns would have gotten out of the 2002 and 2003 eastern conference though. Hell, the 06 Suns would have probably won both of those conferences.

[ambchang]

Kidd.

Nash benefitted enormously from D'antoni's system (though it could be argued that Nash was the system).

While raw numbers show Nash at his peak is better, Kidd mostly played in a more controlled environment, and his Nets played at a much much slower pace than the Nash's Suns.

Kidd was a better defender, better on the fast break, comparable in the half court. Nash was a way better shooter (just generally more dangerous as a scorer). I feel Kidd was better at making horrible players better (see Collins), while Nash was using great offensive players well.

Nash won two MVPs during weak MVP years (Duncan and Shaq past their primes, Kobe played on horrible Laker teams, media looking for the great white hope, etc ...), Kidd was the runner up to a very strong MVP year (Duncan and Shaq at their peaks, along with KG).

[ambchang]

3 NBA Finals for Kidd, 2 being the main man. That IMO says it all.

Different era, different teams, different opponents.

Prime Kidd on those Suns may have taken them over the hump (07 in particular), unless he clashes with D'antoni and forces him out.

[pass1st]

Nash was better offensively and had slightly better passing/playmaking. Kidd had significantly defense and wasn't a liability like Nash was.

All around, Kidd is the more complete player and probably would always have a positive impact on a team. Nash would win it if he didn't have much to worry about defense.

[DAF86]

I like my guards to be able to shoot, so give me Nash.

[DMC]

Kidd and it's not close. Kidd was a triple double dude who could get the most rebounds on the team while running the point.

Kidd took his team to the Finals (twice?)

Kidd has a ring (now)

Nash and Dirk could not get a ring, and still wouldn't have one.

Kidd with the 07 Suns would have been a nightmare. Nash was bad enough.

Nash is a great, great PG, but Kidd is one of the best ever.

[Koolaid_Man]

Kidd and it's not close. Kidd was a triple double dude who could get the most rebounds on the team while running the point.

Kidd took his team to the Finals (twice?)

Kidd has a ring (now)

Nash and Dirk could not get a ring, and still wouldn't have one.

Kidd with the 07 Suns would have been a nightmare. Nash was bad enough.

Nash is a great, great PG, but Kidd is one of the best ever.


I'm going with Kidd...Steriod Nash was a cheater

[SpursDynasty85]

I'll take Kidd because Steve Nash had a team that was built perfectly around him. Where as Kidd never really had a super star next to him. Unless you consider Kenyon Martin and Kerry Kittles those guys. If Jason Kidd was on those Phoenix Suns teams, his assists would have been higher imo.

[JMarkJohns]

The arguments I'm hearing in this thread for Kidd over Nash are laughable.

First, that D'Antoni made Nash? What has D'Antoni done without Nash? Not much before or after. Can his system generate shots? Sure, so players can look better, but team success, is it better with D'Antoni without Nash? Not at all. Nash made D'Antoni's "stats" offense win. He's the only player to do so. Yet, Nash without D'Antoni made another Western Conference Finals, defeating the Spurs, a team they never could under D'Antoni. If anything, it could be argued D'Antoni stunted Nash.

Next, that Kidd because he made players like Martin, Jefferson and Kittles look good. What the fuck? Obviously the fact Jefferson was a 20 ppg player without Kidd didn't factor in to this opinion. OK, so Kidd helped Martin, a #1 overall pick with elite athleticism become a 17 ppg, 49% shooting PF! Oh WOW! And Kittles, yeah, helping a lottery pick in Kittles who once averaged 17 ppg on 44% shooting average 13 ppg on 46% is such an amazing feat. I mean, who could imagine that Kidd would win by helping three lottery picks do about league average at their position?! Meanwhile, Nash got to the Western Conference Finals (without Amare) by aiding castoffs, scrubs and role players like Diaw, Bell, Barbosa, House, Tim Thomas, James Jones to career years, either in actual production, efficiency, relative success (compared to previous year or two before Nash) or all three. Many players have never shared the success they did alongside Nash either before or after.

The next is that Amare would average equal or more next to Kidd as Nash. Have you watched Amare? His skillset, at least until the last two seasons, was predominantly based off of the pic-n-roll. What is required for successful pic-n-roll? Threat of hitting the outside jumper. Not just from the screener, but the ball-handler. Kidd, one of the worst-shooting PGs in NBA history for most of his prime, would not generate the defensive reaction enough to maximize Amare to the degree Nash did, let alone more. I can deduce this because Martin had a quality jumper, yet barely used it off the pic-n-roll, and I saw it fail with both Robinson and Gugliotta when Nash was a Sun. Kidd was notoriously turnover prone in the halfcourt, due to defenses sagging off him, forcing him to shoot or make the tough pass. I've read that his halfcourt efficiency is among the worst at his position, which, doesn't surprise me when he trotted out prime average of 39-42% shooting and 3.5-3.8 turnovers per game in a relatively slower pace, and whose best Finals team (02-03) averaged 95.4 ppg on 44% FG, 33% 3FG and whose team assist to turnover ratio and made field goal to turnover ratio was 1.6/1 and 2.4/1 respectively, while Nash's worst Western Conference Finals team (05-06) averaged 108.4 ppg on 48% FG, 40% 3FG and whose team A/TO ratio and MFG/TO ratio was 2/1 and 3.2/1 respectively. Nash's teams averaged more points, on better percentages with fewer turnovers and did so with amidst devastating injury and turnover from the previous season in a much tougher conference.

The last was that because Kidd got to the Finals in his prime while Nash did not means he's the better PG. This is the worst of the lot. Kidd's Nets teams beat two 45+win teams in six playoff rounds en route to his Finals. Nash, meanwhile never played a sub-45-win team, and in one WCF run every team played had a minimum of 50 wins. Kidd only had to play/beat one 50 win team in his two Finals runs, meaning in that one Nash WCF appearance the Suns doubled up the amount of 50-win opponents that Kidd beat in his two Finals runs. Beyond the wins, much more telling is the losses... Kidd's Suns teams never beat a Western Conference playoff team. Not even with homecourt. This continued in Jersey (2-8 in Finals) and followed him back west his first few years in Dallas. It wasn't until he was a role player that his team finally won a playoff round. Meanwhile Nash has been to four Western Conference Finals in a decade when the Western Conference won 8/10 Titles.

I'm not saying Kidd is the wrong answer. I'm saying these are the wrong fucking reasons.

As for me, I'd take Nash's prime over Kidd's. I say this as a Suns fan who watched just about every game from 1998 onward. I saw this as a fan who watched both guards in their discussed primes lead teams. This isn't just some passing statistical this or that.

Kidd is a great, great player, but he sat on his weaknesses, allowing himself to squander much of his offensive potential to the detriment of his team's success. It's not a fluke that amongst his prime years, the season of his highest FG% (44%) was (still is) his career APG mark (10.8), lowest TOPG (3.0) and therefore highest A/TO ratio (3.6/1 vs. 02-03 prime average of 2.4/1 on 41% FG).

Yes, similar arguments can be made of Nash with defense. I'm convinced that Nash is largely incapable of league-average defense (doesn't mean he can't be better), but Kidd has now shown he's capable of league-average FG% and above average 3FG%. Plus, had the Suns been a smart team, they could improve Nash weakness with a shot-blocking center. Team's can't offset shooting for its ball-dominant player this way.

Kidd for career (although barely, TBH, and Basketball-Reference.com's ELO ranking of Kidd at 37 and Nash at 32 of best overall players in NBA history backs this up), Nash for prime.

[Cuppycake Gumdrop]

Kidd 1
Nash 0

[JMarkJohns]

Kidd 1
Nash 0

In their peak?

Kidd 0
Nash 0

So it's largely statistical. And Titles don't make up that much ground. Parker at 3 in his peak years wasn't better than Kidd or Nash at 0 in theirs.

[picc84]

Kidd.

Nash benefitted enormously from D'antoni's system (though it could be argued that Nash was the system).

While raw numbers show Nash at his peak is better, Kidd mostly played in a more controlled environment, and his Nets played at a much much slower pace than the Nash's Suns.

Kidd was a better defender, better on the fast break, comparable in the half court. Nash was a way better shooter (just generally more dangerous as a scorer). I feel Kidd was better at making horrible players better (see Collins), while Nash was using great offensive players well.

Nash won two MVPs during weak MVP years (Duncan and Shaq past their primes, Kobe played on horrible Laker teams, media looking for the great white hope, etc ...), Kidd was the runner up to a very strong MVP year (Duncan and Shaq at their peaks, along with KG).

Think i'm leaning towards Kidd too.

Put it this way. Imagine a game where Nash/Kidd can't buy a shot, and their teammates are cold.

Nash with 0 points and 0 assists is a negative on your team. Kidd could have 0 points and 0 assists and still dominate a game.

Of course, this would never happen, but Jason Kidd basically defined the term intangibles. He was getting MVP votes and leading the Nets to the finals as the best player BY FAR while averaging like 15/10 on 40% shooting. His impact may go beyond numbers more than any guard in league history.

Even this year, the Mavs would win a game and i'd think "Kidd put his stamp on tonight", and look at the boxscore and he'd have like 6 points and 3 assists.

He's never been the shooter Nash is, but he hasn't made the third most 3-pointers ever by being broke until 2011. And in crunchtime he always seemed to be able to score no matter what happened in the first 3 quarters.

He makes your offense a bit worse than Nash does, but in literally every other aspect of organized basketball he makes you much better.

Of course, Nash at his best (like 05 vs Mavs) is going to beat you no matter what simply because he's SO offensively dominant there's nothing that can be done. And if you have a good defensive team already his defensive shortcomings wouldn't be too hampering.

I don't know. Leaning towards Kidd but thinking about Nash at his best makes it harder.

[DPG21920]

I'm fairly certain a large percentage of NBA players would choose Kidd. Theres no question that Nash was a much more efficient and dangerous scoring threat, but Kidd's passing along with his defense and rebounding were more conducive to winning basketball. IMO you can't be so deficient in one area like Nash on defense and be given the edge over someone like Kidd.

[JMarkJohns]

I'm fairly certain a large percentage of NBA players would choose Kidd. Theres no question that Nash was a much more efficient and dangerous scoring threat, but Kidd's passing along with his defense and rebounding were more conducive to winning basketball. IMO you can't be so deficient in one area like Nash on defense and be given the edge over someone like Kidd.

You act like Kidd's passing was so much better than Nash's. That's an absurd notion. McDyess (pre-injury) thought so highly of playing alongside Kidd in a playoff run that he ditched Kidd and more money in Phoenix for POS Denver, the team that traded him months prior.

Yeah it's just one example, and I'm not saying players wouldn't have loved to play next to him, as I'm sure plenty did, but plenty of players wanted to go to the Suns to play alongside Nash as well.

As for the winning argument, Kidd's Suns teams were often top-5/7 in the NBA yet never won a playoff series with Kidd active, in some instances despite holding homecourt. Defense doesn't win Titles by itself. You need offense, and, most importantly, you need efficient offense.

And You talk about deficiencies, I gave stats above that showed how Kidd's woeful shooting was undercutting of the offense of some very talented teams, much more to than Nash's, in one year with little more than a team for of castoffs, benchwarmers, and scrubs. Kidd had a deficiency that's one of the all-time worst at his position, as well.

People are revisionist remembering Kidd-led half-court offense. It was not good at all. Percentages down across the board (17th in League, vs. Nash-led Dallas 7th), stalled sets with forced shots/passes and lots of turnovers (13th-worst in League, vs. Nash-led Dallas (WCF appearance) who was best). His offense forced transition because it had to to generate enough offense to be competitive.

Nash-led teams weren't just good, or very good, they were all-time great, and were so for a decade, as Nash-led offenses led the League in offensive efficiency from 2001-02 through 2009-10. Nash is the only player to average 50% FG, 40% 3FG and 90% FT for three straight seasons, and missed doing it five straight by .001% (FT).

I know this is subjective, but lots can and should be objective. Yes Kidd rebounded much better. Yes, he defended way better. But he shot historically bad, and, historically, it's much more significant for a PG to shoot than rebound, and, arguably, just as important for the PG to run an efficient offense as it is to defend the position at a high level. You can easily hide a weak-defending PG with a scheme/good defensive center (like Kareem with Magic), but it's much more difficult to win when it matter with a PG that can't shoot when said PG is your best player and a ball-dominant player.

[ElNono]

No doubt the 05 and 07 Suns would have gotten out of the 2002 and 2003 eastern conference though. Hell, the 06 Suns would have probably won both of those conferences.

Maybe. It's always easier said than done.

[Monostradamus]

In their peak?

Kidd 0
Nash 0

So it's largely statistical. And Titles don't make up that much ground. Parker at 3 in his peak years wasn't better than Kidd or Nash at 0 in theirs.

Tired old shit bag Kidd 1
Tired old shit bag Nash 0

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It's always easier said than done.
GNSF cliches aside, winning the 2002 Eastern Conference is easier than being a 2005 Western Conference finalist. I think the 2005 Rockets, Mavs, Suns and Spurs all woulda won the 2002 WCF.

[baseline bum]

You're really going to tell me Jefferson is a good player post-Kidd? The fact that a Spurs team that had no other small forwards couldn't afford to play Jefferson in the playoffs two years in a row doesn't speak lot louder than that season he padded his stats while Redd and Bogut were in street clothes? I think you're confusing Arizona Jefferson and NBA Jefferson. As for the 2006 WCF? Who cares? They got to play the Lakers and the Clippers while the real powers of the conference were on the other side of the bracket. Deron Williams made a WCF too on a similar path.

[ElNono]

GNSF cliches aside, winning the 2002 Eastern Conference is easier than being a 2005 Western Conference finalist. I think the 2005 Rockets, Mavs, Suns and Spurs all woulda won the 2002 WCF.

No doubt. That said, that Nets team was tailor made for run and gun Kidd and they played a modicum of defense, especially Kidd. Even then, Boston, which by all measures was still fairly poor, took them to 6 games in the ECF.
I don't know that if you switch Nash with Kidd on that team they make it to the Finals.

[ElNono]

Truth be told, the '07 Suns had the best shot to get over the hump and if they would've gotten past SA Nash would have likely had a ring, and Saver an excuse to be even cheaper.

[HarlemHeat37]

Nash, I don't think it's a significant margin, but I wouldn't hesitate in picking him..

Kidd's strengths as a player can be replicated by other positions..the PG position's defense is probably the least important defensive position on the floor(IMO), and while his rebounding has always been excellent, it can be replaced by rebounding at any other position..your PG isn't expected to battle on the boards, and while it's luxury if he excels at it, it's far from a necessity..

His weaknesses can't be masked though IMO..surrounding him with shooters doesn't negate his weakness, as Kidd still has the ball in his hands the majority of the time..there has never been a potential title team that has put the ball in the hands of a best player that had virtually no ability to score efficiently..

Nash's weaknesses can be masked, as we have seen many times on multiple NBA Title teams with weak defense at the PG position..the Lakers are the latest example, with the worst PG defense in the NBA..

Nash has him beat in clutch time, accolades..the team success isn't any different..the 2005 and 2007 Suns would destroy those Nets teams IMO..

If the question was better role player, than it would be Kidd, without a doubt IMO..Kidd the role player developed a 3-point shot, played great defense at the 2 and 3 positions(where defense is more important, obviously), and did not have the ball in his hands as much(which was only possible, due to his improvement from beyond the arc), which helped hide his weaknesses, as well..

Since it's a question about primes, it has to be Nash IMO..you won't win a title with either as your best player, but I would much rather have a #1 option that can actually score when he is forced to..

[ElNono]

I forgot Nash had back to back league MVPs... hmmm

[Monostradamus]

I forgot Nash had back to back league MVPs... hmmm

The people who voted for him would like to forget too.

[FkLA]

I forgot Nash had back to back league MVPs... hmmm

That, much like Kidd's trips to the Finals becomes irrelevant when the situation is analyzed. Kidd did the exact same thing Nash did and completely turned around a Net's team the year he got there, if he didnt have prime TD to compete with he has an MVP of his own in 02'. Nash didnt really have dominant players in their prime to compete with, other than Kome but he was too busy missing the playoffs. I dont think either Nash's 2 MVPs or Kidd's 2 trips to the Finals as the main guy are a good enough reason for picking either guy.

[JMarkJohns]

Tired old shit bag Kidd 1
Tired old shit bag Nash 0

Tired old shit bag #2 still has two more years to coattail his waning-yeared Title to match tired old shit bag #1's.

[Monostradamus]

Tired old shit bag #2 still has two more years to coattail his waning-yeared Title to match tired old shit bag #1's.

The playoff year that he D's up Kobe, Westbrook, and LeBron/Wade on his way to a "coattail" ring, I'll be convinced he's better than Kidd.

[mavs>spurs]

The playoff year that he D's up Kobe, Westbrook, and LeBron/Wade on his way to a "coattail" ring, I'll be convinced he's better than Kidd.

tbh and he even d'ed up DAT nigga durant at times imho, dude defied the laws of physics i think

[Monostradamus]

Dirk, as poor as he might be on defense, never let his own personal level of defense be the sole reason his team lost a series.

I can't say the same for Nash, many times over.

[JMarkJohns]

You're really going to tell me Jefferson is a good player post-Kidd? The fact that a Spurs team that had no other small forwards couldn't afford to play Jefferson in the playoffs two years in a row doesn't speak lot louder than that season he padded his stats while Redd and Bogut were in street clothes? I think you're confusing Arizona Jefferson and NBA Jefferson. As for the 2006 WCF? Who cares? They got to play the Lakers and the Clippers while the real powers of the conference were on the other side of the bracket. Deron Williams made a WCF too on a similar path.

Jefferson averaged 23 ppg on 45% FG with Kidd in 07-08 and 22 ppg on 48% without that same season after Kidd was traded, then averaged 19.6 ppg on 45% FG the next season in 82 game with Milwaukee without Kidd.

One might expect a dip in both scoring and FG% but Jefferson actually became more efficient on his own.

And why I mentioned the WCF of 2006 is because it's importance both for trend, and for significance of taking lesser talent father vs. tougher competition. It was argued Kidd's ability to win with lesser players was better than Nash, and that his wins to get the Finals worth something more than Nash's WCFs. If Kidd gets credit for advancing to a Finals without having to defeat a single 50-win team en route, than Nash gets credit for similar vs. the much tougher West. And if Kidd's talent maximized #1 overall selection Martin, recent lottery selections Kittles, Jefferson and Keith Van Horn and lessers like Collins, Harris, and MacCulloch then I'll raise you a WCF appearance with Marion and journeymen Raja Bell, recent waivees Tim Thomas and Eddie House, former bench players Boris Diaw, James Jones and Leandro Barbosa.

You simply cannot value Kidd's sans-50-win opponent Finals appearance with Martin, Kittles, Jefferson, Van Horn, Collins, Harris and MacCulloch and discredit Nash's WCF with Marion, Bell, Thomas, Jones, Diaw, House and Barbosa simply because of two fewer wins and within the greater context of East vs. Western opponents, previous season's uncertainty with those players Nash led, and that season's undercutting injuries for Phoenix.

Throw one out, throw 'em both out. Include one, include 'em both.

[DPG21920]

Dirk, as poor as he might be on defense, never let his own personal level of defense be the sole reason his team lost a series.

I can't say the same for Nash, many times over.

Exactly. You can say you can hide that easier than Kidd's offense at times, but I disagree. Nash's defense cost his team in major way. I'm not saying you can't argue Nash over Kidd, I'm saying that all around, Nash was so deficient on defense there was no over coming it.

The point with Fisher was well taken, but it takes a ridiculously stacked team with elite big men to do that.

[JMarkJohns]

Dirk, as poor as he might be on defense, never let his own personal level of defense be the sole reason his team lost a series.

You can replace "Dirk" with "Kidd" and "defense" with "shooting efficiency" and you're making my argument.

I am not sure why the ring is even factoring in to this discussion. Title reads "better player at their peak" and since Kidd's ring was post-peak, it doesn't matter.

[JMarkJohns]

Exactly. You can say you can hide that easier than Kidd's offense at times, but I disagree. Nash's defense cost his team in major way. I'm not saying you can't argue Nash over Kidd, I'm saying that all around, Nash was so deficient on defense there was no over coming it.

Scheme and system on defense also undercut Nash. D'Antoni refused to play a traditional lineup. Had he allowed for acquisions or played the players acquired to shore up the post defense, I think Nash's deficiencies become less exploited. This is exampled by Gentry starting Lopez next to Amare to improve Suns post defense, thus slow down Manu and Parker, two players who historically killed the Suns, and help get them past the Spurs in 2010. It takes scheme and team talent as well as individual skill.

Kidd's defense isn't willing those 2004-07 teams to the Finals. There's nothing to indicate this. Not with his history of inefficient half-court offenses (a Nash strength) and not with his history of 0-for vs. the Western playoff teams (Nash has winning record vs. West playoff teams). One can just as easily argue Kidd on those Suns doesn't lead them to even that level of success due to lack of offensive chemistry/production.

[DPG21920]

I'm not saying Kidd's defense willed those teams, I'm saying that to me, in keeping things simple, when you have players that are close in an argument, I look at strengths first then weaknesses. While Kidd definitely has weaknesses where Nash is superior, between the two players no weakness was more glaring or detrimental than Nash's defense.

[dirk4mvp]

Kidd's strengths as a player can be replicated by other positions..the PG position's defense is probably the least important defensive position on the floor(IMO)

Not when that PG is guarding the other team's best perimeter player.

[JMarkJohns]

I can understand, but I think you're completely underselling how wretched Kidd's shooting was, and how undercutting it became vs. the best defensive teams. To me, it is no better than on-par with Nash's defense. Everyone remembers the transition passes, but Kidd really, really struggled in much the same way that Nash did. Kidd was historically bad at shooting and half-court efficiency for a player who dominated the ball on offense. I think history indicates it's more important for a PG to be offensively efficient than defensively dominant, primarily because scheme and center talent can make up for the defensive flaw, but almost nothing can take away the offensive flaw if said flaw belongs to best player who's ball-dominant.

[JMarkJohns]

Not when that PG is guarding the other team's best perimeter player.

Doesn't happen that often, and, with the proper scheme/frontcourt talent, the exploited deficiency can be minimized, if not contained.

[ambchang]

The arguments I'm hearing in this thread for Kidd over Nash are laughable.

First, that D'Antoni made Nash? What has D'Antoni done without Nash? Not much before or after. Can his system generate shots? Sure, so players can look better, but team success, is it better with D'Antoni without Nash? Not at all. Nash made D'Antoni's "stats" offense win. He's the only player to do so. Yet, Nash without D'Antoni made another Western Conference Finals, defeating the Spurs, a team they never could under D'Antoni. If anything, it could be argued D'Antoni stunted Nash.

The 2010 Suns was miles different from the D'antoni teams. Basically, other than Nash and Stoudemire, the teams are totally revamped. There is very little to back up the D'Antoni stunted Nash growth. Pretty much none at all, especially considering Nash's career prior to D'antoni.

As for D'antoni, he has taken a deeply flawed NY team to the playoffs. Nothing like the Suns team, but he has integrated a system that is starting to become entertaining. The Knicks team do not have the firepower the Suns team has, and the major reason was the absence of Nash. But I am hoping you are not trying to compare Raymond Felton and Chris Duhon to Nash.

The argument is that D'antoni has played to Nash's strength, and that is to let him run his team while totally ignoring defense.

Also, while you are cherry picking, Nash missed the 09 playoffs.


Next, that Kidd because he made players like Martin, Jefferson and Kittles look good. What the fuck? Obviously the fact Jefferson was a 20 ppg player without Kidd didn't factor in to this opinion. OK, so Kidd helped Martin, a #1 overall pick with elite athleticism become a 17 ppg, 49% shooting PF! Oh WOW! And Kittles, yeah, helping a lottery pick in Kittles who once averaged 17 ppg on 44% shooting average 13 ppg on 46% is such an amazing feat. I mean, who could imagine that Kidd would win by helping three lottery picks do about league average at their position?! Meanwhile, Nash got to the Western Conference Finals (without Amare) by aiding castoffs, scrubs and role players like Diaw, Bell, Barbosa, House, Tim Thomas, James Jones to career years, either in actual production, efficiency, relative success (compared to previous year or two before Nash) or all three. Many players have never shared the success they did alongside Nash either before or after.

Stoudemire was good before and after Nash.

So is Marion (which, despite being the leading scorer, was mysteriously left off in your reference to the 06 team).

Joe Johnson posted better stats after Nash.

You pulled up all the talent around Kidd, and totally ignored Nash.

Good players will get their points, no matter the situation, but it's players like Collins, Mutombo, George McCloud, and the such that defined Kidd. I am not saying Nash couldn't do it, in fact, Nash did it as well as Kidd, which would make them equals.

However, Kidd was better in rebounding and defense. Nash was better as a shooter. At the end of the day, I will take rebounding and defense over shooting from a passing PG.


The next is that Amare would average equal or more next to Kidd as Nash. Have you watched Amare? His skillset, at least until the last two seasons, was predominantly based off of the pic-n-roll. What is required for successful pic-n-roll? Threat of hitting the outside jumper. Not just from the screener, but the ball-handler. Kidd, one of the worst-shooting PGs in NBA history for most of his prime, would not generate the defensive reaction enough to maximize Amare to the degree Nash did, let alone more. I can deduce this because Martin had a quality jumper, yet barely used it off the pic-n-roll, and I saw it fail with both Robinson and Gugliotta when Nash was a Sun. Kidd was notoriously turnover prone in the halfcourt, due to defenses sagging off him, forcing him to shoot or make the tough pass. I've read that his halfcourt efficiency is among the worst at his position, which, doesn't surprise me when he trotted out prime average of 39-42% shooting and 3.5-3.8 turnovers per game in a relatively slower pace, and whose best Finals team (02-03) averaged 95.4 ppg on 44% FG, 33% 3FG and whose team assist to turnover ratio and made field goal to turnover ratio was 1.6/1 and 2.4/1 respectively, while Nash's worst Western Conference Finals team (05-06) averaged 108.4 ppg on 48% FG, 40% 3FG and whose team A/TO ratio and MFG/TO ratio was 2/1 and 3.2/1 respectively. Nash's teams averaged more points, on better percentages with fewer turnovers and did so with amidst devastating injury and turnover from the previous season in a much tougher conference.

Amare averaged about the same with a 90 year old Billups and Raymond Felton as his PG. Yes, he does have an expanded repetoire now, but it's not far-fetch to say he would average the same with Kidd.

Besides, Kidd ran the pick and roll with Kenyon Martin with a lot of success. I don't see why he wouldn't do the same with Stoudemire.

I also like how you would quote 3.5-3.8 TO for Kidd in his prime, yet totally just ignored Nash's 3.3-3.8 TO in his prime.

Then comparing the Kidd's Nets finals to Nash's WCF appearance is an obvious attempt at cherry-picking stats. Nash averaged 4.7 TO in the 05 playoffs, and 4.4 TOs in 07. He was still a great shooter then, so why was he committing all these TOs? I also do not get why you are using team ast/to ratios when you are comparing individuals, doesn't this speak more to the overall personnel and systems rather than individuals? Why would Mutombo committing a TO count against Kidd?


The last was that because Kidd got to the Finals in his prime while Nash did not means he's the better PG. This is the worst of the lot. Kidd's Nets teams beat two 45+win teams in six playoff rounds en route to his Finals. Nash, meanwhile never played a sub-45-win team, and in one WCF run every team played had a minimum of 50 wins. Kidd only had to play/beat one 50 win team in his two Finals runs, meaning in that one Nash WCF appearance the Suns doubled up the amount of 50-win opponents that Kidd beat in his two Finals runs. Beyond the wins, much more telling is the losses... Kidd's Suns teams never beat a Western Conference playoff team. Not even with homecourt. This continued in Jersey (2-8 in Finals) and followed him back west his first few years in Dallas. It wasn't until he was a role player that his team finally won a playoff round. Meanwhile Nash has been to four Western Conference Finals in a decade when the Western Conference won 8/10 Titles.

Agreed


I'm not saying Kidd is the wrong answer. I'm saying these are the wrong fucking reasons.

As for me, I'd take Nash's prime over Kidd's. I say this as a Suns fan who watched just about every game from 1998 onward. I saw this as a fan who watched both guards in their discussed primes lead teams. This isn't just some passing statistical this or that.

Kidd is a great, great player, but he sat on his weaknesses, allowing himself to squander much of his offensive potential to the detriment of his team's success. It's not a fluke that amongst his prime years, the season of his highest FG% (44%) was (still is) his career APG mark (10.8), lowest TOPG (3.0) and therefore highest A/TO ratio (3.6/1 vs. 02-03 prime average of 2.4/1 on 41% FG).

Yes, similar arguments can be made of Nash with defense. I'm convinced that Nash is largely incapable of league-average defense (doesn't mean he can't be better), but Kidd has now shown he's capable of league-average FG% and above average 3FG%. Plus, had the Suns been a smart team, they could improve Nash weakness with a shot-blocking center. Team's can't offset shooting for its ball-dominant player this way.

Kidd for career (although barely, TBH, and Basketball-Reference.com's ELO ranking of Kidd at 37 and Nash at 32 of best overall players in NBA history backs this up), Nash for prime.

ELO is a community based ranking system, basically similar to all-star voting. I am not going to quote anything ELO has as a backup, especially considering the following curiosities:

Larry Bird as the #2 of all time over Jabbar (who is ranked #14), Chamberlain (ranked #13)

Garnett over Duncan, Shaq (ranked 20?, Jabbar, Chamberlain.

John Stockton over the above mentioned + Isiah Thomas (#23).

Pippen over Shaq, Thomas, McHale, Drexler

Dirk Nowitzki ranked #51 behind Chris Paul, WIlkins, Maravich, Pierce, Pippen, Ewing.

Wade at #58 behind Archibald, Miller, Sam Jones, Adrian Dantley, Alex English, Chris Paul.

Just an overall crappy list.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Dirk, as poor as he might be on defense, never let his own personal level of defense be the sole reason his team lost a series.

I can't say the same for Nash, many times over.
We're talking about who was better at his respective peak, Kidd's 2011 championship is irrelevant to how he was at his peak.

Kidd's career is undoubtedly better than Nash's.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And peak Steve Nash was a better playmaker/passer than peak Jason Kidd, so idk how Kidd's passing is an argument either.

[Giuseppe]

^Evening, sweetheart.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

No doubt. That said, that Nets team was tailor made for run and gun Kidd and they played a modicum of defense, especially Kidd. Even then, Boston, which by all measures was still fairly poor, took them to 6 games in the ECF.
I don't know that if you switch Nash with Kidd on that team they make it to the Finals.
Both players brought unique a skillset to his respective team.

If you put prime Nash on those Nets teams, I don't think either one makes the finals, and if you put prime Kidd on the 2005 or 2006 Suns, I dont think either team makes the Conference Finals. Those Nets teams were built around the PG playing defense/being one of the team's best rebounders while giving them a mediocre offense, while the Suns needed a PG who could help them space the floor, become the best offense in the league, etc.

[ElNono]

Agree. I was pointing out those Nets teams, because IMO that's when Kidd peaked.

[JMarkJohns]

The 2010 Suns was miles different from the D'antoni teams. Basically, other than Nash and Stoudemire, the teams are totally revamped. There is very little to back up the D'Antoni stunted Nash growth. Pretty much none at all, especially considering Nash's career prior to D'antoni.

As for D'antoni, he has taken a deeply flawed NY team to the playoffs. Nothing like the Suns team, but he has integrated a system that is starting to become entertaining. The Knicks team do not have the firepower the Suns team has, and the major reason was the absence of Nash. But I am hoping you are not trying to compare Raymond Felton and Chris Duhon to Nash.

The argument is that D'antoni has played to Nash's strength, and that is to let him run his team while totally ignoring defense.

Also, while you are cherry picking, Nash missed the 09 playoffs.

Not Cherry picking. Suns were in the playoffs the day Amare went down for the season with the eye injury in 2009. Also, I didnt' say Nash was perfect, only that Nash has done as much sans-D'Antoni as he did with (twice, when counting Dallas in 02-03), so the argument that D'Antoni made Nash is laughable.

Not sure what you're getting at with Felton/Duhon to Nash comment. I'm saying Nash is equal or better than Kidd, so why would I elevate those to to Nash's level?

Point was D'Antoni's system creates shots, which scores points, but his system isn't the sum of its parts unless Nash is involved. Players may average 20 ppg, but most times they lose 40+ games. Nash made D'Antoni, not the other way around.




Stoudemire was good before and after Nash.

So is Marion (which, despite being the leading scorer, was mysteriously left off in your reference to the 06 team).

Joe Johnson posted better stats after Nash.

You pulled up all the talent around Kidd, and totally ignored Nash.

I specifically mentioned the 05-06 Suns. Not sure why I didn't mention Marion there, because I did in subsequent posts. I mentioned those Suns players specifically because the argument was made that Kidd did more with lesser talent than Nash, and that Nash always had elite offensive talent. The player named were either castoffs (Bell), recent waivees (T.Thomas/House) or previous season benchwarmers/scrubs (Diaw, Jones, Barbosa), yet all formed the rotation around Nash and Marion (couldn't create offense, merely benefit from it) to win 50+ games and advance to the Conference Finals in a season without Amare (injury) and K.Thomas (injury).

I didn't mention Johnson and Richardson because they were the previous season. I strategically picked the Nets best Finals team (actually won two games vs. previous season's sweep) vs. the Suns lesser WCF team to compare rosters, records and statistics.

Also Marion completely fell off after Nash. Not only in PPG, but efficiency. Also, his best years in offensive efficiency came alongside Nash, so while impactful without, he was most effective with.



Good players will get their points, no matter the situation, but it's players like Collins, Mutombo, George McCloud, and the such that defined Kidd. I am not saying Nash couldn't do it, in fact, Nash did it as well as Kidd, which would make them equals.

However, Kidd was better in rebounding and defense. Nash was better as a shooter. At the end of the day, I will take rebounding and defense over shooting from a passing PG.

But it was said. Maybe not by you, but it was said that Kidd did more with less than did Nash, which is a fallacy at best, farce at worst. The 05-06 season a perfect example. The relative production and efficiency of those players surrounding Nash they were not able to duplicate elsewhere.

As far as players like Amare and Johnson scoring better post Nash, sure, but both players saw their percentages dramatically increase alongside with Nash's addition, then decrease once they left (Amare 48% before, 56% with, 50% after; Johnson 43-30% before, 46-48% with, 45-36 after). Nash means a lot. Marion also saw his percentage drop like 5%.


Amare averaged about the same with a 90 year old Billups and Raymond Felton as his PG. Yes, he does have an expanded repetoire now, but it's not far-fetch to say he would average the same with Kidd.

Besides, Kidd ran the pick and roll with Kenyon Martin with a lot of success. I don't see why he wouldn't do the same with Stoudemire.

See above, but Amare was less efficient when a PG couldn't shoot off the pic-n-roll. Was before Nash and after. Also, go back re-read playoff articles discussing those Nets teams. Most discuss their struggles in the half-court. I watched those Nets teams to see Kidd, so I know how successful and how unsuccessful pic-n-roll offense of Kidd's was. It was average, at best, and often mediocre.


I also like how you would quote 3.5-3.8 TO for Kidd in his prime, yet totally just ignored Nash's 3.3-3.8 TO in his prime.

I wasn't ignoring, and have mentioned this previously. Kidd and Nash are two different types of PGs. Some of the different is tempo, as the Suns averaged many more possessions per game than those Nets teams did. More possessions equals more pro-rated probability for turnovers. Nash also dictates much more of the offense vs. Kidd in his prime. Kidd was ball-dominant, but Nash was a whole nother level.


Then comparing the Kidd's Nets finals to Nash's WCF appearance is an obvious attempt at cherry-picking stats. Nash averaged 4.7 TO in the 05 playoffs, and 4.4 TOs in 07. He was still a great shooter then, so why was he committing all these TOs?

Better competition, mostly. Never said Nash was perfect. I've even argued against Nash as the 04-05 MVP. My response was to show that neither was Kidd. Like I said, I am not saying Kidd isn't the pick, but Nash is all-time great at leading offenses, and Kidd just isn't in this same league.


I also do not get why you are using team ast/to ratios when you are comparing individuals, doesn't this speak more to the overall personnel and systems rather than individuals? Why would Mutombo committing a TO count against Kidd?

I've seen this used elsewhere and I like it, as it shows how prone an offense was to committing a turnover, and since Kidd led the team in the category, and was the team leader/facilitator, I have referenced it to discuss overall offensive efficiency. Despite a 12-15% slower pace, the 02-03 Nets had more total turnovers than the 05-06 Suns.


ELO is a community based ranking system, basically similar to all-star voting. I am not going to quote anything ELO has as a backup, especially considering the following curiosities:

Larry Bird as the #2 of all time over Jabbar (who is ranked #14), Chamberlain (ranked #13)

Garnett over Duncan, Shaq (ranked 20?, Jabbar, Chamberlain.

John Stockton over the above mentioned + Isiah Thomas (#23).

Pippen over Shaq, Thomas, McHale, Drexler

Dirk Nowitzki ranked #51 behind Chris Paul, WIlkins, Maravich, Pierce, Pippen, Ewing.

Wade at #58 behind Archibald, Miller, Sam Jones, Adrian Dantley, Alex English, Chris Paul.

Just an overall crappy list.

I never know what to put into these equations. However, as far as offensive efficiency, I think analyzing statistics of a player and the players team is meaningful, so equations that analyze such interest me. Not sure what it's worth, and to most probably nothing, but they are a wrinkle to use/dismiss.

For me, Nash's prime is a bit more elite, while Kidd is the better player/career. I think Nash's impact (9-straight times his teams were tops in production efficiency) on offense and relative team success (4 WCFs) within decade where his Conference dominated the Title landscape means a bit more to me than Kidd's middle-pack offenses and two Finals appearances in the Leastern Conference, especially when his overall Western Conference struggles are factored in to his prime.

I can't argue with Kidd as the better overall player for his career, but I think at their absolute zeniths, Nash had more significant impact in the tougher Conference to have it in with no better players and amidst heavy roster turnover and decimating injuries.

Anyways, this was a fun pot-stir. I think the tone of the initial post was a cumulative laugh at reason after reason, most of which were mere opinions not backed up by anything.

Maybe my attempts to back things up weren't enough, but I tried to provide some justification, even if ultimately perceived as wrong/flawed.

[mavs>spurs]

nash has 2 mvp trophies but kidd has a ring, hard to say whose career is more of a success but its easy to figure out who is the better playa at his peak... kidd that is. put kidd & nash in a one-on-one challenge and kidd will win it with ease tbh

[Venti Quattro]

Mavs and Suns fans should have the best answer for this. Both guards played for their teams, so it's very much comparable.

[picc84]

Admittedly, the point guard position is the one you need defense and rebounding from the least. You can't really guard point guards one on one anyway, they are too quick, and most of them use a lot of screens and PnR anyway, which minimizes the responsibility of the primary defender.

Think of all the great defensive point guards of the last decade or so. Kidd, Payton, Baron Davis, Hinrich, Billups, etc. What do they all have in common? Their defensive skills were most notably used to play shooting guards, not point's. If you have an effective defender at the 2, a good defender at the 1 is not as important. Shooting guards operate in isolation much more than 1's, by design, so "man" defense for that position is more relevant to actual game situations.

Remember the 2008 series between SA and NO? The Spurs started with Bruce Bowen on CP3, hoping to slow him down with a tough perimeter defender. It failed miserably. Why? Because of the reason I outlined earlier, most good point guards are too fast to be guarded one on one, by anyone, and they use screens too often for man defenders to be effective at...man defending.

They ended up switching Bowen onto Peja and shutting him down, and letting Parker get torched by CP, because it was mostly inconsequential who was "assigned" to him, and they knew Parker could get some of it back on the other end anyway. Which he did. And they ended up winning even with CP going off for 7 games.

I was leaning toward Kidd before but the Nash guys are making good arguments. I suppose maybe it depends on what kind of team you have?

[cheguevara]

:lmao is this a joke?

Jason Kidd is one of the best defending PGs in history. Nash is pathetic on D.

[JMarkJohns]

IMO, having a PG who can defend is a bit like having a QB who can scramble. It's nice, but not necessary. However, having a PG that can't shoot is like having a QB with a very limited arm. Yeah he can pass, and you might have some success, but you need a good combination of strength and accuracy amongst the top QBs. You can hide the lack of scrambling ability with a good offensive line, just like you can hide defensive weakness with scheme and a good defensive frontcourt. Nothing anyone does can make up for a weak arm when the field needs to be stretched, just like nothing you add can help a non-shooter's shot go in with consistent accuracy when the court needs to be.

[cheguevara]

IMO, having a PG who can defend is a bit like having a QB who can scramble. It's nice, but not necessary. However, having a PG that can't shoot is like having a QB with a very limited arm. Yeah he can pass, and you might have some success, but you need a good combination of strength and accuracy amongst the top QBs. You can hide the lack of scrambling ability with a good offensive line, just like you can hide defensive weakness with scheme and a good defensive frontcourt. Nothing anyone does can make up for a weak arm when the field needs to be stretched, just like nothing you add can help a non-shooter's shot go in with consistent accuracy when the court needs to be.

well that's why you a Suns fan and are 0 and forever. LOL comparing QB to a PG

[JMarkJohns]

well that's why you a Suns fan and are 0 and forever. LOL comparing QB to a PG

Yeah, because I'm the first to make the comparison of two positions that run their respective offenses. How silly...

I, as a Suns fan, am also really the only fandom with authority to speak as to the question, since Suns fans witnessed both player's primes for 82 games a season, not here and there randomly.

Fact of the matter is for all his defense, a prime Kidd couldn't even win a playoff round vs. the West, even when his teams had homecourt. Meanwhile, for all his defensive woes, a prime Nash did.

Since neither led a team to a Title in their prime, this is more of a statistical argument, and since a PGs primary responsibility is to run an offense, and since Nash's offenses led the NBA in production efficiency from 2002-2010, with Nash leading the league in shooting efficiency and APG many of those years, I say Nash's prime was better, especially within the context of greater team success vs. the tougher of the two conferences.

But if you think defense is the end all be all in this debate, cool. Just note that Kidd-led offenses were middle of the pack in offensive efficiency during his prime, similar to Nash-fronted defenses. While Kidd's astonishing defense was never enough to net his team's top overall defense, Nash's astonishing offense was year in year out the tops in the league for a decade.

[cheguevara]

Kidd made the finals with Kenyon Martin and Dick Jefferson. Nash had a stacked team with Stoudemire, Marion and a bunch of shooters. Kidd in that Sun team would have won not 1 but probably 2 or 3 championships.

Kidd not only bring defense, he brings the defensive mentality that helped the mavs. of course defense wins championships. All the champions have said it: Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, garnet, etc, etc. But if you wanna keep comparing NFL to NBA :rolleyes go ahead...

[JMarkJohns]

Kidd made the finals with Kenyon Martin and Dick Jefferson. Nash had a stacked team with Stoudemire, Marion and a bunch of shooters. Kidd in that Sun team would have won not 1 but probably 2 or 3 championships.

Kidd not only bring defense, he brings the defensive mentality that helped the mavs. of course defense wins championships. All the champions have said it: Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, garnet, etc, etc. But if you wanna keep comparing NFL to NBA :rolleyes go ahead...

I'm not rehashing this, but the opinion you're espousing was already much discussed and largely picked apart.

Helped the Mavs when? His first go round? This last? Neither were his peak, which is what this thread asked: "Better player at their peak?" His defense at his peak wasn't enough to lead the Suns or Nets to a series win vs. the West, despite a few instances of holding homecourt advantage. Defense may win championships, but most of the defensive championed teams best defenders started with defensive post players. Kidd's defense didn't amount to much more than a few give-me-a-break series wins vs. scrub 45-win Eastern Teams to get to the Finals with #1 overall pick Kenyon Martin, and lottery selections Kerry Kittles, Keith Van Horn and Richard Jefferson. Revisionist history wants to belittle the talent he had. Kidd had plenty. So did Nash, who played in the tougher conference, won more games year in year out during his prime, and actually defeated more than one 50-win playoff team.

For their peaks, it's much closer than most of the "defense this and that" ilk want to admit, and, it may favor Nash since his strength led the NBA in offensive efficiency for a decade, and whose team success was arguably more impressive since it was in the tougher conference and amidst some pretty severe injuries/roster turnover.

I argue it does, and several others have as well. Good enough for me.

[cheguevara]

Kidd was not merely a good defender. He is top 10 in NBA HISTORY. probably top 5. among PGs. This bullshit that you don't need D on PGs is a terrible way of thinking. It's no coincidence 8 of the last 12 champions have had great defensive PGs: Fisher, Fisher, Fisher, Billups, Rondo, Fisher, Fisher, Kidd.

If the question is who do you pick in their prime for a championship team, Kidd is the nobrainer. You can always put shooters around him.

[JMarkJohns]

Kidd was not merely a good defender. He is top 10 in NBA HISTORY. probably top 5. among PGs. This bullshit that you don't need D on PGs is a terrible way of thinking. It's no coincidence 8 of the last 12 champions have had great defensive PGs: Fisher, Fisher, Fisher, Billups, Rondo, Fisher, Fisher, Kidd.

If the question is who do you pick in their prime for a championship team, Kidd is the nobrainer. You can always put shooters around him.

You're overstating. Fisher was solid, but had a great frontcourt for shotblocking and defensive scheme to help. Billups was a good defender, but, again, had one of the better defensive frontcourts of the decade behind him to make him look better. Rondo is great. I notice you didn't include the three rings of Parker's. Probably be cause (along with Fisher) illustrate that if you have a good defensive scheme and good shotblocking behind you, a mediocre defensive PG isn't exploited to such negative levels.

[cheguevara]

sure. But that is taking the hard road. You have a pick the easy road or the hard road. I pick the easy road. Kidd.

[JMarkJohns]

Easy road what? That Kidd's defense was enough to win anything that mattered? The backbone of 90% of Title-winning teams is a strong defensive frontcourt. In most cases it starts in and works its way out. You starting out and going in doesn't win you jack squat. Kidd's 0-for prime record vs. the dominant West is proof of that, despite having multiple top-10 defensive teams.

[cheguevara]

Well let's just agree to disagree. This is my last post here but here is my thinking:
Pick one between:
1) Top 10 offensive PG in history
or
2) Top 10 offensive PG AND top 10 defensive PG in history

obvious choice is #2.

Nash was not way better than Kidd on offense. They were pretty equivalent, Nash maybe surpassing him some. But on defense Kidd blew Nash out of the water, not even close. And again Defense wins championships.

[JMarkJohns]

Kidd is top-5 in assists, but not much else offensively. And Nash's prime is probably top-5 overall all-time as far as passing, shooting and scoring efficiency. So were his teams.

You forget the Suns had a prime Kidd and all his elite defense, surrounded him with quality defensive players, several offensive players, including All-Stars, yet he couldn't even win a playoff series until he headed East. Defense wins Championships in general. In this specific, it didn't, and it didn't really amount to much. The talent didn't equate to success.

[Leetonidas]

Kidd was not merely a good defender. He is top 10 in NBA HISTORY. probably top 5. among PGs. This bullshit that you don't need D on PGs is a terrible way of thinking. It's no coincidence 8 of the last 12 champions have had great defensive PGs: Fisher, Fisher, Fisher, Billups, Rondo, Fisher, Fisher, Kidd.

If the question is who do you pick in their prime for a championship team, Kidd is the nobrainer. You can always put shooters around him.

The fuck you smoking brah? Derek Fisher is a terrible defender and routinely gets eaten alive by the opposition's PG. He may be extremely clutch but he is slow as fuck and not a good defender in any sense of the word. Any of the quicker PGs in the league regularly demolish Fisher while he's trying to play defense.

Parker gets a lot of crap but he is actually a decent defensive guard and played some impressive defense early on in the 2011 campaign. He is easily a better defender than Fisher.

[cheguevara]

LOL gets eaten alive. So does Kidd on a 1-1 but that does not mean he is a terrible defender. It's all about positioning, strength and hands. Kidd and Fisher are above average on those even right now.

and :lmao Parker being a decent defensive guard. Dude is terrible at all those mentioned above, strenght, positioning and hands. getting bullied by Michael Conley and Grievis Vazquez for 6 straight games does not help your point at all :lol

[Texas_Ranger]

Goran Dragič

[Dex]

Jason Kidd wouldn't have flopped like a little bitch when Horry hip-checked him, causing players to come off the bench and potentially costing his team a title.

And despite what people say, titles are still what every NBA player is playing for, and 1>0.

So....I'll go with Kidd.

[picc84]

Jason Kidd wouldn't have flopped like a little bitch when Horry hip-checked him, causing players to come off the bench and potentially costing his team a title.


Thats not really a good point in the context of the thread, but its weirdly true.

If Nash didn't flop on that hip-check the Suns might actually have a championship. Crazy how one little thing can have such a huge impact.

[JMarkJohns]

It amazes me how many people cling to the won Title as a role player as justification for Kidd's peak being better than Nash's. If Kidd's peak year average was 8 ppg and 8 apg, then this wouldn't even be a debate.

You either get the Title and the corresponding seasonal average in the debate, or you get the HOF numbers and identical 0-for to Nash's stats and ringless peak.

It's no fun to debate when people either don't care to read/follow the parameters.

[LkrFan]

Kidd >>> "Back to Back MVP" Nash in their peaks and past their primes.

[JMarkJohns]

Thats not really a good point in the context of the thread, but its weirdly true.

If Nash didn't flop on that hip-check the Suns might actually have a championship. Crazy how one little thing can have such a huge impact.

Yeah, and if Tim Donaghy hadn't officiated in Game 3, making several controversial calls against the Suns, perhaps Nash doesn't feel the need to "sell" the foul, and had Javie (knowing the Spurs only recourse was to foul) called the prior swiping foul attempt by Finley as Nash ran past, maybe Horry doesn't feel the need to make sure one is called in a three-point game with 18 seconds left, and if D'Antoni makes sure his coaches are tending to the bench as they were supposed to, blah, blah, blah

Lots of excuses to go around if we want to start assessing blame for one play.

[picc84]

I know.

Just saying.

[Dex]

It amazes me how many people cling to the won Title as a role player as justification for Kidd's peak being better than Nash's. If Kidd's peak year average was 8 ppg and 8 apg, then this wouldn't even be a debate.

You either get the Title and the corresponding seasonal average in the debate, or you get the HOF numbers and identical 0-for to Nash's stats and ringless peak.

It's no fun to debate when people either don't care to read/follow the parameters.

Kidd
Career Season - 13.2 ppg (.401 FG%)/ 6.5 rpg / 9.1 apg / 2.0 spg
Career Playofs Playoffs - 14 ppg (.396 FG%) / 7 rpg / 8.6 apg / 2.0 spg
Best Season - 18.7 ppg (.414) / 6.3 rpg / 8.9 apg / 2.2 spg
3 Finals / 1 Championship
10 x All Star
0 x MVP

Nash
Career Season - 14.6 ppg (.489) / 3.0 rpg / 8.5 apg / 0.8 spg
Career Playoffs - 17.3 ppg (.473) / 3.5 rpg / 8.9 apg / 0.6 spg
Best Season - 18.8 ppg (.512) / 4.2 rpg / 10.4 apg / 0.8 spg
0 Finals / 0 Championships
7 x All Star
2 x MVP

The stats tell the story. Nash is the more efficient and gifted scorer (which we all know and has already been acknowledged), but Kidd is better in almost every other facet of the game. Even their best seasons pretty much break even against each other (offensively, Nash gets the nod, but one has to keep his turnstyle defense in mind).

The only other edge Nash has are the two MVPs, but I feel like he got those for leading the league-darling Phoenix Suns while their 7-seconds or less system was still all the rage. Sure, he definitely elevated the level of those teams, but they were also loaded with talent. Kidd dragged less talented groups to the Finals three times, whereas Nash could never get his team to break through.

Considering point guards are typically expected to lead, not to score...I still go with Kidd.

[TD 21]

It amazes me how many people cling to the won Title as a role player as justification for Kidd's peak being better than Nash's. If Kidd's peak year average was 8 ppg and 8 apg, then this wouldn't even be a debate.

You either get the Title and the corresponding seasonal average in the debate, or you get the HOF numbers and identical 0-for to Nash's stats and ringless peak.

It's no fun to debate when people either don't care to read/follow the parameters.

Championships is a weak argument for determining one player is better than the other. I'm not saying you shouldn't factor it in, but it should only be a part of the argument, not the argument. And you should consider how it/they were won.

By some people's logic, Russell is the greatest player of all time, because he has 11 championships. He's more likely the most overrated player of all time though. By all accounts, he was a better version of B. Wallace. His career PER is 18.9 and he topped out at 22.8. No other consensus all time great is close to as low as that.

I have a hard time believing he was better than Chamberlain, Abdul-Jabbar, Olajuwon, O'Neal and Duncan, among others. 11 championships is obviously impressive in any era, but there weren't nearly as many teams, the playoffs were far shorter and the talent pool wasn't even close to being close to what it is now or has been in more recent times.

The point is, if you want to say Kidd was better at their peak, fine, there's a legit argument to be made, but one past his prime championship, as a role player, isn't it.

[Dex]

Championships is a weak argument for determining one player is better than the other. I'm not saying you shouldn't factor it in, but it should only be a part of the argument, not the argument. And you should consider how it/they were won.

By some people's logic, Russell is the greatest player of all time, because he has 11 championships. He's more likely the most overrated player of all time though. By all accounts, he was a better version of B. Wallace. His career PER is 18.9 and he topped out at 22.8. No other consensus all time great is close to as low as that.

I have a hard time believing he was better than Chamberlain, Abdul-Jabbar, Olajuwon, O'Neal and Duncan, among others. 11 championships is obviously impressive in any era, but there weren't nearly as many teams, the playoffs were far shorter and the talent pool wasn't even close to being close to what it is now or has been in more recent times.

The point is, if you want to say Kidd was better at their peak, fine, there's a legit argument to be made, but one past his prime championship, as a role player, isn't it.

Everyone knows Horry > Jordan because 7 > 6.

[JMarkJohns]

Kidd
Career Season - 13.2 ppg (.401 FG%)/ 6.5 rpg / 9.1 apg / 2.0 spg
Career Playofs Playoffs - 14 ppg (.396 FG%) / 7 rpg / 8.6 apg / 2.0 spg
Best Season - 18.7 ppg (.414) / 6.3 rpg / 8.9 apg / 2.2 spg
3 Finals / 1 Championship
10 x All Star
0 x MVP

Nash
Career Season - 14.6 ppg (.489) / 3.0 rpg / 8.5 apg / 0.8 spg
Career Playoffs - 17.3 ppg (.473) / 3.5 rpg / 8.9 apg / 0.6 spg
Best Season - 18.8 ppg (.512) / 4.2 rpg / 10.4 apg / 0.8 spg
0 Finals / 0 Championships
7 x All Star
2 x MVP

The stats tell the story. Nash is the more efficient and gifted scorer (which we all know and has already been acknowledged), but Kidd is better in almost every other facet of the game. Even their best seasons pretty much break even against each other.

The only other edge Nash has are the two MVPs, but I feel like he got those for leading the league-darling Phoenix Suns while their 7-seconds or less system was still all the rage. Sure, he definitely elevated the level of those teams, but they were also loaded with talent. Kidd dragged less talented groups to the Finals three times, whereas Nash could never get his team to break through.

Considering point guards are typically expected to lead, not to score...I still go with Kidd.

You include way too much. Peaks, like the five best seasons of each's career. But I'm done arguing. People who care about this thread will read all the posts, the argumentation back and fourth, the qualification and disqualifications. The arguments you make here aren't on point or have already been discussed to death, not only by me, but others like DoK and HarlemHeat, etc...

[Dex]

You include way too much. Peaks, like the five best seasons of each's career. But I'm done arguing. People who care about this thread will read all the posts, the argumentation back and fourth, the qualification and disqualifications. The arguments you make here aren't on point or have already been discussed to death, not only by me, but others like DoK and HarlemHeat, etc...

So in other words, that wasn't the answer you wanted to hear?

[JMarkJohns]

So in other words, that wasn't the answer you wanted to hear?

It's not the answer asked for by the title of the premise of the first post, or it's tired, rehashed arguments already discussed ten times over already.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Kidd
Career Season - 13.2 ppg (.401 FG%)/ 6.5 rpg / 9.1 apg / 2.0 spg
Career Playofs Playoffs - 14 ppg (.396 FG%) / 7 rpg / 8.6 apg / 2.0 spg
Best Season - 18.7 ppg (.414) / 6.3 rpg / 8.9 apg / 2.2 spg
3 Finals / 1 Championship
10 x All Star
0 x MVP

Nash
Career Season - 14.6 ppg (.489) / 3.0 rpg / 8.5 apg / 0.8 spg
Career Playoffs - 17.3 ppg (.473) / 3.5 rpg / 8.9 apg / 0.6 spg
Best Season - 18.8 ppg (.512) / 4.2 rpg / 10.4 apg / 0.8 spg
0 Finals / 0 Championships
7 x All Star
2 x MVP


You posted career stats to determine who the better player was at his peak?

[Dex]

It's not the answer asked for by the title of the premise of the first post, or it's tired, rehashed arguments already discussed ten times over already.

Alright, I'm too lazy to average up the numbers, but I'll admit that if you gather up the best 5-season stretch from both players, Nash comes out with the better scoring numbers, shooting percentage, and assist averages. In that regard, you could make the argument for Nash having the higher peak, statistically.

Kidd still wins the battle of rebounds and steals, and though man-on defense can't really be quantified by stats, I think we all can agree that Kidd has always been the better defender.

What's more important really boils down to a matter of opinion.

[Leetonidas]

LOL gets eaten alive. So does Kidd on a 1-1 but that does not mean he is a terrible defender. It's all about positioning, strength and hands. Kidd and Fisher are above average on those even right now.

and :lmao Parker being a decent defensive guard. Dude is terrible at all those mentioned above, strenght, positioning and hands. getting bullied by Michael Conley and Grievis Vazquez for 6 straight games does not help your point at all :lol


Parker gets a lot of crap but he is actually a decent defensive guard and played some impressive defense early on in the 2011 campaign. He is easily a better defender than Fisher.

learn2read.

Also I wouldn't use one playoff series as a basis for your argument when Tony guarded Billups well throughout their careers as well, as numbers show it, I know timvp or someone else posted this shit awhile back. The point is if you think Derek Fisher is a "great defensive point guard" then you don't know shit about defense. And allowing his man to blow by him and into Gasol/Bynum/Odom isn't playing good defense.

[Leetonidas]

also DoK don't you hate that honky Nash :lol

[HarlemHeat37]

Prime Kidd's historically bad(considering he was a superstar player) scoring ability is being understated in this argument, while his defense is being overrated..

2001-2002: 39% from the field, 32% from 3
2002-2003: 41% from the field, 34% from 3
2003-2004: 38% from the field, 32% from 3

I can't think of any All-Star player in NBA history, that put up shooting numbers of that caliber, at that volume..Iverson's shooting %s were similar, but he was taking 26 shots per game, not 13 or whatever..taking 13 shots per game, but only shooting ~40% from the field is just pathetic..

When a player has the ball in his hands all game, I would expect him to be somewhat of a scoring threat, not a liability..

Another knock on Kidd is that the Nets never had a good offense, despite having the best PG in the NBA..

2004: 25th
2003: 18th
2002: 17th

Looking at other elite PGs at their individual peaks, and their team's best offensive finishes..I'm basing my primary criteria of their peaks on their best MVP finishes..

Magic Johnson (1st, 2nd, 1st)
John Stockton(Always in the top 10 in the 90s, including top finishes, prime is difficult to establish)
Isiah Thomas(1st, 9th, 7th)
Gary Payton(2nd, 2nd, 8th)
Steve Nash(1st, 2nd, 1st)
Oscar Robertson(1st, 1st)
Jason Kidd(25th, 18th, 17th)

There is absolutely no way that Kidd's defense is valuable enough to negate his lack of scoring/offensive ability, in comparison to other historic PGs..

[JoeTait75]

IMO, having a PG who can defend is a bit like having a QB who can scramble. It's nice, but not necessary. However, having a PG that can't shoot is like having a QB with a very limited arm. Yeah he can pass, and you might have some success, but you need a good combination of strength and accuracy amongst the top QBs.

Do not concur. As long as a PG can get into the lane consistently, make his free throws and not be Eric Snow shooting from outside, he can still be great.

If we're talking quarterback analogies, I'd compare shooting in a PG to running ability in a QB. A bonus, not a requirement, imo. It's more important for a PG to get the ball to open shooters than be one himself.

[Mori Chu]

Nash during his MVP years was better than Kidd has ever been. Way better shooter and scorer, and unrivaled at making great passes to set up teammates. Kidd was probably just about as good a passer on the fast break, but Nash was better in the half court, both with his shooting and with his passing. Kidd's D is better, but Nash's offense is enough better that I think it compensates for it. Nash could straight up assassinate you; Kidd never could. I'll take Nash in a heartbeat if we're just talking about 1 year during their prime.

But Kidd was great from Day 1 when he entered the NBA; Nash took several years to even be decent as an NBA player. Kidd has stayed relevant even into his career's twilight, carried tons of teams, helped lead two squads to the Finals, and now he's an NBA champion. I have to go with Kidd if we're considering the entire career.

[JMarkJohns]

Do not concur. As long as a PG can get into the lane consistently, make his free throws and not be Eric Snow shooting from outside, he can still be great.

If we're talking quarterback analogies, I'd compare shooting in a PG to running ability in a QB. A bonus, not a requirement, imo. It's more important for a PG to get the ball to open shooters than be one himself.

Kidd's FG% several years during his prime was 40% or worse. Say what you want about Snow as a shooter, Kidd was worse, even at his best. The abysmal standard is set by Kidd, not Snow.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

also DoK don't you hate that honky Nash :lol
I do but that doesn't change the fact peak Nash > peak Kidd. Career Kidd > career Nash largely because Nash decided he wanted to have fun the last few years on a shitass team while Kidd decided he was gonna spend the twilight of his career to go for a championship.

[JMarkJohns]

Prime Kidd's historically bad(considering he was a superstar player) scoring ability is being understated in this argument, while his defense is being overrated..

2001-2002: 39% from the field, 32% from 3
2002-2003: 41% from the field, 34% from 3
2003-2004: 38% from the field, 32% from 3

I can't think of any All-Star player in NBA history, that put up shooting numbers of that caliber, at that volume..Iverson's shooting %s were similar, but he was taking 26 shots per game, not 13 or whatever..taking 13 shots per game, but only shooting ~40% from the field is just pathetic..

When a player has the ball in his hands all game, I would expect him to be somewhat of a scoring threat, not a liability..

Another knock on Kidd is that the Nets never had a good offense, despite having the best PG in the NBA..

2004: 25th
2003: 18th
2002: 17th

Looking at other elite PGs at their individual peaks, and their team's best offensive finishes..I'm basing my primary criteria of their peaks on their best MVP finishes..

Magic Johnson (1st, 2nd, 1st)
John Stockton(Always in the top 10 in the 90s, including top finishes, prime is difficult to establish)
Isiah Thomas(1st, 9th, 7th)
Gary Payton(2nd, 2nd, 8th)
Steve Nash(1st, 2nd, 1st)
Oscar Robertson(1st, 1st)
Jason Kidd(25th, 18th, 17th)

There is absolutely no way that Kidd's defense is valuable enough to negate his lack of scoring/offensive ability, in comparison to other historic PGs..

Absolutely damning. I'd cited the 03 season stat, but not in context like this. You're the best PG in the league with multiple lottery selections alongside you in their best years, and your offense can't sniff the top-10? And that was playing the majority of his games against some of the worst teams the NBA ever fielded within a conference at one time.

You want your ball-dominant PG to do more than just run transitions well.

[lefty]

I love Nash, he is a great player


But I have to go with Kidd; you don't see many PG's racking up triple doubles

[Killakobe81]

Kidd.

Nash benefitted enormously from D'antoni's system (though it could be argued that Nash was the system).

While raw numbers show Nash at his peak is better, Kidd mostly played in a more controlled environment, and his Nets played at a much much slower pace than the Nash's Suns.

Kidd was a better defender, better on the fast break, comparable in the half court. Nash was a way better shooter (just generally more dangerous as a scorer). I feel Kidd was better at making horrible players better (see Collins), while Nash was using great offensive players well.

Nash won two MVPs during weak MVP years (Duncan and Shaq past their primes, Kobe played on horrible Laker teams, media looking for the great white hope, etc ...), Kidd was the runner up to a very strong MVP year (Duncan and Shaq at their peaks, along with KG).

Agreed. Great post. Nash won MVPs probably being white had something to do with it but I thinkit wa smore for the fans/media falling in love with his style of play which was reminiscent of the 80's ... that is why he won.

I choose Kidd because he was the more effective player in any system. Nash struggled some playing with Shaq in a traditional style offense. Kidd has been effective in the triangle, the princeton and a more open style offense.

The only thing that Nash does better is probably shoot/score. I think Kidd is much more effective. Even in a ASG setting Kidd has had more impact on games. Nash has truly only excelled in a 7 seconds or less style offense. He was good in Dallas but did become a star until D'antoni.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Anyone who thinks D'antoni made Nash great doesn't know his mouth from his asshole. What has D'antoni done without Nash? Nash made D'antoni, not the other way around.

[Killakobe81]

Prime Kidd's historically bad(considering he was a superstar player) scoring ability is being understated in this argument, while his defense is being overrated..

2001-2002: 39% from the field, 32% from 3
2002-2003: 41% from the field, 34% from 3
2003-2004: 38% from the field, 32% from 3

I can't think of any All-Star player in NBA history, that put up shooting numbers of that caliber, at that volume..Iverson's shooting %s were similar, but he was taking 26 shots per game, not 13 or whatever..taking 13 shots per game, but only shooting ~40% from the field is just pathetic..

When a player has the ball in his hands all game, I would expect him to be somewhat of a scoring threat, not a liability..

Another knock on Kidd is that the Nets never had a good offense, despite having the best PG in the NBA..

2004: 25th
2003: 18th
2002: 17th

Looking at other elite PGs at their individual peaks, and their team's best offensive finishes..I'm basing my primary criteria of their peaks on their best MVP finishes..

Magic Johnson (1st, 2nd, 1st)
John Stockton(Always in the top 10 in the 90s, including top finishes, prime is difficult to establish)
Isiah Thomas(1st, 9th, 7th)
Gary Payton(2nd, 2nd, 8th)
Steve Nash(1st, 2nd, 1st)
Oscar Robertson(1st, 1st)
Jason Kidd(25th, 18th, 17th)

There is absolutely no way that Kidd's defense is valuable enough to negate his lack of scoring/offensive ability, in comparison to other historic PGs..

You make some great points ... here. However, when you consider the pace and style of Offense in the NBA as a whole was favoring much of Kidd's career. You do have to make adjustments for that. Also some guys are more than what their stats bring Kidd and Marion come to mind from the Mavs last year. No way they win without conistently good defense from BOTH players and timely buckets as well.

[Killakobe81]

Anyone who thinks D'antoni made Nash great doesn't know his mouth from his asshole. What has D'antoni done without Nash? Nash made D'antoni, not the other way around.

Did not say he "made" Nash. I have been following Nash's career since his senior year at Santa Clara ...dude used to dribble tennis balls to class on campus. So no I dont think D'antoni "made" Nash, but he did unleash him and designed an offense tailored to his talents, that is what good coaches do. No i am not a fan of D'antoni and his teams havent won ... but he has made average offensive players look good. As a matter of fact David Lee has 50 million reasons to thank D'antoni. And I doubt Nash wins 2 MVPs without his system. Nash made himself a player but plenty of coaches dont maximize the talents of players ...he did.

[hater]

Nash could only play/help one way. Making your team score.

Kidd could play multiple ways and help his team win in multiple ways. this is why Suns always crashed and burned in the POs they could only play one way and eventually ran into a wall (spurs)

I pick Kidd

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Did not say he "made" Nash. I have been following Nash's career since his senior year at Santa Clara ...dude used to dribble tennis balls to class on campus. So no I dont think D'antoni "made" Nash, but he did unleash him and designed an offense tailored to his talents, that is what good coaches do. No i am not a fan of D'antoni and his teams havent won ... but he has made average offensive players look good. As a matter of fact David Lee has 50 million reasons to thank D'antoni. And I doubt Nash wins 2 MVPs without his system. Nash made himself a player but plenty of coaches dont maximize the talents of players ...he did.
D'antoni's coaching career has been an abortion without Nash. Please explain why such an awesome coach who :crymakes mediocre players great:cry has never sniffed 50 wins without Steve Nash.

Pretty remarkable D'antoni's :crygreat fuckin system:cry couldn't do jackshit with a team that had 2 top 15 players last year

[JMarkJohns]

You make some great points ... here. However, when you consider the pace and style of Offense in the NBA as a whole was favoring much of Kidd's career. You do have to make adjustments for that.

I could be wrong, but the numbers he cited were offensive efficiency ratings for those years, which takes into account every aspect of an offense, and not just straight up PPG averages. Kidd's offensive efficiency is horrible, so it's no real surprise his team's were as well.

Earlier I cited that the best Nets team by Finals wins (02-03) had a seasonal offensive efficiency rating of like 17 or 18 in the league, and, despite a slower, more deliberate pace than Nash's teams, had more turnovers, rate of turnovers per assist, rate of turnovers per field goal made and drastically lower shooting percentages.


Also some guys are more than what their stats bring Kidd and Marion come to mind from the Mavs last year. No way they win without conistently good defense from BOTH players and timely buckets as well.

I'll give you this, and it's a fair point, but Kidd beat one 50-win playoff team his entire prime career. ONE. And is was an Eastern Conference team. Nash has beaten more 50-win teams than that in one prime postseason, and he did so in the tougher conference to do it in. So this "not just stats, but little things for wins" argument cuts both ways, and seemingly cuts deeper with Nash.

[JMarkJohns]

Nash could only play/help one way. Making your team score.

Kidd could play multiple ways and help his team win in multiple ways. this is why Suns always crashed and burned in the POs they could only play one way and eventually ran into a wall (spurs)

I pick Kidd

Crashed and burned? The best Nets team (02-03) won two games vs. the Spurs, similar to the best Suns team (06-07). At worst, Nash is equivalent, not less.

[Killakobe81]

D'antoni's coaching career has been an abortion without Nash. Please explain why such an awesome coach who :crymakes mediocre players great:cry has never sniffed 50 wins without Steve Nash.

Pretty remarkable D'antoni's :crygreat fuckin system:cry couldn't do jackshit with a team that had 2 top 15 players last year

LOL I expected some kind of pithy smartass reply :lol

I am not his agent, so I have no stake in defending D'antoni. But my point is, his teams put up scoring numbers. and Nash a great player has been a huge beneficiary of that.
As for his lack of success in NY, my guess is since his system is PG heavy with a decent PG (Felton) and an injured Billups this past season ...Plus Amare and Melo less than 100%, compared to when he had a healthy Nash, Marion, amare, diaw in PHX ...of course he was not able to duplicate that kind of success. Obviously Nash is the biggest difference ... but your argument makes little sense. Phil Jackson was not winning a playoff series with last years Knicks (2 seasons ago) and the one from this past year got dinged up at the wrong time. I dont think he will win titles with his offense heavy gimmicks but guys in that system will put up MVP type numbers (if they are legit all-stars) see: Amare, Nash. and good players will put up all-star numbers: see Lee and Marion.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Phil Jackson would have taken a team with Melo and Amare both healthy (not sure where you get that they were less than 100%) and made the 2nd round of the playoffs in the Eastern Conference. No doubt in my mind. This is the same Eastern conference where the Atlanta Hawks made the 2nd round.

Also, the D'antoni argument goes both ways. If D'antoni inflated Nash's #s, then he also made Nash a shit defender. The two coaches Nash has had for almost his entire career told him not to worry about defense at all, so if those coach's get credit for inflating his stats, they also get blame for making him a shit defender.

[lefty]

I got an autograph from d'Antoni

While he was signing it, I told him I was a SPurs fan


He didnt like that



So yeah, fuck him

[Killakobe81]

I could be wrong, but the numbers he cited were offensive efficiency ratings for those years, which takes into account every aspect of an offense, and not just straight up PPG averages. Kidd's offensive efficiency is horrible, so it's no real surprise his team's were as well.

Earlier I cited that the best Nets team by Finals wins (02-03) had a seasonal offensive efficiency rating of like 17 or 18 in the league, and, despite a slower, more deliberate pace than Nash's teams, had more turnovers, rate of turnovers per assist, rate of turnovers per field goal made and drastically lower shooting percentages.



I'll give you this, and it's a fair point, but Kidd beat one 50-win playoff team his entire prime career. ONE. And is was an Eastern Conference team. Nash has beaten more 50-win teams than that in one prime postseason, and he did so in the tougher conference to do it in. So this "not just stats, but little things for wins" argument cuts both ways, and seemingly cuts deeper with Nash.

Fair points and to be honest I would probably choose Nash ...but I think Kidd is one of the ultimate intangible players that guys like Lebron, Kobe and even Duncan have ALL expressed a desire to play with. Things like that matter to me im old school that way. Heck Pop was willing to trade an emerging Tony Parker for an aging Kidd.

if most of us were playing a pickup game with our live savings at stake Id think Id rather have Kidd. A great competitor can make a key steal, block or rebound he just impacts a game in so many ways. I just dont know how much I would trust him to shoot the ball late to win it even at the FT line in those situations I want Nash. So it's a tough great debate I just hate using numbers primarily to decide it just like rings only should either. But despite being in the "weaker" conference Kidd has carried two teams to the Finals and was akey contributor to a title team. If you believe they are close than to me that gives Kidd the nod. But if you dont think they are close like many stat heads do ...then i can see the edge for Nash.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Fair points and to be honest I would probably choose Nash ...but I think Kidd is one of the ultimate intangible players that guys like Lebron, Kidd and even Duncan have ALL expressed a desire to play with. Things like that matter to me im old school that way. Heck Pop was willing to trade an emerging Tony Parker for an aging Kidd.

if most of us were playing a pickup game with our live savings at stake Id think Id rather have Kidd. A great competitor can make a key steal, block or rebound he just impacts a game in so many ways. I just dont know how much I would trust him to shoot the ball late to win it even at the FT line in those situations I want Nash. So it's a tough great debate I just hate using numbers primarily to decide it just like rings only should either. But despite being in the "weaker" conference Kidd has carried two teams to the Finals and was akey contributor to a title team. If you believe they are close than to me that gives Kidd the nod. But if you dont think they are close like many stat heads do ...then i can see the edge for Nash.
IMO Kidd became a great intangible player later on in his career when he took a lesser role with Dallas. That's another reason why I say career Kidd > career Nash, he eventually took a lesser role and figured out ways other than dominating the ball to help his team win, but peak Kidd wasn't the intangibles guy he is now. That's why the intangibles Kidd brings to the table are irrelevant to this argument.

[Killakobe81]

Phil Jackson would have taken a team with Melo and Amare both healthy (not sure where you get that they were less than 100%) and made the 2nd round of the playoffs in the Eastern Conference. No doubt in my mind. This is the same Eastern conference where the Atlanta Hawks made the 2nd round.

Also, the D'antoni argument goes both ways. If D'antoni inflated Nash's #s, then he also made Nash a shit defender. The two coaches Nash has had for almost his entire career told him not to worry about defense at all, so if those coach's get credit for inflating his stats, they also get blame for making him a shit defender.

Posted by Ben Golliver.

New York Knicks All-Star forward Amar'e Stoudemire carried his team to the NBA playoffs for the first time in seven seasons last year, but we tend to forget that he collapsed almost immediately upon arrival. The Knicks were swept out of the Eastern Conference first round by the Boston Celtics and Stoudemire was a shell of his former self, averaging just 14.5 points and 7.8 rebounds, thanks to a pulled back muscle.

And

Carmelo Anthony played through an inflamed elbow — officially chronic bursitis — during the end of last season and through the playoffs.Is finally 100% healthy now ...

Im not saying D'antoni is great but using his scrub team from 2 years ago and last years makeshift banged up roster to crucify him makes little sense. Call him out for failing to adjust to the spurs or to shaq being in his offense ...(if he gave that deal his blessing)

[Sportstudi]

Fair points and to be honest I would probably choose Nash ...but I think Kidd is one of the ultimate intangible players that guys like Lebron, Kidd and even Duncan have ALL expressed a desire to play with. Things like that matter to me im old school that way. Heck Pop was willing to trade an emerging Tony Parker for an aging Kidd.



Interesting that Kidd wants to play with Kidd :rolleyes

[hater]

Crashed and burned? The best Nets team (02-03) won two games vs. the Spurs, similar to the best Suns team (06-07). At worst, Nash is equivalent, not less.

it has been proven the Nash style offensive team does not win championships. IMO I don't pick a guy that will never win one playing the way he plays.

It's been proven Kidd's style of play wins championships. I don't think there is much to talk about.

Now if you are just talking about talent on the offensive side, of course I pick Nash.

[Killakobe81]

Interesting that Kidd wants to play with Kidd :rolleyes

Meant Kobe, my bad.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

it has been proven the Nash style offensive team does not win championships. IMO I don't pick a guy that will never win one playing the way he plays.

It's been proven Kidd's style of play wins championships. I don't think there is much to talk about.

Now if you are just talking about talent on the offensive side, of course I pick Nash.
The way Kidd played in the late 90s and early 00s (his peak) is never gonna win a championship. Kidd's style of play last year was nothing close to his style of play in his prime. For the 15th time, Kidd's career > Nash's career, but this is an argument about who's peak was better. Neither player was ever gonna win a championship as his team's best player, that's why Kidd won a championship as Dallas's 3rd best player who had to contribute in ways other than assist whoring.

[Killakobe81]

One other thing failed to be mentioned or maybe I missed it, in his prime Kidd could take smaler PG's to the block. sure he was not a devastating scorer even then, but he was effective especially as a passer out of that spot. Personally that is something he should have developed even more ...but now that he has gotten older he does it even less.

Again I do think this is close. But I think to bash Kidd based on advanced metrics is EXACTLY why I dont trust them . Sure Kidd's jumper makes me cringe but I have seen him brick his jumper follow the rebound and make an assist of that board...he just makes plays. What about the late strips on big time scorers to win games. Im no Kidd fan per se, but I just feel some here are knocking his impact because of his poor shot and underrating his value.

Kidd is like the ultimate superstar "utility player" that excells at everything BUT shooting ...

[Killakobe81]

The way Kidd played in the late 90s and early 00s (his peak) is never gonna win a championship. Kidd's style of play last year was nothing close to his style of play in his prime. For the 15th time, Kidd's career > Nash's career, but this is an argument about who's peak was better. Neither player was ever gonna win a championship as his team's best player, that's why Kidd won a championship as Dallas's 3rd best player who had to contribute in ways other than assist whoring.

This debate says a lot about posters as far as what they style of PG they prefer.
Kidd was the "quntiessential" Spur type PG and would of been a perfect complement to Manu, robinson and duncan. Nash though would of been a great complement to the spurs too making them better on offense and my guess Bowen would of covered the elite PG's anyway, like he did to Nash.

I guess that is an argument that could be made for Nash ... in his peak that the spurs had to put Bowen on him (Cp3 and Dwill too) but kidd because he did not aggressively look to score did not force that switch as often ...

Funny thing is Kidd could score not sure why he never did just little bit more of it. Maybe he still doesnt beat Lakers or Spurs in those finals but they get closer IMHO ...

[HarlemHeat37]

The way Kidd played in the late 90s and early 00s (his peak) is never gonna win a championship. Kidd's style of play last year was nothing close to his style of play in his prime. For the 15th time, Kidd's career > Nash's career, but this is an argument about who's peak was better. Neither player was ever gonna win a championship as his team's best player, that's why Kidd won a championship as Dallas's 3rd best player who had to contribute in ways other than assist whoring.

Exactly..and again, role player Kidd transformed his game..he became a 40+% 3-point threat, he did not have the ball in his hands as much, which allowed him to focus on D to guard dominant swingmen(Kobe, Wade, Lebron) and allow a true #1 in Nowitzki to lead the team..role player Kidd still got torched by PGs, but it didn't matter, because they aren't as valuable as elite swingmen, at least IMO..

I don't think Nash would have any chance at being the role player that Kidd has become, and while I don't think you could win a title with either as your #1, I do think you could win with Nash as your #2, but I don't feel the same way about Kidd, his style of play, at his peak, is too difficult to build a title team around..

Before anybody mentions that he took a team to the Finals, he was playing in arguably the worst conference in NBA history..as I displayed in my previous post, he couldn't even lead the Nets to a top 15 offense..

[JMarkJohns]

it has been proven the Nash style offensive team does not win championships.

It's been proven Kidd's style of play wins championships. I don't think there is much to talk about.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Where did Kidd in his prime win a Title? His role-player won Title last season doesn't factor in.

Neither player won shit in their primes. And save the tired "finals appearances" shit. Those finals appearances mean about as much as Nash's two MVPs, as they were achieved in a watered down conference against much lesser competition. If you bothered to read the thread (or at least first page of posts), you'd see how many Nash supporters aren't even using the MVPs because of this, and how disqualified the Finals arguments for Kidd have become.

[JMarkJohns]

Interesting that Kidd wants to play with Kidd :rolleyes

After witnessing his daddy belt his mommy over a french fry, I'm not sure Kidd's kid wants to play with Kidd.

[Killakobe81]

Exactly..and again, role player Kidd transformed his game..he became a 40+% 3-point threat, he did not have the ball in his hands as much, which allowed him to focus on D to guard dominant swingmen(Kobe, Wade, Lebron) and allow a true #1 in Nowitzki to lead the team..role player Kidd still got torched by PGs, but it didn't matter, because they aren't as valuable as elite swingmen, at least IMO..

I don't think Nash would have any chance at being the role player that Kidd has become, and while I don't think you could win a title with either as your #1, I do think you could win with Nash as your #2, but I don't feel the same way about Kidd, his style of play, at his peak, is too difficult to build a title team around..

Before anybody mentions that he took a team to the Finals, he was playing in arguably the worst conference in NBA history..as I displayed in my previous post, he couldn't even lead the Nets to a top 15 offense..

You know, the DOK PG theory has held up for a while (since Isiah) but I dont think it is some irefutable fact it just has worked out that way. I think at their peaks if you gave Kidd (maybe Nash too) a strong #2 and #3 lets say KG and Pierce or Pau and Odom with some good role players maybe either could of won a title. I agree a dominant swingman is probably only 2nd in value to a dominant big man (not a center necessarily Dirk is offensively dominant perimeter big) but I think either guy might of had a shot. I could be wrong ...it is an interesting theory.

Mine was to win a title you need at least 2 HOF caliber players and if you get 3 definitely win a title (except 2004 Lakers urghh) since 1980:

Title teams with 3 HOF:
2008 celts
80's Lakers
80's Celts
Late 80's/90's Pistons
90's Bulls

Teams with 2:
2006 Heat* (if GP makes it and he has a strong case bump them up top)
2000's Spurs (guessing Manu makes it)
2009-2010 Lakers (ditto Pau)
1983 Sixers
2011 Mavs

Teams with 1:
Hakeem in 95(?)
Duncan in 2003(?)

Teams with none:
Pistons in 2004 an amazing effort by that team ...Chauncey ...maybe(?)

[Killakobe81]

BTW not sure if Bosh will make it but he might if Heat win 3 titles ...

But Lebron and Wade are locks ...so Heat HAVE to be the favorites along with the defending champ Mavs ...IF we have a season ...

[Leetonidas]

Interesting scenario: How many titles would Kidd have won had he paired up with Tim in 2003? I'm sure Parker would've been traded or left first chance he got, but I think in his prime he could be a #2 option on a championship team next to the BEST players at the time (Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, KG)

[nkdlunch]

I know :( :(

If Spurs would have traded for Kidd a few years ago Spurs would have 2 or 3 more ships

:(

Duncan + Kidd + Ginobili :wow

[#41 Shoot Em Up]

Let's see...DEFENSE wins championships and Nash didn't have an ounce of it.... tough choice

[Jodelo]

(http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1223)@JMarkJohns: I thought you were done arguing? You love Nash but you got to give people their own opinion, you try to spin it your way...

[JMarkJohns]

(http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1223)@JMarkJohns: I thought you were done arguing? You love Nash but you got to give people their own opinion, you try to spin it your way...

I reserve the right to backtrack on saying I'm done.

I actually don't love Nash. And I like Kidd a lot. This is a debate, so the point is to argue back and forth. The only Suns PG I have ever loved watching was Kevin Johnson, because, in his prime, he could do everything, could lead, and won.

[HarlemHeat37]

Spurs still win a title in 2005 with Kidd, lose to Phoenix in 2007 IMO..

[Dex]

I got an autograph from d'Antoni

While he was signing it, I told him I was a SPurs fan


He didnt like that



So yeah, fuck him

I wish I could have seen D'Antoni's face for that.

Then again, he probably looked like he always does.

http://www.build-a-beard.com/storage/pringles.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1261588656 347

[joshdaboss]

2 MVPs to 0 answers that question pretty well.

[Monostradamus]

After witnessing his daddy belt his mommy over a french fry, I'm not sure Kidd's kid wants to play with Kidd.

As opposed to Nash's kids watching mommy fuck Jason Richardson.

[21_Blessings]

Nash at his peak had 3 seasons where he averaged 11.4 APG, 10.5 APG, and 11.6 APG. Kid's best 3 year run in assists was 10.8 APG, 10.1 APG, and 9.8 APG. At his peak, Nash was the better playmaker. Kidd is the better one overall because of longevity, but Nash at his peak was better.

Kidd was a shut down perimeter defender at his peak (whereas Nash was a revolving door) while posting triple-dubs at Magic Johnson like rates.

I guess if you only care about one side of the basketball, which the Suns admittedly did, you can say Nash had a better peak.

[mingus]

Kidd.

Nash was/is a threat from anywhere on the court with the pass or shot. the most complete offensive player i've ever seen (never saw much of Jordan and wasn't around to see Bird so dont flame me). defensively, though, he is too bad, such a bad defender. if he was just decent defender i'd put him over Kidd.

Nash is more visually impressive player with his tough shot, crazy passes, etc, but in the playoff when game gets ugly Kidd is the player i'd rather have (not to say Nash doesnt perform well in playoffs however).

[Monostradamus]

(not to say Nash doesnt perform well in playoffs however).

He's had his moments but I remember him being almost solely responsible for 2 playoff losses to Sacramento because Mike Bibby abused him like a crusty jizz rag.