Reply With Quote
Nash:
http://thestartingfive.net/2009/12/0...or-steve-nash/
Nash had two MVPs. Kidd had two Finals appearances. Nash was the better shooter, Kidd the better all-around player.
Nash:
Kidd:
Gotta go with Nash on this one.
Kidd easily after you factor in defense. Although Nash really is one of the greatest shooters ever.
Those MVPs don't do anything for me as they were media voted. Kidd dragging his team to the finals two seasons in the row was more impressive despite the East being terrible.
Fine lodgement, Fin.
I'm going to say Kidd had the better career. I don't know how Kidd has been when he was with other teams vs Nash, but most times Kidd and the Nets usually lost to Nash and his team.
But, both great players, so hard to say. Want to see a great game with them check this game out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df_ikYuef-k
Pros for Nash: Phoenix regretting giving him up and gave him a near-max contract to get him back (Kidd despite his talent was given up on by 3 teams). He played at a high level well into his mid-thirties. While SSOL may be fatally flawed when it comes to winning a le, it did a lot to rejuvenate the NBA's popularity and brought about a more aesthetically pleasing style to watch after the Knicks-Heat rugby matches of the late nineties resulted in a lot of ugly basketball. He probably wasn't deserving of 2 back-to-back MVP awards, but he did qualify as a franchise player for his work with the SSOL Suns. Incredibly clutch player.
Last edited by Findog; 12-04-2009 at 11:50 AM.
Also 01/02 where Kidd was 2nd in MVP voting. That Kidd was better than Nash ever was.
Pros for Kidd: Triple-double machine in his prime, rejuvenated the New Jersey franchise to new heights with two Finals appearances, and they promptly fell apart after he left. Unselfish player who made his teammates better and was a tenacious, strong defender in his prime. Reinvented himself as a very good complementary player late in his career on a good Mavs team when most guys have either retired or have seen their skills completely wilt.
I'll go with Kidd. He was better for a longer period and dragged his team into the Finals twice.
Cons for Nash: Atrocious defender, and his first four seasons he couldn't stay healthy or crack starter's minutes. Never cracked a Finals because he consistently got outplayed by Mike Bibby and Tony Parker in the playoffs. His stats were most likely inflated by the SSOL style of play. His two MVP awards were pretty dubious. Despite his immense value to his team, he was far from the best player in the league in 2005 and 2006.
Cons for Kidd: Despite his talent, he was nevertheless given up on by Dallas, Phoenix and New Jersey for problems off the court. Never developed a consistently strong mid-range shooting touch that would have taken his game to another level. Earned a rep as a coach-killer.
Good to see Nash kicked into the gutter like this.
Keep kickin',,,I'm eating my Cocoa Pebbles.
I think Steve Nash may have been a more important player in league history, because of how important the Webber/Divac Kings, Nash/Finley/Dirk Mavs and Nash's SSOL Suns were in getting the league of the abyss of that late nineties Knick/Heat rugby garbage, even though those teams never even sniffed a Finals appearance. But I think Kidd was a better player in his prime and for longer, and thus had the better career.
Kidd was probably better, but Nash was a more unique player. We'll see another Kidd before we see another Nash. He's not nearly as good, but Rondo's game reminds me of Kidd.
If not for a 3 year period (2005-2007), this wouldn't even be an argument. Gotta go with Kidd.
Mark Price??
Nash is pretty much the token good shooting/passing, no defense playing white PG mold.
Actually New Jersey didn't really give up on him. He demanded a trade and NJ finally just gave in a traded him, because they didn't want drama in the locker room.
Fin, you shoulda run this before the Knicks & Cavs debacles...when DUNCAN still had his nose in Nash's hole...up on the bandwagon.
It's a style thing, not a basketball thing - same way we'll never see another Maravich. You can see Nash's soccer background by the way he probes the defense in a half-court set.
Granted I'm not your side of Kidd vs. Nash, it's not really fair to Nash to compare him to Mark Price. Price was a good shooter, Nash is one of the best shooters ever, price was a good passer, and Nash is one of the best passers ever.
Kidd
Exactly
I dunno, Maravich never needed a specialized offensive system and lax perimeter defensive rules to make him look like a legend.
Nash would have been tossed around like a rag doll in that era though. He would have flared out eariler due to injuries just like Price did. Having said that, NAsh is better. But their games are distinctly similar which was my point.
And Mark Price is one of the greatest shooters ever.
In that sense I agree. They are similar players.
Regardless of that, Kidd is better than Nash. Who's to say Kidd doesn't win 1-2 MVPs from 2005-2007 if he played in a stat inflating system like Nash did?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
