Reply With Quote
Nash better at his peak, Kidd had the better overall career
Wouldn't matter who you started a team with because PGs lose championships
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?
Nash better at his peak, Kidd had the better overall career
Wouldn't matter who you started a team with because PGs lose championships
Kidd, at his peak he was a great defender too, Nash never was... Nash the better scorer, Kidd the better playmaker!
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.
I think that's debatable. Kidd was regularly racking up triple doubles and playing good defense while Nash at his peak was getting his pushed in by Tony Parker. He does have the two MVPs so I'll give him the edge though.
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.
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 was putting up a few triple-dubs a season during his prime.
Last edited by FkLA; 09-13-2011 at 05:04 PM.
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.
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. , the 06 Suns would have probably won both of those conferences.
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).
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.
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.
I like my guards to be able to shoot, so give me Nash.
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
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.
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 ? 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 les.
I'm not saying Kidd is the wrong answer. I'm saying these are the wrong ing 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.
Kidd 1
Nash 0
In their peak?
Kidd 0
Nash 0
So it's largely statistical. And les 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.
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.
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 les 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 compe ive.
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.
Maybe. It's always easier said than done.
Tired old bag Kidd 1
Tired old bag Nash 0
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
