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

[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 modi 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 le 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 le 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 le 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 bag Kidd 1
Tired old bag Nash 0

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

[Monostradamus]

Tired old bag #2 still has two more years to coattail his waning-yeared le to match tired old 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 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 compe ion. 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. le 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 ? 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 les.

Agreed

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.

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 modi 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.