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

[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 compe ion, 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 le 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 ulative 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]

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 le 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 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 go ahead...

[JMarkJohns]

Kidd made the finals with Kenyon Martin and 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 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 bull 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 bull 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 le-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 bull 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 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 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 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

[Texas_Ranger]

Goran Dragič

[Dex]

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

And despite what people say, les 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 when Horry hip-checked him, causing players to come off the bench and potentially costing his team a le.

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 le 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 le 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.