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

[picc84]

I know.

Just saying.

[Dex]

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.

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 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.

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 le 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 le 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 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

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 awhile back. The point is if you think Derek Fisher is a "great defensive point guard" then you don't know 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

[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

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 ass 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 makes mediocre players great has never sniffed 50 wins without Steve Nash.

Pretty remarkable D'antoni's great in system couldn't do jack 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.