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

[JMarkJohns]

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

Crashed and burned? The best Nets team (02-03) won two games vs. the Spurs, similar to the best Suns team (06-07). At worst, Nash is equivalent, not less.

[Killakobe81]

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

LOL I expected some kind of pithy smartass reply

I am not his agent, so I have no stake in defending D'antoni. But my point is, his teams put up scoring numbers. and Nash a great player has been a huge beneficiary of that.
As for his lack of success in NY, my guess is since his system is PG heavy with a decent PG (Felton) and an injured Billups this past season ...Plus Amare and Melo less than 100%, compared to when he had a healthy Nash, Marion, amare, diaw in PHX ...of course he was not able to duplicate that kind of success. Obviously Nash is the biggest difference ... but your argument makes little sense. Phil Jackson was not winning a playoff series with last years Knicks (2 seasons ago) and the one from this past year got dinged up at the wrong time. I dont think he will win les with his offense heavy gimmicks but guys in that system will put up MVP type numbers (if they are legit all-stars) see: Amare, Nash. and good players will put up all-star numbers: see Lee and Marion.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Phil Jackson would have taken a team with Melo and Amare both healthy (not sure where you get that they were less than 100%) and made the 2nd round of the playoffs in the Eastern Conference. No doubt in my mind. This is the same Eastern conference where the Atlanta Hawks made the 2nd round.

Also, the D'antoni argument goes both ways. If D'antoni inflated Nash's #s, then he also made Nash a defender. The two coaches Nash has had for almost his entire career told him not to worry about defense at all, so if those coach's get credit for inflating his stats, they also get blame for making him a defender.

[lefty]

I got an autograph from d'Antoni

While he was signing it, I told him I was a SPurs fan


He didnt like that



So yeah, him

[Killakobe81]

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.



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.

Fair points and to be honest I would probably choose Nash ...but I think Kidd is one of the ultimate intangible players that guys like Lebron, Kobe and even Duncan have ALL expressed a desire to play with. Things like that matter to me im old school that way. Heck Pop was willing to trade an emerging Tony Parker for an aging Kidd.

if most of us were playing a pickup game with our live savings at stake Id think Id rather have Kidd. A great compe or can make a key steal, block or rebound he just impacts a game in so many ways. I just dont know how much I would trust him to shoot the ball late to win it even at the FT line in those situations I want Nash. So it's a tough great debate I just hate using numbers primarily to decide it just like rings only should either. But despite being in the "weaker" conference Kidd has carried two teams to the Finals and was akey contributor to a le team. If you believe they are close than to me that gives Kidd the nod. But if you dont think they are close like many stat heads do ...then i can see the edge for Nash.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Fair points and to be honest I would probably choose Nash ...but I think Kidd is one of the ultimate intangible players that guys like Lebron, Kidd and even Duncan have ALL expressed a desire to play with. Things like that matter to me im old school that way. Heck Pop was willing to trade an emerging Tony Parker for an aging Kidd.

if most of us were playing a pickup game with our live savings at stake Id think Id rather have Kidd. A great compe or can make a key steal, block or rebound he just impacts a game in so many ways. I just dont know how much I would trust him to shoot the ball late to win it even at the FT line in those situations I want Nash. So it's a tough great debate I just hate using numbers primarily to decide it just like rings only should either. But despite being in the "weaker" conference Kidd has carried two teams to the Finals and was akey contributor to a le team. If you believe they are close than to me that gives Kidd the nod. But if you dont think they are close like many stat heads do ...then i can see the edge for Nash.

IMO Kidd became a great intangible player later on in his career when he took a lesser role with Dallas. That's another reason why I say career Kidd > career Nash, he eventually took a lesser role and figured out ways other than dominating the ball to help his team win, but peak Kidd wasn't the intangibles guy he is now. That's why the intangibles Kidd brings to the table are irrelevant to this argument.

[Killakobe81]

Phil Jackson would have taken a team with Melo and Amare both healthy (not sure where you get that they were less than 100%) and made the 2nd round of the playoffs in the Eastern Conference. No doubt in my mind. This is the same Eastern conference where the Atlanta Hawks made the 2nd round.

Also, the D'antoni argument goes both ways. If D'antoni inflated Nash's #s, then he also made Nash a defender. The two coaches Nash has had for almost his entire career told him not to worry about defense at all, so if those coach's get credit for inflating his stats, they also get blame for making him a defender.

Posted by Ben Golliver.

New York Knicks All-Star forward Amar'e Stoudemire carried his team to the NBA playoffs for the first time in seven seasons last year, but we tend to forget that he collapsed almost immediately upon arrival. The Knicks were swept out of the Eastern Conference first round by the Boston Celtics and Stoudemire was a s of his former self, averaging just 14.5 points and 7.8 rebounds, thanks to a pulled back muscle.

And

Carmelo Anthony played through an inflamed elbow — officially chronic bursitis — during the end of last season and through the playoffs.Is finally 100% healthy now ...

Im not saying D'antoni is great but using his scrub team from 2 years ago and last years makeshift banged up roster to crucify him makes little sense. Call him out for failing to adjust to the spurs or to shaq being in his offense ...(if he gave that deal his blessing)

[Sportstudi]

Fair points and to be honest I would probably choose Nash ...but I think Kidd is one of the ultimate intangible players that guys like Lebron, Kidd and even Duncan have ALL expressed a desire to play with. Things like that matter to me im old school that way. Heck Pop was willing to trade an emerging Tony Parker for an aging Kidd.

Interesting that Kidd wants to play with Kidd

[hater]

Crashed and burned? The best Nets team (02-03) won two games vs. the Spurs, similar to the best Suns team (06-07). At worst, Nash is equivalent, not less.

it has been proven the Nash style offensive team does not win championships. IMO I don't pick a guy that will never win one playing the way he plays.

It's been proven Kidd's style of play wins championships. I don't think there is much to talk about.

Now if you are just talking about talent on the offensive side, of course I pick Nash.

[Killakobe81]

Interesting that Kidd wants to play with Kidd

Meant Kobe, my bad.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

it has been proven the Nash style offensive team does not win championships. IMO I don't pick a guy that will never win one playing the way he plays.

It's been proven Kidd's style of play wins championships. I don't think there is much to talk about.

Now if you are just talking about talent on the offensive side, of course I pick Nash.

The way Kidd played in the late 90s and early 00s (his peak) is never gonna win a championship. Kidd's style of play last year was nothing close to his style of play in his prime. For the 15th time, Kidd's career > Nash's career, but this is an argument about who's peak was better. Neither player was ever gonna win a championship as his team's best player, that's why Kidd won a championship as Dallas's 3rd best player who had to contribute in ways other than assist whoring.

[Killakobe81]

One other thing failed to be mentioned or maybe I missed it, in his prime Kidd could take smaler PG's to the block. sure he was not a devastating scorer even then, but he was effective especially as a passer out of that spot. Personally that is something he should have developed even more ...but now that he has gotten older he does it even less.

Again I do think this is close. But I think to bash Kidd based on advanced metrics is EXACTLY why I dont trust them . Sure Kidd's jumper makes me cringe but I have seen him brick his jumper follow the rebound and make an assist of that board...he just makes plays. What about the late strips on big time scorers to win games. Im no Kidd fan per se, but I just feel some here are knocking his impact because of his poor shot and underrating his value.

Kidd is like the ultimate superstar "utility player" that excells at everything BUT shooting ...

[Killakobe81]

The way Kidd played in the late 90s and early 00s (his peak) is never gonna win a championship. Kidd's style of play last year was nothing close to his style of play in his prime. For the 15th time, Kidd's career > Nash's career, but this is an argument about who's peak was better. Neither player was ever gonna win a championship as his team's best player, that's why Kidd won a championship as Dallas's 3rd best player who had to contribute in ways other than assist whoring.

This debate says a lot about posters as far as what they style of PG they prefer.
Kidd was the "quntiessential" Spur type PG and would of been a perfect complement to Manu, robinson and duncan. Nash though would of been a great complement to the spurs too making them better on offense and my guess Bowen would of covered the elite PG's anyway, like he did to Nash.

I guess that is an argument that could be made for Nash ... in his peak that the spurs had to put Bowen on him (Cp3 and Dwill too) but kidd because he did not aggressively look to score did not force that switch as often ...

Funny thing is Kidd could score not sure why he never did just little bit more of it. Maybe he still doesnt beat Lakers or Spurs in those finals but they get closer IMHO ...

[HarlemHeat37]

The way Kidd played in the late 90s and early 00s (his peak) is never gonna win a championship. Kidd's style of play last year was nothing close to his style of play in his prime. For the 15th time, Kidd's career > Nash's career, but this is an argument about who's peak was better. Neither player was ever gonna win a championship as his team's best player, that's why Kidd won a championship as Dallas's 3rd best player who had to contribute in ways other than assist whoring.

Exactly..and again, role player Kidd transformed his game..he became a 40+% 3-point threat, he did not have the ball in his hands as much, which allowed him to focus on D to guard dominant swingmen(Kobe, Wade, Lebron) and allow a true #1 in Nowitzki to lead the team..role player Kidd still got torched by PGs, but it didn't matter, because they aren't as valuable as elite swingmen, at least IMO..

I don't think Nash would have any chance at being the role player that Kidd has become, and while I don't think you could win a le with either as your #1, I do think you could win with Nash as your #2, but I don't feel the same way about Kidd, his style of play, at his peak, is too difficult to build a le team around..

Before anybody mentions that he took a team to the Finals, he was playing in arguably the worst conference in NBA history..as I displayed in my previous post, he couldn't even lead the Nets to a top 15 offense..

[JMarkJohns]

it has been proven the Nash style offensive team does not win championships.

It's been proven Kidd's style of play wins championships. I don't think there is much to talk about.

What the are you talking about?

Where did Kidd in his prime win a le? His role-player won le last season doesn't factor in.

Neither player won in their primes. And save the tired "finals appearances" . Those finals appearances mean about as much as Nash's two MVPs, as they were achieved in a watered down conference against much lesser compe ion. If you bothered to read the thread (or at least first page of posts), you'd see how many Nash supporters aren't even using the MVPs because of this, and how disqualified the Finals arguments for Kidd have become.

[JMarkJohns]

Interesting that Kidd wants to play with Kidd

After witnessing his daddy belt his mommy over a french fry, I'm not sure Kidd's kid wants to play with Kidd.

[Killakobe81]

Exactly..and again, role player Kidd transformed his game..he became a 40+% 3-point threat, he did not have the ball in his hands as much, which allowed him to focus on D to guard dominant swingmen(Kobe, Wade, Lebron) and allow a true #1 in Nowitzki to lead the team..role player Kidd still got torched by PGs, but it didn't matter, because they aren't as valuable as elite swingmen, at least IMO..

I don't think Nash would have any chance at being the role player that Kidd has become, and while I don't think you could win a le with either as your #1, I do think you could win with Nash as your #2, but I don't feel the same way about Kidd, his style of play, at his peak, is too difficult to build a le team around..

Before anybody mentions that he took a team to the Finals, he was playing in arguably the worst conference in NBA history..as I displayed in my previous post, he couldn't even lead the Nets to a top 15 offense..

You know, the DOK PG theory has held up for a while (since Isiah) but I dont think it is some irefutable fact it just has worked out that way. I think at their peaks if you gave Kidd (maybe Nash too) a strong #2 and #3 lets say KG and Pierce or Pau and Odom with some good role players maybe either could of won a le. I agree a dominant swingman is probably only 2nd in value to a dominant big man (not a center necessarily Dirk is offensively dominant perimeter big) but I think either guy might of had a shot. I could be wrong ...it is an interesting theory.

Mine was to win a le you need at least 2 HOF caliber players and if you get 3 definitely win a le (except 2004 Lakers urghh) since 1980:

le teams with 3 HOF:
2008 celts
80's Lakers
80's Celts
Late 80's/90's Pistons
90's Bulls

Teams with 2:
2006 Heat* (if GP makes it and he has a strong case bump them up top)
2000's Spurs (guessing Manu makes it)
2009-2010 Lakers (ditto Pau)
1983 Sixers
2011 Mavs

Teams with 1:
Hakeem in 95(?)
Duncan in 2003(?)

Teams with none:
Pistons in 2004 an amazing effort by that team ...Chauncey ...maybe(?)

[Killakobe81]

BTW not sure if Bosh will make it but he might if Heat win 3 les ...

But Lebron and Wade are locks ...so Heat HAVE to be the favorites along with the defending champ Mavs ...IF we have a season ...

[Leetonidas]

Interesting scenario: How many les would Kidd have won had he paired up with Tim in 2003? I'm sure Parker would've been traded or left first chance he got, but I think in his prime he could be a #2 option on a championship team next to the BEST players at the time (Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, KG)

[nkdlunch]

I know

If Spurs would have traded for Kidd a few years ago Spurs would have 2 or 3 more ships



Duncan + Kidd + Ginobili

[#41 Shoot Em Up]

Let's see...DEFENSE wins championships and Nash didn't have an ounce of it.... tough choice

[Jodelo]

@JMarkJohns: I thought you were done arguing? You love Nash but you got to give people their own opinion, you try to spin it your way...

[JMarkJohns]

@JMarkJohns: I thought you were done arguing? You love Nash but you got to give people their own opinion, you try to spin it your way...

I reserve the right to backtrack on saying I'm done.

I actually don't love Nash. And I like Kidd a lot. This is a debate, so the point is to argue back and forth. The only Suns PG I have ever loved watching was Kevin Johnson, because, in his prime, he could do everything, could lead, and won.

[HarlemHeat37]

Spurs still win a le in 2005 with Kidd, lose to Phoenix in 2007 IMO..

[Dex]

I got an autograph from d'Antoni

While he was signing it, I told him I was a SPurs fan


He didnt like that



So yeah, him

I wish I could have seen D'Antoni's face for that.

Then again, he probably looked like he always does.