Reply With Quote
Jesus, is this a joke?
Kidd easily, even with the wife-beating, having two teams give up on him, and forcing an exit from a third team when they wouldn't extend his contract. How is this even a debate?
They are talking about this on ESPN right now.
Jesus, is this a joke?
Kidd easily, even with the wife-beating, having two teams give up on him, and forcing an exit from a third team when they wouldn't extend his contract. How is this even a debate?
Not a bad question. Obviously, different types of players.
I'd go Iverson and I think it's not even that hard of a decision. I think the main thing that would have people lean towards Kidd is how Iverson's last two seasons went. If you look at both of their respective careers, Iverson has been the more dominant player.
Not to say Kidd hasn't been great as well, because he has. Iverson had a better career.
Allen Iverson had an MVP. Jason Kidd does not. Both currently have 0 rings. Lets break it down more in-depth. Both had rookie of the year awards.
Allen Iverson led the league in scoring in 4 seasons. He has a career average of 27.0 points. For his career, he had a field goal percentage of 42.5%, which is not a bad percentage for a volume scorer who is the only scorer on his team in Philly. He is also a 10 time all-star. He also led the league in steals for 3 seperate seasons. His career average for assists are 6.2. He is a 3 time all-nba first team member and another 3 times for the second team with a one time 3rd team.
Jason Kidd, on the other hand, is now the 2nd all time leader in assists behind Stockton. 3rd all time in regular season triple doubles. 2nd in triple doubles in the playoffs. Averaged a triple double in a playoff series. The stats do not favor Kidd as he had a career FG% lesser than Allen Iverson with 40.2 percent with a scoring average of 13.8. He averaged 9.2 assists per game. Kidd is also a multiple time all defensive team member with 4 times in the 1st team and 5 times in the 2nd team. He is also a 9 time all-star.
In conclusion, Jason Kidd still has his career going on and his game goes beyond the stats. People hate Iverson now but they will realise that the former MVP's legacy is unheard of and probably never happen again. Iverson will have the edge for now as a tribute of how great a player he is.
See, I think it's easily Kidd, and I don't understand the logic behind Iverson at all. Yeah, he scored a lot of points on 9-26 shooting nights, and he was definitely a gamer who always left everything on the court and was a warrior. But he was never a winner, and the last two years have definitely proven it. Kidd may not have been a teddy bear off the court or in the locker room, but he made his teammates better and elevated a good but far from great Jersey team to two Finals appearances. You can't say that about Iverson. He didn't make his teammates better, and he never accepted sacrificing his touches or stats for better team play. The 01 Sixers team basically revolved around him taking all the shots and the other 4 guys on the court playing defense and chasing down all the misses. And when their skills began to wane, Kidd reinvented himself as a very good complementary player who could still help good teams win, while Iverson pouted himself out of the league.
Kidd elevated a New Jersey team by playing the right way, for lack of a better term. Sorry about the cliche. Iverson got a pass for years because he didn't have a lot of talent around him in Philly. Well, we saw what happened when he finally got a good collection of talent in Denver. They struggled to make the playoffs and got bounced as a 7th or 8th seed, while Chauncey Billups took that same cast to the conference finals. Then whereas Detroit had been in the upper echelon of the league for years, they cratered with Iverson taking Billup's place on the roster.
Kidd has always helped his teams win, and only got run out of town for things that had little to do with basketball (losing a power struggle to Jim Cleamons, beating his wife, not getting a contract extension). I agree that those things should count against him, and with both Kidd and Iverson we're talking about lofty expectations unfulfilled, but I would've rather had Kidd's career than Iverson. Easily.
Who gives a about MVP awards? Was Iverson the best player in the league in 2001? Was Dirk the best player in the league in 2007? Was Nash the best player in the league in 2005 and 2006? You're going to have to do better than pointing to MVP awards as part of the reason why Iverson should get the nod over Kidd for a better career.
Kidd for sure, the defensive differences give him the edge.
Ask their contemporaries who they'd rather play with -- the guy who gets them the ball where they want it and makes them more effective and gets everybody involved...or the guy who shoots 9-26 from the floor while you get to stand around and watch.
As a fan, I probably would've bought a ticket to see Iverson over Kidd in their primes. Definitely the more exhilarating player to watch, but as a GM or coach, Kidd ten times out of ten. This isn't really a debate in my mind.
If Iverson was never a winner, than neither was Kidd. If you want to talk about the better teammate or the better leader, I'd likely concede that to Kidd. If you talk about better career, I give it to Iverson.
Kidd made two NBA Finals in very likely the two worst compe ion the Eastern Conference ever saw in the history of the NBA Eastern Conference. And, he had talent on his team with RJ, K-Mart, Van Horn, Kittles. Iverson put the Sixers on his back to get to the NBA Finals with their second best player being Aaron McKie. Come on now. And that season, the Heat and the Knicks were still decent teams.
I think it's "easily" Iverson because I feel he was the better player, I feel his numbers are better, he has a league MVP, and he carried his team more so than Kidd did any of his teams.
Detroit was a catastrophe and Iverson takes plenty of blame, but so does Dumars and Michael Curry for trying to make Iverson something he isn't. If you want to question Iverson's ability to play with other players, that's fair.
The question remains: who had the better career?
I think Iverson hate and how he is leaving the NBA based on his at ude and perception that he can play only one certain way gives people bias against him. He is probably the greatest 6 foot and under player the league has ever seen. He is in the same group as players like LeBron and Magic and KG in that their freakish athleticism, size, and abilities make you simply believe you're not seeing what you're seeing. How can that small a person lead the NBA in scoring, dominate players bigger than him, never get tired playing 42+ minutes a game. Iverson was and probably still is a "freak of nature" athlete. There are a lot of criticisms that are justified about him. But his career pretty much speaks for itself in terms of what he was able to do on the court.
The question isn't who NBA players would rather play with or who GMs or coaches would want to lead their teams.
The question is, "who had a better career?"
You're letting your feelings dictate your answer, and you're not answering the question really. Better career.
Not better winner, better teammate, better leader. Better career.
It's not just offensive, Kidd's impact on defense is so underrated.
The last season the Suns had Kidd, they were 2nd in the NBA for defensive rating. The following season, they were 12th.
The season before the Nets had Kidd, they were 23rd in defensive rating. Then, they got Kidd, and were 1st in NBA defensive rating.
No weaker than the year A.I. made the finals.
How is Kidd not a winner? He was the best player on two Finals runner-ups. He's not Shareef Abdur-Rahim. He made his teammates better. I don't think those kinds of things are mutually exclusive when you talk about who had the better career. I value a guy who won more and elevated his teammates. You can have the 9-26 shooting nights.
Kidd went to Finals twice and had to get past a very good Pistons team to get there. If you want to make the Leastern Conference argument, Kidd did it twice, Iverson only did it once.Kidd made two NBA Finals in very likely the two worst compe ion the Eastern Conference ever saw in the history of the NBA Eastern Conference. And, he had talent on his team with RJ, K-Mart, Van Horn, Kittles. Iverson put the Sixers on his back to get to the NBA Finals with their second best player being Aaron McKie. Come on now. And that season, the Heat and the Knicks were still decent teams.
Well, that explains a lot, when you point to an MVP award and say his numbers were better. I don't care about MVP awards. Shaq was the best player in the league in 2001, not Iverson. That carries no weight with me. Iverson "carried" his teams to what, a perennial second-round exit in the Least? Everybody who ever played with Kidd agrees he got the most out of his teammates.I think it's "easily" Iverson because I feel he was the better player, I feel his numbers are better, he has a league MVP, and he carried his team more so than Kidd did any of his teams.
Kidd has always been the alpha dog on his teams, and has easily accepted his role as a complementary player in Dallas. Why couldn't Iverson be a 6th man? His pride and hubris and lack of self-awareness got in the way. Kidd has had no problem coming to terms with the fact that it's not 2002 anymore.Detroit was a catastrophe and Iverson takes plenty of blame, but so does Dumars and Michael Curry for trying to make Iverson something he isn't. If you want to question Iverson's ability to play with other players, that's fair.
KiddThe question remains: who had the better career?
All you're basically saying is that he was an incredible athlete. And I agree. And I also agree he got a bit of a bad rap based on irrelevant things like cornrows and tats. I respect his game and think he accomplished a lot. But based on the things that matter to me, winning, unselfishness and harnessing your talents to a team concept, Kidd was the better player and had the much better career.I think Iverson hate and how he is leaving the NBA based on his at ude and perception that he can play only one certain way gives people bias against him. He is probably the greatest 6 foot and under player the league has ever seen. He is in the same group as players like LeBron and Magic and KG in that their freakish athleticism, size, and abilities make you simply believe you're not seeing what you're seeing. How can that small a person lead the NBA in scoring, dominate players bigger than him, never get tired playing 42+ minutes a game. Iverson was and probably still is a "freak of nature" athlete. There are a lot of criticisms that are justified about him. But his career pretty much speaks for itself in terms of what he was able to do on the court.
Better career encompasses winning, accomplishments, and harnessing your talents within a team concept. What good is it if you can score 35 points on 35 shot attempts and have a couple of highlight reel plays on SportsCenter if that doesn't translate into success on the court? Kidd's skillset lent itself more to success in the NBA. Iverson would probably demolish him in a game on 1-on-1 in their primes. But I think Kidd is the better player for the reasons that I've enumerated. Better player, better career.
Much weaker.
Miami and New York were good teams in 2000-01.
New Jersey's best compe ion was the pre-Rasheed Pistons in 2002-03 in their first year with Billups and Hamilton.
Kidd
Close this ing thread
Why does "harnessing [his] talents" have to be "within a team concept" when evaluating a player's career? Seems like you're just making up stuff to skew things towards Kidd.
It can go back to the argument over who is a better player between Robert Horry and Karl Malone.
There's little debate that Kidd helped teams win in his way. Iverson did the same in his way. Team success does not lay on the shoulders of one player. Look at the players Kidd has played with from Mash and JJ to Marion and Penny to K-Mart and RJ and VC to Dirk. Kidd had better team success because throughout his career, he had better teams. Last year with the Pistons was a disaster for Iverson, but more things went wrong with that team than just Iverson. The 2007-08 New Jersey Nets season was a disaster as well when Kidd demanded a trade. It's not just one player.
Iverson had the more impressive career to me. And, I think it's pretty easy to come to that conclusion.
The 76ers had to play the Pacers, Raptors and Bucks, that's not any stronger than New Jersey's road to the finals.
It means Kidd's skillset made his teammates better (superior passing skills, court vision, basketball IQ, tenacious defense) which led to winning. I'll grant you that Iverson would be a better 1-on-1 player or would make more of a mark on the AndOne tour than Kidd.
Iverson's skillset lent itself to eye-popping scoring numbers and highlights on SportsCenter. Both the 01 Sixers and 02-03 Nets were built in such a way that both teams would've been worse if Kidd and Iverson were swapped for each other. But the Nets would freefall more. Kidd's skillset is more desirable for building an NBA team. Better player, better career.There's little debate that Kidd helped teams win in his way. Iverson did the same in his way.
Please, you make it sound like Kidd has been playing with the 86 Celtics and 96 Bulls his entire career. The Nets were awful before he arrived and in place of Starbury, they skyrocketed to the Finals twice. Kidd was not the same player in 2008 that he was in 2002. You could have a team built around Kidd in 2002, but not 2008. Iverson finally got the talented supporting cast in Denver and he couldn't do anything with it. I think he would demolish Billups in a game on 1-on-1 in their primes, but I'd much rather have Billups as my starting PG and I think Billups has had the better career and is the better player, even though Iverson is the superior talent. Same with Kidd. Any argument that Iverson gets a pass for not being able to win with lesser talent is invalidated by what happened in Denver. He still had to get his touches. He'd come down and shoot, then on the next possession it would be Carmelo's turn. You don't win that way. Now with Billups, they actually run an offense.Team success does not lay on the shoulders of one player. Look at the players Kidd has played with from Mash and JJ to Marion and Penny to K-Mart and RJ and VC to Dirk. Kidd had better team success because throughout his career, he had better teams. Last year with the Pistons was a disaster for Iverson, but more things went wrong with that team than just Iverson. The 2007-08 New Jersey Nets season was a disaster as well when Kidd demanded a trade. It's not just one player.
Sure...if your criteria is scoring, stats and getting on SportsCenter.Iverson had the more impressive career to me. And, I think it's pretty easy to come to that conclusion.
Pacers weren't very good.
That 2000-01 Raptors team was pretty good. That was probably Vince Carter's best season as a Raptor. Antonio Davis was also an all star that season. Considering who Iverson was working with on his team, that was pretty good compe ion.
That 2000-01 Bucks team was probably their best team in some time. Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson, and Sam Cassell all scoring about 20 ppg each and all still very much in their prime. By the time the Nets played the Bucks in the 2003 playoffs, they had already traded Allen for Payton and started to rebuild that team.
The 2001-03 Nets didn't face a team as good as either the 2000-01 Raptors or Bucks.
And Kidd did it twice, Iverson only did it once.
It's very hard to win a playoff series. Kidd got to the Finals twice, Iverson once. Even if we accept your premise that the Least was slightly weaker in 02-03 than in 01, Kidd still got to the Finals twice. How come AI couldn't get back to the Finals over the next two years in that same watered-down Least, when by your own admission it should've been easier to do so?
I wasn't aware the 2001 Raptors and Bucks were such powerhouses.
Give me a break. Kidd by a mile.
Hard to argue against Kidd as a defender, but... those team statistical rankings aren't representative of Kidd's contributions only.
First, Phoenix lost Cliff Robinson, one of the better low-post defenders in the League that same offseason they traded Kidd.
Second, New Jersey gained Kenyon Martin and Jefferson and got Kerry Kittles back from injury that same offseason they acquired Kidd. All three were plus defenders, with Martin and Kiddles being PlusPlus defenders.
Kidd was the biggest loss/gain for each example, but he wasn't the only loss/gain that factored in. Just sayin...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
