In their primes, who do you take: Nash or Jkidd

[threattonature]

This is easily Kidd to me. I have no problem with anybody having Nash as a better offensive player, but the huge gap in defense would easily lead me to take Kidd over Nash. Even offensively as much as I hate the phrase making players better I truly believe Kidd was better at that than Nash. Nash gets credit for it but during his prime he played with Dirk, Finley, Amare, Joe Johnson, Marion all in their primes. He got to play with an upcoming in-shape Boris Diaw, prime Antwan Jamison, slightly past prime Jerry Stackhouse and Antoine Walker. All players that were able to shine away from Nash (minus maybe Marion). So it's easy to say Nash's offenses performed better when in reality he also had a lot better offensive players around him than Kidd. Kidd had Richard Jefferson and Kenyon looking like legit all stars.

I mean seriously look at the rosters of some of those Suns teams that Kidd was leading into the playoffs. A post surgery McDyess, Cliff Robinson, Gugliotta, Rex Chapman were some of the leading scorers on those teams yet they were still successful. Kidd just knows how to run a team and get the most out of players around them and was just a winner.

All that's not to totally short change Nash cause he was a great player but to attribute all of his team's offensive success to him while ignoring all the talent he had the blessing to play with is just ridiculous.

 

[Aufheben]

kidd easy nikkas gotta be crazy

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Kidd clearly had more impact on the game, whereas Nash was a hindrance to his team's defense- which is really irrefutable..

I knew some comment of that nature was coming.

Here's the problem with that - not only can you have so much impact on defense from the PG position, but you can cover poor/average PG defense if you have a good defensive anchor/wing and scheme. Nash was never a great or dominant defender, but he was a smart one (in similar vein to Ginobili) who wouldn't make unnecessary gambles, held his ground and was one of the best guards at drawing offensive fouls. As opposed to the offensive side of the ball where most of a PG's impact is had (because they handle the ball like a center protects the rim/paint - anchors of the offense/defense) - where Nash's influence/impact was on the same level as the all-time greats - Kidd on the other hand, while being a gifted passer and having exceptional vision held his teams' offenses back by shrinking the floor and putting his offense in constant situations of playing 4 v 5 because he was scared to shoot/score and he was unable to shoot/score. Which had a domino effect on the entire offense.

Magic is a good example (don't take this as me saying Nash and Magic are equals on defense) - who was only competent on his best day, leading Riley often had to hide on defense if he was matched up with a waterbug guard - yet it basically had minimal bearing on his impact on the game because of the role he played and the influence he had on offense. Similar applies to Nash.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

This is easily Kidd to me. I have no problem with anybody having Nash as a better offensive player, but the huge gap in defense would easily lead me to take Kidd over Nash. Even offensively as much as I hate the phrase making players better I truly believe Kidd was better at that than Nash. Nash gets credit for it but during his prime he played with Dirk, Finley, Amare, Joe Johnson, Marion all in their primes. He got to play with an upcoming in-shape Boris Diaw, prime Antwan Jamison, slightly past prime Jerry Stackhouse and Antoine Walker. All players that were able to shine away from Nash (minus maybe Marion). So it's easy to say Nash's offenses performed better when in reality he also had a lot better offensive players around him than Kidd. Kidd had Richard Jefferson and Kenyon looking like legit all stars.

I mean seriously look at the rosters of some of those Suns teams that Kidd was leading into the playoffs. A post surgery McDyess, Cliff Robinson, Gugliotta, Rex Chapman were some of the leading scorers on those teams yet they were still successful. Kidd just knows how to run a team and get the most out of players around them and was just a winner.

All that's not to totally short change Nash cause he was a great player but to attribute all of his team's offensive success to him while ignoring all the talent he had the blessing to play with is just ridiculous.

Nash was the main reason those teams had all-time great offenses though - similar to Curry. This is a list from a few seasons ago on the best offenses -

1. 2007 Phoenix Suns
2. 2005 Phoenix Suns
3. 1971 Milwaukee Bucks
4. 2010 Phoenix Suns
5. 1982 Denver Nuggets
6. 2004 Dallas Mavericks
7. 1975 Houston Rockets
8. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers
9. 2004 Sacremento Kings
10. 2006 Phoenix Suns
11. 2009 Phoenix Suns

That 2006 Phoenix squad produced more offense than any team that Jordan and Wilt were a part of. Kidd's teams were successful because of their defense, not because of their offense (where Kidd held them back offensively - which I've stated many times in this thread). Nash was out there leading an all-time great offense with Bell, Marion, Diaw and Thomas as his main players.

 

[CrimsonTider]

There has only been one player in the history of all 4 major professional sports that has multiple MVPs without ever leading his team to a Championship game/series....

We are speaking about a level of overatedness never experienced before..Even in the history of overrated CACdom, Nash is a unique case...

MVP is a regular season award.

 

[threattonature]

Nash was the main reason those teams had all-time great offenses though - similar to Curry. This is a list from a few seasons ago on the best offenses -

1. 2007 Phoenix Suns
2. 2005 Phoenix Suns
3. 1971 Milwaukee Bucks
4. 2010 Phoenix Suns
5. 1982 Denver Nuggets
6. 2004 Dallas Mavericks
7. 1975 Houston Rockets
8. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers
9. 2004 Sacremento Kings
10. 2006 Phoenix Suns
11. 2009 Phoenix Suns

That 2006 Phoenix squad produced more offense than any team that Jordan and Wilt were a part of. Kidd's teams were successful because of their defense, not because of their offense (where Kidd held them back offensively - which I've stated many times in this thread). Nash was out there leading an all-time great offense with Bell, Marion, Diaw and Thomas as his main players.

Before I argue this what stat are you using to define best offenses of all time?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Before I argue this what stat are you using to define best offenses of all time?

Points produced per 100p which in general is the best measurement for how a good/efficient a team's offense is - especially if you're comparing players of the same era.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

MVP is a regular season award.

Not only that but it's stupid to use that against Nash and the Suns, in an argument for Kidd - when those Nets teams would barely make it out of the first round in the West.

 

[threattonature]

Points produced per 100p which in general is the best measurement for how a good/efficient a team's offense is - especially if you're comparing players of the same era.

I'm saying where's the source. I'm showing the 2006 Mavs from that same season having a higher offensive rating from that season alone with 111.8 compared to 111.5 for the Suns that year which isn't reflected in your list.

2005-06 NBA Season Summary | Basketball-Reference.com

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I'm saying where's the source. I'm showing the 2006 Mavs from that same season having a higher offensive rating from that season alone with 111.8 compared to 111.5 for the Suns that year which isn't reflected in your list.

2005-06 NBA Season Summary | Basketball-Reference.com

NBA.com/Stats - 2006 offensive rankings

Suns - #1
Mavericks - #2

From my memory - the rankings also have a qualifier of shooting efficiency on FG attempts - which I'm unsure of. I had this shyt saved from an email a while ago.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

@threattonature it's actually based on offensive rating in the regular season AND postseason.

 

[threattonature]

NBA.com/Stats - 2006 offensive rankings

Suns - #1
Mavericks - #2

From my memory - the rankings also have a qualifier of shooting efficiency on FG attempts - which I'm unsure of. I had this shyt saved from an email a while ago.

As far as Kidd and Nash go though, I don't think the difference in 3 point shooting makes that big of a difference. I think if you surround Kidd with the offensive talent Nash played with he could lead a great offense. I don't think he would have been as great as Nash's lead teams offensively but I think Kidd's ability just to stay in front of his man would've helped make up for the Suns lack of interior defense to offset that difference.

You keep bringing up the rankings of Kidd's team offenses but can you point me to one roster that Kidd played on that should've been a great offensive team? During his prime years did he even play with another player that could get 20 a game? So it only makes sense that his team's finished as average offensive teams.

 

[OG Talk]

I knew some comment of that nature was coming.

Here's the problem with that - not only can you have so much impact on defense from the PG position, but you can cover poor/average PG defense if you have a good defensive anchor/wing and scheme. Nash was never a great or dominant defender, but he was a smart one (in similar vein to Ginobili) who wouldn't make unnecessary gambles, held his ground and was one of the best guards at drawing offensive fouls. As opposed to the offensive side of the ball where most of a PG's impact is had (because they handle the ball like a center protects the rim/paint - anchors of the offense/defense) - where Nash's influence/impact was on the same level as the all-time greats - Kidd on the other hand, while being a gifted passer and having exceptional vision held his teams' offenses back by shrinking the floor and putting his offense in constant situations of playing 4 v 5 because he was scared to shoot/score and he was unable to shoot/score. Which had a domino effect on the entire offense.

Magic is a good example (don't take this as me saying Nash and Magic are equals on defense) - who was only competent on his best day and who Riley often tried to hide on defense if he was matched up with a waterbug guard - yet it basically had minimal bearing on his impact on the game because of the role he played. Similar applies to Nash.

Yeah you couldn't have really watched Kidd play... He came in the league as a poor shooter but ended up 5th all time in 3 pointers made.. While Nash isn't even top 10..

You cannot label someone as scared to shoot when they end up in the top 5 all time in the history of the league for 3s made. (That's why you bringing up Rondo earlier is a total red herring)

The part that makes this debate and poll results so uneven is that Kidds prime was way longer than Nash's. Because from the moment he was drafted and won Co-Rookie of Year, till when he retired as a contributing rotation player on a Championship team..He was a higher impact talent than Nash..Kidd never "fell off"..He never had to wait for a trade, injury or new coaching philosophy to get his shot..He was always that nicca..

The reason he played more minutes, made more 3s, had more steals, had more assists, had more rebounds,had more Finals appearances and won more rings than Nash is because he was better..

The NBA isn't a charity or an affirmative action cause..The better players get more opportunities..Kidd wasn't "lucky" like you said earlier as to why he played more minutes than Nash.. He was just better..

Who else in the history of the league is top 5 in assists, steals and 3 pointers made? Kidd is literally in a class of his own..

Coli agrees (this poll is the closest to a consensus as this forum will get)..

His peers agree (see the Open Court discussion)

I know it's cliche to say, but it's really not up for debate..We're wasting wi fi space and unnecessarily killing cellphone batteries..

Peace to the gods..

 

[OG Talk]

MVP is a regular season award.

It's still makes him the ultimate anomaly when it comes to individual awards in team sports.. It has nothing to do with this "debate".. It's just anecdotal fodder on how far the bar was lowered so that this guy can even have his name mentioned among the greats..

Since it's been established that Nash wasn't better than Kidd.. I want that poster to come back and explain how Nash revolutionized the sport..

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

As far as Kidd and Nash go though, I don't think the difference in 3 point shooting makes that big of a difference.

It's not just 3-pt shooting - it's efficient shooting/scoring and being a legitimate threat to score - Kidd not only didn't opt to look for his shot which led to teams giving him a cushion and helping on other players (4 vs 5 situations; shrinking the floor) but he was inefficient when he did try and score.

I think if you surround Kidd with the offensive talent Nash played with he could lead a great offense. I don't think he would have been as great as Nash's lead teams offensively but I think Kidd's ability just to stay in front of his man would've helped make up for the Suns lack of interior defense to offset that difference.

Yet Nash led a historically great offense with a starting lineup of Bell, Marion, Diaw and Thomas. Give him those same Nets lineups and the offensive freedom that Kidd had in NJ and they'd be one of the best offenses in the league, as well as having a good defense with the strong defensive scheme those Byron Scott squads had.

You keep bringing up the rankings of Kidd's team offenses but can you point me to one roster that Kidd played on that should've been a great offensive team?

Again, he's suppose to be this great PG, with incredible vision and floor generalship who made his teammates and teams better - yet there's no evidence of this actually being true. Nash proved he could lead not just league-best offenses, but all-time great offenses with all types of talent and styles.

During his prime years did he even play with another player that could get 20 a game? So it only makes sense that his team's finished as average offensive teams.

Again, that's mostly down to him being unable to run a great offense - which ties in to my next point that he wasn't an efficient, top end scorer to pick the offensive production that his personnel weren't capable of. Those Nets squads weren't just average offensive teams, some of them were the worst in the league.

2001/02 Nets - 17th ranked offfense (Kidd averaged 37 minutes)
2002/03 Nets - 18th ranked offense (Kidd averaged 37 minutes)
2003/04 Nets - 25th ranked offense (Kidd averaged 36 minutes)
2004/05 Nets - 26th ranked offense (Kidd averaged 36 minutes)
2005/06 Nets - 25th ranked offense (Kidd averaged 37 minutes)
2006/07 Nets - 16th ranked offense (Kidd averaged 36 minutes)
2007/08 Nets - 25th ranked offense (Kidd averaged 36 minutes)