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

[Mars]

Jason Kidd's starting center

Steve nash's starting center

Steve nash couldn't get to the finals with a top 20 all-time player(Dirk Nowitzki)

A prime kidd with a prime Nowitzki would win multiple championships

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

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..

First of all this is a discussion on primes - if you're seriously trying to use him being 5th all-time in 3-pointers made (while playing more minutes than any perimeter player in history), as reasoning for him being an efficient shooting/scoring threat during his prime - you're being more disingenuous on this discussion than I initially thought.

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)

You either clearly didn't watch Kidd during his prime or have a bad memory. Kidd would regularly not look for his shot and even pass up an open shot in NJ/and in his prime, which was one of the main reasons why those Nets squads played at a slow pace and had poor offenses because his reluctance to shoot/score, and he was horribly inefficient to boot (he shot 39% while he was in NJ).

He attempted 12.7 shots a game while playing 37 minutes - scoring 14.3 ppg as the main ballhandler in NJ - clearly that's a strong indication of someone who doesn't look for his shot too often. For comparison when Rondo averaged 37 minutes or near he averaged 11 shots scoring 13.7 ppg (2010), 9.9 shots scoring 10.6 ppg (2011), 10.8 shots scoring 11.9 ppg (2012) and 11.7 shots to score 11.7 points (2013).

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 poll results don't have shyt to do with Kidd's prime being longer - it's mostly to do with Nash being the poster boy of white privilege. Nash was putting up 16.5 ppg on 50% shooting and 11.0 assists, orchestrating the best offense in the league when he was 35/36 years old - numbers that were better than Kidd's best season. And you wanna claim that Kidd's prime was longer than Nash's? Let me reiterate that -

NASH HAD MORE OFFENSIVE IMPACT AT AGE 35-36 THAN KIDD EVER HAD. NASH HAD MORE OFFENSIVE IMPACT AT AGE 35-36 THAN KIDD EVER HAD

Nash then followed up that with a 14.7 ppg on 49% shooting and 11.4 assists season at age 36-37.

Did you conveniently forget that Kidd was traded by Dallas for poor play and in-house friction? Did you conveniently forget that Nash was unfortunate that he was drafted to a team where he was 4th on the depth chart?

Nash was out there leading some of the greatest offenses this league has ever seen (which were a byproduct of not only his ability to run a fluid offense but because he was one of the greatest shooters this game has ever seen while being ultra efficient from every area on the floor) just about every season of his prime (not just once or twice - but multiple times), Kidd not only couldn't lead ONE top-10 offense in NJ but they were some of 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)

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..

These are their career averages on the same minutes:

Kidd: 12 ppg on 40% shooting and 8.7 assists
Nash: 16 ppg on 49% shooting and 9.8 assists

If we're talking about primes:

Kidd (99-08): 14 ppg on 40% shooting and 9.0 assists
Nash (02-11): 17 ppg on 50% shooting and 10.6 assists

Checkmate.

 

[Reggie]

Pretty much whenever he was one of the main players on a team. He crippled the effectiveness of his teams' offenses, because of his inability to score.

But he was always one of the main players on the team in his prime and he had a lot of playoff runs before the Nets that proved he had to be effective enough to lead a team there.

 

[Cynical Thoughts]

I know you said primes. But I picked Kidd solely of that lakers series when he put the deadbolts on Kobe as an old man.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

But he was always one of the main players on the team in his prime and he had a lot of playoff runs before the Nets that proved he had to be effective enough to lead a team there.

i) He was in the East during arguably its weakest period - Nets would be lucky to get out of the first round in the West
ii) While the Nets were average to bad on offense, they had one of the best defenses in the league

 

[CarltonJunior]

What about the defense he played on Kobe and Durant at times as well? You do realize the Heat weren't the only team they played that year?

You can toss kidd in there but he wasnt the main reason they won. Dirk was ON ONE offensively, and Tyson anchored that D which made it easier for everyone

 

[Draje]

For all the people who keep spouting this BS about how Kidd got to the Finals...

Do any of you think that those Nets would get to the Finals in the West and that Nash's Suns wouldn't be the best team in the East pretty much every year that the Nets made the playoffs even?

Nash is one of the BEST off the dribble shooters of all time. I don't think nikkas watched Nash in his prime. The dude is Diet Curry as a scorer but a better passer.

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

Jason Kidd's starting center

Steve nash's starting center

Steve nash couldn't get to the finals with a top 20 all-time player(Dirk Nowitzki)

A prime kidd with a prime Nowitzki would win multiple championships

amare missed an entire season and the suns didn't really miss a beat, and would have still probably washed the 02 nets.

 

[Reggie]

i) He was in the East during arguably its weakest period - Nets would be lucky to get out of the first round in the West
ii) While the Nets were average to bad on offense, they had one of the best defenses in the league

He also balled in the West too and led the Suns to the playoffs. And they were average to bad on offense cause look at the players they had out there. Not an elite scorer in the bunch unless you consider RJ that back in those days. And having a great defense had a lot to do with Kidd. Defense=another reason why I take Kidd over Nash.

 

[AlbertPullhoez]

Nash ain't even better than Gary Payton

 

[Art Barr]

Can we have better choices to choose from,....like for real.


Art Barr

 

[MooseMouthMthafuga]

Back in '96/'97, the Suns PG rotation was J Kidd, Kevin Johnson, and Steve Nash

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

He also balled in the West too and led the Suns to the playoffs.

This discussion is on primes. What do you deem as his prime? Lets say for arguments sake here that his prime started when he was 26:

1999/2000 Suns - 16th ranked offense (Kidd averaged 39 minutes at 26)
2000/2001 Suns - 22nd ranked offense (Kidd averaged 39.8 minutes at 27)

Including his time in NJ, that's NINE straight seasons of either leading an average or bad offense. I don't wanna hear about what scorers did he have on those squads either - he played with Penny, Clifford, Gugliotta and Marion (there's FOUR players right there who were capable of getting 20 any given night - that's my cue to tag @threattonature).

And they were average to bad on offense cause look at the players they had out there.

Penny was a capable 20-pt scorer, even despite the injuries (he played 60 games with Kidd in 2000)
Clifford despite at the tail end of his prime was a capable 20-pt scorer
Gugliotta was a capable 20-pt scorer, who also had a few injuries
Marion was a capable 20-pt scorer despite being in his early/mid 20s

Nash was leading the league's best offense (in fact it was one of the best offenses of the modern era) with a starting lineup of Raja Bell, Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw and Kurt Thomas. I mean why are you making all these excuses about 'look at the players Kid was surrounded with in Phoenix/NJ', as if he's some role player? If he's this great all-encompassing PG, shouldn't he be able to take any kinds of talent and orchestrate a good/great offense?

I mean from the age of 26 to age 35 the offenses he was in charge of ranked - 16th, 22nd, 17th, 18th, 25th, 26th, 25th, 16th, 25th.

Not an elite scorer in the bunch unless you consider RJ that back in those days. And having a great defense had a lot to do with Kidd. Defense=another reason why I take Kidd over Nash.

I guess you could say that, but then again you can only have so much impact on the defensive end from the PG position. He was a unique talent on defense (who lived off reputation for a few years), but he really was in essence a net negative on offense (where a PG"s impact is most had). I go back to my Magic example a few posts before; Magic was a only a competent defender on his best day, and was often put on the worst perimeter player because his [lack of] defense could be hidden, yet his influence/impact is nearly unmatched at the PG position because of what he did on offense. You can't hide your PG or cover up his inabilities on offense so easily, because they handle the ball. The PG more or less anchors the offense and the C or PF typically anchors the defense - if either of them are average or poor in these areas it's going to affect the team more than on the other end.

Take for instance Greg Monroe, the Bucks had one of, if not the worst defense in the league with him in the starting lineup (the Bucks have one of the best defenses since moving him to the bench) - which despite him being a decent pretty good offensive player, he held the team back because he's a poor defensive anchor. Similar applies to Kidd, he anchored the offense on all those teams from age 26 to age 35 (which were average to poor), yet his inefficient offensive play and the lack of being an offensive threat held back those teams in similar fashion.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I wonder if this board will ever have a reasonable discussion when it comes to Nash?

 

[Reggie]

This discussion is on primes. What do you deem as his prime? Lets say for arguments sake here that his prime started when he was 26:

1999/2000 Suns - 16th ranked offense (Kidd averaged 39 minutes at 26)
2000/2001 Suns - 22nd ranked offense (Kidd averaged 39.8 minutes at 27)

Including his time in NJ, that's NINE straight seasons of either leading an average or bad offense. I don't wanna hear about what scorers did he have on those squads either - he played with Penny, Clifford, Gugliotta and Marion (there's FOUR players right there who were capable of getting 20 any given night - that's my cue to tag @threattonature).

Penny was a capable 20-pt scorer, even despite the injuries (he played 60 games with Kidd in 2000)
Clifford despite at the tail end of his prime was a capable 20-pt scorer
Gugliotta was a capable 20-pt scorer, who also had a few injuries
Marion was a capable 20-pt scorer despite being in his early/mid 20s

Nash was leading the league's best offense (in fact it was one of the best offenses of the modern era) with a starting lineup of Raja Bell, Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw and Kurt Thomas. I mean why are you making all these excuses about 'look at the players Kid was surrounded with in Phoenix/NJ', as if he's some role player? If he's this great all-encompassing PG, shouldn't he be able to take any kinds of talent and orchestrate a good/great offense?

I mean from the age of 26 to age 35 the offenses he was in charge of ranked - 16th, 22nd, 17th, 18th, 25th, 26th, 25th, 16th, 25th.

I guess you could say that, but then again you can only have so much impact on the defensive end from the PG position. He was a unique talent on defense (who lived off reputation for a few years), but he really was in essence a net negative on offense (where a PG"s impact is most had). I go back to my Magic example a few posts before; Magic was a only a competent defender on his best day, and was often put on the worst perimeter player because his [lack of] defense could be hidden, yet his influence/impact is nearly unmatched at the PG position because of what he did on offense. You can't hide your PG or cover up his inabilities on offense so easily, because they handle the ball. The PG more or less anchors the offense and the C or PF typically anchors the defense - if either of them are average or poor in these areas it's going to affect the team more than on the other end.

Take for instance Greg Monroe, the Bucks had one of, if not the worst defense in the league with him in the starting lineup (the Bucks have one of the best defenses since moving him to the bench) - which despite him being a decent pretty good offensive player, he held the team back because he's a poor defensive anchor. Similar applies to Kidd, he anchored the offense on all those teams from age 26 to age 35 (which were average to poor), yet his inefficient offensive play and the lack of being an offensive threat held back those teams in similar fashion.

You bring up all these points to make your opinion known but you are beating a dead horse here. I have gave Nash his props and think he was great but I still take Kidd over him all day. Sorry if you feel different.