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

[Reggie]

Depends on what his role is. If he's dominating the ball like he did in NJ and during his prime - no he wouldn't. If you anchor the offense, you need to be able to score in order to have an elite offense. Half the reason Rondo still can't, even despite playing with Cousins and Gay; while playing at the fastest pace in the league. Put any good PG who can score efficiently (and be a threat of one) on that Kings squad with that offensive pacing and they'd have an elite offense.

And again, Nash led a team with starters of Raja Bell, Marion, Diaw and Kurt/Tim Thomas to not only having the best offense in the league but it was a top-10 offense of the modern era at that time - all the way to a 54-win record and a WCF appearance. Kidd is not taking a team of Bell, Marion, Diaw and Thomas to the WCF.

Did you seriously just mention Raja Bell, as if he was some great offensive player?

Again like I've mentioned at least four times in this thread; Nash took Bell, Marion, Diaw and Thomas to the WCF, orchestrating the best offense in the league.

All the great offensive teams that Nash led, didn't all have great scorers on them either. Nash had to pick up his scoring output on those teams. Which again you're not acknowledging that Nash was by far the better scorer.

He averaged 14 ppg on 39%/40% during his prime on low volume - he was not a threat on the offensive end. Sure he was a gifted passer and had great vision, but he didn't have the scoring ability to go along with it, which you need to have if you're going to anchor the offense. Prime example is Rondo, for all his assists and "points he creates", don't mean shyt at the end of the day because they don't make the offense better.

Look at all those players you named on that Suns team and act like all of them weren't capable of dropping 20 any given night. Kidd didn't have that in his prime like Nash and he still led his team to the playoffs or was a huge contributor 17 different times. Don't ever compare Rondo to Kidd. Prime Kidd on the Kings has them in the playoffs this season without a doubt. Never said Nash wasn't a better scorer but that wasn't the topic of discussion. It's about who was better and who would you take in your prime. It's a reason why Kidd is considered one of 5-6 greatest point guards ever and Nash isn't.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Look at all those players you named on that Suns team and act like all of them weren't capable of dropping 20 any given night.

Raja Bell was capable of dropping 20 any given night?
Kurt Thomas was capable of dropping 20 any given night?
Tim Thomas was capable of dropping 20 any given night?
Boris Diaw was capable of dropping 20 any given night?

How many times do I need to say that Nash led a starting lineup of Bell, Marion, Diaw and Thomas to having the #1 offense in the league?



You sound like somebody that didn't watch enough Suns games during the 00s.

Kidd didn't have that in his prime like Nash and he still led his team to the playoffs or was a huge contributor 17 different times.

Nash had better team records, win percentages and won against better playoff competition. Would Kidd be able to lead Raja, Marion, Diaw and Thomas to the WCF? Not a chance.

Don't ever compare Rondo to Kidd. Prime Kidd on the Kings has them in the playoffs this season without a doubt.

In principle, they have the same type of game.

Never said Nash wasn't a better scorer but that wasn't the topic of discussion. It's about who was better and who would you take in your prime. It's a reason why Kidd is considered one of 5-6 greatest point guards ever and Nash isn't.

What are you basing this on?

The margin in their scoring abilities during their primes is partly the reason why Nash had more impact on the game.

 

[TrillCauleyStein]

nashty.

 

[Reggie]

Raja Bell was capable of dropping 20 any given night?
Kurt Thomas was capable of dropping 20 any given night?
Tim Thomas was capable of dropping 20 any given night?
Boris Diaw was capable of dropping 20 any given night?

How many times do I need to say that Nash led a starting lineup of Bell, Marion, Diaw and Thomas to having the #1 offense in the league?



You sound like somebody that didn't watch enough Suns games during the 00s.

Nash had better team records, win percentages and won against better playoff competition. Would Kidd be able to lead Raja, Marion, Diaw and Thomas to the WCF? Not a chance.

In principle, they have the same type of game.

What are you basing this on?

The margin in their scoring abilities during their primes is partly the reason why Nash had more impact on the game.

Every one of those players has averaged in the high teens at least once in a season so yeah I would say they all could score 20 on any given night. You say Kidd couldn't take that squad to the Western Finals (which i'm not sure of and we will never know) well then I could say that prime Nash wouldn't have taken those Nets teams to the Finals either. But that is all speculation and we can go back and forth till we are blue in the face. But there's nothing you have told me to feel that Nash is better then Kidd other then in shooting. Anything else putting him above Kidd I cant and wont listen to and I actually fukk with Steve.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Every one of those players has averaged in the high teens at least once in a season so yeah I would say they all could score 20 on any given night.

Kurt Thomas' career-high - 14.0 ppg
Boris Diaw's career-high - 15.1 ppg
Raja Bell's career-high - 14.7 ppg
Tim Thomas' career-high - 15.8 ppg

Those are NOT the high teens, furthermore why are you acting as if Kidd didn't play with players that either had similar career-highs or better during his prime?

Kerry Kittles (17.2 ppg)
Kenyon Martin (16.7 ppg)
Richard Jefferson (22.6 ppg)
Rodney Rodgers (15.1 ppg)
Keith Van Horn (21.8 ppg)
Shawn Marion (21.8 ppg)
Clifford Robinson (21.3 ppg)
Penny Hardaway (21.7 ppg)
Tom Gugliotta (20.6 ppg)
Vinny Del Negro (14.5 ppg)
Todd Day (16.0 ppg)
Rex Chapman (18.2 ppg)
Kevin Johnson (22.5 ppg)
Alonzo Mourning (23.2 ppg)
Robert Pack (18.1 ppg)
Vince Carter (27.6 ppg)
Eric Williams (15.0 ppg)
Nenad Krstic (16.4 ppg)
Jeff McInnis (14.6 ppg)

Kidd has all these players who could 'score 20 on any given night' according to your logic - what's his excuse for not being able to run a top-10 offense at any point during his prime? He had all those players, yet from the age of 26 to 35 the offenses he was in charge of ranked - 16th, 22nd, 17th, 18th, 25th, 26th, 25th, 16th, 25th.

You say Kidd couldn't take that squad to the Western Finals (which i'm not sure of and we will never know) well then I could say that prime Nash wouldn't have taken those Nets teams to the Finals either.

With those Nets' defensive schemes and how well they helped each other, they'd still have a good defense if Nash replaced Kidd (Nash wasn't a liability, he was smart a defender who knew his limitations, and was one of the better guards at drawing offensive fouls - similar to Ginobili) - plus they'd have one of the best offenses in the league. They'd take a hit in defense, but would more than make up for it and then some on the offensive side if they had Nash instead of Kidd.

But there's nothing you have told me to feel that Nash is better then Kidd other then in shooting. Anything else putting him above Kidd I cant and wont listen to and I actually fukk with Steve.

That's simply because you don't understand how basketball works, and don't know how to weigh impact correctly.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Are we seriously at the point where we using Raja Bell, Kurt Thomas, Tim Thomas and Boris Diaw against Nash - as if they were some great scoring threats?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

@Malta who you taking in their primes?

 

[hayesc0]

I'm 29 and growing up I don't ever remember anyone thinking nash was better then kidd thrcoli.com ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Reggie]

Kurt Thomas' career-high - 14.0 ppg
Boris Diaw's career-high - 15.1 ppg
Raja Bell's career-high - 14.7 ppg
Tim Thomas' career-high - 15.8 ppg

Those are NOT the high teens, furthermore why are you acting as if Kidd didn't play with players that either had similar career-highs or better during his prime?

Kerry Kittles (17.2 ppg)
Kenyon Martin (16.7 ppg)
Richard Jefferson (22.6 ppg)
Rodney Rodgers (15.1 ppg)
Keith Van Horn (21.8 ppg)
Shawn Marion (21.8 ppg)
Clifford Robinson (21.3 ppg)
Penny Hardaway (21.7 ppg)
Tom Gugliotta (20.6 ppg)
Vinny Del Negro (14.5 ppg)
Todd Day (16.0 ppg)
Rex Chapman (18.2 ppg)
Kevin Johnson (22.5 ppg)
Alonzo Mourning (23.2 ppg)
Robert Pack (18.1 ppg)
Vince Carter (27.6 ppg)
Eric Williams (15.0 ppg)
Nenad Krstic (16.4 ppg)
Jeff McInnis (14.6 ppg)

Kidd has all these players who could 'score 20 on any given night' according to your logic - what's his excuse for not being able to run a top-10 offense at any point during his prime? He had all those players, yet from the age of 26 to 35 the offenses he was in charge of ranked - 16th, 22nd, 17th, 18th, 25th, 26th, 25th, 16th, 25th.

With those Nets' defensive schemes and how well they helped each other, they'd still have a good defense if Nash replaced Kidd (Nash wasn't a liability, he was smart a defender who knew his limitations, and was one of the better guards at drawing offensive fouls - similar to Ginobili) - plus they'd have one of the best offenses in the league. They'd take a hit in defense, but would more than make up for it and then some on the offensive side if they had Nash instead of Kidd.

That's simply because you don't understand how basketball works, and don't know how to weigh impact correctly.

Say what you want but Nash has played with better overall talent then Kidd. You keep going on about offense and whatnot but the topic is who was the best PLAYER in their prime and you don't seem to understand this. You have changed this into a who is a better offensive player or who leads a better offense. Point blank period Kidd had just as much and even more success in the regular and postseason if you look at their careers overall. Nash had his stretch where he was elite no doubt but Kidd was pretty much elite the day he stepped on a court. And again besides shooting there is nothing that Nash does on a court better than Kidd. Simple as that. Dell Curry Kyle Korver Steve Kerr Mark Price etc. are all superior shooters then Kidd. It doesn't mean you take them over Kidd just because they do one thing better then him when he shyts on them in any other category just like he does Nash.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Say what you want but Nash has played with better overall talent then Kidd.

Stop the bullshyttin. First of all you were out here arguing that Diaw, Thomas (x 2) and Bell were capable of dropping 20 any given night as reasoning for why Nash led them to having the best offense in the league (even had the nerve to say they averaged in the high teens for their season career-highs - which you were completely wrong about). Then I proceeded to list around 20 players who were better scorers than them, who Kidd played with during his prime yet still couldn't even manage to orchestrate a top-10 offense.

You keep going on about offense and whatnot but the topic is who was the best PLAYER in their prime and you don't seem to understand this. You have changed this into a who is a better offensive player or who leads a better offense.

That's because the offense is where a PG has the majority of his impact (I'd say around 70-80+% as a general estimate), not on defense. You out here arguing that Kidd was a better rebounder if it had any notable impact on the game. Again, basketball isn't a 1+1 game. The better player is the player who has more impact relative to his position. I'm guessing with that logic you think Kidd is a better player than Steph Curry too?

Point blank period Kidd had just as much and even more success in the regular and postseason if you look at their careers overall.

We are not looking at their careers overall - we're looking at what impact they had on the game during their primes, where Nash clearly had the advantage. Kidd did not have more success during his prime - Nash put up better stats, more individual accomplishments, higher team win percentages, defeated better playoff competition and led some of the greatest offenses the league has ever seen.

Nash had his stretch where he was elite no doubt but Kidd was pretty much elite the day he stepped on a court.

Not only is this factually incorrect (obviously you did NOT watch Kidd during his first stint in Dallas), but we're talking about primes here.

And again besides shooting there is nothing that Nash does on a court better than Kidd..

Besides shooting what in your opinion does Steph Curry do better than Kidd?

You and a lot of people on this board have a simple and naive way of valuing players. The game doesn't work like this -

Shooting: y player
Rebounding: x player
Defense: x player
Passing: x player
Leader: x player

It works on impact and respective role/position on team. Because not only do all those facets of the game carry different degrees of impact, but the margins are different too.

Simple as that. Dell Curry Kyle Korver Steve Kerr Mark Price etc. are all superior shooters then Kidd. It doesn't mean you take them over Kidd just because they do one thing better then him when he shyts on them in any other category just like he does Nash.

You've got to be kidding me. You really referenced spot up shooters/SGs (Kerr, Dell and Korver) to a comparison of PGs who actually run a team.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I can't believe some of the shyt I'm reading. Dude really brought up Dell, Kerr and Korver as if they have any relevance to a comparison of PGs who run a team.

 

[I.V.]

What's funny about this thread....

Is that the prime version one player was obviously the superior overall player... but the prime version of the other player is obviously a better fit for today's nba.

So in this case it's the question that's important.

Who was better?
or
Who would you rather have?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

What's funny about this thread....

Is that the prime version one player was obviously the superior overall player... but the prime version of the other player is obviously a better fit for today's nba.

So in this case it's the question that's important.

Who was better?
or
Who would you rather have?

How was Kidd the superior overall player when Nash had more impact on the game during their respective primes?

 

[Reggie]

Stop the bullshyttin. First of all you were out here arguing that Diaw, Thomas (x 2) and Bell were capable of dropping 20 any given night as reasoning for why Nash led them to having the best offense in the league (even had the nerve to say they averaged in the high teens for their season career-highs - which you were completely wrong about). Then I proceeded to list around 20 players who were better scorers than them, who Kidd played with during his prime yet still couldn't even manage to orchestrate a top-10 offense.

That's because the offense is where a PG has the majority of his impact (I'd say around 70-80+% as a general estimate), not on defense. You out here arguing that Kidd was a better rebounder if it had any notable impact on the game. Again, basketball isn't a 1+1 game. The better player is the player who has more impact relative to his position. I'm guessing with that logic you think Kidd is a better player than Steph Curry too?



We are not looking at their careers overall - we're looking at what impact they had on the game during their primes, where Nash clearly had the advantage. Kidd did not have more success during his prime - Nash put up better stats, more individual accomplishments, higher team win percentages, defeated better playoff competition and led some of the greatest offenses the league has ever seen.



Not only is this factually incorrect (obviously you did NOT watch Kidd during his first stint in Dallas), but we're talking about primes here.

Besides shooting what in your opinion does Steph Curry do better than Kidd?

You and a lot of people on this board have a simple and naive way of valuing players. The game doesn't work like this -

Shooting: y player
Rebounding: x player
Defense: x player
Passing: x player
Leader: x player

It works on impact and respective role/position on team. Because not only do all those facets of the game carry different degrees of impact, but the margins are different too.



You've got to be kidding me. You really referenced spot up shooters/SGs (Kerr, Dell and Korver) to a comparison of PGs who actually run a team.

So Kidd's offensive rebounding didn't lead to second chance points and his defensive rebounding didn't lead to fast break points. You can miss me with that dumb shyt if you think rebounding doesn't matter in the game of basketball. Then the other factors that you listed matter as well on the court since basketball is played on both ends. And Kidd as the best or second best player had more success on the court then Nash no matter how prettier his shot was then Jason's. Nash on the Mavs was the 3rd best player at best and even on the Suns he was the orchestrator but would you really call him the best with young Amare there. Kidd proved he could lead mediocre teams into the playoffs on a yearly basis during his prime. Nash had elite talent most of his career that would have had success with Kidd on them too. I was comparing those role players as shooter cause your premise is just cause Nash is a better shooter then Kidd makes him a better player,. And that's nowhere near true at all. The ONLY thing Nash did was shoot the ball better then Kidd which again was a huge thing but it isn't the end all be all. Kidd upped his scoring too when he had to just like Nash and his assists were pretty much the same comparing the usage factor. The only accomplishment he has over Kidd is 2 MVP's which a lot of folks don't even think he deserves. While those same people will tell you that Kidd was robbed his first year in Jersey of an MVP award.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

So Kidd's offensive rebounding didn't lead to second chance points and his defensive rebounding didn't lead to fast break points. You can miss me with that dumb shyt if you think rebounding doesn't matter in the game of basketball.

i) Nash averaged 0.6 OREB during his prime and Kidd averaged 1.3 OREB during his prime on the same minutes, his offensive rebounding was responsible for basically .7 more of a possession a game. Also considering that he didn't shoot as much as Nash did, he had more opposites to grab offensive rebounds. The impact he had over Nash in those situations is basically non-existent.

ii) Now onto your point about defensive rebounds leading to fast break points - Nash either produced A LOT more points for himself or more points for his team on fast break opportunities and shots in the first third of the shotclock (again half the reason why he orchestrated all-time great offenses), despite averaging 2.5 defensive rebounds less per game than Kidd did. Like I keep telling you, a PG doesn't need to grab rebounds to lead the fast break and generate points for his team - Nash is one of the greatest fast break players in the history of the game - he'd keep himself in distance of a pass from a rebound and run the floor finding an open player or hitting a shot. You don't need to grab non-contested, weakside rebounds to initiate the fast break. Which is why I keep telling you that Kidd's rebounding hardly had any impact on the game, because despite Nash not grabbing as many defensive rebounds was still able to run down the floor with the ball and generate more points than Kidd EVER did.

Rebounding matters in basketball, but you MUST provide the right context. You're simply not. You aren't weighing up the impact of rebounding accurately - especially in regards to the PG position. You're saying that Kidd's rebounding led to fast break points when Nash generated A LOT more fast break points (more than 99% of players in the last 20 years), than Kidd did. Yet he didn't need to grab a rebound to do so. Kidd would often leave his defensive assignment to go hunting for rebounds.

Then the other factors that you listed matter as well on the court since basketball is played on both ends.

Yes but a PG anchors the offense, he doesn't anchor the defense. As a PG you can only have so much impact on the defensive end, 70-80+% of it is on the offensive side. It's not a 50/50 type thing - it differs from position to position. Again, look at how much impact Magic had on the game - when he was only a competent defender on his best day and Riley would regularly hide him on defense. Does that make Kidd a better player than him because he had a better overall game, and was a considerably better defensive player? Of course not, because he didn't have the impact/influence on the game that Magic did.

Kidd proved he could lead mediocre teams into the playoffs on a yearly basis during his prime.

In the East, during its weakest period. You're kidding yourself if you don't think Nash could do the same, especially since the historically great offenses he ran would be more than enough to make up for whatever defensive deficit the team had. Nash led a "medicore" team of Raja Bell, Marion, Diaw and Thomas to the WCF (54 wins), yet he wouldn't be able to lead a similar supporting cast to the playoffs in the East - where 7th/8th seeds could barely reach 40 wins?

I was comparing those role players as shooter cause your premise is just cause Nash is a better shooter then Kidd makes him a better player,.

My premise is NOT just because Nash is a better shooter that it makes him a better player. That's YOUR premise of what I think. Nash was a better player in his prime because he was a better/higher volume scorer on ultra efficient percentage from everywhere on the court and ran some of the greatest offense the game has ever seen due to his scoring/shooting ability, vision and passing ability. Why would you use them as a comparison when i) they never scored as many points as Nash did (Nash's regular season career-high is 19 ppg and his postseason-high is 24 ppg on all-time great efficiency - Kerr's career high is 8 ppg, Korver's career-high is 14 ppg and Dell's career-high is 16 ppg) ii) none of them could score off the dribble or create their own shot like Nash could iii) none of the were the #1/#2 option like Nash was - they were role players iv) the most painfully obvious one of all - they weren't running the offense.

The ONLY thing Nash did was shoot the ball better then Kidd which again was a huge thing but it isn't the end all be all.

Nash did plenty things better than Kidd - which is why he had more impact.

Kidd upped his scoring too when he had to just like Nash and his assists were pretty much the same comparing the usage factor

Kidd upped his scoring? What about his efficiency?

During their primes:

Kidd scored 14 ppg on 40% FG during his prime
Nash scored 17 ppg on 50% FG during his prime

I don't think you quite understand the scoring differential between the two, and what effect it had on their respective teams.

Kidd averaged 9.0 assists during his prime
Nash averaged 10.6 assists during his prime

And again, assists are meaningless without the proper context - especially in the manner of running a fluid, functional offense - which Kidd NEVER did during his prime. Whereas Nash was at the other ending of the spectrum, orchestrating all-time GOAT offenses. The difference between their abilities to run an effective offense is night and day.

The only accomplishment he has over Kidd is 2 MVP's which a lot of folks don't even think he deserves. While those same people will tell you that Kidd was robbed his first year in Jersey of an MVP award.

Why didn't you answer my question, that I asked twice? Do you think Kidd is a better player than Steph Curry - because he has a more all-around game?