In their primes, who do you take: Nash or Jkidd
- Thread starter BrothaZay
- Start date
I agree with almost everything you posted.
But Nash shouldn't have any MVPs.
Nash has two MVPs that belong to Shaq and Kobe.
Dude, stop.
Gary Payton aside, Kidd was the best defensive PG of his time.
How much more crap are you going to spew in this thread?
How many mental gymnastics are you going to employ to try and justify your *baseless* assertion that Nash was better than Kidd?
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
Stop posting about basketball. You don't know what you're talking about. You're absolutely clueless. It's painful to watch.
I'm clueless about basketball but you've been arguing in this thread for days that Nash had a better career than Kidd?
The irony writes itself.
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
You can't even read the title properly and you wonder I why I say you're clueless.I'm clueless about basketball but you've been arguing in this thread for days that Nash had a better career than Kidd?
The irony writes itself.
DIMES
Retired troll
nikka, you've essentially been arguing the Nash > Kidd.
Kidd > Nash, respective primes or otherwise.
One was a nightly triple doubt threat who over achieved with underwhelming squads and led them to the NBA Finals twice. The other only played one side of the ball, was lit up on defense nightly by opposing point guards and couldn't lead his stacked squads to the finals.
Steve Nash is EASILY the most overrated MVP recipient in league history and one of the most overrated all stars of all time.
fukk you for disrespecting J Kidd the gawd.
And I'm a Celtics fan.
Last edited:
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
Like I said, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're regurgitating casual fan talking points. Stop posting.
Blah blah blah.....
Dude, it's OK to stop posting in the Coliseum.
It's OK to step outside and get some air.
It's OK to take Steve Nash's balls out of your mouth.
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
@Consumed
IYO, how big is the margin between Nash's and Kidd's impact on the game during their respective primes?
So enormous that its a borderline insult to seriously compare the two. Steve has a legitimate claim among the greatest peaks in league history while its a joke to even bring up Kidd's name in the discussion b/c of how grossly limited he was offensively while never having the defensive impact of a dominant anchor. One of my least favorite player comparisons in this game with how Kidd's weaknesses are routinely ignored and his strengths exaggerated while Nash's weaknesses are amplified and strengths marginalized.
To answer your last question nah Kidd isn't better then Steph but then again neither is Steve Nash. You can post all the numbers and percentages and cry your point until the cows come home. I don't have to do that cause i'm not a stat geek and only go by what I see and know. And on the basketball court at their best Kidd was and always was better then Nash. You say he did better things on the court other then shooting but you cant name one if you are being real with yourself. Put Kidd in that Phoenix offense and that 10.6 assists Nash averaged would have been closer to 15 for him and he probably would have grabbed close to 10 boards a game. Kidd was dropping triple doubles all over the court impacting both sides for years. Taking away nothing from Nash who was great but it's a reason why we debate his Hall of Fame candidacy (though I think he belongs and gets in easy) and a reason why we know that Kidd is first ballot in a couple of more years without a doubt.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.
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.
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?
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.
Nash did plenty things better than Kidd - which is why he had more impact.
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.
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?
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
Why isn't Kidd better than Steph, after all according to your logic the only thing Steph does better is shoot?
i) How many games did you watch during their primes (on estimate)?
ii) Have you ever entertained the possibility that stats and data might be closer to the truth rather than what you see?
iii) Have you ever entertained the possibility that how you view the game isn't based on actual impact?
Since you said Curry is a better player than Kidd, other than shooting what in your opinion did Curry do better on the court? What things did he do better, other than shooting?
Yeah you don't know basketball. You have no understanding of how those Suns' offenses worked and no understanding of how Kidd got his assists.
Again, stop bringing up stats without the proper context. Dropping "triple doubles" doesn't mean you impact both sides of the court.
I don't think basketball is your thing breh.
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
If you're not going to answer any of the other questions, just answer this @Reggie - since you seem to think that the only thing Nash does better than Kidd is shoot the ball, and therefore isn't better than Kidd (because Kidd's better at more facets of the game, and has a more well-rounded game). How could you possibly believe that Curry is better than Kidd? What other things does Curry do better, in order for him to be better Kidd?