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

[Reggie]

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?

Curry's scoring transcends both Nash's and Kidd's and along with the to 7 assists a game he puts up that would make him better to me.

 

[Reggie]

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.

You say b-ball isn't my thing but there isn't very people on this board or in the streets or on the boob tube who would start a franchise with Nash over Kidd. Steph averages 30 a game not the 14-18 that Nash did which was in the same range as Kidd (though on a better percentage) that gives me the right to believe he is better. Stats and data are for guys like you who will probably say AI wasn't a great player cause of his fg percentage.

 

[Reggie]

@Reggie

Never mind the fact that Kidd lived off reputation on the defensive end for at least 2-3 years of his prime.

Same way any great player (Jordan Kobe Bron) was by the end of their prime. At his worst defensively he still wasn't as bad as Nash.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Curry's scoring transcends both Nash's and Kidd's and along with the to 7 assists a game he puts up that would make him better to me.

But what about rebounding, help defense, man defense, passing and all the facets of the game? Besides shooting, what else does Curry do better than Kidd?

Nash had two deep playoff runs during his prime where he averaged -

24 ppg on 52% shooting and 11 assists
20 ppg on 50% shooting and 10 assists

How does that not "transcend" what Kidd did during his prime?

 

[Reggie]

But what about rebounding, help defense, man defense, passing and all the facets of the game? Besides shooting, what else does Curry do better than Kidd?

Nash had two deep playoff runs during his prime where he averaged -

24 ppg on 52% shooting and 11 assists
20 ppg on 50% shooting and 10 assists

How does that not "transcend" what Kidd did during his prime?

Cause he didn't get to the Finals that's why. Now go ahead and bring up the weaker conference things but if we go there fukk the teams and lets talk about the comp they faced at the position. Kidd faced GP KJ both Hardaways etc. in his prime and came out on top just as much as he lost, while Nash was a secondary player in that era and shined once those great points retired and the game change on the offensive end.

 

[Draje]

Cause he didn't get to the Finals that's why. Now go ahead and bring up the weaker conference things but if we go there fukk the teams and lets talk about the comp they faced at the position. Kidd faced GP KJ both Hardaways etc. in his prime and came out on top just as much as he lost, while Nash was a secondary player in that era and shined once those great points retired and the game change on the offensive end.

Imagine being dumb enough to think that Nash wouldn't lead his MVP squad to the finals if he played in the East.

So you think Kidd wwould have beat those Spurs that knocked out the Suns if you put those Nets into the West

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Cause he didn't get to the Finals that's why.

This is patently ridiculous, and it shows you can't accurately value players properly - putting far too much emphasis on team success (without the proper context).

Nash put up 24 ppg on 52% shooting and 11 assists and 20 ppg on 50% shooting and 10 assists in two separate postseason runs (WCF appearance both years), and Kidd put up 19 ppg on 40% shooting and 9 assists and 20 ppg on 42% shooting and 8 assists en route to the Finals, and you think Kidd is the better player simply because he ended up going to the Finals?

Never mind the fact that Nash had A LOT MORE impact during his WCF postseason runs
Never mind the fact that Kidd played against teams with a 42-40 record, 44-38 record and 49-33 record during one postseason run and a 42-40 record, 44-38 record and 50-32 during the other
Never mind the fact that Nash played against teams with a 45-37 record, 58-24 record and 59-23 during one postseason run and a 45-37 record, 47-35 record and 60-22 during the other
Never mind the fact that FOUR of the SIX Eastern conference teams that Kidd played en route to his Finals appearances weren't even good enough to make the playoffs in the West
Never mind the fact Nash had a 30 ppg on 55% shooting and 12 assists series against a prime-Dirk Mavs team who had a 58-24 record (Kidd didn't have a series that even remotely came close to this)

How dishonest can you be that despite Nash proving he was the better player by having more impact in his postseason runs, playing against FAR better competition in the playoffs - that despite not making it out of the WCF (you know a circumstantial and team-related line) - it therefore means he isn't better than Kidd. Does that mean all the PGs that made the Finals are better than Nash?

lets talk about the comp they faced at the position. Kidd faced GP KJ both Hardaways etc. in his prime and came out on top just as much as he lost.

Basketball is not a one-on-one sport. Furthermore he played against Payton ONCE in the postseason, and Kidd was 23 years old (not in his prime) - where he averaged 12 points on 36% shooting and Payton averaged 24 points on 41% shooting. He never played KJ in the playoffs , because they were on the same team during the late 90s (Kidd never went to the playoffs during his first stint in Dallas). Kidd also didn't play against Tim Hardaway in the playoffs. He played against a 32yo Penny who was a shell of his former self after all the injuries - nothing noteworthy in that matchup - considering that Marbury was his actual matchup.

You claim you watched Kidd during his prime yet all the examples you brought up on who he faced at the position during the PS are completely wrong.

while Nash was a secondary player in that era and shined once those great points retired and the game change on the offensive end.

Nash was not a secondary player. He led his team in scoring during the postseason more than Kidd ever did, and he was the main reason his teams had all-time great offenses.

i) KJ retired before Kidd reached his prime
ii) Payton was approaching his mid-30s (and near the end of his prime) when Kidd hit his prime
iii) Tim was well past his prime (mid-30s) when Kidd reached his prime
iv) Penny was on the SAME team when Kidd hit his prime (not to mention he already had his first on-set of injures), and only ended up playing against Kidd a few years later when he was a shell of his former self and could barely average double digit points

Why do you keep speaking as if basketball is a one-on-one game? What great PGs did Kidd face during his prime? Van Exel? Marbury? Francis? Brandon? Cassell? You either have an absolutely terrible memory or you never watched enough games of Kidd and Nash in their primes to get an accurate reading on their abilities. You've been wrong and misinformed just about every step on the way in this argument, and it's half the reason why dudes like you can't be trusted when you say you don't pay attention to stats at all, and just go by what "you see and know" - when what "you see and know" is so off-base that your stance is without value.

 

[Draje]

This is patently ridiculous, and it shows you can't accurately value players properly - putting far too much emphasis on team success (without the proper context).

Nash put up 24 ppg on 52% shooting and 11 assists and 20 ppg on 50% shooting and 10 assists in two separate postseason runs (WCF appearance both years), and Kidd put up 19 ppg on 40% shooting and 9 assists and 20 ppg on 42% shooting and 8 assists en route to the Finals, and you think Kidd is the better player simply because he ended up going to the Finals?

Never mind the fact that Nash had A LOT MORE impact during his WCF postseason runs
Never mind the fact that Kidd played against teams with a 42-40 record, 44-38 record and 49-33 record during one postseason run and a 42-40 record, 44-38 record and 50-32 during the other
Never mind the fact that Nash played against teams with a 45-37 record, 58-24 record and 59-23 during one postseason run and a 45-37 record, 47-35 record and 60-22 during the other
Never mind the fact that FOUR of the SIX Eastern conference teams that Kidd played en route to his Finals appearances weren't even good enough to make the playoffs in the West
Never mind the fact Nash had a 30 ppg on 55% shooting and 12 assists series against a prime-Dirk Mavs team who had a 58-24 record (Kidd didn't have a series that even remotely came close to this)

How dishonest can you be that despite Nash proving he was the better player by having more impact in his postseason runs, playing against FAR better competition in the playoffs - that despite not making it out of the WCF (you know a circumstantial and team-related line) - it therefore means he isn't better than Kidd. Does that mean all the PGs that made the Finals are better than Nash?

Basketball is not a one-on-one sport. Furthermore he played against Payton ONCE in the postseason, and Kidd was 23 years old (not in his prime) - where he averaged 12 points on 36% shooting and Payton averaged 24 points on 41% shooting. He never played KJ in the playoffs , because they were on the same team during the late 90s (Kidd never went to the playoffs during his first stint in Dallas). Kidd also didn't play against Tim Hardaway in the playoffs. He played against a 32yo Penny who was a shell of his former self after all the injuries - nothing noteworthy in that matchup - considering that Marbury was his actual matchup.

You claim you watched Kidd during his prime yet all the examples you brought up on who he faced at the position during the PS are completely wrong.

Nash was not a secondary player. He led his team in scoring during the postseason more than Kidd ever did, and he was the main reason his teams had all-time great offenses.

i) KJ retired before Kidd reached his prime
ii) Payton was approaching his mid-30s (and near the end of his prime) when Kidd hit his prime
iii) Tim was well past his prime (mid-30s) when Kidd reached his prime
iv) Penny was on the SAME team when Kidd hit his prime (not to mention he already had his first on-set of injures), and only ended up playing against Kidd a few years later when he was a shell of his former self and could barely average double digit points

Why do you keep speaking as if basketball is a one-on-one game? What great PGs did Kidd face during his prime? Van Exel? Marbury? Francis? Brandon? Cassell? You either have an absolutely terrible memory or you never watched enough games of Kidd and Nash in their primes to get an accurate reading on their abilities. You've been wrong and misinformed just about every step on the way in this argument, and it's half the reason why dudes like you can't be trusted when you say you don't pay attention to stats at all, and just go by what "you see and know" - when what "you see and know" is so off-base that your stance is without value.

Don't come in here with stats, facts, and objective reasoning.

We only judge PGs by triple doubled and defense, brehs! Rondo is a triple double threat, gimme him over Prime CP3!

Let me help people understand the difference in their scoring ability. It's like comparing Durant to Rudy Gay.

 

[Reggie]

Imagine being dumb enough to think that Nash wouldn't lead his MVP squad to the finals if he played in the East.

So you think Kidd wwould have beat those Spurs that knocked out the Suns if you put those Nets into the West

Nah but I cant say that Nash would have took his team to the Finals in the East either.

 

[Reggie]

This is patently ridiculous, and it shows you can't accurately value players properly - putting far too much emphasis on team success (without the proper context).

Nash put up 24 ppg on 52% shooting and 11 assists and 20 ppg on 50% shooting and 10 assists in two separate postseason runs (WCF appearance both years), and Kidd put up 19 ppg on 40% shooting and 9 assists and 20 ppg on 42% shooting and 8 assists en route to the Finals, and you think Kidd is the better player simply because he ended up going to the Finals?

Never mind the fact that Nash had A LOT MORE impact during his WCF postseason runs
Never mind the fact that Kidd played against teams with a 42-40 record, 44-38 record and 49-33 record during one postseason run and a 42-40 record, 44-38 record and 50-32 during the other
Never mind the fact that Nash played against teams with a 45-37 record, 58-24 record and 59-23 during one postseason run and a 45-37 record, 47-35 record and 60-22 during the other
Never mind the fact that FOUR of the SIX Eastern conference teams that Kidd played en route to his Finals appearances weren't even good enough to make the playoffs in the West
Never mind the fact Nash had a 30 ppg on 55% shooting and 12 assists series against a prime-Dirk Mavs team who had a 58-24 record (Kidd didn't have a series that even remotely came close to this)

How dishonest can you be that despite Nash proving he was the better player by having more impact in his postseason runs, playing against FAR better competition in the playoffs - that despite not making it out of the WCF (you know a circumstantial and team-related line) - it therefore means he isn't better than Kidd. Does that mean all the PGs that made the Finals are better than Nash?

Basketball is not a one-on-one sport. Furthermore he played against Payton ONCE in the postseason, and Kidd was 23 years old (not in his prime) - where he averaged 12 points on 36% shooting and Payton averaged 24 points on 41% shooting. He never played KJ in the playoffs , because they were on the same team during the late 90s (Kidd never went to the playoffs during his first stint in Dallas). Kidd also didn't play against Tim Hardaway in the playoffs. He played against a 32yo Penny who was a shell of his former self after all the injuries - nothing noteworthy in that matchup - considering that Marbury was his actual matchup.

You claim you watched Kidd during his prime yet all the examples you brought up on who he faced at the position during the PS are completely wrong.

Nash was not a secondary player. He led his team in scoring during the postseason more than Kidd ever did, and he was the main reason his teams had all-time great offenses.

i) KJ retired before Kidd reached his prime
ii) Payton was approaching his mid-30s (and near the end of his prime) when Kidd hit his prime
iii) Tim was well past his prime (mid-30s) when Kidd reached his prime
iv) Penny was on the SAME team when Kidd hit his prime (not to mention he already had his first on-set of injures), and only ended up playing against Kidd a few years later when he was a shell of his former self and could barely average double digit points

Why do you keep speaking as if basketball is a one-on-one game? What great PGs did Kidd face during his prime? Van Exel? Marbury? Francis? Brandon? Cassell? You either have an absolutely terrible memory or you never watched enough games of Kidd and Nash in their primes to get an accurate reading on their abilities. You've been wrong and misinformed just about every step on the way in this argument, and it's half the reason why dudes like you can't be trusted when you say you don't pay attention to stats at all, and just go by what "you see and know" - when what "you see and know" is so off-base that your stance is without value.

When I said look at the comp I meant overall not just who each faced in the playoffs. In the years 99-2000 Payton and Tim Hardaway were still very effective and Payton was among the best in the league. So you can miss me with he played everyone past their prime. Kidd entered the league in 94. All those players were still shining then. Say what you want but Nash was a secondary option and player till he went to Phoenix the second time and got in that system. If he is a great as you are saying why did it take him till getting to Phoenix to turn into a superstar. While Kidd was already one pretty much from the start of his career. I put too much emphasis on team success you say but then you want to say someone is better cause they shot a better percentage from the field. I could say the same thing about you. But like Aaliyah said I guess we will continue to go back back back and forth. Still wont change the fact that Kidd is better and you are in the minority who believes otherwise.

 

[BK The Great]

both were beasts but i used to stan J.Kidd in his early Dallas and Phoenix days, even when he first signed to NJ he was lighting it up.

 

[Ben.]

Nash might be the most underrated on here, people upping JKidd for making the finals in a weak East (the same East yall shyt on the daily for other players).

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

Cause he didn't get to the Finals that's why. Now go ahead and bring up the weaker conference things but if we go there fukk the teams and lets talk about the comp they faced at the position. Kidd faced GP KJ both Hardaways etc. in his prime and came out on top just as much as he lost, while Nash was a secondary player in that era and shined once those great points retired and the game change on the offensive end.

best player on one of the best teams for several years

revolutionized offensive play for an entire era

a few votes shy of being a 3 time consecutive MVP award winner

the nets played in the shytty east and got washed both times they went to the finals, and probably would have got washed by the 07 suns too WITHOUT amare.

 

[Big Dick]

best player on one of the best teams for several years

revolutionized offensive play for an entire era

a few votes shy of being a 3 time consecutive MVP award winner

the nets played in the shytty east and got washed both times they went to the finals, and probably would have got washed by the 07 suns too WITHOUT amare.

Yet the Nets had as many wins as your boyfriend Nash and the Suns did against the almighty Spurs when they faced then in the finals.

 

[I.V.]

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

"more impact on the game" is a phrase that doesn't really mean anything, and leaves a lot of room to make up whatever you want to make up.

For my money Kidd was the better passer, better defender, better finishing around the basket, better rebounder... he was bigger, he was faster, he was stronger...

That being said, if you're starting a team right now with one of them in their primes... you're better off with Nash, who was also a great player, and whose game is a much better fit for the nba right now.


But before we start some massive back and forth... I also think that when you're talking about two point guards at this level -- you're splitting hairs when you decide who is "better" -- and it usually comes down more to preference than the players' actual skills and abilities.

If you want to argue that Steve Nash was better than Kidd, I wouldn't even really step to you on it... and honestly, if you asked me again next week, I might even agree with you. Hell, I might agree with you now... I think I was mostly responding to what I assumed was the site's consensus.