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

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

"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.

It certainly means A LOT more than doing a 1+1 equation sum checklist of: who's the better rebounder, who's the better defender, who's the better leader etc etc. As you very well know, basketball doesn't work like that, which seems to be the crux of the pro-Kidd arguments in here. Trying to equate Kidd being a better rebounder as if it had the same impact as Nash being a better shooter did

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...

- they're both two of the best passers the game's ever seen, only difference is with Nash he managed to run some of the most fluid, effective - ultimately greatest offenses the game has ever seen. With all types of skillsets, styles and personalities. Throughout Kidd's prime, the opposite ran true - he couldn't even run ONE top-10 offense, and as arbitrary as top 10 might be as a measurement, from the age of 26 to 35 the offenses he was in charge of ranked - 16th, 22nd, 17th, 18th, 25th, 26th, 25th, 16th, 25th. Basically the difference between CP and Rondo - they might be two of the game's best passers but one's style, approach and ability was conducive to running a great offense, the other not so much. And for all the talk on Nash's offenses being great because he had great scorers to pass to, not only was his scoring/shooting a large part of that, but he orchestrated the #1 offense in the league during the regular season/postseason (which ended up being a top-10 offense in history at the time) with a starting lineup of Raja Bell, Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw and Kurt Thomas for pretty much the entire season.

- Kidd was the better defender, in just about every way imaginable - yet Nash was no pushover. He was still a smart defender who knew his limitations and didn't gamble often; sticking to his defensive assignment. He was also one of the better guards at drawing offensive fouls. As a PG you can only have so much impact on the game on the defensive end. Typically a PG anchors the offense (certainly in this comparison anyway), where 70-80%+ of the impact is had (cue my Magic reference again - who had a near-unparalleled impact on the game yet was only a competent defender on his best day. Similar applies to Curry). Not to mention Kidd's defense fell off in the last third of his prime and he was living off reputation.

- Not only was Kidd NOT a better finisher around the basket, but don't you think it's a bit selective to pick out only ONE spot on the floor as if it has any weight in this comparison when Nash shot better from every single area in the halfcourt? Nash during his prime -

Kidd at rim during his prime - 58% on 298 attempts, 62% on 284 attempts, 55% on 376 attempts, 49% on 235 attempts, 53% on 172 attempts and so on.
Nash at rim during his prime - 60% on 260 attempts, 62% on 357 attempts, 60% on 229 attempts, 69% on 351 attempts, 66% on 261 attempts and so on

- Better rebounder? He averaged 0.7 OREB more during their primes on the same base minutes - which isn't that big of difference considering he shot less than Nash did and had more opportunities to go hunting for them. He averaged 2.5 DREB more during their primes on the same base minutes - which ultimately are run over by the fact that despite Kidd hunting for what were essentially for the most part weakside, uncontested rebounds (instead of staying on his man), so he could initiate offense on the fast break still didn't manage to even come close to generating the same amount of points for himself or for his teammates, that Nash did (Nash has one of the lowest DRB rates yet is one of the GREATEST fastbreak players in modern history - go figure). Rebounding in relation to the PG position only has so much impact on the game, which in this comparison the difference between them is washed out to sea with a blink of an eye due to it having minimal weight when comparing the two.

- Bigger, stronger, faster..... really? I mean come on breh, you can use that argument against Nash for pretty much every PG that's ever played the game. This isn't football. What relevance does that really have here? Especially since despite Kidd's attributes, he was a liability in the halfcourt (who hindered and handcuffed his teams' offenses) and Nash was one of the greatest offensive players this game's ever seen.

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.

Nash's game is a better fit in pretty much every era.

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.

It's not really. If you went over their primes and what impact they had on the game with a fine-toothed comb, you'd see that Nash was considerably better. I mean you don't have to look far to see how Kidd's inability, inefficiency and reluctance to score had a crippling effect on the offenses he ran in his last years in Phoenix and in NJ. Again the current day equivalent would be the offenses CP runs and the offenses Rondo runs. It's that big of a margin. Probably bigger to be honest.

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.

I think you will after this post

This site is unable to have a reasonable conversation when it comes to Nash (for obvious reasons), and it's only compounded by the fact that Kidd is the most overrated player of the modern era.

 

[I.V.]

This site is unable to have a reasonable conversation when it comes to Nash (for obvious reasons), and it's only compounded by the fact that Kidd is the most overrated player of the modern era.

I didn't read your post, though I'm sure it's good. I just don't feel like going through a bunch of shyt I already know.


As far as the bolded, on The Coli -- it's Iverson by 10,000 miles.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I didn't read your post, though I'm sure it's good. I just don't feel like going through a bunch of shyt I already know.


As far as the bolded, on The Coli -- it's Iverson by 10,000 miles.

Well considering you said Kidd was a better finisher around the basket and I provided proof that he wasn't - I'd contest there's some shyt you didn't know.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

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.

As I just mentioned, Kidd was only entering his prime during that season, most of his prime years were against players like Marbury, Van Exel, Cassell, Brandon, Francis and Brandon. He was not taking on the greats of the position - as you put it. Regardless, the level of competition at the PG spot was no different to when Nash was in his prime as there's only a few years that separate the two. Hanging your hat on this notion that Kidd fought against GP and Tim during his prime is far from the truth. And again, basketball is not a 1v1 sport. You keep referring to Kidd's team accomplishments (going to the Finals) as a reason for why he's better than Nash - yet in the next breath referring to all the great PGs he [didn't] go up against in his prime.

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.

Kidd didn't reach his prime until he was about 25/26 - which again is what this thread is about. That's about five to six years after he entered the league. By which time most of those aforementioned players were out of their primes, and on the verge of retirement.

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.

He was the system. He didn't go into a system. Kyle Korver went into Coach Bud's system in ATL. Role players go into systems, not players who actually run the show and are either the #1/#2 option.

If he is a great as you are saying why did it take him till getting to Phoenix to turn into a superstar.

You sound like you didn't watch Nash during his prime at all. He was putting up similar #s in Dallas, showcasing his ability. Only difference was he was given more offensive freedom in Phoenix, playing at a fast pace and with a spread offense. Nash during his prime:

2002 - #1 offense (in Dallas - he averaged 18 ppg that season)
2003 - #1 offense (again in Dallas - again he averaged 18 ppg that season - 17.7 ppg to be exact)
2004 - #1 offense (again in Dallas)
2005 - #1 offense (first season in Phoenix)
2006 - #1 offense
2007 - #1 offense
2008 - #2 offense
2009 - #2 offense
2010 - #1 offense

He pretty much orchestrated the #1 offense every single season of his prime, either in Dallas or Phoenix with all types of talent, skillsets, "systems" and personalities.

While Kidd was already one pretty much from the start of his career.

Why do you keep saying this as if you're trying to convince yourself of a fallacy? You clearly don't remember too much of Kidd's career if you think he was a "superstar" from pretty much 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.

Shooting percentage, efficiency and scoring volume is how you value players like Kidd and Nash - team success is secondary. After all aren't we weighing up the impact they had on the court - not what their teams could do?

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.

Being in the minority doesn't make my case less reflective of reality - it just means the majority are too stupid to think for themselves. You've already proven time and time again you don't know what you're talking about; simply bringing up casual fan talking points one after the other, and at times regurgitating them again.

 

[I.V.]

Well considering you said Kidd was a better finisher around the basket and I provided proof that he wasn't

I don't know which years you chose, so from the beginning -- your stats are hard to figure out. Especially because in-depth shooting stats pre= early 2000's aren't always readily available. I'm especially interested in the fact that his shots at the rim plummeting from that second year in your sample to that fourth year, and wonder if it coincides with his shift to shooting more threes, having to do with an injury, whether that was a statistical trend or anomaly ... I also think it's weird to talk about top ranked offenses and attribute that solely to a point guard, and ignore supporting cast and system. Seems flimsy, and maybe even purposely dishonest.

Also, the definition of Prime Kidd is funky, because he was at his most dynamic earlier in his career, but his statistics, specifically his shooting improve in the back half of his career when he was surrounded with much better talent. Kidd also drew a lot more contact around the basket, drawing a lot more free throws in the earlier section of his career, before shifting to shooting more threes and operating a lot more from the perimeter.

On top of that, your rationalizations for Kidd being a better rebounder and defender were particularly egregious... You make a lot of excuses for Nash's rebounding "he had to hang back so he could initiate the offense, it was the system!" and even more embarrassing excuses for his defense.... which was atrocious. Period. He was unable to stay in front of his man, he was bullied to the hoop, he just wasn't a good defender. Now if you want to discount that, because you feel his offensive impact was so huge, that he didn't have to rebound or defend... that's fine. That is an opinion you get to have. But it is a FACT that he was consistently one one of the worst defensive starting PGs in the game.

Again, I'm totally comfortable with you saying you THINK Nash was better that Kidd. I think Kidd was the more complete player, but I also said I'd probably rather take Nash on my team...

But in reading your post, I see you making a ton of excuses for the player you prefer (defensive inability , rebounding) but not making excuses, or rather being similarly understanding of Kidd's shortcomings, blaming Kidd for his team's offensive problems early in his career... even though you excuse the defensive problems of Nash's teams...


I love Steve Nash, loved watching him, loved watching him drive The Coli/sohh crazy... I think he's one of the best point guards of all time. -- I'm really not interested in a back and forth, I see you fighting guys in here, and respect the hustle. I'm not really into that over Kidd/Nash. I'm not invested.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I don't know which years you chose, so from the beginning -- your stats are hard to figure out. Especially because in-depth shooting stats pre= early 2000's aren't always readily available. I'm especially interested in the fact that his shots at the rim plummeting from that second year in your sample to that fourth year, and wonder if it coincides with his shift to shooting more threes, having to do with an injury, whether that was a statistical trend or anomaly ..

I picked the stats from their primes - so basically from around when they were 26/27 to around 34/35 (a bit longer than typical players since they still remained effective in what they did best). ATR stats are only available from when Kidd was 26 forwards, so yes there is a brief span prior to that which could be incorporated as his prime which we don't have access to. However, there's a decent enough sample sizes from both players during their primes to contest that Kidd wasn't a better finisher around the rim. Furthermore, why would you only pick out one area of the floor (even if Nash wasn't more efficient there on similar amount of attempts), when Nash was a better shooter/scorer from every other area on the floor. It was a trend for Kidd, his attempts and efficiency either stayed relatively the same or dropped from there on.

I also think it's weird to talk about top ranked offenses and attribute that solely to a point guard, and ignore supporting cast and system. Seems flimsy, and maybe even purposely dishonest.

I have never ONCE stated or insinuated that the PG is solely responsible for a team's offensive rating in this thread, after all it's a TEAM stat. Point is, a PG (especially in this comparison) anchors the offense and has typically more impact and influence than any other player because they control the ball. And again, I have brought up supporting casts, "systems", pace and any other contextual lining of what offenses they ran in this thread.

Also, the definition of Prime Kidd is funky, because he was at his most dynamic earlier in his career, but his statistics, specifically his shooting improve in the back half of his career when he was surrounded with much better talent. Kidd also drew a lot more contact around the basket, drawing a lot more free throws in the earlier section of his career, before shifting to shooting more threes and operating a lot more from the perimeter.

Kidd's prime IMO was around 25 in Phoenix (lasting until he was about 34) - he was far too erratic in Dallas, and didn't start figuring out how to utilize his strengths on a regular basis until he was under Ainge.

On top of that, your rationalizations for Kidd being a better rebounder and defender were particularly egregious... You make a lot of excuses for Nash's rebounding "he had to hang back so he could initiate the offense, it was the system!" and even more embarrassing excuses for his defense.... which was atrocious. Period. He was unable to stay in front of his man, he was bullied to the hoop, he just wasn't a good defender. Now if you want to discount that, because you feel his offensive impact was so huge, that he didn't have to rebound or defend... that's fine. That is an opinion you get to have. But it is a FACT that he was consistently one one of the worst defensive starting PGs in the game. .

They're not egregious at all (I really didn't get into Kidd's defensive attributes since a PG's impact on that end is only roughly 20-30% of a PG's footprint on the game). It's less me making excuses for Nash's rebounding, and trying to state that just because rebounding is a traditional stat, doesn't mean it has added value of other areas which have more impact/influence on the game - especially from the PG position. PGs typically grab weakside, uncontested rebounds. Explain to me what significant impact Kidd's rebounds had on the game, over Nash? It wasn't due to initiating the offense on the fastbreak, because as I've stated Nash didn't need to grab defensive rebounds to generate MORE fastbreak points for himself or the team, than Kidd did. Nash's inabilities on defense are greatly magnified, to the point where some of them have become old wives' tales. He didn't have any notable impact by any measurable scale, but he always gave effort, knew his limitations , would regularly make smart plays (in similar vein to Ginobili) and was a solid team defender. He actually was among the league leaders in offensive fouls drawn throughout his prime.

Again, I'm totally comfortable with you saying you THINK Nash was better that Kidd. I think Kidd was the more complete player, but I also said I'd probably rather take Nash on my team...

More complete doesn't mean better though. Which is what dudes in this thread have a hard time differentiating between.

But in reading your post, I see you making a ton of excuses for the player you prefer (defensive inability , rebounding) but not making excuses, or rather being similarly understanding of Kidd's shortcomings, blaming Kidd for his team's offensive problems early in his career... even though you excuse the defensive problems of Nash's teams...

For the record, I was a Kidd stan growing up and I was indifferent towards Nash. This has absolutely nothing to do with who I prefer or who I liked more as a player. I'm not making excuses, I'm only emphasizing and fleshing out the meat of this comparison. Which is why I'm not weighing rebounds too heavily here, because strictly in this argument (and PGs in general), rebounds have minimal impact on the game. People put far too much weight in traditional stats, that they lose focus of what really matters, especially since they don't provide the proper positional context when it comes to traditional stats as well. On defense: Riley would often hide Magic on defense, typically against waterbug guards - which dominated the 80s in the fast-paced, RnG offenses - where he was only a competent defender on his best day (don't take this as me saying that Magic is Nash's equivalent on defense). Just because Magic wasn't a complete player, doesn't take away from the fact his impact on the game is near-unparalleled (until now with Curry who funnily enough is another player whose defense is criticized). You know why? Because a PG's impact on the game is mostly through offense (around IMO 70-80%), and only partly through defense (20-30%), because they anchor the offense and not the defense through controlling the ball and what the offense does, like a big man anchors the paint/defense.

Hopefully you get this far to see my point.

 

[Reggie]

As I just mentioned, Kidd was only entering his prime during that season, most of his prime years were against players like Marbury, Van Exel, Cassell, Brandon, Francis and Brandon. He was not taking on the greats of the position - as you put it. Regardless, the level of competition at the PG spot was no different to when Nash was in his prime as there's only a few years that separate the two. Hanging your hat on this notion that Kidd fought against GP and Tim during his prime is far from the truth. And again, basketball is not a 1v1 sport. You keep referring to Kidd's team accomplishments (going to the Finals) as a reason for why he's better than Nash - yet in the next breath referring to all the great PGs he [didn't] go up against in his prime.

Kidd didn't reach his prime until he was about 25/26 - which again is what this thread is about. That's about five to six years after he entered the league. By which time most of those aforementioned players were out of their primes, and on the verge of retirement.

He was the system. He didn't go into a system. Kyle Korver went into Coach Bud's system in ATL. Role players go into systems, not players who actually run the show and are either the #1/#2 option.

You sound like you didn't watch Nash during his prime at all. He was putting up similar #s in Dallas, showcasing his ability. Only difference was he was given more offensive freedom in Phoenix, playing at a fast pace and with a spread offense. Nash during his prime:

2002 - #1 offense (in Dallas - he averaged 18 ppg that season)
2003 - #1 offense (again in Dallas - again he averaged 18 ppg that season - 17.7 ppg to be exact)
2004 - #1 offense (again in Dallas)
2005 - #1 offense (first season in Phoenix)
2006 - #1 offense
2007 - #1 offense
2008 - #2 offense
2009 - #2 offense
2010 - #1 offense

He pretty much orchestrated the #1 offense every single season of his prime, either in Dallas or Phoenix with all types of talent, skillsets, "systems" and personalities.

Why do you keep saying this as if you're trying to convince yourself of a fallacy? You clearly don't remember too much of Kidd's career if you think he was a "superstar" from pretty much the start of his career.



Shooting percentage, efficiency and scoring volume is how you value players like Kidd and Nash - team success is secondary. After all aren't we weighing up the impact they had on the court - not what their teams could do?

Being in the minority doesn't make my case less reflective of reality - it just means the majority are too stupid to think for themselves. You've already proven time and time again you don't know what you're talking about; simply bringing up casual fan talking points one after the other, and at times regurgitating them again.

If you say so. Tired of going back and forth with you. Cause you clearly don't remember Nash's career if you act like he was considered some type of great at all till he went to Phoenix and got in that SYSTEM.
And you are in the minority cause you are wrong.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

If you say so. Tired of going back and forth with you. Cause you clearly don't remember Nash's career if you act like he was considered some type of great at all till he went to Phoenix and got in that SYSTEM.
And you are in the minority cause you are wrong.

You can't be considered "some type of great" after only a brief period (unless it's some Curry shyt). If he stayed in Dallas, there's a great chance he'd have a similar career. You claim Nash wasn't what he was until he landed in Phoenix, which is completely far from the truth. He orchestrated the #1 offense in Dallas for THREE seasons in a row, while putting up 18 ppg (same amount of points he averaged in Phoenix) and 7 assists (his assists increased in Phoenix because the team played at a faster pace and he had more offensive freedom to do what he wanted). He was essentially the same player in Dallas as he was in Phoenix. Again, you'd know this if you actually watched him play.

You clearly DID NOT watch Nash during his prime. It's quite clearly evident. You're just regurgitating casual fan talking points, like you've been doing all throughout this thread.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

lol at being in the minority on a board who hates Steve Nash, as if that makes me wrong.

 

[I.V.]

More complete doesn't mean better though. Which is what dudes in this thread have a hard time differentiating between.

It doesn't always mean better...
But sometimes it does. But most of the splits here are subjective, or arbitrary.

Which goes back to my original point, which is that I think one player is more complete... and I think I'd rather have the other.

This is boring because I'm not arguing with you, I don't even disagree with you. I'm just pointing out the holes in your particular arguments.


I'm cool with saying Nash is better. I'm constantly arguing pro-Nash on this site. Let's build together.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

It doesn't always mean better...
But sometimes it does. But most of the splits here are subjective, or arbitrary.

Which goes back to my original point, which is that I think one player is more complete... and I think I'd rather have the other.

This is boring because I'm not arguing with you, I don't even disagree with you. I'm just pointing out the holes in your particular arguments.


I'm cool with saying Nash is better. I'm constantly arguing pro-Nash on this site. Let's build together.

I've pretty much met my argue for a white player quota in this thread, to last a lifetime.

 

[I.V.]

I've pretty much met my argue for a white player quota in this thread, to last a lifetime.

 

[Big Dick]

I picked the stats from their primes - so basically from around when they were 26/27 to around 34/35 (a bit longer than typical players since they still remained effective in what they did best). ATR stats are only available from when Kidd was 26 forwards, so yes there is a brief span prior to that which could be incorporated as his prime which we don't have access to. However, there's a decent enough sample sizes from both players during their primes to contest that Kidd wasn't a better finisher around the rim. Furthermore, why would you only pick out one area of the floor (even if Nash wasn't more efficient there on similar amount of attempts), when Nash was a better shooter/scorer from every other area on the floor. It was a trend for Kidd, his attempts and efficiency either stayed relatively the same or dropped from there on.

I have never ONCE stated or insinuated that the PG is solely responsible for a team's offensive rating in this thread, after all it's a TEAM stat. Point is, a PG (especially in this comparison) anchors the offense and has typically more impact and influence than any other player because they control the ball. And again, I have brought up supporting casts, "systems", pace and any other contextual lining of what offenses they ran in this thread.

Kidd's prime IMO was around 25 in Phoenix (lasting until he was about 34) - he was far too erratic in Dallas, and didn't start figuring out how to utilize his strengths on a regular basis until he was under Ainge.

They're not egregious at all (I really didn't get into Kidd's defensive attributes since a PG's impact on that end is only roughly 20-30% of a PG's footprint on the game). It's less me making excuses for Nash's rebounding, and trying to state that just because rebounding is a traditional stat, doesn't mean it has added value of other areas which have more impact/influence on the game - especially from the PG position. PGs typically grab weakside, uncontested rebounds. Explain to me what significant impact Kidd's rebounds had on the game, over Nash? It wasn't due to initiating the offense on the fastbreak, because as I've stated Nash didn't need to grab defensive rebounds to generate MORE fastbreak points for himself or the team, than Kidd did. Nash's inabilities on defense are greatly magnified, to the point where some of them have become old wives' tales. He didn't have any notable impact by any measurable scale, but he always gave effort, knew his limitations , would regularly make smart plays (in similar vein to Ginobili) and was a solid team defender. He actually was among the league leaders in offensive fouls drawn throughout his prime.

More complete doesn't mean better though. Which is what dudes in this thread have a hard time differentiating between.

For the record, I was a Kidd stan growing up and I was indifferent towards Nash. This has absolutely nothing to do with who I prefer or who I liked more as a player. I'm not making excuses, I'm only emphasizing and fleshing out the meat of this comparison. Which is why I'm not weighing rebounds too heavily here, because strictly in this argument (and PGs in general), rebounds have minimal impact on the game. People put far too much weight in traditional stats, that they lose focus of what really matters, especially since they don't provide the proper positional context when it comes to traditional stats as well. On defense: Riley would often hide Magic on defense, typically against waterbug guards - which dominated the 80s in the fast-paced, RnG offenses - where he was only a competent defender on his best day (don't take this as me saying that Magic is Nash's equivalent on defense). Just because Magic wasn't a complete player, doesn't take away from the fact his impact on the game is near-unparalleled (until now with Curry who funnily enough is another player whose defense is criticized). You know why? Because a PG's impact on the game is mostly through offense (around IMO 70-80%), and only partly through defense (20-30%), because they anchor the offense and not the defense through controlling the ball and what the offense does, like a big man anchors the paint/defense.

Hopefully you get this far to see my point.

You actually did insinuate that a few times by bringing up the season rankings of the Suns offense and pretty much applying it as a statistic you were crediting to Nash. Still man you make a good argument and it does look like Nash was a more efficient player but I still take prime Kidd. I'll give you that Kidd wouldn't have had the success with the Suns that Steve Nash did if he got to play with Amare and those squads but I'd wager that Nash wouldn't have taken those Nets teams to the Finals in back to back years, regardless of how the weak the East was.

And your saying rebounding or D from the point guard spot doesn't matter as much and are not as important but honestly there's no telling when a clutch rebound or tight D in the clutch will make or break a game down the stretch. I've seen cases just like that with Kidd so yeah that matters to me. Im not mad at someone taking Nash over Kidd though just reading through this thread made me wanna play 2k.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

You actually did insinuate that a few times by bringing up the season rankings of the Suns offense and pretty much applying it as a statistic you were crediting to Nash.

Not at all - I've reiterated that Nash was the MAIN reason and not the SOLE reason all throughout this thread (I'm not trying to mislead or be dishonest) -

Nash was the main reason those teams had all-time great offenses though - similar to Curry.

Act like Nash wasn't the main reason those Suns squads had all-time great offenses brehs.

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.

When comparing PGs (especially Kidd and Nash) - offenses are one of the main things you use to weigh up their impact, obviously with the appropriate context of scheme and teammates. Similar to how you would when comparing defensive anchors - you'd used defensive rankings/ratings.

Still man you make a good argument and it does look like Nash was a more efficient player but I still take prime Kidd. I'll give you that Kidd wouldn't have had the success with the Suns that Steve Nash did if he got to play with Amare and those squads but I'd wager that Nash wouldn't have taken those Nets teams to the Finals in back to back years, regardless of how the weak the East was.

Nash took a starting lineup of Raja Bell, Marion, Diaw and Tim/Kurt Thomas to the WCF (they had the #1 offense) against vastly superior playoff competition. I'm sure he'd be able to take those Net squads who either had equal offensive talent or better to the Finals in the East.

And your saying rebounding or D from the point guard spot doesn't matter as much and are not as important but honestly there's no telling when a clutch rebound or tight D in the clutch will make or break a game down the stretch. I've seen cases just like that with Kidd so yeah that matters to me. Im not mad at someone taking Nash over Kidd though just reading through this thread made me wanna play 2k.

Fair enough, and I'm not saying that Kidd's rebounding didn't have ANY impact at all - I'm just saying it was immaterial in the grand scheme of things. There's an infinite about of facets/stats which aren't traditional that would either have just as much importance or more, in this comparison as rebounding does.

 

[Reggie]

You can't be considered "some type of great" after only a brief period (unless it's some Curry shyt). If he stayed in Dallas, there's a great chance he'd have a similar career. You claim Nash wasn't what he was until he landed in Phoenix, which is completely far from the truth. He orchestrated the #1 offense in Dallas for THREE seasons in a row, while putting up 18 ppg (same amount of points he averaged in Phoenix) and 7 assists (his assists increased in Phoenix because the team played at a faster pace and he had more offensive freedom to do what he wanted). He was essentially the same player in Dallas as he was in Phoenix. Again, you'd know this if you actually watched him play.

You clearly DID NOT watch Nash during his prime. It's quite clearly evident. You're just regurgitating casual fan talking points, like you've been doing all throughout this thread.

Name anyone other then you who considered Nash great before he went to Phoenix and thought he was headed for a possible Hall of Fame career. Tired of going back and forth with you but I think Kidd could have orchestrated the number 1 or at least near the top of the league type offense too if he played with Finley Dirk Jamison Walker Van Exel Lafrentz like Nash did. Tell me what I've watched when i'm probably older then you.