The Coli Where we rank Kyle Lowry over Jason Kidd.. Scust @malta

[Jplaya2023]

This is half this board's trouble - NOT READING PROPERLY.

Nobody is arguing that Lowry is better in an all time context. Just that he's better at his peak than Kidd was at his peak as a player - basically Kidd at his best v Lowry at his best. You shouldn't be taken seriously on any topic if you can't read properly. SMH.

how was lowry better at his peak than kidd? because he scores more while doing EVERYTHING ELSE less effectively at the PG position?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Enough over the last few years to determine that he's nothing special and should NEVER be mentioned alongside JKidd.

That seems to be code for none at all. He's been one of the most efficient volume scorers this season (far better than Kidd ever was - the difference is HUGE) while leading one of the most efficient offenses of all time, and that's before we get into all the rest of the shyt he does.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

how was lowry better at his peak than kidd? because he scores more while doing EVERYTHING ELSE less effectively at the PG position?

Using that logic I'm guessing you believe Kidd at his peak is better than Curry at his peak?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I find it hilarious how dudes talk about players they don't even watch and argue about their games in the same vein they would a basic règle scientific fact.

 

[Tunez]

Let the thread die already

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Let the thread die already

Have you not been paying attention to Lowry's play lately?

 

[Tunez]

Have you not been paying attention to Lowry's play lately?

Hell no

 

[Donald Trumps Twitter]

the level of trolling is over 9000

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Hell no

You're the first one in this thread (from the other side) that's actually been honest.

 

[Goatpoacher]

Offensively, there basically isn't any. That's the entire point - he's basically mastered the ability of balancing when to shoot/pass with an elite scoring skillset - maximizing his team's offensive potential (which is one of the best offenses in history). I'm asking you to imagine how less effective the offense would be with a player at the other end of the spectrum. It's as simple as that - if you can see all the differences and how less effective it would be than you can see my argument.

So.. Because Curry dominates in a historically unprecedented fashion with his scoring ability, a player that is worth half of Curry in talent is better than a point guard who is talented in different ways? You do realize this argument makes no sense? Absolutely no sense whatsoever? It's not even an argument.

This isn't directly relevant to this discussion of comparing PGs who're the main ball-handlers/playmakers (specifically Kidd v Lowry). Both Dirk and Kobe had different roles to each other during those seasons, therefore the skeleton of the argument isn't going to be the same (not to mention the value of defensive impact from wings and big men has to be taken into account) . But again, if you took both of those players off their respective teams and replaced them with polar-opposites in terms of scoring capabilities, those teams would be worse off would they not?

Yes, because the teams were constructed around them. Just like Kidd's teams were constructed around him.

It's not about having scoring threats at all positions. This discussion is centered around the main ball-handler's (the PG in this argument) influence and impact on offense. Just look at the role and what impact a PG (main ball-handler) can have on the offense. You don't need to look at the "totality" of a team to measure a PG's impact on a general scale.

My point is, the ball handling and movement can come from a position other than the PG. You can't think of any examples of this? My further point is that you have not provided any reason to believe that the PG has to be a scoring threat any more than the Center of SF. My furthest point is that even if you want to believe multiple scoring threats are important, that is MODERN as in post 2014. Kidd played in a iso-ball heavy era where having 2 scoring options was considered being wealthy.

You are completely missing the point. And by the way, can you fix your post above with all the quotes so I can reply properly to it.

Yeah, when I get to my work computer tomorrow.

 

[Goatpoacher]

I'd also like to know how you came to this conclusion.

I'd also like to know how you came to this conclusion.

Kidd won a ring :jjjjj: Lowry had a negative VORP in the playoffs last season

:jjjjj:

 

[Goatpoacher]

I find it hilarious how dudes talk about players they don't even watch and argue about their games in the same vein they would a basic règle scientific fact.

My point is that I need either an empirical or logical basis for your assertion that a point guard must be a scoring threat.

It seems to be a strange point since Lowry shot 46% from 2 and 39% from 3 for 21 ppg

in 2003, Kidd shot 45 from 2 and 34 from 3 for 18.7 ppg.

Is that really such an offensive productivity differential for you? They were attempting nearly the same number of shots per game.

So Prime Kidd was close in ppg and FG% but was a much better defender, passer, rebounder. You may be overstating Kidd's offensive futility because his shot was so ugly.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

So.. Because Curry dominates in a historically unprecedented fashion with his scoring ability, a player that is worth half of Curry in talent is better than a point guard who is talented in different ways? You do realize this argument makes no sense? Absolutely no sense whatsoever? It's not even an argument.

i) Lowry is one of the most efficient volume scorers in the league - not just PGs - but in the league
ii) Lowry is one of the best playmakers in the league - not just PGs - but in the league
iii) Lowry has one of the best pass/shoot balances with a high-end scoring skillset in the league, and is the main reason why the Raptors are on pace for having one of the most efficient offenses in history

His offensive play and impact over the last two seasons is greater than Kidd's ever was.

That's why my argument makes sense. Is that the end-all and be-all of this player comparison? Of course not. But it's the most important factor when comparing PGs who're the main ball-handlers of their respective teams. This doesn't make sense to you because you don't watch the Raptors play and therefore for some strange reason on some slapstick shyt believe that "old man Kidd" is better than Lowry is right now. It's either that or you don't know how to properly weigh impact v position and roles properly.

Yes, because the teams were constructed around them. Just like Kidd's teams were constructed around him.

It's different. Again, you can't use the same role/position template you do with Lowry v Kidd that you would for x-PG v Dirk.

My point is, the ball handling and movement can come from a position other than the PG. You can't think of any examples of this?

Of course it can, but that has no relevance to this argument since we're comparing TWO PGS WHO'RE THE MAIN BALL-HANDLERS ON THEIR RESPECTIVE TEAMS. Not every single PG on every team is the main ball-handler. It can be different positions. However, that has no relevance in this argument since we're talking about two PGs who are.

My further point is that you have not provided any reason to believe that the PG has to be a scoring threat any more than the Center of SF.

They don't have to be anything, except that a PG who's more of a equal threat to shoot/pass with a high-end scoring skillset will have more impact in general than a PG who doesn't, regardless of what type of scorer is on the wing or in the frontcourt. If your PG is handling the ball most of the time (like Lowry is and like Kidd did), the player that has the most offensive impact in general will be the one that can score + pass at a higher level. Because again, like I said if a PG who's the main ball-handler is a threat to score and can score at a high level this is what happens:

Just look at some of the things it affects:

the spacing (how a PG pulls in defenders all across the court and gives their teammates more room to operate with)
the help defense (how a PG pulls in defenders, rips defensive schemes and gives teammates easier scoring opportunities and/or mismatchups)
defenders rotating (how a PG forces teams to rotate)
the rhythm, confidence and belief of defenses (how a PG can get a strangehold on the control of possession flow, limit the defense's confidence by making it harder and less predictable for them to defend)
defensive matchups (how a PG can get a defense to mentally and physically overcompensate by being an equal shot/pass threat - teams using better guard/wing defenders and how it affects the awareness of other defenders of where the PG is and what they're going to do, and how it affects their mental ability of being concerned about another player while their own defensive assignment)
the mental and physical strain (how a PG can break a defense mentally and physically and the domino effect it has on the opposing team's offense, how much energy and willpower they have throughout the game, how the opposing team's gameplan changes and lineup changes etc etc)

Look at the offensive production a PG like Westbrook can generate for his team and look at how opposition teams defend him, and then look at the offensive production a PG like Rubio generates for his team and look at how opposition teams defend him. Anyone more layman and I'm going to be hitting Mr. Knowles '03 status.

My furthest point is that even if you want to believe multiple scoring threats are important, that is MODERN as in post 2014. Kidd played in a iso-ball heavy era where having 2 scoring options was considered being wealthy.

It's not about believing about "multiple scoring threats". This is simply PG v PG. Where is all this other shyt coming from? It's how much offensive production a PG can generate for himself and for his team, how they break down defenses and create opportunities not only for themselves but for their teammates and how much defensive attention they attract while doing so - therefore creating mismatchups for their teammates, more room for teammates to shoot/cut/dribble after pass, more offensive fluidity, an extra high-end scoring threat to help carry the team's scoring load, more offensive belief etc etc. Teams regularly gave Kidd shooting cushions during his prime and he still wouldn't/couldn't score, which at times hindered his teammates and the offense (it's one of the main reasons why he led league average to bad offenses). Players don't do that with Lowry - they treat him as a scoring threat just as much as they do as a passing threat (it's one of the main reasons why he has led one of the league's best offenses for the last two seasons).

 

[Sister Sledge]

In Lowry's defense, he is severely overrated. He has stepped his game way up over the last two seasons. But he has only been playing at such a high level for the past few seasons, and he still is not a better defender, rebounder or passer than Kidd. He also fades in the playoffs. This season, he has been more efficient than he has ever been, but Kidd still trumps him. Kidd is overrated, though. He was a liability on offense all throughout his career.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

My point is that I need either an empirical or logical basis for your assertion that a point guard must be a scoring threat.

I've been doing that all throughout this discussion. If the PG is the main-ball handler they must be a scoring threat, as they dictate what the offense does more than any other player. If your main ball-handler isn't a threat to score, it basically affects the entire offense and how teams defend you and the team. Why else do you think teams send more defensive help and alter their defensives schemes when they play Westbrook, Harden, Curry and Lillard and not to the same degree that they would a Rondo, Rubio or Payton?

It seems to be a strange point since Lowry shot 46% from 2 and 39% from 3 for 21 ppg

in 2003, Kidd shot 45 from 2 and 34 from 3 for 18.7 ppg.

Is that really such an offensive productivity differential for you? They were attempting nearly the same number of shots per game.

You can't just take their FG% and 3-pt% without looking at specifically how many 2s and 3s they attempted. Although I'm not the biggest fan of TS%, it serves its purpose in this argument for scoring efficiency:

Lowry is scoring 21.2 ppg on 61.9 TS% - 14.8 shots per game (he's 2nd in qualifying PGs, only behind Curry who's at 64 TS% on 24.7 ppg)
Kidd was scoring 18.7 ppg on 52.6 TS% - 15.6 shots per game (just to put it into perspective that would be around 30th among PGs today)

And this isn't even taking into account that he started the season off slowly, and has been on a tear for the last 5-6 weeks (23 ppg on 68 TS% / 14.2 shots per game, 7.7 assists and only 2.8 turnovers)

There's a near 10% difference in their scoring efficency, and this is with Lowry scoring nearly THREE extra points - with Kidd attempting 15.6 shots per game and Lowry attempting 14.8 shots per game. Lowry is scoring nearly three extra points while attempting one less shot. I don't think you quite understand how big of a difference that is. The closest comparison I can get with wings is the difference between Durant and Wiggins (12 TS% difference and a 3.8 PPG difference on nearly the same amount of shots). That's how much of a difference there is.

So Prime Kidd was close in ppg and FG% but was a much better defender, passer, rebounder.

Well since I can leave out the PPG/efficiency (he's not even remotely close), why don't we address the other areas. See now this is the issue I have with a lot of posters on this board, first of all they overvalue surface stats in the box score and they mistake that all surface aspects of basketball have equal value or near. When you compare players you don't give a player one point for being a better scorer, one point for being a better rebounder, one point for being a better passer etc etc and then deem the player that has the most points the better player. You weigh up the impact they have v the role and position on the team v their skillset.

Now when you're comparing PGs who're the main ball-handlers, the most valuable and important thing by far is offensive impact (simply because PGs can only have so much defensive impact, and they're not like big man where you need to value defense more when comparing players). Same reason why Magic is the GOAT PG (I feel like I've used this example 1000x this week), because as you know he was only an average defender who was often hidden on defense. The majority of his impact was through what he could do on offense.

Lowry is also one one of the best passers/playmakers in the league too. He can play without the ball just as well as he can on it (Kidd can't), and the intangibles/leadership cues and all the miscellaneous shyt that doesn't appear in the box score (diving for loose balls, taking charges, shadowing players full-court, playing m2m and help defense, setting screens, defending multiple positions - yes Lowry does this, cutting/curling etc etc)

And with the fact of being a greater volume, more efficient scorer, he also has a higher points/assist to turnover ratio and a better assist/turnover ratio during their respective surface statistical peaks too:

Lowry - 21.2 ppg on 14.8 shots, 7.7 assists and 2.9 turnovers
Kidd - 18.7 ppg on 15.6 shots, 8.9 assists and 3.7 turnovers

Like I said prior, Lowry's offensive impact and offensive skillset is greater than Kidd's ever was, over the last two seasons. His play is powering one of the most efficient offenses in recorded history.

Although Lowry isn't Kidd's equal on defense, he isn't too far off (he's one of the best PG defenses we have in the league), there's a reason why he was noted as more of a defensive PG in his early 20s when he was still finding his way offensively.

He was arguably Team USA's best defensive guard at the Olympics. The team had a DRTG of 78.5 (the best of any player on the team, while playing the 5th most minutes)

With gold medals already in their clutches, members of USA Basketball are now enjoying the afterglow of the Rio Olympics. For Kyle Lowry and DeMar DeRozan, the Raptors participants on Team USA, there’s plenty to be gleaned from their experience in Brazil.

Today, NBA.com’s John Schuhmann released the final on-court numbers from USA’s 13 games, both exhibition and at the Olympics. What immediately stands out is Lowry’s contributions on the defensive end.

Playing mainly as a backup to Kyrie Irving, Lowry finished with a team-best defensive rating of 78.5 in 221.4 minutes of play. This was better than Draymond Green and Jimmy Butler, who finished two and three, and are the typical names you’d expect to see topping any defensive stat category.

This helped boost Lowry’s net rating, which was the third-best on Team USA, behind DeMarcus Cousins(!) and Paul George.

Though Lowry appeared to be going through the shooting woes that plagued him sporadically during the NBA Playoffs, the fact he played meaningful defense attests to the type of player he’s become. When the rest of Team USA was lethargic or playing to their opponent, Lowry was his tenacious self. As a bench spark plug, he made it his calling to guard the point of attack, offsetting guard penetration.

Kyle Lowry puts up stud numbers for USA Basketball

And this is all without stating that he has a high BBIQ on both ends too.