This. I remember Kidd regularly having games like 6 points, 16 assists, 14 rebounds, 3 steals, 1 block.
The relevance of this is what exactly?
Gill Scott is looking strictly at Lowry's numbers and not realizing the value of Kidd's intangibles on the game. His court vision, rebounding ability at the guard spot, ability to see the whole floor and his overall game managing is second to none. He's one of the greatest point guards EVER and its not arguable. The same can't be said for Lowry, although his story is still being written, he's still not on Kidd's level.
I don't expect you to read all my posts in this thread, but at the same time I don't expect you to accuse me of shyt I'm not guilty of, like 'strictly looking at numbers and not intangibles'.
I've already addressed the "intangibles" argument in this thread, which can be broken down into '
we reference intangibles to overcompensate for a player's lack of skill in other areas (we do the opposite for players who're skilled in a lot of areas)' - there's no great margin between their intangibles. If you actually paid attention to Raptors games, you would see this. Furthermore, you can not just turn a blind eye to stats and prop up shyt that is in effect immeasurable, they have utmost importance in this argument, especially ones which give a near-accurate display of one's impact. The fact of the matter is this, Kidd was a limited offensive player whose peak as a player wasn't all that great. Yes, he is one of the greatest PGs to play the game, if only for the fact he was a damn good player for a long time. Not because he was a transcendent player who dominated games in the manner that top-tier offensive players did.
I. His rebounding ability is greatly exaggerated for the simple fact he grabbed uncontested rebounds to start the break (often leaving his defensive assignment). Not because he was banging in the paint with bigs. The actual rebound themselves has little to no impact on the game. There are many other areas you could use as reference than something that comes from a box score.
II. He couldn't manage the game for shyt. He was average in that department. It's half the reason he couldn't even run ONE great offense during his prime. Great passer/playmaker, but could never orchestrate a dominant offense. Similar to Rondo.
III. He doesn't even come close to Lowry as a scorer, which is ONE of, if not the most important aspect of a PG who's the main ball-handler.
I just can't imagine needing a point guard for one season in their primes between Kidd and Lowry and seeing Lowry win that. It wouldn't happen
You can't imagine that because you're letting the past blind you from using reason and logic.
