You do know that last year the Suns were 0.7 points per 100 poss. better on D with Hill on the floor, and 0.5 points per 100 poss. worse on D with Hill on the floor the year lasy year, right? That doesn't sound like an enormous impact to me. For an extreme example, a guy like Garnett is typically +5.0 or so in that regard.
Kidd's offensive numbers aren't exactly average. If kidd's style was basically a ben wallace at point, then I can see how Nash's offense would be more valued in a comparison. However, Kidd was a very good defender AND had above average impact on offense as well. Nash was only above average on one side of the ball. So again, being above average on one side of the ball isn't better than a player who was above average on both sides. Nash would have to be a better scorer to get the nod, like 25 + a game.
I would take Kidd over Nash. Kidd was always a good rebounding PG, a quality defender, obviously one of the best passers ever, and also exhibits one of the highest basketball IQs in the game(wonder if he will get into coaching after he retires?). True his shot was terrible throughout his prime, but he was streaky and at times could hit open shots and honestly, in his youth he could still find ways to score in the paint either off drives or by posting guys up so it's not like he was completely offensively inept like Rondo. Not to take anything away from Nash, but Kidd could impact an entire game end to end more than Nash....plus Kidd took one of the weakest teams of all time to the Finals - TWICE and he has a ring.
Nash's career ORtg (an estimate of points produced per 100 possessions) is 119, versus 107 for JKidd. His career eFG% is 55%, versus 46% for Kidd. His Career shooting % slash line is .489/.429/.904, versus Kidd's .401/.348/.784. Nash has also posted lines of 50% FG, 40% 3PT, and 90% FT. Larry Bird did that twice, Mark Price, Reggie Miller, and Dirk did it once, Nash has done it FOUR times. I don't think it's a slight to Kidd, a sure-fire hall of famer, to say that Nash was a significantly better offensive player.
1) Magic 2) Oscar 3) Kidd 4) Stockton 5) Nash Kidd played the biggest role for back to back championship run with NJ but falling short. Kidd imo is a better defender than Stockton. And without Kidd, Mavs would have not won the championship. Every players contributed to Mavs victory. If one of these players were missing, Kidd, Terry n Chandler (yes chandler, Mavs lacked that big man inside before him and they always fell short because of it) I think Heat would have taken it. And of course without Dirk, it would have been a sweep. But Kidds playmaking, defense n 3's was one of the major reasons for Mavs success. With Malone, Stockton n Hornacek, team still fell short, thanks to Jordan. Stockton is a better shooter but overall as a PG, i think Kidd is better.
Kidd's NJ Finals teams stunk. Please quit using them to prop him up. They probably wouldn't have made it to the 2nd round in the West.
Okay, serious question. Given that Kidd was probably the third most important player on this Dallas' roster... Would you guys' opinion of him be any different had the Mavs NOT won the title? I mean, since most here are in agreement that he's a top 5 PG of all time, wouldn't that also be true had he never won a ring? Also, since we're on the topic of defense, where would you guys rank Payton? Ignoring the fact that he was generally a bit of a pain in the ass.
They probably wouldn't have made it out of the first round of the East playoffs without Kidd. Or the playoffs at all, possibly.
Kidd is above Nash simply because of size that he uses to bother other PGs. And he can post up too something Nash rarily does. Both are good as assist first floor generals and Nash obviously has the speed advantage..
i don't think it's clear-cut that he's top 5 (possibly borderline). but he would be in a similar position without a ring b/c he won this ring being a role player; winning a ring as the lead dog or #2 would increase his status/rep even more in my opinion. i probably rank gary payton higher than anybody b/c i respected his defense (one of only 2 guards in history of win DPOY), and he was one of the best scorers at his position. he's probably in the 6-8 range for me.
Nash is overrated while Kidd is underrated. Think about it, replace Kidd with Nash for this Mavs, would they win a championship? No way Nash could contain Kobe, Westbrook, Wade/LBJ on the way to win it all.
If Nash is even average, I wouldn't mind that. But he's dragging Marion, and later Bell to do the job for him. That really damaged the team in those Spurs series.
Nash is probably like 6'1" at most but with his speed, I have no idea why he can't be a better defender.
Kidd was more than just a role player that Finals series. I have a feeling Nash wouldn't do so bad when if he had this new and improved mobile best 7footer in the game with handles that can shoot under pressure. I bet Nash would love to be back on the Mavs.
That was one of the fools gold trends in the last 5 years. Even the Rockets were dropping run and gun buzzwords. No D. Push the ball. FGA most important stat followed by assists which are themselves overinflated in that style. You bring up a good point though. A whole team committed to defense could probably cover for Nash if they were solid 2-5 athletically. They never made a major move to adjust to the realities of winning, and scoring is a valuable skill but redundant. In the playoffs, everyone plays as hard as they can. Both ends. When the system isn't there, guys get confused and can't pick up rotations on the fly when it really matters. Defense is a habit, and a team that doesn't commit to it won't be winning a title. Ever. That's the one thing I did admire about the Heat. Physicality on the perimeter defensively. Coupled with the refs hesitance to call ticky tack hand check fouls on superstars.
