No actually I want you to get into defense because that should be a couple of sentences for Nash. By the way, I'll point out one GLARING flaw in your entire argument and that is your use of offensive rating, which is determined by the amount of possessions correct? Now tell me which coach's offense predicates on getting more possessions, Byron Scott's Nets or D'Antoni's Suns? Which had more half-court sets?
Nobody has claimed Kidd to be a good scorer. Tony Parker is actually a good shooter. He wasn't early in his career, but he really developed a consistent jumper. You are too focused on offensive rating. That has a lot to do with the system. Most teams don't post solid defensive and offensive ratings. Most sacrifice one to benefit the other. Nash is obviously the better offensive player, but that doesn't mean Kidd was a complete zero on offense as you make him out to be.
Offensive rating works by determining the amount of points scored per 100 posessions, so no, it's not dependent on the amount of possessions. I would however note that passing in transition is the one area where Kidd is close to Nash offensively, but because it's Nash, he's still better. Now, let's get into defense. I'm not going to argue that Nash is at Kidd's level defensively. My argument is that a point guard's ability to function offensively is FAR more important than a point guard's ability to defend, because a point guard's defense can easily be masked by good defensive/rebounding bigs, something Nash never really had the opportunity to play with his entire career. This is not for true in offense, because obviously Nash and Kidd dominated the ball a lot as point guards, meaning that their performance had a far greater on the team on that end. I would note that my concept of defense in general applies to wing players, and that an excellent example applies to our current Rockets. Harden can get away with a lot of his crap defensively because of Asik, and while obviously Harden's defense can improve, the fact is that in general, man-to-man defense fails and defense works as a team, and much of Houston's defensive deficiencies by poor rotations and normal **** done by a young, inexperienced team. In the post-hand checking, pretty much any point guard can past the other without huge amounts of difficulty. Now, let me slightly switch over to Asian, who argues that a point guard can in fact be a defensive impact, and uses Gary Payton as a example thanks to his DPOY. But, it does not necessarily follow that just because Gary Payton is a good defender that the Sonics must also be a good defensive team. And at the end of the day, the goal is to have a good team defense. So, let's take a look at the Sonics defensively. They were the 2nd best defensive team in the league as measured by defensive rating in 1996. Very good, of course. But look at their defensive rating in the following years. 6th in 97 10th in 98 26th in 99 15th in 00 24th in 01 17th in 02 The correlation doesn't look good for Mr. Payton now, does it? At the end of the day, no matter how good a point guard, he can realistically only guard one guy. This does not apply to elite big men like Mutombo or Wallace, who can guard their times and the basket itself more or less at the same time, thus creating a more important defensive effect. By the way, those Nash teams? They're actually not that bad defensively when you consider their total lack of a defensive big men. 2005 17th 2006 16th 2007 13th 2008 16th Nash is a far better offensive player, and while a worse defensive player, it's not that big of a deal since point guards generally blow by each other anyways. The result was that he created far superior teams with not that much more talent and which had a much better shot of winning a title. Therefore, he had a much better impact and is a better player. So, Kidd doesn't score efficiently, and he doesn't create good offensive teams. By the standards of a 1st ballot HoF point guard, how is that not a complete zero?
He created most of the offense for those teams. I'm not sure you've watched a basketball game. How about you use a more useful measure, like his On/Off stats?
Let me modify my statement. By the standards of a first-ballot HOF point guard, and compared to Steve Nash, how is that not a complete zero? After all, Nash beats Kidd silly with those stats, and the Nets without Kidd had a much better record than the Suns without Nash, even though much of the criticism towards Nash is that he had better teams to work with.
By 1999 Gary Payton was already 30 and Paul Westfail was coach by then as well. Even so Gary Payton still held his own as a defensive player and if it weren't for him they would've been much worse defensively as a team. At the end of the day an elite point guard can and does effectively guard more than one guy. Jason Kidd was able to guard Parker, Ginoboli and Jackson at different times when the Nets met the Spurs in the Finals. Also, what really threw Durant off in the WC Finals 2 years ago was when Carlisle decided to put Kidd on Durant. That move changed the complexion of the series.
No Nash is better. Not impressed by Kidd leading a team to the Finals when the East was weaker than it is now. Nash is an infinitely better shooter and his impact on O>>> Kidd's impact on O. Both are equivalent playmakers but Nash has a huge advantage on Offense given the fact he is a 50/40/90 type of scorer/shooter. His offenses were much better and what he did in the Western Conference is arguably more impressive than what Kidd did in the Leastern Conference. Sure you can argue Kidd had an immediate impact(due to Nash being utilized poorly early in his career mind you) but Nash had more years in his prime. Kidd fell off a cliff much sooner. Nash was still an All Star caliber PG last season and still would be one if he didn't play off the ball to Kobe. Also defense for a PG is not nearly as important as offense considering PG's have the lowest defensive impact out of every position for the most part.
Offensive rating is not based on possessions. Its based on points scored per 100 possessions so your argument holds no water. So there is no inflation at all. Nash ran all time great offensive teams. It just happens to be the case that these offensive teams didn't play good defense. It is ok to have one defensive liability especially if he is a PG but having someone like Amare who is Boozer bad defensively screwed the Suns over not to mention having No D Antoni as a coach. Keep in mind the Suns were very close to making it to the Finals if not for that brawl that caused their players to be suspended against the Spurs.
Much like Rondo(though not nearly as bad obv) Kidd's impact on offense was grossly overrated and really not all that great due to the fact that he was a piss poor scorer in every sense of the word. Every great PG who had great impact offensively was at the very least a pretty good scorer. Magic, Stockton, Nash and soon CP3. All of them are capable scorers/shooters. Kidd is not and that is why he ran mediocre/below average offenses. Still a great player but overrated(Rondo is much more overrated mind you).
First, 30 is hardly old. Secondly, a lot of what you say more or less proves my point. Payton was obviously a great defender for his position, after all, and they would have been worse defensively without him. But when did Ben Wallace play for a bottom 15 defensive team? Or Dikembe? Or Hakeem? Or Duncan? The best elite defensive bigs can affect a team's ratings almost entirely by themselves. Not so for point guards, because their size and position inherently limit their capabilities.
He took the Nets to the finals as the best player. Won with Mavs.... He's a winner wherever he goes. What are you talking about? ?????????
... ... ... ... Okay, I can tolerate the "Kidd is a better defensive and rebounder than Nash" argument. I don't like it, but I can tolerate it. The "Kidd is a winner" argument? SERIOUSLY?!? The Nets won 52 and 49 games in their Finals years. 50 and 49. They would be the 5th best team in the 1st if placed in the West in 2002, and 7th in 2003. And they got to play more games against crappy Eastern teams in the process - heck, there are years in the Western conference this past decade where the Nets would have been in the lotto! Nash won more regular season game repeatedly with the Suns than the Nets ever did in a far more difficult conference, had far better margins of victories, and repeatedly went to the WCFs which were basically the real NBA Finals again and again. The fact that he failed to get to the Finals means nothing more than the fact that he is worse than Dirk, Kobe, and Duncan on the all-time list. But he is far more of a winner than Kidd is, and one ring won as a role player doesn't freaking change that.
SERIOUSLY? You can tolerate that Kidd is a better defender? Can you also tolerate that Yao is taller than Nash.
Kidd being better than Nash because he's a better defender is an argument I disagree with, but can understand if you want to make. Kidd being better than Nash because somehow he's a "winner" thanks to taking a mediocre team through a crap conference and then winning a ring as a role player is just an utterly idiotic argument that I lose a lot of respect for anyone stupid enough to try that.
Nash's peak was better than Kidd's. Its Magic>Isiah>Nash>Stockton>Kidd as of right now. But by the time CP3 retires he'll be ahead of Kidd.
The nets had as good of a team as you needed to make the finals in the east. Iverson took his team to the finals too.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Breaking: Jason Kidd has retired from the NBA.</p>— NBA Legion (@MySportsLegion) <a href="https://twitter.com/MySportsLegion/status/341591919748599808">June 3, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
