ISH All-time Top 25 Guards Project: #10 - John Stockton vs. Jason Kidd

[G.O.A.T]

Make your arguments here for the next 48 hours on rather John Stockton or Jason Kidd should advance and continue to move higher on the list. Put the players name you are voting for in BOLD so I don't miss it when I tally. The loser of this poll will be ranked #11 in our project.

Only members listed on the project roster will have their votes counted. Anyone may add their opinion and or argument as long as it's constructive. If you'd like to join the roster please make a request to do so in the projects main thread linked here (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231751).




http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/34589/pollStockton.jpg

19 seasons
11x all-NBA
11x all-star
1993 ASG MVP
5x all-defensive
9x Assists Leader
2x Steals Leader
1st All-time in Assists
1st All-time in Steals
Played 82 games in 16 of 18 possible seasons

Votes (13)
D.J.
ThaSwagg3r
magnax1
iamgine
Droid101
SteveNashMVPcro
Rose
Big 164
WillC
KGMN
SuperPippen
Gotterdammerung
G.O.A.T

http://thenperiod.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/kidd-nets.jpg

17 seasons
6x all-NBA
10x all-star
9x all-defensive
5x Assists Leader
2nd all-time in Assists
3rd all-time in Steals
3rd all-time in 3-pt made
1995 Rookie of the Year
2011 NBA Champion

Votes (3)
Toizumi
Miller for 3
Boston C's

[kaiiu]

Stockton

[HylianNightmare]

going to edit this later

[D.J.]

Close, but I'm going with Stockton. Him and Kidd scored roughly the same amount of points, though Stockton was a much better shooter and far more efficient. Stockton was the smarter player of the two, though not as athletic. Defensively, they're pretty close though Stockton gambled a bit more(mainly because he was the smaller of the two).

Kidd was clearly better in the fast break, though Stockton was no slouch. Half court game clearly favors Stockton.

[Soothing Layup]

Stockton because his assist record will never be broken.

[Kblaze8855]

Gotta say Stockton. some might mention some of the big playoff games Kidd has had and say Stockton was never capable of such things but....I just dont buy it for the most part. He had a role to play and he played it. But he was a more than capable scorer. If you look into some of his exploits closing games in the playoffs its clear he put the team far ahead of his own scoring. He didnt care about anything but who won the game.

Hes had a few more off shooting games in the playoffs than I think people are aware of...but he was willing to put up shots if nobody had it going and the game was slipping away. I remember quite a few times the Jazz got knocked out and John was going harder than anyone down the stretch trying to fight it off.

He played hard every night for damn near 20 years. He took over late in finals games and never got love for it. He held a solid offense together for 15+ years and played defense on anyone you put in front of him. He was also a dick....who didnt care if you hated him if he got to win. He even set good screens and would go in with the bigmen and snatch a rebound if he had to though his numbers dont show it.

Nothing but respect for stockton. And the longevity lovers have to respect him. he was putting up like 13/11 when he was 38 and leading a 50+ win team.

A team the Mavs knocked out in the first round I believe but..still...

[ThaSwagg3r]

It is a travesty that Kidd was over Nash but Payton wasn't. The Kidd affinity is ridiculous but hopefully we can end it with this comparison.


My vote goes to John Stockton.


I'll post what I posted in the original top 25 guards of all-time thread.



Stockton over Kidd is an easy choice for me...

Stockton and Kidd were virtually the same player except Stockton shot and scored with much better efficiency while Kidd was a very inefficient shooter and scorer. Stockton also had a shooters presence, Kidd was pretty much sagged off all the time and the defense dared him to shoot the three. The defender on Kidd could have easily just doubled or trapped another player on his team because the defense wouldn't miss a beat. However, doing that against Stockton would just be plain stupid since Stockton would drain that shot since he was a 52% shooter and a near 40% shooter from downtown.

Not sure how much weight Kidd's championship ring in 2011 means in this situation because I also feel that Stockton could have won that ring if he was put in that situation. I understood your point about Payton not being able to perform well in the 2004 finals so there was no guarantee that Payton could replace Kidd on the Mavericks last season and they still win. Payton did not age as well as either Stockton or Kidd did, but I feel like his prime/peak was just better than both of them.

Still, Kidd was just a 7/6 role player for the Mavericks last season. That is not too difficult to replace.

There is almost nothing Kidd did better than Stockton in except rebounding. There actually isn't even much of a difference between Nash and Stockton offensively except for Stockton's lack of assertiveness. Stockton's defense is comparable with Kidd's.....as a matter of fact I would probably argue that Stockton's D was better. It is certainly no advantage for either player in this argument whether you believe Kidd or Stockton was the better defender. Their defenses were close and a hell lot closer than Kidd vs. Nash defensively.

[fos]

Stockton.

[Sampsonsimpson]

Stockton

[D.J.]

It is a travesty that Kidd was over Nash but Payton wasn't.


Truthfully, both should be over Nash.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Truthfully, both should be over Nash.
1. Nash
2. Payton
3. Kidd

That is how I would rank them.

As for Stockton vs. Kidd, I don't think either one of these guys could be win as the best player or the "batman" of the team. They would both would have been great second bananas if you really think about it (Stockton actually was one). Stockton was probably the dream 2nd banana actually.....it is too bad Malone wasn't a great 1st banana.

[G.O.A.T]

It is a travesty that Kidd was over Nash but Payton wasn't. The Kidd affinity is ridiculous but hopefully we can end it with this comparison.

Kidd above Payton is common, they are almost always close. Nash is below both as often as not. It's not as simple as the statistics, Kidd has as many all-NBA 1st teams as Nash and Payton combined, and all three played in largely the same era, only five years separates Payton the oldest from Nash the youngest. That alone is enough reason for Kidd to be above both. Kidd took his teams to more finals than those two combined as well. There are plenty of reasons to make the argument for Kidd, it really comes down to preference and perception.

[D.J.]

1. Nash
2. Payton
3. Kidd

That is how I would rank them.


Kidd and Payton are almost interchangable. Very close, though I give the slight edge to Payton. It's very close though.


Payton
Kidd




Nash

[G-train]

I'd recommend youtubing some late 80's early 90's Jazz when Malone ran the break really fast. Some of Stockton's passes you just would not see today from anyone.

[1987_Lakers]

For people who voted for Kidd in the last round & Stockton in this round can you tell me why? Nash if you look deeper was better than Stockton, Stockton has the longevity, but Nash was clearly the better player. I don't understand these inconsistencies. Just my opinion.

[G-train]

For people who voted for Kidd in the last round & Stockton in this round can you tell me why? Nash if you look deeper was better than Stockton, Stockton has the longevity, but Nash was clearly the better player. I don't understand these inconsistencies. Just my opinion.

You mean Nash was a better scorer. Cos he aint a better passer, floor leader (close) or defender. Stock would average 18 assists a game these days now you can do a head fake dribble then spin and the passer gets an assist.

[D.J.]

For people who voted for Kidd in the last round & Stockton in this round can you tell me why? Nash if you look deeper was better than Stockton, Stockton has the longevity, but Nash was clearly the better player. I don't understand these inconsistencies. Just my opinion.


Prime Nash was good for around 16/11 on 51-52% shooting. Prime Stockton was good for around 16/13-14 on about 50% shooting. And Stockton shot 38% from downtown for his career. They're similar on offense, but Stockton's D puts him above Nash.

[EricForman]

For people who voted for Kidd in the last round & Stockton in this round can you tell me why? Nash if you look deeper was better than Stockton, Stockton has the longevity, but Nash was clearly the better player. I don't understand these inconsistencies. Just my opinion.


Well, the anti Nash guys seem to think Nash was the absolute worst defensive player ever AND Jason Kidd was a GP/Pippen/Zo type of defensive monsters or something.

[Clippersfan86]

Stockton. Unlike Nash... he was actually a very solid defender (plenty good enough for a PG). He was a very good scorer, best passer of all time probably next to Magic. He also had EXCELLENT longevity at an elite level. Gary Payton called Stockton the greatest player he's had to play against/guard after Jordan. He was an extremely physical, borderline dirty PG too.

[Fatal9]

You mean Nash was a better scorer. Cos he aint a better passer, floor leader (close) or defender. Stock would average 18 assists a game these days now you can do a head fake dribble then spin and the passer gets an assist.
Nash is a better playmaker than Stockton.

Stockton was arguably the best at delivering the ball, feeding the post, basically getting the ball exactly where it needed to be in a set but he was not a better playmaker, he was not better at breaking down defenses, or as creative/dynamic. If you want to give a PG the ball and ask him to create something, you'd give the ball to Nash, not Stockton. And obviously as scorers, there's a clear gap as well. Stockton's offense/scoring was consistent, Nash on offense had Stockton's consistency but on top of that also possessed a gear that made him go beyond what Stockton was capable of giving you.

You think Stockton would average 18 assists nowadays...I'll just say...okay.

[magnax1]

Gotta say Stockton. some might mention some of the big playoff games Kidd has had and say Stockton was never capable of such things but....I just dont buy it for the most part. He had a role to play and he played it. But he was a more than capable scorer. If you look into some of his exploits closing games in the playoffs its clear he put the team far ahead of his own scoring. He didnt care about anything but who won the game.

Hes had a few more off shooting games in the playoffs than I think people are aware of...but he was willing to put up shots if nobody had it going and the game was slipping away. I remember quite a few times the Jazz got knocked out and John was going harder than anyone down the stretch trying to fight it off.

He played hard every night for damn near 20 years. He took over late in finals games and never got love for it. He held a solid offense together for 15+ years and played defense on anyone you put in front of him. He was also a dick....who didnt care if you hated him if he got to win. He even set good screens and would go in with the bigmen and snatch a rebound if he had to though his numbers dont show it.

Nothing but respect for stockton. And the longevity lovers have to respect him. he was putting up like 13/11 when he was 38 and leading a 50+ win team.

A team the Mavs knocked out in the first round I believe but..still...
I agree with this. I think in general Stockton is one of the players that people seem to misrepresented on here most often. It just seems like people don't really know what they're talking about when they talk about him. They seem to compare him to Nash a lot when the only things they really had in common were their stats. I think the player he's most comparably to today is probably Rondo. Much better shooter, but he played the same way in that his only two objectives when he had the ball were to get inside to score, or get his team mates a good shot. He was extremely reluctant with the jumper just like Rondo. Probably not a great comparison, but it's the only one I can think of. Overall, I think he was considerably better then Kidd at most everything. The only area Kidd made more of an impact was probably one on one defense, and some versatility in certain situations.
The only other thing I'd really think is worth adding is that I think Stockton's longevity has been overblown. After 98, he was basically what Kidd has been on the Mavericks. In that he basically sat back, ran the offense as well as possible and once in a while was able to make a play for his team mates despite the limitations his age brought him. He wasn't a good defender like Kidd has been (he was actually pretty bad) but he also did some intangible things Kidd didn't do and probably did a better job on offense.
stockton

[D.J.]

Also want to add Stockton at 40 put up 13/8/3 with 2 SPG and shot just under 52% from the field.

[Clippersfan86]

Prime Nash was good for around 16/11 on 51-52% shooting. Prime Stockton was good for around 16/13-14 on about 50% shooting. And Stockton shot 38% from downtown for his career. They're similar on offense, but Stockton's D puts him above Nash.

As well as the intangibles. Sure Nash is a great leader... but Stockton is a tier above Nash with doing all the dirty work and running a team.

[SunsCaptain]

I know I really wanted to see the Nash vs Stockton debate....Kidd is going to get destroyed. Nash should have moved on but biased polls with limited votes to a select number of people is going to be that way. :facepalm

[Kblaze8855]

For people who voted for Kidd in the last round & Stockton in this round can you tell me why?

I dont have a vote(was asked a while back but im not that worried about who wins...I just say what I think). But I thought kidd should have won. this?

I wouldnt be forced to disregard half the game to vote for one of the players.

You could argue nash plays better offense than Kidd. Cant argue he plays better basketball. just have to decide if you care about the ability to be good...all the time. Or if you dont mind a player who is great on one end but the worst player on the floor on the other.

me? i care. Not a big deal if someone else doesnt...but I cant get past it.

No problem with that here.

[Clippersfan86]

I know I really wanted to see the Nash vs Stockton debate....Kidd is going to get destroyed. Nash should have moved on but biased polls with limited votes to a select number of people is going to be that way. :facepalm

Stockton is basically Nash with much better defense, better passing and nearly equally good offensive efficiency and numbers. Trust me Nash would get destroyed too. Kidd was a better defender than Stockton and a better rebounder... but Stockton didn't give up enough defense to lose to Kidd. So yes Kidd is going to get owned.

[G-train]

Nash is a better playmaker than Stockton.

Stockton was arguably the best at delivering the ball, feeding the post, basically getting the ball exactly where it needed to be in a set but he was not a better playmaker, he was not better at breaking down defenses, or as creative/dynamic. If you want to give a PG the ball and ask him to create something, you'd give the ball to Nash, not Stockton. And obviously as scorers, there's a clear gap as well. Stockton's offense was consistent, Nash's offense was consistent AND on top of that he could give you 25+ pts when needed and do a lot more things to takeover the game.

You think Stockton would average 18 assists nowadays...I'll just say...okay.

Well he averaged 14-15 when it was judged much more harshly, its not unrealistic at all.

[G-train]

Well, the anti Nash guys seem to think Nash was the absolute worst defensive player ever AND Jason Kidd was a GP/Pippen/Zo type of defensive monsters or something.

Nash is one of the worst defenders of the 00's, unquestionably in my mind. I can barely watch him.

Jason Kidd at least tried.

[D.J.]

Well he averaged 14-15 when it was judged much more harshly, its not unrealistic at all.


He averaged 13+ in 5 consecutive seasons and 12+ in 8 consecutive seasons. Nash has never topped 11.6 and that's with him having better shooters and overall offensive players.

[Kblaze8855]

I think the player he's most comparably to today is probably Rondo. Much better shooter, but he played the same way in that his only two objectives when he had the ball were to get inside to score, or get his team mates a good shot. He was extremely reluctant with the jumper just like Rondo. Probably not a great comparison, but it's the only one I can think of.

Kinda the midpoint between Rondo and Chris Paul...when Paul is refusing t oscore and pissing you off.

Hes "Let my teammates get theirs' chris paul mixed with Rondo...but with a jumper.

really is hard to compare him to anyone.

[magnax1]

Kinda the midpoint between Rondo and Chris Paul...when Paul is refusing t oscore and pissing you off.

Hes "Let my teammates get theirs' chris paul mixed with Rondo...but with a jumper.

really is hard to compare him to anyone.
Yeah. Chris Paul this year is probably the best comparison. He didn't force things down the defenses throats like Paul does sometimes though. He stays back until he finds a reason to attack like Rondo does.

[Fatal9]

Well he averaged 14-15 when it was judged much more harshly, its not unrealistic at all.
They were judged more harshly, really...that's the excuse you come up with? Especially at a time where all the major PGs were putting up wild assist numbers. Looking back and watching all these old Magic/Stockton games where they had 20 assists and not being able to find anymore than 15 (I'll add Bird in this too because there's been a lot of games where I'm not sure how they are crediting him with a certain number of assists/rebounds, not that it makes him any less of a rebounder or passer).

If anything stats are tracked with more scrutiny now. Walt Frazier had only 9 assists in his famous 19 assist game 7 (this is counting all the "maybe" assists too) of the 1970 finals. Think anyone is getting away with that today? Shaq got away with being credited with 15 blocks in a game he only had 8 (he was playing in his hometown), that's second most all-time and he got half the number of blocks he actually had. That type of stuff doesn't happen today. And yet people act like statkeepers were out for blood against players before the year 2000.

I'll accept the 60s credited the assist with much more scrutiny, but making a point about how things people get on about today (a player getting an assist or two too many because a youtube video found it) happened to an extent in past years that's not even possible today. LeBron is accidentally credited with an assist and you have his haters uploading the video within hours to show how inflated his stats are. Chris Paul is credited with an assist or two where David West took a couple of extra dribbles and you have a youtube video with hundreds of thousands of hits.

There is literally nothing to suggest the assist was credited differently in the 80s/90s compared to today, other than your willingness to give one era every benefit of the doubt over the other. PGs have it much harder and there's no way anyone matches those wild/inflated assist numbers from the 80s because they are not playing in a run and gun league anymore. Literally, it's like...other team scores...you push the ball up...strike your midrange shooting SF for a open transition jumper on the wing and collect the assist.

But anyways, you keep believing Stockton would put up 18 assists a game today (along with all your other comical opinions).

[G-train]

They were judged more harshly, really...that's the excuse you come up with? Especially at a time where all the major PGs were putting up wild assist numbers. Looking back and watching all these old Magic/Stockton games where they had 20 assists and not being able to find anymore than 15 (I'll add Bird in this too because there's been a lot of games where I'm not sure how they are crediting him with a certain number of assists/rebounds, not that it makes him any less of a rebounder or passer).

If anything stats are tracked with more scrutiny now. Walt Frazier had only 9 assists in his famous 19 assist game 7 (this is counting all the "maybe" assists too) of the 1970 finals. Think anyone is getting away with that today? Shaq got away with being credited with 15 blocks in a game he only had 8 (he was playing in his hometown), that's second most all-time and he got half the number of blocks he actually had. That type of stuff doesn't happen today. And yet people act like statkeepers were out for blood against players before the year 2000.

I'll accept the 60s credited the assist with much more scrutiny, but making a point about how things people get on about today (a player getting an assist or two too many because a youtube video found it) happened to an extent in past years that's not even possible today. LeBron is accidentally credited with an assist and you have his haters uploading the video within hours to show how inflated his stats are. Chris Paul is credited with an assist or two where David West took a couple of extra dribbles and you have a youtube video with hundreds of thousands of hits.

There is literally nothing to suggest the assist was credited differently in the 80s/90s compared to today, other than your willingness to give one era every benefit of the doubt over the other. PGs have it much harder and there's no way anyone matches those wild/inflated assist numbers from the 80s because they are not playing in a run and gun league anymore. Literally, it's like...other team scores...you push the ball up...strike your midrange shooting SF for a open transition jumper on the wing and collect the assist.

But anyways, you keep believing Stockton would put up 18 assists a game today (along with all your other comical opinions).

Just garbage. I watched Stockton average 15 apg, and I watch the NBA now and with my own eyes witnessed how assists are calculated. Thats all.
Wasn't Rondo averaging 15-16 a game for a couple of months this season?

You just spewed garbage for no reason. Wipe your mouth and go home.

[Odinn]

Unlike Nash, Stockton's D comparable to Kidd's D. Also Stockton's accomplishments too much for Kidd's accomplishments. Peak wise really close.

John Stockton.

[wally_world]

Nash > Stockton > Kidd

smh

[RobertdeMeijer]

I loved Stockton growing up because I was quite a nerd. I loved his efficiency.

And he never stopped it seems.
I was playing Zelda 1 when I first heard about him,
Zelda 2 when I realized how good he was,
Zelda 3 A Link to the Past when I just couldn't understand how he (now the best point guard) and Malone (perhaps the best power forward) couldn't do do better,
Zelda 4 (Link's Awakaning) when he didn't win the assist title and it was like the sun didn't rise in the morning, Zelda 5 Ocarina of Time when he finally made it to the finals,
Zelda 6 Majora's Mask when he and Malone were still going, but the rest of the Jazz were aging too much (doh!),
Zelda 7&8 (Oracle of Ages/Seasons) when I lost hope he would never get a title but was sure that he was only behind Magic as the best point guard ever, and finally,
Zelda 9 (The Wind Waker) when he retired, and I really couldn't care anymore about searching for heart containers.

Very subjective stuff, but John Stockton was so good for such a long time, I have a hard time comparing him with Jason Kidd... even when I realize that I've been following them about just as long and that in theory, Jason Kidd was just as good and had just as a succesful carreer.

I'm giving the "you never let go of the stuff you loved in your formative years"-effect some time before I vote. But right now, the comparison seems absurd.

[iamgine]

Poor kid

John Stockton

[Toizumi]

Nash is one of the worst defenders of the 00's, unquestionably in my mind. I can barely watch him.

Jason Kidd at least tried.

Jason Kidd at least tried? Jason Kidd ranked among the best perimeter defenders for most of his career.

Nash was never a great defender, poor even, but to say that he didn't try to play defense? Nash is not a talented defender, but he works hard on D. It always surprises me how bad he is, considering he really puts effort into it (it shows).



I think I'll be one of the few to vote for Jason Kidd here. Most posters will disagree with me, but that's fine. Rankings are subjective and this is my view on this comparison.
How can this not be close though.. Both players have had long careers, are 10 time all stars, have multiple All NBA/All Defensive selections, were conference champions and yeah a past his prime Kidd won a championship this year, but that doesnt really swing the comparison in his favor.

I pick Kidd because I think he had a higher peak than Stockton. I remember flipping through an old NBA magazine a while back and it was the 01 offseason (when Kidd was traded for Marbury) and had pre season rankings.
The Nets were projected last in their division. Bad projections, but still, nobody expected the Nets to be as good as they were, let alone win their conference. Kidd was the clear leader of the 4 K's (Kidd, Kittles, Keith, Kenyon, lol read that somewhere in SLAM once). Not the most impressive squad on paper. The EC wasn't that strong back then, but having the best record in your conference is always impressive.
Kidd finished second in MVP voting that season, carried his team to the finals..
Who knows, maybe Stockton coul'dve done the same. We'll never know. As it stands now, I think that Kidd did more with less. In no way do I want to discredit Stockton, but he was part of one of the greatest duo's to ever play this game. Kidd, sadly, never ran with a player as good as Malone (well, Nowitzki, but that's an old Kidd). What would've that been like? Again we'll never know. That's what makes this ranking so subjective. Both players played for different teams and both were great at what they did and played their roles superbly.
In terms of their games and impact on games, I rank them even. Great leaders, solid offensive games (not the best scorers, but great playmakers), great defenders. Both players were hard nosed.

Tough one, but I vote for Jason Kidd.

[Yung D-Will]

Honestly It didn't matter who won between Nash and Kidd because they were extremly close.

However Stockton is just better than both of them.

[LEFT4DEAD]

Kidd would have won at least 2 rings if he was playing on that Utah Jazz team with prime Malone. Just sayin'.

[Yung D-Will]

Kidd would have won at least 2 rings if he was playing on that Utah Jazz team with prime Malone. Just sayin'.


That Jordan guy was pretty good....

Just saying

[LEFT4DEAD]

That Jordan guy was pretty good....

Just saying
What about '94 and '95 when they got emberassed by Hakeem?

[Soothing Layup]

What about '94 and '95 when they got emberassed by Hakeem?

That hakeem guy was pretty good..

[L.Kizzle]

For people who voted for Kidd in the last round & Stockton in this round can you tell me why? Nash if you look deeper was better than Stockton, Stockton has the longevity, but Nash was clearly the better player. I don't understand these inconsistencies. Just my opinion.
Cause Johnny did it much longer.

[SunsCaptain]

Cause Johnny did it much longer.

Steve Nash is playing til hes 45.

:cheers:

Even if he needs to lay down half the game on the court =p

[EricForman]

Kidd would have won at least 2 rings if he was playing on that Utah Jazz team with prime Malone. Just sayin'.

Michael Jordan is reading this and going "dafuq?"

[Bigsmoke]

John Stockton.

[Miller for 3]

As of now, my vote is for Jason Kidd

I've always wanted to be a Stockton supporter. He has so many strong points. Unselfish, never got hurt, played FOREVER, a knockdown shooter, and was a relentless houdning (albeit dirty) defender. But he gets overrated alot IMO because of his assist record and longevity. At his peak, he couldn't take over games or lead a team like other PGs of his time. I mean, in his prime was he really that much better (or better at all), than Payton, KJ, both Hardaways or even Price? I don't see a huge difference, just that he played longer. Kidd is his prime was the sure cut best PG in the league, and the best player on his team for serveral years. My problems with Stockton are as follows, and I hope a Stockton supporter can break them down and give me a reason to vote for him.

- Always a second bannana

-Never seemed to take over games, just played in the "flow" (iirc he never scored over 35 points in a game ever, thats just insane)

- Jazz lost 8 or so first round matchups in the postseason

- While he has the assist record, I don't think he was a better passer than Magic, Kidd, Nash, or even Bird to name a few. Made the sound fundamental passes but never really wowed me with his playmaking

- Has some clutch moments, but a lot of choke jobs in the playoffs. A lot times the Jazz would be dying for some points down the stretch, and Malone would be forced to try and take over. Malone got the heat for being a choker, but Stockton would rarely assert himself in the last minutes of games

[Droid101]

John Stockton. Would've had two chips if Michael Jordan didn't get in the way.

Assist record that probably will never, ever be broken.

Some damn impressive assist average seasons that haven't been touched since.

John Stockton, and not close.



- While he has the assist record, I don't think he was a better passer than Magic, Kidd, Nash, or even Bird to name a few. Made the sound fundamental passes but never really wowed me with his playmaking

LOL, so I see you need to do a windmill dunk instead of a layup to impress you?

Two points, either way.

[BlackJoker23]

They were judged more harshly, really...that's the excuse you come up with? Especially at a time where all the major PGs were putting up wild assist numbers. Looking back and watching all these old Magic/Stockton games where they had 20 assists and not being able to find anymore than 15 (I'll add Bird in this too because there's been a lot of games where I'm not sure how they are crediting him with a certain number of assists/rebounds, not that it makes him any less of a rebounder or passer).

If anything stats are tracked with more scrutiny now. Walt Frazier had only 9 assists in his famous 19 assist game 7 (this is counting all the "maybe" assists too) of the 1970 finals. Think anyone is getting away with that today? Shaq got away with being credited with 15 blocks in a game he only had 8 (he was playing in his hometown), that's second most all-time and he got half the number of blocks he actually had. That type of stuff doesn't happen today. And yet people act like statkeepers were out for blood against players before the year 2000.

I'll accept the 60s credited the assist with much more scrutiny, but making a point about how things people get on about today (a player getting an assist or two too many because a youtube video found it) happened to an extent in past years that's not even possible today. LeBron is accidentally credited with an assist and you have his haters uploading the video within hours to show how inflated his stats are. Chris Paul is credited with an assist or two where David West took a couple of extra dribbles and you have a youtube video with hundreds of thousands of hits.

There is literally nothing to suggest the assist was credited differently in the 80s/90s compared to today, other than your willingness to give one era every benefit of the doubt over the other. PGs have it much harder and there's no way anyone matches those wild/inflated assist numbers from the 80s because they are not playing in a run and gun league anymore. Literally, it's like...other team scores...you push the ball up...strike your midrange shooting SF for a open transition jumper on the wing and collect the assist.

But anyways, you keep believing Stockton would put up 18 assists a game today (along with all your other comical opinions).
dont destroy that clown man.have some mercy :bowdown:

[Pointguard]

Stockton.

Too many records, longevity and wins. I would have liked to have seen him in diffferent systems, tho.

[SteveNashMVPcro]

Stockton

[G.O.A.T]

Lately I've spent a lot of time looking at these two guys.

They are the two point guards with the greatest careers I've seen and remember all the way through.

They also happen to rank 1 and 2 on the all-time assist list.

One statistical angle that interests me about Stockton...

During the 1990 and 1991 seasons John Stockton averaged over 17 points while playing 160 games and only one time did he attempt more than 20 shots in a game.

He had 15 20+ assist games in that span and 10 times had at least 20 points and 19 assists in a game.

To compare during Steve Nash's seven seasons in Phoenix he has had 8 20+ assist games and hit the 20-19 mark just four times.

Jason Kidd never had more than 18 assists in his six and half years with the Nets.

Even Magic Johnson only hit 20 assists four times and the 20-19 barrier three times during those 1990 and 1991 seasons.

Also as it pertains to Stockton's assist record and his amazing durability and longevity.

Kidd who is second all-time would need to average over 10 assists per game and play every game in every season for five more years to catch him. That would make Jason 43 years old. If he stays at last seasons average of 8.1 per game he'll need to play until he's 46 to catch Stockton.

In 16 years as a starter he finished outside of the top five in assists once.

Stockton had more assists than Kidd has now when he was age 33.

60 times in NBA history someone has gotten more than 20 assists in a game. Magic, Nash and Kidd have done it 12 times combined. Stockton did it 21 times.

Four times Stockton averaged 3 assists per game more than his closest competitor. Nash won by more than 2 assists twice, Kidd's greatest margin was just over one assists twice.

Stockton has more assists than Oscar and West combined.

He has more assists than Magic and Bird combined.

He has more steals than Kobe and KG combined.

The strongest argument for Kidd though is that he was an alpha player and Stockton was a sidekick. Even though Kidd was not good enough to win a title, Stockton, who also was his teams primary clutch option was not good enough to win a title despite sharing most of his career with a top 25 all-time player. This dynamic makes it interesting and very hard to compare.

Stockton never had to be a primary scorer except for short stretches of games. Kidd and to a lesser extent Nash have spent a lot of their career as their teams best player. That really changes how a team defends and the likelihood of you being able to get what you want. In terms of those three as playmakers, you can prepare until your blue in the face, it won't matter. Give them talent that can execute and they will pick you a part. As a scorer, a lot of how effective they are depends on how you play them.

Anyway, not ready to vote yet, been leaning Kidd lately, but my gut still says Stockton.

[Rose]

Stockton

[RRR3]

Steve Nash is playing til hes 45.

:cheers:

Even if he needs to lay down half the game on the court =p
He already does. :oldlol:

[Big164]

For people who voted for Kidd in the last round & Stockton in this round can you tell me why? Nash if you look deeper was better than Stockton, Stockton has the longevity, but Nash was clearly the better player. I don't understand these inconsistencies. Just my opinion.

Nash/Stockton was a difficult vote for me. If I had voted 1 hour later after reading a certain post about Kidd's FG% my choice wouldve been different. Nash & Kidd really are dead even.

In APG its

1. Stockton
2. Kidd
3. Nash
4. Payton

Seeing how assists are the main stat we judge PGs by, I dont see it as a crime if ISH rankings end up this way.

[Butters]

Stockton

[Big164]

Jason Kidd's argument over Nash and Payton was Assists per game, and Stockton trumps him in that category. Not only is Stockton the dark lord of assists, he also has superb TS%, and can grab a few steals on defense.

In the playoffs stockton eliminated Shaq&Kobe twice and beat Jordan 4 times in the Finals.

Easy vote. John Stockton

[Soothing Layup]

Jason Kidd's argument over Nash and Payton was Assists per game, and Stockton trumps him in that category. Not only is Stockton the dark lord of assists, he also has superb TS%, and can grab a few steals on defense.

In the playoffs The jazz eliminated Shaq&Kobe twice and beat Jordan 4 times in the Finals.

Easy vote. John Stockton

Fixed for truth. But I agree 100%.

[RobertdeMeijer]

As of now, my vote is for Jason Kidd
...and I hope a Stockton supporter can break them down and give me a reason to vote for him.



Let me give a shot then:

- Always a second bannana
It's not Stockton's fault that Malone stuck around so long. Btw, Stockton did fine in the games without him.

-Never seemed to take over games, just played in the "flow" (iirc he never scored over 35 points in a game ever, thats just insane)
But that was not his role; he was great in other things.

- Jazz lost 8 or so first round matchups in the postseason
But he also made alot of deep playoff runs. More than Kidd?

- While he has the assist record, I don't think he was a better passer than Magic, Kidd, Nash, or even Bird to name a few. Made the sound fundamental passes but never really wowed me with his playmaking
He got the job done, that's all that matters.

- Has some clutch moments, but a lot of choke jobs in the playoffs. A lot times the Jazz would be dying for some points down the stretch, and Malone would be forced to try and take over. Malone got the heat for being a choker, but Stockton would rarely assert himself in the last minutes of games
Again, not his role. But I have to admit: if his role was to make his team score better, how come his team was subpar offensively until around 1993? To this question I have no good answer.

[Droid101]

Again, not his role. But I have to admit: if his role was to make his team score better, how come his team was subpar offensively until around 1993? To this question I have no good answer.
Well, that argument goes against Kidd too. His teams were always average or below the league average on offense.

[WillC]

John Stockton.

One of the most efficient, consistent and effective players of all-time.

[donald_trump]

if G.O.A.T. wasn't biased and counted all the votes it would be Nash vs Stockton at the moment. though he chose to skip over certain votes in the thread due to his own personal preference for Kidd. and yes, they were bolded.

[G.O.A.T]

if G.O.A.T. wasn't biased and counted all the votes it would be Nash vs Stockton at the moment. though he chose to skip over certain votes in the thread due to his own personal preference for Kidd. and yes, they were bolded.

First you didn't read the rules and had you, you'd understand why the votes that were counted were and the ones that weren't weren't.

Second if I counted every single vote, including those from people who don't have one, it would have been 21-19 Kidd. Also already posted that.

Read the threads, understand them, than have an opinion.

Ready to apologize?

[Boston C's]

I'll go kidd... sry i havent been on lately guys lotta work and family shit goin on... kidds all around game to me is better then stocktons but its close

[Vienceslav]

if G.O.A.T. wasn't biased and counted all the votes it would be Nash vs Stockton at the moment. though he chose to skip over certain votes in the thread due to his own personal preference for Kidd. and yes, they were bolded.
I think you would have to register for the project in the first thread made by GOAT in order for your vote to count.
At least i hope that is the case,i would be very dissapointed to see this tainted as it is one of the few good things currently going on here.

[donald_trump]

First you didn't read the rules and had you, you'd understand why the votes that were counted were and the ones that weren't weren't.

Second if I counted every single vote, including those from people who don't have one, it would have been 21-19 Kidd. Also already posted that.

Read the threads, understand them, than have an opinion.

Ready to apologize?

its funny how you lobbied certain posters in there and got them to quickly bold their votes, and assumed them for them despite them not following the rules.

[G.O.A.T]

its funny how you lobbied certain posters in there and got them to quickly bold their votes, and assumed them for them despite them not following the rules.

That never happened. Every single round has been conducted the same way. The only vote I confirmed last round was a vote for Nash by a new poster.

Are you going to tell the truth at any point?

[Clippersfan86]

its funny how you lobbied certain posters in there and got them to quickly bold their votes, and assumed them for them despite them not following the rules.

Dude it's just a thread. Not sure why you're still upset about Kidd beating Nash :confusedshrug: . Most people would pick Kidd over Nash off of these forums.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Most posters will disagree with me, but that's fine. Rankings are subjective and this is my view on this comparison.
You should be use to it by now since your opinions are almost always near wrong.

[ThaSwagg3r]

- Always a second bannana
How is it his fault that he played with Malone his entire career?




-Never seemed to take over games, just played in the "flow" (iirc he never scored over 35 points in a game ever, thats just insane)
Kidd couldn't take over a game either so that point is moot.


A lot times the Jazz would be dying for some points down the stretch, and Malone would be forced to try and take over. Malone got the heat for being a choker, but Stockton would rarely assert himself in the last minutes of games
My criticisms of Stockton are the same but Kidd wasn't and wouldn't have been any better.

Do people really think the Jazz would have been better with Kidd instead of Stockton? They probably would have been better in the earlier years when Malone could run like an absolute deer but when Malone lost that athleticism the Jazz would have burned into flames. Kidd is almost near useless in the halfcourt at least during his prime/peak he was.

[RRR3]

You should be use to it by now since your opinions are almost always near wrong.
Dude get the **** off your high horse. Despite what you may think, sone people don't agreee with you on everything and have a right to do so. Grow up.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Dude get the **** off your high horse. Despite what you may think, sone people don't agreee with you on everything and have a right to do so. Grow up.
How ironic.

[Pointguard]

As of now, my vote is for Jason Kidd

I've always wanted to be a Stockton supporter. He has so many strong points. Unselfish, never got hurt, played FOREVER, a knockdown shooter, and was a relentless houdning (albeit dirty) defender. But he gets overrated alot IMO because of his assist record and longevity. At his peak, he couldn't take over games or lead a team like other PGs of his time. I mean, in his prime was he really that much better (or better at all), than Payton, KJ, both Hardaways or even Price? I don't see a huge difference, just that he played longer. Kidd is his prime was the sure cut best PG in the league, and the best player on his team for serveral years. My problems with Stockton are as follows, and I hope a Stockton supporter can break them down and give me a reason to vote for him.

- Always a second bannana

-Never seemed to take over games, just played in the "flow" (iirc he never scored over 35 points in a game ever, thats just insane)

- Jazz lost 8 or so first round matchups in the postseason

- While he has the assist record, I don't think he was a better passer than Magic, Kidd, Nash, or even Bird to name a few. Made the sound fundamental passes but never really wowed me with his playmaking

- Has some clutch moments, but a lot of choke jobs in the playoffs. A lot times the Jazz would be dying for some points down the stretch, and Malone would be forced to try and take over. Malone got the heat for being a choker, but Stockton would rarely assert himself in the last minutes of games
You need to post more! Good stuff: Most of which I didn't consider. His strength was his consistency in assist/steals and precision in the pick and role and that steady shot. Outside of the pick and role he definitely wasn't the passer that Nash, Magic and Kidd were. Was definitely not holding down the fort or taking over games. Is questionable in leadership, versatility and a non pick and role situation. His strong points are negated by Kidd being a better passer and better defender. Stockton wasn't on the level of top PG's in terms of penetration and creativity. He has the records tho.

Its amazing that a guy could be around as long as he has and we not know his value outside of pick and role. Almost like having an incomplete grade after 18 years.

[RRR3]

How ironic.
Except I admit when I am wrong and admit when I might be wrong. Have you ever done this?

[knickswin]

Nash is better than both . . .

[Big164]

Nash is better than both . . .
Nash had the equivalent of a Karl Malone in Dirk, Amarie, Marion, Finley, and Shaq. How many Finals did Nash make with those guys?

Stockton made it through a much tougher western conference than Nash did. Nash did not take advantage of a slumping Lakers in the mid 2000's. Nash had the tools and the timing but did not deliver.

Stockton was a bandit on the defensive end with steals and was considered tough and rugged while Nash has the reputation of being a softy.

Id take Stockton 10 times out of 10 over Nash or Kidd. Easiest vote in the poll.

[knickswin]

Nash had the equivalent of a Karl Malone in Dirk, Amarie, Marion, Finley, and Shaq. How many Finals did Nash make with those guys?

Stockton made it through a much tougher western conference than Nash did. Nash did not take advantage of a slumping Lakers in the mid 2000's. Nash had the tools and the timing but did not deliver.

Stockton was a bandit on the defensive end with steals and was considered tough and rugged while Nash has the reputation of being a softy.

Id take Stockton 10 times out of 10 over Nash or Kidd. Easiest vote in the poll.

Nash beat the Lakers in 2006 and got to the Western Conference Finals the year they did not make the playoffs in 2005. That is enough taking advantage of in my opinion. His and the Suns' kryptonite seems to have been the Spurs more than the Lakers and they probably should have gotten past the Spurs in 07.

Nash is just a better player than Stockton in my opinion. More creative pick and roll player, more creative setting his teammates up, better shooter, and miles better at creating his own shot and getting to the rim. The only edge I think Stockton has is on defense and I don't think that really matters that much.

[Round Mound]

Stockton

[D.J.]

Nash beat the Lakers in 2006 and got to the Western Conference Finals the year they did not make the playoffs in 2005. That is enough taking advantage of in my opinion. His and the Suns' kryptonite seems to have been the Spurs more than the Lakers and they probably should have gotten past the Spurs in 07.

Nash is just a better player than Stockton in my opinion. More creative pick and roll player, more creative setting his teammates up, better shooter, and miles better at creating his own shot and getting to the rim. The only edge I think Stockton has is on defense and I don't think that really matters that much.


Nash's only advantage over Stockton is shooting and scoring. Even those 2 advantages are minimal because Stockton is a career 38% shooter from downtown and had multiple 40% seasons before the line was moved up.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Nash's only advantage over Stockton is shooting and scoring. Even those 2 advantages are minimal because Stockton is a career 38% shooter from downtown and had multiple 40% seasons before the line was moved up.
Nash was also the better closer because he did have the assertiveness in him to put the team on his back in late game situations. That is huge because the Jazz probably could have used a closer other than Karl Malone.

[Big164]

Nash beat the Lakers in 2006 and got to the Western Conference Finals the year they did not make the playoffs in 2005. That is enough taking advantage of in my opinion. His and the Suns' kryptonite seems to have been the Spurs more than the Lakers and they probably should have gotten past the Spurs in 07.

Nash is just a better player than Stockton in my opinion. More creative pick and roll player, more creative setting his teammates up, better shooter, and miles better at creating his own shot and getting to the rim. The only edge I think Stockton has is on defense and I don't think that really matters that much.
2005-2007 was a free for all in the western conference, there was no dominant team. Spurs and Mavs definitely took advantage of this, suns didnt.
Nash played in a weaker conference with a stronger cast than Stockton had. There are no excuses.

Here are the teams John's squad beat in the playoffs.

Duncan/Robinson Spurs
Shaq/Kobe Lakers x2
Hakeem/Barkley/Drexler Rockets x2


And it took the greatest team in the history of the sport to beat them from 97-98. Meanwhile the Suns were eliminated by the most boring and slow team to ever play. Stockton accomplished more with less in a tougher environment.

[tpols]

Jason Kidd was a legit MVP candidate in his prime.. top 5 player in the league at some points. Stockton never hit that mark.. he actually never even came close to that. Jason Kidd was the best player in the eastern conference for a solid span of time. Stockton isn't on the same tier in terms of impact as Kidd imo. Career wise you could make a case for either one but Kidd was just a better basketball player in his prime to me.

[raiderfan19]

Kidd was more talented and probably the better player but stockton had the better career. Kidd was much more disruptive defensively because he was a freak of an athlete(its easy to forget with his legs gone now that he was every bit as good defensively as GP and he had the added advantage of being great at switches because of his size. Kidd was also quicker on the break and a better rebounder. If I was picking one of them at their best knowing what I know about both of them and not having a system already set, Id pick Kidd.

That being said Stockton did what he did well, better than anyone in history. He was the most effecient pg ever and he ran the pick and roll to perfection. I don't think he would have been as good in another system but the fact is that he was in that system and so he needs to be judged accordingly. For the purposes of a list like this, I think he has to be ahead of Kidd and honestly Im hard pressed to think of 8 more guys that deserve to be ahead of him on this kind of list.

[tpols]

2005-2007 was a free for all in the western conference, there was no dominant team. Spurs and Mavs definitely took advantage of this, suns didnt.
Nash played in a weaker conference with a stronger cast than Stockton had. There are no excuses.

Here are the teams John's squad beat in the playoffs.

Duncan/Robinson Spurs
Shaq/Kobe Lakers x2
Hakeem/Barkley/Drexler Rockets x2


And it took the greatest team in the history of the sport to beat them from 97-98. Meanwhile the Suns were eliminated by the most boring and slow team to ever play. Stockton accomplished more with less in a tougher environment.
Stockton did have one of the greatest players of all time playing alongside him.. you know, Karl Malone? No one on those suns teams is even comparable to him. Stockton wasn't even the best player or first option on his own team so I dont know why you associate the Jazz's playoff record directly with him.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Jason Kidd was a legit MVP candidate in his prime.. top 5 player in the league at some points.

Nope. I can easily give you 5 players that were better than Kidd back in 2000-2005.

And no he was never really a legitimate MVP candidate especially if you look at the regular season only. People say he should have won MVP because he made the NBA finals with the Nets. It is hindsight bias and nothing more.

[raiderfan19]

2005-2007 was a free for all in the western conference, there was no dominant team. Spurs and Mavs definitely took advantage of this, suns didnt.
Nash played in a weaker conference with a stronger cast than Stockton had. There are no excuses.

Here are the teams John's squad beat in the playoffs.

Duncan/Robinson Spurs
Shaq/Kobe Lakers x2
Hakeem/Barkley/Drexler Rockets x2


And it took the greatest team in the history of the sport to beat them from 97-98. Meanwhile the Suns were eliminated by the most boring and slow team to ever play. Stockton accomplished more with less in a tougher environment.
Just so we are clear you arent arguing that the 90s west was better than the 00s west are you? Because if so...... well thats just moronic. The East was better in the 90s and if you want to argue the overall competition of the league thats fine because Jordan makes that case fairly easy to make, but the West? Not even close.

[G.O.A.T]

Nope. I can easily give you 5 players that were better than Kidd back in 2000-2005.

And no he was never really a legitimate MVP candidate especially if you look at the regular season only. People say he should have won MVP because he made the NBA finals with the Nets. It is hindsight bias and nothing more.

It's the opposite of hindsight, it's what people were saying then.


Nash was also the better closer because he did have the assertiveness in him to put the team on his back in late game situations. That is huge because the Jazz probably could have used a closer other than Karl Malone.

This bothers me because Stockton, not Malone was their closer. You'd know this if you looked into instead of going on emotion first.

[D.J.]

Nash was also the better closer because he did have the assertiveness in him to put the team on his back in late game situations. That is huge because the Jazz probably could have used a closer other than Karl Malone.


Are you serious? Stockton had no issues hitting clutch shots. Someone had to do it since the Mailman didn't want to. You obviously didn't watch Jazz games in the 90's.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Are you serious? Stockton had no issues hitting clutch shots. Someone had to do it since the Mailman didn't want to. You obviously didn't watch Jazz games in the 90's.
Hitting clutch shots is not the same as creating your own shot and being assertive and putting the team on your back. I've seen Derek Fisher hit clutch shots too but did he put the team on his back and create his own shot like say.....Kobe Bryant did? Nope.

[RRR3]

Hitting clutch shots is not the same as creating your own shot and being assertive and putting the team on your back. I've seen Derek Fisher hit clutch shots too but did he put the team on his back and create his own shot like say.....Kobe Bryant did? Nope.
How many "clutch" shots has Kobe hit in the playoffs?

[D.J.]

Jason Kidd was a legit MVP candidate in his prime.. top 5 player in the league at some points. Stockton never hit that mark.. he actually never even came close to that. Jason Kidd was the best player in the eastern conference for a solid span of time. Stockton isn't on the same tier in terms of impact as Kidd imo. Career wise you could make a case for either one but Kidd was just a better basketball player in his prime to me.


MVP doesn't equal best player. Kidd was more valuable than the more talented players, but he wasn't more talented. Even in his prime, Kobe, Shaq. Iverson, McGrady, Carter, Pierce, Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, and Ray Allen were better players. Doesn't make them more valuable though.

[D.J.]

Hitting clutch shots is not the same as creating your own shot and being assertive and putting the team on your back. I've seen Derek Fisher hit clutch shots too but did he put the team on his back and create his own shot like say.....Kobe Bryant did? Nope.


So who was creating for the Jazz if Stockton wasn't? :facepalm

[tpols]

Nope. I can easily give you 5 players that were better than Kidd back in 2000-2005.

And no he was never really a legitimate MVP candidate especially if you look at the regular season only. People say he should have won MVP because he made the NBA finals with the Nets. It is hindsight bias and nothing more.
You can give a list of 5 players you thought were better.. and many credible and knowledgeable nba fans could have Kidd in their top 5. It's opinion. But the fact of the matter is that you would be downright wrong to say that a case could not be made for Kidd being a top 5 player in 02 or 03. He turned a lottery team into a contender and was the anchor for his team on both sides of the court.

And he finished second in MVP voting behind Duncan in 02.. so yea.. he was a legit MVP candidate. The word candidate means contender for something. How the fvck can someone finishing second not be considered to be a legit MVP candidate?

:hammerhead:

[ThaSwagg3r]

It's the opposite of hindsight, it's what people were saying then.

Even so the inconsistency of these votes/discussions really frustrate me. Nash was a legitimate top 3-5 player back in '04-'07 and was also a 2x MVP in '05 and '06 and Kidd never was and he beat out Nash in the last voting. Now in the Stockton vs. Kidd argument I am seeing that Kidd getting votes because he was "supposedely" a top 5 player in the league? and because he was a legitimate MVP candidate?

:banghead:

[tpols]

It is hindsight bias and nothing more.
Hindsight bias? Kidd had the second most MVP votes of any player in 02 BEFORE his playoff run. You clearly dont know what you're talking about.

[raiderfan19]

It's the opposite of hindsight, it's what people were saying then.
and people then were wrong.

Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Dirk, Garnett, Tmac, and several others were better.

Hell even the year Kidd finished second in MVP voting, he shouldnt have.

He averaged 14.7/7.3/9.9/2.1 on 39.1/32.1/81.4 shooting with 3.5 TOS

That same year GP averaged 22.1/4.8/9.0/1.6 on 46.7/31.4/79.7 with 2.5 TOS. You could very easily argue that GP was better that year along with Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, Garnett, Dirk, Webber, AI, and Tmac.

I love Kidd, but he was never a top 5 player in the nba.

[ThaSwagg3r]

You can give a list of 5 players you thought were better.. and many credible and knowledgeable nba fans could have Kidd in their top 5. It's opinion. But the fact of the matter is that you would be downright wrong to say that a case could not be made for Kidd being a top 5 player in 02 or 03. He turned a lottery team into a contender and was the anchor for his team on both sides of the court.
Top 5 (no order) from 2000-2004.

2000
Shaq
Alonzo
Malone
Payton
KG/Duncan


2001
Shaq
Iverson
Duncan
Kobe
VC

2002
Shaq
Kobe
Duncan
KG
Tmac

2003
Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
Tmac
KG

2004
KG
Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
J. O'Neal


I am assuming you thought Kidd was only top 5 in 2002 and 2003. Which players was Kidd better than in '02 and '03?

[tpols]

Even so the inconsistency of these votes/discussions really frustrate me. Nash was a legitimate top 3-5 player back in '04-'07 and was also a 2x MVP in '05 and '06 and Kidd never was and he beat out Nash in the last voting. Now in the Stockton vs. Kidd argument I am seeing that Kidd getting votes because he was "supposedely" a top 5 player in the league? and because he was a legitimate MVP candidate?

:banghead:
Kidd lost out on his MVPs to prime Duncan and Shaq when they had good teams. If you put Nash's prime back in 01 instead of 04, he isnt winning shit.

[ThaSwagg3r]

And he finished second in MVP voting behind Duncan in 02.. so yea.. he was a legit MVP candidate. The word candidate means contender for something. How the fvck can someone finishing second not be considered to be a legit MVP candidate?
Yeah.....and?

Nash actually won two MVPs in '05 and '06 and I don't see many people giving two shits about it since Kidd won in the last discussion/ranking. Nash actually won it too; he wasn't 2nd, 3rd, or some other bullshit.

And what I really meant was I have heard many people act like Kidd should have won the MVP that season and he definitely shouldn't have. Sure he was a legitimate MVP contender/candidate but he never won it. Nash actually did and for some reason that didn't help his argument in the Nash vs. Kidd debate.

The inconsistencies of these comparisons/discussions is annoying.

[D.J.]

Hell even the year Kidd finished second in MVP voting, he shouldnt have.

He averaged 14.7/7.3/9.9/2.1 on 39.1/32.1/81.4 shooting with 3.5 TOS

That same year GP averaged 22.1/4.8/9.0/1.6 on 46.7/31.4/79.7 with 2.5 TOS. You could very easily argue that GP was better that year along with Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, Garnett, Dirk, Webber, AI, and Tmac.

I love Kidd, but he was never a top 5 player in the nba.


So 15/10/7/2, taking a team that won 26 games the prior year to 52 wins, #1 in the East, the Finals, shouldn't have been at least runner up for MVP?

[ThaSwagg3r]

So who was creating for the Jazz if Stockton wasn't? :facepalm
Malone, which would explain their consistent post-season failures. If Stockton had the same assertiveness and mentality that both Nash and Isiah possessed the Jazz would have won a championship at some point.

[D.J.]

Yeah.....and?

Nash actually won two MVPs in '05 and '06 and I don't see many people giving two shits about it since Kidd won in the last discussion/ranking. Nash actually won it too; he wasn't 2nd, 3rd, or some other bullshit.

And what I really meant was I have heard many people act like Kidd should have won the MVP that season and he definitely shouldn't have. Sure he was a legitimate MVP contender/candidate but he never won it. Nash actually did and for some reason that didn't help his argument in the Nash vs. Kidd debate.

The inconsistencies of these comparisons/discussions is annoying.


Nash is the only MVP winner outside of Derrick Rose to never make the Finals. That's why he gets knocked down a few pegs. MVP's like Barkley, Malone, Dirk prior to this year all made the Finals at least once and as the go to guy.

[tpols]

2002
Shaq
Kobe
Duncan
KG
Tmac

2003
Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
Tmac
KG

Ok.. so at WORST you have Kidd at the top 6-7 range.:oldlol: And that is your opinion. I would easily take 02 Kidd over Tmac.. probably garnett too. 03 you could say pretty much the same thing.

Kidd impacted basketball games more than Tracy McGrady point blank. They were both given lottery teams in the eastern conference and Kidd took his team to the Finals every year while Tmac did nothing.

Like I said before.. Kidd had a case as a top 5 player in the league in the past. Just because your opinion is different doesn't mean anything[and whats really funny is that you place Kidd at worst only 1 spot out of where you so fervently said he didn't belong].

[D.J.]

Malone, which would explain their consistent post-season failures.


:roll: Yes, the guy that choked in the clutch controlled the offense. Tell that to Jerry Sloan.



If Stockton had the same assertiveness and mentality that both Nash and Isiah possessed the Jazz would have won a championship at some point.


Because Nash has been to the Finals. Oh, wait... :roll:

[tpols]

Yeah.....and?

Nash actually won two MVPs in '05 and '06 and I don't see many people giving two shits about it since Kidd won in the last discussion/ranking. Nash actually won it too; he wasn't 2nd, 3rd, or some other bullshit.
.
I just explained this to you bro.. kidd was competing with prime Duncan and Shaq.. two top 7 players of ALL TIME. And they had good teams so they could fullfill the MVP requirement. Nash's competition was Dirk Nowitzki and Kobe Bryant with teams not good enough to earn him an MVP award.

[raiderfan19]

So 15/10/7/2, taking a team that won 26 games the prior year to 52 wins, #1 in the East, the Finals, shouldn't have been at least runner up for MVP?
when you include the horrendous shooting, and over 27/11/3/2 on 58% on a team that won 58 games, 26/8/5/1.6/1 on 45% shooting and 44 wins with darrell armstrong as your second best player? and over 25/6/6/1.5 on 47% on a team that won 58, the aforementioned GP numbers, over 25/10/5/1.7/1.4 on 50% on a team that won 61? Seriously out of those line you are taking 15/10/7/2 with terrible shooting and leading the league in turnovers? I havent even mentioned AIs 31/5/6/3 on the same %.

[ThaSwagg3r]

I would easily take 02 Kidd over Tmac.. probably garnett too. 03 you could say pretty much the same thing.
And there probably isn't a single nba fan in the world that would agree with you other than maybe your fellow Nets fans.

Nash was actually a legitimate top 3-5 player in the NBA.

2005
1. Duncan
2. Shaq
3. Nash
Wade
Dirk

2006
Wade
Kobe
Nash
Dirk
Duncan

2007
Kobe
Duncan
Nash
Dirk
LeBron

Legit top 3-5 player from '05-'07.

[Big164]

Just so we are clear you arent arguing that the 90s west was better than the 00s west are you? Because if so...... well thats just moronic. The East was better in the 90s and if you want to argue the overall competition of the league thats fine because Jordan makes that case fairly easy to make, but the West? Not even close.
When you have 4 of the top 10 big men in history in your conference, Id say its pretty damned good! Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Robinson. Youd be hardpressed to find a better era. Nash had a Shaq-less west and did absolutely nothing with it.

And yes the overall competition was better too. 96-98 Bulls > everybody else

[G.O.A.T]

Even so the inconsistency of these votes/discussions really frustrate me. Nash was a legitimate top 3-5 player back in '04-'07 and was also a 2x MVP in '05 and '06 and Kidd never was and he beat out Nash in the last voting. Now in the Stockton vs. Kidd argument I am seeing that Kidd getting votes because he was "supposedely" a top 5 player in the league? and because he was a legitimate MVP candidate?

:banghead:


I never thought Nash was ans still don't think he ever was a top five player. To me Kidd was a better player at his best than Nash. Nash winning two MVP's I don't think he should have even been in contention for and then becoming the only the second MVP in history to never make the Finals during his prime doesn't compel me to take him over a guy who's been a good-great player for 20 years and was always considered vastly superior to Nash prior to 2005.

How come the MVP seasons mater to you but not the all-NBA first team selections?

There is nothing inconsistent about the people's votes then there is with your logic. Afterall you said Nash was more clutch than Stockton because Stockton wasn't assertive (not true by reputation or evidence) and Malone was the Jazz closer (also not true).


Stockton sends Jazz to 1997 Finals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhDi0Ce_Z5w&feature=related)

Stockton steals game four of the Finals from Chicago (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8591nmgoGqU&feature=related)

Need a game tying shot, run the play for Stockton to pick and roll (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZLLQ7Ee2bU)

And btw the Suns with Nash are 2-7 in playoff games decided in the last three possessions.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Kidd lost out on his MVPs to prime Duncan and Shaq when they had good teams. If you put Nash's prime back in 01 instead of 04, he isnt winning shit.
Switch Kidd's '02 and '03 season/run with any other season and he wouldn't MVP in any of them so your point is moot. Even if you put Kidd's '02 run in '05, '06, or even '07 he wouldn't finish above Nash nor would he have won MVP.

[raiderfan19]

When you have 4 of the top 10 big men in history in your conference, Id say its pretty damned good! Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Robinson. Youd be hardpressed to find a better era. Nash had a Shaq-less west and did absolutely nothing with it.

And yes the overall competition was better too. 96-98 Bulls > everybody else
Tim Duncan was a rookie in 98 so the only time they did anything to duncan was when he was a rookie and Robinson was coming off of an injury. Shaq joined the Lakers in 97.

Both players primes occurred in the 00s, not the 90s. Hakeem isnt enough to make up for all the rest of the talent in the west in the 00s.

[RRR3]

And there probably isn't a single nba fan in the world that would agree with you other than maybe your fellow Nets fans.

Nash was actually a legitimate top 3-5 player in the NBA.

2005
1. Duncan
2. Shaq
3. Nash
Wade
Dirk

2006
Wade
Kobe
Nash
Dirk
Duncan

2007
Kobe
Duncan
Nash
Dirk
LeBron

Legit top 3-5 player from '05-'07.

LOL @ you leaving out LBJ in 05 and 06. Your bias is so obvious.

[D.J.]

when you include the horrendous shooting, and over 27/11/3/2 on 58% on a team that won 58 games, 26/8/5/1.6/1 on 45% shooting and 44 wins with darrell armstrong as your second best player? and over 25/6/6/1.5 on 47% on a team that won 58, the aforementioned GP numbers, over 25/10/5/1.7/1.4 on 50% on a team that won 61? Seriously out of those line you are taking 15/10/7/2 with terrible shooting and leading the league in turnovers? I havent even mentioned AIs 31/5/6/3 on the same %.


Kidd made up for his low shooting numbers with elite perimeter defense, elite playmaking, big man-esque rebounding numbers that allowed the Nets to run in transition, and leadership. Very few players could impact games without scoring a single point. Kobe, Iverson, Shaq, Duncan, and McGrady could not do that.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Did Stockton ever even do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU76A3T9pbE&feature=related

or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nJ-fZ5UduQ

Sorry but he never did, are you really calling my logic inconsistent? You have to actually nitpick YouTube videos to show me Stockton's clutch plays. I am the not only one who feels that Stockton lack the assertiveness to dominate and put the team on his back. There is a reason he isn't above Stockton, Oscar, or even Magic. If Stockton had this assertiveness that Nash did have he would probably be considered better than Magic because he probably would have had at least 1 or 2 rings.

[RRR3]

Did Stockton ever even do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU76A3T9pbE&feature=related

or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nJ-fZ5UduQ

Sorry but he never did, are you really calling my logic inconsistent? You have to actually nitpick YouTube videos to show me Stockton's clutch plays. I am the not only one who feels that Stockton lack the assertiveness to dominate and put the team on his back. There is a reason he isn't above Stockton, Oscar, or even Magic. If Stockton had this assertiveness that Nash did have he would probably be considered better than Magic because he probably would have had at least 1 or 2 rings.
:wtf:

[ThaSwagg3r]

LOL @ you leaving out LBJ in 05 and 06. Your bias is so obvious.
LeBron being top 5 in '05 is laughable. '06? Legit but I don't think he was but an argument could be made.

[G.O.A.T]

And there probably isn't a single nba fan in the world that would agree with you other than maybe your fellow Nets fans.

Nash was actually a legitimate top 3-5 player in the NBA.

2005
1. Duncan
2. Shaq
Garnett
Wade
Dirk
Kobe (didn't have a better season, but a clearly better player)
7th at best. Nash



2006
Wade
Kobe
Dirk
Duncan
Garnett
6th at best Nash

2007
Kobe
Duncan
Dirk
LeBron
Garnett
Wade
7th at best Nash


Not a Legit top 3-5 player from '05-'07 or ever...

[RRR3]

LeBron being top 5 in '05 is laughable. '06? Legit but I don't think he was but an argument could be made.
LeBron in 05: 27.2 PPG on 47/35/75 shooting, 7.4 RPG, 7.2 APG, 2.2 SPG, 0.7 BPG, 25.7 PER. Yep absolutely no case for being top 5. :roll:
06? 31.4 PPG on 48/34/74 shooting, 7.0 RPG, 6.6 APG, 1.6 SPG, 0.8 BPG, 28.1 PER. Uh...how is that not top 5? GTFO

[tpols]

And there probably isn't a single nba fan in the world that would agree with you other than maybe your fellow Nets fans.

There are plenty that have.:oldlol: I've had this discussion multiple times with other[more credible] posters and they have had kidd as a top 5 player in 02 and/or 03. You had him top 6 and you're acting like it's absurd for him to be in a top 5 discussion. He's one spot away bro.. that alone means he's in the conversation.

And how many times am I going to have to explain this to you? Kidd competed with prime shaq, and prime duncan on top of prime Kobe, tmac, garnett,AI etc. Kidd EASILY had tougher competition in the early 2000s than Nash had in the mid-late 2000s.

[Clippersfan86]

Swagger STFU already dude. G.O.A.T made these threads which have brought a little life to ISH and brought out the good posters and you're still crying about a thread that started 2 days ago. Get over it dude. Kidd>Stockton.

[tpols]

2005
1. Duncan
2. Shaq
Garnett
Wade
Dirk
Kobe (didn't have a better season, but a clearly better player)
7th at best. Nash



2006
Wade
Kobe
Dirk
Duncan
Garnett
6th at best Nash

2007
Kobe
Duncan
Dirk
LeBron
Garnett
Wade
7th at best Nash


Not a Legit top 3-5 player from '05-'07 or ever...
:oldlol:

I mean really.. this kid thinks spitting out his opinion on rankings is absolute fact.

[ThaSwagg3r]

LeBron in 05: 27.2 PPG on 47/35/75 shooting, 7.4 RPG, 7.2 APG, 2.2 SPG, 0.7 BPG, 25.7 PER. Yep absolutely no case for being top 5. :roll:
Even though you are derailing your thread because of your LeBron love I'll explain to you how and why.

He would......if he didn't miss the playoffs.

Here are players that were clearly better than LeBron in '05

Shaq
Duncan
Nash
Dirk
Wade
Garnett

^^^ that is 6 players that were CLEARLY better than him

And then players who have a case over him.....

Manu
Tmac
Amare

^^^ that is 3 more. I never said he wasn't top 10 I just said he wasn't top 5 so I don't know what you're crying about.

[G.O.A.T]

If Stockton had this assertiveness that Nash did have he would probably be considered better than Magic

Do you really want to say this?

[EricForman]

And there probably isn't a single nba fan in the world that would agree with you other than maybe your fellow Nets fans.

Nash was actually a legitimate top 3-5 player in the NBA.

2005
1. Duncan
2. Shaq
3. Nash
Wade
Dirk

2006
Wade
Kobe
Nash
Dirk
Duncan

2007
Kobe
Duncan
Nash
Dirk
LeBron

Legit top 3-5 player from '05-'07.

i've been defending Nash for the last few days but Nash top three for three straight years, I don't believe. Duncan, up until say two years ago, should be in the discussion for top 3 every single year. He wasn't inferior to Nash in 2006, even if he had a career low in PPGs.

[raiderfan19]

Kidd made up for his low shooting numbers with elite perimeter defense, elite playmaking, big man-esque rebounding numbers that allowed the Nets to run in transition, and leadership. Very few players could impact games without scoring a single point. Kobe, Iverson, Shaq, Duncan, and McGrady could not do that.
For what its worth, Kobe finished 3rd in the defensive player of year race that year(not saying he was better than kidd defensively).

And shaq and duncan without question affected a game more than Kidd outside of their numbers. I have long thought that Duncan's defensive rep has been overrated in the last few years because hes been terrible once he lost his athletecism and cant guard a pf with any kind of a jumper now, but in the early 00s? Youve gotta be kidding me to think he didn't impact the game.

Shaq impacted a game more than anyone with the exception of jordan.

[ThaSwagg3r]

i've been defending Nash for the last few days but Nash top three for three straight years, I don't believe. Duncan, up until say two years ago, should be in the discussion for top 3 every single year. He wasn't inferior to Nash in 2006, even if he had a career low in PPGs.
Those rankings are not in order. That is why I said top 3-5. He is definitely closer to 5 than 1 in those seasons though.

[RRR3]

Even though you are derailing your thread because of your LeBron love I'll explain to you how and why.

He would......if he didn't miss the playoffs.

Here are players that were clearly better than LeBron in '05

Shaq
Duncan
Nash
Dirk
Wade
Garnett

^^^ that is 6 players that were CLEARLY better than him

And then players who have a case over him.....

Manu
Tmac
Amare

^^^ that is 3 more. I never said he wasn't top 10 I just said he wasn't top 5 so I don't know what you're crying about.

You said it was laughable to have him being top 5. It's not laughable at all, you retard. And no, Manu was not better then (or ever), neither was Amare. Neither was Nash. BTW you forgot Kobe, which is shocking LOL.

[ThaSwagg3r]

You said it was laughable to have him being top 5. It's not laughable at all, you retard. And no, Manu was not better then (or ever), neither was Amare. Neither was Nash. BTW you forgot Kobe, which is shocking LOL.
Nash wasn't better. Okay, we're done here. :oldlol: I hope you understand back in '05 LeBron wasn't any better of a defender than either Nash or Dirk was and he certainly as hell could not make a jump shot like those two could either.

[RRR3]

Nash wasn't better. Okay, we're done here. :oldlol: I hope you understand back in '05 LeBron wasn't any better of a defender than either Nash or Dirk was and he certainly as hell could not make a jump shot like those two could either.
:roll:

[ThaSwagg3r]

And how many times am I going to have to explain this to you? Kidd competed with prime shaq, and prime duncan on top of prime Kobe, tmac, garnett,AI etc. Kidd EASILY had tougher competition in the early 2000s than Nash had in the mid-late 2000s.
And how many times am I going to have to say put Kidd's '02 and '03 run in any era or any season and he wouldn't win an MVP in any of them? His run wasn't impressive. Like I said move Kidd's 02 season to the 05, 06, or even 07 season he wouldn't win an MVP over either Nash or Dirk. Kidd was an MVP candidate but a weak one.

[Miller for 3]

Some Jason Kidd clutchness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrPJ3CbFnNg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF-i2qRuHSk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rI0ECOSvD4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBF_OJ3uXNo

[Clippersfan86]

Nash wasn't better. Okay, we're done here. :oldlol: I hope you understand back in '05 LeBron wasn't any better of a defender than either Nash or Dirk was and he certainly as hell could not make a jump shot like those two could either.

:roll: :roll: . Nash wasn't even a better individual player than rookie Lebron man. :lol :lol.

[raiderfan19]

Are we seriously having an era debate about Nash and Kidd? You guys do realize Kidd is only 11 months older than Nash right and only made his debut 2 seasons earlier. Besides this is a Kidd/Stockton debate so I dont see what Nash has to do with it.

[D.J.]

For what its worth, Kobe finished 3rd in the defensive player of year race that year(not saying he was better than kidd defensively).

And shaq and duncan without question affected a game more than Kidd outside of their numbers. I have long thought that Duncan's defensive rep has been overrated in the last few years because hes been terrible once he lost his athletecism and cant guard a pf with any kind of a jumper now, but in the early 00s? Youve gotta be kidding me to think he didn't impact the game.

Shaq impacted a game more than anyone with the exception of jordan.


Impacting a game without scoring a point? Shaq could not do that. His overall impact was better than anyone except Jordan and Wilt. But he had to score. Kidd could score, but he could still impact and win games without scoring a point. Shaq can't claim that.

[Big164]

Tim Duncan was a rookie in 98 so the only time they did anything to duncan was when he was a rookie and Robinson was coming off of an injury. Shaq joined the Lakers in 97.

Both players primes occurred in the 00s, not the 90s. Hakeem isnt enough to make up for all the rest of the talent in the west in the 00s.

All 4 bigs averaged at least 20 ppg when the Jazz eliminated them from the playoffs. Rockets, Spurs, Lakers were all recent or soon to be championship teams. Dont understand how you can call them weak.

[Clippersfan86]

Are we seriously having an era debate about Nash and Kidd? You guys do realize Kidd is only 11 months older than Nash right and only made his debut 2 seasons earlier. Besides this is a Kidd/Stockton debate so I dont see what Nash has to do with it.

These guys are mad Kidd beat Nash in the other thread so they are nerd raging in a Stockton thread. I didn't realize Nash stans could top Lebron/Kobe stans on issue but boy they are really coming out the last couple days.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Are we seriously having an era debate about Nash and Kidd? You guys do realize Kidd is only 11 months older than Nash right and only made his debut 2 seasons earlier. Besides this is a Kidd/Stockton debate so I dont see what Nash has to do with it.
I don't either but these guys keep bringing it up. I was just saying how inconsistent these voters and discussions have been.

Nash was a top 3-5 player from '05 to '07 and a 2x MVP WINNER and then he loses to Kidd in the last thread/discussion/ranking.

In this thread I see people say Kidd should be ahead of Stockton because he was a top 5 player (arguably) and an MVP CANDIDATE (not even a winner).

Horribly inconsistent.

[RRR3]

A couple more hilarious things about Swagg3r's "arguments":

*LeBron not only had great numbers in 06, but he finished runner up to nash in 06 for MVP when he apparently wasn't a "Top 5 player in the NBA"
*Swagg3r faults LBJ for not making the playoffs in 05. His fellow starters were Big Z (good player), Drew Gooden (no d, decent offense), Jeff McInnis (LOL), and Ira Newble (:roll: ). He also had legends like Robert Traylor, Eric Snow, Anderson Varejao, and Luscious Harris playing significant minutes. How'd he only lead that team to a 42-40 record? :roll:

[Clippersfan86]

A couple more hilarious things about Swagg3r's "arguments":

*LeBron not only had great numbers in 06, but he finished runner up to nash in 06 for MVP when he apparently wasn't a "Top 5 player in the NBA"
*Swagg3r faults LBJ for not making the playoffs in 05. His fellow starters were Big Z (good player), Drew Gooden (no d, decent offense), Jeff McInnis (LOL), and Ira Newble (:roll: ). He also had legends like Robert Traylor, Eric Snow, Anderson Varejao, and Luscious Harris playing significant minutes. How'd he only lead that team to a 42-40 record? :roll:

:roll: :roll:. Hey man Lucious Harris was a beast! Ira Newble was as good as Dirk.

[RRR3]

:roll: :roll:. Hey man Lucious Harris was a beast! Ira Newble was as good as Dirk.
Man, I know! LeBron's been choking for years even though he's always played with future HOF'ers! He even had Sasha Pavlovic that year!

[IGOTGAME]

I don't either but these guys keep bringing it up. I was just saying how inconsistent these voters and discussions have been.

Nash was a top 3-5 player from '05 to '07 and a 2x MVP WINNER and then he loses to Kidd in the last thread/discussion/ranking.

In this thread I see people say Kidd should be ahead of Stockton because he was a top 5 player (arguably) and an MVP CANDIDATE (not even a winner).

Horribly inconsistent.

I think you fail to see the flaw in your reasoning. I don't think Nash would have sniffed an MVP back when Kidd was in contention. He also would not have been a top 5 player at any time either.

Kidd was second in MVP votes and couldn't even make the first team all nba.

[raiderfan19]

All 4 bigs averaged at least 20 ppg when the Jazz eliminated them from the playoffs. Rockets, Spurs, Lakers were all recent or soon to be championship teams. Dont understand how you can call them weak.
I didnt call them weak, but the 2000s era west is the best any conference has ever been as highlighted by 45 win teams not being guaranteed playoff spots, 7 50 win teams in the same season and things of that nature.

[D.J.]

A couple more hilarious things about Swagg3r's "arguments":

*LeBron not only had great numbers in 06, but he finished runner up to nash in 06 for MVP when he apparently wasn't a "Top 5 player in the NBA"
*Swagg3r faults LBJ for not making the playoffs in 05. His fellow starters were Big Z (good player), Drew Gooden (no d, decent offense), Jeff McInnis (LOL), and Ira Newble (:roll: ). He also had legends like Robert Traylor, Eric Snow, Anderson Varejao, and Luscious Harris playing significant minutes. How'd he only lead that team to a 42-40 record? :roll:


That 2005 Cavs squad was a 4 man team. In all fairness, Gooden and McInnis weren't as bad as people made them out to be. Gooden averaged 14/9 with a block and a steal a game. McInnis put up 13/5, but struggled to shoot 40% from the field. Ira Newble, we won't discuss.

[tpols]

Are we seriously having an era debate about Nash and Kidd? You guys do realize Kidd is only 11 months older than Nash right and only made his debut 2 seasons earlier. Besides this is a Kidd/Stockton debate so I dont see what Nash has to do with it.
And Kidd's prime years happened much earlier than Nash's. Nash wasn't even close to being as good as Kidd in 02 or 03 or 01 or anytime before that really.. despite being the same age.

[Clippersfan86]

Man, I know! LeBron's been choking for years even though he's always played with future HOF'ers! He even had Sasha Pavlovic that year!

Don't forget Donyell Marshall! That guy was a triple double machine. He's 4th all time behind Big O, Magic and Kidd.

[RRR3]

That 2005 Cavs squad was a 4 man team. In all fairness, Gooden and McInnis weren't as bad as people made them out to be. Gooden averaged 14/9 with a block and a steal a game. McInnis put up 13/5, but struggled to shoot 40% from the field. Ira Newble, we won't discuss.

Gooden is hardly terrible and had some decent years, and Big Z was a good player for years (very good at times considering the lack of depth at center some years). But it's stupid to fault a 19-20 year old LBJ for not getting more out of that team.

[D.J.]

I didnt call them weak, but the 2000s era west is the best any conference has ever been as highlighted by 45 win teams not being guaranteed playoff spots, 7 50 win teams in the same season and things of that nature.


That has more to do with the East being weak and most of the league's stars being out West, not that the West's teams were stacked.

[RRR3]

Don't forget Donyell Marshal! That guy was a triple double machine. He's 4th all time behind Big O, Magic and Kidd.
Amazingly, the Great Marshall had yet to take his talents to Lake Erie.

[Clippersfan86]

Amazingly, the Great Marshall had yet to take his talents to Lake Erie.

:oldlol:

[RRR3]

http://i52.tinypic.com/214s689.jpg

[Clippersfan86]

http://i52.tinypic.com/214s689.jpg

:oldlol: . I actually liked him. What most people wouldn't know was for about 6 seasons combined he averaged like 14 ppg. He was a very solid player. On the Cavs though... he averaged like 7 ppg.

[Droid101]

I think you fail to see the flaw in your reasoning. I don't think Nash would have sniffed an MVP back when Kidd was in contention. He also would not have been a top 5 player at any time either.

Kidd was second in MVP votes and couldn't even make the first team all nba.
It depends on if he dragged a 20-win team to a 60-win team with his addition being the only major change.

[G.O.A.T]

No more NASH talk in this thread....

STOCKTON vs. KIDD

[Clippersfan86]

No more NASH talk in this thread....

STOCKTON vs. KIDD

:banana: . Yes please! Let go of the Nash vs Kidd thing!

[EricForman]

i vote for Stockton.

[G.O.A.T]

i vote for Stockton.

Do you want to vote, or just chime in?

I added you as a contributor, but not a voter.

[KGMN]

I'll take John Stockton here.

[Clippersfan86]

Do you want to vote, or just chime in?

I added you as a contributor, but not a voter.

G.O.A.T did you add me as a voter?

[G.O.A.T]

G.O.A.T did you add me as a voter?

If no one objects, your vote will count starting in the next poll.

[IGOTGAME]

It depends on if he dragged a 20-win team to a 60-win team with his addition being the only major change.

im confused? are you saying Kidd isnt capable of doubling a team's win total? you are aware he has done it.

[Droid101]

im confused? are you saying Kidd isnt capable of doubling a team's win total? you are aware he has done it.
The year he was "almost" MVP?

Back on topic: Stockton is better than Kidd. Stockton's assist and steals records won't be touched, ever. He's just that good.

[Clippersfan86]

If no one objects, your vote will count starting in the next poll.

Okay. So Stockton vs Magic or w/e my vote counts. For now I'll contribute what I can.

[L.Kizzle]

Damn, I was gonna write something but it looks like it's a wrap.

[Miller for 3]

I haven't seen a good argument for Stockton yet, just "he has the assist record" type posts. Why wasn't Mark Jackson a part of this project then? He played forever and put up a ton of assists in a time when assists were given out more frequently as well.

[L.Kizzle]

I haven't seen a good argument for Stockton yet, just "he has the assist record" type posts. Why wasn't Mark Jackson a part of this project then? He played forever and put up a ton of assists in a time when assists were given out more frequently as well.
Let's see, not only does he has the assist record. He has the steals records. He led the league in assist 9 times, in steals 2 times. He's a 11 time All-star, and 11 time All-NBA players. Also, 5 times all-defense and has 2 Gold Medals.

Let's see, Mark Jackson is 3rd All-Time in assist (a distant third), 25th in steals, led the league in assist once. Made one All-star game and won rookie of the year.

That's why Mark Jackson isn't part of this project.

[iamgine]

http://sebren.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/next.jpg

[magnax1]

2005
1. Duncan
2. Shaq
Garnett
Wade
Dirk
Kobe (didn't have a better season, but a clearly better player)
7th at best. Nash



2006
Wade
Kobe
Dirk
Duncan
Garnett
6th at best Nash

2007
Kobe
Duncan
Dirk
LeBron
Garnett
Wade
7th at best Nash


Not a Legit top 3-5 player from '05-'07 or ever...
I do have to say, in 05 Wade is arguable, Dirk I definitely wouldn't take over Nash, but then you forgot Tmac, who was surely better then lots of the guy you listed for 05. However Nash definitely has a case over some of those guys you listed, and a good case as a top 5 player in 05.

[SuperPippen]

A player like Stockton, IMO, really exemplifies the most valuable traits of both Nash and Kidd. Significantly better defender and ball-thief than Nash, significantly better shooter than Kidd, even better durability than both, slightly better play maker than Kidd, slightly better in transition than Nash, etc.

Stockton was a quality shooter, superior to Kidd but not at Nash's level, and was a tough, nose-to-the-grindstone player in pretty much every aspect of his game. He gave a great amount of effort every game, for TWO decades.

His durability and longevity are simply ASTOUNDING. For a fifth of a century, he was one of the the quietest workhorses in the NBA. Even at the age of 41, he was STILL playing quality seasons. Even if one argue that a good deal of his success was contingent upon the chemistry that he and Malone developed over the course of their careers, his assist numbers are still jaw-dropping. IMO, he would have been just as good without Malone, even if his stats might have been a little less impressive.

Kidd has had a similarly lengthy career, and yet the only aspect of his game that I feel is truly, significantly superior to Stockton's is his rebounding. Kidd was a great defender, sure, but I feel that that gap between him and Stockton in that regard isn't wide enough to offset the areas that Stockton trumps Kidd in.

I could go on, but enough has already been said in this thread.

Anyway, I vote for John Stockton.

[Gotterdammerung]

John Stockton was more of a classic prototypical point guard than anyone else in league history. Better shooter than Cousy, more fundamentally sound than Frazier, nastier than Nash, and more cerebral than Jason Kidd.

Like Nash, Stockton shot only when he had to. Probably just as good at changing speed off the dribble if not better. More importantly he knew how to jump into his defender while shooting and draw the foul, move without the ball, nail open shots and steal key offensive rebounds. Nobody perfected the screen & roll better and more interestingly he set sharp screens on bigger, stronger players by leading with elbows. See Jazz-Rockets games 1 & 2 of their west finals in 1997 where Stockton got Barkley in early foul trouble.

He was handcuffed by Sloan's limited offensive sets, but on fastbreaks u could tell his judgment was exceptional. I have a sneaking suspicion that Stockton made Karl Malone look far better than he really was.

Kidd was the better rebounder, better athlete, better defender and a better leader. But Stockton was the better point guard, and the differences are far smaller in his case than in Nash's.
Kidd is awesome but Stockton was better -- only by a thin margin.

[G.O.A.T]

I do have to say, in 05 Wade is arguable, Dirk I definitely wouldn't take over Nash, but then you forgot Tmac, who was surely better then lots of the guy you listed for 05. However Nash definitely has a case over some of those guys you listed, and a good case as a top 5 player in 05.

Good call on T-MAC I did forget, that was his first year with Houston right?

Dirk was the franchise guy above Nash on Dallas the year before, so I feel justified there.

After seeing how close Wade (before the injury) came to knocking my Pistons out, I feared him. I never feared Nash, so I feel Wade was better. The next year he proved it I believe.

He certainly has a case from '05-'07, but I don't think he has a case for MVP.

Why is he the only MVP (besides McAdoo in a year where the Kareem missed the playoffs, Erving and Gilmore were in the ABA and Rick Barry {the real 1975 MVP} was hated by everyone) to never make the Finals in his prime?

I can admit I am someone who focuses on the negative with Nash in arguments here, but I love him as a player. Back in my NBA Live playin' Dallas Dallas was my squad and Nash got me 20-25 assists per game.

I always go back to this though. In March of 2005 I said the Suns would never be a real title contender with Nash as their best player. That the system could revive the franchise but bring it a title. I compared it to the KJ/Chambers Suns under Cotton in the early 90's. Turns out both teams had the same amount of success, but Nash never got his Barkley.

Anyway, I have no problem with someone saying Nash was a top five player, but saying he reached a different level than Kidd, AI, Payton or Stockton is simply untrue by my recollection and watch the entire careers of all those guys.

Also I'm going to go Stockton here which makes it 13-3, I'm going to call this one seeing as it is no impossible for Kidd to win with only 25 voters.

[magnax1]

Good call on T-MAC I did forget, that was his first year with Houston right?
Yeah, probably the last year he played like Orlando TMac


Dirk was the franchise guy above Nash on Dallas the year before, so I feel justified there.
A lot changed with Nash. He went from borderline all NBA to MVP winner. I think Dirk and Nash held eachother back in Dallas. However, I don't see why anyone would take Dirk in 05. I'd without question take the guy who gets his 11-12 assist average, and averages 15 points a game on top 5 efficiency and then goes out and proves he's capable of scoring 25 a night in the playoffs over the guy who sits at the top of the key and Isos for 25 points without the ability to create shots for anyone but himself.


After seeing how close Wade (before the injury) came to knocking my Pistons out, I feared him. I never feared Nash, so I feel Wade was better. The next year he proved it I believe.
The next year he was a lot better though. I'd easily take 06 Wade over Nash. 05, it's close, and would be obvious if not for Wade playing like the best player in the league in the playoffs (though Nash was amazing too) I'd probably take Wade, but it's definitely really really close.


He certainly has a case from '05-'07, but I don't think he has a case for MVP.
I don't think he was deserving of MVP in 06, that was obviously Kobe to me despite his record. 05, is tough. Shaq was definitely the better player, but Nash was relied upon to take an offense to an all time level or else have his team play at a poor level. Duncan is also a worthy candidate, and he might actually be my choice for 05 despite not many suggesting him. 07, I'd take Nash as the MVP.
EDIT: It's worth mentioning that those were kind of weak MVP races though. Nobody like Jordan or Shaq was gunning for it, and Duncan never got the credit he deserved after his scoring #s went down.



Why is he the only MVP (besides McAdoo in a year where the Kareem missed the playoffs, Erving and Gilmore were in the ABA and Rick Barry {the real 1975 MVP} was hated by everyone) to never make the Finals in his prime?
A lot of reasons. In 05 losing Joe Johnson squashed the tiny chance they had to beat out the Spurs, who I thought at the time were plainly better. 06 They didn't have a chance. 07 was their only real chance to me, and they lost it when those guys got suspended. 08 they could've made it before the trade, but after that they never were at a top shelf talent level to me.


I can admit I am someone who focuses on the negative with Nash in arguments here, but I love him as a player. Back in my NBA Live playin' Dallas Dallas was my squad and Nash got me 20-25 assists per game.

I always go back to this though. In March of 2005 I said the Suns would never be a real title contender with Nash as their best player. That the system could revive the franchise but bring it a title. I compared it to the KJ/Chambers Suns under Cotton in the early 90's. Turns out both teams had the same amount of success, but Nash never got his Barkley.
Well I just don't really think they were ever as good as the Spurs. First off, Nash to me probably isn't a guy like Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Jordan Hakeem etc. who can bring in championships as the first option. Secondly, they were just never as good as talented in terms who they put around Nash as the Spurs. I think if he was ever put in a situation like Dirk this year where they had a top offense with lots of depth that allowed them to play defense, then he could've won. That's unlikely though. I just don't think players like them win championships very often. As first options that is.

Anyway, I have no problem with someone saying Nash was a top five player, but saying he reached a different level than Kidd, AI, Payton or Stockton is simply untrue by my recollection and watch the entire careers of all those guys.
Completely agree. I think he was considerably better then Payton, but I'd also say that of the rest of those guys. I've never been a fan of Payton because he never really reached the offensive plateau of any all time guard that he's compared too.

[G.O.A.T]

A lot changed with Nash. He went from borderline all NBA to MVP winner. I think Dirk and Nash held eachother back in Dallas. However, I don't see why anyone would take Dirk in 05. I'd without question take the guy who gets his 11-12 assist average, and averages 15 points a game on top 5 efficiency and then goes out and proves he's capable of scoring 25 a night in the playoffs over the guy who sits at the top of the key and Isos for 25 points without the ability to create shots for anyone but himself.

Did Nash get that much better or did the system and his role change so that he could put up much better numbers?

Cuban and the Mavs took Dirk over Nash and Dirk won a title and Nash never even got there. Maybe Nash had a better year in '05 than Dirk, but Dirk was the better player and the guy I'd rather have. That's all I am saying.

Good stuff as usual magnax!

[magnax1]

Did Nash get that much better or did the system and his role change so that he could put up much better numbers?
I don't like people saying the system changed for Nash, because in Phoenix he became the system. Players and coaches have left, and Nash has been the only consistent building block for that team over five years (well Amare to a certain extent, but he was always injured) but they've continued to be the best offense in the league for the most part.


Cuban and the Mavs took Dirk over Nash and Dirk won a title and Nash never even got there. Maybe Nash had a better year in '05 than Dirk, but Dirk was the better player and the guy I'd rather have. That's all I am saying.
I don't really agree. I know it's not popular to say now that Dirk has won a championship, but I don't value a guy who's only scorer that terribly much, especially when there are quite a few better ones out there over the years.


Good stuff as usual magnax!
Thanks