When Stats lie

[Pointguard]

Both players are easily best players on their teams.

Player One
441%...330% 3pt 7.6asst 2.9TO 24ppg PER 22.7 540TS% Record 26-56
Player Two
391%.. 321% 3pt 9.9asst 3.5TO 14.7ppg PER 19.1 484TS% Record 52-30

Player two reversed the fortunes of the same team.

Can you guess the players? What went wrong with the stats?

[Bandito]

Because Lebron sucks.

[jlip]

Marbury and Kidd

I've always said that individual stats can't possibly reveal a point guard's impact. It's the pg's job to improve the effectiveness of other players. His own stats are sometimes meaningless.

[Angel Face]

Lebron's 8 point finals game was a lie. Realistically, it should have been a 6 point game since he flopped his 2 point trip to the free throw line.

[Pointguard]

Marbury and Kidd
Yes.
Haven't seen you in a minute.

Any contributions on Kidd's gift to dominate without the stats?

[Pointguard]

Marbury and Kidd

I've always said that individual stats can't possibly reveal a point guard's impact. It's the pg's job to improve the effectiveness of other players. His own stats are sometimes meaningless.

Well said. Magic, though he often had gaudy stats, they didn't quite measure his impact on the game, either.

[jlip]

Yes.
Haven't seen you in a minute.

Any contributions on Kidd's gift to dominate without the stats?

While I wouldn't say that this wasn't a statistically impressive game (He had 18 asts.) it does show his ability to dominate without scoring.


Jason Kidd
4pts (1-11 fgs) 18asts 7rbs 4stls

12-27-01 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200112270DET.html)

Jason Kidd was the star of the New Jersey Nets' victory despite making just one of his 11 shots.

Kidd had 18 assists, seven rebounds, four steals and just one turnover to lead the Nets to an 88-75 victory over the Detroit Pistons last night.

"That's just how Jason is-- a great team player," Nets coach Byron Scott said. "He's one of the few guys in the league that can beat you without scoring..."

Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RA4wAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yAMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6697,4124636&dq=jason+kidd+nets+assists&hl=en)

[DMAVS41]

Nothing went wrong...you just aren't looking at enough information.

Marbury rapm in 01;

Plus 1.8


Kidd rapm in 02;

Plus 5.4


The Nets saw their offense get better as a team...and then the defense was completely transformed.

That is the big difference between the two players...Marbury was a joke defensively...while Kidd was absolutely great defensively.

Also, weren't the teams pretty different?

Kittles didn't play at all in 01. He was 3rd in minutes in 02.
Jefferson was a rookie in 02 and was a solid player.
T-Mac came over from the Sixers as well and while he wasn't a force or something...he did play 24 minutes a game


Meh...really think this is a bad example. RAPM, especially defensive rapm, shows exactly why you'd see a pretty big defensive turn around. Add in just a better team as well with 3 new players in the top 6 rotation and it's hardly and apples to apples comparison

Also, it's just different to put up stats on a bad team. This seems like it should be known at this point. Especially with a shoot first pg like Marbury that didn't even try defensively.

It's funny you list solely offensive stats really...when the big difference in the two teams was defense. The Nets went from a poor defense to a great defense...and in large part because of Kidd....and a few new players obviously as well. Shit...they had Jason Collins playing 18 minutes a game in 02 as well. That is 4 completely new players around Kidd in 02 that weren't on the team in 01....with all of them playing legit minutes.

LOL at this shit.

[NumberSix]

30% od Durant's career

[Pointguard]

Nothing went wrong...you just aren't looking at enough information.

Marbury rapm in 01;
Plus 1.8

Kidd rapm in 02;
Plus 5.4

What does the RAPM tell you that 3.6 on the defensive side of RAPM is worth the double amount in wins? Really? Are you this hard up for stats? that this is your best answer? Just add more stats? Tell me in your stat dynamic how, and in what way does RAPM account for the wins? You mean to tell me that RAPM can distinguish when Dwight Howard erased Nash's matador defense? That it captures in full light the process, the how and the way this Nets transition happened?

When that is done show me the consistent proportions 3.6 defensive RAPM with other teams and their doubling their wins?


The Nets saw their offense get better as a team...and then the defense was completely transformed.

That is the big difference between the two players...Marbury was a joke defensively...while Kidd was absolutely great defensively.
No, you missed several huge, humongous qualities which is why I brought this up. But what else am I to expect. You are a classic example of a stat geek gone wild. Your answer was more stats!


Also, weren't the teams pretty different?

Kittles didn't play at all in 01. He was 3rd in minutes in 02.
Jefferson was a rookie in 02 and was a solid player.
T-Mac came over from the Sixers as well and while he wasn't a force or something...he did play 24 minutes a game

Marbury was not a bad defender. Maybe a little below average.
Jefferson/Kittles lacked the toughness and defense of J. Newman and Gill. Kittles and Jefferson probably scored more because of Kidd though. Richard Jefferson was ok. Good on the break, inexperienced and had trouble in the half court. TMac was serviceable, missed a lot of games. Aaron Williams was moreso the man in the playoffs. Kittles was often unsteady at this point as well.


Meh...really think this is a bad example.
Of course defensive RAPM. 2013
Nash is the worse defender probably witnessed -1.8 and better than a whole lot of players. CP3 one of the better PG defenders just a 0.5.


RAPM, especially defensive rapm, shows exactly why you'd see a pretty big defensive turn around. Add in just a better team as well with 3 new players in the top 6 rotation and it's hardly and apples to apples comparison.

You really think it tells you why? So now these numbers communicate reasons to you??? And wrong ones at that! So now you have twilight zone qualities? That allow you to see the small picture non-factors but not the big picture big factors. RAPM numbers that "shows exactly WHY?" Why humiliate yourself in yet, one more thread. Dude, put the stats down as the title suggest. You're drunk off of them and don't know when to stop. This madness is consuming you. "Bird's TS%," I seen this one coming a mile away. "TS%, TS%, TS%" "RAPM, RAPM, RAPM."

Kittles and TMac had little to do with the defense changing.


Also, it's just different to put up stats on a bad team. This seems like it should be known at this point. Especially with a shoot first pg like Marbury that didn't even try defensively.
Actually the gut of the OP was to stimulate conversation on intangibles and to not sink into profound new levels of stat overuse and silly gestures on your part.

[sd3035]

more than half of Lebron's assists. He's just the last guy to touch the ball before a teammate takes a contested jumpshot near the end of the shot clock

[Pointguard]

It's funny you list solely offensive stats really...when the big difference in the two teams was defense. The Nets went from a poor defense to a great defense...and in large part because of Kidd....and a few new players obviously as well. Shit...they had Jason Collins playing 18 minutes a game in 02 as well. That is 4 completely new players around Kidd in 02 that weren't on the team in 01....with all of them playing legit minutes.

LOL at this shit.

:lol So please point out the 4 new players defensive prowess over their careers? Show their defensive RAPM's and how they changed the culture of other teams? Please do! Please show me this great defensive impact of them. I want to know how those RAPM numbers communicated to you that this is not straight comedy.

I'll wait.

[DMAVS41]

What does the RAPM tell you that 3.6 on the defensive side of RAPM is worth the double amount in wins? Really? Are you this hard up for stats? that this is your best answer? Just add more stats? Tell me in your stat dynamic how, and in what way does RAPM account for the wins? You mean to tell me that RAPM can distinguish when Dwight Howard erased Nash's matador defense? That it captures in full light the process, the how and the way this Nets transition happened?

When that is done show me the consistent proportions 3.6 defensive RAPM with other teams and their doubling their wins?

No, you missed several huge, humongous qualities which is why I brought this up. But what else am I to expect. You are a classic example of a stat geek gone wild. Your answer was more stats!

Marbury was not a bad defender. Maybe a little below average.
Jefferson/Kittles lacked the toughness and defense of J. Newman and Gill. Kittles and Jefferson probably scored more because of Kidd though. Richard Jefferson was ok. Good on the break, inexperienced and had trouble in the half court. TMac was serviceable, missed a lot of games. Aaron Williams was moreso the man in the playoffs. Kittles was often unsteady at this point as well.

Of course defensive RAPM. 2013
Nash is the worse defender probably witnessed -1.8 and better than a whole lot of players. CP3 one of the better PG defenders just a 0.5.

You really think it tells you why? So now these numbers communicate reasons to you??? And wrong ones at that! So now you have twilight zone qualities? That allow you to see the small picture non-factors but not the big picture big factors. RAPM numbers that "shows exactly WHY?" Why humiliate yourself in yet, one more thread. Dude, put the stats down as the title suggest. You're drunk off of them and don't know when to stop. This madness is consuming you. "Bird's TS%," I seen this one coming a mile away. "TS%, TS%, TS%" "RAPM, RAPM, RAPM."

Kittles and TMac had little to do with the defense changing.

Actually the gut of the OP was to stimulate conversation on intangibles and to not sink into profound new levels of stat overuse and silly gestures on your part.


I don't follow this. You can't just cherry pick a set of offensive individual stats...then post about an entirely different team the next year playing differently...and conclude that stats lie.

Is the defense a player plays...intangible? Say what you want about Marbury...what I know for sure is that he was a ****ing horrendous defender in 01. I remember laughing at him all the time when I watched the games...and what do you know...he was a minus 2.9...which is horrendous. That kind of stuff is reserved for some of the worst defenders in the league...made even worse by the fact that he was playing 38 minutes a game.

What do you expect to happen? You took away a selfish no defense playing point guard and replaced him with a more team oriented offensive player that played great defense.

Then, you add 4 different players into the top 9 rotation. 3 in the top 6. Two of them being centers.

You get an all time great defensive guard...who also happens to be a great rebounder as well. And you are going to see a defense dramatically improve over a team with ****ing 01 Marbury playing 38 minutes a game at -2.9 defensive rapm.


Do you not see how stupid your post was? You listed solely offensive stuff. ****...you don't even list rebounding. And then you ask why?

Well, the big difference was the defense. It went from 23rd to 1st you clown.
And it went that way because you replaced one of the worst guard defenders in the league...honestly, probably the worst outside of Nash...and even then it's debatable as at least Nash tried. And you replace it not only with the best guard defender, but you add 3 other important players. Two of them being centers...

To act like you gave a good look at all the stats...or that stats can't explain the above is not true at all.

If Marbury played the kind of defense Kidd did...and he got Kittles, Jefferson, Collins, and T-Mac...you'd see the win totals go up a lot as well.

I don't think you'd get to 56, but you'd get close.

It's really not hard. The offense marginally improved and the defense dramatically improved.

And in your "stats" you listed...you failed to be open about the fact that the two teams were dramatically different;

Van Horn played 5 less minutes in 02
Kittles didn't play at all in 01
Richard Jefferson didn't play at all in 01
T-Mac and Collins didn't play at all in 01
Williams and Harris each played significantly more in 01

Totally different teams...you didn't list any defensive or rebounding stuff...

LOL...you are a clown

[MMM]

Stats don't lie.

Liars use stats because they can be manipulated to come to any conclusion if you don't have the full picture. It seems people who believe stats lie or are empty don't really understand statistics.

[DMAVS41]

:lol So please point out the 4 new players defensive prowess over their careers? Show their defensive RAPM's and how they changed the culture of other teams? Please do! Please show me this great defensive impact of them. I want to know how those RAPM numbers communicated to you that this is not straight comedy.

I'll wait.

What?

Kidd is a monster on defense at the guard position. Not like it would take much...all I have to do is look and see how awful Marbury was in 01...and he was dreadful...-2.9 is awful dude. I don't know why you can't follow this.

I'm giving Kidd credit...isn't that what you want?

But the point is that it wasn't intangibles or offense that changed...it was the defense.

Something made them go from the 23rd defense to the 1st defense. And I'd credit Kidd and having two big bodies in T-Mac and Collins...but mainly Kidd.

You really think it's "intangibles" that transformed their defense from bad to great? No...it's that Byron Scott was able to play his desired style with his team in 02. He saw his terrible defensive pg get replaced by a great defensive pg...and he could play the negative defender van horn less.

He could play the negative defender Harris less and get some guys in better roles so they could succeed.

It's not difficult. You take away Marbury from a team and replace him with Kidd....you are going to get much better defensively based on how Marbury played in 01. It's just a fact. Add into that you play Van Horn less...and add two big bodies...play Harris less. Add Jefferson and Kittles...

Jesus man...the 01 Nets didn't even really have a center.

The Nets were the 25th ranked defensive rebounding team in 01
The Nets were the 13th ranked defensive rebounding team in 02

Hahahahah...it's all in the stats. Literally everything...

And you see exactly why they made a marginal offensive improvement and a huge defensive improvement. It's literally all right there in the stats.

[ImKobe]

Marbury was a decent scorer, but a bad point guard & a medicore defensive player.

Anyone remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lrfUkLeMzA#t=29

[JebronLames]

Marbury is a two time champion. Kidd with only One.

[ImKobe]

Marbury is a two time champion. Kidd with only One.

CBA titles >>> NBA titles

2 CBA titles are like 10 NBA championships

[Pointguard]

Stats don't lie.

Liars use stats because they can be manipulated to come to any conclusion if you don't have the full picture. It seems people who believe stats lie or are empty don't really understand statistics.
Stats never ever tell a full story and when they do the computers will be your master. The gist of the post is to take it beyond what the stats tell you. Only Jlip has gone there because he trust what he knows. The rest of you guys want to believe in things because you don't trust what you know. Its a security blanket.

[DMAVS41]

Stats never ever tell a full story and when they do the computers will be your master. The gist of the post is to take it beyond what the stats tell you. Only Jlip has gone there because he trust what he knows. The rest of you guys want to believe in things because you don't trust what you know. Its a security blanket.

You only listed a few of the stats though...clown.

Oh...more stats!...ahahahahah;

Clutch play

Kidd shot 34% fg / 31% from 3 / 40%efg...on 95 shots
Marbury shot 26% fg / 23% from 3 / 29% efg...on 74 shots

It's all shaping up.

Way better defense, way better clutch play, 4 other brand new key rotation players...

Bu bu bu bu but....intangibles!

Maybe if Marbury didn't play like complete shit in close games his team would have won more. In 01, the Nets went into crunch time in 26 games that Marbury played. In 02, the Nets went into crunch time in 31 games that Kidd played.

Guess what...having a key player shoot 11% better in terms of efg% in close games is going to be a huge factor in winning close games all else equal. But the Nets had better players and better defense in 02 to begin with...LOL

[MMM]

Stats never ever tell a full story and when they do the computers will be your master. The gist of the post is to take it beyond what the stats tell you. Only Jlip has gone there because he trust what he knows. The rest of you guys want to believe in things because you don't trust what you know. Its a security blanket.

I'm aware stats don't tell the full story, which is what i mean when i say liars use stats. They can be manipulated without the proper context. When certain stats give me information that my eyes are not observing than i looks for more numbers that can explain the discrepancy and put the first series of numbers in the right context. If there is still a discrepancy than watching more to observe if there is details i'm missing. Stats definitely help you zone in on smaller details of the game that you might not initially see.

[justin12140]

never like those all encompassing stats like PER, RAPM, or WAR. Their just arbitrary numbers that have tons of exceptions that cant be explained.

How is DJ Augustine rated 79 of 87 point guards in the league in RAPM despite the fact that the Bulls have done much better this season with him.

Novak has a higher RAPM than Ariza, Webster, Batum, and Tucker. lol how?

Greg Stiesma has a higher DRPM than Bosh and Hibbert?

just goes to show how arbitrary some of these stats can be

[DMAVS41]

More stats;

In 02 the Nets played the easiest schedule in the league
In 01 the Nets played the 18th ranked schedule in the league

[Pointguard]

What?

Kidd is a monster on defense at the guard position. Not like it would take much...all I have to do is look and see how awful Marbury was in 01...and he was dreadful...-2.9 is awful dude. I don't know why you can't follow this.
Marbury was a better defender than Nash was by any margin of the stick.

I'm giving Kidd credit...isn't that what you want?

I am looking at the dynamics that highlight Kidd's strength. The credit should have always been there.



But the point is that it wasn't intangibles or offense that changed...it was the defense.
He was better offensively as well. That's one of the humongous things you missed.



Something made them go from the 23rd defense to the 1st defense. And I'd credit Kidd and having two big bodies in T-Mac and Collins...but mainly Kidd.

Jesus man...the 01 Nets didn't even really have a center.

The Nets were the 25th ranked defensive rebounding team in 01
The Nets were the 13th ranked defensive rebounding team in 02

Hahahahah...it's all in the stats. Literally everything...

And you see exactly why they made a marginal offensive improvement and a huge defensive improvement. It's literally all right there in the stats.
What are the dynamics? I'm not interested in the science that measures the people. I'm interested in how the people did what they did. What happened. Anybody can point to stats but that's just the measure not the reality, not the motivation, not the process, not the players. The stats are inept in the capture. Stats caught Kidd stole the ball more and turned it over more. The best story is why was Kidd so much better. Marbury has a better stat capture than Kidd. That's obvious. Why is it that Jlip is the only one comfortable with that. Why were you visibly offended?

You keep giving the robotic answer, the paper's answer, the stat answer, without dept or consciousness.

[Smoke117]

Stats only lie or tell the truth to those that no nothing about an opinion they are giving. This "when stats lie" thread for instance. I didn't even read what the OP said, don't even know he is, don't really give a crap. The fact of the matter is as far as basketball someone with real knowledge of the game can differentiate from the glamour of stats and the beauty of the sport they are watching. (to be poetic for a change) I know my basketball, I know there a few people that know it here to...and I really know there a majority that know nothing of what they are talking about even as THEY BELIEVE IT...and that's the saddest part...but ignorance has always been bliss and it always will be. Life is ignorance defined for all of us in one way or another.

[DMAVS41]

never like those all encompassing stats like PER, RAPM, or WAR. Their just arbitrary numbers that have tons of exceptions that cant be explained.

How is DJ Augustine rated 79 of 87 point guards in the league in RAPM despite the fact that the Bulls have done much better this season with him.

Novak has a higher RAPM than Ariza, Webster, Batum, and Tucker. lol how?

Greg Stiesma has a higher DRPM than Bosh and Hibbert?

just goes to show how arbitrary some of these stats can be

It's not arbitrary...the just don't adjust per minutes played. So a player playing 15 minutes a game can't be compared to a player playing 30 minutes per game....nor can you really compare players playing totally different roles

FYI though...

So it's hard to compare a guy like Steimsma to Hibbert here as one plays roughly a full qtr more per game. Also, Hibbert plays on a great defensive team as well...Stiemsma plays on like the 4th worst defense in the league. Easier to make an improvement when you are out there...

[DMAVS41]

I am looking at the dynamics that highlight Kidd's strength. The credit should have always been there.


He was better offensively as well. That's one of the humongous things you missed.


What are the dynamics? I'm not interested in the science that measures the people. I'm interested in how the people did what they did. What happened. Anybody can point to stats but that's just the measure not the reality, not the motivation, not the process, not the players. The stats are inept in the capture. Stats caught Kidd stole the ball more and turned it over more. The best story is why was Kidd so much better. Marbury has a better stat capture than Kidd. That's obvious. Why is it that Jlip is the only one comfortable with that. Why were you visibly offended?

You keep giving the robotic answer, the paper's answer, the stat answer, without dept or consciousness.


Dude...you asked what the stats got wrong...and the answer of course...is nothing.

You just cherry picked only offensive stats and then wanted to make a statement that stats lie.

Well, they don't...the stats show why the team transformed by 26 games...they played great defense rather than crap defense, they added 4 key new players around Kidd, and Kidd himself played far better in close games than Marbury did.

Why did this happen you ask? Well, Kidd is a much better defender than Marbury. For one, he actually tries defensively...he is bigger and tougher. He's a smarter player. He doesn't make defensive errors. He could guard positions 1 through 3 at that time...and he's a far better defensive rebounder as well.

The other part of this stuff is that you aren't even realizing that when you add 4 new players in the top 9 of a rotation...the team is just inherently far different. Kittles, Jefferson, T-Mac, and Collins all played legit roles on that team.

Maybe Marbury gets them to 40 wins or something...I doubt it, but it's not crazy. That's definitely a better squad imo...

But I really don't get your point about what the stats missed. They didn't miss anything. Replacing a horrid defender in Marbury with Kidd...and replacing Marbury's terrible clutch play is going to yield pretty big results just on those things alone.

Do you want me to now break down why Kidd is a better defender? I will, but that seems like you are changing the objective of the OP now that you have been shredded...

I thought this was about the stats missing stuff?

[Pointguard]

I'm aware stats don't tell the full story, which is what i mean when i say liars use stats. They can be manipulated without the proper context. When certain stats give me information that my eyes are not observing than i looks for more numbers that can explain the discrepancy and put the first series of numbers in the right context. If there is still a discrepancy than watching more to observe if there is details i'm missing. Stats definitely help you zone in on smaller details of the game that you might not initially see.
Because stats are not whole they are always partial. They always have a slant. They are not neutral as many think they are. They take on the flavor of the person using them 90% of the time.

Stats can back up concept and context but it you look to them for context you are very susceptible to being duped. Stats are not interchangeable with reality, and do not carry a full truth with it... it is always a representation of a small piece at best, and even when dead on, it is but is one dimension in a three dimensional world... .

Nonetheless, Kidd never had great stats to me. But he was definitely one of the best PG's. He had modest numbers.

[DMAVS41]

Because stats are not whole they are always partial. They always have a slant. They are not neutral as many think they are. They take on the flavor of the person using them 90% of the time.

Stats can back up concept and context but it you look to them for context you are very susceptible to being duped. Stats are not interchangeable with reality, and do not carry a full truth with it... it is always a representation of a small piece at best, and even when dead on, it is but is one dimension in a three dimensional world... .

Nonetheless, Kidd never had great stats to me. But he was definitely one of the best PG's. He had modest numbers.


But his defense and rebounding was great. If you don't consider those "stats"...then fine, but you aren't going to get the entire picture on a player like Duncan or Kidd or so many others if you just stop at points/assists and TS%

Do you really not understand that there are ways to quantify defensive impact?

And that those are stats as well...

Like...do you understand that Kidd has a defensive rating of 102 for his career and Marbury has s defensive rating of 110 for his career?

That is a huge difference in defensive impact...you compare their offensive ratings and they are basically the same.

You see? Once you really start to look in depth about this stuff....things start to become more clear.

Then you'd like at rebounding...Kidd has a 10% total rebounding percentage...while Marbury's is 4.5%...

Kidd did have modest stats, I guess, if you just look at ppg....but he was a

15/7/9 50% TS player for a 12 year period while playing elite defense at his position.

In 03 he had a 19/6/9 53% TS year and was again a huge beast defensively with a 96 drtg....that isn't modest at all...that is great

I mean...depends on how you are defining "modest"...

[Pointguard]

Dude...you asked what the stats got wrong...and the answer of course...is nothing.

You just cherry picked only offensive stats and then wanted to make a statement that stats lie.

Well, they don't...the stats show why the team transformed by 26 games...they played great defense rather than crap defense, they added 4 key new players around Kidd, and Kidd himself played far better in close games than Marbury did.

Why did this happen you ask? Well, Kidd is a much better defender than Marbury. For one, he actually tries defensively...he is bigger and tougher. He's a smarter player. He doesn't make defensive errors. He could guard positions 1 through 3 at that time...and he's a far better defensive rebounder as well.

The other part of this stuff is that you aren't even realizing that when you add 4 new players in the top 9 of a rotation...the team is just inherently far different. Kittles, Jefferson, T-Mac, and Collins all played legit roles on that team.

I want to see the defensive RAPM for those guys when they defensively changed other teams. You are saying that they changed the team defensively. I'm telling you that both Gill and Newman were better defensively than Kittles and Jefferson. T-mac had some problem moving quickly (forgot what it was but he retired because of it). Collins had good energy on defense. But I want to see stats that the other three were good defensively.


Maybe Marbury gets them to 40 wins or something...I doubt it, but it's not crazy. That's definitely a better squad imo...

But I really don't get your point about what the stats missed. They didn't miss anything. Replacing a horrid defender in Marbury with Kidd...and replacing Marbury's terrible clutch play is going to yield pretty big results just on those things alone.

Do you want me to now break down why Kidd is a better defender? I will, but that seems like you are changing the objective of the OP now that you have been shredded...

I thought this was about the stats missing stuff?
Oh yeah I will tell in time but I want to see the stats tell you first.

[DMAVS41]

I want to see the defensive RAPM for those guys when they defensively changed other teams. You are saying that they changed the team defensively. I'm telling you that both Gill and Newman were better defensively than Kittles and Jefferson. T-mac had some problem moving quickly (forgot what it was but he retired because of it). Collins had good energy on defense. But I want to see stats that the other three were good defensively.

Oh yeah I will tell in time but I want to see the stats tell you first.

I'm saying that adding two centers along with Jason Kidd...while removing the awful defender Marbury, giving less burn to a bad defender in Van Horn, and less minutes to a negative defender in Harris...led to the improved defense.

I don't understand what you mean...see the stats...

T-Mac was a positive 1.1 defender for the Nets in 02
Collins was a positive .9 defender for the Nets in 02


Like I said. You remove Marbury, let Van Horn and Harris play less, allow Byron Scott to coach the way he wants, add Kidd and two centers...and you see in the stats why they'd improve defensively.

Do you think it's magic or something? It's about how the players fit together...etc.

I have no doubt that Gill was better than Kittles on defense. I don't see the relevance here for that though. It has to do with how these guys all fit together around Kidd...

Johnny had a -2.4 defensive rapm in 01 by the way. But again. that isn't really the point. He might have been positive next to Kidd...

My point about adding players is simply that it's a different team so it's hard to compare. You get that...right? It would be one thing if you just removed Marbury and put in Kidd, but that didn't happen. It was Kidd...along with Kittles, jefferson, T-Mac, and Collins. Then you saw Van Horn play a lesser role, and Harris and Williams play lesser roles.

That was my point...not that Jason Collins deserves a ton of credit for the defense or Jefferson or something. the point is that it was a different team with 4 new key players around Kidd...so comparing 01 and 02 and using it as a referendum on Kidd and Marbury is a bit fallacious. Not completely out of bounds, but also not this direct relational deal you want it to be...

Especially as you simply ignored so much in your initial post...

[MMM]

Because stats are not whole they are always partial. They always have a slant. They are not neutral as many think they are. They take on the flavor of the person using them 90% of the time.

Stats can back up concept and context but it you look to them for context you are very susceptible to being duped. Stats are not interchangeable with reality, and do not carry a full truth with it... it is always a representation of a small piece at best, and even when dead on, it is but is one dimension in a three dimensional world... .

Nonetheless, Kidd never had great stats to me. But he was definitely one of the best PG's. He had modest numbers.

Agreed with most of your sentiment. I am aware that stats are just a snapshot in time they are still useful with the right interpretation.

[Smoke117]

it's really ****ing ridiculous how so many people can bicker back and forth about utter bullshit. I made my thread and I thought I said something (the arrogance of self I suppose), but you seem to be all bickering back and forth like a couple of country boys fighting over who gets to **** the prize pig. I mean... really, DMAVS ( you should hold me in high regard for even putting you in caps), you know what you are talking about, but you are here growling and gnawing at animals as if you should be sleeping and eating the shit they do. Why take the bait? Were all animals in the end, but he stupidest ones? They are around as much...or altogether because ate the shit the were fed...which honestly puts me at a crossroads...well I suppose that is life. It all ends in the middle and it all is going to end in shit for everybody. Cheers.

[Pointguard]

You only listed a few of the stats though...clown.

Oh...more stats!...ahahahahah;

Clutch play

Kidd shot 34% fg / 31% from 3 / 40%efg...on 95 shots
Marbury shot 26% fg / 23% from 3 / 29% efg...on 74 shots

You are a deranged lunatic... You have serious trouble just trying to stay away. Please find more stats you are about 1/10th away from explaining 80% of the bulk of the game.



Way better defense, way better clutch play, 4 other brand new key rotation players...

Bu bu bu bu but....intangibles!
Explain what the four players were better at and show it thru your stats.


Maybe if Marbury didn't play like complete shit in close games his team would have won more. In 01, the Nets went into crunch time in 26 games that Marbury played. In 02, the Nets went into crunch time in 31 games that Kidd played.
That's 57 games out of 164. You got this on lock. You doing it.



Guess what...having a key player shoot 11% better in terms of efg% in close games is going to be a huge factor in winning close games all else equal. But the Nets had better players and better defense in 02 to begin with...LOL

:lol You are incorrigible. What happened to your great fall back on TS%. That's your lifeline. You are now abandoning it for EFG%?

[Pointguard]

Agreed with most of your sentiment. I am aware that stats are just a snapshot in time they are still useful with the right interpretation.

I agree with where you are coming from - as I usually do. I just think the application of stats is hard and usually overstated by people using it.

[Budadiiii]

Agreed with PG.... stats don't take into account how much of a retard Derrick Rose is and how much of a detriment the injury prone chucker is to that franchise.

[Pointguard]

it's really ****ing ridiculous how so many people can bicker back and forth about utter bullshit. I made my thread and I thought I said something (the arrogance of self I suppose), but you seem to be all bickering back and forth like a couple of country boys fighting over who gets to **** the prize pig. I mean... really, DMAVS ( you should hold me in high regard for even putting you in caps), you know what you are talking about, but you are here growling and gnawing at animals as if you should be sleeping and eating the shit they do. Why take the bait? Were all animals in the end, but he stupidest ones? They are around as much...or altogether because ate the shit the were fed...which honestly puts me at a crossroads...well I suppose that is life. It all ends in the middle and it all is going to end in shit for everybody. Cheers.
You really believe that?

[ILLsmak]

You really believe that?

He does.

Chekkit. I'm gonna break it down from both sides. I personally don't like stats, either...

PG: You want DMAVS to concede that stats are not the end all be all or, even, that they can be outright wrong. You try to prove this by comparing stats that a casual fan would bring up.

DMAVS, however, is replying that you must select the stats with a discerning mind. OK, well.... the first point that needs to be made is that it seems DMAVS is exactly the same as you are except he is using stats as his 'facts.' He has reached the same conclusion and sought stats to back them up.

Therein lies the issue with advanced stats, however, is you can keep digging and find a stat for everything. Funny that Collins should be mentioned when he is an intangible player. Someone may look at players like Collins (or Perkins, for all of you guys who say he sucks) and try to measure their impact numerically... and create a new stat. However, that stat wouldn't be applicable to other types of players.

Again, an issue with stats is that you can't cross compare them. At least, that's how I feel. Certain stats DO invalidate or contradict others... simply because they are so many.

Lastly, WINS is also a stat. Keep that in mind. It is implied that getting wins is a desirable result. And IT IS, however, so much more goes into a win than goes into a stat. Therefore, it's hard to say... well let's see... a team had 10 wins and then they got this player and had... 50!

But wins are better that stats, too... so really, I mean if your mind can house all of this information, it's kind of numbing to take it all into account or, even more, express it.

Just like the "eye test" is not some intangible thing. It's watching and noticing outcomes you recognize and grading them based on circumstance.

PEACE

-Smak

[f0und]

stats lie only to the person looking at it as the only truth.

[Pointguard]

stats lie only to the person looking at it as the only truth.
Thanks

[Pointguard]

Smak to make it simple, my emphasis is on qualitative not quantitative. Kidd had a very unique quality that doesn't lend itself personal quantitative measure.

Measuring qualities is out of reach if you can't decipher a basic understanding of how players are functioning and are interconnected. If you are discerning where the stats are without knowing how they mature in different players you are in it for the stats and not the game itself. You are hypnotized by the stats and fail to see how the game reveals itself.

Ben Wallace was an intense, fearless, hustle defensive player and leader. The second he says, "I can guard Shaquille alone and keep him under 30," his team is transformed and convinced they can win it all. His value is that of a superstar. But because the stats don't support this status few will go there.

If folks are stuck on quantitative measure, or better yet lead by it, I just don't think they are going to do too well when measuring the quality, function and player interaction. I've been saying for years that I think Durant will be the most proficient scorer there is, but I would take MJ over h because of MJ's qualities.

[atljonesbro]

I find it funny how people have this superiority complex when they disregard stats. People are quick to disregard factual information and feel big and smart but are quick to talk about "heart" and "dedication".

[DMAVS41]

You are a deranged lunatic... You have serious trouble just trying to stay away. Please find more stats you are about 1/10th away from explaining 80% of the bulk of the game.


Explain what the four players were better at and show it thru your stats.

That's 57 games out of 164. You got this on lock. You doing it.



:lol You are incorrigible. What happened to your great fall back on TS%. That's your lifeline. You are now abandoning it for EFG%?


Dude.

I could only get efg% for the clutch play. If I had TS%...I would have used it.

I already have done what you asked.

I explained that Kidd was a far better defender. It's something equivalent to replacing Chris Webber with KG or Duncan at the PF position. Webber wasn't even nearly as bad as Marbury though...

What can't you get. Marbury was a terrible defender...Kidd is a great defender.

Then you take a team that wasn't even really playing a center...and you give them T-Mac and Collins.

You are going to see a huge swing on defense by adding those 3 guys...which in turn removes the biggest defensive problem, Marbury, and allows you to play the likes of Van Horn and Harris less.

In 01, with Marbury on the court, they had a 106.7 drtg. That would have been the 26th ranked defense. When Marbury went to the bench or didn't play...the Nets had a 102.5 drtg. That would have been good for the 11th best defense.

So, please follow this, just on subtracting Marbury...you would see a big leap on defense. Now imagine subtracting Marbury and adding one of the truly best defensive/rebounding guards ever in his prime. Then add two centers on a team that didn't really have one. But wait...there is more evidence why this would make an impact. The Nets actually played really good defense with Evan Eschmeyer on the court in 01. With him on the court...the Nets had a 100.8 drtg...which would have been the 8th best defense in the league. So obviously the Nets were lacking at center as he's really the only guy they had and he only played 18 mpg. In 02...they got a combined 42 minutes a game out of Collins and T-Mac.

So what more do you want? You can see that just subtracting Marbury is huge just by itself. Then you replace him with the best defensive/rebounding guard in the league...then you add an extra two centers that give you 42 minutes a game at a position that was clearly lacking the year before.

Everything points to them having a vastly improved defense.


You factor in all the defensive stuff. Factor in the fact that is was just a different team...that Kidd performed much better in crunch time. And you start seeing a solid case as to why, just using stats, the Nets would be significantly better in 02.

The problem with you is that you talked out of your ass in the OP. It's not even a good comparison because of the 4 new players coming over. But even then if we try to do it...the first thing you'd look at here is defense because the offense isn't what changed.

Do you really not see how stupid that is? Asking how offensive stats only could explain why a team won more games...when the team in question went from having a shit defense to the best defense in the league?

Then your conclusion is that stats lie?

And don't get me wrong, sometimes stats do "lie"...at least in the sense you are talking about and you really have to unpack what some stuff means.

But not in this case. This case is just one of you being ignorant to the real reasons a team got better and instead of talking about real stuff. You just appeal to intangibles (which I'm not against by the way) to explain something like it's magical...when in reality it's just a simple case of removing one of the worst defenders in the league and replacing him with one of the best...while also improving the center position.

Not complicated at all...and all perfectly shown through your hated "stats"...

[DMAVS41]

I find it funny how people have this superiority complex when they disregard stats. People are quick to disregard factual information and feel big and smart but are quick to talk about "heart" and "dedication".

I find this hilarious as well.

People say things like "stats can mean anything" or "all stats have a slant to them"

Okay...what the shit do people have? People all see the game differently and we all a drawn to one thing over the other and have all these biases when doing anything in life.

Not to mention the serious lacking of sample size when just relying on the "eye test"

Unless you watch thousands upon thousands of nba games a year start to finish...you just can't have a big enough sample size about a team or player.

I watch like every Mavs game...and a lot of some other teams. But I hardly ever turn on a raptors or bobcats or hawks game...I've pretty seen like 10 games each max on the year. I have absolutely not seen enough to use the "eye test" in any meaningful way....

Also, stats are simply records of what happened...there is no difference in bringing up someone's ft%...than there is linking to a youtube video of all the ft's a player shoots.

Generally you find people, like PG, that oppose stats so strongly aren't in search of the truth. They want to make claims and not support them and keep thinking they know everything...reminds me of Kblaze trying to say why we can't use rapm. And then in his response about why it's terrible...he exhibits a profound ignorance of what it actually is. Then he'll say something about how people at the barber shop don't talk like this.

Okay...as if that is supposed to mean something? Some clown at the barber shop that doesn't watch enough games and doesn't know any of the stats is supposed to be this guru of the game? I find it ****ing comical...

The Marbury vs Kidd thing is a perfect example of this. PG thinks that it's some intangible magic that makes Kidd better than his stats. And while Kidd does have good leadership etc....it's really just his great defense...or it was his great defense and rebounding that makes him "better" than his basic splits would indicate.

But who, other than an ignorant casual fan, is only going to talk about points and assists when discussing a guy like Kidd? Nobody does this. It's Duncan is ranked so highly all time. It's why we all value what Leonard does and why some here already put him top 25 in the league.

What guys like PG and Kblaze are clamoring for is literally already being done by everyone.

[DMAVS41]

Smak to make it simple, my emphasis is on qualitative not quantitative. Kidd had a very unique quality that doesn't lend itself personal quantitative measure.

Measuring qualities is out of reach if you can't decipher a basic understanding of how players are functioning and are interconnected. If you are discerning where the stats are without knowing how they mature in different players you are in it for the stats and not the game itself. You are hypnotized by the stats and fail to see how the game reveals itself.

Ben Wallace was an intense, fearless, hustle defensive player and leader. The second he says, "I can guard Shaquille alone and keep him under 30," his team is transformed and convinced they can win it all. His value is that of a superstar. But because the stats don't support this status few will go there.

If folks are stuck on quantitative measure, or better yet lead by it, I just don't think they are going to do too well when measuring the quality, function and player interaction. I've been saying for years that I think Durant will be the most proficient scorer there is, but I would take MJ over h because of MJ's qualities.


So your only point is that there are things like leadership and toughness and chemistry that some stats might not pick up...or don't.

Totally agree.

But you picked a terrible example of this. Horrible...all the stats in this case explain why you'd see a pretty big turn around defensively for this team.

I find some of the stuff you say funny...especially to me. I rank Russell 2nd all time, Magic 3rd all time, and Duncan 4th...

You really think I'm in love with stats so much? LOL...of course you can't encompass everything about the game with them. But what you and your side needs to realize...the "eye test"...doesn't work by itself either. There are too many things going on during the games and too much information to process to just use "watching the games"

I will ask the same thing...why can't we use both? Why can't I watch the game and see Marbury literally playing with his nuts on defense for an entire year rather than actually trying. Why can't I watch Kidd give far better effort on defense and rebounding? It's all there to watch...and that difference is perfectly shown in the defensive stats.

We all knew from watching the games and from the stats that by getting Kidd in 02...the Nets were getting rid of a terrible defender/rebounder and replacing him with a great one.

Why invoke "magic" to explain the Nets then?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

it's really ****ing ridiculous how so many people can bicker back and forth about utter bullshit. I made my thread and I thought I said something (the arrogance of self I suppose), but you seem to be all bickering back and forth like a couple of country boys fighting over who gets to **** the prize pig. I mean... really, DMAVS ( you should hold me in high regard for even putting you in caps), you know what you are talking about, but you are here growling and gnawing at animals as if you should be sleeping and eating the shit they do. Why take the bait? Were all animals in the end, but he stupidest ones? They are around as much...or altogether because ate the shit the were fed...which honestly puts me at a crossroads...well I suppose that is life. It all ends in the middle and it all is going to end in shit for everybody. Cheers.

Cue the anti-drug slogan.. :biggums:

[DMAVS41]

Cue the anti-drug slogan.. :biggums:

:lol

[tpols]

Smak to make it simple, my emphasis is on qualitative not quantitative. Kidd had a very unique quality that doesn't lend itself personal quantitative measure.

Measuring qualities is out of reach if you can't decipher a basic understanding of how players are functioning and are interconnected. If you are discerning where the stats are without knowing how they mature in different players you are in it for the stats and not the game itself. You are hypnotized by the stats and fail to see how the game reveals itself.

Ben Wallace was an intense, fearless, hustle defensive player and leader. The second he says, "I can guard Shaquille alone and keep him under 30," his team is transformed and convinced they can win it all. His value is that of a superstar. But because the stats don't support this status few will go there.

If folks are stuck on quantitative measure, or better yet lead by it, I just don't think they are going to do too well when measuring the quality, function and player interaction. I've been saying for years that I think Durant will be the most proficient scorer there is, but I would take MJ over h because of MJ's qualities.

Hate to crash this party but stats do kinda show ben wallace was a beast :lol

His defensive RAPM as defensive anchor 03-05 were average of 9.0.. tim duncan in that same time frame was only around a 7ish. Ben Wallace's advanced defensive stats are actually easily the best since they started recording them

[DMAVS41]

Hate to crash this party but stats do kinda show ben wallace was a beast :lol

His defensive RAPM as defensive anchor 03-05 were average of 9.0.. tim duncan in that same time frame was only around a 7ish. Ben Wallace's advanced defensive stats are actually easily the best since they started recording them

Don't bother.

I think he actually believes that something Ben Wallace says in a huddle or before a game is more meaningful than the fact that Ben Wallace was just an epic defensive player and rebounder like you say...

Funny how once again the stats seem to be right with what you'd expect...

[steve]

Hate to crash this party but stats do kinda show ben wallace was a beast :lol

His defensive RAPM as defensive anchor 03-05 were average of 9.0.. tim duncan in that same time frame was only around a 7ish. Ben Wallace's advanced defensive stats are actually easily the best since they started recording them

And consider this with Wallace (if we're using advanced stats), his PER during his prime five years with the Pistons was 17.6. This by itself is that of an above average player but when you consider his usage during the same period was 12.5%, it's absolutely astounding because he was posting above average production without doing a lot of things that traditionally result in that kind of overall production. I mean, it really doesn't take much effort at all to figure out Wallace was one of the 10 to 15 best players in the league between '02 and '06.

I mean, to the topic point here, there is absolutely no one who thinks Marbury was a better player than Kidd and nothing about the statistics at the time "lie" about this. Yes, Marbury's PER in '01 was higher than Kidd's was in '02 but it also took Marbury doing a lot more things (empty possessions at that) to get that increase in production. Of course, DMAVS pointed this out several times how disingenuous is to compare Kidd and Marbury in a vacuum considering they might as well have been playing for different teams between the two seasons.

[Pointguard]

Hate to crash this party but stats do kinda show ben wallace was a beast :lol

His defensive RAPM as defensive anchor 03-05 were average of 9.0.. tim duncan in that same time frame was only around a 7ish. Ben Wallace's advanced defensive stats are actually easily the best since they started recording them
So you are gong to lie and say you had him at superstar status in "03? You are going to lie and say you knew he could hold Shaquille? Really now? I never said anything about the nonsense you brought up. You are crashing your own party clown. I never said he was unmeasurble. I sad his hour of standing up was great for his team and put him at superstar status.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. The stats even lead you in your interpretation of random paragraphs on boards! LOL you guys are hypnotized into this craziness.

[tpols]

So you are gong to lie and say you had him at superstar status in "03? You are going to lie and say you knew he could hold Shaquille? Really now? I never said anything about the nonsense you brought up. You are crashing your own party clown. I never said he was unmeasurble. I sad his hour of standing up was great for his team and put him at superstar status.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. The stats even lead you in your interpretation of random paragraphs on boards! LOL you guys are hypnotized into this craziness.

Ben Wallace's rapm wasnt even at its height in 03.. ironically it peaked right when you say he became a superstar in 04.:oldlol:

What is this lieing nonsense? You're attributing Ben Wallace's entire worth as a superstar to his holding Shaq down by himself in one playoff series when the stats bear out that he was holding EVERYONE down for hundreds of games encircling that one specific moment.

That speaks more to his status as a superstar then your little ancedote.

[BlackVVaves]

***peers inside theead***

[jstern]

Marbury and Kidd

I've always said that individual stats can't possibly reveal a point guard's impact. It's the pg's job to improve the effectiveness of other players. His own stats are sometimes meaningless.

I knew the second player was Kidd. I used to watch the Nets with Marbury back in the 90s, and I don't remember much except trying to explain to my cousin that Marbury would make an awesome pass that led to a bucket, incredible pass, and do it many times, but that to me it just created bad offense.

It was so long ago, and I quite couldn't explain it well back then, so I won't be able to really explain it now.

I guess it was a difference of really running an offense that makes a team gel, vs playing in a more spontaneous way based on the moment. The difference is not so much in the stats, but in how the rest of the players are able to contribute.

[Legends66NBA7]

I believe you have to look at both the context of watching games and all the stats available at your usage to round up an opinion.

I don't really advocate advanced stats too much to individual players, rather to teams instead. I think it's harder to use advanced metrics to gauge defensive players and their assignments vs advanced metrics to gauge offensive players and their role in a team's offensive system.

With all that said, I'm in agreement with more or less what DMAVS said about Kidd, but I already kinda knew this. Kidd was a better 2 way player and the team he was on was much better in 02 than 01. Marbury has always been a selfish player and caused divide between his teams and always looked to "get his", without playing much defense at all. That's why every team he left got better the season after.

In comparison to Kidd, Marbury is a horrible example on how he approaches the game both on and off the court. He even had the nerve to say he was the best PG in the game sometime around 05/06 season and then proceeded to get outplayed by Kidd in a following game.

[DMAVS41]

So you are gong to lie and say you had him at superstar status in "03? You are going to lie and say you knew he could hold Shaquille? Really now? I never said anything about the nonsense you brought up. You are crashing your own party clown. I never said he was unmeasurble. I sad his hour of standing up was great for his team and put him at superstar status.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. The stats even lead you in your interpretation of random paragraphs on boards! LOL you guys are hypnotized into this craziness.

What does it matter if he had him as a superstar in 03. That would kind of be the point. That watching the games might not give you enough information to quantify the real impact of a guy like Wallace. Why?

Because a lot of fans, I'd say most, pay more attention to offense than defense. And even if you are paying close attention to defense...you'd have to have a huge sample of Pistons games and you'd have to pay attention to defense/rebounding hugely.

But why would one use Ben Wallace as an example of "when stats lie"

Take a look at him in 03 playoffs.

Wallace gave the pistons 9/16/2 3 steals and 3 blocks 49% TS...he also happened to play some of the best defense you'll ever see at the position which is represented by his staggeringly low 91 defensive rating.

Stats aren't off here. You just have to use them all...when you have a guy giving you roughly 10/15/2 3 steals and 3 blocks in the playoffs over the time we are talking about in 03 through 05 or whatever it is...while also playing some of the best defense we've ever seen statistically. How are stats not showing you this? Seems to me the stats represent exactly what Wallace was...one of the best players in the league during that time.


I want everyone in this thread to see this;

BEN WALLACE HAD THE BEST DEFENSIVE RATING IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLAYOFFS IN 04!

In fact, Wallace has 3 of the 17 best single season playoff defensive ratings of all time. Wow...think about that.

LOL @ this notion that stats don't encompass a guy like Wallace as a player.

[Pointguard]

Ben Wallace's rapm wasnt even at its height in 03.. ironically it peaked right when you say he became a superstar in 04.:oldlol:

What is this lieing nonsense? You're attributing Ben Wallace's entire worth as a superstar to his holding Shaq down by himself in one playoff series when the stats bear out that he was holding EVERYONE down for hundreds of games encircling that one specific moment.

That speaks more to his status as a superstar then your little ancedote.
I was never trying to measure Wallace you can join another conversation with that. The ancedote was me trying to give you guys a clue about kids influence, but i should have known better, and you thought it was an opportunity to get your troll points up. Why don't you join the main argument with some conclusive rapm data

[Pointguard]

Dmavs five long essays and you still are missing the key point...

[tpols]

I was never trying to measure Wallace you can join another conversation with that. The ancedote was me trying to give you guys a clue about kids influence, but i should have known better, and you thought it was an opportunity to get your troll points up. Why don't you join the main argument with some conclusive rapm data

Kidd defensive rebounding 5.7 per game. 98 D-Rating. 1.8 defensive RAPM

Marbury 2.3 defensive rebounds per game. 109 D-Rating. -2.9 defensive RAPM


Now are the stats misleading?

The only thing that isnt captured in them is the fact that Kidd makes others around him better much more than Marbury does.. and even that is sorta implied with Kidd averaging 10 assists to Marbury's 7.5 while playing at the exact same pace.

If youre going to use a bunch of scoring efficiency stats in a comparison between these guys youre just skewing the comparison..

[DMAVS41]

Dmavs five long essays and you still are missing the key point...

Nah man...we all got the point.

You were dead wrong and won't admit it.

You tried comparing two completely different situations on offensive stats alone and failed to grasp that the big change between the 01 and 02 Nets was defense.

And the stats show exactly what you would expect.

Could you explain why you chose Marbury and Kidd?

Could you explain your actual point?

[DMAVS41]

Kidd defensive rebounding 5.7 per game. 98 D-Rating. 1.8 defensive RAPM

Marbury 2.3 defensive rebounds per game. 109 D-Rating. -2.9 defensive RAPM


Now are the stats misleading?

The only thing that isnt captured in them is the fact that Kidd makes others around him better much more than Marbury does.. and even that is sorta implied with Kidd averaging 10 assists to Marbury's 7.5 while playing at the exact same pace.

If youre going to use a bunch of scoring efficiency stats in a comparison between these guys youre just skewing the comparison..

Also, Kidd took 5 less shots per game in 02 than Marbury did in 01. Combine that with better offensive help of 02...and it's perfectly reasonable based on the stats and what you said to expect a slightly improved offense.

Also, the 02 Nets played the easiest schedule in the league. The 01 Nets played the 18th ranked schedule.

Point is...all these things add into the results and the results are right in line with what you'd expect when looking at all the stats and numbers.

PG just picked a terrible example...

[Pointguard]

Kidd defensive rebounding 5.7 per game. 98 D-Rating. 1.8 defensive RAPM

Marbury 2.3 defensive rebounds per game. 109 D-Rating. -2.9 defensive RAPM

Now are the stats misleading?
3.4 rebound difference. Wooow. Yeap, that's worth 26 wins. Rodman was guaranteed that lead on the entire league and it never meant that much more. And his defensive presence was better than all the other PF's.

Or better yet why don't you show me another example where this difference in defensive RAPM has the same effect on a player that scored 10 more ppg? Can you do that?



The only thing that isnt captured in them is the fact that Kidd makes others around him better much more than Marbury does.. and even that is sorta implied with Kidd averaging 10 assists to Marbury's 7.5 while playing at the exact same pace.

If youre going to use a bunch of scoring efficiency stats in a comparison between these guys youre just skewing the comparison..

Finally a hit. Its not the only quality that isn't captured tho. Kidd puts all of his players on the same page, makes them better, ups their confidence, tunes them into the win, has them play very near their max, has them execute better and keeps them inspired. Unlike any player today does. Bird had the same quality. Magic perhaps better than anyone post 1980.

[Young X]

The main reason for the Nets improvement was their defense, not their offense. None of those Nets teams were good offensive teams, that's not why they were winning. The stats in your OP are mostly offensive stats, how are they lying?

[Bob Dole]

Point guard is an idiot. Someone kill this genetic trash now before he has children.

[Pointguard]

Also, Kidd took 5 less shots per game in 02 than Marbury did in 01. Combine that with better offensive help of 02...and it's perfectly reasonable based on the stats and what you said to expect a slightly improved offense.

Also, the 02 Nets played the easiest schedule in the league. The 01 Nets played the 18th ranked schedule.

Point is...all these things add into the results and the results are right in line with what you'd expect when looking at all the stats and numbers.

PG just picked a terrible example...

You can't talk about examples that you can't see or understand. You don't have visual tools to understand games you see or how players are functioning. Dynamics that exist, and Jlip and TPOLS seen, had you looking for more stats to justify the gap. Defense was a key part but the biggest part was their half-court execution and team play.

Kidd, was a supreme team player that puts all of his players on the same page, makes them better, ups their confidence, tunes them into the win, has them play very near their max, has them execute better and keeps them inspired. You missed it in the Bird vs Dirk comparisons and you missed it here hours later. Magic was the best I ever seen with these qualities.

You want to say you understood but you laid out a lot of paper and was saying it was defense. Your cue should have been seen when you realized nobody on that team scored more than 15ppg or had more than 7.5 rebounds and they made it to the championship two years straight and that defense wasn't all world. It was a great team effort that had a different attitude. Defense is usually on the coach but it seemed to be more so a trademark of Kidd. Being that Scott doesn't always carry that characteristic with him.

Its a humongous trait to miss. Its a bad example because the concept was over your head, and rather than think, you ran for more stats.

Maybe you can show me a better example?

[Pointguard]

Point guard is an idiot. Someone kill this genetic trash now before he has children.
Yo Mamma is so stupid,
she thinks Johnny Cash is a pay toilet! Which is where she propagated your whole family line.

Yo Mamma is so stupid,
she tried to drown herself in a carpool and then had you in a cesspool.

[DMAVS41]

You can't talk about examples that you can't see or understand. You don't have visual tools to understand games you see or how players are functioning. Dynamics that exist, and Jlip and TPOLS seen, had you looking for more stats to justify the gap. Defense was a key part but the biggest part was their half-court execution and team play.

Kidd, was a supreme team player that puts all of his players on the same page, makes them better, ups their confidence, tunes them into the win, has them play very near their max, has them execute better and keeps them inspired. You missed it in the Bird vs Dirk comparisons and you missed it here hours later. Magic was the best I ever seen with these qualities.

You want to say you understood but you laid out a lot of paper and was saying it was defense. Your cue should have been seen when you realized nobody on that team scored more than 15ppg or had more than 7.5 rebounds and they made it to the championship two years straight and that defense wasn't all world. It was a great team effort that had a different attitude. Defense is usually on the coach but it seemed to be more so a trademark of Kidd. Being that Scott doesn't always carry that characteristic with him.

Its a humongous trait to miss. Its a bad example because the concept was over your head, and rather than think, you ran for more stats.

Maybe you can show me a better example?

Nah, the biggest part was that their defense went from 23rd to first. The defense wasn't all world? It was the best ****ing defense in the NBA you idiot....and a reason why the score was more balanced was because Kidd took 5 less shots. Those things show up in the stats.

Dude...I didn't miss anything. This thread is about stats....we all know what Kidd does compared to Marbury. You asked to prove it with stats...which we clearly have.

You have missed that shit with Dirk...he is a great teammate and leader and is unselfish and gets a lot out of his teammates.

LOL...you are a clown.

You are all over the place with this shit...have been destroyed in this thread. Please admit it.

Also, why do you think I rank Magic 3rd all time? you really think it's because of his stats only? LOL


Think about how absurd you are.

You create a thread called "stats lie"...then cherry pick only like a few offensive stats and then show a team turn around. and ignore that not only was the biggest reason defense, but that the two teams you are comparing were totally different...with the 02 Nets having Kidd and 4 new key rotation players as well.

It's a ****ing terrible comparison made even worse by the fact that you didn't include any defensive stats.

I'll say it again...23rd defense to best defense...and you are going on about intangibles. Get over yourself clown...

[Pointguard]

The main reason for the Nets improvement was their defense, not their offense. None of those Nets teams were good offensive teams, that's not why they were winning. The stats in your OP are mostly offensive stats, how are they lying?

When most of you guys compare yall use ppg, TS%, assist per game, TO's.

If you seen the games you could come to other conclusions. They won because they were a very solid unit that played together. They weren't the Pistons of two or three years later in regards to defense.

[Pointguard]

Nah, the biggest part was that there defense went from 23rd to first. The defense wasn't all world? It was the best ****ing defense in the NBA you idiot....and a reason why the score was more balanced was because Kidd took 5 less shots. Those things show up in the stats.

LOL...you are a clown.

:lol upset that you didn't see something terribly obvious. Its sinking in, huh. Your incredible short sightedness in this whole matter.

The defense was primarily Kidd's control of pace and having the team play their game. They didn't have an answer for great offenses at all and that's the trademark of a great defensive team. They got trampled in the finals because they couldn't stop teams. The East didn't have a lot of great offensive teams.

Don't get me wrong I said defense was a part of it from the beginning.

[DMAVS41]

When most of you guys compare yall use ppg, TS%, assist per game, TO's.

If you seen the games you could come to other conclusions. They won because they were a very solid unit that played together. They weren't the Pistons of two or three years later in regards to defense.

Well, for starters, I've never seen someone not list rebounds per game.

So that was our first sign you are a joke.

But do you really think we compare KG to Dirk to Duncan...and nobody brings up defense?

What the **** are you talking about?

[DMAVS41]

:lol upset that you didn't see something terribly obvious. Its sinking in, huh. Your incredible short sightedness in this whole matter.

The defense was primarily Kidd's control of pace and having the team play their game. They didn't have an answer for great offenses at all and that's the trademark of a great defensive team. They got trampled in the finals because they couldn't stop teams. The East didn't have a lot of great offensive teams.

Don't get me wrong I said defense was a part of it from the beginning.

They had the best defense in the league moron.

I didn't "miss" anything...god damn...could you be more dense.

You asked us to prove it with stats...which we did.

It wasn't just pace...they replaced a terrible guard defender with an all timer. And this all timer happened to be a far better rebounder as well.

And this all timer happened to take 5 less shots per game and pass more.

And this all timer had 4 new players to work with and just a better team.

And they played the easiest schedule in the league.

And this all timer killed Marbury in crunch time performance.

Seriously...it's all right there in the stats...

Remember when we posted what the Nets were like defensively without marbury in 01? They got much better just be removing him. Now imagine replacing him with a great defender and two centers that they didn't really have in 01. What do you think is going to happen when you do all that and then play Van Horn and Harris less? You are going to see a huge bump in defense.

Just like you are going to see more balance on offense by removing a shoot first pg that takes 5 more shots per game.

You are a clown...give up...clown...

[Rose'sACL]

Pointguard is getting destroyed.

[Pointguard]

You create a thread called "stats lie"...then cherry pick only like a few offensive stats and then show a team turn around. and ignore that not only was the biggest reason defense, but that the two teams you are comparing were totally different...with the 02 Nets having Kidd and 4 new key rotation players as well.

WHEN, you missed a very big word in the title. It reads "WHEN stats lie," I don't think they lie all the time, I gave an example. WHEN. You start reaching before you crack up, so I got you on notice. There is always a time when stats lie and only a fool thinks otherwise. Even you know this.

The two primary rotational players Kittles and Jefferson were not defensive players -ever. The third, TMac missed like 30 games and had some issue where he couldn't run fast or hit the gas hard and he retired the next year because of it. TMac and Collins were the 8th and 9th men respectively in the playoff rotation. The defense changed and this certainly isn't the excuse.



It's a ****ing terrible comparison made even worse by the fact that you didn't include any defensive stats.

I'll say it again...23rd defense to best defense...and you are going on about intangibles.
:lol
Right, I am supposed to meet your criteria of madness. Its not like the league had 40ppg point guards running around. They were at its weakest they ever were.

You Mad.

[Pointguard]

They had the best defense in the league moron.

I didn't "miss" anything...god damn...could you be more dense.

You missed it with Bird. And you missed it here. Defense was a part of it, I never said it wasn't. But the team play was the key change in outlook.


You asked us to prove it with stats...which we did.

You can look at every team with great defense and say that. That's a part of it sure it was a contributor but solid defense alone isn't enough to get a last place team to the finals two years in a row. Sorry.


And this all timer happened to take 5 less shots per game and pass more.

And this all timer had 4 new players to work with and just a better team.

And they played the easiest schedule in the league.

And this all timer killed Marbury in crunch time performance.

Seriously...it's all right there in the stats...

Remember when we posted what the Nets were like defensively without marbury in 01? They got much better just be removing him. Now imagine replacing him with a great defender and two centers that they didn't really have in 01. What do you think is going to happen when you do all that and then play Van Horn and Harris less? You are going to see a huge bump in defense.

Just like you are going to see more balance on offense by removing a shoot first pg that takes 5 more shots per game.


:lol If you really think its just solid defense can get a starting team of Kerry Kittles, Keith Van Horne, Kenyon Martin and Harris to the finals you simply do not know the game. With nobody getting 8 rebounds per game! You are a smart one, aren't you.

Sorry guy, getting the max from the players he played with, great execution, solid leadership, getting the players all on one page, keeping them focused and inspired were humongous to the team winning in the playoffs and every game. Good defense alone isn't going to do all of that.

[Pointguard]

Pointguard is getting destroyed.
I know right. :lol

[DMAVS41]

PG

The stats didn't lie though....all the things you are talking about show up in the stats.

Again, I didn't miss anything...I don't need stats to show me that Kidd is better than marbury

You are the one that brought up stats...it's your thread buddy.

[ballup]

Stats don't lie. People misinterpret.

[Pointguard]

PG

The stats didn't lie though....all the things you are talking about show up in the stats.

Again, I didn't miss anything...I don't need stats to show me that Kidd is better than marbury

You are the one that brought up stats...it's your thread buddy.
We all bring up a core set of stats all the time. You have your favorites. The ones most used are PPG, RPG, APG, TS%, FG%, PER and Won Lost. Those are the one's used the most in every comparison thread. Am I wrong?

That's all that I used in the OP and now folks want to act like they don't go this route. I knew it would be a challenge for people to abandon their most used stats. I prefer to talk about concepts and qualities because those stats are overused. But of course when you point out to people how they are, they want to say something different.

[DMAVS41]

We all bring up a core set of stats all the time. You have your favorites. The ones most used are PPG, RPG, APG, TS%, FG%, PER and Won Lost. Those are the one's used the most in every comparison thread. Am I wrong?

That's all that I used in the OP and now folks want to act like they don't go this route. I knew it would be a challenge for people to abandon their most used stats. I prefer to talk about concepts and qualities because those stats are overused. But of course when you point out to people how they are, they want to say something different.

Look dude.

I think you are arguing against ghosts here. Nobody thinks those are the only stats that matter.

Also, you didn't list rebounds...why? Because you didn't want to give us all the information because you were trying to make a point.

But the problem is that you picked a terrible example. Because basically what you did...is pick an example where one guy is all offense and terrible defense....and the other guy is a great defensive/rebounding guard. And you didn't list rebounding or defensive stats...

Think about that...why would you pick that example? It makes no sense.

And no, people don't just list the stats you said above. Have you been to a Dirk vs Duncan thread? You really think nobody brings up defense?

Have you been to a Nash vs Paul or any guard for that matter thread?

The problem is that you just picked a few stats...and of course you can't make a conclusion on just that.

Also, you and other stat haters all pretend like we all don't watch the games. I really think you guys think people never watch basketball. We all do...Like I have repeatedly said...I don't need stats for Kidd vs Marbury. It's obvious watching the games.

But you asked us to use only stats. Which we did and can clearly show this comparison through stats.

I just don't get the point...and please stop shrugging off the difference between going from the 23rd defense to the best defense. That was, by far, the biggest reason for the turn around.

[Pointguard]

Stats don't lie. People misinterpret.
The poster MMM said something similar on the first page. Yall are right. But I was challenging people to let go of their most used stats and wanted them to plug away at the OP. I expected some hostility because I was stripping away the security blanket of the most overused stats.

[Pointguard]

Look dude.

I think you are arguing against ghosts here. Nobody thinks those are the only stats that matter.
I never said that. I just said they are the most used.


Also, you didn't list rebounds...why? Because you didn't want to give us all the information because you were trying to make a point.

But the problem is that you picked a terrible example. Because basically what you did...is pick an example where one guy is all offense and terrible defense....and the other guy is a great defensive/rebounding guard. And you didn't list rebounding or defensive stats...
I seen Marbury in NY for many years. He was never terrible defensively and didn't have that rap. I don't know where you got that from but it is incorrect. The NY papers would have been all over him. Mello and Amare had that rap but I don't recall Marbury having that.

You rarely ever bring up defensive stats. That's definitely not your MO. You didn't do it in your recent Bird thread either.



Think about that...why would you pick that example? It makes no sense.
They are the most used stats in comparing PG's. And this isn't even debatable.


And no, people don't just list the stats you said above. Have you been to a Dirk vs Duncan thread? You really think nobody brings up defense?
OK, name me a stat that is used more?


Have you been to a Nash vs Paul or any guard for that matter thread?

The problem is that you just picked a few stats...and of course you can't make a conclusion on just that.
I did it to challenge you.


Also, you and other stat haters all pretend like we all don't watch the games. I really think you guys think people never watch basketball. We all do...Like I have repeatedly said...I don't need stats for Kidd vs Marbury. It's obvious watching the games.
So why not just talk about Kidd's most outstanding trait then. The conversation ends early does it not?


But you asked us to use only stats. Which we did and can clearly show this comparison through stats.

I just don't get the point...and please stop shrugging off the difference between going from the 23rd defense to the best defense. That was, by far, the biggest reason for the turn around.
I clearly made a comparison of two players. I can't give Kidd all the credit for defense while being a perimeter player. That doesn't seem fair in a one on one comparison unless you are the cog. I just didn't feel like explaining all of things Kidd does on defense either which are clear advantages but I never got much a response on these boards about.

[DMAVS41]

Dude...I don't know what else to say.

If you think people only care about points and assists. By all means...you are right...those people have no clue what they are talking about...

In my experience...virtually nobody does this.

I've stated my case very clearly and have shredded your OP...

[Legends66NBA7]

Again, I didn't miss anything...I don't need stats to show me that Kidd is better than marbury

Same here.

I touched upon this earlier in the thread with my OP.

[Pointguard]

Dude...I don't know what else to say.

If you think people only care about points and assists. By all means...you are right...those people have no clue what they are talking about...

In my experience...virtually nobody does this.

I've stated my case very clearly and have shredded your OP...

I included TS%, TOs, FG% and PER, not just points and assist. And if you say virtually nobody does that you are lying through your teeth.

You missed one of the best qualities in the game looking for stats. I kept saying it was a quality and you still didn't get it. Shredding the OP is ok, I wasn't stuck there. I challenged people to move beyond that. But its not an excuse to miss one of the best traits a player can have in the game.

[DMAVS41]

I included TS%, TOs, FG% and PER, not just points and assist. And if you say virtually nobody does that you are lying through your teeth.

You missed one of the best qualities in the game looking for stats. I kept saying it was a quality and you still didn't get it. Shredding the OP is ok, I wasn't stuck there. I challenged people to move beyond that. But its not an excuse to miss one of the best traits a player can have in the game.

Man...I don't think you even read my posts.

We all know you can't grasp things like leadership and toughness and being a good teammate just through stats. I have yet to see anyone argue this.

So we didn't "miss" anything...

You said that the stats "lie" in your OP...and the problem is that you didn't represent stats.

Yes, using only the things you listed an not knowing anything else and not watching the games would be a terrible way to judge a player.

Who does this though? Everyone here watches...

I want to know who advocates for solely using stats.


The point I and others made like tpols...was that you asked us to compare two players on offensive stuff alone...when their biggest differences come defensively. And that is silly because nobody does this.

Nobody. You don't see Dirk ranked over Duncan ever. Nobody thinks Dirk was a better player. Same for Bird and Dirk. Magic is routinely ranked in the top 5. Everyone knew Kidd was way better than marbury overall back then...

Everyone does exactly what you ask. We watch the games and those that care about objectivity check the stats to make sure we didn't miss anything watching or were biased in some way.

Take you talking about Marbury not being bad at defense in 01. Sorry...he was. I distinctly remember watching him a number of times and literally laughing with my friend just how big of a joke he was defensively. Again, not because he couldn't play defense really...because he didn't try. Then you chime in and say he wasn't bad. Yet all the defensive stuff one might want to look at shows he was horrible. A negative 2.9 defensive rapm, a bad drtg, his team got much better on defense when he left the game...etc.

You want us to ignore all that shit because of your opinion? ROFL...you are just wrong. Objectively wrong...

Also, it depends on the players you are comparing. Sorry, Bird vs any average defender in a comparison is not going to warrant a lot of defensive talk. Bird was a find defender throughout his career and a great rebounder..but that's it. Any defensive gap between Bird and a guy like Durant or something just isn't really relevant in a comparison.

But it is super relevant in a Kidd vs Marbury comparison in the years in question.

As usual, the stats don't lie...you just get ignorant people or people with an agenda not painting the whole picture.

Here is some glimpse into what the whole picture would like in your OP;

All the stuff you listed plus;

offensive rapm
defensive rapm
defensive rating
offensive rating
on/off numbers
clutch play
shot attempts
rebounding
strength of schedule
comparison of team strength and new players

And there would be more, but those are all stats...and if you listed all that...it would become very apparent why a team subtracting Marbury and adding Kidd (even if you didn't know who they were)...and adding 4 new key players...would see their expected wins go by about 20 or so games...

It's all in the stats...but that doesn't mean that stats tell you everything you need to know. I have yet to see one person argue for this. So who are you arguing against? Everyone agrees with you that it's not end all be all.

But I really don't think that was the purpose of the thread. I really think you were going for the old..."this is why stats suck"...look at how Marbury has better stats than Kidd and the team got way better thing. And you just got caught talking out of your ass and thoroughly educated and now you are just trying to save face by shifting your points around and it has turned into an incoherent mess...

[Pointguard]

Man...I don't think you even read my posts.

We all know you can't grasp things like leadership and toughness and being a good teammate just through stats. I have yet to see anyone argue this.

So we didn't "miss" anything...

You said that the stats "lie" in your OP...and the problem is that you didn't represent stats.

Yes, using only the things you listed an not knowing anything else and not watching the games would be a terrible way to judge a player.

Who does this though? Everyone here watches...

I want to know who advocates for solely using stats.
I wish more people were like that. But that isn't the way. People go to stats really quick these days. This isn't the first time you heard me say put the stats down.



The point I and others made like tpols...was that you asked us to compare two players on offensive stuff alone...when their biggest differences come defensively. And that is silly because nobody does this. Kidd was better offensively than Marbury is what I was really getting at. Kidd could outplay Marbury with a typical 15 point 9 assist game while Marbury has a 26 and 11 game even with the defense being relatively the same. That's the better argument. I seen Kidd do it. Saying it was defense is too easy. But those games where Kidd layed back defensively require more of the analytical mind. Kidd would sometimes run with teams he thought couldn't execute at the end of games and not play all out defense on those teams. But he could win the game offensively well beyond his stats.


Everyone does exactly what you ask. We watch the games and those that care about objectivity check the stats to make sure we didn't miss anything watching or were biased in some way.

Take you talking about Marbury not being bad at defense in 01. Sorry...he was. I distinctly remember watching him a number of times and literally laughing with my friend just how big of a joke he was defensively. Again, not because he couldn't play defense really...because he didn't try. Then you chime in and say he wasn't bad. Yet all the defensive stuff one might want to look at shows he was horrible. A negative 2.9 defensive rapm, a bad drtg, his team got much better on defense when he left the game...etc.

At the Garden the chant of DEEFEnse was started there and stayed there over the years. Marbury used to do full court pressure with the Knicks I saw close to every game with the Knicks which was after his Nets days. And every high profile game with the Nets. I just think that would have gotten more notoriety if he was bad. I just tried to google it and I don't see it now. The NY media has never let a bad defender go.


You want us to ignore all that shit because of your opinion? ROFL...you are just wrong. Objectively wrong...
Dude if you trusted your memory then why didn't you see a great trait right in front of your face.


As usual, the stats don't lie...you just get ignorant people or people with an agenda not painting the whole picture.
There are no complete stats.


Here is some glimpse into what the whole picture would like in your OP;

All the stuff you listed plus;

offensive rapm
defensive rapm
defensive rating
offensive rating
on/off numbers
clutch play
shot attempts
rebounding
strength of schedule
comparison of team strength and new players

And there would be more, but those are all stats...and if you listed all that...it would become very apparent why a team subtracting Marbury and adding Kidd (even if you didn't know who they were)...and adding 4 new key players...would see their expected wins go by about 20 or so games...

It's all in the stats...but that doesn't mean that stats tell you everything you need to know. I have yet to see one person argue for this. So who are you arguing against? Everyone agrees with you that it's not end all be all.
I said there are qualities that not easily statistically traceable to a player like Kidd.


But I really don't think that was the purpose of the thread. I really think you were going for the old..."this is why stats suck"...look at how Marbury has better stats than Kidd and the team got way better thing. And you just got caught talking out of your ass and thoroughly educated and now you are just trying to save face by shifting your points around and it has turned into an incoherent mess...
I said WHEN Stats lie in the title. I never shifted focus. I said from the beginning it was qualitative not quantitative trait. And you still went for more stats. Its what you do. That's your MO. You came in the thread like gangbusters, like a bull seeing the red cape, you weren't thinking. That's on you bud. You didn't come up for air to see the whole picture. Kidd has one of the games best traits/quality a player can have. I hinted toward it right away.

[russwest0]

I feel like the title is gonna be some 30 for 30 shit in 15 years

ESPN 30 for 30 -- When Stats Lie: The Story of LeBron James.

[Bandito]

I know one. 40% from three but in the 2013 Finals he would shoot the ball at the ocean at miss.

Who am I?

[russwest0]

I know one. 40% from three but in the 2013 Finals he would shoot the ball at the ocean at miss.

Who am I?

What is: Manu Ginobli

[DMAVS41]

PG...what "trait" are you saying that I'm missing?

Also, I did what you asked...you asked to prove the shit on stats.

Are you talking to me about Kidd? He's one of my favorite players ever. I was going to every Mavs home game his entire time in Dallas the first stint.

I know exactly what kind of player and exactly what kind of intangibles Kidd has.

You are such a clown...everyone with a brain knows you've been repeatedly exposed here.


Also, you over-rate Kidd offensively I think...that isn't to say he's a bad offensive player or something, but his claim to fame was his defense/rebounding and being a great floor general. Not his individual offense nor his teams' offensive output. I don't even have to look to tell you that Kidd led teams were not great offensively. I'll let you look at that one...guarantee there are only a couple quality offenses in there before he came back to the Mavs for his 2nd time...and that was mostly because of Dirk (a truly great offensive player).

It just seems to me that you have a profound misunderstanding about Kidd...and still clearly don't understand about marbury.

If you took away rebounding and defense. He'd be a marginally better player than Marbury...only because he's a more team oriented guy and plays less selfishly.


Also, you know what is funny about this...your "watching the games only" tactic is getting exposed here. Marbury was a shit defender dude...he was awful. He may have had the ability to defend well at times, I have no doubt he could, generally someone at that size for his position and his athleticism and strength can be a very good defender. But Marbury wasn't...he wasn't sound in any way. He gambled too often for steals, didn't fight over picks or through them on shooters, he leaked out too much, he didn't stay sound throughout a possession, he clearly half assed many nights (his biggest weakness)...etc. That is my take on him as a defender...and you know what...I don't even have to look at any stats, but I guarantee you that they support me. He's going to have a sizable negative defensive rapm every year and I already know his individual offensive rating is crap. And I'd bet his teams played shit defense and got a lot better without him as well.

But you want to ignore all that...why? So you can ****ing google to see if there were any articles written about it? That would be enough to change your mind, but the actual hard data isn't?

Seriously...GTFO clown...

[Bandito]

What is: Manu Ginobli
miss

[DMAVS41]

Both players are easily best players on their teams.

Player One
441%...330% 3pt 7.6asst 2.9TO 24ppg PER 22.7 540TS% Record 26-56
Player Two
391%.. 321% 3pt 9.9asst 3.5TO 14.7ppg PER 19.1 484TS% Record 52-30

Player two reversed the fortunes of the same team.

Can you guess the players? What went wrong with the stats?


I mean jesus PG...look at the questions you were asking. Look at what you said;

Player two reversed the fortunes of the same team. Yea...when the same team has 4 new key rotation players...3 of them in the top 6 rotation.

Then you ask..."what went wrong with the stats"?

And we already showed you...nothing went wrong. You just failed to look key stats.


Now, if you are just trying to say that you have to look at more than points/rebounds/assists and efficiency...then we all agree. It's why you don't see people claiming James Harden is better than prime Kobe.

I mean, cut the crap, everything you claim people don't do...they consistently do.

[Pointguard]

PG...what "trait" are you saying that I'm missing?

Also, I did what you asked...you asked to prove the shit on stats.

Are you talking to me about Kidd? He's one of my favorite players ever. I was going to every Mavs home game his entire time in Dallas the first stint.

I know exactly what kind of player and exactly what kind of intangibles Kidd has.

You are such a clown...everyone with a brain knows you've been repeatedly exposed here.

:lol Ok now I am feeling sorry for you. You came in like a mad man and I played you. Please feel free to keep convincing yourself. And your friends:::: they didn't help you much.


Also, you over-rate Kidd offensively I think...that isn't to say he's a bad offensive player or something, but his claim to fame was his defense/rebounding and being a great floor general. Not his individual offense nor his teams' offensive output. I don't even have to look to tell you that Kidd led teams were not great offensively. I'll let you look at that one...guarantee there are only a couple quality offenses in there before he came back to the Mavs for his 2nd time...and that was mostly because of Dirk (a truly great offensive player).
That was a terrible team without any strengths. Nobody could rebound. Nobody blocked shots that well. Nobody was a consistently good shooter. Nobody had a post game. But they executed very well and found seams in the defense very well. Kidd picked teams apart with patience. He was a much better offensive player than ever given credit. Pop knew why he wanted Kidd. Kidd was super disciplined and very smart.


It just seems to me that you have a profound misunderstanding about Kidd...and still clearly don't understand about marbury.

If you took away rebounding and defense. He'd be a marginally better player than Marbury...only because he's a more team oriented guy and plays less selfishly.
He was a much better team player.



Also, you know what is funny about this...your "watching the games only" tactic is getting exposed here. Marbury was a shit defender dude...he was awful. He may have had the ability to defend well at times, I have no doubt he could, generally someone at that size for his position and his athleticism and strength can be a very good defender. But Marbury wasn't...he wasn't sound in any way. He gambled too often for steals, didn't fight over picks or through them on shooters, he leaked out too much, he didn't stay sound throughout a possession, he clearly half assed many nights (his biggest weakness)...etc. That is my take on him as a defender...and you know what...I don't even have to look at any stats, but I guarantee you that they support me. He's going to have a sizable negative defensive rapm every year and I already know his individual offensive rating is crap. And I'd bet his teams played shit defense and got a lot better without him as well.

But you want to ignore all that...why? So you can ****ing google to see if there were any articles written about it? That would be enough to change your mind, but the actual hard data isn't?

Seriously...GTFO clown...
RAPM, Rodman has a better offensive RAPM than Stockton and Dirk in the 90's. And Stockton better than Pippen defensively - Not fully feeling that. Am I reading that wrong?

[DMAVS41]

:lol Ok now I am feeling sorry for you. You came in like a mad man and I played you. Please feel free to keep convincing yourself. And your friends:::: they didn't help you much.

That was a terrible team without any strengths. Nobody could rebound. Nobody blocked shots that well. Nobody was a consistently good shooter. Nobody had a post game. But they executed very well and found seams in the defense very well. Kidd picked teams apart with patience. He was a much better offensive player than ever given credit. Pop knew why he wanted Kidd. Kidd was super disciplined and very smart.

He was a much better team player.


RAPM, Rodman has a better offensive RAPM than Stockton and Dirk in the 90's. And Stockton better than Pippen defensively - Not fully feeling that. Am I reading that wrong?


Well yes, you are wrong and right about a few things in this post.

Stuff you are right about;

Absolutely...Kidd was a much better team player than Marbury. Totally agree. Stats aren't completely ignorant to that though. Like I already said Kidd's big plus on offense was his ability to be a floor general.

Stuff you are wrong about;

You did not play me. You cherry picked offensive stats and talked out of your ass and got educated.

No, that isn't real rapm from the 90's. They dont' have the data to do it. So the stuff you are looking at isn't actually rapm. Sorry, but this is true.




Sorry, Marbury was a shit defender. His teams got better when he left the floor. His individual ratings suck. He had a negative drapm as well.

If he wasn't poor...there is no way he'd grade out that poorly over such a large sample size. Here's my process...tell me where I went wrong;

Watched Marbury off and on throughout his career. Thought he was super talented but didn't play team ball enough and didn't think he tried hard on defense. As I kept watching...I noticed he really didn't even try on defense. He cared too much about offense and I saw him constantly give up defending after 10 seconds of a possession, saw him get beat back door, not fight over screens, not look like a good communicator, saw him not try to defensive rebound as he wanted to leak out all the time, and saw him leave his man for no reason to chase a play...etc.

Then I go look at defensive stats and see they all support my thoughts watching him play...so I feel comfortable in my conclusions.

You, on the other hand, watched him play an reached a different conclusion...see objective measures that dispute your claims...and ignore those measures and call them stupid.

So what is more likely? That you just don't know the game as well as you think and you are off on Marbury's defense? Or that the objective measures over a large sample size both individually and for his team...just were completely wrong?

I think you should really ponder the above...and really reflect on inherent biases and the true sample size of watching the games.


I think this comes down to two things;

1. You over-rated Kidd offensively
2. You under-rated just how terrible Marbury was defensively the year in question and overall

Probably also comes down to your ignorance on some stats as well like rapm when you would never compare certain guys playing completely different roles...and certainly your inherent bias toward a certain type of play or player comes in.

We all have these...it's impossible not to. You seem to favor a more well rounded player. So you are drawn to a guy like Kidd over a guy like Curry perhaps...certainly Marbury. But your problem is that you over-rate Kidd because of that bias on offense. He's honestly just not much of a different (in terms of being better) player than Marbury offensively. Yes, he's less selfish and a better floor general, but he's also a worse shooter and scorer by a considerable margin when you combine the two.

It's why, despite Kidd having better offensive weapons around him, only improved the offense marginally....

You are really off here if you think Kidd is much better than Marbury solely offensively. I'd rather have Kidd, don't get me wrong, but that is almost solely because Kidd is less selfish.

You really think that Marbury getting Kittles and Jefferson...two solid offensive players...and playing at a bit faster of a pace wouldn't have improved offensively a little? Meh...Kittles alone would be worth a few spots.

And the 02 Nets also played the easiest schedule.

You want me to project what the 02 Nets offense would have been if Marbury had stayed? Probably like the 18th or 19th best...the Nets had the 17th best.

So while I agree that Kidd was the better offensive player overall...it's actually pretty close. Marbury shot a lot, but he did score well...and he did create well for others. It's not like he never passed or something...and like you mentioned, his turnover rate was not bad.

Like everyone here has been trying to tell you...the big difference in Marbury and Kidd was defense and rebounding.

Yes, we all know there is more to it than that, but even removing any talk of leadership or floor general stuff....the changes in the teams just fit the stats so perfectly.

[AirFederer]

OP exposed - mods please change the title: when stats doesn't lie but OP does

:lol

:facepalm

[BlackVVaves]

I keep coming back to this thread to see if OP finally dug himself out of his hole, and every time OP just keeps evading the truth and offering more horse dung to cover his mess :oldlol:

[Pointguard]

I keep coming back to this thread to see if OP finally dug himself out of his hole, and every time OP just keeps evading the truth and offering more horse dung to cover his mess :oldlol:

OP exposed - mods please change the title: when stats doesn't lie but OP does
:lol :facepalm

7 pages later - please show me the stats. Not that hard. The quality in Kidd ups other players stats and not necessarily his. But this is waaaay over your head <------ I know that its one person and not two here.

[DMAVS41]

7 pages later - please show me the stats. Not that hard. The quality in Kidd ups other players stats and not necessarily his. But this is waaaay over your head <------ I know that its one person and not two here.

PG

could you rate Marbury and Kidd on offense only on a scale of 1 to 100 for us please. Or just say something like Kidd is 30% better...could you put a number on this on some level? Again, just offense...not overall.

I need to see you quantify their offenses....thanks.

[Pointguard]

Stuff you are wrong about;
You cherry picked offensive stats and talked out of your ass and got educated.

I didn't cherry pick. I used the most often used stats in comparing PG's. Rebounding and defense aren't brought up much. When the PG threads come up I bring up defense and rebounding because Rose was strong in those areas but other people don't bring it up much. There is another thread active right now where a poster says PG's aren't held accountable to defense.

There is not one poster here that brings up every stat in their arguments. Sorry, not one. I never ever saw it done. I rarely ever see you bring up as many stats as I do and you obsess in your arguments.


No, that isn't real rapm from the 90's. They dont' have the data to do it. So the stuff you are looking at isn't actually rapm. Sorry, but this is true.

Both you and TPOLs were using the unrefined stat, right?



Sorry, Marbury was a shit defender. His teams got better when he left the floor. His individual ratings suck. He had a negative drapm as well.

I watched Marbury for years and he was never considered an awful defender. He wasn't good but terribly bad was never the case.


If he wasn't poor...there is no way he'd grade out that poorly over such a large sample size. Here's my process...tell me where I went wrong;

Watched Marbury off and on throughout his career. Thought he was super talented but didn't play team ball enough and didn't think he tried hard on defense. As I kept watching...I noticed he really didn't even try on defense. He cared too much about offense and I saw him constantly give up defending after 10 seconds of a possession, saw him get beat back door, not fight over screens, not look like a good communicator, saw him not try to defensive rebound as he wanted to leak out all the time, and saw him leave his man for no reason to chase a play...etc.

We have to get a long time Net fan to really join in on this. I am probably mixing in my Knick experience here. But in NY you don't get away with not giving effort on defense at all. If you give effort the crowds will work with you. Fellton, Amare and Mello all got called out for that. When the papers were dogging Marbury out, before he was brought out, they weren't talking about his defense. Even Mark Jackson had been called out for his defense here in NY.



You, on the other hand, watched him play an reached a different conclusion...see objective measures that dispute your claims...and ignore those measures and call them stupid.

I never called them stupid. I was just unfamiliar with that claim that he was awful or the worse when I saw him play since 8th grade not too far from me. I heard people evaluating him since he was 14. Sure I saw instances where he looked bad, but I just don't ever recall him being one of the worse. I heard this about his playground legend cousin, Talfair. I just don't recall it about him.


I think this comes down to two things;

1. You over-rated Kidd offensively
2. You under-rated just how terrible Marbury was defensively the year in question and overall

Probably also comes down to your ignorance on some stats as well like rapm when you would never compare certain guys playing completely different roles...and certainly your inherent bias toward a certain type of play or player comes in.

They play the same role. Are you lost?


It's why, despite Kidd having better offensive weapons around him, only improved the offense marginally....
You provided some crunch time stats. Their execution was four fold better. The players took on much bigger roles with much more confidence. Their offense could adjust to playoff pressure much less the grind of the season. They were overall much better offensively.


You are really off here if you think Kidd is much better than Marbury solely offensively. I'd rather have Kidd, don't get me wrong, but that is almost solely because Kidd is less selfish.

The OP was attractive because of the way Marbury is pretty close to dominating key stats. You are now coming around to that.


You really think that Marbury getting Kittles and Jefferson...two solid offensive players...and playing at a bit faster of a pace wouldn't have improved offensively a little? Meh...Kittles alone would be worth a few spots.

Kittles was out injured the previous year but he played with Marbury a couple of years before and in his last healthy active years.



the big difference in Marbury and Kidd was defense and rebounding.

Leadership, team play, getting people on the same page, making them better, keeping players focused and inspired, great halfcourt execution and his discipline are rare qualities that should not be overlooked. Rebounding and defense from a point guard rarely transforms a team. Payton, Lever and Rondo all subscribe to that quality and could never take a team of nobodies to the finals two years straight.

[BlackVVaves]

7 pages later - please show me the stats. Not that hard. The quality in Kidd ups other players stats and not necessarily his. But this is waaaay over your head <------ I know that its one person and not two here.

So this is what it sounds like, when doves cry

[Pointguard]

So this is what it sounds like, when doves cry
Maybe in a future life you will find the value of bringing substance?

[ILLsmak]

Smak to make it simple, my emphasis is on qualitative not quantitative. Kidd had a very unique quality that doesn't lend itself personal quantitative measure.

Measuring qualities is out of reach if you can't decipher a basic understanding of how players are functioning and are interconnected. If you are discerning where the stats are without knowing how they mature in different players you are in it for the stats and not the game itself. You are hypnotized by the stats and fail to see how the game reveals itself.

Ben Wallace was an intense, fearless, hustle defensive player and leader. The second he says, "I can guard Shaquille alone and keep him under 30," his team is transformed and convinced they can win it all. His value is that of a superstar. But because the stats don't support this status few will go there.

If folks are stuck on quantitative measure, or better yet lead by it, I just don't think they are going to do too well when measuring the quality, function and player interaction. I've been saying for years that I think Durant will be the most proficient scorer there is, but I would take MJ over h because of MJ's qualities.

Yeah, I feelya... but I also think that DMAVS is not like that. I think he'd be more of the person (totally just my opinion) who would see the value of someone like Ben Wallace and then seek to find stats to support it. So, it would make his argument more compelling to a listener.

Like I said, I know stats are flawed, but they can support a good argument. People like stats that support their arguments, hilariously. And as I said there are so many stats. I am always asking "How could this outcome still happen if the premise of the argument wasn't true?" If I can think of one, then I will be skeptical.

I mean, you could say for Ben that his statistical impact would extend to 'defending the rim' stats, Shaq's stats, and the stats of the role-players who weren't open, and Kobe's stats.

It would be easy to come up with an argument that Ben Wallace wasn't the most important player in LA v DET... and that it was thrown by Kobe. Could be supported with both logic and stats, but which is true? How do we know? Really, both have valid points and, as I have said in other threads, our obsession with these comparisons... superstar... not superstar... best... better... is kind of off base.

I don't think stats ever lie because they represent what happened. My issue with stats is more that people use them to compare when no two situations are the same.

And someone can play a good game while having bad stats, too, as long as they play the way they were supposed to play. It's when they change that the whole game plan is thrown off.

I don't think your argument is unsound, I just feel like you picked the wrong person to argue stats vs stats because as an outsider I feel you two are very similar (although you might have differing opinions on subjects and use different methods to support it.)

I can see both sides... although I do feel the world would be better without statistics as a whole... because I feel stats are often used to deceive people. And not even talking about basketball.

Edit: I see stats like science. I dislike science because it is much less thorough than people think it is, to me. Potentially, just the same, people could come up with stats that actually matter. They are trying to do that now... but kind of failing. As someone who loves numbers, I encourage them to keep trying.

-Smak

[DMAVS41]

PG...I'm really trying to be clear here. Let's try this again;

1. The 90's stuff is not real rapm...they didn't have the data for it. The stuff 00 through present is real rapm iirc.

I know Marbury and Kidd played the same role...that is why you can use certain stats better.

You brought up Rodman vs Dirk vs Stockton...and you wouldn't really use rapm for that. You can't compare very well players playing such different roles like that. I mean, you can, but that is a really tough thing to do without getting entangled.


2. Nobody, and I'll say it again, nobody disputes all those intangible qualities Kidd has. You just fail to see that you see evidence of those things in the stats.

3. Yes, you actually would see a defensive transformation going from one of the worst guard defenders and rebounders, especially defensive rebounding, playing 38 minutes a game....to one of the best rebounding/defensive guards in the league.

This has been explained to you now and you either are too stupid to understand or are just choosing to ignore. I'll try again.

The Nets went from having the 27th best defense with Marbury on the court in 01...to having the 13th best defense when he wasn't on the court. So think about that...just by removing Marbury...the Nets jumped up to a top 13 defense in the league without him. Now, there is noise in that...and so you then look at rapm because it's the best metric we have to take the noise out...and you see Marbury had a putrid -2.9 defensive rapm. Furthermore, you notice that when Evan E. was out there, they had a 100.8 drtg...which would have been good enough for the 8th best defense in the league.

So now please think about this. Just removing Marbury greatly helped...then having a center play...gave them a top 8 defense. And that was really the only center they had.

So now think about it. You subtract Marbury...which helps a ton as. Then you replace him with not only a great defensive guard, but a great rebounding guard...especially a defensive rebounder. So if they would have had like the 15th or so best defense without Marbury. How much is then replacing him with an elite defender/rebounder going to make? I'd argue a big one. Then, you two centers. So instead of getting like 20 minutes of legit center play...you got like 42 minutes from T-Mac and Collins. Which, based on the evidence, would also improve the defense quite a bit.

I'm sorry man...that is what you would see.


4. The offense stuff. Meh...truth be told. Kidd is not a great offensive player. Like I have said, I'd take him over Marbury here solely because he's less selfish. He shoots less and passes more...and that fits the 02 Nets better. But again, there is a reason why the Nets defense jumped from like 23rd to 17th only and not a huge jump like the defense. The 02 Nets also had Kittles and Jefferson...the 02 Nets were better offensively. Seeing a jump up 7 spots with a little more offensive help while also playing the easiest schedule in the league is just the norm here. I really don't think that Marbury vs Kidd here offensively is that big of a difference. I'd say the offensive change could be explained by Kidd performing better in crunch time and the team having more offensive talent. So you are just way off on this one. You act like Kidd transformed this team offensively. He didn't...they got marginally better...and that is expected when you get back a guy like Kittles and then add Jefferson as well. And T-Mac was no slouch offensively either....

So I'm not coming around to anything. You are so lost here. I'm saying that Marbury vs Kidd solely on offense is rather close. I like Kidd more, but there just isn't a big difference between them. Despite Kidd's better floor game...he also struggled to score and his efficiency was shit at times. He passed better than Marbury, but he also turned it over more. It's why you don't see many elite Kidd led offensive teams. He wasn't a great offensive player. He was great because he was an elite defender/rebounder and then insert the unselfishness, leader, tough...intangible stuff here. But he was not leaps and bounds better than Marbury as an offensive player. Hence why you see him make a clearly better offensive team only marginally better.


5. I know Kittles was out. You are making my point for me. That was a key loss to the 01 team. Shit dude...the 00 Nets had the 10th best offense in the league with kittles playing like 3/4 of the season. You just make my point for me. With Kittles...Marbury was able to lead a good offense. You gonna sit here and act like the 00 Nets had far better players than the 02 Nets offensively? GTFO...you put a healthy Kittles on the 01 Nets and they are going to be somewhere around 17th or so best offense. They were ****ing 10th in 00 when he was healthy! You realize that is more evidence for my side...right? That once again the marginal improvement in offense is easily explained. The reason I like Kidd more in this situation offensively is that the ball needed to be shared more with the likes of Kittles, Van Horn, Martin, Jefferson, and T-Mac.

Think about this...please. Marbury with Kittles in 00 and an okay offensive roster...Van Horn was really good back then offensively. They had the 10th best offense. Then Kittles misses a year...and the Nets add Martin...and they have the 24th best offense. Then they add Kidd and get Kittles back and add Jefferson and T-Mac as well....and they are 17th in the league offensively.

Are you really listening to yourself? Going on and on about offense? They had the 17th ****ing best offense in the league and with a team actually slightly worse than that offensively...Marbury had them 10th best in 00.

Again...the difference in that team was defense and rebounding!


6. We don't bring up every stat in arguments because so much is built into what we are saying. When arguing Dirk vs Duncan...we don't have to argue defense because we know Duncan kills Dirk in that area. Nobody disputes it....just like nobody that really watched or studied Kidd and Marbury would dispute the difference in defense and rebounding...but you are disputing it...so we have to educate you.

If someone came on here claiming that Larry Bird was a better defender than Scottie Pippen...we'd have to educate them on that, but nobody does that...it's build into these comparisons.

Everyone watches the games man. People don't only form their opinions on stats. In fact, I don't see anyone do that.

What stats are good for is to get rid of BS. Like Kobe being the best game winning shot maker. I used to argue this with kobe fans all the time before the data came out. "watching the games" is the absolute worst way to do that...there is too much information to process. But these "stats" are just records of what happened...it's not different than running a 2 hours long video clip of all of Kobe's game winning shot attempts. It's the exact same thing.

So again I really don't know what your issue is. We all agree Kidd was a better leader, teammate, communicator...than Marbury. We all agree he was more professional and gave better effort night in night out. We all agree he was less selfish and got more out of his teammates overall. Who is disputing that?

And who is saying you can know enough about a player without ever seeing them play?

You, and other stat haters, are arguing with ghosts and advocating this all or nothing philosophy...and it's just flawed.

But you won't change...you wont' become less narrow minded. You'll just keep thinking that Marbury wasn't bad defensively despite a decades worth of data. And you won't have the humility to admit you are wrong...or just at least admit that you aren't watching every possession close enough to really pay attention to so many of the things that make a player good or bad defensively. Do you really not understand the difference between watching a game as a fan and watching one player every second of the game on defense to see how he does fighting through screens, giving help, gambling for steals, rebounding, switching, communicating, leaking out, not fouling in bail out situations...etc.? You weren't watching like that...and if you were and still concluded that Marbury was a consistently find defender...you just reached a bad conclusion.

That is what you still can't get. If you stripped Kidd of his defense and rebounding and made them equal in that regard...and put him on the 02 Nets...you'd see a team finish like 17th on offense and 17th on defense. And you'd see roughly the same thing with Marbury...as the offense and defense would improve a little from the previous year with Kittles/Jefferson and T-Mac/Collins.

That is what you don't get. That without the defense and rebounding for Kidd....he just wouldn't be anything special. He'd be a good floor general type player that was unselfish, but that's it. And he'd be really no better than a guy like Marbury as a player...



Another example. Everyone here agrees that Lebron is having a down year defensively. I've yet to see one person claim he's giving the same effort night in night out the defensive side of the court. Isn't it odd that Lebron spent of most of the year with a negative defensive rapm? Isn't that odd? That watching the games and the stats match up so often?

When can you think of a time that really looking in depth at a terrible player or a great player...yielded really strange stat results? I'm not saying it doesn't happen...but it's pretty rare.

[Fire Colangelo]

Stats don't lie, people use stats to lie.

You're right to some extent that leadership, heart, intangibles, etc have an impact on a team. The stats don't tell the whole story but they tell part of it. Generic stats like the one you gave out don't tell us how much of a defensive gap there is between the two players.

PG defense is more important than what people give credit for. If your team has a good defender at PG, you have the ability to make life difficult for the opponents PG. If the opponents PG can't run their offense properly, then chances are the opponent's offense are going to take a big hit. PG defense is important as hell, but it's overlooked nowadays because teams usually put one of their perimeter defensive specialists (SG in most cases) on the opposing ball handler. Unfortunately, the Nets didn't have anyone like that, so the defensive upgrade from Marbury to Kidd was huge. Had the 01 Nets had someone like Tony Allen on the team, the defensive upgrade from Marbury to Kidd would've been smaller. And the stats show that Kidd > Marbury as a defender.

There are some stuff stats don't show though, for example, 8 assists by Kidd is different from 8 assists from Marbury. While Kidd has a similar turnover-assist ratio to Marbury and averages only 1-2 more assists, Kidd is a much better passer and a far better floor general. By watching the game, you see that Kidd regularly sets his teammates up for easy baskets near the rim, or wide open shots. I can't say the same about Marbury. What I'm trying to say is, getting 8 assists to wide open teammates near the rim is far more better than hogging the ball for 20 seconds and passing the ball to a teammate for a contested shot that might go in. Now I'm not saying Marbury does that (since I don't really remember him as a Net), but I know for sure that 8 assists from Marbury is not the same as 8 assists from Kidd, and stats won't show that (or maybe there is a stat for that... pass-assist ratio? someone educate me lol).

Anyways, I get what you're trying to get at, and that you can't use stats alone without context for arguments. But by using these stats correctly and combining them with the games that you've seen, you can come to a pretty decent conclusion about a player's game. That's how I feel like anyways.

[DMAVS41]

Stats don't lie, people use stats to lie.

You're right to some extent that leadership, heart, intangibles, etc have an impact on a team. The stats don't tell the whole story but they tell part of it. Generic stats like the one you gave out don't tell us how much of a defensive gap there is between the two players.

PG defense is more important than what people give credit for. If your team has a good defender at PG, you have the ability to make life difficult for the opponents PG. If the opponents PG can't run their offense properly, then chances are the opponent's offense are going to take a big hit. PG defense is important as hell, but it's overlooked nowadays because teams usually put one of their perimeter defensive specialists (SG in most cases) on the opposing ball handler. Unfortunately, the Nets didn't have anyone like that, so the defensive upgrade from Marbury to Kidd was huge. Had the 01 Nets had someone like Tony Allen on the team, the defensive upgrade from Marbury to Kidd would've been smaller. And the stats show that Kidd > Marbury as a defender.

There are some stuff stats don't show though, for example, 8 assists by Kidd is different from 8 assists from Marbury. While Kidd has a similar turnover-assist ratio to Marbury and averages only 1-2 more assists, Kidd is a much better passer and a far better floor general. By watching the game, you see that Kidd regularly sets his teammates up for easy baskets near the rim, or wide open shots. I can't say the same about Marbury. What I'm trying to say is, getting 8 assists to wide open teammates near the rim is far more better than hogging the ball for 20 seconds and passing the ball to a teammate for a contested shot that might go in. Now I'm not saying Marbury does that (since I don't really remember him as a Net), but I know for sure that 8 assists from Marbury is not the same as 8 assists from Kidd, and stats won't show that (or maybe there is a stat for that... pass-assist ratio? someone educate me lol).

Anyways, I get what you're trying to get at, and that you can't use stats alone without context for arguments. But by using these stats correctly and combining them with the games that you've seen, you can come to a pretty decent conclusion about a player's game. That's how I feel like anyways.

Well said.

You can kind of look at team efficiency to see which offense was getting easier shots. It would work better with more similar teams than the 01 and 02 Nets as, despite what PG claims, the teams were actually quite different with 4 new key players on the 02 team.

So, take the following stats that illustrate this;

Marbury shot 48.4% efg...and the 01 Nets as a team shot 45.2% efg (27th in league)

Kidd shot 44.2% efg...and the 02 Nets as a team shot 47.6% efg (13th in league)

So there is real evidence there that Kidd was getting his team better shots. Think about it...the 02 Nets as a team finished a solid 2.4% efg higher...and that is with Kidd's poor shooting built in. The 01 Nets finished lower than Marbury...meaning Marbury's efficiency actually props up the teams while Kidd's lowered it.

Clearly the 02 team was getting better shots and it's readily apparent in the stats.

Now, the big problem with this is that the two teams aren't identical...and we don't know how big of a factor Kidd was in this...and how big of a factor adding 4 new players was.

I think it's apparent that having a guy that takes 5 less shots a game in Kidd and is a better and more willing passer is going to improve the efficiency of his teammates more though.

So what you are talking about actually does show up in the stats.

[Fire Colangelo]

Well said.

You can kind of look at team efficiency to see which offense was getting easier shots. It would work better with more similar teams than the 01 and 02 Nets as, despite what PG claims, the teams were actually quite different with 4 new key players on the 02 team.

So, take the following stats that illustrate this;

Marbury shot 48.4% efg...and the 01 Nets as a team shot 45.2% efg (27th in league)

Kidd shot 44.2% efg...and the 02 Nets as a team shot 47.6% efg (13th in league)

So there is real evidence there that Kidd was getting his team better shots. Think about it...the 02 Nets as a team finished a solid 2.4% efg higher...and that is with Kidd's poor shooting built in. The 01 Nets finished lower than Marbury...meaning Marbury's efficiency actually props up the teams while Kidd's lowered it.

Clearly the 02 team was getting better shots and it's readily apparent in the stats.

Now, the big problem with this is that the two teams aren't identical...and we don't know how big of a factor Kidd was in this...and how big of a factor adding 4 new players was.

I think it's apparent that having a guy that takes 5 less shots a game in Kidd and is a better and more willing passer is going to improve the efficiency of his teammates more though.

So what you are talking about actually does show up in the stats.

Fair enough, I was actually thinking of a pass:assist ratio to see which players passes are turning into points more frequently :lol but then I realized they probably don't track # of passes. Might be a good thing to keep track of in the future though.

But yeah, for me personally, watching the game comes first. Stats fill in whatever I miss during the game.

[DMAVS41]

Fair enough, I was actually thinking of a pass:assist ratio to see which players passes are turning into points more frequently :lol but then I realized they probably don't track # of passes. Might be a good thing to keep track of in the future though.

But yeah, for me personally, watching the game comes first. Stats fill in whatever I miss during the game.

I was agreeing with you...I was just showing you how you could see that in the stats as well. That Kidd got his team better shots...

[Pointguard]

Stats don't lie, people use stats to lie.

You're right to some extent that leadership, heart, intangibles, etc have an impact on a team. The stats don't tell the whole story but they tell part of it. Generic stats like the one you gave out don't tell us how much of a defensive gap there is between the two players.

PG defense is more important than what people give credit for. If your team has a good defender at PG, you have the ability to make life difficult for the opponents PG. If the opponents PG can't run their offense properly, then chances are the opponent's offense are going to take a big hit. PG defense is important as hell, but it's overlooked nowadays because teams usually put one of their perimeter defensive specialists (SG in most cases) on the opposing ball handler. Unfortunately, the Nets didn't have anyone like that, so the defensive upgrade from Marbury to Kidd was huge. Had the 01 Nets had someone like Tony Allen on the team, the defensive upgrade from Marbury to Kidd would've been smaller. And the stats show that Kidd > Marbury as a defender.

There are some stuff stats don't show though, for example, 8 assists by Kidd is different from 8 assists from Marbury. While Kidd has a similar turnover-assist ratio to Marbury and averages only 1-2 more assists, Kidd is a much better passer and a far better floor general. By watching the game, you see that Kidd regularly sets his teammates up for easy baskets near the rim, or wide open shots. I can't say the same about Marbury. What I'm trying to say is, getting 8 assists to wide open teammates near the rim is far more better than hogging the ball for 20 seconds and passing the ball to a teammate for a contested shot that might go in. Now I'm not saying Marbury does that (since I don't really remember him as a Net), but I know for sure that 8 assists from Marbury is not the same as 8 assists from Kidd, and stats won't show that (or maybe there is a stat for that... pass-assist ratio? someone educate me lol).

Anyways, I get what you're trying to get at, and that you can't use stats alone without context for arguments. But by using these stats correctly and combining them with the games that you've seen, you can come to a pretty decent conclusion about a player's game. That's how I feel like anyways.
Kidd knew to when not to shoot.
Kidd knew when to pass to keep players involved in the game.
Kidd knew how to highlight a player.
Kidd knew how to lead pass and direct players into more helpful positions.
Kidd knew how to reward players for good defense with his passing.

A pass can do more than just lead to a basket.

All of this is keeping others involved beyond the stat sheet.

[Young X]

Kidd knew to when not to shoot.
Kidd knew when to pass to keep players involved in the game.
Kidd knew how to highlight a player.
Kidd knew how to lead pass and direct players into more helpful positions.
Kidd knew how to reward players for good defense with his passing.

A pass can do more than just lead to a basket.

All of this is keeping others involved beyond the stat sheet.That's not why the Nets improved to that degree tho, they improved because of better defense (23rd to 1st) and rebounding. Offensively, the Nets were still a below average offensive team with Kidd.

Kidd isn't clearly better than Marbury offensively - he's a better floor general, but he's waaay worse as a scorer, which shows in the stats.

[DMAVS41]

That's not why the Nets improved to that degree tho, they improved because of better defense (23rd to 1st) and rebounding. Offensively, the Nets were still a below average offensive team with Kidd.

Maybe you can get through to him.

23rd to first on defense...
25th to 13th on defensive rebounding...
25th to 13th on offensive rebounding...


But, in his mind, Kidd's intangibles were the big difference...sigh...

[Fire Colangelo]

I was agreeing with you...I was just showing you how you could see that in the stats as well. That Kidd got his team better shots...

Yeah, I got that lol, I'm on the same page with you.


Kidd knew to when not to shoot.
Kidd knew when to pass to keep players involved in the game.
Kidd knew how to highlight a player.
Kidd knew how to lead pass and direct players into more helpful positions.
Kidd knew how to reward players for good defense with his passing.

A pass can do more than just lead to a basket.

All of this is keeping others involved beyond the stat sheet.

Well, yes. That's why, like DMAVS said, the team's EFG% went up despite Kidd shooting a worse EFG% than Marbury did.

But the main reason they got to the finals in 02 was because they were a good defensive team. Kidd obviously played a big part in transforming the team defensively, and the stats show that.

What I'm saying is. Yes, there are things that are not measured by generic stats (which are the ones you posted), but if you look further into advanced statistics, you'll find that the stats support reality most of the time.

Yes, according to the generic stats you posted, 22/8 > 16/9 (even though you didn't post reboudning/steals #s). But if your look further into advanced statistics, you'll find that the player who averaged 16/9 is just as good defensively, or just a little worse (give or take) than the 22/8 player, while being miles better defensively. And that's the reality with Marbury and Kidd.

[Pointguard]

You, and other stat haters, are arguing with ghosts and advocating this all or nothing philosophy...and it's just flawed.


I never said I hate stats. They sometimes come up short. You can't go to them for everything. I said WHEN in the title. And every measurable stat has a fault. I use them and find them practical. But like everything they have their moments.

[DMAVS41]

I never said I hate stats. They sometimes come up short. You can't go to them for everything. I said WHEN in the title. And every measurable stat has a fault. I use them and find them practical. But like everything they have their moments.

Who said you can go to them for everything?

Every measurable stat has a fault? What is the fault in ft%? Also, lets say I agree with this...would you admit that every individual person watching the games has a fault?

And how do the stats lie in the OP? When are they lying in the OP?

Will you just admit you picked a bad example?

[Pointguard]

Yes, according to the generic stats you posted, 22/8 > 16/9 (even though you didn't post reboudning/steals #s). But if your look further into advanced statistics, you'll find that the player who averaged 16/9 is just as good defensively, or just a little worse (give or take) than the 22/8 player, while being miles better defensively. And that's the reality with Marbury and Kidd.
Nope, you are being like the stats and expressing partial realities.

Defense played a role. But that team had good half court offensive execution. That's how they survived in the playoffs. This was a team that didn't have a lot of creative players, consistent shooters, post players, versatile pieces or penetrators. Show me another team like that. Defense alone isn't going to get you to the finals alone. Guys were having career years and were all on the same page.

[DMAVS41]

Nope, you are being like the stats and expressing partial realities.

Defense played a role. But that team had good half court offensive execution. That's how they survived in the playoffs. This was a team that didn't have a lot of creative players, consistent shooters, post players, versatile pieces or penetrators. Show me another team like that. Defense alone isn't going to get you to the finals alone. Guys were having career years and were all on the same page.

Stop creating straw-men...who said they got to the finals on defense alone? They had about an average offense.

You asked about the regular season...not the playoffs.

Now you are invoking the playoffs, but the problem with that is that Kidd played differently in the playoffs....so I don't follow this at all now.

Kidd's stats in the playoffs were basically a triple double iirc in the 02 playoffs...

[Pointguard]

Who said you can go to them for everything?

You went for more stats when I said this was a qualitative trait in Kidd that made up the difference.


Every measurable stat has a fault? What is the fault in ft%? Also, lets say I agree with this...would you admit that every individual person watching the games has a fault?

And how do the stats lie in the OP? When are they lying in the OP?

Will you just admit you picked a bad example?

Show me the stats, side by side that prove me wrong then. And don't use team stats because that's a grey area. And show me a better example.

Simple enough.

[DMAVS41]

You went for more stats when I said this was a qualitative trait in Kidd that made up the difference.


Show me the stats, side by side that prove me wrong then. And don't use team stats because that's a grey area. And show me a better example.

Simple enough.

Because comparing Kidd and Marbury without mentioning the difference in defense and rebounding is straight up stupid.

Of course I went to stats....I was trying to show how wrong you were. Which I, and now countless others, have repeatedly done.

Me? You are the one trying to make the point...you pick a better example.


All your OP does is show that you can't talk solely about offense when comparing two players if one of the said players in the comparisons claim to fame is defense and rebounding.

But we all know that wasn't the point...and if it was...why invoke stats? Why not just say;

Hey...defense and rebounding from the pg position can often be under-rated when doing player comparisons...

Why not just say that?

[Pointguard]

You asked about the regular season...not the playoffs.

The playoffs were never my topic. I just alluded to it. You are OBSESSING. Going overboard and haggling over sidebar nonsense.


Now you are invoking the playoffs, but the problem with that is that Kidd played differently in the playoffs....so I don't follow this at all now.

Kidd's stats in the playoffs were basically a triple double iirc in the 02 playoffs...
I alluded to the playoffs. But if you understood the concepts I mentioned you would really see his ability to keep the team on the same page, inspire them, keep them focused, etc as a great value. A stat that doesn't really have a measure. I don't really see a need to keep repeating this. Its at the point where either you get it or you don't.

[DMAVS41]

The playoffs were never my topic. I just alluded to it. You are OBSESSING. Going overboard and haggling over sidebar nonsense.

I alluded to the playoffs. But if you understood the concepts I mentioned you would really see his ability to keep the team on the same page, inspire them, keep them focused, etc as a great value. A stat that doesn't really have a measure. I don't really see a need to keep repeating this. Its at the point where either you get it or you don't.

Dude...we all know Kidd has better intangibles. Has anyone ****ing disputed that? Please find it for me.

But what you don't get...is that those intangibles, while important, aren't the reason the Nets were much better.

Kidd is just not a great offensive player. He's...like okay. He's a good floor general, but not a great scorer...really struggled shooting from range at that time...etc.

He is a marginally better offensive player than marbury...including every ****ing intangible you want.

The big difference between those two players is defense and rebounding.

That is what you can't ****ing grasp. And until you do...you'll continue to be a clown.

Not to mention....you still haven't even admitted that the 02 team was better offensively.

Did Marbury have great intangibles in 00 when he led the Nets to the 10th best offense? And then lose these intangibles in 01 when Kittles missed the entire year?????

Of course not.

You just don't get it. Clearly never will.

[Kblaze8855]

Not to mention the serious lacking of sample size when just relying on the "eye test"

Unless you watch thousands upon thousands of nba games a year start to finish...you just can't have a big enough sample size about a team or player.

Please....

If you need to see player play 50 times to know his game you arent really watching. At other times he might get hot or get cold...but you should pretty much know his game.

What is tony Allen gonna do on game 44 that I wouldnt have seen yet by game 16? Am I gonna miss when he becomes a knock down shooter and starts slaughtering guys off the pick and roll?

I watched Michael Jordan no doubt well over 500 times. I bet I watched Charles Barkley less than half of that.

What do you think I really missed about Charles Barkley?




Also, stats are simply records of what happened...

If I tell you a guy had 19 points on 7-16 shooting 1-3 from 3 4-4 from the line, 3 assists, 2 rebounds, 1 steal, 0 blocks, and 3 turnovers in 38 minutes...

Do you even have one full minute of his play shown there?

What happened in the 37 minutes we have no stat for?

If stats are just a recording of what happened....is nothing happening when stats arent being produced?

Stats leave out the how, why, and when. And im more interested in those than the totals.

Especially the "how".


Generally you find people, like PG, that oppose stats so strongly aren't in search of the truth. They want to make claims and not support them and keep thinking they know everything...reminds me of Kblaze trying to say why we can't use rapm. And then in his response about why it's terrible...he exhibits a profound ignorance of what it actually is. Then he'll say something about how people at the barber shop don't talk like this.

Okay...as if that is supposed to mean something? Some clown at the barber shop that doesn't watch enough games and doesn't know any of the stats is supposed to be this guru of the game? I find it ****ing comical...

What you find it is irrelevant to me. I know actual barbers who have watched the game since the 60s and could and do talk circles around me. Couldnt tell me who led the NBA in ____ in 1992 like I could. Or any 15 year old here could.

He can tell you why he was so excided about Len Bias, how Chris Jackson compares to Steph Curry shooting off the dribble, how Elgin Baylor attacked bigger players, and all about Norm Nixons defense on Gus Williams.

Some child on the internet doesnt know the game better because of numbers he can quote from games he didnt see or saw and barely understands.

Lot of people online these days act like im ashamed to admit I did in the mid 80s talking to my uncle and his NBA player friend ive mentioned before. Im listing numbers I read about Elgin Baylor....knew numbers.

Popping off about this and that to people who saw him play live vs Lou Hudsons Hawks in the 60s in person...

Thats my primary issue with the rise of stats ahead of watching. It lets too many people pretend to be something they arent.

When your argument is almost nothing but numbers I dont even know if I need take you serious as a fan of the game.

If you know a players PER, WS per 48, TS% and so on....

But you dont even know the basic concepts in place in the offense his team runs.....

Why should I take you serious?

I didnt know Michael Jacksons 1989 playoff numbers or have his game logs until 1999 or so. My understanding of his 1989 game...was not better 10 years after I watched it live. I just knew the numbers....

[Pointguard]

Because comparing Kidd and Marbury without mentioning the difference in defense and rebounding is straight up stupid.

Of course I went to stats....I was trying to show how wrong you were. Which I, and now countless others, have repeatedly done.

I intentionally did not reveal the qualities so that you and your friends could ponder another reason. The reason why Russell is considered and all time great is because he affected the players around in a very positive way.


Me? You are the one trying to make the point...you pick a better example.

I made my point. You are over obsessing. Kidds ability to have other players have career years shows up in their stats, moreso than his.

Does Kidd get more assist for knowing when to pass to keep players involved in the game?

Does Kidd get more assist for knowing how to highlight a player?

Does Kidd get more assist for knowing how to reward players for good defense with his passing?

No he doesn't but his players play more inspired, more as a team, more integrated. The stats don't measure that. Its more of a joy to watch.


All your OP does is show that you can't talk solely about offense when comparing two players if one of the said players in the comparisons claim to fame is defense and rebounding.

But we all know that wasn't the point...and if it was...why invoke stats? Why not just say;

Hey...defense and rebounding from the pg position can often be under-rated when doing player comparisons...

Why not just say that?
Because it wouldn't make you think.

[DMAVS41]

Kblaze...you continue to talk to a ghost.

Can you just use both? Why can't we just use both?

You go solely on the eye test...and you have a clown in here saying that the difference between marbury and kidd defensively isn't significant.

What do you say to someone like that if we can't use arguments or stats????


Please, if you are going to post, stop the straw-men...I have yet to see one person claim we can know enough about a player or game by just looking at the stats....especially a limited set of stats.

You should do both.

The fact that you advocate for only watching shows how narrow minded you are.

And yes, you do need bigger sample sizes than bits and pieces of like half the games to get the most accurate representation of players year in year out.

Things change...players change, circumstances change...etc. And capturing all that watching bits and pieces of a fraction of games played is a terrible way to come to the best conclusions about teams and players.

I invite you to read someone like Zach Lowe on the subject. You really think someone at the barber shop not looking at any stats is more informed?

Also, if you don't care what I think...please stop responding to me. Thanks. I have a policy to respond to anyone that posts to me, no matter how stupid, so I don't ignore the value of every post, but if you truly don't care what I think. Then I see no point in you posting at me.

[DMAVS41]

I intentionally did not reveal the qualities so that you and your friends could ponder another reason. The reason why Russell is considered and all time great is because he affected the players around in a very positive way.

I made my point. You are over obsessing. Kidds ability to have other players have career years shows up in their stats, moreso than his.

Does Kidd get more assist for knowing when to pass to keep players involved in the game?

Does Kidd get more assist for knowing how to highlight a player?

Does Kidd get more assist for knowing how to reward players for good defense with his passing?

No he doesn't but his players play more inspired, more as a team, more integrated. The stats don't measure that. Its more of a joy to watch.

Because it wouldn't make you think.


Let me put it this way...it's far less intangibles in the case of Kidd than it is him just being and elite individual defender, team defender, and defensive rebounder.

That was our point...dude.

And it's you that needs to think...we already accurately place players. You, on the other hand, conclude things like Marbury vs Kidd defensively and on the glass isn't a significant difference...and that, sorry to say, is just ignorant.

Career years in 02? What? Van Horn was not better in 02 than he was in 01 or 00. You have over-stated this shit beyond belief. Kittles was about the same player. Martin got better in 02, but it's not like its' abnormal to see natural improvement from a player as a rookie to their 2nd year.

Which player in 02 played far better with Kidd?

[Pointguard]

That's not why the Nets improved to that degree tho, they improved because of better defense (23rd to 1st) and rebounding. Offensively, the Nets were still a below average offensive team with Kidd.

Kidd isn't clearly better than Marbury offensively - he's a better floor general, but he's waaay worse as a scorer, which shows in the stats.


Maybe you can get through to him.

23rd to first on defense...
25th to 13th on defensive rebounding...
25th to 13th on offensive rebounding...

But, in his mind, Kidd's intangibles were the big difference...sigh...

Offensively they could win games late because their offense was WAAAAAY more stable. The execution WAAAY more pristine. You guys are looking at stats to tell you where the team ranked offensively overall and not when it counts. You are using stats to over interpret. This is yet one more flaw of not watching games and getting too carried away with stats. You have to have STABILITY late in games. You have to have DIRECTION late in games. You have to have CONFIDENCE that you can WIN it late in games. The Nets of this year had that problem earlier in the year and corrected it.

[DMAVS41]

Offensively they could win games late because their offense was WAAAAAY more stable. The execution WAAAY more pristine. You guys are looking at stats to tell you where the team ranked offensively overall and not when it counts. You are using stats to over interpret. This is yet one more flaw of not watching games and getting too carried away with stats. You have to have STABILITY late in games. You have to have DIRECTION late in games. You have to have CONFIDENCE that you can WIN it late in games. The Nets of this year had that problem earlier in the year and corrected it.

WE AGREE WITH THAT STUFF...

It shows up in the stats though. You see it in the clutch play difference in Kidd and Marbury. And again, the 02 team just had better offensive players.

Who is not watching the games?????? Please answer this?

It's why you don't see me talking about players I didn't see very often. I can't debate a guy like Russell vs Duncan properly because I just don't have enough information. You want someone to debate something like that properly...they need to have seen them both play.

I'll ask again...who is arguing that watching the games is bad? It's only bad when you watch through a biased lens (we all have this) and refuse to look at stats as well.

That is what we are saying. And yes, at times, the stats trump what you watch. Like you for example. What you watched with Marbury as a defender in 01 is just false...you are wrong. You came to a shit conclusion...it happens some times...happens to us all.

I watched every Mavs game in 2011 and thought there was no way we win the title. I was dead wrong...maybe if I had paid more attention to some stats I might have given us a better chance. Who knows...

You can't do just one or the other...but again...I see nobody arguing for that. Well, you and Blaze sure seem to think stats are meaningless...

[97 bulls]

I made my point. You are over obsessing. Kidds ability to have other players have career years shows up in their stats, moreso than his.

Does Kidd get more assist for knowing when to pass to keep players involved in the game?*

Does Kidd get more assist for knowing how to highlight a player?

Does Kidd get more assist for knowing how to reward players for good defense with his passing?

No he doesn't but his players play more inspired, more as a team, more integrated. The stats don't measure that. Its more of a joy to watch.
Excellent point. It's what makes players that look to get their teammates involved just as important as a player that can score at will.

I remember hearing Scottie Pippen say this about Lebron James and what makes him great. It's not his scoring, but his unselfish attitude that makes everyone of the court a threat to score.

Being a great PG is much more than assists, its about knowing your teammates strengths and weaknesses. Recognizing when someone is in a slump and getting his confidence up by getting him an easy shot, as well as realizing when a player is in a rhythm and riding that rhythm until the wheels come off. It's also about exposing mismatches, as well as paying attention to how the defense is playing you.

As great as Kidds defense was, that's not what made him great, it was his ability to run a team. Marbury was a great scorer, and even though he may have accumulated a good amount of assists, he still was a shitty point guard. Basically a shooting guard trapped in a PGs body.

Thats why the Lakers could still be competitive without Jabaar, The Suns without Stoudemire, the Bulls without Jordan, or Kidd without a dominant scorer.

[Kblaze8855]

I dont too much care what you think these days because its clear you arent looking at the game the way I am. But...you did notice you were bringing me up in a topic I wasnt involved in right? I read almost every topic. Im supposed to. You bring me up as a two paragraph example I tend to respond.

If you dont want to hear from me bringing up what I think isnt the best way to go about it.

[DMAVS41]

I dont too much care what you think these days because its clear you arent looking at the game the way I am. But...you did notice you were bringing me up in a topic I wasnt involved in right? I read almost every topic. Im supposed to. You bring me up as a two paragraph example I tend to respond.

If you dont want to hear from me bringing up what I think isnt the best way to go about it.

I do want to hear from you. I respect what you say.

You just got done saying you don't care what I have to say. So I don't see why you would respond to me.

I respond to you because I do.

You really don't see the difference? LOL

[Pointguard]

Let me put it this way...it's far less intangibles in the case of Kidd than it is him just being and elite individual defender, team defender, and defensive rebounder.

That was our point...dude.

And it's you that needs to think...we already accurately place players. You, on the other hand, conclude things like Marbury vs Kidd defensively and on the glass isn't a significant difference...and that, sorry to say, is just ignorant.

You KNOW I never said it wasn't a big piece. You are getting desperate.

[DMAVS41]

Excellent point. It's what makes players that look to get their teammates involved just as important as a player that can score at will.

I remember hearing Scottie Pippen say this about Lebron James and what makes him great. It's not his scoring, but his unselfish attitude that makes everyone of the court a threat to score.

Being a great PG is much more than assists, its about knowing your teammates strengths and weaknesses. Recognizing when someone is in a slump and getting his confidence up by getting him an easy shot, as well as realizing when a player is in a rhythm and riding that rhythm until the wheels come off. It's also about exposing mismatches, as well as paying attention to how the defense is playing you.

As great as Kidds defense was, that's not what made him great, it was his ability to run a team. Marbury was a great scorer, and even though he may have accumulated a good amount of assists, he still was a shitty point guard. Basically a shooting guard trapped in a PGs body.

Thats why the Lakers could still be competitive without Jabaar, The Suns without Stoudemire, the Bulls without Jordan, or Kidd without a dominant scorer.

A lot of that shows up in the stats...you can see how a players's team performs offensively in many different circumstances.

In the Marbury vs Kidd example, Kidd's teammates shot much better from the field...illustrating what we all concluded at the time. Kidd playing a less selfish style and being a better and more willing passer...improve the production of his teammates.


Also, just no, Kidd would not be considered a great player if he had Marbury's defense and rebounding. Sorry...not true at all.

[DMAVS41]

You KNOW I never said it wasn't a big piece. You are getting desperate.

Then if the defense and rebounding is a big piece of what makes them different.

Why would you only post offensive stats?

It doesn't even make sense...

[Pointguard]

As great as Kidds defense was, that's not what made him great, it was his ability to run a team. Marbury was a great scorer, and even though he may have accumulated a good amount of assists, he still was a shitty point guard. Basically a shooting guard trapped in a PGs body.


Well said.

[DMAVS41]

Well said.

But it isn't...you give Kidd...Marbury's defense and rebounding and he's nowhere near the kind of player we think of him as.

He's a slightly better player than marbury...and honestly...it would take the right situations for that to even be true.

Sigh...

[Pointguard]

Also, just no, Kidd would not be considered a great player if he had Marbury's defense and rebounding. Sorry...not true at all.
He didn't say that. He said his main GREAT quality was his ability to run a team. You really need to relax, this ish is making you crazy.

[Kblaze8855]

Perhaps "dont care" isnt the proper term. I talk ball with a lot of people I know dont know shit. Just interests me to hear their point of view. You...I think I know already.

You dont have arguments I really care to read. Its nothing new to think about or anything. Just arguments about numbers I dont care about or...the merits of those numbers.

Ive said before id discuss basketball with you in person.....becuse I dont believe the way you act here is the real you. Cant be. This is the way people argue on the inrernet trying to "win". It isnt the way people talk ball.

I dont think I have anything else point of view wise to get from you. Just numbers based discussions that annoy me to read.

You might be a fun guy to talk ball with. But on the internet talking to you is a bit of a chore. I know people offline who post here....and they are the same way.

Dumbass argument I never hear the likes of in person. Im in the room with an ISH poster now. Laker fan....who I see 4-5 days a week.

I dont talk to him here. Hes on some bullshit online...

[DMAVS41]

He didn't say that. He said his main GREAT quality was his ability to run a team. You really need to relax, this ish is making you crazy.

And that isn't true. I'm disputing that hugely.

You give Kidd...Marbury level defense and rebounding...and he's slightly a better player than Marbury because of those qualities...

And even then, it would take the right situation with a lot of offensive talent.

Kidd led teams are not great on offense because he's not a great offensive player. It's just a fact...he has serious limitations offensively and while he excels in certain roles...he doesn't in others because of those limitations.

This is what you aren't getting. Go back and look at how Kidd led teams did offensively. They were okay, but hardly anything special. You continue to ignore this.

[Fire Colangelo]

He didn't say that. He said his main GREAT quality was his ability to run a team. You really need to relax, this ish is making you crazy.

If he didn't have rebounding and defense on his side, he'd literally be a homeless man's Nash. Without a jumpshot at that....

[97 bulls]

But it isn't...you give Kidd...Marbury's defense and rebounding and he's nowhere near the kind of player we think of him as.

He's a slightly better player than marbury...and honestly...it would take the right situations for that to even be true.

Sigh...
Im not gonna say that Kidd wasn't a great defender. But I do think your selling Marburys defense short. I don't think he was a bad defender.

Either way, let me put it like this. As far as running a team, Id put Kidd on the same level as Magic, Cousey, Nash, and Stockton. I wouldn't put his defensive impact on the level of Pippen, Jordan, Cooper, Rodman, Bobby Jones etc.

[DMAVS41]

Perhaps "dont care" isnt the proper term. I talk ball with a lot of people I know dont know shit. Just interests me to hear their point of view. You...I think I know already.

You dont have arguments I really care to read. Its nothing new to think about or anything. Just arguments about numbers I dont care about or...the merits of those numbers.

Ive said before id discuss basketball with you in person.....becuse I dont believe the way you act here is the real you. Cant be. This is the way people argue on the inrernet trying to "win". It isnt the way people talk ball.

I dont think I have anything else point of view wise to get from you. Just numbers based discussions that annoy me to read.

You might be a fun guy to talk ball with. But on the internet talking to you is a bit of a chore. I know people offline who post here....and they are the same way.

Dumbass argument I never hear the likes of in person. Im in the room with an ISH poster now. Laker fan....who I see 4-5 days a week.

I dont talk to him here. Hes on some bullshit online...


It depends on what we are talking about. I don't see how one can have true in depth discussion or debate about ball without using stats.

Again...please read Zach Lowe and tell me he's not more informed than somebody with the stats.

You want to have a casual discussion about the game or a player or team with me? Sure...I'm not going to talk the same way.

But I'd be less informed in the casual conversation...I come here to have an in depth and detail oriented conversation that avoids the casual fan speak.

[Fire Colangelo]

Im not gonna say that Kidd wasn't a great defender. But I do think your selling Marburys defense short. I don't think he was a bad defender.

Either way, let me put it like this. As far as running a team, Id put Kidd on the same level as Magic, Cousey, Nash, and Stockton. I wouldn't put his defensive impact on the level of Pippen, Jordan, Cooper, Rodman, Bobby Jones etc.

Tell me then, who turned the Nets from one of the worst defensive teams to the best defensive team?

[97 bulls]

If he didn't have rebounding and defense on his side, he'd literally be a homeless man's Nash. Without a jumpshot at that....
And at that. Nash is a much better PG than Marbury.

[Pointguard]

And that isn't true. I'm disputing that hugely.

You give Kidd...Marbury level defense and rebounding...and he's slightly a better player than Marbury because of those qualities...

And even then, it would take the right situation with a lot of offensive talent.

Kidd led teams are not great on offense because he's not a great offensive player. It's just a fact...he has serious limitations offensively and while he excels in certain roles...he doesn't in others because of those limitations.

This is what you aren't getting. Go back and look at how Kidd led teams did offensively. They were okay, but hardly anything special. You continue to ignore this.
You are sinking deeper and deeper. You don't know Kidd's main strength now either. Its getting bad now. You aren't admitting very obvious things.

[97 bulls]

Tell me then, who turned the Nets from one of the worst defensive teams to the best defensive team?
I think it was a team effort. Kidd, Kittles, Jefferson, Martin, and Williams were excellent defenders. I believe that team also had Lucious Harris. He was good as well.

[Kblaze8855]

You avoid casual fan speak when you come fight 17 year olds who started watching ball in 2011 about guys who got drafted in 1996?

Most of ISH is as bad as or worse than people on the street. THe ones who post the most are often just obsessed with one guy and act like idiots because of it. They arent terribly informed.

There arent 5 people here I believe know the game like my old barber Mr.Posey. I know I dont. I doubt he ever saw basketball reference....but he knows the difference between a motion offense and the triangle without invoking some generic terms they heard from Jon Barry.

I lean towards...fans of the game and the way its played..and why. Not the statistical results of the way its played.

They are related...but too many jump to the stats without knowing why they are what they are.

I just dont want to hear about Gary Paytons win shares from someone who never watched him and Nate Mcmillian pressing...or anyone who did...and didnt understand why.

Generally speaking I dont see an in depth discussion as a numbers thing.

I talk numbers with fans I know cant explain how someone played well without them.

[Fire Colangelo]

And at that. Nash is a much better PG than Marbury.

Nash is a better PG than Marbury, nobody doubts that.

But do you think Kidd without his rebounding and defense is a better PG than Marbury? Say Kidd had Nash level defense and rebounding, would he be a better PG than Marbury?

Nash and Kidd are in the same level for me, I think Nash was a much better offensive player than Kidd, but Kidd's defense and rebounding is what keeps it close.

Yes, we all know Kidd has more intangibles than Marbury. But it does show up in the stats. The Nets went from one of the worse to one of the best defensive teams, and they shot a higher percentage from the field as a team.

[Pointguard]

Tell me then, who turned the Nets from one of the worst defensive teams to the best defensive team?
Kmart came into his own that year. And his defensive reputation got him a max contract. Kmart played similar to KG those years. Once again, there is no substitute for watching the games.

[Kblaze8855]

Which to be clear...doesnt mean numbers loving fans are clueless....

But I generally find them to be more into arguing a point about a few players they choose to favor than discussing the game the way I came up doing it.

Like Joyner. Math guy...knows....win shares per 48...

Im not asking him about Anthony Masons suprisingly good handles or how Don Nelson used him as a point forward.

Hes never said a thing to make me assume he would know a thing about that.

Which is usually the case with numbers people.

I cant talk the things that interest me.

[97 bulls]

Nash is a better PG than Marbury, nobody doubts that.

But do you think Kidd without his rebounding and defense is a better PG than Marbury? Say Kidd had Nash level defense and rebounding, would he be a better PG than Marbury?

Nash and Kidd are in the same level for me, I think Nash was a much better offensive player than Kidd, but Kidd's defense and rebounding is what keeps it close.

Yes, we all know Kidd has more intangibles than Marbury. But it does show up in the stats. The Nets went from one of the worse to one of the best defensive teams, and they shot a higher percentage from the field as a team.
Yes because in my opinion, Marbury wasnt a PG. He didnt have a true PG mentality. He was forced to play PG because of his height.

[Fire Colangelo]

I think it was a team effort. Kidd, Kittles, Jefferson, Martin, and Williams were excellent defenders. I believe that team also had Lucious Harris. He was good as well.

Jefferson, Martin and Williams were also part of the 2001 Nets... when they were atrocious on the defensive end. They didn't magically become defensive beasts to lead the Nets to the best defense.


Kmart came into his own that year. And his defensive reputation got him a max contract. Kmart played similar to KG those years. Once again, there is no substitute for watching the games.

Okay, now I think we're watching different games. I remember Martin being okay on defense in 02. He was okay, no where near KG level. He was good in 03, and beasted in 04, which earned him that max contract btw.

I mean... you really don't think Kidd's defense and rebounding helped that 02 team? Kidd is not a historically great offensive player like Nash... he was good, he knew how to ran an offense, but his inability to score efficiently held him back from being a historically great offensive player.

[97 bulls]

Another player similar to Marbury is Russell Westbrook. This kid is yet another case of a SG trapped in a PGs body. He just takes far too many bad shots. Goes 1-1 far too often, never really looks for his teammates. His one redeeming quality is that he pushes the tempo on fast break opportunities. But even then it's for himself.

[Fire Colangelo]

Yes because in my opinion, Marbury wasnt a PG. He didnt have a true PG mentality. He was forced to play PG because of his height.

You could say that about a lot of guards, Derrick Rose, Westbrook, Kemba Walker, etc

Anyways, I don't think Kidd would be a better player than Marbury without defense and rebounding. Great floor general, that's would be pretty much it.

[Pointguard]

Okay, now I think we're watching different games. I remember Martin being okay on defense in 02. He was okay, no where near KG level. He was good in 03, and beasted in 04, which earned him that max contract btw.

Nope you are wrong. You don't get max contracts for beasting one year on defense. He was great starting from '02. The DRTG numbers which you obviously took time to look up, those numbers are basically the same as Kidd's but Kenyan is playing a much more defensive valuable position. But the numbers don't tell you how good his help defense was. Also his defensive RAPM was better than Kidd's as well.


I mean... you really don't think Kidd's defense and rebounding helped that 02 team? Kidd is not a historically great offensive player like Nash... he was good, he knew how to ran an offense, but his inability to score efficiently held him back from being a historically great offensive player.

Once again, if you don't know Kidd's strongest value, its useless.

[97 bulls]

Jefferson, Martin and Williams were also part of the 2001 Nets... when they were atrocious on the defensive end. They didn't magically become defensive beasts to lead the Nets to the best defense.
I dont think Jefferson was. But I think it was a combination of things. Kidds arrival, player continuity, less injuries, player progression.

Ill also tell you this. Running an offense is important to a defense because it keeps the offense/defense transition stable. Meaning that when everyone on the team knows when the shot is going up, it makes the transition to defense easier. As opposed to a player like Marbury who is more of an iso then kick type player.

[Fire Colangelo]

Nope you are wrong. You don't get max contracts for beasting one year on defense. He was great starting from '02. The DRTG numbers which you obviously took time to look up, those numbers are basically the same as Kidd's but Kenyan is playing a much more defensive valuable position. But the numbers don't tell you how good his help defense was. Also his defensive RAPM was better than Kidd's as well.


Once again, if you don't know Kidd's strongest value, its useless.

..... Really? People don't get max contracts based on one season? Eric Dampier? All those one season wonders? Martin got that contract by improving each and every year of his career in New Jersey, but mainly because he broke out and had a monster year in 04.

I actually haven't checked the DRTG, or RAPM, it's interesting how you (who was opposed to using stats) is using stats to argue to your favor now.

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore, you started out saying stats aren't the full story. Well yeah, 22/8 and 16/9 are incomplete stats that don't tell us shit about about defense. Kidd's arrival turned them into one of the best defences in the league and you wanna credit his intangibles on offense? Now you're saying Martin suddenly turned into KG in 02 and anchored the defense by himself (which is a load of BS, NJ's defense remained top 10 even after Martins departure).

Kidd's biggest strength was his all around game, his versatility on offense and defense. He's a good floor general, but he's not one of the best. He's not on the level of magic or Nash on the offensive end.

Do you remember the last time a Jason Kidd led team was top 10 offensively? Because I don't. That's because he's not a good offensive player, he's good at executing, he's good at passing/setting people up, but his inability to shoot hinders him from being a good offensive player.

Nash had led a top 10 offense for the Suns in 2012 with his 2nd best player being a 38 year old Grant Hill, do you think Kidd could do that? No.

Kidd's one of the best defenders at PG behind maybe only Payton, and you don't think his defense made a difference?

[Fire Colangelo]

I dont think Jefferson was. But I think it was a combination of things. Kidds arrival, player continuity, less injuries, player progression.

Ill also tell you this. Running an offense is important to a defense because it keeps the offense/defense transition stable. Meaning that when everyone on the team knows when the shot is going up, it makes the transition to defense easier. As opposed to a player like Marbury who is more of an iso then kick type player.

No, Jefferson wasn't. But he's known as an offensive player, not a defensive one.

I agree, I do think it's player progression, less injuries also, but it would be silly to think the Nets would have the best defense with Marbury. Nets also added a couple of new players, two of whom were bigs they desperately needed, but again, I don't think Marbury would lead this team to the best defense.

So... You don't think the fact Kidd making life harder on the opposing PG had an impact....?

[DMAVS41]

You avoid casual fan speak when you come fight 17 year olds who started watching ball in 2011 about guys who got drafted in 1996?

Most of ISH is as bad as or worse than people on the street. THe ones who post the most are often just obsessed with one guy and act like idiots because of it. They arent terribly informed.

There arent 5 people here I believe know the game like my old barber Mr.Posey. I know I dont. I doubt he ever saw basketball reference....but he knows the difference between a motion offense and the triangle without invoking some generic terms they heard from Jon Barry.

I lean towards...fans of the game and the way its played..and why. Not the statistical results of the way its played.

They are related...but too many jump to the stats without knowing why they are what they are.

I just dont want to hear about Gary Paytons win shares from someone who never watched him and Nate Mcmillian pressing...or anyone who did...and didnt understand why.

Generally speaking I dont see an in depth discussion as a numbers thing.

I talk numbers with fans I know cant explain how someone played well without them.

Well, yes...it's hard to argue with people that won't even counter any argument. At least with objective measures...they know it's not an opinion

Take this very thread...I took the time to write up why I felt Marbury was a poor defender. Here it is;

He may have had the ability to defend well at times, I have no doubt he could, generally someone at that size for his position and his athleticism and strength can be a very good defender. But Marbury wasn't...he wasn't sound in any way. He gambled too often for steals, didn't fight over picks or through them on shooters, he leaked out too much, he didn't stay sound throughout a possession, he clearly half assed many nights (his biggest weakness)...etc. That is my take on him as a defender...and you know what...I don't even have to look at any stats, but I guarantee you that they support me

This wasn't responded to. All that was said was;

"Marbury wasn't actually bad dude...no articles were written about his defense at the time...I'm googling them now"



Okay...think about that. Every time I take the time to write up an analysis of something simple like that...it's just met with someone saying essentially......."nah ahh...I'm right...I watched the games. You need to watch the games."

That is why stats are good. They don't and shouldn't replace watching, but they are great for exposing BS. Whether it's Kobe being the best game winning shot maker...or now in this thread, Marbury being known of as a good defender.

What these pro Marbury group are showing is how flawed watching only can be. Marbury, at times, had the ability to lock people down. He was strong and had good sized and was obviously super athletic. He could pick people up and pressure them very well.

So that is what they jump to...that is what they remember. Just like Kobe fans only remember the makes.

But they forget or ignore the other 35 minutes of the game in which Marbury is playing half ass defense. Not really contesting or blocking out...leaking out when he shouldn't...chasing plays and breaking defensive principles that lead to open looks. He didn't rebound worth shit on the defensive end compared to Kidd. He didn't communicate well...he didn't exhibit toughness. He treated defense often like it was just a waste and played like all he cared about was getting the ball back in his hands.

That's the truth...and I know it's the truth because not only did I watch and observe this, but all the metrics show me that Marbury was a crap defender in terms of impact.

And I just don't think my case is nearly as strong until I bring in some form of objectivity.

But even then, people just go on believing what they want. But I hope the above illustrates why I tend to use stats more on here...and why using stats is important as well as watching.

[97 bulls]

No, Jefferson wasn't. But he's known as an offensive player, not a defensive one.

I agree, I do think it's player progression, less injuries also, but it would be silly to think the Nets would have the best defense with Marbury. Nets also added a couple of new players, two of whom were bigs they desperately needed, but again, I don't think Marbury would lead this team to the best defense.

So... You don't think the fact Kidd making life harder on the opposing PG had an impact....?
No no no. Kidd was an outstanding defender. I've even said that he would be a bizzaro version of Magic Johnson. Magic was the better scorer and Kidd was the better defender.

I just dont think his defense was more important than his ability to run a team. Marbury was a great talent but he was not a PG. I almost liken it to playing Kevin Durant at center because hes 6'11. Or saying hes a better center than Dikembe Mutombo.

What Pointguard is showing is why impact on the court is far more important than how good your stats are. As a Scottie Pippen fan, I gotta tell you. His defense vs the Jazz in 98 game 3 had just as much impact as a 55 pt game from Jordan.

[DMAVS41]

You are sinking deeper and deeper. You don't know Kidd's main strength now either. Its getting bad now. You aren't admitting very obvious things.

Kidd's main strengths were his defense and rebounding.

If you made Kidd a negative defender like Marbury and had him only grab 3 rebounds per game....he would have been no better than Marbury.

It would have all been situational...a guy like Marbury would be far better for a team like the 00 Nets...while Kidd would be better on a team with more offensive help as he's a better team player that is less selfish.

Kidd with bad defense and bad rebounding would just be known as yet another good guard, but not even close to a great one. People would focus more on his terrible shooting for most of his career...and his reliance on other offensive players to look good. And they'd bring up the fact that this was what his offenses did for his career;

21/25/18/12/4/16/22/17/18/25/26/25/16

Then he joins the Mavs. The Mavs who had the 2nd best offense in 07.

Kidd comes in? Jump to 8th...he essentially replaced Devin Harris...It's like a science experiment...he joined half way through the year...and we actually were better with Harris on the floor offensively.

Now, I'm not going to pretend like Kidd had a ton of great offensive players his entire career, but this whole thing about Kidd being a far better offensive player than Marbury has to stop. For starters, it's under-rating the shit out of Marbury who was actually a very good offensive player at times in his career. And the other part is ignoring the serious limitations Kidd had and ignoring how his teams performed offensively.

I'll say it again...Marbury had a worse offensive team in 00...and he got them to 10th in the league...Kidd gets a better offensive team, at worst equal, to 17th in 02.

So please just stop with the bullshit about Kidd's "best quality"...his "best quality" had nothing to do with his offense.

[Pointguard]

..... Really? People don't get max contracts based on one season? Eric Dampier? All those one season wonders? Martin got that contract by improving each and every year of his career in New Jersey, but mainly because he broke out and had a monster year in 04.

I actually haven't checked the DRTG, or RAPM, it's interesting how you (who was opposed to using stats) is using stats to argue to your favor now.

I know you looked at the DRTG. One, because you flat out went from totally overlooking Kenyon Martin, easily the second best player on the team whose strength was defense, to claiming a perfect memory of his development year by year. That isn't consistent at all from a fan claiming knowledge of defense. It isn't consistent period. And then you are claiming that you don't even know the main reason they brought Kidd to town. The GM and President wanted a play maker - not a rebounding, defender.

Eric Dampier was a 7 footer they frequently get overpaid, while Kenyan Martin was a tweener that was undersized at PF. I don't know if another tweener ever got another max contract.



I don't even know what you're arguing anymore, you started out saying stats aren't the full story. Well yeah, 22/8 and 16/9 are incomplete stats that don't tell us shit about about defense. Kidd's arrival turned them into one of the best defences in the league and you wanna credit his intangibles on offense? Now you're saying Martin suddenly turned into KG in 02 and anchored the defense by himself (which is a load of BS, NJ's defense remained top 10 even after Martins departure).

Kidd's biggest strength was his all around game, his versatility on offense and defense. He's a good floor general, but he's not one of the best. He's not on the level of magic or Nash on the offensive end.

Do you remember the last time a Jason Kidd led team was top 10 offensively? Because I don't. That's because he's not a good offensive player, he's good at executing, he's good at passing/setting people up, but his inability to shoot hinders him from being a good offensive player.
Magic couldn't shoot either but that doesn't stop him from being one of the best offensive players ever. There is more than one way to skin a cat.


Nash had led a top 10 offense for the Suns in 2012 with his 2nd best player being a 38 year old Grant Hill, do you think Kidd could do that? No.

Kidd's one of the best defenders at PG behind maybe only Payton, and you don't think his defense made a difference?

I already named Payton (a superior defender at that time), Rondo, and Lever were both great rebounders and solid defenders. They could not take that Nets team 8 rounds in two years. Once again if you get rebounding and defense from your point guard its Gravy but its not why you have him there. You don't get a point guard for that. Kidd was the leader, thinker, energizer, mixer, integrater, and glue guy. That is what he was brought in to do.

Pick any article out from that time period and see why Kidd was brought in to New Jersey. The main reason was his play making ability. Rebounding and defense were not the main reasons nor were they the core of his presence on the team. Before he came into the league he was compared to Magic, not the rebounding defensive specialist Payton. And that is still the case.

You want it to be another way, to suite your failing agenda. The Nets brought in a playmaker. Stop playing this game. Its unbecoming.

[97 bulls]

Well, yes...it's hard to argue with people that won't even counter any argument. At least with objective measures...they know it's not an opinion

Take this very thread...I took the time to write up why I felt Marbury was a poor defender. Here it is;

He may have had the ability to defend well at times, I have no doubt he could, generally someone at that size for his position and his athleticism and strength can be a very good defender. But Marbury wasn't...he wasn't sound in any way. He gambled too often for steals, didn't fight over picks or through them on shooters, he leaked out too much, he didn't stay sound throughout a possession, he clearly half assed many nights (his biggest weakness)...etc. That is my take on him as a defender...and you know what...I don't even have to look at any stats, but I guarantee you that they support me

This wasn't responded to. All that was said was;

"Marbury wasn't actually bad dude...no articles were written about his defense at the time...I'm googling them now"



Okay...think about that. Every time I take the time to write up an analysis of something simple like that...it's just met with someone saying essentially......."nah ahh...I'm right...I watched the games. You need to watch the games."

That is why stats are good. They don't and shouldn't replace watching, but they are great for exposing BS. Whether it's Kobe being the best game winning shot maker...or now in this thread, Marbury being known of as a good defender.

What these pro Marbury group are showing is how flawed watching only can be. Marbury, at times, had the ability to lock people down. He was strong and had good sized and was obviously super athletic. He could pick people up and pressure them very well.

So that is what they jump to...that is what they remember. Just like Kobe fans only remember the makes.

But they forget or ignore the other 35 minutes of the game in which Marbury is playing half ass defense. Not really contesting or blocking out...leaking out when he shouldn't...chasing plays and breaking defensive principles that lead to open looks. He didn't rebound worth shit on the defensive end compared to Kidd. He didn't communicate well...he didn't exhibit toughness. He treated defense often like it was just a waste and played like all he cared about was getting the ball back in his hands.

That's the truth...and I know it's the truth because not only did I watch and observe this, but all the metrics show me that Marbury was a crap defender in terms of impact.

And I just don't think my case is nearly as strong until I bring in some form of objectivity.

But even then, people just go on believing what they want. But I hope the above illustrates why I tend to use stats more on here...and why using stats is important as well as watching.
You just described probably 70% percent of the wing players in and that have played in the NBA.

You watched enough of his games to make that deep of an assessment?

[DMAVS41]

No no no. Kidd was an outstanding defender. I've even said that he would be a bizzaro version of Magic Johnson. Magic was the better scorer and Kidd was the better defender.

I just dont think his defense was more important than his ability to run a team. Marbury was a great talent but he was not a PG. I almost liken it to playing Kevin Durant at center because hes 6'11. Or saying hes a better center than Dikembe Mutombo.

What Pointguard is showing is why impact on the court is far more important than how good your stats are. As a Scottie Pippen fan, I gotta tell you. His defense vs the Jazz in 98 game 3 had just as much impact as a 55 pt game from Jordan.

Could you explain why the Nets had the 10th best offense in 00 under Marbury with what I would argue...as worse offensive talent?

If Kidd was such a great team runner offensively...why were his teams offenses so utterly average throughout his career? Why didn't he have more success with Carter/Jefferson offensively?

Why was his 02 team...made up of some of the same players from the 00 Nets...and in fact some better ones offensively...why did they finish 17th?

Certainly a master floor general and offensive force like Kidd should have been able to at least match what Marubury did with a less group just a year before...right?

00 Nets played at a slower pace as well.

Why were the Mavs worse in 08 offensively with Kidd than Harris?

See how one might have some of these questions when talking about only offense for a player like Kidd with serious limitations in his offensive game?

[DMAVS41]

You just described probably 70% percent of the wing players in and that have played in the NBA.

You watched enough of his games to make that deep of an assessment?


Actually...I probably did not watch enough of his games year in year out. Hence why I refrain my talking that way.

But on the standards here? I absolutely watched enough...I had all the games back then.

But then I can't win...I got to stats and I'm told not to use stats. Then I give my take, openly admitting the sample size is probably not good enough, and I'm told I can't use that.

What can I use then?

In the real world...when someone concludes what I have by watching...and he's backed up by hard data...it's over. I can safely conclude Marbury was a bad defender. I'm totally comfortable making that claim, even with a relatively low sample, because my opinions are backed up by facts.

[97 bulls]

Could you explain why the Nets had the 10th best offense in 00 under Marbury with what I would argue...as worse offensive talent?

If Kidd was such a great team runner offensively...why were his teams offenses so utterly average throughout his career? Why didn't he have more success with Carter/Jefferson offensively?

Why was his 02 team...made up of some of the same players from the 00 Nets...and in fact some better ones offensively...why did they finish 17th?

Certainly a master floor general and offensive force like Kidd should have been able to at least match what Marubury did with a less group just a year before...right?

00 Nets played at a slower pace as well.

Why were the Mavs worse in 08 offensively with Kidd than Harris?

See how one might have some of these questions when talking about only offense for a player like Kidd with serious limitations in his offensive game?
I couldn't answer these questions honestly. I mean one would think that with firepower like Jimmy Jackson and Jamal Mashburn, Carter and Jefferson, they would had better offensive stats defensively. I will say this, When Kidd was with the Mavs, those three did not get along. I even remember Kidd and Jackson having a literal fight over Toni Braxton. Ive always believed that chemistry is much more important than talent.

When Carter joined the Nets, I seem to remember him (Carter) always having nagging injuries.

Again, I dont believe anyone is implying that Kidd wasnt a great defender. The example was used to show how stats dont tell the whole story.

[DMAVS41]

I dont think Jefferson was. But I think it was a combination of things. Kidds arrival, player continuity, less injuries, player progression.

Ill also tell you this. Running an offense is important to a defense because it keeps the offense/defense transition stable. Meaning that when everyone on the team knows when the shot is going up, it makes the transition to defense easier. As opposed to a player like Marbury who is more of an iso then kick type player.

But the offense just wasn't run that much better. That's the point. Kidd had clearly more offensive help...and they marginally improved offensively.

If you really think going from 24th to 17th offensively...while basically turning the ball over at the same rate...is doing dramatic things to a defense...I give up.

[DMAVS41]

I couldn't answer these questions honestly. I mean one would think that with firepower like Jimmy Jackson and Jamal Mashburn, Carter and Jefferson, they would had better offensive stats defensively. I will say this, When Kidd was with the Mavs, those three did not get along. I even remember Kidd and Jackson having a literal fight over Toni Braxton. Ive always believed that chemistry is much more important than talent.

When Carter joined the Nets, I seem to remember him (Carter) always having nagging injuries.

Again, I dont believe anyone is implying that Kidd wasnt a great defender. The example was used to show how stats dont tell the whole story.


Yea, but who thinks a limited amount of stats tell the whole story though?

I keep asking this question and nobody is responding to it.

And I'd also like to know why Kidd's teams offensively have been so utterly average his entire career for the most part of he's this offensive guru floor general...

Why was Marbury able to get a team with just less offensive talent to top 10...while Kidd could only get the 02 team to 17th.

Why didn't the 02 Nets improve more over 01? Shit, not only did they get Kidd (the guru), but they got Kittles back who missed all of 01...and they played at a faster pace in 02.

And it's not just these years in question...it's why the Mavs didn't improve in 08 with Kidd over a guy like Harris.

If Kidd was this great offensively...why don't you see more of a dramatic impact offensively?

I don't hold anything that happened in Dallas, the first time, against Kidd. The Mavs had talent, but were a joke...and yes, the "triple J's" were constantly having chemistry issues on and off the court.

[97 bulls]

Actually...I probably did not watch enough of his games year in year out. Hence why I refrain my talking that way.

But on the standards here? I absolutely watched enough...I had all the games back then.

But then I can't win...I got to stats and I'm told not to use stats. Then I give my take, openly admitting the sample size is probably not good enough, and I'm told I can't use that.

What can I use then?

In the real world...when someone concludes what I have by watching...and he's backed up by hard data...it's over. I can safely conclude Marbury was a bad defender. I'm totally comfortable making that claim, even with a relatively low sample, because my opinions are backed up by facts.
We all use stats bro. I just feel they dont tell the whole story.

[Pointguard]

Could you explain why the Nets had the 10th best offense in 00 under Marbury with what I would argue...as worse offensive talent?

If Kidd was such a great team runner offensively...why were his teams offenses so utterly average throughout his career? Why didn't he have more success with Carter/Jefferson offensively? Kidd's game had fallen off by then. His wife was showing up at games hollaring and threatening him. It seemed to take a toll on him. Even Pop backed off of him.

Kidd was taken as the second pick in a good draft. He was hailed as the next Magic Johnson type. Not the next Gary Payton who was a defensive great and solid rebounder. Everything was all about his passing and leadership. He grew into other parts of the game but he was known to an orchestrator of the highest degree. That was his claim to fame. The rest was gravy.

That is why he was brought to the Nets and that was the gist of his existence, his presence and purpose with the team. Its going to be the highlight of his HOF induction. He came to Jersey to run the team. He was hired as coach because they loved his leadership. Rod Stern was a good judge of talent. But you don't bring in PG to rebound and play defense. You bring them in to run your team. That is why he was on so many USA teams as well. And his solid execution, leadership, integration skills were the reason he was brought to the Nets team as well.

[DMAVS41]

We all use stats bro. I just feel they dont tell the whole story.

That's how I feel as well...:confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

Yea, but who thinks a limited amount of stats tell the whole story though?

I keep asking this question and nobody is responding to it.

And I'd also like to know why Kidd's teams offensively have been so utterly average his entire career for the most part of he's this offensive guru floor general...

Why was Marbury able to get a team with just less offensive talent to top 10...while Kidd could only get the 02 team to 17th.

Why didn't the 02 Nets improve more over 01? Shit, not only did they get Kidd (the guru), but they got Kittles back who missed all of 01...and they played at a faster pace in 02.

And it's not just these years in question...it's why the Mavs didn't improve in 08 with Kidd over a guy like Harris.

If Kidd was this great offensively...why don't you see more of a dramatic impact offensively?

I don't hold anything that happened in Dallas, the first time, against Kidd. The Mavs had talent, but were a joke...and yes, the "triple J's" were constantly having chemistry issues on and off the court.
You want to steer this conversation back to statistics. Go back and look at Pointguards original post. His point was to show that even though Kidd stats dont measure to Marbury. HIS TEAMS WIN.

[DMAVS41]

Kidd's game had fallen off by then. His wife was showing up at games hollaring and threatening him. It seemed to take a toll on him. Even Pop backed off of him.

Kidd was taken as the second pick in a good draft. He was hailed as the next Magic Johnson type. Not the next Gary Payton who was a defensive great and solid rebounder. Everything was all about his passing and leadership. He grew into other parts of the game but he was known to an orchestrator of the highest degree. That was his claim to fame. The rest was gravy.

That is why he was brought to the Nets and that was the gist of his existence, his presence and purpose with the team. Its going to be the highlight of his HOF induction. He came to Jersey to run the team. He was hired as coach because they loved his leadership. Rod Stern was a good judge of talent. But you don't bring in PG to rebound and play defense. You bring them in to run your team. And his solid execution, leadership, integration skills were the reason he was brought to the team.

Great passing and leadership do not make one an offensive force...

Why Kidd was brought somewhere means nothing. It's about what a player actually does.

And I want you to get it through your head...If you took Kidd and had him defend and rebound like Marbury...would have been maybe...like fractionally better overall than Marbury as a player.

And no, that isn't under-rating Kidd's offense, Marbury was a solid overall offensive player.

[DMAVS41]

You want to steer this conversation back to statistics. Go back and look at Pointguards original post. His point was to show that even though Kidd stats dont measure to Marbury. HIS TEAMS WIN.

Dude...he only listed offensive stats.

He didn't list anything about defense and rebounding.

Talking about Kidd solely on offense makes no sense.

Kidd's teams won more than Marbury because Kidd defended and rebounded at an elite level.

If you stripped Kidd of his defense and rebounding...he would have been about as good as Marbury...it would have been all situational.

Forget that stats.

Please answer this.

If you stripped Kidd of his defense/rebounding and gave him Marbury's defense and rebounding.

So you just compared them on offense. You really think Kidd was a much better offensive force????

[Pointguard]

Great passing and leadership do not make one an offensive force...

Why Kidd was brought somewhere means nothing. It's about what a player actually does.
His value on the Nets teams and the USA teams were the same value. He simply was masterful in bringing the team together and keeping them focused. That was his force and what he did.

The USA teams needed that more than anything. Of course you are going to say they needed defense and rebounding. Because you are stuck and that's what you do. His value is a known ingredient.


And I want you to get it through your head...If you took Kidd and had him defend and rebound like Marbury...would have been maybe...like fractionally better overall than Marbury as a player.

And no, that isn't under-rating Kidd's offense, Marbury was a solid overall offensive player.

Can't really do hypothetical s with you because the truth is hard enough. You will not admit to things right in your face so there is no need to get caught up otherwise. If you can't see plain qualities in realtime the unreal world is going to do any good.

[DMAVS41]

His value on the Nets teams and the USA teams were the same value. He simply was masterful in bringing the team together and keeping them focused. That was his force and what he did.

The USA teams needed that more than anything. Of course you are going to say they needed defense and rebounding. Because you are stuck and that's what you do. His value is a known ingredient.


Can't really do hypothetical s with you because the truth is hard enough. You will not admit to things right in your face so there is no need to get caught up otherwise. If you can't see plain qualities in realtime the unreal world is going to do any good.


No, what you can't realize is that Kidd's game is perfectly suited offensively for a dream team or olympic team type situation. If you asked him to carry the scoring load on a team like the 00 Nets...he'd be worse than marbury was and the team would be worse offensively.

Dude...nobody denies that Kidd is a great leader and a quality floor general.

Your problem is that you think a team with a shit offense...is somehow winning off offense. It's why you still can't see the true strengths of the 02 Nets.

Kidd...the offensive guru that had like 1.5 years of his career with teams playing top 10 offense before joining the Mavs the 2nd time.

Sigh...bu bu but...intangibles...you do realize that even intangibles show up in something measurable...

[Pointguard]

No, what you can't realize is that Kidd's game is perfectly suited offensively for a dream team or olympic team type situation. If you asked him to carry the scoring load on a team like the 00 Nets...he'd be worse than marbury was and the team would be worse offensively.

Dude...nobody denies that Kidd is a great leader and a quality floor general.

Your problem is that you think a team with a shit offense...is somehow winning off offense. It's why you still can't see the true strengths of the 02 Nets.

Kidd...the offensive guru that had like 1.5 years of his career with teams playing top 10 offense before joining the Mavs the 2nd time.

Sigh...bu bu but...intangibles...you do realize that even intangibles show up in something measurable...

You take integrating teams, leadership, making others better, having others excel, control of the game, being great at execution and winning as not outstanding qualities. Great offense is an balanced offense that executes when needed and gets what it wants, when needed. Its not always about the most points. But you can only see a lot of points per possession because you are stuck on stats. Its impossible for you to measure with other sticks because you are possessed by STATS.

This is why my OP was a GREAT STELLAR example. You are reinterpreting history through stats and missing one of the games most outstanding qualities that few players have ever had.

[DMAVS41]

You take integrating teams, leadership, making others better, having others excel, control of the game, being great at execution and winning as not outstanding qualities. Great offense is an balanced offense that executes when needed and gets what it wants, when needed. Its not always about the most points. But you can only see a lot of points per possession because you are stuck on stats. Its impossible for you to measure with other sticks because you are possessed by STATS.

This is why my OP was a GREAT STELLAR example. You are reinterpreting history through stats and missing one of the games most outstanding qualities that few players have ever had.

I'll say it again for like the 100th time...literally.

I'm not missing that. I'm not denying that Kidd does a lot of the things you say he does. And I also totally agree that you can't determine how good an offense is in just one number like ortg.

Those are all good observations you make and ones, for the most part, I agree with.

But your OP is a terrible example because there are two main reasons the Nets were better in 02;

1. Kidd's elite defense and rebounding replacing the terrible defense and rebounding of Marbury

2. The different players. They got Kittles back. A Kittles that played in 00 with Marbury and saw the Nets have a top 10 offense. And then they got Jefferson, T-Mac, and Collins...

So that is 4 new key rotation players...and got the 2nd year bump improvement from Keynon as well.


Again though, this is about stats reflecting those qualities in Kidd. Those intangible things you talk about. And they do. You see it in the fact that the Nets in 02 shot better overall on fg% and 3pt%...even despite Kidd shooting worse than Marbury...meaning he got the team better looks. Although again, they did have better offensive players. I dont' have the stat, but I bet their offense performed better in clutch situations...certainly this is evident with kidd vs marbury as kidd performed much better in crunch time.

The point of your OP was to try to illustrate that you can't use stats to explain why the Nets were so different in 02 than they were in 01.

And that is why it's a terrible example because you absolutely can. In fact, the stats making perfect sense out of what happened.


If you had just said..."hey...looking at stats alone can't capture the total value of Jason Kidd"

Then it would be a good OP, at least better, and it would be far more accurate.

But we absolutely can use stats to explain the Nets turn around...you just shifted the focus when you got educated about the differences in the teams and personnel. You probably didn't even know that Kittles was out all of 01 when you made the OP. That is how ignorant I think you really are.


But I'll ask again. Who denies that Kidd had far great intangibles than Marbury? Who is advocating using solely stats to talk about Jason Kidd as a player?

Could you please explain to me why you keep saying everyone against you is missing something when we have all agreed that Kidd does many or all of the things you talk about?

It's why we say we'd take Kidd over Marbury on offense alone in most situations...certainly surrounded by quality offensive players.

You have created a straw man in literally every post you've made once you got ethered by me and tpols around page 3 or 4.

The rest has just been incoherent babble to distract from getting owned and trying to save face....calling it a brilliant example to compare two players on offense alone...when one of the players is perhaps the best defense/rebounding combined pg we've seen in the modern era.

[DMAVS41]

Both players are easily best players on their teams.

Player One
441%...330% 3pt 7.6asst 2.9TO 24ppg PER 22.7 540TS% Record 26-56
Player Two
391%.. 321% 3pt 9.9asst 3.5TO 14.7ppg PER 19.1 484TS% Record 52-30

Player two reversed the fortunes of the same team.

Can you guess the players? What went wrong with the stats?


Back to the old OP...

The agenda is obvious. The ignorance is apparent.

Lets answer the questions;

Can you guess the players? Yea...we got them quickly.

What went wrong with the stats?

Nothing, you only listed offensive stuff for the two players...and didn't say anything about the teams being quite different.

As we look more into the stats and see that the main difference was defense and not offense...of course listing offensive stats isn't going to show you anything.

That right there, which has been pointed out to you time and time again, should have ended the thread.


I don't think you've really ever responded.

Could you please answer this;

What was the bigger reasons for the Nets turn around. Kidd's offensive play (including all the intangibles, leadership...everything..etc.) or the Net's improved defense/rebounding?

Please answer which one.

[Pointguard]

Wow

You are making yourself look worse and worse.

What player in the league could win like Kidd did with Kittles, Kenyan, Van Horn, a hobbled Maculoigh? With a rotation of rookies and Harris? Even Shaquille and Duncan don't fare better than Kidd did despite much better defense and rebounding. Kidd wasn't the best defender at his position and his seven rebounds per game isn't going to turn a franchise around.

Kobe was a better defender, had two rebounds less per game but was close to doubling the scoring output of Kidd but he definitely couldn't do what Kidd did with that team. Tmac was probably very close in the rebounding department and very close densively with much better scoring.

What accounts for the differences in this case? Kidd wasn't leading the league in assist either. What excuse are you going to give now? Kobe and Tmac would have won it all with those Giants of a supporting cast? Please explain the metrics. Your stats Are blinding your ability to see quality and one of the best traits a player can have.

[DMAVS41]

Wow

You are making yourself look worse and worse.

What player in the league could win like Kidd did with Kittles, Kenyan, Van Horn, a hobbled Maculoigh? With a rotation of rookies and Harris? Even Shaquille and Duncan don't fare better than Kidd did despite much better defense and rebounding. Kidd wasn't the best defender at his position and his seven rebounds per game isn't going to turn a franchise around.

Kobe was a better defender, had two rebounds less per game but was close to doubling the scoring output of Kidd but he definitely couldn't do what Kidd did with that team. Tmac was probably very close in the rebounding department and very close densively with much better scoring.

What accounts for the differences in this case? Kidd wasn't leading the league in assist either. What excuse are you going to give now? Kobe and Tmac would have won it all with those Giants of a supporting cast? Please explain the metrics. Your stats Are blinding your ability to see quality and one of the best traits a player can have.


It's all about fit and role. And no, in 03...Duncan won a title...with a team I'm not even sure is any better than the Nets in 02 and 03. In fact, it's just not as I'm typing this...the 02 team around Kidd was just better than the 03 team around Duncan.

Did you really just say that Shaq playing in the east in 02 couldn't have won 52 games? Holy ****ing shit dude...I now see the problem. You have just lost your mind and don't understand how bad the East was back then...nor understand that the 02 Nets were a different team than the 01 Nets. 3 new players in the top 6 rotation and you are going on about turning the same team around. As if it's remotely comparable...

See, this is the problem. All you are doing is under-rating Kidd's actually ability to play the game and appealing to some magical quality.

It wasn't magic...it was the fact that Kidd was an awesome basketball player...especially in 02 and 03..now that you are bringing up 03. Kidd had a 24/10/6 series against the Pistons in 03 in which he did that and absolutely shut down Billups (9 points 42% TS)...

Had a 19/9/9 elite defensive series against the Celtics in 03. Had an 18/11/10 series against them in 02....

That reflects Kidd's ability to play the game. And when you combine that type of production with elite defense...you get a great player.

And then when you add the intangible stuff...you get an even greater player.

It wasn't some quality we can't figure out...he was a ****ing great all around player that happened to also play elite defense and could rebound with everyone.

The 02 Nets played the easiest schedule in the league. Say that with me again. They played the easiest schedule in the league and won 52 games.

Could kobe or tmac have done that? Hell yes...in fact those teams would have probably been better overall...certainly offensively they would have been more dangerous that's for sure. T-Mac got his 02 Magic to the 7th best offense and 44 wins. Kobe...all the same shit.

The Nets wouldn't have been as good defensively with those guys, but they still would have been top 10 or so...and the offense would have been way better....way better.

Also, who the hell was a better guard defender/rebounder than 02 Kidd?

See, this is where the East being utter garbage is really skewing things. Kidd gets the Nets to 52 wins in a conference that had 1 other team win over 50. Plays the easiest schedule in the league while doing so...and you have people like you claiming that Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, T-Mac...couldn't have done the same thing? Wow...just wow...

The Nets didn't play one 50 win team en route to the finals in 02...sigh


And stop saying Kidd did it alone. It was a completely different and better team. Say it with me again...Kittles, Jefferson, T-Mac, and Collins...3 new players in the top 6 rotation. They got Kittles back...who was at least worth a lot on offense as the Nets saw their offense fall off dramatically in 01 without him...and were top 10 in 00. Jefferson gave them quality play as a rookie. T-Mac and Collins gave them 40 plus minutes of center play and they basically didn't have center play before. And this allowed guys like Van Horn, Harris, and Willaims to play roles they were better suited for.

And of course Kidd, due to his defense and rebounding, is just a far better player than Marbury and fits that team dynamic much better.

Take a look at the roster;

Kidd
Martin
Kittles
Van Horn
Jefferson
Todd
Harris
Williams
Collins

That is a quality roster. You really think it's crazy that they won 52 games while playing in a shit conference with the easiest schedule in the league? We really gonna go crazy about this?

Van Horn was a proven 20 ppg type scorer before Kidd.
Martin, as a rookie, was a very solid player.
Harris and Williams were two proven solid pros.
Kittles was a proven do it all man that.
T-Mac showed he could be productive in 25 or so minutes.
Collins was a nice piece off the bench at center.

That is a pretty damn good 9 man rotation in a conference actually way worse than the current east.

Also, you do realize that the Nets didn't win a title...right? They got swept in the finals by the first good team they played in the playoffs. Obviously nobody was expecting them to win and they shouldn't have, but when you play cupcakes en route to the finals...you can make the finals. Again...not one 50 win opponent...and that is even worse because the East sucked ass back then.

Think about this...the Nets made back to back finals. And to get there...they beat one 50 win team. And by 50 wins...I mean 50 wins. The Pistons won exactly 50 wins...and were sadly the only team in the conference to win 50 games that season. What a ****ing joke...in 02 and 03 combined. there were three teams to win 50 or more games. The nets in 02...and the pistons in 02 and 03...LOL...it's a joke.



Jesus man...come back to reality.

I think the above post I quoted says enough to everyone in this thread about how lost you are. Do you have any clue how much better 03 Duncan was than 03 Kidd?

And I'll continue asking...why did the offensive guru (kidd) not get his team to perform better offensively? Did you watch the 03 Finals when Duncan literally shit on their entire team and the Nets could barely break 80?

The Nets were horrendous offensively in that series. Just horrendous. As a team, they shot 39% efg...

Kidd shot 36% and had a sub 45% TS...all the rest of his teammates that he supposedly gets great shots for were awful. Where was the guru? Why couldn't he outplay Duncan if he was a better player?

You really arguing that Duncan won because he had more help? ROFL...

Duncan won because he dominated both sides of the ball to the tune of;

24/17/5...with 5 blocks a game...while actually scoring efficiently as well.

Kidd over Duncan...get lost clown.

[Fire Colangelo]

I know you looked at the DRTG. One, because you flat out went from totally overlooking Kenyon Martin, easily the second best player on the team whose strength was defense, to claiming a perfect memory of his development year by year. That isn't consistent at all from a fan claiming knowledge of defense. It isn't consistent period. And then you are claiming that you don't even know the main reason they brought Kidd to town. The GM and President wanted a play maker - not a rebounding, defender.

Eric Dampier was a 7 footer they frequently get overpaid, while Kenyan Martin was a tweener that was undersized at PF. I don't know if another tweener ever got another max contract.

Yeah, Kenyon was great, the second best player on the team. But you act like he went from Kenyon Martin to KG in a year. He improved, but not enough to improve one of the worse defenses to THE best defense. He was still not an elite defender in 02, he was undisciplined. But okay, he was KG level apparently.

Ok.... Corey Maggette.. ? Undersized shooting guards get paid as well....


Magic couldn't shoot either but that doesn't stop him from being one of the best offensive players ever. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

And you know why Magic is one of the best offensive players ever...? Because he's led his Lakers to the top offenses during the showtime years when they've won championships. Same with Nash.


I already named Payton (a superior defender at that time), Rondo, and Lever were both great rebounders and solid defenders. They could not take that Nets team 8 rounds in two years. Once again if you get rebounding and defense from your point guard its Gravy but its not why you have him there. You don't get a point guard for that. Kidd was the leader, thinker, energizer, mixer, integrater, and glue guy. That is what he was brought in to do.

When have I ever said Rondo or Lever would lead this team anywhere? They are not in the same level as Kidd. Payton was not the player Kidd was in 2002, but I do think prime Payton would take this team somewhere. Especially in the East.


Pick any article out from that time period and see why Kidd was brought in to New Jersey. The main reason was his play making ability. Rebounding and defense were not the main reasons nor were they the core of his presence on the team. Before he came into the league he was compared to Magic, not the rebounding defensive specialist Payton. And that is still the case.

I know the main reason they bought him in was for his play making ability. But what actually happened was this HUGE transformation on the defensive end of the ball that made them formidable. But you're crediting it all to their offense, which got better marginally. To which you can also credit the return of Kittles, the addition of Jefferson and the improvement of Martin.


You want it to be another way, to suite your failing agenda. The Nets brought in a playmaker. Stop playing this game. Its unbecoming.



Nobody doubts Jason Kidd is a better playmaker than Marbury. But that doesn't make him the better offense player since he couldn't score for jackshit. But how in the world are you not seeing that the addition of Kidd turned them into the best defensive team is beyond me.

Perimeter defense is just as important as interior defense. They had no perimeter defenders to defend the opposing ball handler. That made everything easy for the opposing team, the opposing guards drove into the lane at will and Martin was often in foul trouble because of that.

With Kidd, you have someone to pressure the opposing ball handler, which resulted in more defensive stops and more fast break opportunities.

[ArbitraryWater]

It's all about fit and role. And no, in 03...Duncan won a title...with a team I'm not even sure is any better than the Nets in 02 and 03. In fact, it's just not as I'm typing this...the 02 team around Kidd was just better than the 03 team around Duncan.

Did you really just say that Shaq playing in the east in 02 couldn't have won 52 games? Holy ****ing shit dude...I now see the problem. You have just lost your mind and don't understand how bad the East was back then...nor understand that the 02 Nets were a different team than the 01 Nets. 3 new players in the top 6 rotation and you are going on about turning the same team around. As if it's remotely comparable...

See, this is the problem. All you are doing is under-rating Kidd's actually ability to play the game and appealing to some magical quality.

It wasn't magic...it was the fact that Kidd was an awesome basketball player...especially in 02 and 03..now that you are bringing up 03. Kidd had a 24/10/6 series against the Pistons in 03 in which he did that and absolutely shut down Billups (9 points 42% TS)...

Had a 19/9/9 elite defensive series against the Celtics in 03. Had an 18/11/10 series against them in 02....

That reflects Kidd's ability to play the game. And when you combine that type of production with elite defense...you get a great player.

And then when you add the intangible stuff...you get an even greater player.

It wasn't some quality we can't figure out...he was a ****ing great all around player that happened to also play elite defense and could rebound with everyone.

The 02 Nets played the easiest schedule in the league. Say that with me again. They played the easiest schedule in the league and won 52 games.

Could kobe or tmac have done that? Hell yes...in fact those teams would have probably been better overall...certainly offensively they would have been more dangerous that's for sure. T-Mac got his 02 Magic to the 7th best offense and 44 wins. Kobe...all the same shit.

The Nets wouldn't have been as good defensively with those guys, but they still would have been top 10 or so...and the offense would have been way better....way better.

Also, who the hell was a better guard defender/rebounder than 02 Kidd?

See, this is where the East being utter garbage is really skewing things. Kidd gets the Nets to 52 wins in a conference that had 1 other team win over 50. Plays the easiest schedule in the league while doing so...and you have people like you claiming that Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, T-Mac...couldn't have done the same thing? Wow...just wow...

The Nets didn't play one 50 win team en route to the finals in 02...sigh


And stop saying Kidd did it alone. It was a completely different and better team. Say it with me again...Kittles, Jefferson, T-Mac, and Collins...3 new players in the top 6 rotation. They got Kittles back...who was at least worth a lot on offense as the Nets saw their offense fall off dramatically in 01 without him...and were top 10 in 00. Jefferson gave them quality play as a rookie. T-Mac and Collins gave them 40 plus minutes of center play and they basically didn't have center play before. And this allowed guys like Van Horn, Harris, and Willaims to play roles they were better suited for.

And of course Kidd, due to his defense and rebounding, is just a far better player than Marbury and fits that team dynamic much better.

Take a look at the roster;

Kidd
Martin
Kittles
Van Horn
Jefferson
Todd
Harris
Williams
Collins

That is a quality roster. You really think it's crazy that they won 52 games while playing in a shit conference with the easiest schedule in the league? We really gonna go crazy about this?

Van Horn was a proven 20 ppg type scorer before Kidd.
Martin, as a rookie, was a very solid player.
Harris and Williams were two proven solid pros.
Kittles was a proven do it all man that.
T-Mac showed he could be productive in 25 or so minutes.
Collins was a nice piece off the bench at center.

That is a pretty damn good 9 man rotation in a conference actually way worse than the current east.

Also, you do realize that the Nets didn't win a title...right? They got swept in the finals by the first good team they played in the playoffs. Obviously nobody was expecting them to win and they shouldn't have, but when you play cupcakes en route to the finals...you can make the finals. Again...not one 50 win opponent...and that is even worse because the East sucked ass back then.

Think about this...the Nets made back to back finals. And to get there...they beat one 50 win team. And by 50 wins...I mean 50 wins. The Pistons won exactly 50 wins...and were sadly the only team in the conference to win 50 games that season. What a ****ing joke...in 02 and 03 combined. there were three teams to win 50 or more games. The nets in 02...and the pistons in 02 and 03...LOL...it's a joke.



Jesus man...come back to reality.

I think the above post I quoted says enough to everyone in this thread about how lost you are. Do you have any clue how much better 03 Duncan was than 03 Kidd?

And I'll continue asking...why did the offensive guru (kidd) not get his team to perform better offensively? Did you watch the 03 Finals when Duncan literally shit on their entire team and the Nets could barely break 80?

The Nets were horrendous offensively in that series. Just horrendous. As a team, they shot 39% efg...

Kidd shot 36% and had a sub 45% TS...all the rest of his teammates that he supposedly gets great shots for were awful. Where was the guru? Why couldn't he outplay Duncan if he was a better player?

You really arguing that Duncan won because he had more help? ROFL...

Duncan won because he dominated both sides of the ball to the tune of;

24/17/5...with 5 blocks a game...while actually scoring efficiently as well.

Kidd over Duncan...get lost clown.

:eek: :applause:

[Pointguard]

Your style is that when you start losing an argument, you deflect, go everywhere but where the argument is. Bring up as much craziness as to not show you totally lost it.


It's all about fit and role. And no, in 03...Duncan won a title...with a team I'm not even sure is any better than the Nets in 02 and 03. In fact, it's just not as I'm typing this...the 02 team around Kidd was just better than the 03 team around Duncan.

Huh, that SA team was one of the best defensive team ever.
Steve Jackson was superb
Robinson was blocking as many shots as Kenyan was
Bowen was the best perimeter defender
Malik Rose and Kevin Willis were tough
Ginobli was very good

Its an absolute joke to compare undersized Kenyan Martin/Aaron Williams and Collins to them. Have you totally lost your mind. First way off perception.

Malik Rose was one of the best role players in the league. Steve Kerr, Steve Smith each made more big shots than Kittles, Harris and Van Horne cumulatively. Bowen shot better than them from the field. Claxton was the best point coming off the bench. Then you throw in the playoff experience, many already being champions against playoff virgins and not one consistent offensive player?


Did you really just say that Shaq playing in the east in 02 couldn't have won 52 games? Holy ****ing shit dude...I now see the problem. You have just lost your mind and don't understand how bad the East was back then...nor understand that the 02 Nets were a different team than the 01 Nets. 3 new players in the top 6 rotation and you are going on about turning the same team around. As if it's remotely comparable...
You know full well I am saying Shaq doesn't win it all with that crew. You reach when you get scared and start panicking. When Shaq was in the East he had a better position player at every position than the Nets and only made it out the East once while facing a complete Jordan once.


It wasn't magic...it was the fact that Kidd was an awesome basketball player...especially in 02 and 03..now that you are bringing up 03. Kidd had a 24/10/6 series against the Pistons in 03 in which he did that and absolutely shut down Billups (9 points 42% TS)...
You are using one example from another year because you couldn't find anything in the four rounds he played in the year in question?


The 02 Nets played the easiest schedule in the league. Say that with me again. They played the easiest schedule in the league and won 52 games.

A schedule doesn't differ much. They play the West two games each, probably miss a game from another division twice in their conference. Means absolutely nothing because they beat the best in the playoffs. You are reaching... yet again. Second way off assumption.


Could kobe or tmac have done that? Hell yes...in fact those teams would have probably been better overall...certainly offensively they would have been more dangerous that's for sure. T-Mac got his 02 Magic to the 7th best offense and 44 wins. Kobe...all the same shit.

You are completely oblivious to chemistry and leadership. Most players don't win two rounds unless they have solid top player next to them or a top coach. Shaq, Kobe and Tmac haven't proved any different. Scott hasn't proven to be a good coach.


The Nets wouldn't have been as good defensively with those guys, but they still would have been top 10 or so...and the offense would have been way better....way better.

Also, who the hell was a better guard defender/rebounder than 02 Kidd?

I said defender. Stop reaching. You always do that. Third totally off base craziness.


See, this is where the East being utter garbage is really skewing things. Kidd gets the Nets to 52 wins in a conference that had 1 other team win over 50. Plays the easiest schedule in the league while doing so...and you have people like you claiming that Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, T-Mac...couldn't have done the same thing? Wow...just wow...

Hello. Tmac was in the East. Fourth bit of craziness. Kobe and Shaq had the most talented productive teammates in the modern era. Shaq and Kobe had chemistry issues left and right and had leadership issues left and right. Super great players but neither seemed equipped to carry teams for years.



And stop saying Kidd did it alone. It was a completely different and better team. Say it with me again...Kittles, Jefferson, T-Mac, and Collins...3 new players in the top 6 rotation.
You do know that Collins and Jefferson were rookies and were never very good players even in their prime. Outside of Kmart, only Jefferson could approach a sixth man award on that team and he definitely wouldn't win it.


They got Kittles back...who was at least worth a lot on offense as the Nets saw their offense fall off dramatically in 01 without him...and were top 10 in 00.
Kittles 13ppg on 54%TS percentage. That's not a lot of offense. Stop making nonsense up. That is ok, offense. Not a lot or good offense. Fifth crazy assumption.


Take a look at the roster;

Kidd
Martin
Kittles
Van Horn
Jefferson
Todd
Harris
Williams
Collins

That is a quality roster. You really think it's crazy that they won 52 games while playing in a shit conference with the easiest schedule in the league? We really gonna go crazy about this?

They won three playoff series. This is never easy with inexperienced, young players and players that never went deep in the playoffs. Kittles and Van Horn, the third and fourth best players on the team were sensitive players that took their lesser roles hard a few years back. They were not confident players when Kidd got there.


Van Horn was a proven 20 ppg type scorer before Kidd.
Was not a proven 20 ppg scorer as he reached that level once. Was a proven 525 TS% guy. The guy had to stop shooting - he had no other choice. Here you are misrepresenting like crazy and you love TS%. Sixth leap into craziness.

Harris and Williams were two proven solid pros.
In what way??? Williams was 31yo tweener that was reached 10ppg once in his career. He was ok, not solid. Harris the same thing but 30 yo.

Kittles was a proven do it all man that. No he wasn't. Kittles could shoot a little but never was the same after the injury a few years before. 13ppg and did little else. Stop making stuff up. Seventh leap into craziness.


Also, you do realize that the Nets didn't win a title...right? They got swept in the finals by the first good team they played in the playoffs. Obviously nobody was expecting them to win and they shouldn't have, but when you play cupcakes en route to the finals...you can make the finals. Again...not one 50 win opponent...and that is even worse because the East sucked ass back then.
Its hard to win playoff series when you don't have consistent shooters, nobody with a reliable post game, nobody really rebounding outside of Kidd, and a brand new coach sporting a 32% winning percentage the year before that and didn't have this success anyplace else. I'm sure the history of the league has plenty of stories like this one. Your eight crazy assumption.


Think about this...the Nets made back to back finals. And to get there...they beat one 50 win team. And by 50 wins...I mean 50 wins. The Pistons won exactly 50 wins...and were sadly the only team in the conference to win 50 games that season. What a ****ing joke...in 02 and 03 combined. there were three teams to win 50 or more games. The nets in 02...and the pistons in 02 and 03...LOL...it's a joke.

If you think playoff series are easy, you know nothing about basketball. Funny they definitely beat the world champions in 04 if Kidd wasn't hurt. They beat the Pistons for sure. This was a last place team.



I think the above post I quoted says enough to everyone in this thread about how lost you are. Do you have any clue how much better 03 Duncan was than 03 Kidd?
Why would I care. I never said that. Ninth crazy assumption.


Kidd shot 36% and had a sub 45% TS...all the rest of his teammates that he supposedly gets great shots for were awful. Where was the guru? Why couldn't he outplay Duncan if he was a better player?
Kenyon Martin was in foul trouble very early in every game. They still won two games despite the great handicap. But without Martin their best defensive player there was no way they were going to win.

This isn't about Duncan. Its about Marbury.

I know you want to escape and get off topic. A last place team, without the addition of any players that would be very good pros in their prime. Went to the championship twice. That's still sitting there staring you in your face.

[Pointguard]

Dmavs, I notice its social realities that you have problems with.

1)You really lack an ability to know how Chemistry works on a team.
You can't just mix and match players like you did in the post above. That team wasn't really built around Kidd, it was a last place team with inexperienced players but he turned it into something. Most players can't do that and you haven't approached acknowledging it. Not close.

2)You have no knowledge of how age and experience is a factor. Most great players aren't ready to lead good players, much less average ones, deep in the playoffs until they are in their prime - like 26 years old. You thinking Kobe and Tmac were ready for that at their stage in their career is crazy. You also did this with Rose who was waaaay ahead of the curve. In the Nets case, without a great coach its even harder. You seemingly didn't notice the difference in experience in all of the Nets examples above especially vs the Spurs. Kidd was the only player that really played a lot of playoff ball. Horne a little bit but with no success at all.

3)You don't understand how leadership works on a team. You have failed in nearly every example to even mention it. Shaq had real bad leadership issues along with his chemistry issues. He was indeed one of the most dominant players ever but he never lead a team without drama with another player or coach. He had some great teams in the east and didn't do much with them despite his playing like a complete beast and players not really getting in his way.

4)The concept of keeping players on the same page you don't get. Some players are by nature organizers of men. When things are not organized they go in all directions (like your post when you know you lost the argument). This is why Phil Jackson gets a lot of directionless great talent and molds them into three peaters. Magic and Bird had this quality just as Kidd did. And this was the reason the USA teams wanted Kidd. The stats don't show it but they win.

5) The concept of making others better is totally lost on you. You have negatively called it "magic" in this thread. You have never used it appropriately and nervously jump to another topic when its brought up. Kidd didn't have one winner on that team and had a total lack of offensive weapons and not one experienced player that handled themselves in high pressure playoff situations. Yet they got the baskets needed through three playoff series twice.

6)You don't understand it when I say Kidd inspires, rewards, highlights and exuded confidence enough to have offensively challenged guys overachieve in tight playoff games. Their confidence level was above any other time in their career. That their execution was sharper when needed then it ever was. Kenyan and Jefferson got contracts based on their early Kidd years moreso than what they showed otherwise. There is a lot of fear in your first playoff games and when you have big responsibility for the first time in them. And Kidd had them on top of their game doing timely stuff despite a majority of the players new to the game.

7)In general this whole concept of quality is just lost on you. Some people have the ability to influence better focus and goal attainment to others.

I don't know if it is that you haven't been exposed to team and social dynamics but its a bit too much to consistently miss. And to never bring up qualities accidentally and to overlook it consistently.

It was one of the greatest turn arounds ever with a young inexperienced team and you don't have a clue as to the dynamics and the elements that went into it. You are really missing out on the sweeter dynamics of the game.

[Pointguard]

When have I ever said Rondo or Lever would lead this team anywhere? They are not in the same level as Kidd. Payton was not the player Kidd was in 2002, but I do think prime Payton would take this team somewhere. Especially in the East.

The thing that should be looked at is that in the playoffs, you have to tweak a ton and adjust like crazy when you don't have experienced players and great offensive weapons. Execution has to be great. It so much harder then when you don't have finishers, shooters, post players and scorers. Payton had a far superior defensive rebounding team for several years with offensive weapons galore: a beast down low, a sharpshooter, one of the games best all around players, along with the smart defensive juggernaut in McMillan. I thought that team should have had several really good years.

Payton was the best defensive PG I ever saw.

[DMAVS41]

PG

It's really not hard.

The stats didn't lie.

Kidd doesn't hold a candle to the likes of Shaq or Duncan.

Kidd without his defense and rebounding honestly might not be better than Marbury. It would be all about the fit and role on a team. If it was a stacked offensive team...Kidd would be better. If it was a team lacking scoring...Marbury would be better.

Your OP is horribly flawed because of this. You can't grasp the big reasons why the Nets were better. Kidd's defense/rebounding and a clearly improve roster.

You listed incomplete stats and tried to jump to a conclusion about intangibles.

Then you spun the conversation into a bunch of different areas to shift the focus on your failed OP.

All the rest is just noise.

You have argued for Kidd to be a great offensive player...and he just wasn't. His teams kind of routinely struggled on offense. And that was in part because Kidd didn't play with a ton of offensive talent...and in part because he wasn't a great offensive player. He had serious deficiencies in his offensive game.

It's just the way it is...Kidd was a solid floor general and great passer. But he couldn't shoot for shit early on and he didn't really do things to a defense that a guy like, Nash, for example did....or even a guy like Marbury would do in certain situations.

Kidd on offense alone was a pretty "meh" player...including all the intangibles that you keep listing off and arguing with perhaps someone you've met that disputes that shit...but nobody here has.

I have yet to see one person say Kidd didn't have better intangibles. The problem is...even with that...and an improve offensive roster...Kidd barely improved the offense. They still weren't very good on offense...much like nearly every Kidd led team of his career before he played with Dirk...and even then he was worse than Harris solely on offense...LOL

Sorry...you can keep trying to tell me what I don't get, but the thing is...I do get it. It's not magic. It's the simple fact that Kidd wasn't a great offensive player and all the evidence supports this. Just like all the evidence supports Marbury being a shit defender.

But you choose to ignore reality in favor of your own biased thoughts. Obviously we aren't getting anywhere.

And it's clear to everyone with a brain following this thread that your OP was wrong...it was a terrible example because you tried to compare the offense of two players...when the real difference was defense/rebounding.

Get a clue man...really. It's just sad at this point.

[Pointguard]

PG

It's really not hard.

The stats didn't lie.

You still haven't shown the counter stats.


Your OP is horribly flawed because of this. You can't grasp the big reasons why the Nets were better. Kidd's defense/rebounding and a clearly improve roster.

You are right if you show me the metrics where 4 more rebounds per game by one player and better defense by a point guard took a last place team to the championship. I will agree with you. Or easier you show me where those metrics have caused a team to win twice as many games I will agree with you. An improved roster with only one player that could ever start with significant minutes without Kidd the rest of their careers? And the one who did, was a disappointment his whole career once Kidd left.


You listed incomplete stats and tried to jump to a conclusion about intangibles.

Then you spun the conversation into a bunch of different areas to shift the focus on your failed OP.
I totally annihilated your sidebars misdirections above just for sport. Nine totally crazy assumptions and you didn't even attempt to defend yourself because you can't.

You always go in different directions when you can't deal. If I don't reel you in, you would be all over the place.

You have never shown a complete metric because you can't.



You have argued for Kidd to be a great offensive player...and he just wasn't. His teams kind of routinely struggled on offense. And that was in part because Kidd didn't play with a ton of offensive talent...and in part because he wasn't a great offensive player. He had serious deficiencies in his offensive game.
You measure everything by quantity because you can't understand quality. Show me the other teams in history that won three rounds without a player scoring more than 15ppg in the regular season? And this wasn't an alltime great defensive team either. Use your metrics, I want to see that. And when that's done add in the years of playoff experience. How did this team without consistent shooters, low post play or scorers execute at the end of games without a masestro at the end of games. Name me the players that could that in the history of the game. GOOD OFFENSE gets what it needs to win the game. Any guard can lead a high scoring offense but how many players can get the score when they really need it or get the most out of their players when they really need it. With a team that doesn't have offensive strengths its much harder. Few players in the history of the game had this quality. But you have a great inability to recognize qualities.

You haven't even recognized that Kidd did a lot with very little in one of the best turnarounds in the history of the sport. Without the addition of stars, and only one to be starter who never proved himself without Kidd. You measure offense by more points per possession. You don't even have a full concept of the game in mind because stats have possessed you.



It's just the way it is...Kidd was a solid floor general and great passer. But he couldn't shoot for shit early on and he didn't really do things to a defense that a guy like, Nash, for example did....or even a guy like Marbury would do in certain situations.
Once Kidd got in the league he was considered better than them and they never would have been considered over Kidd on international teams. And this is totally because of him being a floor general.



Sorry...you can keep trying to tell me what I don't get, but the thing is...I do get it. It's not magic. It's the simple fact that Kidd wasn't a great offensive player and all the evidence supports this.
You can't get what you don't understand. You have a social disconnect. Concepts of leadership, making others better and team integration are not things you are good with. Your computer doesn't have the right program to decipher it.

[DMAVS41]

Please answer these questions;

1. How many wins do you think Kidd's defense/rebounding alone would add to a team by replacing Marbury? Just assume Marbury and Kidd play the exact same offense?

2. How many wins do you think the additions of Kittles, Jefferson, T-Mac, and Collins added to the team on their own?

3. How many wins do you think Kidd's far better clutch play added?

4. How many wins do you think playing the easiest schedule in the league rather than the 18th ranked schedule added?

Please answer this. We have to know where you are coming from.


Bonus questions;

1. Why have Kidd led teams on offense been so mediocre for his career?

2. Why were the Nets a top 10 offense in 00 with Marbury and a worse offensive roster than Kidd had in 02...and they played at a slower pace?

3. Why do you continue to ignore that the Nets added 4 new key rotation players in 02 along with Kidd? Do you just hate Kerry Kittles or something? Why do you ignore that he and marbury had a top 10 offense together in 00?

[tpols]

PG

It's really not hard.

The stats didn't lie.

Kidd doesn't hold a candle to the likes of Shaq or Duncan.

Kidd without his defense and rebounding honestly might not be better than Marbury. It would be all about the fit and role on a team. If it was a stacked offensive team...Kidd would be better. If it was a team lacking scoring...Marbury would be better.

Your OP is horribly flawed because of this. You can't grasp the big reasons why the Nets were better. Kidd's defense/rebounding and a clearly improve roster.

You listed incomplete stats and tried to jump to a conclusion about intangibles.

Then you spun the conversation into a bunch of different areas to shift the focus on your failed OP.

All the rest is just noise.

You have argued for Kidd to be a great offensive player...and he just wasn't. His teams kind of routinely struggled on offense. And that was in part because Kidd didn't play with a ton of offensive talent...and in part because he wasn't a great offensive player. He had serious deficiencies in his offensive game.

It's just the way it is...Kidd was a solid floor general and great passer. But he couldn't shoot for shit early on and he didn't really do things to a defense that a guy like, Nash, for example did....or even a guy like Marbury would do in certain situations.

Kidd on offense alone was a pretty "meh" player...including all the intangibles that you keep listing off and arguing with perhaps someone you've met that disputes that shit...but nobody here has.

I have yet to see one person say Kidd didn't have better intangibles. The problem is...even with that...and an improve offensive roster...Kidd barely improved the offense. They still weren't very good on offense...much like nearly every Kidd led team of his career before he played with Dirk...and even then he was worse than Harris solely on offense...LOL

Sorry...you can keep trying to tell me what I don't get, but the thing is...I do get it. It's not magic. It's the simple fact that Kidd wasn't a great offensive player and all the evidence supports this. Just like all the evidence supports Marbury being a shit defender.

But you choose to ignore reality in favor of your own biased thoughts. Obviously we aren't getting anywhere.

And it's clear to everyone with a brain following this thread that your OP was wrong...it was a terrible example because you tried to compare the offense of two players...when the real difference was defense/rebounding.

Get a clue man...really. It's just sad at this point.

woah.. now this is all just flat out wrong. Kidd was absolutely a great offensive basketball player. He's one of the best passers/court vision ever routinely went off in the playoffs for 20 pt 10 ast give or take averages.. knew how to set up his teammates games and make them better..

Comparing him to Dirk? Whose always had more umtempo teams filled with way better offensive talent? How was Dirk going to create for Kittles, or Collins, or Mumtumbo or KM in slow paced defensive battles with teams like the pistons every year? The best offensive player besides Kidd on those teams was RJ and even he doesnt compare to the finleys, nashs, jamisons, and terrys that the mavs had.. some all at the same time. :oldlol:



Go look up Detroit, Indy, NJ and other top teams from the eastern conference in the early to mid 2000s.. everyone shot in the low 40%s.. the defenses were just that good.

Paul Pierce shot 41% from the field in the playoffs from 01 to 05. Allen Iverson shot 40%.. Are they not great offensive players? Because they arent known for their defense..

[DMAVS41]

woah.. now this is all just flat out wrong. Kidd was absolutely a great offensive basketball player. He's one of the best passers/court vision ever routinely went off in the playoffs for 20 pt 10 ast give or take averages.. knew how to set up his teammates games and make them better..

Comparing him to Dirk? Whose always had more umtempo teams filled with way better offensive talent? How was Dirk going to create for Kittles, or Collins, or Mumtumbo or KM in slow paced defensive battles with teams like the pistons every year? The best offensive player besides Kidd on those teams was RJ and even he doesnt compare to the finleys, nashs, jamisons, and terrys that the mavs had.. some all at the same time. :oldlol:



Go look up Detroit, Indy, NJ and other top teams from the eastern conference in the early to mid 2000s.. everyone shot in the low 40%s.. the defenses were just that good.

Paul Pierce shot 41% from the field in the playoffs from 01 to 05. Allen Iverson shot 40%.. Are they not great offensive players? Because they arent known for their defense..


Uhhh...no...just no.

He was not a great offensive player. He was a great playmaker and floor general.

Huge, and I mean huge, difference.

Unless this is semantical difference...you are just so wrong about Kidd. His teams routinely struggled offensively. Over the course of his career...he only improved his teams offense by 3.7 points per 100 possessions.

Kidd was a really good offensive player overall. He's really no better than Marbury offensively. It would be more situational...need scoring? Go with Marbury. Need team play and playmaking on a better offensively talented team? Go with Kidd...

This shit really has to stop.

You can't barely improve your teams offense throughout your career...have serious limitations in your offensive game...and be known as a "great" offensive player.

Great is reserved for different guys...unless, this is just a semantics thing.

How was Dirk going to do it? By being a far better offensive player overall and it's not close.

I'd ask you then...how did Marbury do it in 00? How did he lead a top 10 offense with a worse team in 00? Why couldn't the offensive guru match Marbury? With more help mind you...LOL

You bring up the playoffs? Kidd led playoff teams...out of 16;

97 - 14th
98 - 12th
99 - 8th
00 - 14th
01 - 15th
02 - 7th
03 - 12th
04 - 11th
05 - 14th
06 - 9th
07 - 12th

Then he comes to Dallas and we get worse offensively with him on the court vs Devin Harris.

Now, it would be one thing if his teams were solid offensively in the regular season against weaker competition and just played a different style in the playoffs, but his teams weren't good offensively in the regular season throughout his career either.

I'm sorry, but if Kidd was half as good offensively as you guys are claiming...the results would be different. You'd see the "guru" transform teams offensively. You'd see scoring efficiency go way up...

[tpols]

Well everything comes down to the difference between "really good" and "great" lol



The evidence you give is contradictory though.. you state Kidd was a great floor general and one of the best passers ever, the two most important offensive duties a point guard has to have, and yet he isnt a great offensive PG or offensive player in general?

[DMAVS41]

Well everything comes down to the difference between "really good" and "great" lol



The evidence you give is contradictory though.. you state Kidd was a great floor general and one of the best passers ever, the two most important offensive duties a point guard has to have, and yet he isnt a great offensive PG or offensive player in general?

Well, yes...one can be a great passer and floor general and not be a great offensive player. Kidd had serious limitations in his game.

Take a look at this man...

I'd ask you then...how did Marbury do it in 00? How did he lead a top 10 offense with a worse team in 00? Why couldn't the offensive guru match Marbury? With more help mind you...LOL

You bring up the playoffs? Kidd led playoff teams on offense...out of 16;

97 - 14th
98 - 12th
99 - 8th
00 - 14th
01 - 15th
02 - 7th
03 - 12th
04 - 11th
05 - 14th
06 - 9th
07 - 12th

Then he comes to Dallas and we get worse offensively with him on the court vs Devin Harris.

Now, it would be one thing if his teams were solid offensively in the regular season against weaker competition and just played a different style in the playoffs, but his teams weren't good offensively in the regular season throughout his career either.

Now, and I have said this repeatedly, he didn't play with a ton of help offensively...especially some years...but come on now.

I'm sorry, but if Kidd was half as good offensively as you guys are claiming...the results would be different. You'd see the "guru" transform teams offensively. You'd see scoring efficiency go way up...

Also, since when is the 02 Nets roster bad offensively? Martin, Kittles, Van Horn, and Jefferson were all solid offensive players in their own right. That just isn't some awful offensive roster or something. Van Horn was a proven 20 ppg guy...and Kittles and martin could get you 13 to 17 a night with or without Kidd. Surrounding those 3 guys with T-Mac, Jefferson, Harris, and Williams is just not a bad offensive team.

Again, Marbury led a worse offensive team in 00 to top 10. Again, it's situational...need more scoring...and Kidd is going to struggle. It's a big reason why his teams struggled so much offensively in the playoffs. Sometimes you need to be able to score and get a big bucket...and Kidd's limitations prevent him from doing that for a team consistently.

[Pointguard]

Please answer these questions;

1. How many wins do you think Kidd's defense/rebounding alone would add to a team by replacing Marbury? Just assume Marbury and Kidd play the exact same offense?

2. How many wins do you think the additions of Kittles, Jefferson, T-Mac, and Collins added to the team on their own?

3. How many wins do you think Kidd's far better clutch play added?

4. How many wins do you think playing the easiest schedule in the league rather than the 18th ranked schedule added?

Please answer this. We have to know where you are coming from.


Bonus questions;

1. Why have Kidd led teams on offense been so mediocre for his career?

2. Why were the Nets a top 10 offense in 00 with Marbury and a worse offensive roster than Kidd had in 02...and they played at a slower pace?

3. Why do you continue to ignore that the Nets added 4 new key rotation players in 02 along with Kidd? Do you just hate Kerry Kittles or something? Why do you ignore that he and marbury had a top 10 offense together in 00?

I have asking you since you came into the thread, to show me the metrics that prove otherwise. That's all that I ask. I asked you to provide a better example because you said it was horrible. Horrible examples are easy to outdo. But you haven't done that either. So you are blowing smoke until you prove otherwise. I'm not doing your work for you.

You say defense and rebounding from the point guard position was the main reason for doubling their wins, or for 26 wins. When SA acquired Rodman, who was a vastly superior rebounder and defensive player than Kidd and did it from a more significant position(s), SA record improved by 6 wins and one less round in the playoffs. This was one of the greatest rebounding years in the modern era. The rebounding difference between Carr and Rodman was almost 12 rebounds per game. Much more than the four between Kidd and Marbury. So I'm not feeling this defense and rebounding thing.

You say the addition of rotational players with not one of them having any impressive feature, any impressive numbers or being really impressive elsewhere in their careers. And that's hard to do when all of them were young. They were fine players and professionals though. Kittles was the best of the bunch, but he averaged 13ppg and little else as a starter. Second best was RJ who was a 9 and 4 guy. TMac was a 9 and 6 guy also a starter for most of the games. All average less with another point guard. This isn't blowing anybody away or turning a team around, unless you can show me where players like this turned a team into conference champions.

All four of the rotational players were not really starters and I would rather have the bench on several other teams:
Not one of them on the level of the current Nets Livingston/Thorton/Blatche/Kirlenko
Not one of them on the level of Darren Collison/Jamal Crawford.
Not one of them on the level of Aski/Beverly

This isn't a team turn around argument either. Much less for a team winning more playoff rounds than any team those two years.

The strength of schedule argument is a joke. It might mean they miss a game against a playoff team that they would beat later on.

[DMAVS41]

I have asking you since you came into the thread, to show me the metrics that prove otherwise. That's all that I ask. I asked you to provide a better example because you said it was horrible. Horrible examples are easy to outdo. But you haven't done that either. So you are blowing smoke until you prove otherwise. I'm not doing your work for you.

You say defense and rebounding from the point guard position was the main reason for doubling their wins, or for 26 wins. When SA acquired Rodman, who was a vastly superior rebounder and defensive player than Kidd and did it from a more significant position(s), SA record improved by 6 wins and one less round in the playoffs. This was one of the greatest rebounding years in the modern era. The rebounding difference between Carr and Rodman was almost 12 rebounds per game. Much more than the four between Kidd and Marbury. So I'm not feeling this defense and rebounding thing.

You say the addition of rotational players with not one of them having any impressive feature, any impressive numbers or being really impressive elsewhere in their careers. And that's hard to do when all of them were young. They were fine players and professionals though. Kittles was the best of the bunch, but he averaged 13ppg and little else as a starter. Second best was RJ who was a 9 and 4 guy. TMac was a 9 and 6 guy also a starter for most of the games. All average less with another point guard. This isn't blowing anybody away or turning a team around, unless you can show me where players like this turned a team into conference champions.

All four of the rotational players were not really starters and I would rather have the bench on several other teams:
Not one of them on the level of the current Nets Livingston/Thorton/Blatche/Kirlenko
Not one of them on the level of Darren Collison/Jamal Crawford.
Not one of them on the level of Aski/Beverly

This isn't a team turn around argument either. Much less for a team winning more playoff rounds than any team those two years.

The strength of schedule argument is a joke. It might mean they miss a game against a playoff team that they would beat later on.


1. It's not my job to come up with another example of when stats lie...I don't think they lie actually...I think ignorant people don't know how look in depth or comprehend them

2. You are changing the argument. It was never about the playoffs...never. It was about why the team was turned around.

3. The rodman example is a terrible one. You still won't concede that Marbury was a terrible defender. Just subtracting him from the team made them a top 13 type defense. Combine that with Kidd (elite) and two centers and you get solid reasons for the jump.

Please understand...they had the best defense in the league...this is not something to gloss over.

4. As you have failed to answer any questions or debate in good faith...I see no reason to continue. We have shredded the OP and shown via stats why the team turned around. If you'd like to pick another example...I'd be glad to talk about that with you, but Im' done on this one. It's apparent to everyone with a brain why the Nets were better. Kidd's defense/rebounding and an improved offense while playing an even easier joke of a schedule in a joke conference.

[Pointguard]

Unless this is semantical difference...you are just so wrong about Kidd. His teams routinely struggled offensively. Over the course of his career...he only improved his teams offense by 3.7 points per 100 possessions.

Kidd was a really good offensive player overall. He's really no better than Marbury offensively. It would be more situational...need scoring? Go with Marbury. Need team play and playmaking on a better offensively talented team? Go with Kidd...

This shit really has to stop.

There is no other player in the game, that you can count on, to win close games without consistent shooters, post players, scorers (not one player getting 15ppg) or rebounders but make winning from execution. You have to be great offensively to make something materialize from nothing. Don't go to your points per possession. This is a concept that consistently proved itself over 200 games.

Its great to make something from nothing. That's what you just don't get.

[DMAVS41]

There is no other player in the game, that you can count on, to win close games without consistent shooters, post players, scorers (not one player getting 15ppg) or rebounders but make winning from execution. You have to be great offensively to make something materialize from nothing. Don't go to your points per possession. This is a concept that consistently proved itself over 200 games.

Its great to make something from nothing. That's what you just don't get.

Marbury in 00 led a worse offensive roster to the 10th best offense in the league.

Why? Because he was close to as impactful overall as Kidd offensively...and the team he was on needed scoring...which he was just way better than Kidd at.

It's all situational between those two guys offensively. The more offensive talent you have...the more you want Kidd. The less help individually you have...the more you'd want a guy like prime Marbury that could score the ball much better.

It's not difficult...

[Pointguard]

1. It's not my job to come up with another example of when stats lie...I don't think they lie actually...I think ignorant people don't know how look in depth or comprehend them.

:lol You really believe stats are complete? That you don't have to see games? Anything that is not complete is partial. Do you know what partial means? Why haven't you shown us in concrete measure then, what you are trying to say.



2. You are changing the argument. It was never about the playoffs...never. It was about why the team was turned around.

So the turnaround of a team can't be seen in the playoffs? You're a briiight one aren't you.


3. The rodman example is a terrible one. You still won't concede that Marbury was a terrible defender. Just subtracting him from the team made them a top 13 type defense.
Please show me the metric of this. Wow, when you get desperate you will make up anything. This is utter nonsense. So now you saying the distance between Carr and Rodman is less than Marbury to Kidd defensively? Rodman was unquestionably one of the best defenders ever. They took Robinson off of Shaq and put Rodman on him that year and Rodman handled Shaq. And its a terrible example to even compare it to Kidds great defensive edge on Marbury.


Please understand...they had the best defense in the league...this is not something to gloss over.
That definitely helps. No question there.



4. As you have failed to answer any questions or debate in good faith...I see no reason to continue.
Ohhh right you presented a counter statement worth something. You haven't even presented anything. Not one thing that proved anything.


We have shredded the OP and shown via stats why the team turned around. If you'd like to pick another example...I'd be glad to talk about that with you, but Im' done on this one. It's apparent to everyone with a brain why the Nets were better. Kidd's defense/rebounding and an improved offense while playing an even easier joke of a schedule in a joke conference.
Anybody can look at this one page and see the meaning of shredded. And see who has the brain. But you came in here like a Bull and are now leaving like a lamb - more like Theon on the Game of Thrones. Its ok by me.

[Pointguard]

It's all situational between those two guys offensively. The more offensive talent you have...the more you want Kidd. The less help individually you have...the more you'd want a guy like prime Marbury that could score the ball much better.

It's not difficult...
Huuh, Name me another player that did more with less than Kidd did? Not just Marbury, that's easy. Do you even know what you are saying half the time. You really think Marbury could lead a team to the playoffs without somebody averaging 15ppg or 7 rebounds. Do you just make up stuff and blurt it out.

[DMAVS41]

Huuh, Name me another player that did more with less than Kidd did? Not just Marbury, that's easy. Do you even know what you are saying half the time. You really think Marbury could lead a team to the playoffs without somebody averaging 15ppg or 7 rebounds. Do you just make up stuff and blurt it out.

If Marbury defended and rebounded like Kidd? Hell yes he could...this is what you don't get. Marbury was a good offensive player. He gets a bad rep and some of it is true...and some isn't. He didn't turn it over much and he scored pretty efficiently...and he was actually a very solid playmaker.

If you gave the 00 Nets the best defense in the league...they absolutely would have made the playoffs...and again...that is easily a worse offensive roster than the 02 Nets imo.


Also, stop with the Rodman stuff. When will you listen? The Nets didn't just change Marbury for Kidd. They added Kittles, Jefferson, T-Mac, and Collins. It wasn't just Kidd. Kittles was a good player...especially offensively he helped a lot. There is a reason why the 00 Nets dropped considerably without him the next year on offense.

T-Mac and Collins were also exactly what the Nets needed. They didn't really play centers in 01. Why do I have to keep saying this? It's not just Kidd. It's subracting a terrible defender in Marbury, having Harris and Williams and Van Horn play less, Martin naturally improving, adding two legit centers, and adding an elite defensive/rebounding guard.

Also, the playoffs stuff. Kidd played better in the playoffs. he scored like 25% more points and was slightly more efficient from the field...him upping his scoring was key for their success.

You can't list regular season stats and then continue that on into the playoffs when the stats are simply better in the playoffs.

[Pointguard]

If Marbury defended and rebounded like Kidd? Hell yes he could...this is what you don't get. Marbury was a good offensive player. He gets a bad rep and some of it is true...and some isn't. He didn't turn it over much and he scored pretty efficiently...and he was actually a very solid playmaker.

If you gave the 00 Nets the best defense in the league...they absolutely would have made the playoffs...and again...that is easily a worse offensive roster than the 02 Nets imo.
On the US teams they didn't need defense or rebounding from the guard position. Why didn't they pick Marbury?

[tpols]

Marbury in 00 led a worse offensive roster to the 10th best offense in the league.

Why? Because he was close to as impactful overall as Kidd offensively...and the team he was on needed scoring...which he was just way better than Kidd at.

It's all situational between those two guys offensively. The more offensive talent you have...the more you want Kidd. The less help individually you have...the more you'd want a guy like prime Marbury that could score the ball much better.

It's not difficult...

no.. its because the team didnt play any semblance of defense and racked up a ton of garbage time points while not being even remotely competitive for the majority of the season.


Its much harder to score buckets when your a top contending team playing hard defense on every possession and having a lot more meaningful court time. You already brought up the clutch stats.. Kidd beats marbury out offensively when it counts at the end of games and that didnt even give us crunchtime team stats where Im sure Kidd came out on top again.


Kidd's a better offensive player than marbury was and it has everything to do with how he gets his guys on the same page, set them up in their spots, etc. everything PG was saying.. his defense and rebounding were big reasons for the turn around but if Kidd didnt link his rebounding/defense with his open floor game it honestly wouldnt even mean much.. it was the ability to convert successful defensive possesions into offensive opportunities that made Kidd a special player.. it wasnt just defense or just offense but the in between game he had. Your trying to simplify it to one or the other and it just wasnt how it was.

[DMAVS41]

no.. its because the team didnt play any semblance of defense and racked up a ton of garbage time points while not being even remotely competitive for the majority of the season.


Its much harder to score buckets when your a top contending team playing hard defense on every possession and having a lot more meaningful court time. You already brought up the clutch stats.. Kidd beats marbury out offensively when it counts at the end of games and that didnt even give us crunchtime team stats where Im sure Kidd came out on top again.


Kidd's a better offensive player than marbury was and it has everything to do with how he gets his guys on the same page, set them up in their spots, etc. everything PG was saying.. his defense and rebounding were big reasons for the turn around but if Kidd didnt link his rebounding/defense with his open floor game it honestly wouldnt even mean much.. it was the ability to convert successful defensive possesions into offensive opportunities that made Kidd a special player.. it wasnt just defense or just offense but the in between game he had. Your trying to simplify it to one or the other and it just wasnt how it was.


1. I already have said Kidd was a better offensive player for some of those reasons

2. You are under-rating Marbury here. He was a solid offensive player. He actually had a better turnover rate than Kidd and he was clearly a better scorer. That is what you are missing...those Nets teams needed scoring offensively...and Kidd didn't provide it in the regular season. He did a better job in the playoffs...and what do you know, they were better offensively in the playoffs in relation to the competition.

3. I never said it was all one thing or the other. What you aren't allowing for is that Kittles was out in 01...and that Kidd clearly had more help in 02 offensively as well. I'm sorry, but going from 24th to 17th offensively with better help while playing at a faster pace is not a huge difference.

And the Nets in 02 forced the 3rd most turnovers in the league...which directly leads to easy baskets. And that is artificially propping up the offense even more. Not to mention just the advantage of holding teams to worse efficiency and points and making them work harder offensively in turn tires them out and helps the offense.

Not sure why you bring up the clutch stuff....that is in the STATS! Making my point for me...

You give Marbury...Kidd level defense and rebounding and Kidd is at best a slightly better player overall. LOL @ this shit.....

[DMAVS41]

On the US teams they didn't need defense or rebounding from the guard position. Why didn't they pick Marbury?

Total red herring, but I'll answer anyway...Kidd was a less selfish player and was a better floor general like we've talked about.

Your team needs scoring? You go with marbury.

You have a talented or balanced roster and want to play more team ball...you go with Kidd.

Which of the above do you think fits with the Olympic teams? Jesus christ...:facepalm

[tpols]

1. I already have said Kidd was a better offensive player for some of those reasons

2. You are under-rating Marbury here. He was a solid offensive player. He actually had a better turnover rate than Kidd and he was clearly a better scorer. That is what you are missing...those Nets teams needed scoring offensively...and Kidd didn't provide it in the regular season. He did a better job in the playoffs...and what do you know, they were better offensively in the playoffs in relation to the competition.

3. I never said it was all one thing or the other. What you aren't allowing for is that Kittles was out in 01...and that Kidd clearly had more help in 02 offensively as well. I'm sorry, but going from 24th to 17th offensively with better help while playing at a faster pace is not a huge difference.

And the Nets in 02 forced the 3rd most turnovers in the league...which directly leads to easy baskets. And that is artificially propping up the offense even more. Not to mention just the advantage of holding teams to worse efficiency and points and making them work harder offensively in turn tires them out and helps the offense.

Not sure why you bring up the clutch stuff....that is in the STATS! Making my point for me...

You give Marbury...Kidd level defense and rebounding and Kidd is at best a slightly better player overall. LOL @ this shit.....

No.. he isnt.:oldlol: Because it was Kidd's unselfishness when would grab a long rebound or a steal and set his guys up while the opposing defense wasnt set yet that made Kidd the 'intangibles' guy that he was. He translated his defense and rebounding into opportunities for his teammates.. Marbury didnt have even close to the same open floor game/vision/mindset that would be needed to replicate that.

If you gave marbury kidds rebounding and defense hed be.. Russell Westbrook.. who has averaged 6 rpg at times in his career as well. Basically a sparkplug who can sky for boards and D people up and go on occasional scoring binges.. but has absolutely no clue how to wrap it all together and incorporate the whole team into his individual play.



DMAVs you're basically saying Kidd wasnt a great offensive player because he wasnt a great iso scorer and he was forced to assume that role since the Nets had no great iso scorers on their teams.. offensively, Kidd was one of the most brilliant point guards ever.. he wasnt a great scorer but again that isnt a PG's main duty.. they are supposed to be pass first players. Marbury is a better and 1 iso type player.. can put up nice stats on garbage teams(he did this his whole career).. he isnt a winner though. He doesnt know how to lead a team on either side of the court.. and I certainly wouldnt want my offense run through a selfish shotjacking PG over one of the most brilliant passers and playmakers ever..

[DMAVS41]

No.. he isnt.:oldlol: Because it was Kidd's unselfishness when would grab a long rebound or a steal and set his guys up while the opposing defense wasnt set yet that made Kidd the 'intangibles' guy that he was. He translated his defense and rebounding into opportunities for his teammates.. Marbury didnt have even close to the same open floor game/vision/mindset that would be needed to replicate that.

If you gave marbury kidds rebounding and defense hed be.. Russell Westbrook.. who has averaged 6 rpg at times in his career as well. Basically a sparkplug who can sky for boards and D people up and go on occasional scoring binges.. but has absolutely no clue how to wrap it all together and incorporate the whole team into his individual play.



DMAVs you're basically saying Kidd wasnt a great offensive player because he wasnt a great iso scorer and he was forced to assume that role since the Nets had no great iso scorers on their teams.. offensively, Kidd was one of the most brilliant point guards ever.. he wasnt a great scorer but again that isnt a PG's main duty.. they are supposed to be pass first players. Marbury is a better and 1 iso type player.. can put up nice stats on garbage teams(he did this his whole career).. he isnt a winner though. He doesnt know how to lead a team on either side of the court.. and I certainly wouldnt want my offense run through a selfish shotjacking PG over one of the most brilliant passers and playmakers ever..


WB does not defend at the Kidd level...stop it.

I'm saying he wasn't great because his teams did not perform great on offense. Which is just a fact...nor was Kidd individually a great overall offensive player. I think you actually agree here and it's just an issue of semantics. I reserve "great" for guys like Nash or Magic or Dirk or Kobe or Durant offensively. Not Kidd...

Stop the straw man...I said I'd take Kidd over Marbury solely on offense...so I agree with you. I'm just not going to bend reality and pretend like Marbury vs Kidd overall offensively is some landslide.

You do realize that Kidd had an 18.8 turnover percentage compared to Marbury's 14.2%...jesus man...you act like Marbury was just this scrub. He wasn't...he wasn't as good as Kidd overall offensively, but he also was very good in how own right.

Also, you continue to ignore that you can't just give Kidd quality circumstances and grade on that curve. You put Kidd on teams that need him to score...and you are going to struggle more offensively than with a guy like Marbury. It's just the truth as Marbury was a better scorer.

Now, if you gave them each quality offensive supporting casts...of course you'd take Kidd...I've said that all along...and not only that...but you can see it in the stats.

Also, I don't want to derail this thread, but you brought up WB...uhh....he is nothing more than marginally worse than kidd overall as a player. So I don't see the point there. WB doesn't even have Kidd's defense that you would be giving to Marbury...like I said...it's marginal. Kidd definitely better, but it's not like it's some huge gap.

Do you really dispute that? You really think that Westbrook is a far worse player than Kidd was? I sure as hell don't...

[tpols]

WB does not defend at the Kidd level...stop it.

I'm saying he wasn't great because his teams did not perform great on offense. Which is just a fact...nor was Kidd individually a great overall offensive player. I think you actually agree here and it's just an issue of semantics. I reserve "great" for guys like Nash or Magic or Dirk or Kobe or Durant offensively. Not Kidd...

Stop the straw man...I said I'd take Kidd over Marbury solely on offense...so I agree with you. I'm just not going to bend reality and pretend like Marbury vs Kidd overall offensively is some landslide.

You do realize that Kidd had an 18.8 turnover percentage compared to Marbury's 14.2%...jesus man...you act like Marbury was just this scrub. He wasn't...he wasn't as good as Kidd overall offensively, but he also was very good in how own right.

Also, you continue to ignore that you can't just give Kidd quality circumstances and grade on that curve. You put Kidd on teams that need him to score...and you are going to struggle more offensively than with a guy like Marbury. It's just the truth as Marbury was a better scorer.

Now, if you gave them each quality offensive supporting casts...of course you'd take Kidd...I've said that all along...and not only that...but you can see it in the stats.

Also, I don't want to derail this thread, but you brought up WB...uhh....he is nothing more than marginally worse than kidd overall as a player. So I don't see the point there. WB doesn't even have Kidd's defense that you would be giving to Marbury...like I said...it's marginal. Kidd definitely better, but it's not like it's some huge gap.

Do you really dispute that? You really think that Westbrook is a far worse player than Kidd was? I sure as hell don't...

Kidd was on teams that needed him desperately to score.. The Nets had no standout iso players in the early 2000s. Both Marbury and Kidd were both in positions where they were being heavily leaned on for scoring.. which team looked better? Who performed better offensively in crunchtime when iso scoring is at a premium? Who had their teammates playing at the highest levels of their careers offensively?

The answer is Kidd on all accounts.. youre using offensive rating between a contender and a lottery team to make sole judgement lol. Its easier to put up stats and score when the games dont matter. Marbury wouldve gotten flushed out of the playoffs d-rose style had he tried to pull his shit in the playoffs against teams like detroit.


As for comparing a westbrook led team to a kidd led team? Thats kind of a joke.. WB has shown no ability to lead or direct a group of people. Hes an individual super talented iso player. He would fare the same as mabrury given similar situations.. I guess thats what you just dont get.

[DMAVS41]

Kidd was on teams that needed him desperately to score.. The Nets had no standout iso players in the early 2000s. Both Marbury and Kidd were both in positions where they were being heavily leaned on for scoring.. which team looked better? Who performed better offensively in crunchtime when iso scoring is at a premium? Who had their teammates playing at the highest levels of their careers offensively?

The answer is Kidd on all accounts.. youre using offensive rating between a contender and a lottery team to make sole judgement lol. Its easier to put up stats and score when the games dont matter. Marbury wouldve gotten flushed out of the playoffs d-rose style had he tried to pull his shit in the playoffs against teams like detroit.


As for comparing a westbrook led team to a kidd led team? Thats kind of a joke.. WB has shown no ability to lead or direct a group of people. Hes an individual super talented iso player. He would fare the same as mabrury given similar situations.. I guess thats what you just dont get.


Are you even reading my posts?

I have, from the very beginning, taken Kidd over Marbury solely on offense for much of the reasons you say. I think another thing you ignore is simply that Kidd shoots less...which in and of itself, regardless of efficiency...is better for a balanced team.

You really need to stop comparing the 01 Nets to the 02 Nets. It's really unfair...the 01 Nets did not have Kittles. They did not have Jefferson. They had a rookie Martin who got better by 02. They didn't have T-Mac or Collins....and while Collins wasn't great offensively...T-Mac was better than what the Nets had in 01.

But why do you think I would take Kidd? It's the unselfishness, game management in crucial situations, not settling for bad shots, getting his teammates more involved...pushing the envelope in transition which allows you to play at a faster pace without sacrificing much because of how smart Kidd was.

We agree on all that shit...I have never disputed it.

The problem is that Kidd also had some offensive limitations in his game and even despite the above, his teams never really performed great offensively.

You brought up WB...I didn't...if we can't compare them...then we can't compare them. But you brought him up. So I don't follow that at all...

Could you quantify how much better Kidd was on offense than Marbury and WB? I really think we are close on this so I need to know...like 25% better? Quantify it if you could...

[tpols]

Are you even reading my posts?

I have, from the very beginning, taken Kidd over Marbury solely on offense for much of the reasons you say. I think another thing you ignore is simply that Kidd shoots less...which in and of itself, regardless of efficiency...is better for a balanced team.

You really need to stop comparing the 01 Nets to the 02 Nets. It's really unfair...the 01 Nets did not have Kittles. They did not have Jefferson. They had a rookie Martin who got better by 02. They didn't have T-Mac or Collins....and while Collins wasn't great offensively...T-Mac was better than what the Nets had in 01.

But why do you think I would take Kidd? It's the unselfishness, game management in crucial situations, not settling for bad shots, getting his teammates more involved...pushing the envelope in transition which allows you to play at a faster pace without sacrificing much because of how smart Kidd was.

We agree on all that shit...I have never disputed it.

The problem is that Kidd also had some offensive limitations in his game and even despite the above, his teams never really performed great offensively.

You brought up WB...I didn't...if we can't compare them...then we can't compare them. But you brought him up. So I don't follow that at all...

Could you quantify how much better Kidd was on offense than Marbury and WB? I really think we are close on this so I need to know...like 25% better? Quantify it if you could...

Quantifying it is tough.. hes a just a totally different player offensively than they are. Marbury and Westbrook are both wanna be SGs who can get their own and create for teammates occasionally when defenses collapse on them. Kidd creates and sets up for others all game and takes his shots only when theyre's nothing left. Theyre inverses of each other and Kidd's style is way more beneficial to the whole team than WB/Marbury was. You cant go whole games just looking for your own and expect to win anything.. you can put up some nice individual stats but your team wont last the whole game.

In a 5v5 offense I take kidd over them offensively by a lot based on how he gets the other 4 to play.. in a game of one on one I'd probably take the WB/Marbury

[Pointguard]

Total red herring, but I'll answer anyway...Kidd was a less selfish player and was a better floor general like we've talked about.

Your team needs scoring? You go with marbury.

You have a talented or balanced roster and want to play more team ball...you go with Kidd.

Which of the above do you think fits with the Olympic teams? Jesus christ...:facepalm
Wow, just wow. The team definitely needed scoring!!!! Being on a team with no player averaging 15ppg and no consistent shooter or scorer, doesn't need scoring??? Red Herring??? You just don't know what you are talking about.

[DMAVS41]

Quantifying it is tough.. hes a just a totally different player offensively than they are. Marbury and Westbrook are both wanna be SGs who can get their own and create for teammates occasionally when defenses collapse on them. Kidd creates and sets up for others all game and takes his shots only when theyre's nothing left. Theyre inverses of each other and Kidd's style is way more beneficial to the whole team than WB/Marbury was. You cant go whole games just looking for your own and expect to win anything.. you can put up some nice individual stats but your team wont last the whole game.

In a 5v5 offense I take kidd over them offensively by a lot based on how he gets the other 4 to play.. in a game of one on one I'd probably take the WB/Marbury

It's more beneficial overall for sure...but being able to score efficiently is important as well...and it's not like Marbury couldn't create.

Without you being able to quantify it on some level...I really don't know what we are debating here then. Because we might actually just pretty much agree.

We both agree that Kidd was a better offensive player overall...the issue is how much better. I say it's marginal...and by marginal I mean that it's not comparing a great offensive player to an average one...or even comparing a great offensive player to a really good one.

I think it's comparing a really good overall offensive player to a pretty good offensive player.

What I will say...and continue to say...is that the Nets in 02 won off of their defense way more than their offense. And honestly any improvement in the offense is easily explained by Kidd's better floor game and less selfishness...and a clear increase in offensive talent, playing at a faster pace, and playing an easier schedule.

But if you can't quantify it at all...really hard to see if there is even a disagreement on this.

[DMAVS41]

Wow, just wow. The team definitely needed scoring!!!! Being on a team with no player averaging 15ppg and no consistent shooter or scorer, doesn't need scoring??? Red Herring??? You just don't know what you are talking about.


Shut the **** up. You don't want a shoot first pg on an all star team that doesn't defend or rebound...what the **** are you smoking?

You are a moron and I'm about to stop responding...

[Pointguard]

Quantifying it is tough.. hes a just a totally different player offensively than they are. Marbury and Westbrook are both wanna be SGs who can get their own and create for teammates occasionally when defenses collapse on them. Kidd creates and sets up for others all game and takes his shots only when theyre's nothing left. Theyre inverses of each other and Kidd's style is way more beneficial to the whole team than WB/Marbury was. You cant go whole games just looking for your own and expect to win anything.. you can put up some nice individual stats but your team wont last the whole game.

In a 5v5 offense I take kidd over them offensively by a lot based on how he gets the other 4 to play.. in a game of one on one I'd probably take the WB/Marbury
There it is.

Most of us go wholistic approach down to microcosm back up. He stays in the microcosm.

[Pointguard]

Shut the **** up. You don't want a shoot first pg on an all star team that doesn't defend or rebound...what the **** are you smoking?

You are a moron and I'm about to stop responding...
Dude you aren't even being relevant any more.
You stopped responding on the second page. At least with common sense.

That comment had nothing to do with defense or rebounding. It was about the Nets team lacking scoring.

[DMAVS41]

Dude you aren't even being relevant any more.
You stopped responding on the second page. At least with common sense.

That comment had nothing to do with defense or rebounding. It was about the Nets team lacking scoring.

You do realize you can have a good offense with a bunch of guys spreading around the scoring...right?

The 1992 Dream Team had one player score over 15 ppg iirc...Barkley.

Did they struggle scoring?


The point was that on an olympic type all star team...it's obvious you want a guy like Kidd running point. It's perfect for him...he doesn't have to score. He can spread the ball around and do what he does best....which includes doing the little things.

It's obvious why a guy like Marbury would not thrive in a situation like that...god damn you are dumber than I thought.

[lpublic_enemyl]

I don't follow this. You can't just cherry pick a set of offensive individual stats...then post about an entirely different team the next year playing differently...and conclude that stats lie.

Is the defense a player plays...intangible? Say what you want about Marbury...what I know for sure is that he was a ****ing horrendous defender in 01. I remember laughing at him all the time when I watched the games...and what do you know...he was a minus 2.9...which is horrendous. That kind of stuff is reserved for some of the worst defenders in the league...made even worse by the fact that he was playing 38 minutes a game.

What do you expect to happen? You took away a selfish no defense playing point guard and replaced him with a more team oriented offensive player that played great defense.

Then, you add 4 different players into the top 9 rotation. 3 in the top 6. Two of them being centers.

You get an all time great defensive guard...who also happens to be a great rebounder as well. And you are going to see a defense dramatically improve over a team with ****ing 01 Marbury playing 38 minutes a game at -2.9 defensive rapm.


Do you not see how stupid your post was? You listed solely offensive stuff. ****...you don't even list rebounding. And then you ask why?

Well, the big difference was the defense. It went from 23rd to 1st you clown.
And it went that way because you replaced one of the worst guard defenders in the league...honestly, probably the worst outside of Nash...and even then it's debatable as at least Nash tried. And you replace it not only with the best guard defender, but you add 3 other important players. Two of them being centers...

To act like you gave a good look at all the stats...or that stats can't explain the above is not true at all.

If Marbury played the kind of defense Kidd did...and he got Kittles, Jefferson, Collins, and T-Mac...you'd see the win totals go up a lot as well.

I don't think you'd get to 56, but you'd get close.

It's really not hard. The offense marginally improved and the defense dramatically improved.

And in your "stats" you listed...you failed to be open about the fact that the two teams were dramatically different;

Van Horn played 5 less minutes in 02
Kittles didn't play at all in 01
Richard Jefferson didn't play at all in 01
T-Mac and Collins didn't play at all in 01
Williams and Harris each played significantly more in 01

Totally different teams...you didn't list any defensive or rebounding stuff...

LOL...you are a clown
DMAVS taking op to school. Numbers don't lie just how u interpret them.

[Pointguard]

You do realize you can have a good offense with a bunch of guys spreading around the scoring...right?

The 1992 Dream Team had one player score over 15 ppg iirc...Barkley.

Did they struggle scoring?

The point was that on an olympic type all star team...it's obvious you want a guy like Kidd running point. It's perfect for him...he doesn't have to score. He can spread the ball around and do what he does best....which includes doing the little things.

It's obvious why a guy like Marbury would not thrive in a situation like that...god damn you are dumber than I thought.

Huh? I am obviously talking about the Nets team when I say "Being on a team with no player averaging 15ppg and no consistent shooter or scorer, doesn't need scoring???" You aren't even reading anymore. When you get desperate you just go off in any direction.

[Pointguard]

DMAVS taking op to school. Numbers don't lie just how u interpret them.
If he's taking you to school, you are going to redo first grade.

If you depend on stats - moreso than trying to understand the game I feel sorry for you.

[DMAVS41]

Huh? I am obviously talking about the Nets team when I say "Being on a team with no player averaging 15ppg and no consistent shooter or scorer, doesn't need scoring???" You aren't even reading anymore. When you get desperate you just go off in any direction.

You were talking about the olympics...you brought it up. Now you have conceded that point I'm assuming and are shifting again.

Yes, the Nets did need scoring in 02, but they also had a pretty balanced team and were better suited for team play than Marbury's style.


Van Horn was a proven 20 ppg scorer
Martin was already capable of basically getting 15 a night as a rookie without Kidd
Kittles could get 13 to 15 a game
Jefferson was a talented offensive player from the jump
T-Mac wasn't great, but he had some skills in the post
Harris and Williams weren't complete scrubs for 7th and 8th men

What about that roster screams terrible offense? Nothing does...it should have been an average offense at least...especially at the pace they played...9th best in the league...and especially even more as they forced the 3rd most turnovers in the league...

They had the 17th best offense in the regular season....I'm not going nuts over that. I would actually expect peak Kidd to do better than that...like he did in the playoffs to be honest.

There is nothing about the above roster that screams of terrible offense while playing in a shit conference at a fast pace while also playing the easiest schedule in the league.

You are trying to figure out why the team won more games. You should really read the post the guy quoted above. I can't explain it to you any better than that.

[DMAVS41]

DMAVS taking op to school. Numbers don't lie just how u interpret them.

Someone that gets it...

[Pointguard]

You were talking about the olympics...you brought it up. Now you have conceded that point I'm assuming and are shifting again.

You can't admit you are wrong and just misread a very obvious quote? This is so typical of how you flow. You look crazy denying it. But that's been your style.


Van Horn was a proven 20 ppg scorer
Martin was already capable of basically getting 15 a night as a rookie without Kidd
Kittles could get 13 to 15 a game
Jefferson was a talented offensive player from the jump
T-Mac wasn't great, but he had some skills in the post
Harris and Williams weren't complete scrubs for 7th and 8th men

Sorry, not the first one of any of the guys you mentioned were ever winners or got to the level you are talking about without Kidd after this, and they were all young outside of the last two, and it was still the pinnacle of their careers. All of the guys mentioned were never consistent in their whole careers -without exception offensively. And they never played better in high pressure situations than those two years. Kidd put everybody on the same page and got a lot out of them.



What about that roster screams terrible offense? Nothing does...it should have been an average offense at least...especially at the pace they played...9th best in the league...and especially even more as they forced the 3rd most turnovers in the league...

They had the 17th best offense in the regular season....I'm not going nuts over that. I would actually expect peak Kidd to do better than that...like he did in the playoffs to be honest.

There is nothing about the above roster that screams of terrible offense while playing in a shit conference at a fast pace while also playing the easiest schedule in the league.
The schedule might have on less tough team that I'm sure the Nets beat in the playoffs. Then they might have only had two day games. WOOOOOOO, this definitely separates their schedule from the other teams.

[Pointguard]

Someone that gets it...
He's a Mavs fan and might be one of your alias. If he isn't you, a good friend might considering pulling your coat when you start lying, missing obvious post, or in over your head. Each one of your friends only fueled the fire, which you just don't need.

[DMAVS41]

You can't admit you are wrong and just misread a very obvious quote? This is so typical of how you flow. You look crazy denying it. But that's been your style.

Sorry, not the first one of any of the guys you mentioned were ever winners or got to the level you are talking about without Kidd after this, and they were all young outside of the last two, and it was still the pinnacle of their careers. All of the guys mentioned were never consistent in their whole careers -without exception offensively. And they never played better in high pressure situations than those two years. Kidd put everybody on the same page and got a lot out of them.

The schedule might have on less tough team that I'm sure the Nets beat in the playoffs. Then they might have only had two day games. WOOOOOOO, this definitely separates their schedule from the other teams.


I can't even follow your thinking anymore.

Van Horn was a proven scorer. Sorry...pressure situations? Stop brining up the playoffs...or if you do...please post what Kidd was in the playoffs

A 20/9/8 player that improved his efficiency and ortg

You can't list regular season stats and then infer the playoffs from that.

You listed a 15/10/7 48% TS player with 103 ortg in the regular season

Well, your problem is that Kidd played both better and differently in the playoffs...this making my point for me...at;

20/9/8 49% TS 104 ortg...

scoring 25% more points on better efficiency and offensive rating while decreasing your turnover percentage is tangible...it's a real legit difference in play

Why didn't you list playoff stats if you are going to the playoffs? I thought this was about "when stats lie"...

Could it be you have an agenda and thought we were all so stupid not to notice the total difference in team strength between 01 and 02? Or that Kidd played better offensively in the playoffs?????

GTFO clown...

And dude...you initially asked about the regular season turn around. So you think playing the easiest schedule in the league doesn't matter? You think having the best defense in the league doesn't matter? You think improving the teams rebounding doesn't matter? You think getting 4 key new rotation players doesn't matter?

You have lost your ****ing mind...

[tpols]

Van Horn was a proven 20 ppg scorer
Martin was already capable of basically getting 15 a night as a rookie without Kidd
Kittles could get 13 to 15 a game
Jefferson was a talented offensive player from the jump
T-Mac wasn't great, but he had some skills in the post
Harris and Williams weren't complete scrubs for 7th and 8th men
.

Van Horn was a spot up shooter.. so was kittles. Jefferson was super athletic but kinda raw. Definitely couldnt be leaned on as any type of iso scorer. Maccoulagh was garbage offensively. Slow, cant run anything through him, just pure defensive role player/big body. And Kenyon Martin held far more value defense and rebounding than he did offensively. He's never been a great offensive player and definitely wouldnt be a guy youd throw the ball to when you needed a bucket.



PG is right.. you DO rely on stat waaay too much. Throwing out numbers but not describing any of their games lol.. anyone can put up stats on garbage teams. Gerald Wallace has had a bunch of seasons averaging around what KVH averaged but hes pretty terrible offensively. All points are not scored in the same way.. we can go through lists of players who were much better scorers and especially iso scorers who scored way less than somebody who was inferior.

Like Kittles versus current joe johnson.. whose the better scorer? I'd venture their averages and percentages are similar, but JJ is waaaay more reliable to get a bucket or generate offense if its needed where as kittles needs to be set up.. hence Jason Kidd.

[DMAVS41]

Van Horn was a spot up shooter.. so was kittles. Jefferson was super athletic but kinda raw. Definitely couldnt be leaned on as any type of iso scorer. Maccoulagh was garbage offensively. Slow, cant run anything through him, just pure defensive role player/big body. And Kenyon Martin held far more value defense and rebounding than he did offensively. He's never been a great offensive player and definitely wouldnt be a guy youd throw the ball to when you needed a bucket.



PG is right.. you DO rely on stat waaay too much. Throwing out numbers but not describing any of their games lol.. anyone can put up stats on garbage teams. Gerald Wallace has had a bunch of seasons averaging around what KVH averaged but hes pretty terrible offensively. All points are not scored in the same way.. we can go through lists of players who were much better scorers and especially iso scorers who scored way less than somebody who was inferior.

Like Kittles versus current joe johnson.. whose the better scorer? I'd venture their averages and percentages are similar, but JJ is waaaay more reliable to get a bucket or generate offense if its needed where as kittles needs to be set up.. hence Jason Kidd.

Tpols...I'm sorry, I like you, but you are so wrong here...that team is not some inept offensive team. Put an average starting offensive pg on that team and play at the 9th fastest pace and you are going to get an offense somewhere between the 15th and 25th best in the league...

Do you realize that they had the 17th best offense in the league?

Also, it's not about really what each guy can do individually...it's about the mix. And that is a fine mix of offensive talent around a quality point guard.

Where do you think they would have fallen offensively with marbury? Could you at least answer something? you keep coming on here without offering anything tangible.

you won't quantify marbury vs kidd vs wb offensively. you won't answer how good you think the offense in 02 would have been with Marbury instead of Kidd.

You really think Marbury is leading that 02 team to worse than the 01 offense?

Try to answer some questions.

Also, LOL at me using stats too much...that is the challenge of the thread you dimwit...it's to prove why the Nets improved based on the stats.

I wouldn't even normally use stats for this...it's obvious to anyone with a brain why they improved. They replaced a shit defensive/rebounding pg with an elite one and added 4 new key rotation players and played the softest schedule in the league.

That is worth virtually all the improvements right there...we don't even need anything else. The remaining 10% would be all the intangible shit you two are going on about...but considering I already stated all that from the beginning...I don't see the argument.

Also, Kittles/Van Horn/Cassell had the 5th best offense in the league in 98...and they did it on a winning team. So your entire argument about how they could only do it on a bad team is false. Also, they played in a real conference...with 5 different teams winning 50 or more...and a 60 win team....playing the 11th hardest schedule. Let me guess though...it doesn't count for some stupid reason...even though Van Horn was actually a more well rounded player in 02 overall than he was as a rookie...

Van Horn was a spot up shooter? Actually no, he was more than that, but lets say he was...isn't that a great fit around Kidd? You need floor spacing and with Kidd's great "guru level" offense...it's always good to have a solid spot up shooter that shoots well like Van Horn and Kittles did. You act like that is a negative...why would you need a bunch of individual offensive creators around "the guru" in Kidd? That doesn't even make sense...that is why the Nets brought Kidd in...the one thing PG got right...it was to create a more balanced scoring attack and get his teammates in good positions to score. And that 02 team was fine offensively....the fact that you guys are acting like they sucked on offense in terms of talent and fit is just flat out pathetic...

Anyway, here is an education for you...here is rookie Van Horn...going against the best team in the league...LOL at only a spot up shooter...and you have the balls to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3_dkAM3PMg
See? That is what happens when you give Cassell a team about as good offensively as the 02 Nets...and they played at a slower pace as well...LOL

[tpols]

I disagree. I saw them all play and they absolutely were an offensively inept squad around Kidd. Again Kittles and Van Horn were nothing more than shooters. They werent playmakers or anything dynamic offensively. They were offensive role players specializing in one thing. Kenyon Martin has never been a great offensive player.. his niche is defense/hustle/intensity and hes great at that.. but offensively hes completely average. Collins/Macoulagh/mutumbo were all nothings offensively. Jefferson was a pretty good offensive player but he was young and raw.. And he never developed into a stud like what his athleticism suggested he couldve been anyways.

Overall those were not a core of talented offensive players. They had no dynamic offensive players at any positions besides point guard.. a bunch of shooters(albiet clutch shooters but again a lot of that can be attributed to kidd building their confidence and setting them up in great situations) and defensive specialists.

[DMAVS41]

I disagree. I saw them all play and they absolutely were an offensively inept squad around Kidd. Again Kittles and Van Horn were nothing more than shooters. They werent playmakers or anything dynamic offensively. They were offensive role players specializing in one thing. Kenyon Martin has never been a great offensive player.. his niche is defense/hustle/intensity and hes great at that.. but offensively hes completely average. Collins/Macoulagh/mutumbo were all nothings offensively. Jefferson was a pretty good offensive player but he was young and raw.. And he never developed into a stud like what his athleticism suggested he couldve been anyways.

Overall those were not a core of talented offensive players. They had no dynamic offensive players at any positions besides point guard.. a bunch of shooters(albiet clutch shooters but again a lot of that can be attributed to kidd building their confidence and setting them up in great situations) and defensive specialists.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3_dkAM3PMg

Stop it. Van Horn was not just a spot up shooter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My god you are so ignorant....he had legit skills offensively. I'm not going to go overboard like you would and call him the 2nd coming or something, but he was not ****ing Kyle Korver...

You are probably only thinking about him when he played with Iverson...LOL

Admit you were wrong please...

Van Horn fit in well with a Kidd led team. He could stretch the floor, finish around the basket, move well without the ball, didn't need the ball much, didn't hold it a lot when he got it, had a pretty decent wing post game. Actually pretty athletic and long as well.

Describing him as just a "spot up shooter" is just a joke...


Also, who said it was a special offensive unit? Again a straw man...they weren't special at all...that is the point. It was an average offensive team and would have been expected to fall somewhere between like 15 and 25...honestly that is me being generous...you'd have to have a pretty bad pointguard to not get that team top 20 in offense.

[tpols]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3_dkAM3PMg

Stop it. Van Horn was not just a spot up shooter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My god you are so ignorant....he had legit skills offensively. I'm not going to go overboard like you would and call him the 2nd coming or something, but he was not ****ing Kyle Korver...

You are probably only thinking about him when he played with Iverson...LOL

Admit you were wrong please...

an 18 point game where the first shot is a jump shot. :oldlol: that is your evidence?? I watched him play dude.. he was nothing more than a shooter. He wasnt a great slasher, post up player, passer, anything. He wasnt kyle korver because he could rebound the ball and had more range inside the arc. Kyle korver is probably the most niche shooter ever specializiing in nothing but ctach and shoot threes. KVH wasnt on that level he had more range from everywhere but he was still used almost exclusively as a shooter. An horry type clutch one at that.


Trying to prop keith van horn as a great offensive player lol.. he was a completely average baller. And the rest you cant even refute. Kittles/martin/Collins/mutumbo were starters and they were completely below average offensively as a core. Defensively they were great though..

[Pointguard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3_dkAM3PMg

Stop it. Van Horn was not just a spot up shooter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My god you are so ignorant....he had legit skills offensively. I'm not going to go overboard like you would and call him the 2nd coming or something, but he was not ****ing Kyle Korver...

You are probably only thinking about him when he played with Iverson...LOL

Admit you were wrong please...
Sorry that's Van Horne with confidence. That was not the same Van Horn in 2002 and I made allusions to this much earlier in this thread. TPOLS is right. He was a career 525TS% guy before 2002. He lost more and more confidence every year. He was wildly inconsistent. He wasn't stable at all.

[DMAVS41]

an 18 point game where the first shot is a jump shot. :oldlol: that is your evidence?? I watched him play dude.. he was nothing more than a shooter. He wasnt a great slasher, post up player, passer, anything. He wasnt kyle korver because he could rebound the ball and had more range inside the arc. Kyle korver is probably the most niche shooter ever specializiing in nothing but ctach and shoot threes. KVH wasnt on that level he had more range from everywhere but he was still used almost exclusively as a shooter. An horry type clutch one at that.


Trying to prop keith van horn as a great offensive player lol.. he was a completely average baller. And the rest you cant even refute.


What????

Stop the straw-men...please.

Please tell me when I said KVH was a great offensive player?

I said he was way more than a spot up shooter. He had legit offensive skills and was a well rounded offensive player that actually fits in perfectly with a Kidd led team on offense.

KVH knew how to play team offense.

I never said he was great.

I said he wasn't just a shooter like you claimed. You were wrong of course, as usual, but won't admit it.

Also, care to explain how Kittles/KVH/Cassell had the 5th best offense in the league in 98? Actually playing in a real conference...getting a winning record? They played at a slower pace than the 02 Nets did as well...and again, KVH was a more well rounded player by 02.

Please explain...

[DMAVS41]

Sorry that's Van Horne with confidence. That was not the same Van Horn in 2002 and I made allusions to this much earlier in this thread. TPOLS is right. He was a career 525TS% guy before 2002. He lost more and more confidence every year. He was wildly inconsistent. He wasn't stable at all.

Yea, he sucked...he was just a 18/7/2 53.3% TS player from 98 through 04...

He was a solid offensive player. He was far more than just a shooter. If you have any integrity you will admit that Van Horn was a solid all around offensive player.

He could post on the wing and face decently, he could finish at the rim when he got there because he was suprisingly athletic and long, he knew how to move without the ball, and he didn't need the ball.

He was a good offensive player in his own right. Just like Kittles was. These guys were not scrubs.

They had the 5th best offense in 98 and the 10th best offense in 00.

You guys really should be ashamed of yourselves...having no dignity or integrity at all. Trying to straw man me and then just ignoring what should be ****ing facts...

Clowns...really...just pathetic...

[Pointguard]

I can't even follow your thinking anymore.

Van Horn was a proven scorer. Sorry...pressure situations? Stop brining up the playoffs...or if you do...please post what Kidd was in the playoffs

He came out the gate impressively. Lost his confidence in '01 and was wildly inconsistent since. Sorry I am keeping you focused and will not go for your wild side shows.



And dude...you initially asked about the regular season turn around. So you think playing the easiest schedule in the league doesn't matter? You think having the best defense in the league doesn't matter? You think improving the teams rebounding doesn't matter? You think getting 4 key new rotation players doesn't matter?

You have lost your ****ing mind...
:lol I said "player two totally reversed the fortunes of the team." Last place to the finals. This is too hard for you?

[DMAVS41]

So lets think logically...

Kittles/Van Horn/Cassell have the 5th best offense in 98

Kittles/Van Horn/Marbury have the 10the best offense in 00

Then in 01...Kittles misses the year...and KVH only plays 49 games. Marbury misses 15 games...

And they have the 24th best offense

Then they get Kittles and KVH back in 02 around Kidd...and they have the 17th best offense



And you guys are going on about Kidd transforming the offense??????? Come back to reality please....

[DMAVS41]

He came out the gate impressively. Lost his confidence in '01 and was wildly inconsistent since. Sorry I am keeping you focused and will not go for your wild side shows.


:lol I said "player two totally reversed the fortunes of the team." Last place to the finals. This is too hard for you?

And you listed the regular season offensive stats!!!!

Why not list both? If you were talking about the playoffs...why not list the playoff stats?

Oh wait...it's because Kidd scored 25% more points on better efficiency and individual ortg and decreased his turnover percentage...but that wouldn't suit your agenda thread so you tried to poison the well from the get go...

[Pointguard]

Yea, he sucked...he was just a 18/7/2 53.3% TS player from 98 through 04...

He was a solid offensive player. He was far more than just a shooter. If you have any integrity you will admit that Van Horn was a solid all around offensive player. He was inconsistent and hard to trade. They were trying to get rid of him and did get rid of him and they NEEDED OFFENSE. Nothing else needs to be added here. You are lying and saying you knew the team.




They had the 5th best offense in 98 and the 10th best offense in 00.

You guys really should be ashamed of yourselves...having no dignity or integrity at all. Trying to straw man me and then just ignoring what should be ****ing facts...

Clowns...really...just pathetic...
:lol :lol :lol You are flat out lying and act like you know what you are talking about. You are a circus clown looking for work. You have no idea of when to stop.

[DMAVS41]

He was inconsistent and hard to trade. They were trying to get rid of him and did get rid of him and they NEEDED OFFENSE. Nothing else needs to be added here. You are lying and saying you knew the team.


:lol :lol :lol You are flat out lying and act like you know what you are talking about. You are a circus clown looking for work. You have no idea of when to stop.

I knew Van Horn.

He was not just a spot up shooter. Saying so is ignorant.

It's not lying....KVH/Kittles/Cassell had a top 5 offense in 98. They had a top 10 offense in 00 with Marbury.

In 01 Kittles missed the entire year and KVH missed 33 games.

Your agenda is obvious....****ing clowns

Can't believe tpols is falling for this shit...

[tpols]

Im not falling for anything lol.. again Ive seen these games. I dont need to know that Keith Van Horn and Kerry Kittles have averaged 18ppg to assess their ability as offensive players.. they were never exceptional offensive talents and yes they were both mainly used as shooters with Kidd. By 02 KVH was on his way down.. still could perform in his role but for being the second or third best offensive player on the team.. he wasnt special.

At least you didnt refute anything said about kittles.. that wouldve really been ridiculous. And of course the centers and kenyon martin cant be defended either. They were not even average offensively in their frontcourt. Defensively they were elite but offense nope.

[DMAVS41]

Im not falling for anything lol.. again Ive seen these games. I dont need to know that Keith Van Horn and Kerry Kittles have averaged 18ppg to assess their ability as offensive players.. they were never exceptional offensive talents and yes they were both mainly used as shooters with Kidd. By 02 KVH was on his way down.. still could perform in his role but for being the second or third best offensive player on the team.. he wasnt special.

At least you didnt refute anything said about kittles.. that wouldve really been ridiculous. And of course the centers and kenyon martin cant be defended either. They were not even average offensively in their frontcourt. Defensively they were elite but offense nope.

Dude...I am trying to hear you out.

I don't need "special"...the 02 Nets were the ****ing 17th best offensive team.

Based on all the evidence of a healthy Kittles/Van Horn/good PG...you'd expect them to be at least a top 15 offense.

LOL at this straw man "special"

KVH and Kittles were solid offensive players...they fit in well around Kidd actually.

I'm asking...why were the top 5 in 98 and top 10 in 00 when healthy? Doesn't that strike you as odd if Kidd supposedly transformed them offensively?

You obviously do need some education...you thought KVH was solely a spot up player. He was a well rounded offensive player...sorry

Please tell me what you would have expected out of the Nets 02 offense? Please answer this!

Is 17 where you would expect them to fall with Kidd "the guru"???

[tpols]

Dude...I am trying to hear you out.

I don't need "special"...the 02 Nets were the ****ing 17th best offensive team.

Based on all the evidence of a healthy Kittles/Van Horn/good PG...you'd expect them to be at least a top 15 defense.

LOL at this straw man "special"

KVH and Kittles were solid offensive players...they fit in well around Kidd actually.

I'm asking...why were the top 5 in 98 and top 10 in 00 when healthy? Doesn't that strike you as odd if Kidd supposedly transformed them offensively?

You obviously do need some education...you thought KVH was solely a spot up player. He was a well rounded offensive player...sorry

Please tell me what you would have expected out of the Nets 02 offense? Please answer this!

Is 17 where you would expect them to fall with Kidd "the guru"???

totally different teams and identities.. both ones you listed were garbage defensively and had win totals of 30 and 43.. Keith Van Horn was better in 98 than he was in 02 and had a larger role on the team.

Whose to say where they rank if you ask Sam Cassell to play with Kenyon Martin as his featured player and try to commit on defense on top of running the offense.. its just totally different situations. Nets were built off a defensive identity, but that doesnt mean Kidd wasnt a great offensive player.. the team had to go that direction to compete.

You arent winning anything trying to outgun teams with kittles/Martin/Collins in your starting lineup.. you might win 30 or so games, like what the guys you brought up won.

[DMAVS41]

totally different teams and identities.. both ones you listed were garbage defensively and had win totals of 30 and 43.. Keith Van Horn was better in 98 than he was in 02 and had a larger role on the team.

Whose to say where they rank if you ask Sam Cassell to play with Kenyon Martin as his featured player and try to commit on defense on top of running the offense.. its just totally different situations. Nets were built off a defensive identity, but that doesnt mean Kidd wasnt a great offensive player.. the team had to go that direction to compete.

You arent winning anything trying to outgun teams with kittles/Martin/Collins in your starting lineup.. you might win 30 or so games, like what the guys you brought up won.

You realize you just made virtually all my points. That is why Kidd was so much better than Marbury! He could run and offense and defend/rebound...what are you arguing then??????

You also realize that winning 43 in the 98 East is actually not far off winning 52 in the 02 East?

The conferences aren't even remotely comparable....

But thanks for making my point that they focused on defense and rebounding...and it really had nothing to do with offense.

You'd have more of an argument if the Nets really grinded it out...they didn't. They played at the 9th fastest pace in the game...and had more than enough offensive weapons to finish top 15 or so in the league with a quality pg...even focusing on defense.

But alas...you are coming around and realizing how little the offense meant...or how just not special anything going on offensively was in that regular season in perhaps the worst conference of the last 15 years...

[tpols]

You realize you just made virtually all my points.

You also realize that winning 43 in the 98 East is actually not far off winning 52 in the 02 East?

The conferences aren't even remotely comparable....

But thanks for making my point that they focused on defense and rebounding...and it really had nothing to do with offense.

I said that from the get go.:oldlol:

I was just talking about your judgement of kidd not being a great offensive player because of the offenses he was on. Its harder to have a top offense if your commited to being one of the best defenses in the league and vice versa its easier to put up stats and gun on bad teams while not giving it your all on defense. Your examples havent really proved any of that to be wrong.

[DMAVS41]

I said that from the get go.:oldlol:

I was just talking about your judgement of kidd not being a great offensive player because of the offenses he was on. Its harder to have a top offense if your commited to being one of the best defenses in the league and vice versa its easier to put up stats and gun on bad teams while not giving it your all on defense. Your examples havent really proved any of that to be wrong.

Of course it is...I haven't argued that.

That is why I'm not hating on Kidd for only having the 17th best offense.

That is the point...that is what made Kidd special. He could defend and rebound at elite levels and also run an offense that didn't make mistakes and didn't play hero ball and worked well together.

I'm not saying the Nets should have been top 5 or top 10 on offense....I'm saying that because they played the defense...that anywhere from 15th to 20th is what you would expect on offense with a quality pg

What makes Kidd special is that he could do both...I'm so confused now...that has been my point the entire time. That Kidd didn't transform the offense...he and the new players transformed the defense and then it was the ability of Kidd to make the offense about average that was the icing on the cake.

Other pg's could have gotten that offense to around 15th or so in the league...what they couldn't have done was actually contribute to the defense and rebounding like Kidd did...

[Pointguard]

I knew Van Horn.

He was not just a spot up shooter. Saying so is ignorant.

It's not lying....KVH/Kittles/Cassell had a top 5 offense in 98. They had a top 10 offense in 00 with Marbury.

In 01 Kittles missed the entire year and KVH missed 33 games.

Your agenda is obvious....

Can't believe tpols is falling for this shit...
There is no agenda. It's obvious. Teams that don't have scorers and make it to championship series don't trade a scorer - Van Horn didn't have other useful dimensions. Use your common sense.

Wow. So why would they trade, and seek to trade Van Horn if he was an all around offensive player when that was what they needed. He wasn't that player any more. You showed a clip two or three years before Kidd arrived because you couldn't find one '02 or beyond.

[DMAVS41]

There is no agenda. It's obvious. Teams that don't have scorers and make it to championship series don't trade a scorer - Van Horn didn't have other useful dimensions. Use your common sense.

Wow. So why would they trade, and seek to trade Van Horn if he was an all around offensive player when that was what they needed. He wasn't that player any more. You showed a clip two or three years before Kidd arrived because you couldn't find one '02 or beyond.

Stop it.

All I said was the Van Horn was not just a spot up shooter...any refutation of that shows how little you are willing to be honest about.

The agenda was obvious. The Nets had a below average offense in the league in 02 and won off their defense...it's simple.

Not only that, but any improvement in the offense from 01 to 02 can be seen with Kittles coming back after missing the entire 01 season...Van Horn being healthy, Martin improving, and just a better offensive team overall with a point guard better suited for the team.

They traded Van Horn because he wasn't a very good defender and they knew they should just go all in on defense...LOL...thus making my point for me even more.


I'm officially down with this thread. Good conversations about some parts...bad on others.

[Pointguard]

Stop it.

All I said was the Van Horn was not just a spot up shooter...any refutation of that shows how little you are willing to be honest about.

The agenda was obvious. The Nets had a below average offense in the league in 02 and won off their defense...it's simple.

Not only that, but any improvement in the offense from 01 to 02 can be seen with Kittles coming back after missing the entire 01 season...Van Horn being healthy, Martin improving, and just a better offensive team overall with a point guard better suited for the team.

They traded Van Horn because he wasn't a very good defender and they knew they should just go all in on defense...LOL...thus making my point for me even more.

I'm officially down with this thread. Good conversations about some parts...bad on others.
Stop it!

You said he was a proven 20 point scorer more than once in this thread then you showed a video of him three years before he played with Kidd. I said early early in this thread he was no longer that player. You know who he was earlier is not relevant to this conversation. You hyping up the players for who they once were and not what they would ever be again. Kittles was not the same player either. He stayed at 13ppg for 5 years - that's who he was. In a winning atmosphere that is what they could offer.