cp3 vs kidd vs payton

[mehyaM24]

kind of an extension of the nash vs cp3 thread - i was legitimately surprised so many posters took nash over him.

i would too, but i thought it would be closer is all.

anyway, between the 3 in the title, who's the better player & who would you take in the playoffs, assuming the team is built around the players strength? :confusedshrug:

[DaOldLion]

for me this is between Kidd vs Payton for first, hard to choose. Probably go with GP

[mehyaM24]

for me this is between Kidd vs Payton for first, hard to choose. Probably go with GP

at his best, gp lead a team to the finals, was the only player i can think of that legimately shut down jordan (last 3 games of that series) won a dpoy over pippen, dream, rodman, robinson, etc., while still averaging 20 & 7. cp3 and kidd were great, but i think i'll take glove as well.

i don't question his competitive drive, or who he got his numbers against - a huge plus for me.

[ScalsFan21]

It's close between Kidd and Payton. I think I lead towards J-Kidd, then Glove, then Chris Paul.

[Young X]

CP3 is definitely better than the other 2. He can run the best offense in the league while playing All-NBA defense. How many other players at the PG position could you say that about? His skill level and all around play are superior to Kidd and Payton.

Payton is 2nd. He and Kidd are 2 of the best defenders at that position but Payton was a much better offensive player than Kidd and offense is the most important thing I look for in a PG.

[LAKingKobe]

Frankly this is between CP and Kidd for best and Payton third. CP can operate a much better NBa offense due to his playmaking ability which is far superior to Payton's. Kidd was like mini lebron in a sense meaning he could put up big time numbers and also carry a teams offense. He had some great numbers the seasons he made the finals. I don't see Payton being able to do what Kidd and cp do.

[DMAVS41]

CP3 is definitely better than the other 2. He can run the best offense in the league while playing All-NBA defense. How many other players at the PG position could you say that about? His skill level and all around play are superior to Kidd and Payton.

Payton is 2nd. He and Kidd are 2 of the best defenders at that position but Payton was a much better offensive player than Kidd and offense is the most important thing I look for in a PG.

Paul is the best of the 3, but Kidd was better than Payton.

[Young X]

Paul is the best of the 3, but Kidd was better than Payton.Why?

[DMAVS41]

Why?

Kidd made his teammates better and could control the flow of a game and dictate pace better than Payton.

[Young X]

Kidd made his teammates better and could control the flow of a game and dictate pace better than Payton.Yeah, but he was a mediocre/bad scorer. He was a limited and inefficient offensive player.

Outside of one year, he never led even an average offense. They were all either below average or bad.

Payton wasn't the best scorer either but he was a better offensive anchor than Kidd was.

[plowking]

Kidd is quite comfortably the worst player of the three.

[Reggie43]

They are close but I would take Payton at his peak everytime over the other two..

[game3524]

Tough question.

CP3 is a better offensive player, but Kidd and GP's size and defense skills/versatility is hard to pass up.

I would likely take Kidd first. He may not have the offensive game as GP and CP3, but his leadership skills were off the chart. Guys loved playing with Kidd, I can't say that for CP3 and GP and that is really important IMO when comes to the PG positions.

It is a toss between GP and CP3 for second.

[GreatHILL]

prime peyton shitts on this 2 losers

[mehyaM24]

Tough question.

CP3 is a better offensive player, but Kidd and GP's size and defense skills/versatility is hard to pass up.

I would likely take Kidd first. He may not have the offensive game as GP and CP3, but his leadership skills were off the chart. Guys loved playing with Kidd, I can't say that for CP3 and GP and that is really important IMO when comes to the PG positions.

It is a toss between GP and CP3 for second.

its amazing really.

you got magic, oscar, isiah, and nash comfortably ahead of cp3 - and now the three in my op are a tossup.. i actually forgot about john stockton, so if anybody wants to give him love, go ahead and include him in this discussion.

if anything the topics over the last several weeks have exposed cp3 as an overrated point guard, and guys after magic/oscar/isiah as completely underrated.

the nash vs cp3 thread was like 90% in favor of nash..

[Genaro]

CP3 is the better player but as far as careers go, he's the third. Kidd had the best career although individually he's the worst.

[Fallen Angel]

I'd probably take Gary Payton. It's either him or Jason Kidd.

I'd give the edge to Payton because of his scoring ability.

[Goofsta Knicca]

From GP himself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOxgV1Tcw3w&feature=youtu.be&t=1m34s

[GrapeApe]

Kidd turned around one of the worst organiztions in the league and took them to back to back finals. Prime Kidd is one of the few players in history who could dominate a game without scoring a point.

[Killbot]

Gary Payton.

Not mentioning his basketball skills:

Tough, strong, vocal, trash talker

:applause:

[feyki]

Kidd
CP3
Payton

[aj1987]

at his best, gp lead a team to the finals, was the only player i can think of that legimately shut down jordan (last 3 games of that series) won a dpoy over pippen, dream, rodman, robinson, etc., while still averaging 20 & 7. cp3 and kidd were great, but i think i'll take glove as well.

i don't question his competitive drive, or who he got his numbers against - a huge plus for me.
We don't agree on too many things, but you're spot on. Dude was a beast on both ends of the court.

Prime Payton averaged 21/8/5/2 with DPOY level defense. CP3 for his career averages 19/4/10/2 with worse defense than GP.

[tpols]

paul is the most efficient, effective offensive player, but the worst defender of the bunch and the worst intangibles. His pouty, bratty attitude rubs off on teammates.. just makes them softer than they would be if they had kidd or gp leading by tough example. I have it kidd > payton > paul.

[aj1987]

paul is the most efficient, effective offensive player, but the worst defender of the bunch and the worst intangibles. His pouty, bratty attitude rubs off on teammates.. just makes them softer than they would be if they had kidd or gp leading by tough example. I have it kidd > payton > paul.
How is Kidd better than GP?

[tpols]

How is Kidd better than GP?

GP is more man to man defense, and individual scoring skill, while kidd is more team defense/rebounding, and less individual scoring skill but a better team player/genius level team IQ, pace control etc. Id rather have that stuff in my PG than what GP has, which seems like a more useful skillset for a combo guard or sg.

[aj1987]

GP is more man to man defense, and individual scoring skill, while kidd is more team defense/rebounding, and less individual scoring skill but a better team player/genius level team IQ, pace control etc. Id rather have that stuff in my PG than what GP has, which seems like a more useful skillset for a combo guard or sg.
GP took his team within 2 games of winning the title against the '96 Bulls. He's an elite team defender as well. Overall defense is definitely GP. Definitely a better rebounder and a playmaker. No question about that, but dude was inefficient AF and couldn't score. His best statistical season, he averaged 24/7/9/2. Those are LeBron numbers. 22/5/8/2 over 7 seasons.

Dude is literally one of the only players to have "shut down" MJ over multiple games in a series.

[DMAVS41]

GP took his team within 2 games of winning the title against the '96 Bulls. He's an elite team defender as well. Overall defense is definitely GP. Definitely a better rebounder and a playmaker. No question about that, but dude was inefficient AF and couldn't score. His best statistical season, he averaged 24/7/9/2. Those are LeBron numbers. 22/5/8/2 over 7 seasons.

Dude is literally one of the only players to have "shut down" MJ over multiple games in a series.

I have no issue with someone taking GP, but I'm curious...was Payton better than Nash in your opinion?

[DMAVS41]

paul is the most efficient, effective offensive player, but the worst defender of the bunch and the worst intangibles. His pouty, bratty attitude rubs off on teammates.. just makes them softer than they would be if they had kidd or gp leading by tough example. I have it kidd > payton > paul.

There is no doubt that Paul's tactics and his time spent whining and crying and gaming the game...rather than just playing the game has been a serious detriment to both his team and himself. Legit could have cost them a chance at the title in 14 because he was too busy trying to game the system.

However, Paul is clearly the most complete player of the group and really doesn't have a weakness when it comes to skillset.

Now, I take your point and agree with it...but it's hard to really get to the bottom of this one because I don't know if Paul's attitude and playoff results are more products of his circumstances rather than a reflection of his true impact/value.

[aj1987]

I have no issue with someone taking GP, but I'm curious...was Payton better than Nash in your opinion?
With PG's, it depends entirely upon the team. If it was just a random team, I'd pick GP. Dude could score, rebound, pass, and defend. Nash could do only two of those at an elite level for PG's. Nash is a fantastic player, but so was GP. His defense is getting significantly undervalued. Nash could put up 20 points and 10 assists, but what's the use if he's giving up 25+ on the other end?

[ArbitraryWater]

1. Paul
2. Payton
3. Kidd


GP took his team within 2 games of winning the title against the '96 Bulls. He's an elite team defender as well. Overall defense is definitely GP. Definitely a better rebounder and a playmaker. No question about that, but dude was inefficient AF and couldn't score. His best statistical season, he averaged 24/7/9/2. Those are LeBron numbers. 22/5/8/2 over 7 seasons.

Dude is literally one of the only players to have "shut down" MJ over multiple games in a series.

someone just said that here thanks :oldlol:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183977

[DMAVS41]

With PG's, it depends entirely upon the team. If it was just a random team, I'd pick GP. Dude could score, rebound, pass, and defend. Nash could do only two of those at an elite level for PG's. Nash is a fantastic player, but so was GP. His defense is getting significantly undervalued. Nash could put up 20 points and 10 assists, but what's the use if he's giving up 25+ on the other end?

I'm not arguing Nash was better. I was just curious who you thought was better.

[ArbitraryWater]

Kidd turned around one of the worst organiztions in the league and took them to back to back finals. Prime Kidd is one of the few players in history who could dominate a game without scoring a point.

In the worst conference ever.. and one of those years aided by a Billups injury.

[tpols]

In the worst conference ever.. and one of those years aided by a Billups injury.

it's all relative.. kidd had Kenyon martin and Jason Collins. CP3 has blake griffin and deandre Jordan.

Jkidd faced lesser competition, but he had lesser teammates so it evens out.

[ArbitraryWater]

it's all relative.. kidd had Kenyon martin and Jason Collins. CP3 has blake griffin and deandre Jordan.

Jkidd faced lesser competition, but he had lesser teammates so it evens out.

I don't think DJ is even worth noting, tbh...

I don't see Kidd coming nearly as close to the WCF in '08 as Paul did, nor even make it past the Spurs in '15 (Paul had a historic series).. and right from the set up I don't see him leading the Clippers to the same regular season success, Paul led league leading offenses, I don't really have a thing for PG's that shoot in the low 40's/high 30's.

[tpols]

I don't think DJ is even worth noting, tbh...

I don't see Kidd coming nearly as close to the WCF in '08 as Paul did, nor even make it past the Spurs in '15 (Paul had a historic series).. and right from the set up I don't see him leading the Clippers to the same regular season success, Paul led league leading offenses, I don't really have a thing for PG's that shoot in the low 40's/high 30's.

DJ is worth noting in comparison to early 00s Nets centers.. he's a vast upgrade.


the Kidd K-mart chemistry was a thing of beauty on both ends.. the blocks, steals, alley oops from half court, open floor game.. I cant even imagine what kidd would do with weapons around the rim like blake griffin and Jordan. That would be a sight to behold.


Agree on the offense not being as good with Kidd.. would be more exciting but less effective especially half court offense, but the defense and team discipline would improve 10 fold. The Clippers have all the talent to compete for titles but have a middling defense. If Kidd could drag the guys he had to the number 1 defense in the league he could certainly make the clippers a very elite defense as well. They were ranked 15th last year in defense... that's dogshit for a playoff team.


And Jkidd's defense and the type of D he inspires his squad to play will never choke or disappear in the playoffs like paul's offense can.

[feyki]

In the worst conference ever.. and one of those years aided by a Billups injury.

Lebron made finals on the same level conference and he was trash in finals. But people says that Lebron's 2007 was epic and Kidd's b2b finals was trash , right?

Double standard .

[Young X]

it's all relative.. kidd had Kenyon martin and Jason Collins. CP3 has blake griffin and deandre Jordan.

Jkidd faced lesser competition, but he had lesser teammates so it evens out.No it doesn't even out.

The Nets were still the best team in the east, facing inferior teams in every round and had homecourt advantage throughout the playoffs.

The Clippers were the 3rd-5th seed and had to face the Spurs (twice), Thunder, Warriors, Grizzlies, and Rockets. Most of those series on the road.

The Nets had to beat the 44 win Baron Davis/Jamal Mashburn Hornets to the conference finals.

The Clippers had to get through the 59 win Durant/Westbrook Thunder to get to the conference finals.

Kidd faced ONE 50 win team to get to the finals in the those years, CP3 never faced a team with less than 51 wins in the playoffs.

The east in the early 00's was a complete joke. There's a reason Kidd went from either losing in the 1st round or missing the playoffs in his first 7 seasons playing in the west to immediately getting to the finals as soon as he went to the east.

[ArbitraryWater]

Lebron made finals on the same level conference and he was trash in finals. But people says that Lebron's 2007 was epic and Kidd's b2b finals was trash , right?

Double standard .

Nobody says that.. the 2008-2012 East is SUBSTANTIALLY better than the 2000-2003 and 2007 East...

LeBron wasn't even top 3 in 2007, his run isn't very impressive to me at all, for the same reasons Kidd's wasn't. Bron did however have one of the greatest games ever, that is undeniable.

[Smoke117]

GP took his team within 2 games of winning the title against the '96 Bulls. He's an elite team defender as well. Overall defense is definitely GP. Definitely a better rebounder and a playmaker. No question about that, but dude was inefficient AF and couldn't score. His best statistical season, he averaged 24/7/9/2. Those are LeBron numbers. 22/5/8/2 over 7 seasons.

Dude is literally one of the only players to have "shut down" MJ over multiple games in a series.

No...he isn't. Payton has become one of the most overrated pg's ever because of how he was allowed to do whatever the hell he wanted after the Sonics title aspirations ended. He was NEVER an elite team defender and his impact defensively was never as high as Kidds overall.


Kidd
CP3
Payton

[Young X]

Here's what the Nets faced on their way to the finals...

42 win Pacers
44 win Hornets
49 win Celtics

42 win Bucks
44 win Celtics
50 win Pistons

You gotta be f*cking kidding me.

They faced one good team in 6 rounds. They faced TWO 44 win teams in the 2nd round. What a f*cking joke.

[feyki]

Nobody says that.. the 2008-2012 East is SUBSTANTIALLY better than the 2000-2003 and 2007 East...

LeBron wasn't even top 3 in 2007, his run isn't very impressive to me at all, for the same reasons Kidd's wasn't. Bron did however have one of the greatest games ever, that is undeniable.

Interesting .

I pick Lebron for third best player with Kobe in 2007 . I also pick Kidd for my top 3-4 in 2002 and 2003 .

East become stronger with 2008 cause Celtics and Magic were top 3-4 teams of the NBA .

East had one great team(2004-2006 Pistons) at between 99-07 .

Kidd had better rebounding,playmaking than Payton . And he was probably second goat pg defender after Payton .

CP3 will probably pass Kidd when his career over . But Kidd has best career of that group .

[game3524]

No it doesn't even out.

The Nets were still the best team in the east, facing inferior teams in every round and had homecourt advantage throughout the playoffs.

The Clippers were the 3rd-5th seed and had to face the Spurs (twice), Thunder, Warriors, Grizzlies, and Rockets. Most of those series on the road.

The Nets had to beat the 44 win Baron Davis/Jamal Mashburn Hornets to the conference finals.

The Clippers had to get through the 59 win Durant/Westbrook Thunder to get to the conference finals.

Kidd faced ONE 50 win team to get to the finals in the those years, CP3 never faced a team with less than 51 wins in the playoffs.

The east in the early 00's was a complete joke. There's a reason Kidd went from either losing in the 1st round or missing the playoffs in his first 7 seasons playing in the west to immediately getting to the finals as soon as he went to the east.

It does even out because the Nets roster wasn't anything special. In fact talent wise, the 8th seeded Pacers and a healthy Hornets team were better on paper.

[Young X]

It does even out because the Nets roster wasn't anything special. In fact talent wise, the 8th seeded Pacers and a healthy Hornets team were better on paper.I don't care who was better on paper. The Nets were the best team in that garbage conference. They had homecourt for every series except against Detroit.

The Clippers were never the best team in the west. There were always teams better than them that they had to get through to get to the finals.

Which is tougher or more unlikely:

The 50 win Clippers beating the 62 win Spurs in 2012?

or

The 52 win Nets beating the 44 win Hornets?


What about...

The 57 win Clippers beating the 59 win Thunder?

or

The 49 win Nets beating the 44 win Celtics?

If your answer is the Clippers then I don't see how everything evens out.

[GrapeApe]

Here's what the Nets faced on their way to the finals...

42 win Pacers
44 win Hornets
49 win Celtics

42 win Bucks
44 win Celtics
50 win Pistons

You gotta be f*cking kidding me.

They faced one good team in 6 rounds. They faced TWO 44 win teams in the 2nd round. What a f*cking joke.

I don't care who they faced, when you win 3 straight playoff series in back to back seasons with the kind of rosters the Nets had those years, it's impressive. Kidd completely revitalized a franchise that had routinely competed with the Clippers for being the laughing stock of the league. I don't know if some of you are too young to remember or what, but the Nets' organization was an embarrassment.

The east being weak in the early 2000's is well documented, but it doesn't diminish what Kidd did for that franchise. He controlled the game in a way that few PG's in history ever have. At his absolute best, Kidd had more impact than Payton or Paul at their absolute best.

[ArbitraryWater]

I don't care who they faced, when you win 3 straight playoff series in back to back seasons with the kind of rosters the Nets had those years, it's impressive. Kidd completely revitalized a franchise that had routinely competed with the Clippers for being the laughing stock of the league. I don't know if some of you are too young to remember or what, but the Nets' organization was an embarrassment.

The east being weak is well documented, but it doesn't diminish what Kidd did for that franchise. He controlled the game a way that few PG's in history ever have. At his absolute best, Kidd had more impact than Payton or Paul at their absolute best.


Why? Have you taken a look at the other teams in 2002 particularly? It would actually be an embarrassment to have lost to any of those teams, tbh...

Of course it doesn't diminish what he did, its simply not that impressive. Barring injuries of course the Pistons would be in the 2003 finals, also.

You say your last sentence like its a fact that can be backed up with impact stats, it can't.

[Young X]

I don't care who they faced, when you win 3 straight playoff series in back to back seasons with the kind of rosters the Nets had those years, it's impressive. Kidd completely revitalized a franchise that had routinely competed with the Clippers for being the laughing stock of the league. I don't know if some of you are too young to remember or what, but the Nets' organization was an embarrassment.

The east being weak is well documented, but it doesn't diminish what Kidd did for that franchise. He controlled the game a way that few PG's in history ever have. At his absolute best, Kidd had more impact than Payton or Paul at their absolute best.It's not about diminishing what Kidd did for the Nets.

The problem is when you compare situations and try to draw conclusions without looking at circumstances and context. The Nets didn't face good teams and had a much, much easier path to the finals then Payton or Paul's teams. To ignore that and not factor that in when comparing their team results is really stupid.

Why didn't Kidd get past the 1st round in his first 7 years playing out WEST? Why didn't he make the same "impact" for the Suns when he was actually facing good teams in the playoffs?

[TheMarkMadsen]

Why? Have you taken a look at the other teams in 2002 particularly? It would actually be an embarrassment to have lost to any of those teams, tbh...

Of course it doesn't diminish what he did, its simply not that impressive. Barring injuries of course the Pistons would be in the 2003 finals, also.

You say your last sentence like its a fact that can be backed up with impact stats, it can't.

why are you all of people trying to detract from a team because of the competition they faced on the way to the finals?

Nets faced teams of 42, 44, 49 wins

2013 Heats faced teams of 38, 45, 49

The below .500 bucks, the Nate Robinson led Bulls and the Pacers..

You won't be shitting on those Lebron runs due to lack of competition when compared to the teams other ATG faced on their finals runs.. but all of a sudden in this thread the teams you faced on the way to the finals matters a lot :oldlol: :oldlol:

[ArbitraryWater]

why are you all of people trying to detract from a team because of the competition they faced on the way to the finals?

Nets faced teams of 42, 44, 49 wins

2013 Heats faced teams of 38, 45, 49

The below .500 bucks, the Nate Robinson led Bulls and the Pacers..

You won't be shitting on those Lebron runs due to lack of competition, but all of a sudden in this thread the teams you faced on the way to the finals matters a lot :oldlol: :oldlol:

I won't and its simple why, the 2013 Pacers played 81 games, they didn't play their game @ Boston due to the Marathon bombings... so likely thats a 50-win team.

Regardless, Hibbert looked like Wilt against Bosh every post-season, Pacers came into the playoffs with everyone knowing they could give the Heat a scare, like the previous year, where they had the #5 record in the NBA. They were a legit top team and would easily win the East's of the early 2000.

edit:

Its very simple though... they beat the West's best, they won 27 games, and when you beat the best from the other conference, what else are you supposed to do?

Plus, they won the season series against OKC and SAS, and if I remember correctly, had a superior record against the West than the East...

period.

[game3524]

I don't care who was better on paper. The Nets were the best team in that garbage conference. They had homecourt for every series except against Detroit.

The Clippers were never the best team in the west. There were always teams better than them that they had to get through to get to the finals.

Which is tougher or more unlikely:

The 50 win Clippers beating the 62 win Spurs in 2012?

or

The 52 win Nets beating the 44 win Hornets?


What about...

The 57 win Clippers beating the 59 win Thunder?

or

The 49 win Nets beating the 44 win Celtics?

If your answer is the Clippers then I don't see how everything evens out.


They had the best record, but the gap between them talent wise to the other playoff teams wasn't that big. You are making it sound as if this was like the 2014 Heat, where they by far the best team in their conference. That simply wasn't the case with the 2002 Nets, who weren't even considered by many the favorites to get to the Finals that year. (I remember a ton of people thought Philly was the team to beat with a healthy AI coming back from a broken hand)

[Young X]

They had the best record, but the gap between them talent wise to the other playoff teams wasn't that big. You are making it sound as if this was like the 2014 Heat, where they by far the best team in their conference. That simply wasn't the case with the 2002 Nets, who weren't even considered by many the favorites to get to the Finals that year. (I remember a ton of people thought Philly was the team to beat with a healthy AI coming back from a broken hand)Were they or were they not still better than the rest of the teams in their conference? Was there a team like OKC or the Spurs standing in their way? No.

You didn't answer those questions in my post:

Which is tougher?

The 50 win Clippers beating the 62 win Spurs?
The 57 win Clippers beating the 59 win Thunder?

or

The 52 win Nets beating the 44 win Hornets?
The 49 win Nets beating the 44 win Celtics?

[TheMarkMadsen]

I won't and its simple why, the 2013 Pacers played 81 games, they didn't play their game @ Boston due to the Marathon bombings... so likely thats a 50-win team.

Regardless, Hibbert looked like Wilt against Bosh every post-season, Pacers came into the playoffs with everyone knowing they could give the Heat a scare, like the previous year, where they had the #5 record in the NBA. They were a legit top team and would easily win the East's of the early 2000.

edit:

Its very simple though... they beat the West's best, they won 27 games, and when you beat the best from the other conference, what else are you supposed to do?

Plus, they won the season series against OKC and SAS, and if I remember correctly, had a superior record against the West than the East...

period.

ok so if they won 50 then Miami's competition looks like this - 38 win team, 45 win team, 50 win team compared to The Net's facing a 42, 44 and 50 win teams

what's the difference? :oldlol: Celtics were garbage, Bulls were led by Nate Robinson and your excuse for the Pacers is that an all star player stepped up? That separates the competition? Paul Pierce put up 30/8/8/3 against the Nets, I guess that means their competition was stiff :lol

in 2014 they didn't face a 45 win team until the conference finals where they met the Pacers who had already been collapsing since the all star break and were 16-14 post ASG.

I guess facing weak competition on the way to the finals only detracts from you run when you're not AW's favorite player.. Keep it up this double standard is hilarious.

[tpols]

No it doesn't even out.

The Nets were still the best team in the east, facing inferior teams in every round and had homecourt advantage throughout the playoffs.

The Clippers were the 3rd-5th seed and had to face the Spurs (twice), Thunder, Warriors, Grizzlies, and Rockets. Most of those series on the road.

The Nets had to beat the 44 win Baron Davis/Jamal Mashburn Hornets to the conference finals.

The Clippers had to get through the 59 win Durant/Westbrook Thunder to get to the conference finals.

Kidd faced ONE 50 win team to get to the finals in the those years, CP3 never faced a team with less than 51 wins in the playoffs.

The east in the early 00's was a complete joke. There's a reason Kidd went from either losing in the 1st round or missing the playoffs in his first 7 seasons playing in the west to immediately getting to the finals as soon as he went to the east.

That Nets team was the best in the east because of Kidd. They were one of the worst teams in the league before he joined, specifically one of the worst defensive teams and under his leadership became the best defensive team in one of the toughest defensive era's the NBA has had to offer. it's unfair to use that as a point against Kidd.. it's not like he teamed up with a bunch of other all stars to form "the best team". The help was serviceable and Kidd made them look way better than they were.


Yes, Kidd's teams when he was in the West were perennial first second round fodder.. but look at his help relative to that competition. Loaded dual star teams like Lakers, Jazz, Spurs, etc. all in the West. Who did Kidd have? A bunch of journeymen...

How you can look at those Sun rosters and come away with "Kidd should've done more" is beyond me..


Meanwhile Paul is playing with a HOF caliber second option PF, All league defensive center who would be even better with Kidd.. a coach that's been there before.. a few guys who can knock down shots. That is waaaay better than what Kidd had, and there's no question Paul could've done more with them because he's a couple chokes away from having gone much farther than he went.

I'm not even saying Kidd >>> Paul.. all these guys are somewhat close, I just like Kidd's game better and think he would do more with what Paul has had than Paul would do with what he had.

[ArbitraryWater]

ok so if they won 50 then Miami's competition looks like this - 38 win team, 45 win team, 50 win team compared to The Net's facing a 42, 44 and 50 win teams

what's the difference? :oldlol: Celtics were garbage, Bulls were led by Nate Robinson and your excuse for the Pacers is that an all star player stepped up? That separates the competition? Paul Pierce put up 30/8/8/3 against the Nets, I guess that means their competition was stiff :lol

in 2014 they didn't face a 45 win team until the conference finals where they met the Pacers who had already been collapsing since the all star break and were 16-14 post ASG.

I guess facing weak competition on the way to the finals only detracts from you run when you're not AW's favorite player.. Keep it up this double standard is hilarious.

Its a fundamental difference...

A (2003 team): Goes to the finals because of incredibly bad competition (and an injury which you forget to mention)

B (2013 team): Wins title, beats West's best team, was the best team overall regardless of conference, PLAYED WHO THEY COULD PLAY IN THEIR CONFERENCE, then moved on and finished business in the finals....

PLUS 2nd longest winning streak in NBA history, positive season records against the West's TOP TEAMS, AND an even BETTER record against the West than their conference..

I urge you, please don't be dense for once and just think logically, I know you can :(

[game3524]

Were they or were they not still better than the rest of the teams in their conference? Was there a team like OKC or the Spurs standing in their way? No.

You didn't answer those questions in my post:

Which is tougher?

The 50 win Clippers beating the 62 win Spurs?
The 57 win Clippers beating the 59 win Thunder?

or

The 52 win Nets beating the 44 win Hornets?
The 49 win Nets beating the 44 win Celtics?

No, they weren't. They went 2-6 against both Boston and Detroit that year in the regular season and the only reason they even beat Boston in 2002 was due to Kidd's impressive play(Dude averaged a triple double for the entire series).

As for your question, I would say the Nets is tougher since they were a mediocre team. The Clippers against SA had the two best players and against OKC, they weren't overmatched or anything.....they choked.....which is again another knock on CP3.

[Young X]

That Nets team was the best in the east because of Kidd. They were one of the worst teams in the league before he joined, specifically one of the worst defensive teams and under his leadership became the best defensive team in one of the toughest defensive era's the NBA has had to offer. it's unfair to use that as a point against Kidd.. it's not like he teamed up with a bunch of other all stars to form "the best team". The help was serviceable and Kidd made them look way better than they were. Yeah and the Clippers were the worst franchise in NBA history before CP3 got there. He elevated them to a relevant franchise.

They became the best offensive team in the league and Paul's impact/prescence was the biggest reason for that.


Yes, Kidd's teams when he was in the West were perennial first second round fodder.. but look at his help relative to that competition. Loaded dual star teams like Lakers, Jazz, Spurs, etc. all in the West. Who did Kidd have? A bunch of journeymen...

How can you look at those Sun rosters and come away with "Kidd should've done more" is beyond me..But see, when he played in a competitive conference he fared no better than Paul did. He actually fared much worse.

There were no finals and conference finals trips in those years. Did Kidd suddenly have a huge impact when he got traded to the east where he got to face a bunch of mediocre 44 win teams on his way to the finals?

[tpols]

Yeah and the Clippers were the worst franchise in NBA history before CP3 got there. He elevated them to a relevant franchise.

They became the best offensive team in the league and Paul's impact/prescence was the biggest reason for that.

But see, when he played in a competitive conference he fared no better than Paul did. He actually fared much worse.

There were no finals and conference finals trips in those years. Did Kidd suddenly have a huge impact when he got traded to the east where he got to face a bunch of mediocre 44 win teams on his way to the finals?

He fared worse because he had Clifford Robinson instead of Blake Griffin ... amongst other discrepencies. Their teams are world's apart talent wise, despite the competition level being the same.. you cant just ignore team help. That's the other half of the equation you just omitted.

[DMAVS41]

He fared worse because he had Clifford Robinson instead of Blake Griffin ... amongst other discrepencies. Their teams are world's apart. I don't know how youre even comparing the situations right now.

I think whether one takes Kidd over Paul or not...the reasoning being that Kidd made the finals and Paul hasn't is a bad reason.

However, this just speaks to why it's so critical that Paul and his team choked two really good chances to advance and perhaps do something special away.

We saw Kidd at least get a team to the finals...we haven't even seen CP3 get a team to the conference finals. Yes, different circumstances, but it's hard to credit players with things they haven't really shown a sign of doing.

I certainly don't think beating the Rockets in round 2 is a very big "ask" out of Paul and the Clippers.

Granted...I think Paul is the better player here, but none of this stuff is going to stop. Some of it warranted...and some of it not.

[Young X]

No, they weren't. They went 2-6 against both Boston and Detroit that year in the regular season and the only reason they even beat Boston in 2002 was due to Kidd's impressive play(Dude averaged a triple double for the entire series).

As for your question, I would say the Nets is tougher since they were a mediocre team. The Clippers against SA had the two best players and against OKC, they weren't overmatched or anything.....they choked.....which is again another knock on CP3.So the 2012 Clippers had a better chance at beating the Spurs (who won 62 games and 20 straight at one point) than the 2002 Nets had at beating the Jamal Mashburn led 44 win Hornets?

You can't be serious, that's completely ridiculous. If the Nets were a mediocre team than what were the Hornets?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'd take CP3 over both.

Better overall player than either Payton or Kidd, and still has room to add to/improve his legacy.


Its a fundamental difference...

A (2003 team): Goes to the finals because of incredibly bad competition (and an injury which you forget to mention)

B (2013 team): Wins title, beats West's best team, was the best team overall regardless of conference, PLAYED WHO THEY COULD PLAY IN THEIR CONFERENCE, then moved on and finished business in the finals....

Not quite wienerschnitzel. :no:

The B squad also faced casts that were injured (Bulls), played in a historically weak conference, and beat mediocre teams on their way to the finals.

I do agree with something you said though; and that's Miami winning a title proved they were the BEST team, no matter the conference.

If Jersey were to do the same, the "weak conference" stuff would've been water under the bridge, although weak is weak.

[aj1987]

someone just said that here thanks :oldlol:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183977
You really should take an English class or two. I'm pretty sure that they're available online for free, if you can't afford to pay. :cheers:


No...he isn't. Payton has become one of the most overrated pg's ever because of how he was allowed to do whatever the hell he wanted after the Sonics title aspirations ended. He was NEVER an elite team defender and his impact defensively was never as high as Kidds overall.


Kidd
CP3
Payton
Not really. IMO, he's actually underrated because he never had the typical PG stats. Dude is one of the greatest perimeter defenders of all time. Definitely better than Kidd, if you factor in over all impact as a defender. Then comes scoring. GP >>> Kidd as a scorer. You can be the greatest playmaker EVER, but you also need to have some semblance of an scoring game to actually carry teams in close games. Kidd was terrible at that aspect of the game. I'd take GP's defense and scoring over Kidds' playmaking and rebounding. Also, lets not forget that GP averaged like 9 APG and 22 PPG over ~8 seasons. Dude was actually an elite passer as well.

I think Kidd is actually being overrated. He did carry teams to the Finals, but those teams wouldn't make the Finals in any others year. They probably wouldn't even make the ECF, going back to the '80's.

[ArbitraryWater]

I'd take CP3 over both.

Better overall player than either Payton or Kidd, and still has room to add to/improve his legacy.



Not quite wienerschnitzel. :no:

The B squad also faced casts that were injured (Bulls), played in a historically weak conference, and beat mediocre teams on their way to the finals.

I do agree with something you said though; and that's Miami winning a title proved they were the BEST team, no matter the conference.

If Jersey were to do the same, the "weak conference" stuff would've been water under the bridge, although weak is weak.

Yeah I know, I just added the rest, Bulls being injured to me isn't really an excuse... they're always banged up, primarily Rose. You can't really say Rose isn't healthy when he's never really been healthy since 2011 until last year, and he still sucks. And the one year they were healthy LeBron's team won the series in 5. Their REAL opponent were the Pacers, who were healthy, unlike the Net's REAL opponent.

[game3524]

So the 2012 Clippers had a better chance at beating the Spurs (who won 62 games and 20 straight at one point) than the 2002 Nets had at beating the Jamal Mashburn led 44 win Hornets?

You can't be serious, that's completely ridiculous. If the Nets were a mediocre team than what were the Hornets?

The Clippers had the two best players in the damn series.:oldlol:

Generally speaking when you have the two best players, you should win the series. I mean we saw this happen the very next round with OKC vs SA. SA got backdoor swept because OKC two best players played like superstars, unlike the Clippers, who's best player played like shit.

[tpols]

Yeah I know, I just added the rest, Bulls being injured to me isn't really an excuse... they're always banged up, primarily Rose. You can't really say Rose isn't healthy when he's never really been healthy since 2011 until last year, and he still sucks. And the one year they were healthy LeBron's team won the series in 5. Their REAL opponent were the Pacers, who were healthy, unlike the Net's REAL opponent.

The pistons of the early-mid 00s are > pacers of early 10's though.. Those piston teams beat a loaded Laker team- made them implode, and then came within an eyelash of beating a loaded Spurs team the next year.

Jason Kidd's Nets routinely punked those Piston teams and were even up 3-2 on the 2004 Detroit team that everyone remembers before losing.. with, ironic to your point, Kidd being the one battling injury. So it's not like the Nets never had to beat anyone. Those Detroit teams were all world teams once they rounded out.


The 10s Pacers are a footnote.. and a very cheap imitation at best. Comparing a Roy Hibbert led defense to Ben Wallace led one gives me a good laugh.

[jayfan]

Kidd turned around one of the worst organiztions in the league and took them to back to back finals. Prime Kidd is one of the few players in history who could dominate a game without scoring a point.

True, especially at the guard position.




.

[Young X]

The Clippers had the two best players in damn series.:oldlol:

Generally speaking when you have the two best players, you should win the series. I mean we saw this happen the very next round with OKC vs SA. SA got backdoor swept because OKC two best players played like superstars, unlike the Clippers, who's best player played like shit.lol the Clippers were nowhere near the Spurs that season and both of their 2 best players were injured.

Only on ISH does a decimated 50 win team have a better chance at beating a 62 win Spurs team than the Nets had at beating the Hornets who won 44 f*cking games.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yeah I know, I just added the rest, Bulls being injured to me isn't really an excuse... they're always banged up, primarily Rose. You can't really say Rose isn't healthy when he's never really been healthy since 2011 until last year, and he still sucks. And the one year they were healthy LeBron's team won the series in 5. Their REAL opponent were the Pacers, who were healthy, unlike the Net's REAL opponent.

That's a fair point, but they're only NOW known for that.

Everyone patiently waited for Rose to make his return before the postseason, and dude just decided to sit out while eating candy on the bench.

[aj1987]

The pistons of the early-mid 00s are > pacers of early 10's though.. Those piston teams beat a loaded Laker team- made them implode, and then came within an eyelash of beating a loaded Spurs team the next year.

Jason Kidd's Nets routinely punked those Piston teams and were even up 3-2 on the 2004 Detroit team that everyone remembers before losing.. with, ironic to your point, Kidd being the one battling injury. So it's not like the Nets never had to beat anyone. Those Detroit teams were all world teams once they rounded out.


The 10s Pacers are a footnote.. and a very cheap imitation at best. Comparing a Roy Hibbert led defense to Ben Wallace led one gives me a good laugh.
The 37 win Hawks took the 66 win (and eventual champs) to 7 games. As did the 45 win Cav's. The '12 Celtics nearly eliminated the '12 Heat. The Jazz beat the 67 win Mavs in the first round. Etc..

Kobe just sucked ass in that series. He wasn't even Kobe. If he actually was himself, the Lakers would've WRECKED the Pistons. The Pistons were damn good, but Kobe's ego cost them that series. IMO.

[ArbitraryWater]

The pistons of the early-mid 00s are > pacers of early 10's though.. Those piston teams beat a loaded Laker team- made them implode, and then came within an eyelash of beating a loaded Spurs team the next year.

Jason Kidd's Nets routinely punked those Piston teams and were even up 3-2 on the 2004 Detroit team that everyone remembers before losing.. with, ironic to your point, Kidd being the one battling injury. So it's not like the Nets never had to beat anyone. Those Detroit teams were all world teams once they rounded out.


The 10s Pacers are a footnote.. and a very cheap imitation at best. Comparing a Roy Hibbert led defense to Ben Wallace led one gives me a good laugh.

right, not the injury riddled 2003 team of the post-season, though.

[game3524]

lol the Clippers were nowhere near the Spurs that season and both of their 2 best players were injured.

Only on ISH does a decimated 50 win team have a better chance at beating a 62 win Spurs team than the Nets had at beating the Hornets who won 44 f*cking games.

Give me a break, Paul had a hip flexor...not exactly the world most series injury. I mean Blake's injury was worst and he still played much better then Paul.

[DMAVS41]

The 37 win Hawks took the 66 win (and eventual champs) to 7 games. As did the 45 win Cav's. The '12 Celtics nearly eliminated the '12 Heat. The Jazz beat the 67 win Mavs in the first round. Etc..

Kobe just sucked ass in that series. He wasn't even Kobe. If he actually was himself, the Lakers would've WRECKED the Pistons. The Pistons were damn good, but Kobe's ego cost them that series. IMO.

Warriors...not Jazz.

Have to disagree with you on the 04 and 05 Pistons...once they got Rasheed...they were able to play even better defense and they could generate points well enough playing as slow as possible.

If you looked solely at 04...you could maybe have an argument, but then 05 happened...and it saw the same Pistons team almost beat probably the best Spurs team ever or at least on the short list...in a series.

[aj1987]

Warriors...not Jazz.
I don't even know why I said the Jazz beat the Mav's. :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm


Have to disagree with you on the 04 and 05 Pistons...once they got Rasheed...they were able to play even better defense and they could generate points well enough playing as slow as possible.

If you looked solely at 04...you could maybe have an argument, but then 05 happened...and it saw the same Pistons team almost beat probably the best Spurs team ever or at least on the short list...in a series.
The '05 Pistons would've lost in the ECF, if it wasn't for Wade's injury. Dude was murdering them until his injury in G5. Shaq and UD played well in that series as well.

[DMAVS41]

I don't even know why I said the Jazz beat the Mav's. :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm


The '05 Pistons would've lost in the ECF, if it wasn't for Wade's injury. Dude was murdering them until his injury in G5. Shaq and UD played well in that series as well.

So what? I agree they probably would have, but the 05 Heat were an elite championship level team.

You had 4 legit championship level teams that year. I don't see how the Pistons maybe not beating a Wade/Shaq championship caliber Heat team means much here.

[Young X]

Give me a break, Paul had a hip flexor...not exactly the world most series injury. I mean Blake's injury was worst and he still played much better then Paul.The point is both of the Clippers best players were playing injured. The Spurs were on a completely different level as a team. To say otherwise is revisionist history. They won 20 games straight at one point.

Those Nets teams even despite not being as talented as the Clippers still had much more of a chance at getting to the finals than the Clippers did.

You don't need talent when you're facing 44 win teams with negative point differentials in the 2nd round.

Those Nets teams and all the other teams in their conference wouldn't even make the playoffs in the 2014 west. To ignore shit like this when comparing Kidd and Paul's team success in the playoffs is idiotic.

[game3524]

The point is both of the Clippers best players were playing injured. The Spurs were on a completely different level as a team. To say otherwise is revisionist history. They won 20 games straight at one point.

Those Nets teams even despite not being as talented as the Clippers still had much more of a chance at getting to the finals than the Clippers did.

You don't need talent when you're facing 44 win teams with negative point differentials in the 2nd round.

Those Nets teams and all the other teams in their conference wouldn't even make the playoffs in the 2014 west. To ignore shit like this when comparing Kidd and Paul's team success in the playoffs is idiotic.


The Spurs were a great team, but they weren't some unbeatable juggernaut. They didn't have a true superstar, so their potential was maxed out at a certain level. They were very similar to some of those late 2000s Pistons teams.

Hell, CP3 didn't even need to play like 2008 post-season CP3. If he was even 80-85% of what he normally was, they have a great chance of winning that series.

Also Charlotte didn't have a negative point differential. In fact, they were a slightly better offensive team then New Jersey and were still a top ten defensive team.

[aj1987]

So what? I agree they probably would have, but the 05 Heat were an elite championship level team.

You had 4 legit championship level teams that year. I don't see how the Pistons maybe not beating a Wade/Shaq championship caliber Heat team means much here.
I was saying originally that the '04 Pistons would've lost to the Lakers, if it wasn't for Kobe's ego. Also, the '04 Lakers would've actually beat the '05 Heat. Those teams weren't anything special (as in an ATG championship team). Great defense? Yep, not gonna disagree, but they were actually lucky to win in '04 (thanks to Kobe) and make the Finals in '05 (Wade's injury).

Done for the day. Will check this thread tomorrow.

[DMAVS41]

I was saying originally that the '04 Pistons would've lost to the Lakers, if it wasn't for Kobe's ego. Also, the '04 Lakers would've actually beat the '05 Heat. Those teams weren't anything special (as in an ATG championship team). Great defense? Yep, not gonna disagree, but they were actually lucky to win in '04 (thanks to Kobe) and make the Finals in '05 (Wade's injury).

Done for the day. Will check this thread tomorrow.

I disagree...once they got Rasheed Wallace they became a team capable of dominating with all time great defense...and scoring enough in the half court while playing a slow pace that made them a very tough team to beat in the playoffs.

Of course Kobe/Lakers imploding made life easier, but that is what the Pistons did. They just wrecked you with their defense...

[Young X]

The Spurs were a great team, but they weren't some unbeatable juggernaut. They didn't have a true superstar, so their potential was maxed out at a certain level. They were very similar to some of those late 2000s Pistons teams.

Hell, CP3 didn't even need to play like 2008 post-season CP3. If he was even 80-85% of what he normally was, they have a great chance of winning that series.

Also Charlotte didn't have a negative point differential. In fact, they were a slightly better offensive team then New Jersey and were still a top ten defensive team.The Celtics in 2003 had a negative point differential and only won 44 games. The Hornets had a slightly positive point differential but that's still pathetic for a 2nd round team.

You're missing the point though. The early 00's Nets and the Clippers weren't in similar situations.

The Nets relative to their conference had a much better chance at getting to the conference finals and finals than the Clippers did.

They were at the top of their conference, had homecourt in 5/6 series and were facing teams that were worse than them. The Clippers never had that luxury. Even if you feel they should've won one of the series they lost, they still at least faced a quality team that was either at their level or better.

[DMAVS41]

I'll say this again.

Using the argument that Kidd made the finals and Paul hasn't made it out of the 2nd round is not a good argument for why one thinks Kidd is better.

It's too different of circumstances both within their own teams and their competition.

But, like I said before, this is why Paul/Clippers collapsing the last 2 years makes it so difficult. Paul has nothing to hang his hat on in terms of a deep playoff run. So it begs the question as to why.

And that answer is a complicated combination of many factors and while it's an interesting conversation to be had...I don't think the simplistic view of most here allows that conversation to actually take place.

So...it should be held against Paul about what happened these last 2 years. However, that doesn't make Kidd better by default just because he beat some scrub teams in the East.

[tpols]

I don't think anyone was arguing black and white, Kidd made the Finals, Paul didn't, therefore Kidd > Paul. We only have the circumstances they were dealt and what they made of them.


Kidd was dealt mediocre rosters for most of his prime, but made the most of them.. much like Paul did with New Orleans I guess you could say. Kidd was never given "great" help though like Paul has been with the Clippers. So far Paul has failed to live up to his own hype with said rosters.

We can only speculate how far Kidd could've taken a good team in a good conference, since we've really only seen him take bad/mediocre teams far in a poor conference.


In order to have Paul over Kidd you would have to assume he would fail with these Clipper teams.. and lose to the likes of James Harden and old stiff Dwight Howard in playoff series where his team was capable of even winning games without him entirely.

An opinion's an opinion but damn I have a hard time believing that.


After seeing what prime Kidd did with Kmart, and even old Kidd did with Tyson Chandler, I think a JKidd-Blake-Jordan combo would be a sick combo to witness, and would not disappoint.

[game3524]

The Celtics in 2003 had a negative point differential and only won 44 games. The Hornets had a slightly positive point differential but that's still pathetic for a 2nd round team.

You're missing the point though. The early 00's Nets and the Clippers weren't in similar situations.

The Nets relative to their conference had a much better chance at getting to the conference finals and finals than the Clippers did.

They were at the top of their conference, had homecourt in 5/6 series and were facing teams that were worse than them. The Clippers never had that luxury. Even if you feel they should've won one of the series they lost, they still at least faced a quality team that was either at their level or better.

They aren't, the Clippers were actually good teams.....the Nets weren't.

Seriously, You make it sound as if the Clippers are always at some huge disadvantage. They have had several years where they weren't overmatched, but simply didn't play up to par(sometime it was Paul, other times it was Blake.).

[dhsilv]

The Clippers had the two best players in the damn series.:oldlol:

Generally speaking when you have the two best players, you should win the series. I mean we saw this happen the very next round with OKC vs SA. SA got backdoor swept because OKC two best players played like superstars, unlike the Clippers, who's best player played like shit.

Nothing against Russ and Durant, but the role players for OKC has I think it was game 4 or 5, one of the greatest mid range shooting performances of all time for a bunch of relatively speaking average to poor shooters, that cost the spurs a game right there and was a major factor in that series. That was just a team that was supposed to beat the spurs that year.

Giving only credit to their two stars grossly ignores the reality of that series.

[dhsilv]

The Spurs were a great team, but they weren't some unbeatable juggernaut. They didn't have a true superstar, so their potential was maxed out at a certain level. They were very similar to some of those late 2000s Pistons teams.

Hell, CP3 didn't even need to play like 2008 post-season CP3. If he was even 80-85% of what he normally was, they have a great chance of winning that series.

Also Charlotte didn't have a negative point differential. In fact, they were a slightly better offensive team then New Jersey and were still a top ten defensive team.

We're talking about the same spurs team that went to back to back finals and won a title? That spurs team?

[Young X]

I'll say this again.

Using the argument that Kidd made the finals and Paul hasn't made it out of the 2nd round is not a good argument for why one thinks Kidd is better.

It's too different of circumstances both within their own teams and their competition.

But, like I said before, this is why Paul/Clippers collapsing the last 2 years makes it so difficult. Paul has nothing to hang his hat on in terms of a deep playoff run. So it begs the question as to why.

And that answer is a complicated combination of many factors and while it's an interesting conversation to be had...I don't think the simplistic view of most here allows that conversation to actually take place.

So...it should be held against Paul about what happened these last 2 years. However, that doesn't make Kidd better by default just because he beat some scrub teams in the East.Paul collapsed in ONE game at one moment that shouldn't even have affected the outcome if the obvious correct call would've been made (OKC, game 5, 2014).

And I don't get the last part of you're post. If not getting to the finals or conference finals should be held against Paul than how is Kidd not better by default?


They aren't, the Clippers were actually good teams.....the Nets weren't.

Seriously, You make it sound as if the Clippers are always at some huge disadvantage. They have had several years where they weren't overmatched, but simply didn't play up to par(sometime it was Paul, other times it was Blake.).Yeah and the Clippers actually faced good teams...the Nets didn't. They faced teams that wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the Clippers' conference.

And no the Clippers weren't always at a huge disadvantage. They could've beaten OKC and Houston. The thing is those 2 teams were also quality teams that the Clippers had to beat without homecourt.

The Nets even relative to their conference had it much easier. This is why you can't just point to where each of their teams finished in the playoffs to determine who is better between Kidd and Paul. Their circumstances weren't similar.

[game3524]

Nothing against Russ and Durant, but the role players for OKC has I think it was game 4 or 5, one of the greatest mid range shooting performances of all time for a bunch of relatively speaking average to poor shooters, that cost the spurs a game right there and was a major factor in that series. That was just a team that was supposed to beat the spurs that year.

Giving only credit to their two stars grossly ignores the reality of that series.

Ibaka killed Duncan in one of those games, but KD poured in 36 in the same game as well.

Harden and Ibaka played major roles, but KD and Russ were out of their minds in the last 4 games(especially Durant.....SA had no answer for him).

[DMAVS41]

Paul collapsed in ONE game at one moment that shouldn't even have affected the outcome if the obvious correct call would've been made (OKC, game 5, 2014).

And I don't get the last part of you're post. If not getting to the finals or conference finals should be held against Paul than how is Kidd not better by default?

Yeah and the Clippers actually faced good teams...the Nets didn't. They faced teams that wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the Clippers' conference.

And no the Clippers weren't always at a huge disadvantage. They could've beaten OKC and Houston. The thing is those 2 teams were also quality teams that the Clippers had to beat without homecourt.

The Nets even relative to their conference had it much easier. This is why you can't just point to where each of their teams finished in the playoffs to determine who is better between Kidd and Paul. Their circumstances weren't similar.


Wait...what?

You think that if I criticize Paul for what has happened the last two years in the playoffs...that somehow means I have to take Kidd "by default" over Paul?

I don't see how the two are connected. I don't automatically take a player over another just because of advancing deep in the playoffs.

It's more than fair to criticize Paul for the last two years...that, however, doesn't mean Kidd is a better player than Paul.

Each player is only in their own circumstances...in a case like this...like I already said...the circumstances are just too different to compare both in terms of their own teams and competition.

That doesn't mean Paul just gets a pass for the last 2 years...

[game3524]

We're talking about the same spurs team that went to back to back finals and won a title? That spurs team?

The 2012 Spurs were not on the same level as the 2013 and especially the 2014 Spurs.

[game3524]

Paul collapsed in ONE game at one moment that shouldn't even have affected the outcome if the obvious correct call would've been made (OKC, game 5, 2014).

And I don't get the last part of you're post. If not getting to the finals or conference finals should be held against Paul than how is Kidd not better by default?

Yeah and the Clippers actually faced good teams...the Nets didn't. They faced teams that wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the Clippers' conference.

And no the Clippers weren't always at a huge disadvantage. They could've beaten OKC and Houston. The thing is those 2 teams were also quality teams that the Clippers had to beat without homecourt.

The Nets even relative to their conference had it much easier. This is why you can't just point to where each of their teams finished in the playoffs to determine who is better between Kidd and Paul. Their circumstances weren't similar.


When have I said that. I took Kidd over Paul due to his size/defensive/leadership advantage over CP3.

[ArbitraryWater]

Paul collapsed in ONE game at one moment that shouldn't even have affected the outcome if the obvious correct call would've been made (OKC, game 5, 2014).

well, if the initial correct call would have been made, OKC would have had 2 FT's, which ironically would have been alot better for LAC than the 3 OKC was about to get.

[Young X]

Wait...what?

You think that if I criticize Paul for what has happened the last two years in the playoffs...that somehow means I have to take Kidd "by default" over Paul?

I don't see how the two are connected.

It's more than fair to criticize Paul for the last two years...that, however, doesn't mean Kidd is a better player than Paul.

Each player is only in their own circumstances...in a case like this...like I already said...the circumstances are just too different to compare both in terms of their own teams and competition.

That doesn't mean Paul just gets a pass for the last 2 years...My bad, I misunderstood something you said in your post.


When have I said that. I took Kidd over Paul due to his size/defensive/leadership advantage over CP3.Alright, cool. I was speaking in general about people using the Nets' finals trips as a reason why he's a better player. Getting to the finals in a conference like that isn't like getting to the finals in a tough conference.


well, if the initial correct call would have been made, OKC would have had 2 FT's, which ironically would have been alot better for LAC than the 3 OKC was about to get.They shouldn't even have given OKC the ball. It should've been Clipper ball and Paul's turnover wouldn't even have mattered. They got straight up robbed.

[ArbitraryWater]

They shouldn't even have given OKC the ball. It should've been Clipper ball and Paul's turnover wouldn't even have mattered. They got straight up robbed.

Nah, I mean on that play, it should have been OKC FT's... they didnt call a foul though, so they were only allowed to check who it went off of, under that new set of circumstances, yea, LAC ball, but only because they missed, I think Barnes it was, fouling Jackson.

[dhsilv]

The 2012 Spurs were not on the same level as the 2013 and especially the 2014 Spurs.

Based on what? That team was on a 20 something game streak and was just blowing teams away. The thunder series was a perfect storm of the thunder playing their absolute best basketball and the spurs finally not playing perfect.

[game3524]

Based on what? That team was on a 20 something game streak and was just blowing teams away. The thunder series was a perfect storm of the thunder playing their absolute best basketball and the spurs finally not playing perfect.

IMO, I think Kawhi developing into an important contributor is what set those teams apart IMO.

[dhsilv]

Ibaka killed Duncan in one of those games, but KD poured in 36 in the same game as well.

Harden and Ibaka played major roles, but KD and Russ were out of their minds in the last 4 games(especially Durant.....SA had no answer for him).

Lets look at that game 4 again.

Ibaka 11-11
Perkins 7-9
Collinson 4-5

A lot of those were jumpers, we're not talking about the spurs giving up 22 dunks, we're talking about the spurs forcing mid range jumpers out of not so good shooters and they basically hit every damn shot! FYI Westbrook had 7 points and Harden 11.

The game was decided by 6 points and if the spurs win that they're up 3-1.

I mean really Ibaka and Perkins shooting 18-20???? They can't do that on free throws in a normal game!

At the very worst that game goes a bit differently and we get a game 7 and who knows what happens there. But instead there was an all time great game from role players and the thunder won a huge game in the series.

Harden had a great game in game 5 along with westbrook and durant so we're not just talking 2 great players. Not many teams have a 3 4 due like Ibaka and Harden.

[Young X]

Nah, I mean on that play, it should have been OKC FT's... they didnt call a foul though, so they were only allowed to check who it went off of, under that new set of circumstances, yea, LAC ball, but only because they missed, I think Barnes it was, fouling Jackson.That's debatable, it looks like Barnes got all ball but it's hard to tell for sure. But even if that's the case OKC only gets 2 FT's like you said and the worst thing that happens for LAC is overtime.

What you don't do is give OKC the ball and give them a chance at shooting/making a 3 when the ball clearly belonged to LAC. That game was one of the weirdest, most f*ckery filled games I've ever seen.

[Smoke117]

I don't think anyone was arguing black and white, Kidd made the Finals, Paul didn't, therefore Kidd > Paul. We only have the circumstances they were dealt and what they made of them.


Kidd was dealt mediocre rosters for most of his prime, but made the most of them.. much like Paul did with New Orleans I guess you could say. Kidd was never given "great" help though like Paul has been with the Clippers. So far Paul has failed to live up to his own hype with said rosters.

We can only speculate how far Kidd could've taken a good team in a good conference, since we've really only seen him take bad/mediocre teams far in a poor conference.


In order to have Paul over Kidd you would have to assume he would fail with these Clipper teams.. and lose to the likes of James Harden and old stiff Dwight Howard in playoff series where his team was capable of even winning games without him entirely.

An opinion's an opinion but damn I have a hard time believing that.


After seeing what prime Kidd did with Kmart, and even old Kidd did with Tyson Chandler, I think a JKidd-Blake-Jordan combo would be a sick combo to witness, and would not disappoint.

You all need to stop overrating the Clippers rosters. The bench has always been weak and they've always been terrible at the 3 in general...ie starting a washed Caron Butler or Matt Barnes. The funny thing is they were actually supposed to shore that up this season, but every acquisition they acquired in the off season has been absolutely dreadful. I also think people overrate Griffin...they want to talk about him as if he's on a Garnett, Duncan, Dirk tier when he isn't. He doesn't have Dirks offensive impact or Garnett and Duncans overall impact, but when everyone wants to talk about how CP3 is losing and can't win...they just love to make it seem like Blake is better than he really is so they make some kind of stupid point that CP3 can't win with him.

[dhsilv]

IMO, I think Kawhi developing into an important contributor is what set those teams apart IMO.

If we're talking 14 agree t hat Kawhi stepped it up, but Parker was rather weak in 14 imo. I think Manu was better in 12 though part of that was missing a lot of games. Splitter imo was better in 12 as well. Also Jackson was actually a pretty solid player on that 12 team in the playoffs, something they didn't have later.

Honestly think all 3 of those teams were about as good as the other. Spurs lost to two really great teams in that run.

[greatest-ever]

I'd argue Cp3 has already passed those 2, and i'm not even a fan of his. I can see Kidd and Payton's arguments based on longevity and playoff success though. As for Payton vs Kidd i'd side with Payton he was a comparable defender and playmaker but a better scorer. All 3 are roughly in my 33-40 range.

[dhsilv]

You all need to stop overrating the Clippers rosters. The bench has always been weak and they've always been terrible at the 3 in general...ie starting a washed Caron Butler or Matt Barnes. The funny thing is they were actually supposed to shore that up this season, but every acquisition they acquired in the off season has been absolutely dreadful. I also think people overrate Griffin...they want to talk about him as if he's on a Garnett, Duncan, Dirk tier when he isn't. He doesn't have Dirks offensive impact or Garnett and Duncans overall impact, but when everyone wants to talk about how CP3 is losing and can't win...they just love to make it seem like Blake is better than he really is so they make some kind of stupid point that CP3 can't win with him.

Lets not forget Doc Rivers is NOT a great coach.

[magnax1]

CP3>>>Kidd>>>Payton


Kidd comes in with the versatility and D. Id take him over Payton because he was a smarter and more versatile defender and waaaay smarter on offense. Payton was a ball hog and a chucker.

CP3 was just on another level offensively compared to those two tbough. Hes in a tier above them.

[magnax1]

Lets look at that game 4 again.

Ibaka 11-11
Perkins 7-9
Collinson 4-5

A lot of those were jumpers, we're not talking about the spurs giving up 22 dunks, we're talking about the spurs forcing mid range jumpers out of not so good shooters and they basically hit every damn shot! FYI Westbrook had 7 points and Harden 11.

The game was decided by 6 points and if the spurs win that they're up 3-1.

I mean really Ibaka and Perkins shooting 18-20???? They can't do that on free throws in a normal game!

At the very worst that game goes a bit differently and we get a game 7 and who knows what happens there. But instead there was an all time great game from role players and the thunder won a huge game in the series.

Harden had a great game in game 5 along with westbrook and durant so we're not just talking 2 great players. Not many teams have a 3 4 due like Ibaka and Harden.
Yeah. I feel like that series was super fluky. Ive never seen OKC hit so many jumpers against a good defense. The Spurs offense that year was just on another level from the other years too.

[Thechosen1]

cp3 is the most complete pg in nba history not named magic....hes just a mental midget bitch that cant apply his skills to rings....hes a basketball dyslexic

[TheMarkMadsen]

ISH: where it's not what you have done, but what we think you could have done.

[dhsilv]

cp3 is the most complete pg in nba history not named magic....hes just a mental midget bitch that cant apply his skills to rings....hes a basketball dyslexic

He's more complete than magic if we're really going there. He isn't 6'9 nor does he have god like passing ability in transition....but he doesn't really have a flaw in this game, shoot better from range and might be a better defender.

[aj1987]

I disagree...once they got Rasheed Wallace they became a team capable of dominating with all time great defense...and scoring enough in the half court while playing a slow pace that made them a very tough team to beat in the playoffs.

Of course Kobe/Lakers imploding made life easier, but that is what the Pistons did. They just wrecked you with their defense...
And yet, they were would've lost to the Lakers, if it wasn't for Kobe's ego and the Heat, if it wasn't for Wade's injury. They are an ATG defensive team, but they aren't an ATG team.

[DMAVS41]

And yet, they were would've lost to the Lakers, if it wasn't for Kobe's ego and the Heat, if it wasn't for Wade's injury. They are an ATG defensive team, but they aren't an ATG team.

I don't know about that. They dominated the Lakers in that series. Even if Kobe plays considerably better...the Pistons still could have won.

You could do that with too many other teams. There are circumstances that lead to teams winning all the time.

One could make an argument along the lines above about the Kobe/Shaq Lakers not being an all time great duo. If the Blazers don't choke or have that idiot Dunleavy as coach and the 02 Kings series isn't a joke in game 6...the Lakers only have 1 ring and they aren't ATG.

I just don't buy stuff like that. Shit happens all the time and claiming that the Pistons would have lost to the Lakers is something you don't know...we also don't know they would have lost to the Heat, but even if that is for sure true, losing to the Heat with Wade/Shaq in a tight series isn't a knock on a team.

I certainly don't think they were the best team ever or anything, but they were better, once they got Rasheed, than you are giving them credit for.

[bizil]

I dig this comparison!! U could make a case for any of the three in this one. But if I had to choose, I think I would roll with GP. When u combine scoring, defense, and passing at the PG position, I think GP, Frazier, and CP3 are the best of all time. The key for me is GP's defensive versatility edge over CP3. And his scoring advantage on Kidd. But as I stated earlier, u can make a case for any of the three.

[aj1987]

I don't know about that. They dominated the Lakers in that series. Even if Kobe plays considerably better...the Pistons still could have won.

You could do that with too many other teams. There are circumstances that lead to teams winning all the time.

One could make an argument along the lines above about the Kobe/Shaq Lakers not being an all time great duo. If the Blazers don't choke or have that idiot Dunleavy as coach and the 02 Kings series isn't a joke in game 6...the Lakers only have 1 ring and they aren't ATG.

I just don't buy stuff like that. Shit happens all the time and claiming that the Pistons would have lost to the Lakers is something you don't know...we also don't know they would have lost to the Heat, but even if that is for sure true, losing to the Heat with Wade/Shaq in a tight series isn't a knock on a team.

I certainly don't think they were the best team ever or anything, but they were better, once they got Rasheed, than you are giving them credit for.
:biggums:

What are you even arguing about now? I never ranked the teams place in history. All I said was that if Kobe actually put his ego aside, the Lakers would've beat the Pistons.

[DMAVS41]

:biggums:

What are you even arguing about now? I never ranked the teams place in history. All I said was that if Kobe actually put his ego aside, the Lakers would've beat the Pistons.

And I disagree with that. It's not that simple.

What are you even arguing about?

[aj1987]

And I disagree with that. It's not that simple.

What are you even arguing about?
You yourself aren't sure that the Pistons win if Kobe plays like Kobe.

I'm not arguing anything. I responded to tpols and you quoted me. :confusedshrug:

[Smoke117]

Jason Kidd is the greatest defensive PG of all time...that's a fact...not an opinion. Everybody should keep this in mind when they are ranking these three players.

[notatop29pg]

Jason Kidd is the greatest defensive PG of all time...that's a fact...not an opinion. Everybody should keep this in mind when they are ranking these three players.

While also being a total non threat from >5ft for 85% of his career.

[DMAVS41]

You yourself aren't sure that the Pistons win if Kobe plays like Kobe.

I'm not arguing anything. I responded to tpols and you quoted me. :confusedshrug:

I'm saying that your statement of "if Kobe plays like himself" and if "Wade doesn't get hurt" the Pistons lose both series...is not a for sure thing...even in a hypothetical.

I'd actually lean towards the Pistons still winning that series...and I'd lean towards the Heat winning that series, but neither of us know and it's not an obvious answer regardless.

And that leads into our disagreement about how good those 04 and 05 Pistons teams were.

You think beating the Lakers and then taking perhaps the best Spurs team ever to the brink is somehow indicative of them not being an ATG team because they might have lost to a Wade/Shaq Heat team. I don't see it that way.

For one, we'd have to define what an ATG team actually is. And two, I don't think you give them enough credit for how good they got once Rasheed got there.

Those are our differences.

[houston]

kidd>>>cp3>>>payton

[dhsilv]

I'm saying that your statement of "if Kobe plays like himself" and if "Wade doesn't get hurt" the Pistons lose both series...is not a for sure thing...even in a hypothetical.

I'd actually lean towards the Pistons still winning that series...and I'd lean towards the Heat winning that series, but neither of us know and it's not an obvious answer regardless.

And that leads into our disagreement about how good those 04 and 05 Pistons teams were.

You think beating the Lakers and then taking perhaps the best Spurs team ever to the brink is somehow indicative of them not being an ATG team because they might have lost to a Wade/Shaq Heat team. I don't see it that way.

For one, we'd have to define what an ATG team actually is. And two, I don't think you give them enough credit for how good they got once Rasheed got there.

Those are our differences.

It's often hard for people to accept a team is truly great without a player who "did it all". And to be honest, I don't blame anyone for that. There are very few teams who didn't have a clear go to guy who won at the college level, let alone the nba level. That go to person is generally critical. Even now I have to think about where I'd put that pistons team just because I'm not sure they ever had the guy who could turn that corner and make magic happen and other all time great teams did.

Sorry you two can go back to the debate, but your discussion made me realize how I naturally look for a go to guy on most teams when i think of an all time team.

[dhsilv]

Jason Kidd is the greatest defensive PG of all time...that's a fact...not an opinion. Everybody should keep this in mind when they are ranking these three players.

Man, I've read this 4 times now and I keep wondering if I agree or not. Payton being the clear "but he was better" choice, but he was better in ways but not all ways. Kidd was just physically brutal. His legacy perhaps got hurt because of a few bogus and awful defensive team selections once he was pass his prime, but between his hands and size and strength....I hate to say but you might be right (that it's a fact that isn't open for debate).

[feyki]

kidd>>>cp3>>>payton

This .

[DMAVS41]

It's often hard for people to accept a team is truly great without a player who "did it all". And to be honest, I don't blame anyone for that. There are very few teams who didn't have a clear go to guy who won at the college level, let alone the nba level. That go to person is generally critical. Even now I have to think about where I'd put that pistons team just because I'm not sure they ever had the guy who could turn that corner and make magic happen and other all time great teams did.

Sorry you two can go back to the debate, but your discussion made me realize how I naturally look for a go to guy on most teams when i think of an all time team.

I agree. Having an elite championship first option is almost always needed.

I'm not arguing the Pistons were the best team ever or something though...just that they were on par with some great teams. Where they ultimately rank in 04 and 05 historically is up for debate, but they weren't some fluke team that would be just for sure beaten if Kobe had played better.

People forget that Kobe was magnificent in game 2...and it still took OT for the Lakers to win.

[dhsilv]

I agree. Having an elite championship first option is almost always needed.

I'm not arguing the Pistons were the best team ever or something though...just that they were on par with some great teams. Where they ultimately rank in 04 and 05 historically is up for debate, but they weren't some fluke team that would be just for sure beaten if Kobe had played better.

People forget that Kobe was magnificent in game 2...and it still took OT for the Lakers to win.

What's sad is that people don't seem to give Prince credit. There have been some guys who weren't all stars who just had moments in their careers and they deserve some damn credit. Prince was truly spectacular in that series. Another forgotten name is Tyron Lue who sure didn't beat the 76ers, but I think AI gets anther game or TWO if Lue doesn't come out of nowhere to be the iverson stopper that year. What did he do after that series? Devin Harris has some epic games against Tony Parker, not Harris had a decent career, but his work on Parker put him on the map and nothing else he did lived up imo. There are a lot of examples of guys just being a touch match up for great players and these players can just turn a playoff series.

Only with certain players are the defenders ignored and suddenly it was "he just didn't play well".

[Straight_Ballin]

What's sad is that people don't seem to give Prince credit. There have been some guys who weren't all stars who just had moments in their careers and they deserve some damn credit. Prince was truly spectacular in that series. Another forgotten name is Tyron Lue who sure didn't beat the 76ers, but I think AI gets anther game or TWO if Lue doesn't come out of nowhere to be the iverson stopper that year. What did he do after that series? Devin Harris has some epic games against Tony Parker, not Harris had a decent career, but his work on Parker put him on the map and nothing else he did lived up imo. There are a lot of examples of guys just being a touch match up for great players and these players can just turn a playoff series.

Only with certain players are the defenders ignored and suddenly it was "he just didn't play well".

Not gonna lie. When I saw this happen as it happened my jaw dropped:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GD8feepwrE

[aj1987]

I'm saying that your statement of "if Kobe plays like himself" and if "Wade doesn't get hurt" the Pistons lose both series...is not a for sure thing...even in a hypothetical.

I'd actually lean towards the Pistons still winning that series...and I'd lean towards the Heat winning that series, but neither of us know and it's not an obvious answer regardless.

And that leads into our disagreement about how good those 04 and 05 Pistons teams were.

You think beating the Lakers and then taking perhaps the best Spurs team ever to the brink is somehow indicative of them not being an ATG team because they might have lost to a Wade/Shaq Heat team. I don't see it that way.

For one, we'd have to define what an ATG team actually is. And two, I don't think you give them enough credit for how good they got once Rasheed got there.

Those are our differences.
Why do you keep bringing up Sheed? I probably know more about those Pistons teams than you. Again, IF Kobe puts his ego aside and plays like Kobe, they win in '04. I know you hate Kobe and it's hard to accept the alternative, but that's what it is.

The Heat were up 3-2 against the Pistons and Wade was absolutely going in raw before his injury. Anyone who was actually watching basketball in '05 would bet their houses on the Heat, if Wade was healthy. Lets not pretend that Wade's injury wasn't the reason as to why the Pistons ended up in the Finals. IIRC, Wade was averaging close to 30/5/7 in the games he wasn't injured.

For the whateverth time, the Pistons were an ATG defensive team, but they weren't an ATG team.

[Smoke117]

Why do you keep bringing up Sheed? I probably know more about those Pistons teams than you. Again, IF Kobe puts his ego aside and plays like Kobe, they win in '04. I know you hate Kobe and it's hard to accept the alternative, but that's what it is.

The Heat were up 3-2 against the Pistons and Wade was absolutely going in raw before his injury. Anyone who was actually watching basketball in '05 would bet their houses on the Heat, if Wade was healthy. Lets not pretend that Wade's injury wasn't the reason as to why the Pistons ended up in the Finals. IIRC, Wade was averaging close to 30/5/7 in the games he wasn't injured.

For the whateverth time, the Pistons were an ATG defensive team, but they weren't an ATG team.

You saying that over and over again doesn't make it true.

[DMAVS41]

Why do you keep bringing up Sheed? I probably know more about those Pistons teams than you. Again, IF Kobe puts his ego aside and plays like Kobe, they win in '04. I know you hate Kobe and it's hard to accept the alternative, but that's what it is.

The Heat were up 3-2 against the Pistons and Wade was absolutely going in raw before his injury. Anyone who was actually watching basketball in '05 would bet their houses on the Heat, if Wade was healthy. Lets not pretend that Wade's injury wasn't the reason as to why the Pistons ended up in the Finals. IIRC, Wade was averaging close to 30/5/7 in the games he wasn't injured.

For the whateverth time, the Pistons were an ATG defensive team, but they weren't an ATG team.

You repeating your opinion over and over again as fact...doesn't make it one. Sorry.

You obviously aren't reading my posts...I said I thought the Heat in 05 would have won, but that doesn't make it a fact...and certainly doesn't mean the Pistons weren't a great team.

So...no...sorry, Kobe playing better does not turn a 5 game series loss into a win for sure. Kobe was great in game 2 and the Lakers still needed OT to win...you aren't realizing the capabilities of that team.

Plays like Kobe? How so? I think the 04 Pistons were probably tougher defensively for Kobe than the 08 Celtics...but even if Kobe played as good in 04 as he did in the 08 finals...it wouldn't have been good enough. 26/5/5 on 51% TS isn't turning that series into a win for the Lakers. They probably get it to 6 games, but they aren't winning.

Also, just looking at Kobe's offense is too narrow a view. A huge issue with that series was how well the Pistons were scoring. They finished the series with a 106.7 offensive rating. This was much better than their regular season rating...and far better than their rating the two previous rounds in which they didn't even sniff breaking 100.

So yea...if Kobe averages 30/5/5 on 58% TS and he plays far better defense...then sure...Lakers probably win....great argument.

[aj1987]

You repeating your opinion over and over again as fact...doesn't make it one. Sorry.
IF

Yeah, if the Heat were healthy the Pistons do not make the Finals. IF Kobe left his ego, he'd have 6 rings. It's not a 'fact'. Hypothetical scenario.


So yea...if Kobe averages 30/5/5 on 58% TS and he plays far better defense...then sure...Lakers probably win....great argument.
Again, you hate Kobe with a passion, so you can't be unbiased in this discussion. Kobe is an ATG. A top ~9 GOAT. Dude wanted to be the man and he lost the series for the team. Took 29 shots more than Shaq and scored 20 fewer points. He basically averaged the same number of assists as TOV's.

:roll: @ bringing up the Pistons' offense. They averaged lowers numbers over the board. FG%, 3pt%, FT%, etc. Also, they managed to score 100 ONCE in the series. They were a subpar offensive team. They were 18th and 17th offensively in '04 and '05.

For the final time, the Pistons were an ATG defensive team, but were not even close to being an ATG team.

[ArbitraryWater]

IF

Yeah, if the Heat were healthy the Pistons do not make the Finals. IF Kobe left his ego, he'd have 6 rings. It's not a 'fact'. Hypothetical scenario.

Thats, not what he means.. he means the outcome of the hypothetical, which was already doubted by Smoke.

[DMAVS41]

IF

Yeah, if the Heat were healthy the Pistons do not make the Finals. IF Kobe left his ego, he'd have 6 rings. It's not a 'fact'. Hypothetical scenario.


Again, you hate Kobe with a passion, so you can't be unbiased in this discussion. Kobe is an ATG. A top ~9 GOAT. Dude wanted to be the man and he lost the series for the team. Took 29 shots more than Shaq and scored 20 fewer points. He basically averaged the same number of assists as TOV's.

:roll: @ bringing up the Pistons' offense. They averaged lowers numbers over the board. FG%, 3pt%, FT%, etc. Also, they managed to score 100 ONCE in the series. They were a subpar offensive team. They were 18th and 17th offensively in '04 and '05.

For the final time, the Pistons were an ATG defensive team, but were not even close to being an ATG team.

You aren't following this man.

Just leave it at that...

[aj1987]

Thats, not what he means.. he means the outcome of the hypothetical, which was already doubted by Smoke.
That's my opinion. I don't understand why he thinks it's a 'fact'. I keep repeating it because it's my OPINION. That's what hypotheticals are, right?


You aren't following this man.

Just leave it at that...
Meh. You just hate Kobe too much to actually have a reasonable argument.

You rep Wade although you're a Dirk stan. :cheers:

[magnax1]

The Lakers werent winning that series plain and simple. Kobe shot as much as he had to, because it was only him and shaq scoring and Shaq wasnt in his prime anymore anyway. The pistons basically forced Kobe into an assload of mediocre shots by necessity.

They werent even the best team in the west. A wolves vs pistons series with everyone healthy wouldve been much more interesting

[DMAVS41]

That's my opinion. I don't understand why he thinks it's a 'fact'. I keep repeating it because it's my OPINION. That's what hypotheticals are, right?


Meh. You just hate Kobe too much to actually have a reasonable argument.

You rep Wade although you're a Dirk stan. :cheers:

It has nothing to do with Kobe.

You don't understand what a hypothetical actually is...and you don't understand offensive rating.

I'm refuting your opinion...you get that...right?

Again...just take the L and leave please.

[aj1987]

It has nothing to do with Kobe.

You don't understand what a hypothetical actually is...and you don't understand offensive rating.

I'm refuting your opinion...you get that...right?

Again...just take the L and leave please.
Ugh! Offensive rating? Why leave out FG%, 3pt%, FT%, etc..? They weren't an ATG team and that's a FACT. Defensively? Sure, but not as a whole. Stop living in denial.

I think YOU don't actually know what a hypothetical is. I'll repeat myself.

Yeah, if the Heat were healthy the Pistons do not make the Finals. IF Kobe left his ego, he'd have 6 rings. It's not a 'fact'. Hypothetical scenario.

[DMAVS41]

Ugh! Offensive rating? Why leave out FG%, 3pt%, FT%, etc..? They weren't an ATG team and that's a FACT. Defensively? Sure, but not as a whole. Stop living in denial.

I think YOU don't actually know what a hypothetical is. I'll repeat myself.

Yeah, if the Heat were healthy the Pistons do not make the Finals. IF Kobe left his ego, he'd have 6 rings. It's not a 'fact'. Hypothetical scenario.

You have to defend your statements. Just because something is a hypothetical does not mean you can just say anything without defending it.

Tell me why Kobe would have played better in the 04 finals than he did in the 08 finals.

Explain to me how Kobe is doing that...and then explain why that would be good enough to win when the Pistons were scoring well against the Lakers also.

Lastly, offensive rating has everything built into it. It's scoring per 100 possessions...all the things you list above are inherently factored into it.

[aj1987]

You have to defend your statements. Just because something is a hypothetical does not mean you can just say anything without defending it.

Tell me why Kobe would have played better in the 04 finals than he did in the 08 finals.

Explain to me how Kobe is doing that...and then explain why that would be good enough to win when the Pistons were scoring well against the Lakers also.

Lastly, offensive rating has everything built into it. It's scoring per 100 possessions...all the things you list above are inherently factored into it.
Whatever helps you sleep better at night, bro. :cheers:

Your Kobe hate is actually beyond belief.

[DMAVS41]

Whatever helps you sleep better at night, bro. :cheers:

Your Kobe hate is actually beyond belief.

Do you want to be taken seriously or not?

These aren't real answers.

I'm asking you to defend position and all you do is attack me.

My hate for Kobe? I have him as one of the 10 or 11 or so best players ever. Has nothing to do with this at all though.

I'll ask again...why would Kobe play better than he did in the 08 finals? And even if he did...why would that be good enough?

Try a real response this time please....or just leave like you should have.

[KungFuJoe]

Payton getting seriously overrated. He's on a tier below CP3 and Kidd. Great defender and good scorer but not near the floor general that CP3 and Kidd are.

To me CP3 is the best. Then Kidd but it's close.

[aj1987]

]
I'll ask again...why would Kobe play better than he did in the 08 finals? And even if he did...why would that be good enough?

Try a real response this time please....or just leave like you should have.
I've said it like a dozen times. Kobe was trying to be the man and he let his ego get in the way. If you actually saw the series, you'd know it as well. Dude was basically chucking the ball. Trying to score whenever he got it. There's no way ANY team could hold him to those numbers over a span of 5 games.

[DMAVS41]

I've said it like a dozen times. Kobe was trying to be the man and he let his ego get in the way. If you actually saw the series, you'd know it as well. Dude was basically chucking the ball. Trying to score whenever he got it. There's no way ANY team could hold him to those numbers over a span of 5 games.

Dude...you aren't listening. We know Kobe played poorly, I'm asking you why you think even if he played as well as he did in the 08 finals...that would be good enough?

I'm not disputing Kobe played poorly, I'm saying he could have played quite better and it still not have been good enough.

Once again...the Pistons were scoring against the Lakers well in that series and they have an all time great defense....you can't just "grant" Kobe playing better than he did against the 08 Celtics, for example.

And my argument is that even if Kobe played as good as he did in 08...which I question would even be possible...that the Lakers still lose.

You follow?

And you've given no arguments at all...you just keep saying Kobe was bad on repeat.

[aj1987]

Dude...you aren't listening. We know Kobe played poorly, I'm asking you why you think even if he played as well as he did in the 08 finals...that would be good enough?

I'm not disputing Kobe played poorly, I'm saying he could have played quite better and it still not have been good enough.
Why do you keep bringing up the stats form '08 and the series in general? Kobe could've dumped it into the post more, whenever he was getting doubled. He could've also passed it more to open players when he was getting doubled at the half court. It's not just stats. It's about how you play the game.


And you've given no arguments at all...you just keep saying Kobe was bad on repeat.
I don't think you actually understand basketball. It's not just stats. You also can't compare stats from different series, in basically different defensive eras, without any context.

[DMAVS41]

Why do you keep bringing up the stats form '08 and the series in general? Kobe could've dumped it into the post more, whenever he was getting doubled. He could've also passed it more to open players when he was getting doubled at the half court. It's not just stats. It's about how you play the game.


I don't think you actually understand basketball. It's not just stats. You also can't compare stats from different series, in basically different defensive eras, without any context.

I'm not comparing "the stats"...I'm saying that Kobe playing at his 08 level still wouldn't have been good enough. Dumping it into Shaq more would have helped, but I don't think you are grasping the difference in that series on both sides of the ball. Those Lakers weren't an elite offense to begin with...with a 105.5 regular season ortg....good for 6th in the league. Now you think they are going above that against the Pistons? Why?

You have to give the Pistons credit...they were an all time great defense. And they were scoring at a clip of 106.7 offensive rating. It's no realistic to think the Lakers jump up over 10 points on offensive rating in your scenario.

Again, you can't just ignore that the Pistons were the cause of Kobe doing some of the things he was doing.

And finally, the nail in your coffin...is game 2. Everything you could ever ask for happened that game and the Lakers still needed overtime to win.

[aj1987]

Those Lakers weren't an elite offense to begin with...with a 105.5 regular season ortg....good for 6th in the league. Now you think they are going above that against the Pistons? Why?
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

I'm done. Your Kobe hate is beyond irrational.

[DMAVS41]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

I'm done. Your Kobe hate is beyond irrational.

What?

And why do you think that is hating? What I said were facts.

Go look at the playoffs in each series. I don't even have to. I know they were pretty good offensively against the wolves, and average at best vs the Rockets and Spurs.

Seriously....what are you talking about?

[PsychoBe]

Payton getting seriously overrated. He's on a tier below CP3 and Kidd. Great defender and good scorer but not near the floor general that CP3 and Kidd are.

To me CP3 is the best. Then Kidd but it's close.

stop. go watch some film before you spew nonsense.

cp3 is easily the worst of the bunch. if you had gary payton, jason kidd, and cp3 all lined up in front of you, then cp3 would be picked last every single time.

[dhsilv]

I've said it like a dozen times. Kobe was trying to be the man and he let his ego get in the way. If you actually saw the series, you'd know it as well. Dude was basically chucking the ball. Trying to score whenever he got it. There's no way ANY team could hold him to those numbers over a span of 5 games.

Lets say you're right and Kobe was making poor decisions. What alternative actually turns the tide in that series? Shaq was simply NOT going to turn the tide with more touches. I'm not sure if he was just still not in game shape after a whole season or if he'd just gotten too old, but either way he was NOT going to turn that series. The pistons defense was too good.

Payton and Malone both shot 33% or less. Devan George was under 40% shooting. Those were your next 3 guys in minutes played in that series. Fisher your 6th man was again under 33%. Hell rick fox was the ONLY guy on their bench to shoot over 50%...but he wasn't just the only over 50%, he was the only guy over 40%!

More to the point do you think the pistons were just letting kobe drop the ball to shaq with ease?

[aj1987]

Lets say you're right and Kobe was making poor decisions. What alternative actually turns the tide in that series? Shaq was simply NOT going to turn the tide with more touches. I'm not sure if he was just still not in game shape after a whole season or if he'd just gotten too old, but either way he was NOT going to turn that series. The pistons defense was too good.

Payton and Malone both shot 33% or less. Devan George was under 40% shooting. Those were your next 3 guys in minutes played in that series. Fisher your 6th man was again under 33%. Hell rick fox was the ONLY guy on their bench to shoot over 50%...but he wasn't just the only over 50%, he was the only guy over 40%!

More to the point do you think the pistons were just letting kobe drop the ball to shaq with ease?
Shaq was 2nd in MVP voting the next season and was putting up 23/11/3 on 60% the next season.

How the years years change the status of teams. :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

Shaq was 2nd in MVP voting the next season and was putting up 23/11/3 on 60% the next season.

How the years years change the status of teams. :oldlol:

Could you explain why you think the Lakers would somehow start playing better offense than they did all year, including the playoffs, against one of the best defensive teams ever...and a team perfectly suited to guard both Kobe and Shaq?

Please answer...

[aj1987]

Could you explain why you think the Lakers would somehow start playing better offense than they did all year, including the playoffs, against one of the best defensive teams ever...and a team perfectly suited to guard both Kobe and Shaq?

Please answer...
If you think the 6th best offensive team in the league is not a good offensive team, than you really need to learn more about basketball.

[DMAVS41]

If you think the 6th best offensive team in the league is not a good offensive team, than you really need to learn more about basketball.

Straw man argument. I said they weren't elite...I never said they weren't "good"...

Please respond with substance.

[Stout]

Payton > Kidd > Nash > CP3

[aj1987]

Straw man argument.

Please respond with substance.
:biggums:

Are you drunk or high?

[DMAVS41]

:biggums:

Are you drunk or high?

Are you?

[aj1987]

Are you?
:facepalm

[DMAVS41]

Great discussion...we should take you seriously from now on.

Does it make you feel better or worse that everyone here knows you got killed in the debate and are very aware of the BS straw man arguments and ad hominem you just pulled?

[aj1987]

Great discussion...we should take you seriously from now on.

Does it make you feel better or worse that everyone here knows you got killed in the debate and are very aware of the BS straw man arguments and ad hominem you just pulled?
As I said, whatever helps you sleep better. You cherrypick and ignore points worse than 3ball.

:cheers:

[DMAVS41]

As I said, whatever helps you sleep better. You cherrypick and ignore points worse than 3ball.

:cheers:

Actually I addressed all of your points...at least any of the ones that made some amount of sense.

And I'm still waiting to hear how the Lakers were improving their offense against the Pistons.

But, regardless, why even be here and start a discussion if you aren't interested in having one?

[aj1987]

Actually I addressed all of your points...at least any of the ones that made some amount of sense.

And I'm still waiting to hear how the Lakers were improving their offense against the Pistons.

But, regardless, why even be here and start a discussion if you aren't interested in having one?
You think this actually made sense?


Those Lakers weren't an elite offense to begin with...with a 105.5 regular season ortg....good for 6th in the league. Now you think they are going above that against the Pistons? Why?

Please stop embarrassing yourself, dude.

[DMAVS41]

You think this actually made sense?



Please stop embarrassing yourself, dude.

Do you know what the word "elite" means?

Are you arguing that the Lakers were an "elite" offensive team in 04 prior to the finals?

Wait...you think the words "good" and "elite" are the same thing...wow...okay...things make more sense now.

[aj1987]

Do you know what the word "elite" means?

Are you arguing that the Lakers were an "elite" offensive team in 04 prior to the finals?
You think the Sonics and Bucks were elite offensively in '04?

Also, you think Kobe and Shaq missing a combined 32 games doesn't effect their ORtg?

[DMAVS41]

You think the Sonics and Bucks were elite offensively in '04?

No...I'd have to look it up, but the only team I remember in 04 having an elite offense was the Mavs. My guess is that everyone else wasn't separating themselves much.

Of course Shaq/Kobe missing time impacts...which is why part of my argument was looking at the playoffs to see how they were performing.

Keep up please.

[90sgoat]

I take Kidd>Payton>Paul.

Jason Kidd is a player you can't judge on boxscores. If they counted hockey assists Kidd would be the all time leader. I've never seen a player like Kidd with such a chess like ability to create offense just by passing, moving, passing, moving. Kidd was like a maestro thinking 3 moves ahead, being just as valuable off ball as on ball.

The only other player I've seen with that innate understanding of the game was Magic. And Kidd in the open floor was all time best level, almost at Magic level there too. Add to that he was a tripple double machine with very good D. He is underrated because you need to see how he dominated games, not just watch highlights or boxscores. Kidd had a massive part in that Mavs championship but doesn't get the credit, next year he is gone, Mavs don't do anything since that. He took the Knicks and made them into a playoff team, again did not get praise (Melo took it), but then he is gone and Knicks suck again, that's the story of Jason Kidd, making teams much better by doing stuff that doesn't show up fully in boxscores.

Payton is second because he is an all time great defender. The Sonics 96 was suffocating, I've never seen anything like it since and it was better than Knicks that I watched in the 90s too. Payton was the man behind it all, not your typical guard impact on defense, he could shut down point guards and shooting guards completely, even almost shutting down the GOAT.

Paul has the best overall talent of the 3. No weaknesses, the best scorer of the 3, but Paul imo lacks the kind of all time skill in one area that Payton (defense) and Kidd (running an offense) have. He is elite in all areas almost, but he does not have all time great ability in any particular area. That's why I think he really is mostly suited to be 1b and not 1a. He is Stockton to a Malone, but even then I still would pick Stockton over Paul.

[aj1987]

No...I'd have to look it up, but the only team I remember in 04 having an elite offense was the Mavs.
So you admit that you actually don't remember the season. Box-scores only tell you so much.


Of course Shaq/Kobe missing time impacts...which is why part of my argument was looking at the playoffs to see how they were performing.
You do know that they beat 2 teams with ATG defenders, right?

[DMAVS41]

So you admit that you actually don't remember the season. Box-scores only tell you so much.

What?

I'm doing all of this on the top of my head...I clearly remember it better than you.

Did the Mavs have the best offense that year? Yes.

Did the Lakers look like an offensive power in the playoffs prior to the finals? No

So I ask again...why are they getting better against, as you say, an ATG defense?

[aj1987]

What?

I'm doing all of this on the top of my head...I clearly remember it better than you.

Did the Mavs have the best offense that year? Yes.

Did the Lakers look like an offensive power in the playoffs prior to the finals? No

So I ask again...why are they getting better against, as you say, an ATG defense?
Jesus Christ. Now I know why tpols doesn't even bother with you anymore. I'm out.

[DMAVS41]

So you admit that you actually don't remember the season. Box-scores only tell you so much.


You do know that they beat 2 teams with ATG defenders, right?

They beat the Spurs, a very good defensive team, in large part because of their own defense.

They had roughly a 101 ortg in that series.

This is why I brought up how well the Pistons were scoring against the Lakers. The Spurs had a 96 ortg against the Lakers...the Pistons had over a 106 ortg.

See how logic works?

[DMAVS41]

Jesus Christ. Now I know why tpols doesn't even bother with you anymore. I'm out.

You have been utterly destroyed and my logic/arguments are sound.

You have offered nothing...well, you've now tried arguing that the Lakers had an elite offense in 04...and, sorry, they did not.

I really don't get some people on here...why even start a discussion if you can't even offer up some form of a valid argument and/or are not willing to change your position?

Like...the discussion ends when someone makes the obvious point that the Lakers weren't a special offensive team to begin with, struggled offensively in the playoffs prior to the finals, and looked pretty bad in the finals. That is the first thing someone is going to say.

And you cry and resort to ad hominem? Grow up or go home please.

[dhsilv]

Shaq was 2nd in MVP voting the next season and was putting up 23/11/3 on 60% the next season.

How the years years change the status of teams. :oldlol:

You're going to tell me 23-11 is prime shaq? I also never understood why people were wanting to call shaq mvp that year. It was a weak year at the top for MVP choices, I admit, but still I never got how shaq was in that conversation.

[dhsilv]

I take Kidd>Payton>Paul.

Jason Kidd is a player you can't judge on boxscores. If they counted hockey assists Kidd would be the all time leader. I've never seen a player like Kidd with such a chess like ability to create offense just by passing, moving, passing, moving. Kidd was like a maestro thinking 3 moves ahead, being just as valuable off ball as on ball.

The only other player I've seen with that innate understanding of the game was Magic. And Kidd in the open floor was all time best level, almost at Magic level there too. Add to that he was a tripple double machine with very good D. He is underrated because you need to see how he dominated games, not just watch highlights or boxscores. Kidd had a massive part in that Mavs championship but doesn't get the credit, next year he is gone, Mavs don't do anything since that. He took the Knicks and made them into a playoff team, again did not get praise (Melo took it), but then he is gone and Knicks suck again, that's the story of Jason Kidd, making teams much better by doing stuff that doesn't show up fully in boxscores.

Payton is second because he is an all time great defender. The Sonics 96 was suffocating, I've never seen anything like it since and it was better than Knicks that I watched in the 90s too. Payton was the man behind it all, not your typical guard impact on defense, he could shut down point guards and shooting guards completely, even almost shutting down the GOAT.

Paul has the best overall talent of the 3. No weaknesses, the best scorer of the 3, but Paul imo lacks the kind of all time skill in one area that Payton (defense) and Kidd (running an offense) have. He is elite in all areas almost, but he does not have all time great ability in any particular area. That's why I think he really is mostly suited to be 1b and not 1a. He is Stockton to a Malone, but even then I still would pick Stockton over Paul.

Paul might be the best half court point guard of all time. He's rather weak next to the likes of Magic and Kidd in the open court.

[DMAVS41]

You're going to tell me 23-11 is prime shaq? I also never understood why people were wanting to call shaq mvp that year. It was a weak year at the top for MVP choices, I admit, but still I never got how shaq was in that conversation.

I think it's okay to call that end of prime Shaq...he obviously wasn't peak, but he was still an elite top 5 player in the league imo.

[k0kakw0rld]

Kidd no contest

[Young X]

I take Kidd>Payton>Paul.

Jason Kidd is a player you can't judge on boxscores. If they counted hockey assists Kidd would be the all time leader. I've never seen a player like Kidd with such a chess like ability to create offense just by passing, moving, passing, moving. Kidd was like a maestro thinking 3 moves ahead, being just as valuable off ball as on ball.

The only other player I've seen with that innate understanding of the game was Magic. And Kidd in the open floor was all time best level, almost at Magic level there too. Add to that he was a tripple double machine with very good D. He is underrated because you need to see how he dominated games, not just watch highlights or boxscores. Kidd had a massive part in that Mavs championship but doesn't get the credit, next year he is gone, Mavs don't do anything since that. He took the Knicks and made them into a playoff team, again did not get praise (Melo took it), but then he is gone and Knicks suck again, that's the story of Jason Kidd, making teams much better by doing stuff that doesn't show up fully in boxscores.

Payton is second because he is an all time great defender. The Sonics 96 was suffocating, I've never seen anything like it since and it was better than Knicks that I watched in the 90s too. Payton was the man behind it all, not your typical guard impact on defense, he could shut down point guards and shooting guards completely, even almost shutting down the GOAT.

Paul has the best overall talent of the 3. No weaknesses, the best scorer of the 3, but Paul imo lacks the kind of all time skill in one area that Payton (defense) and Kidd (running an offense) have. He is elite in all areas almost, but he does not have all time great ability in any particular area. That's why I think he really is mostly suited to be 1b and not 1a. He is Stockton to a Malone, but even then I still would pick Stockton over Paul.This isn't a bad post but how is Kidd an all time great in running an offense but Paul isn't? It's the other way around if anything.

Paul might have the best combination of ballhandling and passing/court vision out of any player. And unlike Kidd who was a bad scorer and shooter, he's also a scoring threat that can shoot well from anywhere on the court on top of that. He plays faaar more efficient basketball than Kidd.

Pretty much all of the offenses Kidd ran in his prime were either below average or terrible.

On the other hand, Paul has ran two #1 offenses and on average ran better offenses over his career than Kidd even if you go back to his Hornets days.

If I wanted an efficient offense, I'd easily choose Paul and Payton over Kidd.

[dhsilv]

I think it's okay to call that end of prime Shaq...he obviously wasn't peak, but he was still an elite top 5 player in the league imo.

Dirk, Duncan, and KG imo were clearly better imo.

Then you have Amare, Tmac, Lebron, and if we're just stat following Mario was really great that year. And we could add in the guy who won the MVP in Nash.

I'd agree shaq was still great that year but other than a high PER, he didn't finish well in VORP or PER. If we go by RAMP he's 3rd but then we have to look at Manu as a contender that year.

I agree elite by the league's standards that year, but not by Shaq's standards and at least imo that wasn't a great year at the top.

[DMAVS41]

Dirk, Duncan, and KG imo were clearly better imo.

Then you have Amare, Tmac, Lebron, and if we're just stat following Mario was really great that year. And we could add in the guy who won the MVP in Nash.

I'd agree shaq was still great that year but other than a high PER, he didn't finish well in VORP or PER. If we go by RAMP he's 3rd but then we have to look at Manu as a contender that year.

I agree elite by the league's standards that year, but not by Shaq's standards and at least imo that wasn't a great year at the top.

There are always going to be guys battling for a top 5 spot...and one can argue it.

Shaq was in that range of player though...still one of the best players in the league. I think that is what people mean...nobody actually is arguing, I'd guess, that 04/05 Shaq were as good as 00 Shaq or something.

[90sgoat]

This isn't a bad post but how is Kidd an all time great in running an offense but Paul isn't? It's the other way around if anything.

Paul might have the best combination of ballhandling and passing/court vision out of any player. And unlike Kidd who was a bad scorer and shooter, he's also a scoring threat that can shoot well from anywhere on the court on top of that. He plays faaar more efficient basketball than Kidd.

Pretty much all of the offenses Kidd ran in his prime were either below average or terrible.

On the other hand, Paul has ran two #1 offenses and on average ran better offenses over his career than Kidd even if you go back to his Hornets days.

If I wanted an efficient offense, I'd easily choose Paul and Payton over Kidd.

Your point guard doesn't have to be a scorer to be effective. If Kidd had even Magic's jumpshot he'd be counted as the greatest point guard ever.

Paul is not close to the mastery of Kidd in setting up teammates, there is no one except Magic to match that, yes I count him as better than Stockton too.

You're probably confusing scoring ability with offensive ability, have you actually watched Kidd in his prime full games? Kidd is on another planet in getting teammates involved and finding their spots. It was a thing of beauty and honestly something only Magic did as good.

Kerry Kittles, Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin, what did they do without Kidd? Nothing. Paul in Hornets played with David West who is far superior to any of those 3. Kenyon Martin had the offensive arsenal of Deandre Jordan.

[tpols]

Your point guard doesn't have to be a scorer to be effective. If Kidd had even Magic's jumpshot he'd be counted as the greatest point guard ever.

Paul is not close to the mastery of Kidd in setting up teammates, there is no one except Magic to match that, yes I count him as better than Stockton too.

You're probably confusing scoring ability with offensive ability, have you actually watched Kidd in his prime full games? Kidd is on another planet in getting teammates involved and finding their spots. It was a thing of beauty and honestly something only Magic did as good.

Kerry Kittles, Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin, what did they do without Kidd? Nothing. Paul in Hornets played with David West who is far superior to any of those 3. Kenyon Martin had the offensive arsenal of Deandre Jordan.

paul is so much better at shooting off the dribble and scoring with live dribble, which allows his teams ortg to always be so high.. but I agree, Kidd got guys going. An alley oop is just 2 points but it gets the big man pumped.. and ready for defense on the other end. Just hitting guys in their spots to give them confidence and make them play harder.. its hard to quantify.

[90sgoat]

paul is so much better at shooting off the dribble and scoring with live dribble, which allows his teams ortg to always be so high.. but I agree, Kidd got guys going. An alley oop is just 2 points but it gets the big man pumped.. and ready for defense on the other end. Just hitting guys in their spots to give them confidence and make them play harder.. its hard to quantify.

I should say that its hard to qualify who is actually the better player, because none of them have multiple rings or MVPs. Kidd is the only one with a ring and he has the most finals (3 to 1 and 0) which really should count for something. Besides that it's about which game you like to watch more and Kidd is on top for me, because all his teams were exciting to watch.

Again, I simply can't see how you can put Paul over either of the others when you factor in all skills and see Paul's lack of playoff success. Losing to the Rockets last year was a massive scratch on his resume. They beat the Spurs and then lose to Harden and Dwight, that's just not elite, whether it's mental or something else.

As for Kidd even as an old man he made Melo a scoring leader and in the running for MVP, which again was ignored but Melo's play since Kidd left shows the impact clearly. Kidd really does make his teammates play to their best.

[Young X]

You can't just ignore the huge gap in scoring ability because they're PG's. Scoring is still the most important part of the game no matter what position at the end of the day.

If we're comparing 2 players offensively. The bottom line is who helps their team score more points. Who is better at turning possessions into points.

Paul is definitely better than Kidd at this. If you gave them the same teammates under the same circumstances, Paul's team would easily be more efficient.

And if you really think Paul isn't close to Kidd at setting up teammates then I don't know what to say. You either don't watch him play or are extremely biased. He's one of the best distributors/passers/playmakers to ever play (as is Kidd). There's no one he's "not close to" in this area.

[notatop29pg]

For someone so good at setting up his teammates, his assist averages are fairly low.

He also got a ring at 37... and you know if Paul doesn't get one until 32 or later that WILL be held against him as everyone will say he was "carried" etc etc.

Kidd was a taller Rajon Rondo, only scored when forced into it, 40% career fg and 38% playoff fg tell you why.

Yes he was a good rebounder and assist turret.. but he had to be coz he didn't/wouldn't score.

Agree that he was a better defender though.

imo - Paul-Kidd-Payton

Payton doesn't really belong in the conversation though, great defender, but his story seems to grow with every year he's retired. In his prime he was an erratic malcontent that thought his offense was a lot better than it was. Amazing defender though.

[tpols]

Scoring is not the most important thing necessarily. It can be, but every facet of the game is important. I do agree that given equal offensive talent Paul will lead a better regular season offense than kidd. But his team will still be paper soft come playoff time due to no leadership being provided in every other area of basketball.. kidd provided A+ leadership in defense rebounding and passing that made his teams much tougher and better than they should've been. Paul's game is sexier individually, but it doesn't have as much substance

[Young X]

Kidd's game didn't seem to have much "substance" either when he didn't play in the eastern conference...

[catch24]

Kidd and CP3 are interchangeable IMO. Payton was no slouch but I also don't think he had the impact the other two did. Close enough though.


Kidd's game didn't seem to have much "substance" either when he didn't play in the eastern conference...

He was the starting pointguard for a western conference team who won their first and ONLY title in their franchises history. :oldlol:

[90sgoat]

You can't just ignore the huge gap in scoring ability because they're PG's. Scoring is still the most important part of the game no matter what position at the end of the day.

If we're comparing 2 players offensively. The bottom line is who helps their team score more points. Who is better at turning possessions into points.

Paul is definitely better than Kidd at this. If you gave them the same teammates under the same circumstances, Paul's team would easily be more efficient.

And if you really think Paul isn't close to Kidd at setting up teammates then I don't know what to say. You either don't watch him play or are extremely biased. He's one of the best distributors/passers/playmakers to ever play (as is Kidd). There's no one he's "not close to" in this area.

I don't disrespect Paul, but here's the thing, it's about how many points your team score compared to how many they allow. Not how many points your point guard scores. It doesn't matter who scores as long as the points are scored.

Spurs don't even have a 20 point scorer, they have a couple of guys scoring 17.

Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas, Melo, they score and their teams are crap.

And if Paul was really a top 3 point guard of all time then he would have sniffed a finals, all the other great point guards did:

Magic
Kidd
Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Oscar Robertson

Steve Nash had godly stats that didn't translate and he was twice MVP, no one in their mind picks Nash over any of the above.

He has the team good enough, they beat the former champs Spurs for gods sake. Then they go and meltdown and lose to James Harden.

There's something missing with Paul and you won't like it if I tell you what I think it is, but I will say it anyway, Paul is too focused on pick and roll game and taking the big shots. He dribbles in the same spot for too long and does too much iso. He flops too much, doesn't have the warrior's heart like Isiah and Stockton.

Losing to Rockets last year can't be excused it was simply bad and it falls on Paul who played great against Spurs.

He is still an all time great in terms of skill but he can't translate it to a fully effective playstyle.

Kidd has 107 tripple doubles, that's 3rd all time and that's more than TWICE as many Lebron James. Think about that. Kidd is 6'5'' and 205lbs. That's only behind Magic and Oscar Robertson ALL TIME.

People gush over the trip dub impact of Lebron, but Kidd has TWICE as many as Lebron.

He averages almost 9apg and 2spg over an 18 year career.

Jason Kidd won that Mavs championship:

wagesofwins.com/2011/05/26/jason-kidd-is-an-all-time-great-point-guard/

[QUOTE]There

[tpols]

Kidd's game didn't seem to have much "substance" either when he didn't play in the eastern conference...

it did though.. he revitalized Tyson chandlers career, pretty much made him a max level player out of nowhere. Kidd is the most under appreciated part of the 2011 Mavs title team. It was his defense along with Marions that locked down all the "stars" they faced. It was him that pushed the pace and always dictated proper flow.


90% of kidd's prime was spent in the east.. so be it, he did the absolute best with what he was given. When given a chance in the west, he of course, also produced.

[90sgoat]

it did though.. he revitalized Tyson chandlers career, pretty much made him a max level player out of nowhere. Kidd is the most under appreciated part of the 2011 Mavs title team. It was his defense along with Marions that locked down all the "stars" they faced. It was him that pushed the pace and always dictated proper flow.


90% of kidd's prime was spent in the east.. so be it, he did the absolute best with what he was given. When given a chance in the west, he of course, also produced.

Look above, Kidd had the most winshares on that team.

[dhsilv]

There are always going to be guys battling for a top 5 spot...and one can argue it.

Shaq was in that range of player though...still one of the best players in the league. I think that is what people mean...nobody actually is arguing, I'd guess, that 04/05 Shaq were as good as 00 Shaq or something.

That is what has to be implied if kobe just had to throw the ball to shaq more to win in 04 against t he pistons, at least that's what it sounds like.

[tpols]

That is what has to be implied if kobe just had to throw the ball to shaq more to win in 04 against t he pistons, at least that's what it sounds like.

I don't think it would have mattered much throwing it to shaq more, or kobe somehow playing better.. tayshaun bothered kobe the same way Durant or sefolosha did in 2012. That super length to contest a midrange shooter is kobe's kryptonite. Plus if kobe was able to get around he would have to face a crowded, stacked paint.. just a terrible matchup. Combined with all the extracurricular stuff, there was just no chance. 04 pistons upsetting the lakers was like the seahawks beating the bronco's.. they just smashed them in the face and dominated at every non-star position first

[dhsilv]

I should say that its hard to qualify who is actually the better player, because none of them have multiple rings or MVPs. Kidd is the only one with a ring and he has the most finals (3 to 1 and 0) which really should count for something. Besides that it's about which game you like to watch more and Kidd is on top for me, because all his teams were exciting to watch.

Again, I simply can't see how you can put Paul over either of the others when you factor in all skills and see Paul's lack of playoff success. Losing to the Rockets last year was a massive scratch on his resume. They beat the Spurs and then lose to Harden and Dwight, that's just not elite, whether it's mental or something else.

As for Kidd even as an old man he made Melo a scoring leader and in the running for MVP, which again was ignored but Melo's play since Kidd left shows the impact clearly. Kidd really does make his teammates play to their best.

Paul got injured against the spurs...not sure he gets a pass but I'll give him half of one.

Paul also never had a team as deep or talented as that 96 seatle team. That team was loaded.

FYI, Payton made the finals 3 times and has a ring just like Kidd....assuming you give him credit for being a much less important role player on 2 of those finals trips and the ring. But you didn't add a qualifier so it should be pointed out.

[dhsilv]

I don't think it would have mattered much throwing it to shaq more, or kobe somehow playing better.. tayshaun bothered kobe the same way Durant or sefolosha did. That super length to contest a midrange shooter is kobe's kryptonite. Plus if able to get around having to face a crowded, stacked paint.. just a terrible matchup. Combined with all the extracurricular stuff, there was just no chance. 04 pistons upsetting the lakers was like the seahawks beating the bronco's.. they just smashed them in the face and dominated at every non-star position.

Agree. The pistons just destroyed the role players in ways you rarely ever see.

[Young X]

I don't disrespect Paul, but here's the thing, it's about how many points your team score compared to how many they allow. Not how many points your point guard scores. It doesn't matter who scores as long as the points are scored.

Spurs don't even have a 20 point scorer, they have a couple of guys scoring 17.

Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas, Melo, they score and their teams are crap.

And if Paul was really a top 3 point guard of all time then he would have sniffed a finals, all the other great point guards did:

Magic
Kidd
Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Oscar Robertson

Steve Nash had godly stats that didn't translate and he was twice MVP, no one in their mind picks Nash over any of the above.

He has the team good enough, they beat the former champs Spurs for gods sake. Then they go and meltdown and lose to James Harden.

There's something missing with Paul and you won't like it if I tell you what I think it is, but I will say it anyway, Paul is too focused on pick and roll game and taking the big shots. He dribbles in the same spot for too long and does too much iso. He flops too much, doesn't have the warrior's heart like Isiah and Stockton.

Losing to Rockets last year can't be excused it was simply bad and it falls on Paul who played great against Spurs.

He is still an all time great in terms of skill but he can't translate it to a fully effective playstyle.

Kidd has 107 tripple doubles, that's 3rd all time and that's more than TWICE as many Lebron James. Think about that. Kidd is 6'5'' and 205lbs. That's only behind Magic and Oscar Robertson ALL TIME.

People gush over the trip dub impact of Lebron, but Kidd has TWICE as many as Lebron.

He averages almost 9apg and 2spg over an 18 year career.

Jason Kidd won that Mavs championship:

wagesofwins.com/2011/05/26/jason-kidd-is-an-all-time-great-point-guard/



http://nesn.com/2011/05/jason-kidd-must-be-considered-greatest-point-guard-in-nba-history-if-mavericks-win-championship/


Read more at: http://nesn.com/2011/05/jason-kidd-must-be-considered-greatest-point-guard-in-nba-history-if-mavericks-win-championship/


In the 2001-2002 against Lakers NBA finals Kidd averaged:

21-10-7-2 on 44% FG

That's an all time great Finals statline.

Let me know when Paul puts up such a statline in the finals.

You simply can't speak on behalf of Jason Kidd if you're not able to use your eyes and understand what you are seeing, like the guys I quoted above were able to.Let's not act like Dirk and the rest of the Mavs had nothing to do with that title in 2011. Kidd contributed alot to that team but he didn't win them that championship. He was 38 years old and at the end of his career. Let's be real.

I never said Paul was a top 3 PG all time (neither is Kidd). There's also nothing wrong with picking Nash over Stockton, Kidd, or Thomas.

Not everybody is as impressed with team success amongst individual players as you guys. Circumstances play too much of a factor in that.

The Nets getting to the finals doesn't necessarily make him better than someone like Nash or Paul. If Kidd hadn't gotten traded to the east he also likely doesn't get to the finals either and he wouldn't have been any worse a player for it.

[notatop29pg]

Let's not act like Dirk and the rest of the Mavs had nothing to do with that title in 2011. Kidd contributed alot to that team but he didn't win them that championship. He was 38 years old and at the end of his career. Let's be real.

I never said Paul was a top 3 PG all time (neither is Kidd). There's also nothing wrong with picking Nash over Stockton, Kidd, or Thomas.

Not everybody is as impressed with team success amongst individual players as you guys. Circumstances play too much of a factor in that.

The Nets getting to the finals doesn't necessarily make him better than someone like Nash or Paul. If Kidd hadn't gotten traded to the east he also likely doesn't get to the finals either and he wouldn't have been any worse a player for it.

Its only impressive when it fits an argument. Basketball is a team sport, unless Derek Fisher is a top 3 pg that is.

[LJJ]

Let's not act like Dirk and the rest of the Mavs had nothing to do with that title in 2011. Kidd contributed alot to that team but he didn't win them that championship. He was 38 years old and at the end of his career. Let's be real.

I never said Paul was a top 3 PG all time (neither is Kidd). There's also nothing wrong with picking Nash over Stockton, Kidd, or Thomas.

Not everybody is as impressed with team success amongst individual players as you guys. Circumstances play too much of a factor in that.

The Nets getting to the finals doesn't necessarily make him better than someone like Nash or Paul. If Kidd hadn't gotten traded to the east he also likely doesn't get to the finals either and he wouldn't have been any worse a player for it.

I agree.

And looking at the circumstances, I definitely can't say Paul has gotten the most out of his. He's had plenty of opportunities with good squads. I can't look at Paul's circumstances and say he's gotten the most out of those squads. He's never even been a threat.

And the same goes for Nash. He was more of a threat, but at the end of the day he was a regular season champ who couldn't push great, incredibly talented squads over the edge.

Payton and Kidd both did more with less, but lets jerk off over stats some more.

[Wade's Rings]

I agree.

And looking at the circumstances, I definitely can't say Paul has gotten the most out of his. He's had plenty of opportunities with good squads. I can't look at Paul's circumstances and say he's gotten the most out of those squads. He's never even been a threat.

And the same goes for Nash. He was more of a threat, but at the end of the day he was a regular season champ who couldn't push great, incredibly talented squads over the edge.

Payton and Kidd both did more with less, but lets jerk off over stats some more.

In '07 without that suspension he has a Title.

[dhsilv]

In '07 without that suspension he has a Title.

Or the spurs still come back and win that series...honestly still don't think the suns win that series without the suspensions.

[dhsilv]

I agree.

And looking at the circumstances, I definitely can't say Paul has gotten the most out of his. He's had plenty of opportunities with good squads. I can't look at Paul's circumstances and say he's gotten the most out of those squads. He's never even been a threat.

And the same goes for Nash. He was more of a threat, but at the end of the day he was a regular season champ who couldn't push great, incredibly talented squads over the edge.

Payton and Kidd both did more with less, but lets jerk off over stats some more.

What did payton do with LESS?

[90sgoat]

What did payton do with LESS?

Deandre Jordan >> Ervin Johnson
Blake > Kemp
Barnes << Schrempf
JJ = Hawkins

Supporting casts are about comparable imo.

[Lord Leoshes]

for me this is between Kidd vs Payton for first, hard to choose. Probably go with GP


I agree with this. Payton was the better defender but that was when handchecking was allowed.

I guess i would choose Kidd cause he has a better shot at a triple double.

[Lord Leoshes]

Deandre Jordan >> Ervin Johnson
Blake > Kemp
Barnes << Schrempf
JJ = Hawkins

Supporting casts are about comparable imo.


I am 45 years old & i disagree. Hawkins was a way better defender then JJ. & Kemp was a monster in his prime, so i would say he was even with Blake.

[houston]

No PG did more with less than Kidd. He was the main reason why Nets turn around as a franchise. His all around game what separate him from Payton and CP3. Even in 2011 Kidd was clearly the Mavs only playmaker that ran the offense plus he was they 3&D guy. Cats act like Curry was the only lightskin PG that was a great 3pt shooter that won a championship lol.



Truth be told Payton was overrated. People have revisionist about Payton. Dude was a underachiever and a headcase. He was on a team where they lost to a clearly inferior team in 94 and 95. Heck in 04 he was clearly one of main problem why the Lakers underachieve that year.


Cp3 is just a black Nash who plays defense. He don't have offensive game to take over like he should. Truth be told it hard for a PG to win as the game unless they have some offensive prowness with their game. But he is better than Payton cause he at least more of a pure PG than him.

[aj1987]

You have been utterly destroyed and my logic/arguments are sound.

You have offered nothing...well, you've now tried arguing that the Lakers had an elite offense in 04...and, sorry, they did not.

I really don't get some people on here...why even start a discussion if you can't even offer up some form of a valid argument and/or are not willing to change your position?

Like...the discussion ends when someone makes the obvious point that the Lakers weren't a special offensive team to begin with, struggled offensively in the playoffs prior to the finals, and looked pretty bad in the finals. That is the first thing someone is going to say.

And you cry and resort to ad hominem? Grow up or go home please.
:roll: :roll:

Again, whatever helps you sleep better at night. You really are as delusional as 3ball.

Since you're just too stupid to understand my points, I'll repost.

Yeah, if the Heat were healthy the Pistons do not make the Finals. IF Kobe left his ego, he'd have 6 rings. It's not a 'fact'. Hypothetical scenario. The Pistons were an elite defensive squad, but not even close to being an ATG team. If you think that they're an ATG team, you simply haven't watched enough basketball.

You keep bringing up Rasheed and how he changed the offense, but the Pistons were still a garbage offense the next season. Somewhere around the 20th, IIRC.

[DMAVS41]

:roll: :roll:

Again, whatever helps you sleep better at night. You really are as delusional as 3ball.

Since you're just too stupid to understand my points, I'll repost.

Yeah, if the Heat were healthy the Pistons do not make the Finals. IF Kobe left his ego, he'd have 6 rings. It's not a 'fact'. Hypothetical scenario. The Pistons were an elite defensive squad, but not even close to being an ATG team. If you think that they're an ATG team, you simply haven't watched enough basketball.

You keep bringing up Rasheed and how he changed the offense, but the Pistons were still a garbage offense the next season. Somewhere around the 20th, IIRC.

Those aren't points...those are just baseless statements with no arguments or evidence behind them.

I disagree with everything above....so defend what you say. Explain how the Lakers are improving their offense against an all time great defensive team.

Explain why the Lakers still needed OT to win when Kobe was dominant and fed Shaq frequently throughout the game.

I'll be waiting for another terrible response...

[aj1987]

Those aren't points...those are just baseless statements with no arguments or evidence behind them.

I disagree with everything above....so defend what you say. Explain how the Lakers are improving their offense against an all time great defensive team.
Do I have to teach you basketball now? Sigh! The Lakers' offense was stagnant for long stretches because Kobe was hogging the ball. Their role-players were completely out of it and Shaq himself was completely useless. If Kobe passes the ball more whenever he gets doubled, that would've kept the defense on its toes. Involving the role-players more would've helped a ton as well.



Explain why the Lakers still needed OT to win when Kobe was dominant and fed Shaq frequently throughout the game.
Why did an ATG team like this season's Warriors, who are the #1 offense, need OT to beat the garbage ass Nets. 2OT against the mediocre Celtics as well.

As I said, watch the series. Was it Billups or RIP who scored 30 that game. I think it was both. Lets also not forget about their edge in rebounding as well.


I'll be waiting for another terrible response...
Well, 3ball lite. When you brush aside all arguments and cherrypick yours, everything might seem terrible.

[DMAVS41]

Do I have to teach you basketball now? Sigh! The Lakers' offense was stagnant for long stretches because Kobe was hogging the ball. Their role-players were completely out of it and Shaq himself was completely useless. If Kobe passes the ball more whenever he gets doubled, that would've kept the defense on its toes. Involving the role-players more would've helped a ton as well.



Why did an ATG team like this season's Warriors, who are the #1 offense, need OT to beat the garbage ass Nets. 2OT against the mediocre Celtics as well.

As I said, watch the series. Was it Billups or RIP who scored 30 that game. I think it was both. Lets also not forget about their edge in rebounding as well.


Well, 3ball lite. When you brush aside all arguments and cherrypick yours, everything might seem terrible.


It's not cherry picking at all.

You are claiming the Lakers win if Kobe plays "like Kobe"...but what you are failing to realize is that the Lakers offense simply was not elite even when Kobe was playing "like Kobe"...

Here is some evidence.

The Lakers didn't have an elite offense all year.

When the Lakers played the Spurs, another elite defense, their offensive rating was 101.

Kobe definitely played..."like Kobe" in that series with 26 points on 53% TS

When the Lakers played the Rockets, a good defense, their offensive rating was 101.

Kobe played alright...put up 24 points on 51% TS


So...I'll keep asking. What makes you think Kobe is playing better than he did against the Spurs or Rockets? The Pistons defense was better equipped to make life harder on Kobe than either of those teams.

In addition to that, even if Kobe were to play as well or better than he had all playoffs, why do you think the Lakers offense as a team would jump up, quite considerably, over the level it was against the Spurs and Rockets?

It's not about the team struggling to win game 2. It's a direct example that contradicts what you said. Kobe played well above any realistic expectations for an entire series in game 2...and fed Shaq the ball. And yet, the Pistons were still right there in a game that could have gone either way.

Maybe you aren't grasping this...that matters because the Lakers played better than they could over the course of any stretch...and yet the Pistons still were just as good.

So not only do you have almost no evidence that Kobe is capable of playing like you claim, but even if he does...the game is a coin flip at best when he's playing as good as he possibly can.

The Lakers would have needed Kobe or Shaq to do something special consistently....combined with playing better defense than they proved capable in the finals.

Long story short, there is no justifiable reason to think the Lakers, a team that wasn't elite offensively all year, couldn't crack a 101 ortg against the Spurs/Rockets, and wasn't elite defensively either...was going to all of a sudden improve their offense against one of the best defenses ever.

Once again you provide no arguments other than stating the obvious that Kobe played poorly. LOL...we know he played poorly. The question isn't that...it's whether or not him playing like himself is rising their ortg at least 10 points better than it was in that series.

And the answer is obviously no. You probably realize that at this point, but you'll keep trying dig your way out of a hole that, unfortunately, you can't get out of.

And we are all just laughing at the stupid shit you say...:coleman:

[aj1987]

It's not cherry picking at all.

You are claiming the Lakers win if Kobe plays "like Kobe"...but what you are failing to realize is that the Lakers offense simply was not elite even when Kobe was playing "like Kobe"...

Here is some evidence.

The Lakers didn't have an elite offense all year.

When the Lakers played the Spurs, another elite defense, their offensive rating was 101.

Kobe definitely played..."like Kobe" in that series with 26 points on 53% TS

When the Lakers played the Rockets, a good defense, their offensive rating was 101.

Kobe played alright...put up 24 points on 51% TS


So...I'll keep asking. What makes you think Kobe is playing better than he did against the Spurs or Rockets? The Pistons defense was better equipped to make life harder on Kobe than either of those teams.

In addition to that, even if Kobe were to play as well or better than he had all playoffs, why do you think the Lakers offense as a team would jump up, quite considerably, over the level it was against the Spurs and Rockets?

It's not about the team struggling to win game 2. It's a direct example that contradicts what you said. Kobe played well above any realistic expectations for an entire series in game 2...and fed Shaq the ball. And yet, the Pistons were still right there in a game that could have gone either way.

Maybe you aren't grasping this...that matters because the Lakers played better than they could over the course of any stretch...and yet the Pistons still were just as good.

So not only do you have almost no evidence that Kobe is capable of playing like you claim, but even if he does...the game is a coin flip at best when he's playing as good as he possibly can.

The Lakers would have needed Kobe or Shaq to do something special consistently....combined with playing better defense than they proved capable in the finals.

Long story short, there is no justifiable reason to think the Lakers, a team that wasn't elite offensively all year, couldn't crack a 101 ortg against the Spurs/Rockets, and wasn't elite defensively either...was going to all of a sudden improve their offense against one of the best defenses ever.

Once again you provide no arguments other than stating the obvious that Kobe played poorly. LOL...we know he played poorly. The question isn't that...it's whether or not him playing like himself is rising their ortg at least 10 points better than it was in that series.

And the answer is obviously no. You probably realize that at this point, but you'll keep trying dig your way out of a hole that, unfortunately, you can't get out of.

And we are all just laughing at the stupid shit you say...:coleman:
Read this, you literal retard:

Do I have to teach you basketball now? Sigh! The Lakers' offense was stagnant for long stretches because Kobe was hogging the ball. Their role-players were completely out of it and Shaq himself was completely useless. If Kobe passes the ball more whenever he gets doubled, that would've kept the defense on its toes. Involving the role-players more would've helped a ton as well.

Why did an ATG team like this season's Warriors, who are the #1 offense, need OT to beat the garbage ass Nets. 2OT against the mediocre Celtics as well.

As I said, watch the series. Was it Billups or RIP who scored 30 that game. I think it was both. Lets also not forget about their edge in rebounding as well.

[DMAVS41]

Read this, you literal retard:

Do I have to teach you basketball now? Sigh! The Lakers' offense was stagnant for long stretches because Kobe was hogging the ball. Their role-players were completely out of it and Shaq himself was completely useless. If Kobe passes the ball more whenever he gets doubled, that would've kept the defense on its toes. Involving the role-players more would've helped a ton as well.

Why did an ATG team like this season's Warriors, who are the #1 offense, need OT to beat the garbage ass Nets. 2OT against the mediocre Celtics as well.

As I said, watch the series. Was it Billups or RIP who scored 30 that game. I think it was both. Lets also not forget about their edge in rebounding as well.



WHY WOULD THE LAKERS PLAY BETTER OFFENSE AGAINST THE PISTONS THAN THEY DID ALL YEAR AND IN THE PLAYOFFS?

You stupid ****ing moron....I'm referencing other series and the entire year....

Explain yourself you ****ing idiot.

[catch24]

What are you guys even debating? :oldlol:

That Kobe playing above average would have mobilized Detroit, and gave the Lakers a chance? I could buy that although I still don't think they win the series. Our issues were bigger than just Kobe playing horrible basketball, like not having Malone healthy. That really phucked us.

[aj1987]

WHY WOULD THE LAKERS PLAY BETTER OFFENSE AGAINST THE PISTONS THAN THEY DID ALL YEAR AND IN THE PLAYOFFS?

You stupid ****ing moron....I'm referencing other series and the entire year....

Explain yourself you ****ing idiot.
I'm done with your retarded ass. You can't even comprehend simple english. I'm not repeating myself a billion times for you.


That Kobe playing above average would have mobilized Detroit, and gave the Lakers a chance? I could buy that although I still don't think they win the series. Our issues were bigger than Kobe just playing horrible basketball, like not having Malone healthy. That really phucked us
Yep. Malone not being 100% really hurt the Lakers as well.

[DMAVS41]

I'm done with your retarded ass. You can't even comprehend simple english. I'm not repeating myself a billion times for you.


Yep. Malone not being 100% really hurt the Lakers as well.

It's not hard.

Explain why they'd get better than they were all year while playing against the best defense in the league...

Please explain it..

[dhsilv]

Deandre Jordan >> Ervin Johnson
Blake > Kemp
Barnes << Schrempf
JJ = Hawkins

Supporting casts are about comparable imo.

First of Schrempf>>>>>>>Barnes

At least during their title run, Kemp was better than Kemp.

The bench however was grossly superior for the sonics.

I mean just look at these guys.

Hersey Hawkins > Reddick

Sam Perkins
Nate McMillan

That's a legit 7 man roster by any measure you can imagine.

[dhsilv]

No PG did more with less than Kidd. He was the main reason why Nets turn around as a franchise. His all around game what separate him from Payton and CP3. Even in 2011 Kidd was clearly the Mavs only playmaker that ran the offense plus he was they 3&D guy. Cats act like Curry was the only lightskin PG that was a great 3pt shooter that won a championship lol.



Truth be told Payton was overrated. People have revisionist about Payton. Dude was a underachiever and a headcase. He was on a team where they lost to a clearly inferior team in 94 and 95. Heck in 04 he was clearly one of main problem why the Lakers underachieve that year.


Cp3 is just a black Nash who plays defense. He don't have offensive game to take over like he should. Truth be told it hard for a PG to win as the game unless they have some offensive prowness with their game. But he is better than Payton cause he at least more of a pure PG than him.

Agree with Payton. Though it is worth pointing out that Kidd was whiter than Nash...I swear if people didn't tell me he was supposed to be black, I'd never have even thought it, lol.

As for CP, he is NOT a white nash (not that that is bad). CP is a MUCH better scorer and he does have the ability to takeover games. The real shame with Paul is that his two year peak was followed with injuries and people forget just how good it was those years and he was saddled with a team with an unproven West and he somehow made Chandler look like an offensive force. Sadly now that he does have teammates, he's got major knee issues and just isn't as explosive as he once was.

[dhsilv]

:roll: :roll:

Again, whatever helps you sleep better at night. You really are as delusional as 3ball.

Since you're just too stupid to understand my points, I'll repost.

Yeah, if the Heat were healthy the Pistons do not make the Finals. IF Kobe left his ego, he'd have 6 rings. It's not a 'fact'. Hypothetical scenario. The Pistons were an elite defensive squad, but not even close to being an ATG team. If you think that they're an ATG team, you simply haven't watched enough basketball.

You keep bringing up Rasheed and how he changed the offense, but the Pistons were still a garbage offense the next season. Somewhere around the 20th, IIRC.

ok you keep saying this, but you're not explaining or adding any points. You're just making a statement.

[dhsilv]

I'm done with your retarded ass. You can't even comprehend simple english. I'm not repeating myself a billion times for you.


Yep. Malone not being 100% really hurt the Lakers as well.
.

Why do you keep repeating yourself? You once again have to explain why you think kobe passing more would have improve the offense THAT much and why the piston's defense wasn't a factor in the poor ball movement. I'm sorry but the role players couldn't hit a shot. Shaq couldn't get open. The pistons are a big reason WHY kobe didn't look good in that series.

So again, how are you evaluating kobe's poor play from great defense? This is why you have to explain more. You're trying to move this from a 5 game beating to a laker's WIN...that's a HUGE and I mean HUGE change.

[LJJ]

What did payton do with LESS?

Uhm... he got to the finals, got within a hair of winning the title.

:wtf:

Swear to god these new kids on this board don't even watch the NBA. Just throwing up on their keyboards.

[aj1987]

.

Why do you keep repeating yourself? You once again have to explain why you think kobe passing more would have improve the offense THAT much and why the piston's defense wasn't a factor in the poor ball movement. I'm sorry but the role players couldn't hit a shot. Shaq couldn't get open. The pistons are a big reason WHY kobe didn't look good in that series.

So again, how are you evaluating kobe's poor play from great defense? This is why you have to explain more. You're trying to move this from a 5 game beating to a laker's WIN...that's a HUGE and I mean HUGE change.
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Do you guys just not bother reading posts anymore?

The Lakers' offense was stagnant for long stretches because Kobe was hogging the ball. Their role-players were completely out of it and Shaq himself was completely useless. If Kobe passes the ball more whenever he gets doubled, that would've kept the defense on its toes. Involving the role-players more would've helped a ton as well.


Uhm... he got to the finals, got within a hair of winning the title.

:wtf:

Swear to god these new kids on this board don't even watch the NBA. Just throwing up on their keyboards.
:oldlol: :applause:

[dhsilv]

Uhm... he got to the finals, got within a hair of winning the title.

:wtf:

Swear to god these new kids on this board don't even watch the NBA. Just throwing up on their keyboards.

He won a title, just not as a key player. He was a role player on a lakers team that was killed in a 5 game slaughtering, and he made the finals on a deep and VERY talented Sonics team that lost in what really wasn't a close series all be it they did go 6 to the 96 bulls in another series that was never winnable.

But the key word I used there was "LES" and that team did not have "LESS" of anything than Kidd or Paul has had. Unless you're claiming having Shaq and Kobe is less?

[dhsilv]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Do you guys just not bother reading posts anymore?

The Lakers' offense was stagnant for long stretches because Kobe was hogging the ball. Their role-players were completely out of it and Shaq himself was completely useless. If Kobe passes the ball more whenever he gets doubled, that would've kept the defense on its toes. Involving the role-players more would've helped a ton as well.


:oldlol: :applause:

The pistons were NOT giving kobe open passing lanes. When he did pass the role players couldn't make shots. The pistons were effectively keeping the ball from shaq, often fronting him and they were DAMN good at it. Again, you're not addressing the questions. You already posted the above, so don't' post it again. I read it. I considered it useless without an explanation as to how it could be done against THAT team and would yield better results.

Here is the simple reality. That pistons team is an ALL TIME great defense, so you can't just say "if player x played like he normally does" because defenses are designed to PREVENT people from doing what they normally do.

Case and point Prince played off Kobe and used his length to still bother jumpers. Kobe wasn't allowed to blow past him because of the distance. Shaq was rarely open (when he did get the ball it was often an instant score or hard double). Now it's been a few years since I saw the series...10+ but it was a very memorable series. Kobe was taken completely out of his game BY THE DEFENSE.

So again explain how within what the pistons were giving Kobe, what does he do that works? Throwing it to guys who are shooting 30% from the field doesn't seem like a great idea. But maybe you have a deeper game plan in mind? A way to use motion in the triangle that gets people open based on how the pistons are defending?