The Great Debate: Nash or Kidd

[Im so nba'd out]

??

[iamgine]

To me Nash was clearly better at their primes but it's rather short prime.

[brownmamba00]

JKidd was a boss

[Axe]

How many times has nash led his teams and/or played in the finals?

[tpols]

both brilliant players.

Genius passers. Nash liked to dribble more, could shoot much better, and was a PnR master. Kidd was more freelance and not afraid to give the ball up early. the Alley Oop king. obviously a way better defender and rebounder.

thats one of the best things about kidd... watch him play defense. he was like a center at point guard. instincts untouchable.

[tpols]

How many times has nash led his teams and/or played in the finals?

im a huge kidd fan, but nash didnt play in the east.

[Phoenix]

How many times has nash led his teams and/or played in the finals?

J. Kidd isn't leading those Nets to the finals in the western conference Nash was in so that point is moot. And he was light years past his prime and not the catalyst behind the Mavs 2011 run. I do think for their careers Kidd provided more overall value but in terms of peak both were master facilitators. You're looking at Kidds defense against Nashs scoring mostly when comparing the two.

[brownmamba00]

im a huge kidd fan, but nash didnt play in the east.

Well Kidd never played in a system that favoured point guard play like D'antoni's system. It goes both ways.

Kidd had more street more flair to his game. Tougher player aswell.

[tpols]

Well Kidd never played in a system that favoured point guard play like D'antoni's system. It goes both ways.

Kidd had more street more flair to his game. Tougher player aswell.

i agree, but dantoni's style also doesnt mesh with jkidd's at all.

dantoni's teams didnt even practice defense. jason kidd may be the best defensive point guard of all time. Steve Nash is a far better shooter. Infinitely better. off the dribble, spot up, fade away any type of shot. He's a GOAT shooter while kidd wasnt.

Steve Nash was perfect for dantoni, kidd wouldnt be.

that always fascinated me... why couldnt kidd shoot off the dribble? he had it all skill wise except that. I guess its very rare to be a GOAT shooter and a GOAT defender at the same time.

[StrongLurk]

Nash hands down. Kidd is overrated.

[brownmamba00]

i agree, but dantoni's style also doesnt mesh with jkidd's at all.

dantoni's teams didnt even practice defense. jason kidd may be the best defensive point guard of all time. Steve Nash is a far better shooter. Infinitely better. off the dribble, spot up, fade away any type of shot. He's a GOAT shooter while kidd wasnt.

Steve Nash was perfect for dantoni, kidd wouldnt be.

that always fascinated me... why couldnt kidd shoot off the dribble? he had it all skill wise except that. I guess its very rare to be a GOAT shooter and a GOAT defender at the same time.

Bra if a guy like jeremy lin can put up career #s in that system. I bet you jkidd could've done the same.

I think pringles' system would've favoured him anyway. The way kidd could outlet pass on the break, rebound and push the ball. With all those athletic shooting wings they had on that suns team? I have no doubt jkidd could've averaged a triple double over the course of a season.

The uptempo high scoring western conference would've actually helped him imo.

[brownmamba00]

Btw kidd came up under gary payton. So like GP he never really mastered the 3pt shot untill later in his career with the mavs where he became a good spot up shooter. You can see the resemblance in their game. Kidd could defend both guard slots and his instincts and fast hands were all gp's tutelage.

[Axe]

im a huge kidd fan, but nash didnt play in the east.
So? It doesn't change the fact that nash usually played for high or top seeded teams, either the mavs or suns, of which had five seasons combined of at least 55-wins and more.

[Jasper]

1000% Kidd.
First off Nash never was a very good defender , and in his MVP seasons , people questioned that in it's self.

Kidd was a big guard , and could guard 3 positions (VG defense) as well as a tough play maker and changed his game over the
years.... and I do remember he had most trip's as well as a RING.

[tpols]

So? It doesn't change the fact that nash usually played for high or top seeded teams, either the mavs or suns, of which had five seasons combined of at least 55-wins and more.

im not disagreeing.

the point flew over your head. i was defending nash.

[tpols]

1000% Kidd.
First off Nash never was a very good defender , and in his MVP seasons , people questioned that in it's self.

Kidd was a big guard , and could guard 3 positions (VG defense) as well as a tough play maker and changed his game over the
years.... and I do remember he had most trip's as well as a RING.

i remember going to the NYC NBA store 10 years ago and into the basement. they had a collection of fake basketballs with players hand sizes imprinted onto them.

jkidd's hands were the biggest of anybody, except shaq.

a basketball must've been like a tennis ball to shaq.

you ever try to shoot a tennis ball into a hoop? there's no control. its too small.

[Axe]

im not disagreeing.

the point flew over your head. i was defending nash.
Uh huh. 🥱

[Phoenix]

So? It doesn't change the fact that nash usually played for high or top seeded teams, either the mavs or suns, of which had five seasons combined of at least 55-wins and more.

An arguing point for Kidd being better is that despite being a much worse scorer, the overall totality of his game > Nash and he doesnt need a system customized as much to his talents. You could probably exploit Nashs inability to guard a lamppost more than J.Kidd not being a great scorer. Who made the finals isn't much of an arguing point because Kidd isnt taking the Nets to the finals in the Western conference, and he was along for the ride in 2011.

[brownmamba00]

[

An arguing point for Kidd being better is that despite being a much worse scorer, the overall totality of his game > Nash and he doesnt need a system customized as much to his talents. You could probably exploit Nashs inability to guard a lamppost more than J.Kidd not being a great scorer. Who made the finals isn't much of an arguing point because Kidd isnt taking the Nets to the finals in the Western conference, and he was along for the ride in 2011.

Idk why jkidd is considered a 'much worse' scorer when he was at 19 ppg at his peak. Shooting /=/ scoring.

Not saying he's better but he got his buckets by posting up and slashing. Obv nash was more versatile when it came down to it but he never avg 20 a game.

[Phoenix]

[


Idk why jkidd is considered a 'much worse' scorer when he was at 19 ppg at his peak. Shooting /=/ scoring.

Not saying he's better but he got his buckets by posting up and slashing. Obv nash was more versatile when it came down to it but he never avg 20 a game.

Yes he was, on 41% shooting. His career spanned from the mid 90s to the early 2010s, and he was consistently an inefficient scorer year over year. Nash could give you 19 on 50/40/90 percentages, and quite obviously could have scored more but picked his spots. Now it would be fair to say that Nash's efficiencies were boosted by mid 2000s offensive rules, but even if you go back a few years to the same time period Kidd was dropping 19, Nash was doing 18 on 47/41/91 and that's alongside Dirk and Finley. He was simply a better scorer even if you want to look at their peak raw PPG, look at the actual games and at their efficiency numbers. They're tiers apart offensively.

[dirkdiggler41]

With Nash, you had to play his system for him to be great. The only thing Nash did obviously better than Kidd was shooting/scoring, but I rather take Kidd with his defense. Also with Kidd on your team, you did not have to run and gun. I just think Kidd was overall a better basketball player than Nash.

[houston]

Kidd was a better player than Nash

[jlip]

While they played the games totally differently, I'd rather see a Kidd vs. Iverson debate.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45xBoYTLSCA

cant mention these 2 without this alltime game

[MrFonzworth]

Give me Kidd.

[FKAri]

i remember going to the NYC NBA store 10 years ago and into the basement. they had a collection of fake basketballs with players hand sizes imprinted onto them.

jkidd's hands were the biggest of anybody, except shaq.

a basketball must've been like a tennis ball to shaq.

you ever try to shoot a tennis ball into a hoop? there's no control. its too small.

If I practiced shooting a tennis ball into a hoop I reckon it'd be easier than a basketball. Also, Kawhi and MJ didn't struggle at hitting FT with their bear claws.

[Reggie43]

Kidd having the ball in his hands in the clutch being forced to score as a 39% fg shooter is pretty scary so i would rather take Nash.

[Axe]

Both are great small pgs but i prefer kidd more.

[TheImmortal]

Both great players no doubt.. I slightly favor Kidd due to his defense and toughness. Also won a chip as a starting PG at 37.

[Smoke117]

I'm a defense guy and Jason Kidd is the best defensive point guard ever as far as I'm concerned so I'm going to take him. He also made a big impact offensively as an all time great playmaker. Steve Nash to me is a system player. The advanced stats back this up to as they are pretty pedestrian for him. He was the best player on teams that won a lot of games so everyone wants to pat him on the back, but he could easily have been replaced. For instance, there are actually people that think Nash is better than Chris Paul and that's just hilarious. You could easily swap in Paul for Nash on the Suns and they'd be better, but if you put Nash on the Hornets and Clippers and there is no way he could replicate what Paul was doing. He just didn't have that kind of impact

[Phoenix]

I'm a defense guy and Jason Kidd is the best defensive point guard ever as far as I'm concerned so I'm going to take him. He also made a big impact offensively as an all time great playmaker. Steve Nash to me is a system player. The advanced stats back this up to as they are pretty pedestrian for him. He was the best player on teams that won a lot of games so everyone wants to pat him on the back, but he could easily have been replaced. For instance, there are actually people that think Nash is better than Chris Paul and that's just hilarious. You could easily swap in Paul for Nash on the Suns and they'd be better, but if you put Nash on the Hornets and Clippers and there is no way he could replicate what Paul was doing. He just didn't have that kind of impact

CP3 blended scoring, passing and defense in a way few PGs could ever match. I dont know what peoples argument for Nash would be over him.

[Akeem34TheDream]

CP3 blended scoring, passing and defense in a way few PGs could ever match. I dont know what peoples argument for Nash would be over him.

Well Cp3 is better than Kidd too.

[Phoenix]

Well Cp3 is better than Kidd too.

I don't disagree.

[tpols]

Well Cp3 is better than Kidd too.

nah... kidd did more. playoffs and regular season.

jason kidd was a great athlete. he was like 6'4 220. at chris paul's size he could never be as good. jkidd was also a brilliant player on top of that just like cp3 is.

lets put it this way... gary payton was a tall point guard. jason kidd and him same height kidd had 30+ lbs on him.

[Smoke117]

nah... kidd did more. playoffs and regular season.

jason kidd was a great athlete. he was like 6'4 220. at chris paul's size he could never be as good. jkidd was also a brilliant player on top of that just like cp3 is.

lets put it this way... gary payton was a tall point guard. jason kidd and him same height kidd had 30+ lbs on him.

Kidd did more how exactly? The only thing he has over Paul is defense and CP3 is great in his own right. Let’s say it’s a wash as far as playmaking...scoring wise Paul destroys Kidd.

[tpols]

Kidd did more how exactly? The only thing he has over Paul is defense and CP3 is great in his own right. Let’s say it’s a wash as far as playmaking...scoring wise Paul destroys Kidd.

kidd led shitty nets teams to be the team to beat in the east. he was a bigger force on the basketball court than chris paul. far far better rebounder and help defender. paul is only a better shooter... thats it.

jason kidd used to average 10 rpg against the ben wallace manned detroit pistons... as a point guard.. do you know how insane that is?

[Smoke117]

kidd led shitty nets teams to be the team to beat in the east. he was a bigger force on the basketball court than chris paul. far far better rebounder and help defender. paul is only a better shooter... thats it.

jason kidd used to average 10 rpg against the ben wallace manned detroit pistons... as a point guard.. do you know how insane that is?

lol You realize when the Nets were going to the finals the East was basically at its most pathetic, right? You say shitty Nets teams like the rest of the East wasn't a shit storm. He was leading the Nets to the finals when the east was at its weakest ever. Those Nets teams would clearly be better if you replaced a prime Kidd with a prime Paul.

[Phoenix]

kidd led shitty nets teams to be the team to beat in the east. he was a bigger force on the basketball court than chris paul. far far better rebounder and help defender. paul is only a better shooter... thats it.




im a huge kidd fan, but nash didnt play in the east.

But just a day ago you basically inferred Kidd's Nets wouldn't have enjoyed the same team success( getting to the finals) in the West so that was a folly argument to use against Nash. Now you're using the same 'Kidd went to the finals' to make a case for him versus CP3. The rules that CP3 played in a tougher conference as did Nash still applies.

You put Paul on those Nets teams and he gives them an added offensive dimension, while still proving the same level of quarterbacking. Kidd was bigger and by that virtue could provide things Paul couldn't defensively, but it's not like CP3 gave an inch on defense and he was a better scorer just as Nash was, except CP3 isn't a system player like Nash was in terms of needing specific rules and team strategy to enhance his impact.

[Clippersfan86]

I preferred Kidd more, because I'm defense biased. I also loved his flashiness on the passes. Nash though ends up being far more valuable because the attributes he had are more important to the position, especially modern day. Kidd's 1 on 1 defense or rebounding for example, while nice, is hardly a big importance for PG's really.

[tpols]

But just a day ago you basically inferred Kidd's Nets wouldn't have enjoyed the same team success( getting to the finals) in the West so that was a folly argument to use against Nash. Now you're using the same 'Kidd went to the finals' to make a case for him versus CP3. The rules that CP3 played in a tougher conference as did Nash still applies.

You put Paul on those Nets teams and he gives them an added offensive dimension, while still proving the same level of quarterbacking. Kidd was bigger and by that virtue could provide things Paul couldn't defensively, but it's not like CP3 gave an inch on defense and he was a better scorer just as Nash was, except CP3 isn't a system player like Nash was in terms of needing specific rules and team strategy to enhance his impact.

well thats not the only reason id take kidd over paul.

and for the record id take him over nash too but for other reasons.

Chris paul gets hurt every. single. year. in the playoffs. Every year. He wouldve never survived the detroit gauntlets.

and the difference in defense and rebounding between kidd and paul is huge. that was the nets whole identity. chris paul does not play help defense at jkidds level and he just isnt the same physical force. kidd was a defensive anchor at point guard, chris paul was never an anchor defensively.

[Clippersfan86]

well thats not the only reason id take kidd over paul.

and for the record id take him over nash too but for other reasons.

Chris paul gets hurt every. single. year. in the playoffs. Every year. He wouldve never survived the detroit gauntlets.

and the difference in defense and rebounding between kidd and paul is huge. that was the nets whole identity. chris paul does not play help defense at jkidds level and he just isnt the same physical force. kidd was a defensive anchor at point guard, chris paul was never an anchor defensively.

Don't do that. Chris Paul (when not hurt) is a top 20 all time playoff performer arguably. Kidd while very, very good... just isn't on CP3's level. CP3 was a better defender than Kidd prime vs prime (although he couldn't guard 3 positions). Chris Paul was basically better at everything besides rebounding. Better scorer, passer, defender, more efficient, more clutch and had the bigger playoff moments+games. Sure his injuries hold his legacy back a lot, but that's vs people like Zeke, Magic, Stockton and Steph. Not someone of Kidd's caliber. We are comparing a top 10-20 ish all time PG to an undisputed top 3-5 for most people.

[tpols]

if you think jason kidd is only a top 10-20 all time point guard the conversation is already over.

jason kidd absolutely was a better defender, and equal perhaps better as a passer. he had the same genius IQ. chris paul was a much better scorer. thats it.

[ArbitraryWater]

So? It doesn't change the fact that nash usually played for high or top seeded teams, either the mavs or suns, of which had five seasons combined of at least 55-wins and more.

you're not very smart, are you

[thefatmiral]

I prefer Jason kidd as a player overall. He had the better career, but if i am going to make a super team to get a championship in one year I would pick nash.

[Clippersfan86]

if you think jason kidd is only a top 10-20 all time point guard the conversation is already over.

jason kidd absolutely was a better defender, and equal perhaps better as a passer. he had the same genius IQ. chris paul was a much better scorer. thats it.

I mean he MAY crack the 8-12 range... but he's not on CP3's level. Not even close. As for defense, Kidd was a more versatile defender and was a better defender for longer, but prime vs prime, I'm taking CP3's defense in a playoff game. As I mentioned above, for a PG defense is very low down the value list. You take the guy who's a way more efficient scorer over defender from that position. Kidd, while a great all around player... had serious efficiency issues. We are talking about a 108 ORTG prime which is downright pathetic for an elite guard. Chris Paul's CAREER is 123 ORTG, I believe the GOAT or close to. Kidd has a career 50% TS which is atrocious by all efficiency standards for ANY position. So sure Kidd rebounded better and has an argument as a defender (though I take prime CP3's defense), but he gets beat so badly on offense that it's not close. Don't get me wrong, Kidd is a legend and I loved watching his flashy game, but I think you're forgetting how much of an inefficient chucker he was most of his career. In his 5 year peak he's taking damn near 20 shots a game, which is ABSURD for a player as inefficient as that. Allen Iverson looks fairly efficient next to him if that tells you anything.