In his prime Jason Kidd might average 13/9/6 on 40 percent shooting.

[Kblaze8855]

He had 2 points, 3 points, 4 points, and 7 points in playoff games in his prime. At one point he had a combined 9 points in back to back playoff games one of which was a 44 point loss. He organized a mutiny against his college coach, beefed with at least 3 others one of which quit(Ainge), one was fired(Motta, and another he reportedly directly got fired(Scott). He had a love triangle with Toni Braxton and a teammate on his first team, got traded to a second where he got a DUI or two(with more to come) and beat his wife forcing another trade to the nets…where he got Byron Scott fired, eventually pulled a mild Harden on New Jersey forcing the trade to Dallas amid beef with that coach(who he later had as his assistant coach before cussing him out and demoting him)….it was a rocky and rarely discussed career.

Hes literally a felonious, coach killing, violent, drunk driving, trade forcing, malcontent…..but…



I think I’d take even his early Phoenix version over any point but Steph to play right now.


That non shooting, wife beating, drunk driving, teammate girlfriend ****ing, coach killer sure was quick:





https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FeminineRectangularJunco-size_restricted.gif






And I think his quickness combined with todays spacing and faster pace reduces the number of random 6 point games to an acceptable rate.

I think he has a lot more years scoring like he did on the nets than like he did in Phoenix when he was actually more athletic.

Im thinking peak Kidd these days might be a usual 18/12/9 and all D yearly.

I can accept that if he can avoid being arrested or telling the team to run his plays and ignore the coach. Definitely the biggest asshole who never had the reputation stick but frankly I want that jerk leading my fast break.

Give me some of your “I don’t have to respect him but I want him on my team” players.

I believe I draw the line at Karl Malone for reasons you can probably figure.

[Kblaze8855]

Rodman is another. Dirty even for his era and a criminal by this one’s standards. A shameless flopper. And someone who has to party so much it could be disruptive to a team that didn’t know how to handle it. But he can guard anyone over 6’4” and have 12 offensive rebounds, set good screens, pass, and run like an ostrich so I’ll take him.

[Phoenix]

He was fukking with the triple D 15-20 years ago( he had a few 10 assist/8 rebounds seasons and some 9/7 years). I could see him doing 19/11/11 46% today with all-league D.

[SouBeachTalents]

I think most people would probably pick Kidd over any PG in the league besides Curry.

[Im Still Ballin]

I think most people would probably pick Kidd over any PG in the league besides Curry.

Some might go with Trae. Bound to be some normies that are drawn to the 29 PPG and 8-9 APG.

[Kblaze8855]

I think most who remember him. What does a 25 year old know about 1998 or even 2005? I’d imagine a lot of young people would see Kidd like a Rondo which superficially I get but it’s hard to understand what was so special.

[ArbitraryWater]

toni braxton was with a teammate on his team?

[HoopsNY]

toni braxton was with a teammate on his team?

Yea, Jim Jackson. The Mashburn-Jackson-Kidd trio was supposed to be the future in Dallas. Sadly, that never materialized.

[HoopsNY]

Kidd was a special PG as soon as he came into the league. But taking those Nets teams as far as he did was something special.

You mentioned 13/6/9 but he was really doing something like 17/7/10/2 in the reg season and 20/8/9/2 in the playoffs those years they went to the finals. It's a credit to Kidd because he transformed that Nets team that was trying so desperately to fill that organization with talent but couldn't seem to get the right leader to make them relevant.

I remember Drazen-Coleman-Anderson being the next big thing until Drazen passed away, unfortunately. The Nets didn't quite recover. Picked up Kendall Gill who was a solid piece and drafted Van Horn after the Spurs took Duncan. Still didn't matter, really. The Jayson Williams murder fiasco was pretty crazy and that kinda damaged the franchise too.

Then they brought in Steph and people actually thought they were going to win. Some knew better, especially after his '97 interview where he claimed "I could score 35 PPG any game if I wanted to"....yea Steph, and lose simultaneously. Couldn't make it work with KG so how was he going to deliver a winning franchise in Jersey?

Kidd came along and changed all that, despite less than stellar talent around him.

[Kblaze8855]

13/8/7 for his playoff career which only includes one run under 36 minutes a game so it’s not like it’s drug down by years of being a nobody. He just wasn’t prone to score much. Which is fine. That isn’t why he was there.

[iamgine]

We already have a Jason Kidd playing today. His name is Dejounte Murray.

[Akeem34TheDream]

Kidd was what Simmons should have been

[Lebron23]

Penny Hardaway was a better talent, and had a higher ceiling than Kidd. Sucks he only had a few healthy seasons.

[Carbine]

One of my pet peeves as I get older is the saying "he was a insert stats player" like that gives any real indication of the player.

Westbrook was a 30/10/10 player in his prime... But I'll take Jason Kidd's 17/10/8 over him any day if the goal is to win a title.

Kidd is one of those rare players, like Draymond now and arodman back in the 80's and 90's.. Pippen, Duncan, Ben Wallace... Guys whos impact is felt by watching the game, not by spitting out three numbers with FG perce rages after the fact.

[Kblaze8855]

If the players like him are rare then “He was a _____ player” descriptions aren’t too far off for most. Not that it’s my point. My point was quite the opposite. In time people might come to wonder if he was even good. Very little stands out to people who weren’t there.

[Carbine]

They won't think he's particularly special listing off those numbers of his from his career. Which is sad.

Manu is another guy that comes to mind. I was thinking the other day in this era if he enjoyed decent health and a role where he dominated the ball like Harden in Houston he would put up comparable numbers. Manus in traffic dunking and finishing was underrated by a lot of folks. He was a pretty special basketball athlete.

[post]

great player but age 22 doncic is better than age 22 kidd and roughly comparable to peak kidd

doncic will perhaps be on magic's level when it's all said and done

[iamgine]

One thing I noticed is that Kidd went from 1st team all-NBA basically for 6 straight seasons before the rule change in '04-'05 to NEVER even make 3rd team All-NBA after the rule change.

That is some strange stuff.

[ImKobe]

One thing I noticed is that Kidd went from 1st team all-NBA basically for 6 straight seasons before the rule change in '04-'05 to NEVER even make 3rd team All-NBA after the rule change.

That is some strange stuff.

Maybe because Nash, CP3 and Deron became great players while he was past his prime? He was 31/turned 32 the season when the rules got changed. His efficiency did go up in the 07-10 range when he was still an All-Star level player as his 3PT shot improved, though his 2PT% stayed about the same or was worse in some of those years but he was a borderline elite shooter for about 3 years there in Dallas and made the All-Star game while he was almost 37 years old, so his longevity was pretty damn good.

If you weigh in his advanced metrics and him being their #1 3PT shooter in attempts/makes in the '11 title run, you could argue that he was the 2nd best player on that title team, though it's very close with Terry, but I think his defense was more valuable than anyone else's and he played the 2nd most minutes on that team and was their leading playmaker. There aren't too many players in league history who could have been the 2nd best player on a title team like Kidd arguably was at 38 years old.

[iamgine]

Maybe because Nash, CP3 and Deron became great players while he was past his prime? He was 31/turned 32 the season when the rules got changed. His efficiency did go up in the 07-10 range when he was still an All-Star level player as his 3PT shot improved, though his 2PT% stayed about the same or was worse in some of those years but he was a borderline elite shooter for about 3 years there in Dallas and made the All-Star game while he was almost 37 years old, so his longevity was pretty damn good.

If you weigh in his advanced metrics and him being their #1 3PT shooter in attempts/makes in the '11 title run, you could argue that he was the 2nd best player on that title team, though it's very close with Terry, but I think his defense was more valuable than anyone else's and he played the 2nd most minutes on that team and was their leading playmaker. There aren't too many players in league history who could have been the 2nd best player on a title team like Kidd arguably was at 38 years old.

Nash sure. CP and Deron only made it by '08.

It's just funny how someone who was 1st team all-nba for basically 6 seasons straight suddenly never made it anymore.

[Phoenix]

They won't think he's particularly special listing off those numbers of his from his career. Which is sad.

Manu is another guy that comes to mind. I was thinking the other day in this era if he enjoyed decent health and a role where he dominated the ball like Harden in Houston he would put up comparable numbers. Manus in traffic dunking and finishing was underrated by a lot of folks. He was a pretty special basketball athlete.

He had the skillset but not the durability. Harden was a relative iron-man up till a couple years ago. I also don't think Manu had the same gunners mindset. Could he have been a 25ppg guy year in, year out though? Absolutely.

[tpols]

He could do way better than that line. I hope the 6 isn't referring to rebounds. With all the long rebounds from 3pt shooting today and how Kidd used to grab everything near the FT line he'd be getting 10 boards a game.

[Kblaze8855]

I’m talking what he actually did not what he might do this year. His best Suns team won like 57 games when he did like 11/9/6 and shot maybe 32% from 3. Point being….he was obviously doing more than that shows.

[HoopsNY]

13/8/7 for his playoff career which only includes one run under 36 minutes a game so it’s not like it’s drug down by years of being a nobody. He just wasn’t prone to score much. Which is fine. That isn’t why he was there.

Yea but that includes a lot of down years. Otherwise, he was basically a 16-17 PPG player with almost 10 assists and 8 rebounds during his during his peak.

In his two finals runs with the Nets he averaged 20/7/9/2 against two elite teams in the Spurs and Lakers. And from '97-'07, he put up 16/8/9/2 in the playoffs.

And all of this comes in a slower era that was also the peak defensively. I don't think Kidd puts up much more PPG in today's game, but 18-19 PPG is definitely likely. And in playoff games, you might see him doing 21-23 PPG easily if we're talking about him being at his peak.

[Kblaze8855]

He played 19 years. I’d say the 17 he didn’t score are more indicative than the 2 being brought up. He scored 15 points a game 5 times in 19 years and he was an all star at like 22 and 37. He had a very long run of being great he just wasn’t a scorer. And it’s not like if he scored 16 all the time that makes him a scorer either.

It isn’t a criticism it’s just the way it is. Obviously I’m not worried about it or using it against him. If anything in more impressed a guy who wouldn’t surprise you having 8 points even at his peak managed to be so effective. He had 10ppg in 45 minutes per game one series in his prime on the Nets. He had 0 and 5 points in 2 games. 42 minutes and 39 minutes played. 0 and 5 points.

Doesnt mean he wasn’t great. He was great anyway which is my point.

[ImKobe]

Nash sure. CP and Deron only made it by '08.

It's just funny how someone who was 1st team all-nba for basically 6 seasons straight suddenly never made it anymore.

Had to go look over it and yeah, it's crazy how he fell off from 1st team to not making it at all in the mid-2000s, but then again he did miss some games in '05 and they stopped winning as much, and his numbers took a dip and he never led the league in apg again, though you could argue that he was still as good as his efficiency and 3PT shooting went up and he got to the line as much or even more than at his peak.

He missed 16 games in '05 and they went 4 - 12 without him but still played at a 47-win pace with him, and looked pretty good once they got Vince but got swept in the POs. Arenas and Nash became stars so they took his spot, but it's crazy he didn't even make the ASG in 2 of his "prime" years out East, the numbers aren't that far apart, but Wade, Billups and Arenas did become stars around the same time as well so you can't really say that they got it wrong either. He was still really good and his '07 Playoff numbers are arguably his best with 15/11/11 averages on 55%TS with 8.6 BPM, and he was 34 years old by then. Vince Carter didn't live up to the hype as young Wade & Bron outplayed him in the POs.

[HoopsNY]

He played 19 years. I’d say the 17 he didn’t score are more indicative than the 2 being brought up. He scored 15 points a game 5 times in 19 years and he was an all star at like 22 and 37. He had a very long run of being great he just wasn’t a scorer. And it’s not like if he scored 16 all the time that makes him a scorer either.

It isn’t a criticism it’s just the way it is. Obviously I’m not worried about it or using it against him. If anything in more impressed a guy who wouldn’t surprise you having 8 points even at his peak managed to be so effective. He had 10ppg in 45 minutes per game one series in his prime on the Nets. He had 0 and 5 points in 2 games. 42 minutes and 39 minutes played. 0 and 5 points.

Doesnt mean he wasn’t great. He was great anyway which is my point.

In one argument you're saying his 2 years with the Nets where they went to the finals doesn't indicate anything, then in the very next argument, you mention his low scoring performances on the Nets. Why don't you mention Kidd's highest scoring output, which was four 30-35 point games, also coming in the same years?

I get that Kidd could impact a game without scoring, but that wasn't my point. My point is that Kidd's ability to score is underrated. In his two finals, he put up 20 PPG against elite teams in the height of the defensive era. In the playoffs between 1997-07, he averaged 16 PPG. And this was mostly during the height of the defensive era with a much slower pace. That's spanning 100 games.

Steve Nash between 2001-2010 put up 18 PPG in the playoffs. Obviously he was a far better shooter than Kidd ever was, but given Nash played with far better offensive players/shooters, how great is the difference between 18 PPG and 16 PPG, really? And Nash did that over 110 games.

[Kblaze8855]

Why don’t I mention 3-4 high scoring games? Because there are 790 low scoring ones. There are games Ben Wallace could suddenly score:


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/JollyDearestGecko-size_restricted.gif


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GrimyNippyGemsbuck-size_restricted.gif





I don’t think they justify mention more than the 1000 times he didn’t.

Speaking of which Ben had an all star season at 9.5ppg. Kidd had one at 10.3 but his scoring going into the all star game? 9.3. Jason Kidd was an all-star literally scoring like Ben Wallace.

Which as I said….I consider a positive. And as I said….I assume he scores more today. The league opened up a lot for a player of his athletic ability to attack. But what people will always see…is a guy who didn’t score. Ben Simmons scores sometimes. But he won’t be remembered that way and neither should Kidd.

[post]

ben wallace was the drastically less efficient gobert

[HoopsNY]

Why don’t I mention 3-4 high scoring games? Because there are 790 low scoring ones. There are games Ben Wallace could suddenly score:


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/JollyDearestGecko-size_restricted.gif


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GrimyNippyGemsbuck-size_restricted.gif





I don’t think they justify mention more than the 1000 times he didn’t.

Speaking of which Ben had an all star season at 9.5ppg. Kidd had one at 10.3 but his scoring going into the all star game? 9.3. Jason Kidd was an all-star literally scoring like Ben Wallace.

Which as I said….I consider a positive. And as I said….I assume he scores more today. The league opened up a lot for a player of his athletic ability to attack. But what people will always see…is a guy who didn’t score. Ben Simmons scores sometimes. But he won’t be remembered that way and neither should Kidd.

How does this prove anything? Ben Wallace never even had a game with 30 or more points in his entire career. Kidd had almost 40 of them. You're comparing a guy who could barely score 8-9 PPG in his peak to another guy that doubled it while dishing out 10-11 assists.

And yea, we can look at games where Kidd scored less than 10 points...that doesn't mean he was incapable of scoring or that those games were more indicative of his scoring ability than games where he scored 20-30. Nash had a ton of games with less than 10 points, in his prime too. Over a ten year span he averaged 18 PPG to Kidd's 16 in the playoffs. And that was on an explosive offense with guys like Iso Joe, Richardson, Marion, and Amare.

Ben Simmons is a good comparison though I think Kidd was a better scorer just off of the strength of his shooting. Kidd could shoot a respectable 35-37% from three and 80% from the line while Simmons can't hit the side of a barn on either. And Ben is doing that in an era that sees teams averaging 15-20 more PPG.

[Kblaze8855]

Let me leave it at this….

You believe I am not giving enough credit to the scoring of someone who after 8 years and at age 29 finally had what was his defining hot streak of scoring which was 20 a game on 42% shooting and 19% from 3 playing over 40 minutes a game.

Thats the “But you’re ignoring….” part of a career that spanned 19 seasons.

I feel like my point is made. We aren’t talking about a scorer.

[HoopsNY]

Let me leave it at this….

You believe I am not giving enough credit to the scoring of someone who after 8 years and at age 29 finally had what was his defining hot streak of scoring which was 20 a game on 42% shooting and 19% from 3 playing over 40 minutes a game.

Thats the “But you’re ignoring….” part of a career that spanned 19 seasons.

I feel like my point is made. We aren’t talking about a scorer.

8 years? Kidd averaged nearly 17 PPG in just his second season in the league, and did so while dishing out 10 assists. No he wasn't a scorer, but him scoring 5 points or whatever number that is insignificant wasn't indicative of his scoring ability.

If you're referring to the playoffs then keep in mind Phoenix was often up against powerhouse defenses or teams. Look at his first 6 opponents in the postseason:

SEA (this guy called Gary Payton, supposedly a great defender)
SAS
LAL
POR
SAS
SAC

then in 2002 they face an 11th ranked Pacers defense....Kidd scores 22 PPG in that series.

Yea, he's not a scorer. I never said otherwise. But if you're gonna compare him to Ben Wallace and Ben Simmons then it's safe to say you're completely underrating him.

[GimmeThat]

I never thought Kidd dominated the PG position based on the idea that coaching played a pretty important role to the success of players in that era. The only thing that stood out to me was his rebounding numbers as a PG.

one of those things such as how Michael Carter-Williams career didn't pan out remains a mystery to me, he's a much bigger Raymond Felton to say the least, if not Dinwiddie

[Kblaze8855]

He scored more than second season Ben Simmons one time in 19 years and he did it shooting 41%. What are we even talking about?

This is like someone saying Steve Francis wasn’t a great play maker and someone pointing out when he averaged 7 or 8 assists in Orlando like using such a low standard to make the point doesn’t….kinda make the opposite point.

Everything you’re saying as if it proves a point about his scoring is only making mine because nobody who is a scorer would have such a low bar used to show it.

I am not hating Kidd. I’m saying it’s amazing that someone nobody is surprised to see have 6 points was so great.

[HoopsNY]

He scored more than second season Ben Simmons one time in 19 years and he did it shooting 41%. What are we even talking about?

This is like someone saying Steve Francis wasn’t a great play maker and someone pointing out when he averaged 7 or 8 assists in Orlando like using such a low standard to make the point doesn’t….kinda make the opposite point.

Everything you’re saying as if it proves a point about his scoring is only making mine because nobody who is a scorer would have such a low bar used to show it.

I am not hating Kidd. I’m saying it’s amazing that someone nobody is surprised to see have 6 points was so great.

88% of Simmons' shots come from below 10 feet, where there is virtually no interior defense. I didn't make that number up. Literally 88% of his attempts are from there. Compare that to Tim Duncan who, in the same range, attempted just 64% of his attempts. A near 25% difference for one of the greatest low post presences vs. the walking brick of shame.

You're acting like you bringing up Simmons proves anything. It doesn't. Simmons has the luxury of being a 6'10" guard who scores in the paint when there's hardly anyone there. He then can't hit a barn from anywhere else, and you think he's automatically comparable to Kidd? You're not looking at the context, all while conveniently ignoring how far fetched your comparison to Ben Wallace was.

Nowhere did I say Kidd was a great scorer, so your point about Steve Francis is irrelevant. I merely don't think his low point totals was indicative of his scoring ability.

[Kblaze8855]

The Ben comparison wasn’t so much a comparison as finding it funny to see you pointing out outliers and saying I didn't mention them as if anyone's outliers really matter. Kidd not scoring isn't an outlier. In his prime he had a year with 33 games under 10. Prime Jason Kidd could realistically score 7 points or so 30% of the time. Out there playing games of 55 minutes and six points. Practically everybody who played big minutes occasionally scored. Me talking about five and 10 point games isn’t pointing out anything unusual. He’s a career 12 or 13 point per game player who shot poorly from the field and surprised nobody when he scored 4.

And using a run of 19-20 on 40 percent shooting and under 20 from 3 as the counter point as I said…says enough.

The guy wasn’t a scorer. What do you want to hear? That he wasn’t a scorer but wasn’t a bad scorer? What do you call that? A good scorer who is unselfish? No. That’s Steve Nash or something.

Kidd was just not a scorer. You have said he wasn’t a scorer. Why are we wasting more words on this?

What do you call someone who doesn’t score much and misses the extreme vast majority of his shots?

Give me that word and I’ll call him that.

Whats your preferred term?

[Kblaze8855]

Oh and if anyone thinks of another sub 10ppg at the break all star I’d be interested to know. All I have at the moment are Ben Wallace, Jason Kidd, and Draymond. The others I thought of(Mutombo, Rondo, Ratliff, Iggy and some others) scored too much when they made all star teams. I’m sure Eaton was doing like 7 when he made it but I mean in he last 30 years or so. I think it’s just Kidd, Dray, and Ben Wallace.

[Phoenix]

Kidd was one of a handful of guys I've seen score 5 points and still have his fingerprints all over a game.

[Kblaze8855]

He absolutely was.

[post]

Oh and if anyone thinks of another sub 10ppg at the break all star I’d be interested to know. All I have at the moment are Ben Wallace, Jason Kidd, and Draymond. The others I thought of(Mutombo, Rondo, Ratliff, Iggy and some others) scored too much when they made all star teams. I’m sure Eaton was doing like 7 when he made it but I mean in he last 30 years or so. I think it’s just Kidd, Dray, and Ben Wallace.

rodman but don't tell 3ball

[ArbitraryWater]

Why don’t I mention 3-4 high scoring games? Because there are 790 low scoring ones. There are games Ben Wallace could suddenly score:


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/JollyDearestGecko-size_restricted.gif


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GrimyNippyGemsbuck-size_restricted.gif





I don’t think they justify mention more than the 1000 times he didn’t.

Speaking of which Ben had an all star season at 9.5ppg. Kidd had one at 10.3 but his scoring going into the all star game? 9.3. Jason Kidd was an all-star literally scoring like Ben Wallace.

Which as I said….I consider a positive. And as I said….I assume he scores more today. The league opened up a lot for a player of his athletic ability to attack. But what people will always see…is a guy who didn’t score. Ben Simmons scores sometimes. But he won’t be remembered that way and neither should Kidd.


ironically I remember you making this argument for Bill Russell

showing some athletic gif from one high scoring game and being like cmon, who could stop this?

[tpols]

While it is impressive that Kidd can dominate a game with low scoring, I think what people are taking an issue with is he could do the same thing plus ~19/9 in his best Nets playoff runs against monster defenses. In today's league thats like 22/11 on way better efficiency. With anywhere from 8-10 boards and a bunch of steals.

[Kblaze8855]

I don’t even think it was a high scoring game I posted of Russell just some 30 foot drive for a dunk. He was definitely too athletic to prevent from scoring if he wanted to do nothing but get out and run in the 50s but he wasn’t the type to care about that.

[GimmeThat]

While it is impressive that Kidd can dominate a game with low scoring, I think what people are taking an issue with is he could do the same thing plus ~19/9 in his best Nets playoff runs against monster defenses. In today's league thats like 22/11 on way better efficiency. With anywhere from 8-10 boards and a bunch of steals.

there really hasn't been much doubt in terms of him being able to run around like an animal. it's just when the animal bites you because you considered that to be a person. don't play the pity card.

[90sgoat]

Kidd was an actual pass first point guard, which were pretty rare even in his time.

It's a good thing that people can tell what a great player he was with those stats, because a lot of people have a lot of problems seeing how good John Stockton was and Stock was basically to the half court what Kidd was to the open floor.

Both guys were such good and smart passers and floor generals that they scored through their teammates.

I think that's what separates someone like CP3 from Kidd/Stock/Magic for good and bad. CP3 has that ability to really score a lot of points, but I've always been underwhelmed by his ability to take over through controlling the game otherwise.

[post]

ironically I remember you making this argument for Bill Russell

showing some athletic gif from one high scoring game and being like cmon, who could stop this?

jumping over milkmen who wouldn't make the league today as the saying goes


I don’t even think it was a high scoring game I posted of Russell just some 30 foot drive for a dunk. He was definitely too athletic to prevent from scoring if he wanted to do nothing but get out and run in the 50s but he wasn’t the type to care about that.

it's a bit like peja who wasn't a great passer pulling an eye popping pass out of his ass

either the league back then was so weak russell did that frequently and his accomplishments mean little

or he was dumb since he didn't just ram his pecker down the other teams throat over and over

or it's a rare occurrence he knew wouldn't happen often so he more wisely focused on rebounding/defense which is perhaps what he'd excel at today

[Kawhi Not?]

Jason Kidd was dope

[HoopsNY]

The Ben comparison wasn’t so much a comparison as finding it funny to see you pointing out outliers and saying I didn't mention them as if anyone's outliers really matter. Kidd not scoring isn't an outlier. In his prime he had a year with 33 games under 10. Prime Jason Kidd could realistically score 7 points or so 30% of the time. Out there playing games of 55 minutes and six points. Practically everybody who played big minutes occasionally scored. Me talking about five and 10 point games isn’t pointing out anything unusual. He’s a career 12 or 13 point per game player who shot poorly from the field and surprised nobody when he scored 4.

Yea, that's fine. You're not wrong if you frame it as such. My point - again - is that Kidd's lack of scoring wasn't indicative of his ability. Just like Nash's wasn't, just like Stockton's wasn't. He wasn't a shooter, that's a given, but he could get buckets. When his team needed him to do it, like in the 2002 and 2003 playoffs and finals, he did. We can't just pretend that didn't happen, especially when we're looking at a spread of 10 seasons where he averaged nearly 17 PPG in the postseason.


And using a run of 19-20 on 40 percent shooting and under 20 from 3 as the counter point as I said…says enough.

That's fair, but how many guys would routinely shoot low percentages but could still get buckets? Baron Davis shot 41% for his career, Francis 43%, Iverson 42%, Marbury 43%...Kidd shot at 41% until his last three seasons where he was awful, but also way over the hill (he was 37-39 by then).

So how much worse are we really talking about here? You're counting 1-2 percentage points as if it was a world of difference. Yea those guys were better scorers. We all know that. But Kidd was the kind of guy who you could rely on to get his own shot, create his own play, go on an iso, much more than you would even a John Stockton or Avery Johnson who needed picks and sets, or come off the ball for a wide open shot.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

God, I remember Slam magazine having an article about him at Cal. I would stay up late just to watch him and Lamond Murray play at Cal. He is probably the most well rounded point guard of all time.

Put him on the Celtics in place of Smart, and the Celtics would be immensely better.

Jason Kidd was one of the smartest basketball players to ever play the game. And he couldn't shoot a lick. It took him training with Holger in Dallas to learn to shoot a standstill 3 pointer.

[Kblaze8855]

When his team needed him to do it? I always hate that argument. It’s never accurate for anyone and it’s especially inaccurate with Kidd. What did his team not need scoring from him when he lost a seven game series scoring 10 points per game on 28% shooting and 14% from three? 0-8, 0-3 from 3 for zero points in a game 7 loss in his prime wasnt “When needed”?

The suns didn’t need him to score when they were relying on Cliff Robinson and Rodney Rogers to get to 90?

I’m not the one ignoring anything. I’m the one who paid attention to one of my favorite players play his entire career and don’t act like they only needed him to score for 2 of those years. Which of course ignores that the scoring in those two years would be considered a bad run of scoring for most great players.

Guy just wasn’t much of a scorer and that’s all there is to it. You watch a Kidd game at random he’s gonna have like 14 points, 10 of them in transition or putbacks, and miss a lot. The truth isn’t always an insult. None of that means he wasn’t playing well.

[DMAVS41]

When his team needed him to do it? I always hate that argument. It’s never accurate for anyone and it’s especially inaccurate with Kidd. What did his team not need scoring from him when he lost a seven game series scoring 10 points per game on 28% shooting and 14% from three? 0-8, 0-3 from 3 for zero points in a game 7 loss in his prime wasnt “When needed”?

The suns didn’t need him to score when they were relying on Cliff Robinson and Rodney Rogers to get to 90?

I’m not the one ignoring anything. I’m the one who paid attention to one of my favorite players play his entire career and don’t act like they only needed him to score for 2 of those years. Which of course ignores that the scoring in those two years would be considered a bad run of scoring for most great players.

Guy just wasn’t much of a scorer and that’s all there is to it. You watch a Kidd game at random he’s gonna have like 14 points, 10 of them in transition or putbacks, and miss a lot. The truth isn’t always an insult. None of that means he wasn’t playing well.

This.

Kidd was absolutely a fantastic player and probably gets a little under-rated because his defense, rebounding, passing and game control combination are hard to quantify in terms of impact...especially given his circumstances for winning much of his career.

However, the notion that he could have just upped his scoring on demand to help his team is complete revisionist history. If Kidd could have done that...he'd be a top twenty player of al-time...or maybe even higher.

The Kidd we watched with the ability to drop 30 when needed? He'd be as good or better than any point other than Magic in the history of the game. Actually just better...isn't a point in history other than Magic, including Steph, that would have had the impact of a Kidd that could go off in terms of scoring when his team needed it.

Come on guys.

[HoopsNY]

When his team needed him to do it? I always hate that argument. It’s never accurate for anyone and it’s especially inaccurate with Kidd. What did his team not need scoring from him when he lost a seven game series scoring 10 points per game on 28% shooting and 14% from three? 0-8, 0-3 from 3 for zero points in a game 7 loss in his prime wasnt “When needed”?

The suns didn’t need him to score when they were relying on Cliff Robinson and Rodney Rogers to get to 90?

I think you're referring to the series against Detroit in 2004. That was the only game 7 that he played and he was woefully bad, but again, that was against an all-time great Detroit defensive juggernaut that ended up giving the favored Lakers a gentleman's sweep. How is that conveniently left out of the conversation?

Otherwise, Kidd's performances in elimination games?

1997-07: 14 gp on 17/7/9/2 on 41%

How about his ECF numbers?

10 gp on 20/11/9/2 on 42%

And we already mentioned what he was able to do against the Lakers and Spurs, two powerhouse teams with great defenses.

Does that look like someone giving you 0 points routinely? Or someone giving you less than 10 points every time?


I’m not the one ignoring anything. I’m the one who paid attention to one of my favorite players play his entire career and don’t act like they only needed him to score for 2 of those years. Which of course ignores that the scoring in those two years would be considered a bad run of scoring for most great players.

Yea, obviously. I watched Kidd his entire career, too. And I never thought of him as a great scorer, but he's certainly better than what you're alluding to. I mean, guys like Francis, Davis, and Marbury were better scorers, but their efficiency was awful and they weren't elite scorers. Kidd - believe it or not - was a step below those guys. Which means what exactly? He wasn't top tier, he wasn't as good as those guys, but he could certainly create a shot and score.


This.

Kidd was absolutely a fantastic player and probably gets a little under-rated because his defense, rebounding, passing and game control combination are hard to quantify in terms of impact...especially given his circumstances for winning much of his career.

However, the notion that he could have just upped his scoring on demand to help his team is complete revisionist history. If Kidd could have done that...he'd be a top twenty player of al-time...or maybe even higher.

The Kidd we watched with the ability to drop 30 when needed? He'd be as good or better than any point other than Magic in the history of the game. Actually just better...isn't a point in history other than Magic, including Steph, that would have had the impact of a Kidd that could go off in terms of scoring when his team needed it.

Come on guys.

I never said any of that. Re-read what I actually said. And re-read what Kblaze is insinuating. He's name dropping Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman in this thread like Kidd is somehow comparable in any way shape or form. The reality is he was a far better scorer than what blaze is willing to admit to. You don't put up 20 PPG in two finals runs or 20 PPG in the ECF runs, or average 17 PPG for 10 years in the playoffs and be comparable to Ben Wallace, no way.

[DMAVS41]

I think you're referring to the series against Detroit in 2004. That was the only game 7 that he played and he was woefully bad, but again, that was against an all-time great Detroit defensive juggernaut that ended up giving the favored Lakers a gentleman's sweep. How is that conveniently left out of the conversation?

Otherwise, Kidd's performances in elimination games?

1997-07: 14 gp on 17/7/9/2 on 41%

How about his ECF numbers?

10 gp on 20/11/9/2 on 42%

And we already mentioned what he was able to do against the Lakers and Spurs, two powerhouse teams with great defenses.

Does that look like someone giving you 0 points routinely? Or someone giving you less than 10 points every time?



Yea, obviously. I watched Kidd his entire career, too. And I never thought of him as a great scorer, but he's certainly better than what you're alluding to. I mean, guys like Francis, Davis, and Marbury were better scorers, but their efficiency was awful and they weren't elite scorers. Kidd - believe it or not - was a step below those guys. Which means what exactly? He wasn't top tier, he wasn't as good as those guys, but he could certainly create a shot and score.



I never said any of that. Re-read what I actually said. And re-read what Kblaze is insinuating. He's name dropping Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman in this thread like Kidd is somehow comparable in any way shape or form. The reality is he was a far better scorer than what blaze is willing to admit to. You don't put up 20 PPG in two finals runs or 20 PPG in the ECF runs, or average 17 PPG for 10 years in the playoffs and be comparable to Ben Wallace, no way.

On phone and it is hard for me to find posts.

If anyone is saying that Kidd is comparable to Ben Wallace in terms of scoring...that is wrong...I don't believe anyone is actually saying that...but if so...that is absurd.

My point is simply that Kidd didn't have some extra gear he was consistently capable of of unleashing when his team needed it. I'd have to look it up, but I remember Kidd playing like 44 minutes in the playoffs back then or something crazy...so a lot of the ppg stuff on its face might be a little misleading because he played so many minutes.

[HoopsNY]

On phone and it is hard for me to find posts.

If anyone is saying that Kidd is comparable to Ben Wallace in terms of scoring...that is wrong...I don't believe anyone is actually saying that...but if so...that is absurd.

My point is simply that Kidd didn't have some extra gear he was consistently capable of of unleashing when his team needed it. I'd have to look it up, but I remember Kidd playing like 44 minutes in the playoffs back then or something crazy...so a lot of the ppg stuff on its face might be a little misleading because he played so many minutes.

Yea, you're not wrong. I think we all agree here but I hold Kidd in higher regard for scoring ability than others. I don't disagree that he was not capable of turning it up like that, but he had a certain level of consistency in big games (playoffs, ECF, and finals) over a long enough span that would tell us he wasn't out there really just scoring 0-5 PPG.

If he did, yea, it wasn't surprising, but if he scored 15-20 PPG, then no one would find that surprising, either. In fact, you'd expect him to score that much and not the opposite.

[DMAVS41]

Yea, you're not wrong. I think we all agree here but I hold Kidd in higher regard for scoring ability than others. I don't disagree that he was not capable of turning it up like that, but he had a certain level of consistency in big games (playoffs, ECF, and finals) over a long enough span that would tell us he wasn't out there really just scoring 0-5 PPG.

If he did, yea, it wasn't surprising, but if he scored 15-20 PPG, then no one would find that surprising, either. In fact, you'd expect him to score that much and not the opposite.

Yea...you wouldn't be surprised if he scored 15 to 20 ppg...because that is what he averaged in the playoffs for his prime.

He was basically 16 ppg for his 10 year prime in the playoffs. It just also needs to be noted that he averaged roughly 42 minutes per game to get those points...and he shot poorly overall as well.

[HoopsNY]

Yea...you wouldn't be surprised if he scored 15 to 20 ppg...because that is what he averaged in the playoffs for his prime.

He was basically 16 ppg for his 10 year prime in the playoffs. It just also needs to be noted that he averaged roughly 42 minutes per game to get those points...and he shot poorly overall as well.

Yea but minutes are higher for star players in the playoffs, especially guards. Steve Francis had 1 playoff series in his career, he played almost 45 mpg to put up 19 points.

Remember Latrell Sprewell? He played 41 mpg to put up 20 PPG. Baron Davis in his prime played almost 41 mpg in the playoffs.

Remember Tim Hardaway? Great shooter right? Hardaway averaged 17 PPG for his playoff career, shooting 39% FGs and 32% from the distance. He also shot 75% from the line.

Okay that includes his down years. Let's look at his prime.

1991-99: 42 MPG | 20 PPG | 40/33/75 splits

Same story, different player. I'm not really buying the whole minutes thing. That was the norm back then. It stands out now because a lot of guys don't play the same amount of minutes. And a lot of these guards had horrible efficiency as well.

[Kblaze8855]

Who called Tim Hardaway a great shooter?

And if you can’t see the humor in the context of this topic of Rodman and Ben both having years they made the all star game scoring more than Kidd in one of his all star years that’s on you. Doesn’t mean it can’t be mentioned. It isn’t a comparison. It’s a fact I was surprised by.

You can keep harping on it like it was a “Ben is a better scorer than Kidd” thing if you want but nobody reading that initial post believes that was the point. The point was brief periods of scoring don’t matter more than 1000 games doing 10-13 a night. Especially when the brief periods were generally on awful shooting in gigantic minutes and obviously not something he could really do on command unless you think he was allowing his team to go scoreless for large chunks of big games out of sheer stupidity.

[3ba11]

A poor man's Lebron carried a 1-star team to the 02' and 03' Finals, while Lebron himself carried a 1-star team to the 07' or 15' Finals.. Iverson, Dwight and Jimmy Butler did the same in other years.

With 1-star teams routinely winning the East, one must wonder why Lebron formed super-teams - seems like massive overkill and deck-stacking.

Imagine if Joker decided to team up with Booker and Ja Morant - this consolidation would destroy the competitive balance in the West and steal organic rings from Curry or others, just like Lebron's collusions stole organic rings from 16' Curry, 12' Durant or 13' Duncan..

This unfairness forced Durant to respond by colluding with Warriors.. One good collusion deserves another

[HoopsNY]

Who called Tim Hardaway a great shooter?

Okay, my bad. Not a great shooter, but Hardaway was a good shooter I'd say in his prime. That's not the point, though. The point is that relative to many of his peers, he was slightly worse, but nothing of significance.


And if you can’t see the humor in the context of this topic of Rodman and Ben both having years they made the all star game scoring more than Kidd in one of his all star years that’s on you. Doesn’t mean it can’t be mentioned. It isn’t a comparison. It’s a fact I was surprised by.

Which year is that? Both Rodman and Wallace never made the All-Star team in a year they averaged 10 or more PPG. Kidd's lowest year was in 2010 where he averaged 10.8 PPG, but that was because he was a replacement for Kobe who missed the ASG. Maybe I'm reading the All-Star selections for these guys wrong, but I don't think I am?


You can keep harping on it like it was a “Ben is a better scorer than Kidd” thing if you want but nobody reading that initial post believes that was the point. The point was brief periods of scoring don’t matter more than 1000 games doing 10-13 a night. Especially when the brief periods were generally on awful shooting in gigantic minutes and obviously not something he could really do on command unless you think he was allowing his team to go scoreless for large chunks of big games out of sheer stupidity.

Kidd's career is long. You can choose to include his rise and fall years, but all that really matters was what happened in his peak and prime. You're not wrong in that he wasn't capable of turning it up to a level seen with other scorers.

But you're also giving way too much credence to his games where he was insignificant in scoring to the larger sample that matters. I won't continue beyond this post but I will reiterate my points:

1) Kidd was not a great shooter or scorer.

2) He averaged 16-17 PPG for a duration of 10 years of his prime in the playoffs, with 20 PPG in the ECF and 20 PPG in the finals. In addition, he played in 14 elimination games during that time and averaged 17 PPG. He had more of an ability to create his own shot or get his own buckets as opposed to some other point guards.

3) The amount of minutes he played was relative to his peers, which was similar, just as the efficiency numbers were. No one says Kidd was a better scorer than guys like Hardaway, Francis, or Davis, but no one ever looked at the efficiency of those guys, either. So why are we with Kidd?

4) Bringing up Wallace or Rodman is useless because it paints the picture as if there is some parallel there. Sure, no one is surprised that Kidd had many games where he scored less than 10 points, but how many games did Rodman or Wallace have with 30+ points? The answer is 3. How many did Kidd have? The answer is 38.

We agree to disagree on the point that Kidd could get his own buckets. I think we can at least agree that he wasn't a Charlie Ward or Mark Jackson, but he wasn't a Steve Francis or Baron Davis.

[TheGoatest]

13/9/6 on 40 percent shooting

Looking better than Dwyane Wade's 2013 playoff numbers.

[DMAVS41]

Yea but minutes are higher for star players in the playoffs, especially guards. Steve Francis had 1 playoff series in his career, he played almost 45 mpg to put up 19 points.

Remember Latrell Sprewell? He played 41 mpg to put up 20 PPG. Baron Davis in his prime played almost 41 mpg in the playoffs.

Remember Tim Hardaway? Great shooter right? Hardaway averaged 17 PPG for his playoff career, shooting 39% FGs and 32% from the distance. He also shot 75% from the line.

Okay that includes his down years. Let's look at his prime.

1991-99: 42 MPG | 20 PPG | 40/33/75 splits

Same story, different player. I'm not really buying the whole minutes thing. That was the norm back then. It stands out now because a lot of guys don't play the same amount of minutes. And a lot of these guards had horrible efficiency as well.

I wasn't arguing that his minutes were noteworthy compared to other guards...I was just pointing it out that it wasn't really another gear...it was just increased minutes for the most part with some peaks and valleys.

Not sure the relevance of Hardaway / Sprewell / Francis...my opinion on them probably differs from yours...

[paksat]

it's hard to win a title with someone on your team demanding a big contract like kidd does, while providing very little scoring.

it's similar to cp3, they lead teams..but do they lead them to championships?

kidd isn't breaking anyone down 1v1 so when you need a basket, what do you do? You got your clear leader not being able to isolate and having to defer to the 2nd guy... even tho he's the leader.

dirk and that entire mavs roster won that championship, but it was mostly lebron james falling completely apart more than it had ANYthing to do with the mavs

[DMAVS41]

it's hard to win a title with someone on your team demanding a big contract like kidd does, while providing very little scoring.

it's similar to cp3, they lead teams..but do they lead them to championships?

kidd isn't breaking anyone down 1v1 so when you need a basket, what do you do? You got your clear leader not being able to isolate and having to defer to the 2nd guy... even tho he's the leader.

dirk and that entire mavs roster won that championship, but it was mostly lebron james falling completely apart more than it had ANYthing to do with the mavs



The bold is a terrible argument because even with Lebron not playing well (Mavs had something to do with it...hate to break it to you)...the Heat were way better than your average championship runner up anyway.

Kobe and Shaq won that championship, but it was mostly a weak Sixers team than it had ANYthing to do with the Lakers

Lebron won that championship, but it was mostly Draymond's suspension than it had ANYthing to do with the Cavs

Could go on and on and on like that...

Also, have no idea why you are bringing up the 11 Mavs. Kidd didn't have a huge salary and he was not required to break down someone 1v1 or the clear leader. He was a solid role player.