cp3 vs kidd vs payton

[QUOTE=GrapeApe]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.[/QUOTE]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?

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]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.[/QUOTE]

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:

[QUOTE=TheMarkMadsen]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:[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Young X][B]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.[/B]

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.[/QUOTE]


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)

[QUOTE=game3524]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)[/QUOTE]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?

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater][B]I won't and its simple why, the 2013 Pacers played 81 games,[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Young X]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=TheMarkMadsen]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.[/QUOTE]

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 :(

[QUOTE=Young X][B]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.[/B]

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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=tpols]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. [/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=tpols]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..[/QUOTE]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?

[QUOTE=Young X]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=tpols]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=game3524]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.[/QUOTE]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?

I'd take CP3 over both.

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

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]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....[/quote]

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 [I]is[/I] weak.

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]

someone just said that here thanks :oldlol:

[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183977"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183977[/URL][/QUOTE]
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:

[QUOTE=Smoke117]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[/QUOTE]
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 [I]probably[/I] wouldn't even make the ECF, going back to the '80's.