Who had the better NBA career, Steve Nash or Jason Kidd?

[HoopsNY]

Very asinine take. Kidd was very integral to that Mavs championship.

Nash was in an entirely different system than Kidd was. Not comparable. Nash was also a product of D'Antoni, it's not like he lead historical offenses on the Mavs with Dirk or on the Suns post Joe Johnson and others. He rotted away until he was traded to the Lakers.

Edit: Lol at acting like Nash didn't play with a plethora of talented players. I don't know why you tried to sneak that in. The need to downplay teammates has been taken too far.

You're really underrating Nash. Nash became the starter in 1999. By 2001, the Mavs were an elite offense.

'01 Mavs: 4th in ORTG
'02 Mavs: 1st in ORTG
'03 Mavs: 1st in ORTG
'04 Mavs: 1st in ORTG

But somehow he's only a product of the D'Antoni system?

[MavAlbert]

You're really underrating Nash. Nash became the starter in 1999. By 2001, the Mavs were an elite offense.

'01 Mavs: 4th in ORTG
'02 Mavs: 1st in ORTG
'03 Mavs: 1st in ORTG
'04 Mavs: 1st in ORTG

But somehow he's only a product of the D'Antoni system?

Mavs win in 03 if Dirk doesnt go down. Those teams were a lot of fun to watch.

[iamgine]

You're really underrating Nash. Nash became the starter in 1999. By 2001, the Mavs were an elite offense.

'01 Mavs: 4th in ORTG
'02 Mavs: 1st in ORTG
'03 Mavs: 1st in ORTG
'04 Mavs: 1st in ORTG

But somehow he's only a product of the D'Antoni system?

Well Mavs were also 1st in ORTG with Jason Terry. Somehow I think it's more Dirk than Nash.

MVP Nash was a product of D'antoni system and the rule change. That's not an insult because it only means he mastered that system. He went from all-NBA 3rd to legit MVP level. Basically turned from Paul George level to Durant level.

[HoopsNY]

Well Mavs were also 1st in ORTG with Jason Terry. Somehow I think it's more Dirk than Nash.

MVP Nash was a product of D'antoni system and the rule change. That's not an insult because it only means he mastered that system. He went from all-NBA 3rd to legit MVP level. Basically turned from Paul George level to Durant level.

Yea, but surely being an elite offense four years in a row means something, especially when it's on an entirely different team. Furthermore, how did the Mavs do with and without Nash in those years?

'00 w/Nash: 107.8 ORTG
'00 w/o Nash: 106.0 ORTG (26 games)

'01 w/Nash: 108.8 ORTG
'01 w/o Nash: 102.9 ORTG (12 games)

'04 w/Nash: 113.2 ORTG
'04 w/o Nash: 105.7 ORTG (4 games)

In 2000, they would have ranked 3rd in ORTG with Nash and 9th without him.

In 2001, they would have finished tied-1st in ORTG with Nash and 14th without him.

In 2004, the sample is small but the gap in ORTG is pretty wide, so it's not even necessary to see where the rankings would be with/without him.

Both 2002 and 2003, Nash played 82 games.

BigShotBob is also implying that Nash's success was merely because of talent. Clearly this wasn't the case just looking at the data above. In addition, look at 2005 and 2006:

'05 PHO: 1st in ORTG
'05 Amar'e: 26 PPG on an insane 56%

'06 PHO: 2nd in ORTG
'06 Amar'e: Misses 79 games

In addition, they had traded Joe johnson. So how does any of this even make sense? D'Antoni took over in 2004 and in his 61 games, PHO was 19th in ORTG.

Nash's impact can't be ignored.

[dankok8]

Very asinine take. Kidd was very integral to that Mavs championship.

Nash was in an entirely different system than Kidd was. Not comparable. Nash was also a product of D'Antoni, it's not like he lead historical offenses on the Mavs with Dirk or on the Suns post Joe Johnson and others. He rotted away until he was traded to the Lakers.

Edit: Lol at acting like Nash didn't play with a plethora of talented players. I don't know why you tried to sneak that in. The need to downplay teammates has been taken too far.

The Mavs' offense in 2002, 2003 and 2004 was best in the league and they kept it up in the playoffs as well. Nash offenses hit historic heights in both Dallas and Phoenix. Never did I say that Nash didn't play with talented players.

Kidd was a role player in 2011.

EDIT: The 2004 Mavs were +9.2 rORtg which is one of the highest in NBA history. In 2002 they were +7.7 and in 2003 were +7.2. The highest they did without Nash was +5.6 in 2006. The 2003 Mavs might have won a ring if Dirk didn't go down.

[tontoz]

Nash was an elite shooter from everywhere and an elite playmaker. Kidd basically had no jumper (he did learn a decent set shot from 3) and struggled to finish inside.

Kidd was a better rebounder and defender but i have to give this comparison to Nash. The shooting gap was just too big.

[RachlNicholsazz]

Jason Kidd could only equal Nash's career with a chip as a 1a/1b tandem. Dirk was clearly the alpha on the team with no equal. MVP's are rare air. Takes a lot to overcome a player's solid career topped off with an MVP. Kidd can't measure up to Nash. Perhaps Derrick Rose who was injured most of his career but that's about it.

[HoopsNY]

The Mavs' offense in 2002, 2003 and 2004 was best in the league and they kept it up in the playoffs as well. Nash offenses hit historic heights in both Dallas and Phoenix. Never did I say that Nash didn't play with talented players.

Kidd was a role player in 2011.

EDIT: The 2004 Mavs were +9.2 rORtg which is one of the highest in NBA history. In 2002 they were +7.7 and in 2003 were +7.2. The highest they did without Nash was +5.6 in 2006. The 2003 Mavs might have won a ring if Dirk didn't go down.

Bingo

[NBA 90s]

Kidd wasn't nearly as efficient as a shooter but he was a much better defender and actually led his team to a Finals in his prime while Nash never played in a Finals.

Kidd also didn't need rule changes to become relevant.

[WhiteKyrie]

Kidd wasn't nearly as efficient as a shooter but he was a much better defender and actually led his team to a Finals in his prime while Nash never played in a Finals.

Kidd also didn't need rule changes to become relevant.

Thought it was obvious Nash should’ve had the suns in the finals in 2007 if it wasn’t for that asinine suspension in the series against the Spurs

[NBA 90s]

Thought it was obvious Nash should’ve had the suns in the finals in 2007 if it wasn’t for that asinine suspension in the series against the Spurs

You could also blame D'Antoni for not utilizing more of his bench during those years. With that type of strategy, one suspension or injury and you're screwed.

[plowking]

I think CP3 is better than both but doesn’t have an MVP. Now what?

I think Stockton, Nash, Kidd, GP (actual best defensive PG ever), Westbrick, hell I’d personally throw Baron Davis and Mark Price on that same tier level. Very good to great scale.

CP3 seems to get a lot more love than other PG's that never won a ring, and I always wonder why... Like, he legitimately always gets put ahead of Nash as if it is a lock.

If you break down their games, is he really better at any of the important things a PG does? I'd argue Nash is, and on top of that, a better playoff performer.

[iamgine]

Yea, but surely being an elite offense four years in a row means something, especially when it's on an entirely different team. Furthermore, how did the Mavs do with and without Nash in those years?

'00 w/Nash: 107.8 ORTG
'00 w/o Nash: 106.0 ORTG (26 games)

'01 w/Nash: 108.8 ORTG
'01 w/o Nash: 102.9 ORTG (12 games)

'04 w/Nash: 113.2 ORTG
'04 w/o Nash: 105.7 ORTG (4 games)

In 2000, they would have ranked 3rd in ORTG with Nash and 9th without him.

In 2001, they would have finished tied-1st in ORTG with Nash and 14th without him.

In 2004, the sample is small but the gap in ORTG is pretty wide, so it's not even necessary to see where the rankings would be with/without him.

Both 2002 and 2003, Nash played 82 games.

BigShotBob is also implying that Nash's success was merely because of talent. Clearly this wasn't the case just looking at the data above. In addition, look at 2005 and 2006:

'05 PHO: 1st in ORTG
'05 Amar'e: 26 PPG on an insane 56%

'06 PHO: 2nd in ORTG
'06 Amar'e: Misses 79 games

In addition, they had traded Joe johnson. So how does any of this even make sense? D'Antoni took over in 2004 and in his 61 games, PHO was 19th in ORTG.

Nash's impact can't be ignored.

Dallas when replaced by Jason Terry were also #1 in ORTG. Even went to the finals.

Nash's rise from 3rd All-NBA level to MVP level was because of rule change and D'Antoni system. Those 2 factors maximize his talent. Not sure what's so controversial about it.

[dankok8]

Dallas when replaced by Jason Terry were also #1 in ORTG. Even went to the finals.

Nash's rise from 3rd All-NBA level to MVP level was because of rule change and D'Antoni system. Those 2 factors maximize his talent. Not sure what's so controversial about it.

Because it's wrong. Nash simply got MVP love because of the system where he ran the show but his deadly mix of shooting and playmaking was already moving the needle pretty heavily for Dallas. People just didn't notice it much because his box score stats were less impressive. The Mavs peaked offensively in 2004 with +9.2 rORtg and posted +7.7 in 2002 and +7.2 in 2003. Their best post-Nash was +5.6 in 2006. To pretend like the offense reached the same heights without Nash has no basis in reality.

[dankok8]

2002-2004 Dallas with Nash: +8.0 rORtg
2005-2007 Dallas without Nash: +4.9 rORtg

2002-2004 Phoenix without Nash: -0.9 rORtg
2005-2007 Phoenix with Nash: +7.0 rORtg

Nash is clearly on the very short list of the greatest offensive engines ever.