Kidd or Nash?

[AboveLegit]

Who had the better career? If both were in their respective primes, who would you rather take to build a franchise around?

[Real Deal]

Jason Kidd, without a doubt. I didn't really have to think about it too much.

 

I'd take him to build a team around AND I believe he has had the better career.

 

Better overall player, may have been robbed of an MVP award, and I'm not really sure Nash deserved two. Kidd has a championship, and played a huge role in getting it, and he has been to the Finals three times.

 

No disrespect to Nash's game, though...but Kidd is far superior on the defensive end (it's not even close), and while Nash excels in his system, I think Kidd can play at a high level in ANY system.

[Nitro]

Who had the better career is really difficult. Kidd has more All-NBA 1st team appearances (5 to 3), far more All-Defensive selections (9 to 0), more All-Star selections (10 to 7), and has a championship as a key piece. However, Nash has 2 MVP awards, had considerably higher assist averages in the 5 years he led the league compared to the 5 years Kidd led the league, and his amazing 3 year-run from 05-07 was more dominant (in terms stats+team success+awards) than any point in Kidd's career. Overall, I'd probably give Kidd the slight edge.

 

As for who I'd take to build around in their prime, it depends completely on my team. If I need my PG to be able to score consistently and efficiently, as well as run an offense to near-perfection, I'd take Nash. He was a far better scorer than Kidd ever was, and IMO was the better playmaker as well. However, in general, I think it'd be easier to build around Kidd because of how versatile he was. He was an amazing playmaker, could really dominate games with his rebounding ability at the PG position, was a fantastic defender who could (and can still) defend up to 3 positions effectively, was an ok scorer when his team needed that out of him, and he also could do all of the intangibles, such as leadership, setting picks, control tempo, etc...

 

So, I'd probably take Kidd for both, but it's extremely close. Prime Nash was lethal, close to a perfect PG offensively.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Nitro

[AboveLegit]

Jason Kidd, without a doubt. I didn't really have to think about it too much.

 

I'd take him to build a team around AND I believe he has had the better career.

 

Better overall player, may have been robbed of an MVP award, and I'm not really sure Nash deserved two. Kidd has a championship, and played a huge role in getting it, and he has been to the Finals three times.

 

No disrespect to Nash's game, though...but Kidd is far superior on the defensive end (it's not even close), and while Nash excels in his system, I think Kidd can play at a high level in ANY system.

I voted for Kidd as well, but I don't think it's as easy a decision as you made it out to be.

 

I really don't think Kidd deserved an MVP at all, Duncan won it by a good margin and I believe KG, Shaq, and Dirk were considered better MVP candidates than Kidd that season. I also do believe Nash didn't deserve his MVP awards (I think I've debated it quite a few times as well), but regardless, he did win two and we'll leave it at that.

 

I also think both players weaknesses are a little overstated. Nash isn't as bad of a defender people say he is, I think during his MVP season he held his opponents to a PER under league average. Nash takes charges very well and plays solid team defense. When you consider his weak line of defense he had behind him, he's at least average. And as for Kidd, he is a solid shooter, it's creating his own shot that's always been a problem for him.

 

It always angers me when people fail to acknowledge the defensive frontcourts certain PG's have to help cover up their mistakes. Tony Parker is just as bad of a defender Nash is, but no one ever mentions it because he's on a good defensive team. Same goes for Derrick Rose, he's an average defender, but people constantly look at his amazing athletic plays rather than the countless number of times he's out of position on the defensive end.

 

I think it's very close, there are many things Kidd does that Nash can do just as well or even better.

[EastCoastNiner]

Nash without a shadow of a doubt. I knew two of the posters here would take Kidd by default. Although, I thought I saw RD say multiple times he'd rather have Nash and thought he was a better player.

 

It's Nash without question. Defense is a team aspect, and you rely on your teammates a lot more on that end of the floor and the system than you rely on them on the offensive end. Nash was/is a far superior player to Kidd on the offensive end. This isn't even a question.

[fish7718]

Both are pretty even, Nash one of the greatest shooters in NBA history, I'd probably take Kidd though because of the defense, just a preference thing I suppose...

[Nitro]

Defense is a team aspect

 

So is offense, especially for PG's who make a living off of other players setting picks, running plays and finishing plays off. And do not discount Kidd's defensive ability...hell, he is way past his prime, but without his ability to defend 2's and 3's, the Mavs would have likely lost the Finals because having Kidd enabled the Mavs to hide Barea and Terry defensively when they ran a small backcourt (which was very often), and gave them another defender to throw at LeBron (who Kidd played very well). Having Barea or Terry on Wade all those minutes Kidd defended him, and things would have gotten ugly and forced Carslile to make panic moves, like how Spoelstra paniced in the final 2 games with some horrible adjustments.

[EastCoastNiner]

So is offense, especially for PG's who make a living off of other players setting picks, running plays and finishing plays off. And do not discount Kidd's defensive ability...hell, he is way past his prime, but without his ability to defend 2's and 3's, the Mavs would have likely lost the Finals because having Kidd enabled the Mavs to hide Barea and Terry defensively when they ran a small backcourt (which was very often), and gave them another defender to throw at LeBron (who Kidd played very well). Having Barea or Terry on Wade all those minutes Kidd defended him, and things would have gotten ugly and forced Carslile to make panic moves, like how Spoelstra paniced in the final 2 games with some horrible adjustments.

 

I'm saying that individual offensive abilities are more important than individual defensive abilities as a PG. On offense, Nash is a better passer and a far superior shooter to Jason Kidd, and that's not just a slight to Kidd. Steve Nash is one of the best shooters the NBA has ever seen.

 

I'm not valuing a PG's defensive play, which isn't amazing to begin with, more than the offensive abilities of a PG.

[Nitro]

I'm saying that individual offensive abilities are more important than individual defensive abilities as a PG. On offense, Nash is a better passer and a far superior shooter to Jason Kidd, and that's not just a slight to Kidd. Steve Nash is one of the best shooters the NBA has ever seen.

 

I'm not valuing a PG's defensive play, which isn't amazing to begin with, more than the offensive abilities of a PG.

 

I agree that a PG's offensive abilities mean more than a PG's defensive abilities, but I was just replying to the whole "team concept' thing you threw out there. Also, a big piece of Kidd's value that you are missing is versatility. As I said before, even though he's way past his prime, Kidd's versatility to be able to defend 3 positions effectively afforded the Mavs the opportunity to give Barea and Terry way more minutes in that series than they would have got if you replaced Kidd with a regular PG who is stuck in defending just the PG position. That opportunity was the difference between a title and another Finals exit to the Heat.

 

And in Kidd's prime, he was grabbing 7-8RPG, which was especially important in the VC years with the Nets, when the Nets had absolutely no help on the boards, and he ended up leading the team in boards 3 straight seasons. Those seasons the Nets basically were at a draw against opponents on the boards, and that's all on Kidd...any other PG and those eams would have been destroyed on the boards.

[AboveLegit]

I'd just like to point out that while Kidd did make the Finals twice with New Jersey, he played in a historically weak conference. Nash's Suns teams were much better than Kidd's Nets teams, and it's really not close.

[Real Deal]

Although, I thought I saw RD say multiple times he'd rather have Nash and thought he was a better player.

Maybe at one point, but not over the course of their careers. I've stated many times before that Kidd is a top five PG in NBA history, at least in my books.

[Oliver P]

Definitely Jason Kidd. It is not arguable.

 

First of all I would like to say that Nash is probably one of the most overrated players. Yes many people definitely overrate him because of his Suns days. Personally I remember very clearly who he was when he was a Mavs. As I already said the Mavs have been my second fav team since Dirk's arrival and Nash was actually my favorite PG at the time. And at the time there is no way that someone would have made a case for Nash as the best PG in the league. He was arguably a top 5 PG but no more than that. He was All Star twice but was always picked at the bottom of the list and he wasn't even picked as an All Star in his last year in Dallas. He arrives in Phoenix and all of a sudden he's the best in the league ? Doesn't make any sense... Nash didn't get better as a Sun, he was exactly the same player. The difference was that he played in THE right system for him, the D'Antoni's system. Which allowed him to have the best stats he ever had. Which is why he got two MVPs. And I would not say that he did not deserve his MVPs, judging on how they give this trophy he definitely did but still he was definitely not the best player in the league those two years he had it, and not the best PG as well.

In his Dallas days Nash never averaged more than 7.7 APG. And his best FG% was 48.3 %. In Phoenix his worst APG was 9.7 and his worst FG% was 49.2 (last year, the only time he shot below 50% as a Sun). That shows the difference. Nash just found a system that was 100% made for him in Phoenix. Which is why he played that well. Don't get me wrong though, Nash still is a fantastic player and there is no doubt at the same time that he was the right PG for this system, I do not believe that another PG would have been better for D'Antoni's system. But I certainly do not think that Nash could have been this efficient in any other system at the same time. It's simple, as I said Nash was certainly not as efficient in Dallas, yet it's important to know that the Mavs' system, the Nelson system is purely offensive as well. So personally I cannot imagine what Nash would have done in a defensive minded system. Besides after D'Antoni's departure Nash and the Suns had a different system for a while, Porter tried to use a more defensive minded system. The result ? Nash's stats were his lowest as a Sun, the Suns seemed lost (they were 28-23 with Porter and didn't make the playoffs that year) and people started to wonder if Nash wasn't just starting to decrease... Then the next year Gentry decides to use D'Antoni's system again, Nash gets immediately back to his best and is once again an All Star and the Suns get back to the playoffs and even to the WCF. That says it all...

So Nash is a fantastic player, I certainly do not deny that, but the fact is that he's been ONLY THAT efficient in one system only.

 

On the other hand we have Jason Kidd. Kidd played in four different teams (the 95 Mavs had nothing to do with the current ones...). And every time Jason arrived in a new team he immediately made them better, no matter the system or his teammates. This as soon as his first season. Before Kidd's arrival the Mavs were the laughing stock of the league. By far the worst team in the league. You add Kidd to that team and they immediately get more than 20 more wins the first year. Not enough to make the playoffs of course, he just didn't have good enough teammates but that was still an amazing improvement. After Kidd's departure the Mavs just got back to their worst self. Barkley even said that the Mavs made the biggest mistake they could make after Kidd's trade. But well fortunately for them they traded Tractor Traylor for Nowitzki in the draft a few years after that...

Anyway Jason Kidd arrived in Phoenix. The first year he arrived in the middle of the season, he only played 33 games and that was just not enough to do anything.. But the following year the Suns got immediately better and won 16 games more. And with Kidd in the team the Suns made the playoffs every year. After his trade for Marbury, in 2001, the Suns got immediately worse. With Marbury instead of Kidd the Suns didn't even make it to the playoffs. While it was the exact opposite for New Jersey, with Kidd instead of Marbury the Nets got immediately better, they won 26 games more, got back to the playoffs and even went to the Finals for the first time of their NBA history (so far they only made the Finals in their ABA days, they even won two rings in the ABA). After Kidd's departure the Nets got back to mediocrity, they didn't make the playoffs since. In his Mavs days Kidd wasn't the same player, he wasn't in his prime any longer. But still he was a very important part of the only team in the Mavs history to ever win a ring. Do you think the Mavs would have won this year without Jason Kidd ? Even if the first reason why they did was because of Nowitzki's phenomal performances in the playoffs, I certainly do not think they would have won it all without Kidd's great assists, defense, and clutch shots.

We can also talk about Kidd's impact on Team USA. As we all know Team USA struggled a lot this past decade. As a matter of fact they failed to win in the 2002 and 2006 World Cups as well as in the 2004 Olympics. But Team USA did win in 2000 and 2008. What did those two teams had in common ? Jason Kidd was in the roster both times. It's also important to add that he was a part of the 1999 and 2007 qualifying tournaments, which happen to be the FIBA Americas championship. And there again Team USA won both times. He was also a part of the 2003 FIBA Americas championship, the qualifying tournament for the 2004 Olympics and of course Team USA won once again. But unfortunately Kidd had to withdraw from the 2004 Olympics due to a team injury. And Team USA lost its first game in the Olympics, against Puerto Rico, a team that they beat in that qualifying tournament one year ago, with Jason Kidd... And again Team USA didn't win the gold medal that year. Would have they won it with Jason Kidd ? Would have they won with Kidd in 2002 and 2006 as well ? Impossible to tell of course but I certainly believe that they would have had a much better chance to...

Cause it is a fact : Kidd is undefeated with Team USA. Yes, with Team USA, Kidd won all his games. He has a record of 56-0, this including exhibition games. It just cannot be better than that.

 

There's also another important fact to consider, it's that Nash has always played with better teammates than Kidd. As a matter of fact Kidd never played with a player who had the caliber or Nowitzki or Stoudemire... Until now. The only time that Kidd had a true superstar at his sides (let's be serious, neither Jimmy Jackson, Mashburn, Dice, Jefferson or Carter can be considered as superstars... Stars yes, but not superstars), I'm talking about Nowitzi of course, well his team won a ring. While despite playing with much better teams Nash not only never won a ring but he didn't manage to lead any of his teams to the Finals.

 

Now let's compare the two players individually : first about defense. And the two players (as it's already been stated) just cannot be compared in that area. Jason Kidd is one of the VERY best defensive PGs ever. And one of the best rebounders among PGs (he wasn't called Mr Triple Double for nothing). Just as simple as that. The only other PG I've seen that can be compared to him is Gary Payton. While Nash is just one of the worst ever.

Now about offense. It's harder to tell. Both players are fantastic playmakers. But I would still give the edge to Kidd though. Because Kidd's vision of the court is just beyond belief, he sees everything (besides he didn't need D'Antoni's system to average more than 7.7 AGP... By the way 7.7 APG happens to be his worst APG ever, it was in his rookie season). I never saw a PG who had a better vision to be honest, except Magic or Stock.

As for the scoring well many people think that Nash is the better one here but I'm not so sure about that... Nash is the better shooter, there is no doubt about that. But better scoring is not only about shooting... And other than shooting ? Nash cannot do many things... He can do lay ups yes. But that's it. he has not post moves whatsoever. Contrary to Kidd. Who can score from anywhere on a court. It's simple Jason Kidd has only one weakness (which happens to be Nash's main strenght : long range shooting. Yet since his Mavs days Kidd not only drastically improved in that area (he was not that bad of a shooter to begin with though, he was not a great one but he could get on fire, I even remember him having some great shooting games in his rookie season) but he became one of the best in the league. This while he's definitely past his prime... It's simple, there is just nothing that Kidd cannot do. One of the most talented players I ever seen for sure.

 

So for all these reasons I am sorry but, as much as I love Steve Nash, I certainly do not see how a case can even be made for him over someone like Jason Kidd.

[?QuestionMark?]

Tough question.

 

I think it's a tossup as for who has had a better career.

 

But If I had to build a team around one of them, I pick Jason Kidd without a doubt. Outside of shooting, I don't know that Nash has an edge anywhere else. But there is a grand canyon size gap between Kidd and Nash defensively. I completely disagree that individual defense is not as important because of team defense. Individual defense is the foundation of team defense. The more you can keep you man in front of you, the less help you give, the stronger your team defense is. Factor in the rebounding and his versatility and Kidd is a no-brainer for me.

 

Nash had benefitted greatly from the system he arrived at in PHX. But you place him almost anywhere else and he doesn't do as well. Kidd in his prime would improve any team regardless of the system they played in.

[Erick Blasco]

I think Kidd has had the better career. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is how Kidd reinvented himself later in his career. He used to be an awful shooter, but turned himself into a real good shooter later in his career. Even when his athleticism disappeared, he was resourceful enough to adapt his game in a way which helped his team win a championship.

 

I do think that Kidd was a worse scorer and playmaker than Kidd, but I always found him to be a more responsible decision maker, and his defense was worlds better than Nash's, especially on the ball. Seeing Kidd really limit Wade and LeBron while hitting big shots and running the offense for the Mavs is the icing on the cake.

[Oliver P]

I think Kidd has had the better career. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is how Kidd reinvented himself later in his career. He used to be an awful shooter, but turned himself into a real good shooter later in his career.

 

 

It's simple Jason Kidd has only one weakness which happens to be Nash's main strenght : long range shooting. Yet since his Mavs days Kidd not only drastically improved in that area but he became one of the best in the league.

 

Put your glasses on dude... I always suspected that no one read my posts now I guess that I know for sure...

 

Oh and by the way it's ridiculous to say that Kidd used to be an awful shooter, he wasn't a great one before but he certainly wasn't awful at the same time because as I said in my post : "he was not that bad of a shooter to begin with though, he was not a great one but he could get on fire, I even remember him having some great shooting games in his rookie season)".

[Erick Blasco]

Put your glasses on dude... I always suspected that no one read my posts now I guess that I know for sure...

 

Oh and by the way it's ridiculous to say that Kidd used to be an awful shooter, he wasn't a great one before but he certainly wasn't awful at the same time because as I said in my post : "he was not that bad of a shooter to begin with though, he was not a great one but he could get on fire, I even remember him having some great shooting games in his rookie season)".

 

Paragraphs man...33 straight lines of text are getting ignored.

 

Before his second tour with Dallas, Kidd shot above 35.2% from downtown three times in 13 years. That's not good.

[La Bomba]

I'll build a team around a young Kidd. Kidd ability to rebound at the point guard position that is rare and I think he's more capable of running different systems. Nash was an all-star point guard in Dallas, but once he arrived to Phoenix's wide open, fast break offense was where he became a MVP caliber player (one of those MVPs I feel was not deserved). Kidd was one of the best defensive players at the perimeter in his prime, and although he was never the scorer Nash was in terms of long range shooting and such, their PPG averages (Nash: 14.6; Kidd: 13.2) are not much different as well as their career highs in PPG ( Kidd: 18.7; Nash: 18.8). Not till Nash came to Phoenix did his assist per game averages go over 9 per game, while Kidd has only had three seasons where he has averaged less than 9 assists.

 

With that said, in a team like Phoenix or a team that is already built and has a favorable system, there are few point guards I would take over Nash.

[NomarFachix]

Nash without a shadow of a doubt.

It's Nash without question.

This isn't even a question.

Redunant post is redundant.

[Oliver P]

Paragraphs man...33 straight lines of text are getting ignored.

 

Um what ? I am deeply sorry but there was not 33 straignt lines of text in my post... I do a lot of paragraphs indeed. You don't have to skip a line to have a new paragraph... You just have to go to line. Which is what I did (I actually even did both, I only skipped lines when I talk about something else which is what you're supposed to do). I know how to write (I studied English literature, I have an English licence even if my French still is better than my English though... but I keep working on it everyday) thank you very much.

You'd rather be honest and say that you just did not want to read my post... Which is pretty clear by now. You're entitled not to anyhow.

 

Before his second tour with Dallas, Kidd shot above 35.2% from downtown three times in 13 years. That's not good.

 

Yes he was not a great one, again that's exactly what I said, but he certainly was not "awful" at the same time. An awful shooter would be someone who shoot under 20%. Yet, at the exception of one year, Kidd has ALWAYS shot over 30% from behind the ark. And as I said above he got on fire and had some great shooting games before, even during his rookie season...

So Kidd was not a great shooter before but he was NEVER an AWFUL one at the same time.

[Abro]

Dude.. He never said "AWFUL" he said "not good" bahahahaha. Big difference actually. Your putting words in his mouth damn..

[moeroadkill]

I think Kidd has had the better career. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is how Kidd reinvented himself later in his career. He used to be an awful shooter, but turned himself into a real good shooter later in his career. Even when his athleticism disappeared, he was resourceful enough to adapt his game in a way which helped his team win a championship.

 

I do think that Kidd was a worse scorer and playmaker than Kidd, but I always found him to be a more responsible decision maker, and his defense was worlds better than Nash's, especially on the ball. Seeing Kidd really limit Wade and LeBron while hitting big shots and running the offense for the Mavs is the icing on the cake.

 

 

Dude.. He never said "AWFUL" he said "not good" bahahahaha. Big difference actually. Your putting words in his mouth damn..

 

BAHAHAHHAH