They were both opposing Archetypes for point guards and Steve Nash was the beginning of the combo guard of high paced offense that we see today. But boy!!! Jason Kidd gave you a SHOW! J Kidd mad Kenyon Martin look like Shaq!
The game plan was to have an aging Robert Horry hip check Nash into the scorer's table and accidentally getting Amare suspended the next game for taking one step onto the court to look at what the heck just happened.
I think the difference is that Stoudermire himself was a great player to begin with. He was a top 10 player in the league before getting injured in NY without Nash whereas K-Mart was a solid high level role player who Kidd made look like an All Star.
Man if Amare didn't get injured I feel like him and Melo would've did some dmg... He was putting up crazy numbers on a NY team dat had been trash damn near da whole 2000s lol
Novak was an absolute MONSTER in that era of 2k lol. Most stats in that game didn't matter except like 3 pt shooting and speed. If only it were like that for him in real life. I haven't thought about Steve Novak in yrs lol
He was definitely a dumbass for punching glass but there was no shot in hell that series vs. the 2012 Heat was winnable for the Knicks even with Amare lol.
Carmelo Anthony was never going to win in his prime. Some guys are just like that. Glenn Robinson technically has a ring as a benchwarmer with the Spurs, but he was the same way.
The difference is that Amare was the best PF in the league behind Duncan and KG. Having Nash for sure helped, but his best year was his first in NY where his point guard was Raymond Felton and 34 year old Chauncey Billups.
Kidd went to back to back finals with significantly less help than Nash. Also, one was a 9 time all defense, and the other was Steve Nash, which is probably why they were a fantastic regular season team.
It's so funny when you guys use context but only one way. The East was really fucking weak during Kidd's appearances and Nash defeated far stronger teams. Amare was so good? Is that why they still won 54 games with him playing 3? The Suns even without Amare were still more impressive than the Nets beating on the lowest the East has ever been aside from the years where people were still figuring out what the rules should be.
I think you're proving my point that Nash had a much better team that they could lose their second best player and still win. Your point completely ignored that Amare had his best year after he left PHX.
In those 2 years for Kidd, they beat the Celtics twice who averaged 47 wins and swept the 50 win Pistons who would win the title the next season. Yes the east was weak. The Nets also weren't far and away better than any of the teams they beat those 2 years. Those same years, Nash's team beat the Kings (lost in 02 won in 03), Timberwolves, and the Jailblazers.
The West was top-heavy af back then. In 02, the difference in wins from the 1 seed to the 8 seed was 10 games in the East and 17 games in the West. In 03, 1 seed-8 seed was 8 games in the East and 16 games in the West (with 2 60 win teams and a 59 win team).
Or he’s simply implying that Nash elevated the whole team to a point that they could hit 54 wins despite Amare’s absence. You can try to look at it either way - 1) the team support was strong even behind Amare or 2) Nash was good enough to make a meh team rack up 54 wins on his own.
Take your blinders off, man. Lol
Kidd was the reason the Knicks won a couple of games in the 49-win season with Amare that was past his prime. Even as he got older, he had a big impact on games. Defense and rebounding wins rings. That is why he has one, and Steve doesn't.
Great answer - all these who’s better debates between greats really just comes down to who are the other players on your team and who fits the need of the team as both players are great by themselves and it’s just a matter of fit vs skill
I’ll take the guy with actual finals experience
https://preview.redd.it/4y7ulttw3t3d1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d392d777f38c7196c801f91da664f57f25db7edc
Do whatever you want, but prime Kidd’s teams were 2-8 in the finals, so his experience consisted of getting smoked. He didn’t win one until he was 37 and well past prime.
I get it but everyone in the world understood that the East was not close to the West at that time. Personally I don’t think just getting there and shitting the bed puts Kidd above Nash.
If someone wants to argue Kidd’s defense and rebounding make him more valuable in the playoffs, that makes a lot more sense to me.
He couldn’t really “score when needed” though. Kidd was a disastrous shooter for most of his career and definitely through his prime. Of his first 13 or so years in the league, he was above league average TS% just twice, and on pretty low volume too. Called Ason Kidd for a reason. The gap in their scoring is monstrous, and a weak point like that is absolutely getting game planned today.
The issue with this arguement is you are cherry picking an older Jason Kidd on extremely low volume and adding that to his prime distributor self
When we take different peaks of players it’s moot. Lebron is easily the goat if you give him old man Lebron playmaking and experience into his first Cavs body. But that would be dumb
A couple things:
* I've been a Mavs fan since 2000
* I watched both their primes
* I love both these men as players and for what they did for the franchise
You can't go wrong with either, but gun to my head I'd go with the 2-time MVP in Nash. It's not his fault his teams didn't go all the way when he had to face Kobe/Shaq, Duncan and Dirk every year.
I agree, but then in 2003 they somehow still brought the Spurs to six games, and it was damn near going to seven. They were a 30 win team without him, then back to back finals. He made Kenyon Martin look great lol.
For sure. Nash however went to 4 conference finals in the west (3 as the best player). 03, 05, 06, 10. He lost in 6 to the 03 spurs and the greatest version of the greatest power forward ever, lost in 5 to the same team (possibly now even better with the emergence of their young talent), took Dirk and co to 7, and the Kobe/Pau back to back champions to 6. All after beating daunting west teams to get there.
In those series he didn't always play great and a lot of why they lost has to be put on him.
05 he shot 22% from 3
10 he shot 27% from 3
People also like to forget how poor of a defender he was and won't admit that had something to do with his lack of success. His college coach said he was the worst defender he'd ever seen. Only in his second year was he a + 0.3 defender. Every other year he was in the negatives. He even had a year with negative defensive win shares.
I think you may be a bit misguided on why those Suns lost those series. You’re mentioning solely 3pt% in an era where 3pt volume wasn’t significant enough to affect most players efficiency.
In 2005, the #1 defense Spurs had a 98.8 DRTG and allowed 45.2 eFG% from opponents. The Suns in their playoff series had a 114 ORTG and Nash himself had a 53.3 eFG%. Those are fantastic offensive results! In 2010 vs the Lakers, Nash at the ripe age of 35 and the team were even better on offense albeit against a weaker defensive team. Nash typically elevated his game in the playoffs; it’s hard to make a case that he let them down there.
The biggest issue was the team defense, which Nash was a part of for sure. But Stoudemire is possibly the worst defensive player of all time (accounting for minutes played and his role as a big man), he was that bad. A better defensive PG is not fixing that issue for those Suns teams.
Weren’t those Nets teams fairly loaded? Prime Kmart and Jefferson, Kittles was decent, Van Horn was a top pick and serviceable. Seems like they even had Mutombo anchoring the D in 03
“Loaded” is a bit strong - they had good balance on the roster especially in ‘03 but the Mutombo trade cost them Van Horn. Outside of Kidd, KMart was the only one to make an All-Star team (which he did once), and the others were never top-5 at their position, nor a top-20 guy in the league during the Nets run or after.
The East was just so bad those years.
This is with hindsight though. When looking prospectively from that point in time this very young team achieved so much it was hard not to think they were going to be perennial contender and even a dynasty.
It’s a bit like how the Wolves are now. At their absolute best, they might be the best team in basketball and are “loaded” with tons of potential. But if this year is the highest mark they achieve we will look back at it like they were never really a legitimate threat.
I’m from Jersey and rooted for those Nets teams - there was absolutely no one who thought they were a match for the best teams out West, and thought it was a minor miracle they took SAS to 6 games. Kittles/Jefferson were both overmatched by the best wings, and KMart was exposed by the better PFs in the league before he left for DEN and injuries derailed his career.
MIN better hope they have a better outcome than those NJN teams.
Underrated part of this question is that Nash would be even better now because he’d shoot a bunch more (very efficient)3s.
In other words, prime Nash is better in a game7 right now because of what we know about 3s while prime Kidd doesn’t get better (nothing against Kidd, he’s awesome). I think that pushes Nash over Kidd.
You can’t project that shooters would keep their efficiency if they were to triple their shot load lol. Do you think Kyle Korver would have been better than Steph Curry if he attempted more threes?
Huge mash fan and I agree with you to an extent. People blindly scaling up his 3pt percentage aren’t right. Though I don’t fully agree with if he could do it he would have done it. I don’t think steph would have done it back then, the game had a different view of the 3 ball
He also constantly got dudes on his back at the top of the key, he was so shifty. And would dribble under the basket constantly. From there he could either score or draw in the d and lob to a big.
I don’t think people realize how often he was in the paint making shit happen. His style of play would be ridiculous in today’s game.
I'd actually argue he was a better mid range shooter. Curry has him beta badly on all threes but especially off the ball scoring. Nash was effective offball but it wasn't a significant part of his game at all
Prime Kidd does get better. He gets to play on teams that have a lot more spacing in ge real. Nash would be allowed to shoot more 3s, but he'd also
1.) Be guarded a lot tighter behind the arc consistently.
2.) Be targeted a lot more defensively by switch heavy teams.
Imagine a team with a strong wing like Dallas, Boston, etc. Getting a switch onto Nash.
Kidd developed his 3 pointer though. With modern training, he might have been better. At the end of his career he was a decent shooter.
I’ll go the other way and say his perimeter defense is more valuable now. Guarding against mid range jumpers made him less valuable back then.
Kidd developed into a good 3 point shooter midway through his career. His last 10 years in the league he was hitting them at 37% which was really good was his volume during that era. He retired as top 3 all time for 3 pointers made.
Kidd is basically a better passing version of Jrue Holiday. You want Jason Kidd, he'll get you a stop on the point of attack and that could win you the game.
Nash could never play D.
Nash is a pretty superior player in really every aspect of the game. Not sure how there is an argument here
Nash was a slightly less flashy passer and dribbler but objectively way more efficient at shooting, passing, and playmaking essentially his entire career
The one issue with this question is Jason Kidd wasn't a shooter in his prime. His three point shot developed late in his career. I think the modern NBA has become something where its very hard to win at the highest levels if your lead ballhandler is a poor outside shooter unless he is Lebron James.
Meanwhile, it is easier to hide a bad defender like Nash because you can often stash him on a so so shooter. Yeah, he will still get hunted on the pick and roll but its still easier to hide him nonetheless.
So go with Nash.
It’s Nash for me, but close given Kidd’s defense and rebounding.
Btw Kidd played in 1 game 7: 2004 ECS at Pistons, the eventual champs. 0 points on 0-8 with 7 assists in 42 mins. Minus 19.
By game 7 in 2004 Kidd’s knee was busted and he shouldn’t even have been on the floor. He had surgery immediately after and spent the summer rehabbing. I’ve always wondered what the outcome would have been if the Nets had a healthy Kidd through the playoffs that year.
I'll never forget Steve's best chance to go to the finals series tied 2-2 in the western conference finals vs the Mavs and Nash went 5/17 29 % and shit the bed. Was his biggest game to date and just a big no show. Never understood the hype for Nash man. Even when he was with Dallas when it was game 6 in the Western conference finals down 3-2 to the Spurs he went 3/10 and played so poorly it wasn't even funny. Pretty odd you would say a a game where Kidd wouldn't show up when that was Nash's entire playoff performances lol
It would depend on who they have to guard because Kidd was elite on defense and Nash was not. If it was John Paxson or Derek Fisher, I'd probably take Nash. If it was Tony Parker or Kyrie, I'd take Kidd
I worry a lot about Nash's defense overall though he would get hunted a lot no matter who he was guarding by some teams probably. The way the modern game is played teams would just try to get him switched on to a good scorer a lot via even guard to guard pick and rolls
Can’t go wrong with either.
BUT! Nelly Furtado named dropped Nash on a song. Nelly named dropped Kidd on a song.
Hot in Here was a better song to me. So Kidd
Defense usually is the decider in game 7s, so I’d take Kidd for that alone. It’s extremely close. For a full series I might take Nash. He was just such a consistent source of efficient offense.
Nash is a level above Kidd. But if you are asking, same level of talent teams (including them), and in one Kidd runs point, the other Nash, then its Kidds team for sure. Nash fumbles when its late, he’s tired, there’s a change of pace, slowing the game down, and he goes derp.
As it is a finals game 7, the teams are balanced… so Kidd is the aswer.
Nash. He would be more versatile for today’s NBA with how its expanded to become outside-in rather than inside-out. Both could provide unbelievable passes with their intelligence and vision, but Nash’s ability to shoot would be required in today’s NBA
Pretty sure this wouldn't be a comparison if Tim Donaghy didn't literally rig the Spurs series and Nash got his fmvp. There are other series' out there with speculations of favorable officiating, but 07 a ref was actually convicted and outed several other refs in a tell-all, if this were the Lakers instead of the Spurs on the other end of it we'd never hear the end. That series was the real finals, the Deron lead utah team were paper tigers a la those 60 win al horford lead Hawks teams of the 10's- but probably worse, and then you had baby Lebron in the finals who would have been an easy sweep for either team. It's funny how Nash could still play the exact same way, strengths and faults and all, but with that slight hardware adjustments we'd be talking about him flirting with \~top 12 all time instead of top 20-30 range.
edit: to answer the op, it's Nash as far as the modern era goes. He'd be incredibly easy to build around in this day and age. Nash was a guy who was getting around 50/40/90's, Kidd would shoot under 40% a lot of seasons but made up for it with hardnosed, physical defense which is still important but has lost a lot of its value in the modern game esp from the pg spot.
I think Nash takes this one. In his prime, Kidd couldn’t shoot, while Nash was absolutely deadly from just about anywhere on the court. Nash could run and gun but run a half court offense if that’s what the game called for. The biggest knock on Nash was his defense, though not for lack of effort or knowledge, more so because of his physical limitations. With the right personnel and defense scheme, Nash could easily be an average or above average defender (see Steph Curry).
TL;DR, slight edge to Nash because easier to hide someone on defense, but can’t hide lack of shooting, which is especially important in today’s game.
Nash and it's not close. Two reasons: first, Kidd wasn't a threat on offense. In today's game, teams would hide their worst defender on him and sag off him to run passing lanes and strip big men. Nash wasn't a good defender but by the time he was winning MVPs, his D was mediocre, which is enough.
Second, and the easier comparison. If you swap them, the Nets still go to the Finals and the Suns are significantly worse. Nash can make the same passes Kidd makes and that Nets D would clean up a lot of defensive mistakes. The other Suns were so successful because Nash had so much gravity both with and without the ball that Amare didn't get doubled, or if he did, they would bring Marion's guy even if it caused worse rotations.
Give me the more reliable shooting and half court offense in Nash. If you are in desperate need of a bucket, I would rather Nash to get the shot himself more efficiently.
I'd also trust that the team Nash made the Finals with has decent enough defenders to get there in the first place. Kidd's defense is leaps and bounds ahead of Nash (obviously), but at the end of the day, I would expect more scoring opportunities throughout the duration of the entire game than some pick-6 TOs induced by Kidd.
Can i combine late career Kidds shooting with prime Kidds everything else? Otherwise, probably Nash and deal with whatever defensive struggle i might encounter as it comes
Jason Kidd was an absolute elite defender, among the best to ever play defense at the point guard position, in addition to being a passing genius. I gotta take Kidd just for his impact on all aspects of the game.
It might depend on the team but assuming it's an equivalent team and relatively balanced with some star level players around the PG, but no all time greats, I'd probably rather have Nash for the offensive output.
I firmly believe that neither of these two are good enough to be the best player on a championship winning team. Kidd made the finals twice cause the East was horrible but he got swept once and then played badly against the Spurs. Nash never made the finals.
With that assumption in mind, if neither of them is the best player on the team i'm going with Kidd. Nash's shooting gets praised a lot but Kidd's defense was equally valuable. He was also significantly better in general without the ball. Nash was pretty much useless once the ball wasn't in his hands whereas Kidd was constantly still dictating his teams offense and directing plays and calling out reads on both offense and defense while basically acting as a coach on the floor whenever he wasn't holding the ball.
People also really forget how insane Kidd's defense was. He was basically a slightly better Jrue Holiday on defense while also giving you top 5 all time playmaking and passing along and a solid 16ppg. He wasn't a good shooter til later in his career but by the time he was in NJ which was his peak he was already good enough so that you couldn't leave him open (34% on 5 attempts per game) and he wasn't afraid to shoot.
I will admit the suns maybe were never the best team in the west considering who they had to compete with. Kidd made the finals where his best teammate was Kieth Van Horn, he left the team that offseason and they went back. He did this between Iverson and lebron making it to the finals once each, people genuinely believe that was shinning moments in Iverson’s entire career and lebron first tenure in Cleveland. It’s weird to me that kidd never gets the credit for doing it twice.
I’m taking Kidd. I don’t know, just always seems like when you have two equally good options, it’s generally better to take the more well rounded option
Nash for me. He was my favorite non-Laker of all time, and when his back couldn’t hold up for us, I still appreciated his career.
Kidd was the best assistant coach, and I would love to see him get his ring this year. But as a player, I just don’t favor him in this matchup.
Nash is the pick unless you already have some crazy offensive synergy going on. Especially in the modern game, Nash would be jacking up 12 threes a game and and absolutely dissecting defenses with his penetration moves.
In a Game 7 in the Finals there’s no way I’d allow a defensive black hole on the court, no matter how great an offensive player you are. The only reason the Mavs got to the Finals this year is because both Luka and Kyrie bought into the defensive schemes and had decent defense. Nash just couldn’t defend. Kidd for me for sure.
Depends on the team..if I have a defensive team and need offense Nash. If I have shooters and need distributor then Kidd
They were both opposing Archetypes for point guards and Steve Nash was the beginning of the combo guard of high paced offense that we see today. But boy!!! Jason Kidd gave you a SHOW! J Kidd mad Kenyon Martin look like Shaq!
[удалено]
Was that the year Stoudemire averaged like 36ppg against prime Tim Duncan in the playoffs?
Our gameplan was to let Amare score and clamp down on everyone else. It worked.
The game plan was to have an aging Robert Horry hip check Nash into the scorer's table and accidentally getting Amare suspended the next game for taking one step onto the court to look at what the heck just happened.
[удалено]
Yeah run and trap is the beginning of lob city.
you can't trap a high IQ pg
[удалено]
I think the difference is that Stoudermire himself was a great player to begin with. He was a top 10 player in the league before getting injured in NY without Nash whereas K-Mart was a solid high level role player who Kidd made look like an All Star.
Man if Amare didn't get injured I feel like him and Melo would've did some dmg... He was putting up crazy numbers on a NY team dat had been trash damn near da whole 2000s lol
That team with Novak and Prigioni was fun
Novak was an absolute MONSTER in that era of 2k lol. Most stats in that game didn't matter except like 3 pt shooting and speed. If only it were like that for him in real life. I haven't thought about Steve Novak in yrs lol
I still can’t believe his dumbass punched glass and fucked himself up in a winnable series
He was definitely a dumbass for punching glass but there was no shot in hell that series vs. the 2012 Heat was winnable for the Knicks even with Amare lol.
Carmelo Anthony was never going to win in his prime. Some guys are just like that. Glenn Robinson technically has a ring as a benchwarmer with the Spurs, but he was the same way.
Similar games for sure.
Payton and Kemp were no slouches.
The difference is that Amare was the best PF in the league behind Duncan and KG. Having Nash for sure helped, but his best year was his first in NY where his point guard was Raymond Felton and 34 year old Chauncey Billups. Kidd went to back to back finals with significantly less help than Nash. Also, one was a 9 time all defense, and the other was Steve Nash, which is probably why they were a fantastic regular season team.
Dirk would have something to say about that.
It's so funny when you guys use context but only one way. The East was really fucking weak during Kidd's appearances and Nash defeated far stronger teams. Amare was so good? Is that why they still won 54 games with him playing 3? The Suns even without Amare were still more impressive than the Nets beating on the lowest the East has ever been aside from the years where people were still figuring out what the rules should be.
I think you're proving my point that Nash had a much better team that they could lose their second best player and still win. Your point completely ignored that Amare had his best year after he left PHX. In those 2 years for Kidd, they beat the Celtics twice who averaged 47 wins and swept the 50 win Pistons who would win the title the next season. Yes the east was weak. The Nets also weren't far and away better than any of the teams they beat those 2 years. Those same years, Nash's team beat the Kings (lost in 02 won in 03), Timberwolves, and the Jailblazers. The West was top-heavy af back then. In 02, the difference in wins from the 1 seed to the 8 seed was 10 games in the East and 17 games in the West. In 03, 1 seed-8 seed was 8 games in the East and 16 games in the West (with 2 60 win teams and a 59 win team).
Or he’s simply implying that Nash elevated the whole team to a point that they could hit 54 wins despite Amare’s absence. You can try to look at it either way - 1) the team support was strong even behind Amare or 2) Nash was good enough to make a meh team rack up 54 wins on his own. Take your blinders off, man. Lol
I love him to death but Nash having two mvps always makes me chuckle.
Miami had lob city for a year when LeBron first got there.
That’s a fact! Shaun Marion was unstoppable! Two things could be true 😀
This. This was fun to watch basketball. I was a fan. I then moved to San Antonio. Isn’t ironic.
Kidd was the reason the Knicks won a couple of games in the 49-win season with Amare that was past his prime. Even as he got older, he had a big impact on games. Defense and rebounding wins rings. That is why he has one, and Steve doesn't.
Just to clarify - Kidd mentored Nash in Phoenix
Great answer - all these who’s better debates between greats really just comes down to who are the other players on your team and who fits the need of the team as both players are great by themselves and it’s just a matter of fit vs skill
I’ll take the guy with actual finals experience https://preview.redd.it/4y7ulttw3t3d1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d392d777f38c7196c801f91da664f57f25db7edc
Oooohhhhh
Do whatever you want, but prime Kidd’s teams were 2-8 in the finals, so his experience consisted of getting smoked. He didn’t win one until he was 37 and well past prime.
But 37 year old kidd hit 3s at a 40% clip. And still could defend bigger guards. Your selling 2011 kidd short
Plus he became an excellent defender.
Kidd was always a good defender
What was Nash’s record in the finals?
I get it but everyone in the world understood that the East was not close to the West at that time. Personally I don’t think just getting there and shitting the bed puts Kidd above Nash. If someone wants to argue Kidd’s defense and rebounding make him more valuable in the playoffs, that makes a lot more sense to me.
I'll take the guy with MVPs
Medias Valuable Player
Maybe just ask Dirk who’s better.
what kinda logic is this lol. distributing to 3pt shooters is also offense. and nash was better at it than kidd.
But Kid could do both, he was a pass first pg ofc, but he could score when needed. Kidd was a better defender too.
He couldn’t really “score when needed” though. Kidd was a disastrous shooter for most of his career and definitely through his prime. Of his first 13 or so years in the league, he was above league average TS% just twice, and on pretty low volume too. Called Ason Kidd for a reason. The gap in their scoring is monstrous, and a weak point like that is absolutely getting game planned today.
And Nash was notoriously 50:40:90 lol
The kids don’t remember ‘Ason’ Kidd lmao
The issue with this arguement is you are cherry picking an older Jason Kidd on extremely low volume and adding that to his prime distributor self When we take different peaks of players it’s moot. Lebron is easily the goat if you give him old man Lebron playmaking and experience into his first Cavs body. But that would be dumb
A couple things: * I've been a Mavs fan since 2000 * I watched both their primes * I love both these men as players and for what they did for the franchise You can't go wrong with either, but gun to my head I'd go with the 2-time MVP in Nash. It's not his fault his teams didn't go all the way when he had to face Kobe/Shaq, Duncan and Dirk every year.
But to be fair, kidd dragged an awful nets teams to two finals, and won in Dallas.
The 2002 East was bad, really really bad.
I agree, but then in 2003 they somehow still brought the Spurs to six games, and it was damn near going to seven. They were a 30 win team without him, then back to back finals. He made Kenyon Martin look great lol.
I just looked up that finals. In the six games, only the Spurs scored 90+ in a game and they only did it twice. Jesus
Old rules man. It was a different game.
I miss those low scoring grind it out games. Every basket meant a little more
The Nets were 26 wins with Stephon Marbury, then Kidd came and turned them around 360 degrees.
Back to 26 wins?
Supposedly what Kidd said when he was traded to the Nets back in 2001. Maths was probably not his strength.
Doing it twice tho? Still impressive.
For sure. Nash however went to 4 conference finals in the west (3 as the best player). 03, 05, 06, 10. He lost in 6 to the 03 spurs and the greatest version of the greatest power forward ever, lost in 5 to the same team (possibly now even better with the emergence of their young talent), took Dirk and co to 7, and the Kobe/Pau back to back champions to 6. All after beating daunting west teams to get there.
Lost in 2010 because dumbass Jason Richardson couldn't box out
In those series he didn't always play great and a lot of why they lost has to be put on him. 05 he shot 22% from 3 10 he shot 27% from 3 People also like to forget how poor of a defender he was and won't admit that had something to do with his lack of success. His college coach said he was the worst defender he'd ever seen. Only in his second year was he a + 0.3 defender. Every other year he was in the negatives. He even had a year with negative defensive win shares.
I think you may be a bit misguided on why those Suns lost those series. You’re mentioning solely 3pt% in an era where 3pt volume wasn’t significant enough to affect most players efficiency. In 2005, the #1 defense Spurs had a 98.8 DRTG and allowed 45.2 eFG% from opponents. The Suns in their playoff series had a 114 ORTG and Nash himself had a 53.3 eFG%. Those are fantastic offensive results! In 2010 vs the Lakers, Nash at the ripe age of 35 and the team were even better on offense albeit against a weaker defensive team. Nash typically elevated his game in the playoffs; it’s hard to make a case that he let them down there. The biggest issue was the team defense, which Nash was a part of for sure. But Stoudemire is possibly the worst defensive player of all time (accounting for minutes played and his role as a big man), he was that bad. A better defensive PG is not fixing that issue for those Suns teams.
Weren’t they a 49 win team that year? Sheesh
I just looked at that 2002 C’s roster and DAMN you weren’t kidding
East was weak AF then. You had losing teams in the playoffs. Real championship games were in the West Finals those years, lol.
Weren’t those Nets teams fairly loaded? Prime Kmart and Jefferson, Kittles was decent, Van Horn was a top pick and serviceable. Seems like they even had Mutombo anchoring the D in 03
“Loaded” is a bit strong - they had good balance on the roster especially in ‘03 but the Mutombo trade cost them Van Horn. Outside of Kidd, KMart was the only one to make an All-Star team (which he did once), and the others were never top-5 at their position, nor a top-20 guy in the league during the Nets run or after. The East was just so bad those years.
This is with hindsight though. When looking prospectively from that point in time this very young team achieved so much it was hard not to think they were going to be perennial contender and even a dynasty. It’s a bit like how the Wolves are now. At their absolute best, they might be the best team in basketball and are “loaded” with tons of potential. But if this year is the highest mark they achieve we will look back at it like they were never really a legitimate threat.
I’m from Jersey and rooted for those Nets teams - there was absolutely no one who thought they were a match for the best teams out West, and thought it was a minor miracle they took SAS to 6 games. Kittles/Jefferson were both overmatched by the best wings, and KMart was exposed by the better PFs in the league before he left for DEN and injuries derailed his career. MIN better hope they have a better outcome than those NJN teams.
Nash never played Kobe & Shaq as the #1 guy. Him & Amare lost to Kobe & Pau
why Kobe/shaq? Afaik Nash had never face Shaq in playoffs?
Maybe he meant having Shaq on his team since the big Shaqtus wouldn’t run and gun 🤣🤣🤣
Underrated part of this question is that Nash would be even better now because he’d shoot a bunch more (very efficient)3s. In other words, prime Nash is better in a game7 right now because of what we know about 3s while prime Kidd doesn’t get better (nothing against Kidd, he’s awesome). I think that pushes Nash over Kidd.
Makes you wonder. Nash was a 43% career 3 point shooter who peaked at about 4.5 attempts per game. If he took more he would have basically been Curry.
It would probably look like 38% on 10 attempts per game
You can’t project that shooters would keep their efficiency if they were to triple their shot load lol. Do you think Kyle Korver would have been better than Steph Curry if he attempted more threes?
u/[9yearoldsoliderN99](https://www.reddit.com/user/9yearoldsoliderN99/) YES!
If Nash could shoot like Curry, he would've done it. He picked when he shot his 3 for a reason.
Huge mash fan and I agree with you to an extent. People blindly scaling up his 3pt percentage aren’t right. Though I don’t fully agree with if he could do it he would have done it. I don’t think steph would have done it back then, the game had a different view of the 3 ball
Basically been Curry???? Come on now.
Nash didn’t have the scoring arsenal of curry.
He was quicker than we remember, and got to the basket a lot.
He also constantly got dudes on his back at the top of the key, he was so shifty. And would dribble under the basket constantly. From there he could either score or draw in the d and lob to a big. I don’t think people realize how often he was in the paint making shit happen. His style of play would be ridiculous in today’s game.
Dribbling around in the paint like that they call ‘Nashing’ these days.
I'd actually argue he was a better mid range shooter. Curry has him beta badly on all threes but especially off the ball scoring. Nash was effective offball but it wasn't a significant part of his game at all
Prime Kidd does get better. He gets to play on teams that have a lot more spacing in ge real. Nash would be allowed to shoot more 3s, but he'd also 1.) Be guarded a lot tighter behind the arc consistently. 2.) Be targeted a lot more defensively by switch heavy teams. Imagine a team with a strong wing like Dallas, Boston, etc. Getting a switch onto Nash.
Kidd developed his 3 pointer though. With modern training, he might have been better. At the end of his career he was a decent shooter. I’ll go the other way and say his perimeter defense is more valuable now. Guarding against mid range jumpers made him less valuable back then.
Kidd developed into a good 3 point shooter midway through his career. His last 10 years in the league he was hitting them at 37% which was really good was his volume during that era. He retired as top 3 all time for 3 pointers made.
Kidd is basically a better passing version of Jrue Holiday. You want Jason Kidd, he'll get you a stop on the point of attack and that could win you the game. Nash could never play D.
wouldn’t nash be hunted relentlessly on switches though?
Nash is a pretty superior player in really every aspect of the game. Not sure how there is an argument here Nash was a slightly less flashy passer and dribbler but objectively way more efficient at shooting, passing, and playmaking essentially his entire career
The one issue with this question is Jason Kidd wasn't a shooter in his prime. His three point shot developed late in his career. I think the modern NBA has become something where its very hard to win at the highest levels if your lead ballhandler is a poor outside shooter unless he is Lebron James. Meanwhile, it is easier to hide a bad defender like Nash because you can often stash him on a so so shooter. Yeah, he will still get hunted on the pick and roll but its still easier to hide him nonetheless. So go with Nash.
Bron shooting 40% now
Nets era Kidd? Probably Nash. Suns era Kidd? Also Nash.
It’s Nash for me, but close given Kidd’s defense and rebounding. Btw Kidd played in 1 game 7: 2004 ECS at Pistons, the eventual champs. 0 points on 0-8 with 7 assists in 42 mins. Minus 19.
Got clamped by Mr Big Shot and couldn't keep pace with Rip Hamilton
I really thought the Nets were going to win that series when they went up 3-2 in that double overtime game 5 iirc
By game 7 in 2004 Kidd’s knee was busted and he shouldn’t even have been on the floor. He had surgery immediately after and spent the summer rehabbing. I’ve always wondered what the outcome would have been if the Nets had a healthy Kidd through the playoffs that year.
Nash. I don’t need the classic Kidd playoff game where he shoots like 35% from the field
I'll never forget Steve's best chance to go to the finals series tied 2-2 in the western conference finals vs the Mavs and Nash went 5/17 29 % and shit the bed. Was his biggest game to date and just a big no show. Never understood the hype for Nash man. Even when he was with Dallas when it was game 6 in the Western conference finals down 3-2 to the Spurs he went 3/10 and played so poorly it wasn't even funny. Pretty odd you would say a a game where Kidd wouldn't show up when that was Nash's entire playoff performances lol
Give me Nash, since he can actually score. Especially in the modern NBA, where Kidd's defense is not nearly as valuable.
It would depend on who they have to guard because Kidd was elite on defense and Nash was not. If it was John Paxson or Derek Fisher, I'd probably take Nash. If it was Tony Parker or Kyrie, I'd take Kidd I worry a lot about Nash's defense overall though he would get hunted a lot no matter who he was guarding by some teams probably. The way the modern game is played teams would just try to get him switched on to a good scorer a lot via even guard to guard pick and rolls
Can’t go wrong with either. BUT! Nelly Furtado named dropped Nash on a song. Nelly named dropped Kidd on a song. Hot in Here was a better song to me. So Kidd
Nash
Nash. He was the better passer and wayy better shooter.
Nash.
Nash if the offense has been struggling, Kidd if you need more defense and toughness
Kidd
I like a good show Jason Kidd made sure you were glued to the TV to see what’s about to happen! THE LOBS FOR ME
Nash. Way better shooter and scorer and still distributes as well (if not better, actually).
I’d say Nash, no knock on Kidd at all. But Nash threat of shooting your eyes out I think would be a bigger threat and spread tha floor more
NASH
All these people forgetting Nash was a 2x MVP.
Inevitably, they'll end up at the FT line in the final minutes. Give me the guy who shot 90.4% over the guy who shot 78.5%.
Nash.
nash
I’ll take the x2 MVP, Steve Nash!!!!
Nash every time
I'll take Rashard Lewis
I’ll never get over Steve Nash never making it to the finals smh!!! That Suns team deserved 😩 My answer is Nash
Kidd for defense.
Defense usually is the decider in game 7s, so I’d take Kidd for that alone. It’s extremely close. For a full series I might take Nash. He was just such a consistent source of efficient offense.
Nash, both played in dallas and phx, but nash is more successful on both teams. Except the 2011 stint of kidd
Couldn’t have chose a better picture of my boy Nash? Smh
Nash
Nash
Nash is a level above Kidd. But if you are asking, same level of talent teams (including them), and in one Kidd runs point, the other Nash, then its Kidds team for sure. Nash fumbles when its late, he’s tired, there’s a change of pace, slowing the game down, and he goes derp. As it is a finals game 7, the teams are balanced… so Kidd is the aswer.
Nash
Nash because he can shoot.
I think Nash is better, but I think for a game 7, it might have to be Kidd because of his defense.
1 game? Gotta go with the better scorer, I’ll take my chances on Nash going for 30 and 15
Love them both but is Kidd's game the truth or is he just talking trash? Is his game MVP like Steve Nash?
Nash. He would be more versatile for today’s NBA with how its expanded to become outside-in rather than inside-out. Both could provide unbelievable passes with their intelligence and vision, but Nash’s ability to shoot would be required in today’s NBA
Nash and I don't think it's particularly close. Kidd was good but he wasn't change-the-league good.
Nash, and it’s not close
Pretty sure this wouldn't be a comparison if Tim Donaghy didn't literally rig the Spurs series and Nash got his fmvp. There are other series' out there with speculations of favorable officiating, but 07 a ref was actually convicted and outed several other refs in a tell-all, if this were the Lakers instead of the Spurs on the other end of it we'd never hear the end. That series was the real finals, the Deron lead utah team were paper tigers a la those 60 win al horford lead Hawks teams of the 10's- but probably worse, and then you had baby Lebron in the finals who would have been an easy sweep for either team. It's funny how Nash could still play the exact same way, strengths and faults and all, but with that slight hardware adjustments we'd be talking about him flirting with \~top 12 all time instead of top 20-30 range. edit: to answer the op, it's Nash as far as the modern era goes. He'd be incredibly easy to build around in this day and age. Nash was a guy who was getting around 50/40/90's, Kidd would shoot under 40% a lot of seasons but made up for it with hardnosed, physical defense which is still important but has lost a lot of its value in the modern game esp from the pg spot.
Can we not with that picture of Nash?
Nash 100
It’s Nash.
I think Nash takes this one. In his prime, Kidd couldn’t shoot, while Nash was absolutely deadly from just about anywhere on the court. Nash could run and gun but run a half court offense if that’s what the game called for. The biggest knock on Nash was his defense, though not for lack of effort or knowledge, more so because of his physical limitations. With the right personnel and defense scheme, Nash could easily be an average or above average defender (see Steph Curry). TL;DR, slight edge to Nash because easier to hide someone on defense, but can’t hide lack of shooting, which is especially important in today’s game.
Jason Kidd beat the shit out of his wife and spit on his kid so fuck him.
Haters will disagree and say Iverson or Thomas, but IMO, Nash is the best tiny player ever
I'd rank them: 1) Nash 2) Rashard Lewis 3) Kidd
I'm taking Kidd
Nash and it's not close. Two reasons: first, Kidd wasn't a threat on offense. In today's game, teams would hide their worst defender on him and sag off him to run passing lanes and strip big men. Nash wasn't a good defender but by the time he was winning MVPs, his D was mediocre, which is enough. Second, and the easier comparison. If you swap them, the Nets still go to the Finals and the Suns are significantly worse. Nash can make the same passes Kidd makes and that Nets D would clean up a lot of defensive mistakes. The other Suns were so successful because Nash had so much gravity both with and without the ball that Amare didn't get doubled, or if he did, they would bring Marion's guy even if it caused worse rotations.
Give me the more reliable shooting and half court offense in Nash. If you are in desperate need of a bucket, I would rather Nash to get the shot himself more efficiently. I'd also trust that the team Nash made the Finals with has decent enough defenders to get there in the first place. Kidd's defense is leaps and bounds ahead of Nash (obviously), but at the end of the day, I would expect more scoring opportunities throughout the duration of the entire game than some pick-6 TOs induced by Kidd.
The one that got his team to the Finals twice. This shouldn't even be a discussion. They are different tiers of player.
The player who won a chip
I’ll take the guy that’s actually won a championship
And got there three times. These kids are dumb as hell.
Can i combine late career Kidds shooting with prime Kidds everything else? Otherwise, probably Nash and deal with whatever defensive struggle i might encounter as it comes
I seriously thought the picture on the right was Caitlin Clark lol
Sorry off topic but shoutout Rashard Lewis
Jason Kidd was an absolute elite defender, among the best to ever play defense at the point guard position, in addition to being a passing genius. I gotta take Kidd just for his impact on all aspects of the game.
Why not both? Suns should have done it.
Give me Rashard Lewis
One of these point guards has a chip. The other one has a hairy chest
Rashard Lewis in the background
It might depend on the team but assuming it's an equivalent team and relatively balanced with some star level players around the PG, but no all time greats, I'd probably rather have Nash for the offensive output.
I firmly believe that neither of these two are good enough to be the best player on a championship winning team. Kidd made the finals twice cause the East was horrible but he got swept once and then played badly against the Spurs. Nash never made the finals. With that assumption in mind, if neither of them is the best player on the team i'm going with Kidd. Nash's shooting gets praised a lot but Kidd's defense was equally valuable. He was also significantly better in general without the ball. Nash was pretty much useless once the ball wasn't in his hands whereas Kidd was constantly still dictating his teams offense and directing plays and calling out reads on both offense and defense while basically acting as a coach on the floor whenever he wasn't holding the ball. People also really forget how insane Kidd's defense was. He was basically a slightly better Jrue Holiday on defense while also giving you top 5 all time playmaking and passing along and a solid 16ppg. He wasn't a good shooter til later in his career but by the time he was in NJ which was his peak he was already good enough so that you couldn't leave him open (34% on 5 attempts per game) and he wasn't afraid to shoot.
I dont think I saw this prime Jason Kidd cuz I remember Nash being better but I did t start watching until 2007-2008
I will admit the suns maybe were never the best team in the west considering who they had to compete with. Kidd made the finals where his best teammate was Kieth Van Horn, he left the team that offseason and they went back. He did this between Iverson and lebron making it to the finals once each, people genuinely believe that was shinning moments in Iverson’s entire career and lebron first tenure in Cleveland. It’s weird to me that kidd never gets the credit for doing it twice.
Nash
The one with a ring, and top two in assists and steals all time.
Jason Kidd, I'm a bit biased because he's my favorite player of all-time
Nash for me.
Jason Kidd
The two-time MVP, of course
It’s Nash, not that close. Loved kid too but it’s Nash.
Nash
Nash all day
Nash
I’m taking Kidd. I don’t know, just always seems like when you have two equally good options, it’s generally better to take the more well rounded option
Nash for me. He was my favorite non-Laker of all time, and when his back couldn’t hold up for us, I still appreciated his career. Kidd was the best assistant coach, and I would love to see him get his ring this year. But as a player, I just don’t favor him in this matchup.
One has a championship one does not
Nash
Jason Kidd.
Nash
Kidd on the 2011 mavs was amazing
Rashard Lewis 💯💯💯
Kidd, not close, he terrorized on defense
Kidd….defense edge
Nash is the pick unless you already have some crazy offensive synergy going on. Especially in the modern game, Nash would be jacking up 12 threes a game and and absolutely dissecting defenses with his penetration moves.
In a Game 7 in the Finals there’s no way I’d allow a defensive black hole on the court, no matter how great an offensive player you are. The only reason the Mavs got to the Finals this year is because both Luka and Kyrie bought into the defensive schemes and had decent defense. Nash just couldn’t defend. Kidd for me for sure.
Nash all the way especially in todays NBA
Derrick rose
Kidd, he won the finals as a #2 option
Kidd took teams, multiple, to the Finals.
Uh… the 2x mvp probably
Jason Kidd plays defense.
Tony Parker
They're both elite, I would pick nash. He was more athletic and I remember fearing him against my team vs kidd.
Nash. I already know Kidd couldn’t make it to 7.
Nash. He redefined the offense.
J Kidd
Nash
Nash is my favorite pg of all time but I’d have to go with Kidd because he can provide more on the defensive end.