Steve Nash VS Jason Kidd: Who Was BETTER?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ธ.ค. 2017
- Steve Nash and Jason Kidd are two of the best point guards of this century. They had very similar playstyles and their careers also played out pretty similarly. But who was the better player?
I create a variety of NBA vidoes ranging from comparisons to countdowns to interesting stories. So if you enjoy this video and wanna see more just like it, make sure to like and subscribe!
►Twitter: @NateTheHooperYT
►Music:
-Instrumental was made by Chuki Beats ( / chukimusic )
-Outro: Ice Flow by Kevin MacLeod - กีฬา
J Kidd brought back a dead team to life
Brought back more than one dead team back to life.
So did nash
So did Nash
@@terrancemitchell9027I feel like nash would fit perfect more than jason kidd in this era of basketball
Nash did the exact same thing, and actually helped that team win more games in a stacked western conference.
Whereas Kidd's best team won 52 games in the weakest eastern conference in NBA history.
Nash is one of the best player I ever see
I think Kidd was the better player, but let's not discredit Nash's impact on the game. Seven seconds or less and today's NBA game would not have happened without Nash and the Suns' incredible years from 04-05 to his last years there. They changed the league. Kidd played the game the right way; Nash changed it.
Also wanted to add, even in that New York season, Knicks finished 4th in the East. Huge improvement from earlier seasons. And when Kidd left, they dropped back down to a lower record.
2nd in the East
They gave up in that playoffs. I was rooting for 💙🍊 for the first time ever
The exact same thing happened to the Suns.
Also look at this, with a Nash team, you had a 25% probability of winning 60+ games a season in the western conference. With Kidd you had a 16% probability of the Nets team winning 50+ games in the eastern conference.
Nash helped the suns win an extra 32 games in the western conference, with mostly the same roster around him.
Kidd helped the Nets win an extra 26 games in the eastern conference, with a slightly better roster around him. i.e. richard jefferson > Kendall Gill
and Kerry Kittled > Aaron Williams.
Ironically, Stephon Marbury was on the Suns in 2004, and on the Nets in 2001 as the point guard of both teams.
Great Video!
If I had to assemble a starting line up and had to pick my PG first without knowing my other options for the other positions, I would go with Jason Kidd with no hesitation.
Raw vid you deserve more success
This channel underrated
Great analysis. Career Minutes per game was one I never thought of before. And didn't realize Kidd was 2nd behind Dirk in mpg on that champ season (late in his career too).
I think it's about even. Both were awesome at passing. Nash was better offensively Kidd was better defensively. Kidd had a big rebounding edge and Nash a big shooting edge. I'll take either one.
How many of Kidd's rebounds were contested?
Nash was superior in scoring by a little. However, he was so bad on defense it outweighs everything. Could even make a case they did not get to the finals because of this. Defense needs more than 1 category and you'd see Nash is much worse both on the ball and off the ball. Literally had to hide his ass for half the game. Because of this many pgs are better.
Facts his defense was awful they had to hide him
I don't think it was by a little on offence. It was by a damn lot.
He was a far more efficient scorer (50-40-90 club 4 times), and an even better passer than Kidd was.
Kidd made passes that made you go Wow!
Nash would make passes that made you go How?
@Jikjuka Amen, been saying this for years.
I'm from #brickcity aka Newark, NJ. I cannot say anyone in the world is a better passer than jkidd. I would say they are a push in the passing category. I think there was politics in nash winning back to back mvp's, even though he was spectacular those years. He definitely deserved one, but not two mvp's imo. I watched Jkidd almost single-handedly build my Nets, the bumbling fumbling Nets, into an exciting powerhouse those years. It was a show of will and excitement every game. Salute to steve nash and jason kidd, because they were incredible to watch every game. Great video! #brickcity
I love your comments!! Those were great seasons! If only Kidd had just a little more help, they could've beaten San Antonio!
And props to Kidd not pulling a Durant back then and signing with the Spurs, I know he was tempted to take the easier path to a title.
So glad to see him finish where he started and bring a ring to Dallas.
Spurs really didn't want Kidd. Ive seen players like Ray Allen still be loved by some after leaving for Miami. I really wish Kidd & Duncan would've played together. He still would've returned to Dallas in 2011 for that easy chip🏆
Spurs really didn't want Kidd. Ive seen players like Ray Allen still be loved by some after leaving for Miami. I really wish Kidd & Duncan would've played together. He still would've returned to Dallas in 2011 for that easy chip🏆
Nash had a better shot and fancier passer, kidd was a better driver and simple passing
Nash had a better handle, got more open looks for teammates than anyone in nba history and also joined the 50-40-90 club 4 times in his career.
Kidd was the better defender.
The best comparison of the two. I have J Kidd over Nash as well, by a hair.
The year Kidd made the finals, his team won 52 games. That's a great effort by him to make the Nets' team better. However, the opponents the Nets faced all had less than 50 wins that year, including the Pacers (44 wins), Hornets (44 wins) and Celtics (49 wins). On the other hand the western conference that year had 4 teams with more than 57 wins that were all better than the Nets.
The Kings were arguably the best team in the league that year, had it not been for crooked refs in the Lakers-Kings series.
Also Nash, similarly made poor teams good himself. And his prime started at age 30 playing with the Suns, as his passing skills had developed to an all-time high, combined with even better dribbling and shooting skills.
As a result, all his teammates became highly efficient scorers in D'Antoni's run-n-gun system lead by Steve Nash.
Also, the year before Nash joined the suns, they won just 29 games, with Marion, Stoudemire and Joe Johnson all on that squad, paired with Stephon Marbury.
Basically the suns gave up Marbury for Nash.
As a result Joe Johnson went from shooting 30% from 3 to 47% from 3. Stoudemire shot 47.5% to 56% from the field, And Marion went from 44% shooting to 47.6% shooting from the field.
And the Suns went from averaging 94 points per game to 110 points per game.
They did give up more points defenisvely. Going from 97.9 to 103.3.
Thus the net point differential between the two season added up to a an extra 11.6 points per game with Nash on the floor. (16-5.4)
Thus, trading Marbury for Nash essentially added an extra 11.6 points per game for the Suns.
Regarding the net impact of Kidd on the Nets from 2001-2002.
The Nets went from 92.1 to 96.2 points per game (+4.1) and points allowed 97.1 to 92 per game (+5.1) for a net point differential of 9.2 points per game with Kidd.
And if you adjust for the net difference in games won between the two teams.
Nets went from 26 wins to 52 wins. extra 26 wins.
Suns went from 29 wins to 62 wins. Extra 32 wins.
Also of note, Stoudemire was often considered the second best player on those suns teams.
However, in 2006 stoudemire only played 3 games. Yet the Suns still managed to win 55 games that year.
with a starting five primarily consisting of Nash, Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, Marion, and Kurt Thomas, and the Suns again managed to finish first in points per game with 108.4 points per game that season with a 102.8 points allowed per game.
for a net rating of (+5.6 points per game) which was just -0.7 lower than the previous year of a net point differential of (6.3 points per game).
Bear in mind as well that despite competing in a tougher conference, Nash with the Suns managed to win more than 50 games three seasons, and 60 wins twice out of the 8 seasons he played in phoenix.
Kidd on the other hand only had his nets win more than 50 games once in his tenure 6 and half year tenure with the nets.
So if you look at the 50+ win season win rate, Nash edged Kidd in that category as well with a 62.5% probability of winning 50+ games and a 25% probability of winning 60+ games.
Kidd on the other hand hand only had a 16.6% probability of his Nets teams winning more than 50 games. Remember this is also before adjusting for the difference in strength of the conference.
So basically in every statistical category, Nash has a higher net impact that Kidd.
If Nash had played in the eastern conference, with his team, I think there is little doubt that he would make the finals, and would also have a high probability of making the finals more than once, and most likely would make the finals more competitive, particularly considering that his teams often played in playoff series against the eventual finals champions or finals opponents multiple times. (including 2005 Spurs, 2006 Mavs, 2007 Spurs, 2010 Lakers). And save for 2005, where Joe Johnson suffered an orbital fracture that hampered the Suns in the 2005 spurs series, every series went to a minimum of 6 games, and Nash consistently performed well in those playoff games averaging 20,10 multiple times with 50% + shooting from the floor..
You NAILED IT! Now I don't have to make my own video!
But you forgot to mention that only John Stockton and Karl Malone are the only players in NBA history went to the playoffs for more consecutive seasons (18) than Jason Kidd's run of 17 straight playoff appearances. But Stockton and Malone always had a fellow Hall of Famer playing next to them. Kidd did this for most of his career by taking Lottery teams and immediately making them playoff teams and in his prime title contenders.
You also didn't give Kidd enough credit for doing it for a much longer... Nash wasn't even in the league when Kidd had 38/10/11 as a rookie in a double OT thriller against the Rockets. A young Jason Kidd had a couple of epic duels with Michael Jordan. A 38yo Jason Kidd played textbook defense against LeBron James, as he helped hold James to 17.8 ppg in the 2011 NBA Finals. He also led the all players in the playoffs that season in three-pointers made, assists, and steals, at 38 years old.
You did forget to mention how bad the Nets were before Kidd got there 26 wins to 52 wins. You also didn't mention that a good argument can be made that one or both of those Nets teams were the least talented supporting cast any NBA star has ever taken to the Finals.
You also forgot to mention how bad the Suns were before Kidd was traded there 1/3 into the season. The Suns started that season with 13 game losing streak prior to Kidd getting traded there during that season, they would go on to make the playoffs for the first time in Kidd's career. That Suns team is the only team in NBA history that had a double-digit losing streak (prior to Kidd trade) and a double-digit winning streak (after Kidd got there) in the same season. Instant impact just like with the Nets.
I contend that Kidd is the greatest point guard ever. If Kidd would have spent his whole career with the kind of talent that Magic Johnson had, then Kidd would have even more rings. Magic completely choked in one series against the Celtics, making mistakes that Jason Kidd would NEVER make in that situation. Kidd always played best when it mattered most, his ability to generate turnovers in crunch time was something stats don't show. You could even argue that on the 2011 Mavs the most clutch shots made in both the Finals and Conference Finals were Jason Kidd three-pointers.
Preach it sir, best point guard of all time. Not just better than Nash. So tired of him getting overlooked cause all the things you just mentioned take effort to notice. I believe he'd be recognized more if he wasn't so damn shy and humble.
It's because Kids was a defensive beast
That is extremely rich to say Kidd would have been better than Magic. Kidd was horrible in the clutch and would make costly turnovers at end of game situations in the playoffs.
I couldnt agree more
I remember when Kidd teamed up with Anfrony Hardaway ( Back in court 2000 as ESPN put it ). I watched all of Nash’s pro games and it’s not even close. Entertainment and success for the team.
Only category that nash has kidd beat in is scoring, everything else should go to kidd. Even though kidd never had a 11 assist season he still has more career assist which is more important. And in individual success nash should of never had back to back mvp’s. He deserved one of em but kobe was clearly robbed of the other
Naw nash deserved his shits but Kidd is a better passer only cuz he doesn't have controversy of bein a system player like Nash
Kobe's team finished 7th in the conference that year. There was no way he was getting it over Nash who finished 2nd in the conference that year without his 2nd best player Amare who was out for the year. As far as offensively go Nash beats Kidd rather easily. Nash was a better shooter, more clutch and a better passer(till this day I havn't seen passing as incredible and imaginitive as Nash) although not by much. Kidd got Nash beat defensively though.
Blueblur 22 “more clutch” yet he never won anything. Kidd was a triple double threat and was way better defensively. That is what separates both players
So because he never won anything that means he isn't clutch? By that logic I guess Reggie Miller wasn't clutch neither since he never won anything. That's a flawed logic unless you want to actually try and argue that Miller wasn't actually clutch. Other factors contributed to Suns never getting a ring not Nash's clutchness. Oh and it's important to remember that the only reason Kidd won a ring is because Dirk carried him.
As far as triple double threat goes, that's just an empty argument. Westbrook averaged a triple double twice does that mean he is the best pg in the league? Absolutely not because a triple double is worthless if it doesn't help you win. I will for one agree with you on the defense(which I believe I already stated). Kidd was a much better defender than Nash.
Blueblur 22 When comparing two pg of similar caliber then winning comes into play. He never made a finals appearance, kidd did before he won a chip with the mavs. He was important during that run, his playmaking and defense were great. The man was guarding LBJ sometimes and at his age. Except kidd was actually winning unlike russ. Numbers and accolades doesn’t lie, kidd has had the better career. 2nd all time assist > 3rd
U had good summary of their careers but your criteria for determining who was better is super flawed.
Kidd was better but nash had more wow years and played on the best team- suns, between the two of them.
Steve Nash was better but Jason Kidd was on a different level
Nash~
In this day and age of point guards I’d have to go with Steve nash bc of his ability to spread the floor
Yeah but Jason kiddand played defense he can pass the ball and he can get reboundsAnd he took the nets two back to back finals appearances Steve Nash has never played in the finals not to mention Jason Kidd is second in Passing of all timeAnd second and stealsHe also has a third most triple doubles of all time only behind Russell Westbrook andOscar Robertson Jason Kidd was a pretty good three point shooter later in his career in fact he was good enough to make the top 10 threes of all time
Kidd could play defense and bully smaller pg
j kidd is best comparing to nash..period
The year Kidd made the finals, his team won 52 games. That's a great effort by him to make the Nets' team better. However, the opponents the Nets faced all had less than 50 wins that year, including the Pacers (44 wins), Hornets (44 wins) and Celtics (49 wins). On the other hand the western conference that year had 4 teams with more than 57 wins that were all better than the Nets.
The Kings were arguably the best team in the league that year, had it not been for crooked refs in the Lakers-Kings series.
Also Nash, similarly made poor teams good himself. And his prime started at age 30 playing with the Suns, as his passing skills had developed to an all-time high, combined with even better dribbling and shooting skills.
As a result, all his teammates became highly efficient scorers in D'Antoni's run-n-gun system lead by Steve Nash.
Also, the year before Nash joined the suns, they won just 29 games, with Marion, Stoudemire and Joe Johnson all on that squad, paired with Stephon Marbury.
Basically the suns gave up Marbury for Nash.
As a result Joe Johnson went from shooting 30% from 3 to 47% from 3. Stoudemire shot 47.5% to 56% from the field, And Marion went from 44% shooting to 47.6% shooting from the field.
And the Suns went from averaging 94 points per game to 110 points per game.
They did give up more points defenisvely. Going from 97.9 to 103.3.
Thus the net point differential between the two season added up to a an extra 11.6 points per game with Nash on the floor. (16-5.4)
Thus, trading Marbury for Nash essentially added an extra 11.6 points per game for the Suns.
Regarding the net impact of Kidd on the Nets from 2001-2002.
The Nets went from 92.1 to 96.2 points per game (+4.1) and points allowed 97.1 to 92 per game (+5.1) for a net point differential of 9.2 points per game with Kidd.
And if you adjust for the net difference in games won between the two teams.
Nets went from 26 wins to 52 wins. extra 26 wins.
Suns went from 29 wins to 62 wins. Extra 32 wins.
Also of note, Stoudemire was often considered the second best player on those suns teams.
However, in 2006 stoudemire only played 3 games. Yet the Suns still managed to win 55 games that year.
with a starting five primarily consisting of Nash, Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, Marion, and Kurt Thomas, and the Suns again managed to finish first in points per game with 108.4 points per game that season with a 102.8 points allowed per game.
for a net rating of (+5.6 points per game) which was just -0.7 lower than the previous year of a net point differential of (6.3 points per game).
Bear in mind as well that despite competing in a tougher conference, Nash with the Suns managed to win more than 50 games three seasons, and 60 wins twice out of the 8 seasons he played in phoenix.
Kidd on the other hand only had his nets win more than 50 games once in his tenure 6 and half year tenure with the nets.
So if you look at the 50+ win season win rate, Nash edged Kidd in that category as well with a 62.5% probability of winning 50+ games and a 25% probability of winning 60+ games.
Kidd on the other hand hand only had a 16.6% probability of his Nets teams winning more than 50 games. Remember this is also before adjusting for the difference in strength of the conference.
So basically in every statistical category, Nash has a higher net impact that Kidd.
If Nash had played in the eastern conference, with his team, I think there is little doubt that he would make the finals, and would also have a high probability of making the finals more than once, and most likely would make the finals more competitive, particularly considering that his teams often played in playoff series against the eventual finals champions or finals opponents multiple times. (including 2005 Spurs, 2006 Mavs, 2007 Spurs, 2010 Lakers). And save for 2005, where Joe Johnson suffered an orbital fracture that hampered the Suns in the 2005 spurs series, every series went to a minimum of 6 games, and Nash consistently performed well in those playoff games averaging 20,10 multiple times with 50% + shooting from the floor..
Jason Kidd hands down!
how can this biased guy give Nash the nod over Kidd in passing when Kidd is second all time? Kidd also has a higher career average in assists and its misleading to say Kidd never averaged 11 assists like Nash when he averaged 10.8 and over 10 a bunch. lol.
How can you not count defensive awards in individual success but you do count MVPs? Nash was good but he is super overrated and for some reason his lack of defense doesn't seem to be factored in at all. It's half the game. How can you fairly say a guy who used to get cooked on D every night and was great at offense is better than a guy who was a great defender and as great if not greater offensive player. Wow this video is some weirdo shit.
Nash had a shorter peak and prime then kidd but in his prime Nash was the better passer and his teams almost always had the best rated offenses in the league.
@@buddyfats4768 Nash also had problems with Post season Pressure.
Steve Nash has higher APG seasons + did all that in a tougher conference
I respect j kidd but two time mvp speaks for it self.. but kidd was a ridiculous baller.. you young mellenials do some good studying.
MVP is an overrated award Nash got more mvps than d wade Kobe shaq Dirk kevin Garnett and he is not even close to the player those individuals are
The stats speak for themselves, and stats wise they're pretty even, except a huge advantage for Kidd in rebounding and steals. Then there's Kidd's 9x All Defense selections. Plus Kidd went to the Finals 3x and won a ring with Dirk, something Nash never came close to doing.
MVP is based on VOTES. Ain't no voting to the finals. Nash got destroyed by Robert Horry
Bro if Jason Kidd played under Mike D'antoni he would have 2 MVPs as well they are the same player its just Kidd was miles high away with playing defense
@@nicholausbell2749 J. Kidd doesn’t have Nash’s shooting ability
Tbh that Nash and Kidd argument wasn’t even a thing till he got to that mike d antoni offense
And Nash actually also became a way better player individually when he got to phoenix. Thanks to D'Antoni and thanks to himself for making insane level passes and crazy shooting efficiency.
Funny thing about their stats:
Kidd 17,529pts(.400) 12,091ast 8,725reb 2,684stl 450blk 1,988 3pm(.349) over 1,391games and 19yrs
Nash 17,387pts(.490) 10,335ast 3,642reb 899stl 102blk 1,685 3pm(.428) over 1,217games and 18yrs
Kidd wins on every category including longevity and games played. He led a young team to back 2 back finals while Nash couldn't get out the West. For SOME reason Nash is considered better and has 2 mvps.
Lol Nash still better
I cant agree more. People saw nash in his prime but never watched kidd in early 2000s. Kidd was top 4 point guard for 12 to 13 years. They both played more or less the same amount of time in the league. Nash blossomed due to rules change and DAntoni's system. He is so overhyped it amazes me. Has any Nash fanboy actually considered how big a defensive liability he was vis a vis Kidd's all-defensive team achievements? To help younger generation understand, it is as if you compared careers of Chris Paul to Derrick Rose. CP great for 12 years and a floor general on both sides of the court, Rose great for 4 to 5 years but known for his offence. Please dont mention MVPs cause Nash should not have gotten at least one of them and Kidd was robbed of it in 2002. Also, when you try to diminish the value of defence, dont... Just dont. Look what kidd did to Westbrook in 2011 playoffs , way past his prime. Kidd - offensive and defensive general, 3 trips to finals, 1 title. Multiple records, all nba teams + defensive (consecutive), triple double machine (no matter if rules changed). Nash, rules changed, offensive only sytem, 2 undeserved mvps... thats it
Getting out of the west is wayyy harder and Jason Kidd play in an all time calk walk of an eastern conference when he made those finals.
@@buddyfats4768 I can agree with this, but what levels it is the roster on both teams. Look who Kidd and Nash had on their teams... See, what makes me go with Kidd is this... with Nash, the 2011 Mavs would not win the title - many times Kidd's defence won games then. Also, the early 00's Nets would not get to finals (twice). On the other hand, would Kidd lead that Nash's Phoenix team to conf finals? I genuinely think so.
@Behejfjghw Jekejejdjrj Im confused, you want to tell me Kidd had a better team because he had rookie RJ, Kenyon and barely moving Mutombo? Nois. All these conversations are pointless really.. Shooting vs Defence.. This overall dispute is makes as much sense as comparing Steph to Magic Johnson (I mean styles of play so please don't get excited).
Steve Nash hands down. Not only was his peak higher than Kidds, but he was more consistent as a Top 10 player throughout his career than Jason Kidd was… + despite never going to the NBA Finals, he was competing in the toughest West Conf of all time… and revolutionized the PG position that led to players like CP3, Steph Curry & Trae Young who now are taken the play style to a higher level
I don't think it's that close. Kidd all the way. The dude came into the league as a winner and made the Mavs better from day 1. He started making All Star and All Defensive teams right away while Nash sat on the bench in Phoenix. He was special. If the Mavs had kept him and paired him with Dirk all those years, it would have changed a lot for both Dirk and Kidd imo. Huge mistake when the Mavs traded him.
I'm not buying that Nash suddenly turned into a legend at age 30 on the plane ride out of Dallas. Before that point he was a decent player who squeaked onto 2 All Star teams. He was still the guy who "wore down" and got "tired legs" in the playoffs every year. Telling that the Mavs got better when they let Nash go.
If Kidd was so special early on why did both the Mavs and Pheonix get rid of him? He didn't lead his team anywhere until he got to NJ. But lets face it the only reason he led NJ to the Finals in the 1st place was because he was in the East. Then when the East became stronger with teams like the Pistons and Heat rising Kidd was able to go nowhere despite playing with another superstar in Carter and an all-star level talent guy like Jefferson.
As for Nash, the reason why he probably didn't breakout as quick as Jason Kidd did is because he wasn't handed the keys to the franchise like Kidd was. Nash had to work for his minutes and the more minutes he got the better he began to show himself to be. When he went to Pheonix that's the 1st time he was given the keys to a franchise and the style of play revolved completely around him. As for the his legs getting tire, the Suns team success revolved completely around Nash. Go look up how bad the Suns became in 05 after he was out for a few games. They were completely inept without him and when Amare went out the next year with a knee injury he still carried the team to the 2nd seed in a difficult Western Conference and to the WCF. In 07 most people feel the Suns were robbed with the suspension. So I wouldn't say it's Kidd and it's not even close. You can make an argument for both of them.
Kareem was traded from Milwaukee to the Lakers so that does't prove anything. Teams are stupid sometimes. The Mavs owner prior to Cuban was a moron. (Cuban bought the team right after that stupid trade)
Nash was traded too by the way.
Being traded certainly isn't as bad as not being able to even win a starting job. You have to earn that and Nash couldn't do it til his 5th season.
No one player leads a team anywhere unless they are good enough to go somewhere. Of course you'll win less when there are better teams. That works the same for everyone. The point was that Kidd made all his teams better and that's what happened. It's not like it was possible to take the 90s Mavs to the Finals or anything.
Conversely, the Mavs got better *when Nash left* That never happened to Kidd. Best thing the Mavs ever did was letting Nash go.
I notice no other players in the East led their teams to the Finals when it was so "easy". Kidd made All NBA 1st team and All NBA Defensive Team in 2002 while leading the Nets to the Finals though. So it wasn't just the "East". Kidd was one of the best players in the league while Nash was a supporting player.
You just don't turn into a legend at age 30. The Nash thing was perception and the media falling in love with him. He was what he really was in his 20s. A nice player who could occasionally barely make an All Star team. There is no way he got dramatically better and turned into a legend on the plane ride out of Dallas at age 30.
Kareem was traded from Milwaukee to the Lakers because that's where Kareem wanted to go. Everyone knew he wanted to be back in L.A.(where he had played in his college days) so the Bucks had no choice but to trade him because they were gonna lose.
As for Nash I know he was traded but then again I never made the claim that Nash was special early on. You did though make that about Kidd. So my point is if Kidd was so special they wouldn't have traded him so early. There was no doubt that Kidd was a talent but they got rid of him because they didn't feel he was worth all the trouble they felt he was causing in Dallas.
As for Nash not being able to earn a starting job, that's kind of hard to do when your not given the chance. I believe it was Ainge who once said on his reason for not playing Nash was because they had too many pg's on the team(KJ and Kidd) so they didn't have time to see what he cold really do. It took Kobe a while to break into the starting line-up also as he didn't get in until his 3rd season and the only reason he did that year was because Rick Fox decided to give him his spot and guys like West constantly pushing for him to start to the head coach. Sometimes it's about situation, so guys like Pierce, Grant Hill, Penny, Kidd, Ray Allen, Iverson, KG, Lebron, Duncan, VC, Wade, Melo, Rose and KD are able to show out and show what they can do because they are drafted onto teams where they are given free reign to do what they want because they have no other player at their position to compete against. Others like Kobe, Nash, Tmac, etc take a while because they are drafted onto teams that do.
Mostly agree with your 4th paragraph although it's debatable whether we can say Kidd actually made the Mavs better. This further explains my point if your interested
www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/5/24/2187706/jason-kidd-dallas-mavericks-trade
As for the Mavs letting Nash go and that being the best thing. That's false statement because all signs show their system was at it's peak when Nash was there. For example, Mavs offensive rating in 04 was 112.1(best in the league). The following year it was down to 110.3. Now their defensive rating was up so initial reaction would say that with Nash gone that was the reason for it. Except when we look at the 03 season their defensive rating was even better than the 05 season. So the Mavs showed they were capable of playing even better defense with Nash on the team than without him the year they let him go. Also along with Nash's play the Mavs were on a trajectory up. So you don't know for sure they wouldn't have been better had they kept Nash. If you look at Nash's play from 04 to 05 it wasn't that his numbers were way better(because they weren't) it was that his impact was and that's because his role was bigger than it has every been. Finally let's not forget that the Suns team eliminated Dallas in 05 in the playoffs. It's no coincidence that the highest rated offensive teams have Nash on it: bleacherreport.com/articles/2185102-ranking-the-nbas-20-best-offenses-of-all-time#slide19
No other player has led their team to the Finals? How about Allen Iverson in 01, or Wade with a bunch of old guys just about past their primes in 06(and the Nets were favored against the Heat in a series that year) or LBJ in 07(beat Kidd's team also). There were several players that led their teams in the East last decade and did so because of how weak it was.
You can say there is no way Nash could magically get better at age 30 all you want but facts show that it wasn't magic and that he got better with the more responsibility and playing time he got. And while the system certainly played a factor in his improvement it's not responsible for all the clutch shots he could make or the whimsical ingenious passes he would come up with. We've seen tons of guys run D'antoni's system and while they have all gotten better from it none of them have ran it better than Nash or could make the kind of ridiculous passing this guy could. Nash's vision was so crazy he would literally make plays out of no where. That's not something that is taught or drawn up from a system.
Also I'm not advocating Nash over Kidd, I'm just saying it's a lot closer than you think and very debatable.
Well my opinion of Nash and Kidd comes from being a Mavs fan.
Nash was fine. He made two All Star teams. This was after he was "given a chance". So that's what he was in his 20s. He also was doing the "wearing down in the playoffs" thing every year. That got real old.
Kidd on the other hand was special from day 1. He made the Mavs a better team the first year (and boy was it refreshing at the time). He did win co-Rookie of the Year with Grant Hill after all. So yeah...the Mavs were morons to trade him.
I also went to an open practice during that time and it was obvious which player was the problem. Jim Jackson. They had a spirited practice for all the players....except Jackson. He stood on the sideline near me the ENTIRE PRACTICE and complained about Kidd to a friend of his. It was amazing to watch him just whine and curse and gesture toward Kidd while the rest of the team worked hard to improve. Kidd was of course the vocal leader on the court the entire time.
Nash was "given a chance to shine" early in his career. He averaged 21 minutes his 2nd season. If you can't convince your team you are a starter with those kinds of minutes, you certainly are not a Hall of Famer. You think Oscar Robertson could convince his team he needed to start if he played 21 minutes a game?
So it's not really honest to suggest Nash wasn't given a chance. He just wasn't better than Kidd so he came off the bench. I mean....we've actually seen them on the same team and Kidd was the starter.
And Nash certainly got all the "responsibility and playing time" he could handle in Dallas. No one was holding him back. He was handed the keys to the team and had one of the all time great scorers in Dirk.
That resulted in .....barely squeaking onto 2 All Star teams. Where was this legend in Dallas? All the fancy passes and wacky shots were there in Dallas too. But the media didn't talk about him. I've long suspected the media's hatred of Mark Cuban played a role in them suddenly falling in love with Nash in Phoenix and throwing MVPs at him over players like Shaq and Kobe.
Too bad the Mavs got better when Nash left and started contending for titles. The big difference was that they were 0-2 against the Dynasty Spurs with Nash and then flipped that to go 2-1 against the Spurs in 2006, 2009 and 2010.
If it took Nash longer to develop than Kidd....well that's a negative toward Nash. I have the same problem when comparing Dirk with Tim Duncan. Once Dirk developed, he was just as great as TD...but it took Dirk forever to get there while TD came into the league ready to dominate. Same with Hakeem and players like Wilt and Kareem.
And if Nash is going to get credit for the offense, then he also has to get the credit for the defense. It's just a plain fact that Kidd was the superior defender by a large margin. And the Mavs did improve on defense when Nash left from one season to the next...the best comparison.
The Suns beat the Mavs in 2005. And the Mavs beat the Suns in 2006.
I disagree that Iverson, Wade, or any other player lead a team to the Finals "because the East was weak". It's always about the team. A player can make a team better like Kidd did, but it takes the whole team to win in the playoffs. If one player could do that...why didn't Kidd take them every year?
That article seemed biased to me.
Supposedly Kidd was a "disaster" because he shot 30%. Ok...that's not great. But there are more things than scoring for a PG. Kidd's greatness was never about scoring.
8.0 points 6.8 rebounds 7.0 assists and 2.3 steals is far from a "disaster".
So it's "much better" in 2011 with this?
4.5 rebounds 7.3 assists 1.9 steals 9.3 points
Kidd only took 3 shots a game from inside the 3 point arc in 2010 so it's not like that was dragging the team down. He shot a respectable 32% from 3 point land on 4.7 shots per game. So most of the time his scoring contribution was not a problem. It was the other Mavs who also did not shoot well in that series...but were taking many more shots. Dirk was the only Mav that shot well.
I'm Canadian and love Nash for that. Also fitting the "perfect point guard" image better than anyone EVER. But I gotta agree. KIDD is the better overall player. Can do a bit of everything. If he went to that suns team they woulda had that same kind of success Nash's suns had. Kidd's Nets teams weren't so different. A bunch of athletes and shooters who just need a good point guard.
Basketball was so much more enjoyable to watch than the crap show today.
Great video, but I disagree with the passing analysis. I think the main reason why Nash averaged more assists than Kidd had to do with having a run and gun Mike D'antoni system. He also had players like Marion, Stoudemire, and others to feed it to.
I would give the passing edge to Kidd.
MArion and Stoudemire had their careers made however, because of Nash.
The Run and Gun style simply unleashed Nash's capabilities.
Jason Kidd also played fast-paced basketball as well, but was not the passer Nash was in Phoenix.
Nash in Dallas made safer kick out passes. Nash in phoenix however, made passes on levels rivaled by Magic and stockton.
Kidd shot 40% for his CAREER from the FIELD. Averaging on 12 points at that. Unacceptable.
You want to talk about unacceptable, Nash's lack of defense is unacceptable!! Meanwhile Kidd was a legendary defender! Nash shot a little better, but only averaged 14 for his career. Their career high averages in scoring are almost identical. In rebounding and steals Kidd is more than double Nash's averages. Plus Kidd went further with less talent... And while Nash compiled fantastic offensive numbers in Dallas, they never won squat, not until an older Jason Kidd came in to cement the legacy of himself and Dirk.
Unacceptable is no ring. No finals no heart(Horry)
Just please focus on the Turkey
@@imdbtruth The reason is because Nash didn't get as many minutes as kidd.
Look at their numbers per 36 minutes minutes, and you will see Nash beat Kidd in every stat except rebounding and defense.
Also people casually brush off the fact that Nash had to go through Shaq, Duncan, and Dirk every year to even get to the finals.
whereas Kidd had to go through a 49 win celtics team to get to the finals and get swept.
Ask Magic about the assist(Passing)list. It's JKidd all day. Nash can't touch the Kidd. Was Nash even rookie of the year(NO). He started late and was put in a great system. Kidd made a system with every garbage team he was on
Magic would tell you that Nash was better.
Both played at a fast pace, but nobody created more open shots in the nba at the time than Nash.
The numbers support it as well.
Per 36 minutes kidd averaged 8.7 assists
Per 36 minutes Nash average 9.8 assists.
In their prime.
Nash averaged 12.3 assists per 36 minutes
Kidd averaged 10 assists per 36 minutes.
Advantage Nash.
@@AnthonyGraeme Nash ever made the finals? Magic & Kidd love rings💯🏆
@@jknumber5138 No, because he was competing in a more competitive conference. The year Kidd made the finals, his team won 52 games. That's a great effort by him to make the Nets' team better. However, the opponents the Nets faced all had less than 50 wins that year, including the Pacers (44 wins), Hornets (44 wins) and Celtics (49 wins). On the other hand the western conference that year had 4 teams with more than 57 wins that were all better than the Nets.
The Kings were arguably the best team in the league that year, had it not been for crooked refs in the Lakers-Kings series.
Also Nash, similarly made poor teams good himself. And his prime started at age 30 playing with the Suns, as his passing skills had developed to an all-time high, combined with even better dribbling and shooting skills.
As a result, all his teammates became highly efficient scorers in D'Antoni's run-n-gun system lead by Steve Nash.
Also, the year before Nash joined the suns, they won just 29 games, with Marion, Stoudemire and Joe Johnson all on that squad, paired with Stephon Marbury.
Basically the suns gave up Marbury for Nash.
As a result Joe Johnson went from shooting 30% from 3 to 47% from 3. Stoudemire shot 47.5% to 56% from the field, And Marion went from 44% shooting to 47.6% shooting from the field.
And the Suns went from averaging 94 points per game to 110 points per game.
They did give up more points defenisvely. Going from 97.9 to 103.3.
Thus the net point differential between the two season added up to a an extra 11.6 points per game with Nash on the floor. (16-5.4)
Thus, trading Marbury for Nash essentially added an extra 11.6 points per game for the Suns.
Regarding the net impact of Kidd on the Nets from 2001-2002.
The Nets went from 92.1 to 96.2 points per game (+4.1) and points allowed 97.1 to 92 per game (+5.1) for a net point differential of 9.2 points per game with Kidd.
And if you adjust for the net difference in games won between the two teams.
Nets went from 26 wins to 52 wins. extra 26 wins.
Suns went from 29 wins to 62 wins. Extra 32 wins.
Also of note, Stoudemire was often considered the second best player on those suns teams.
However, in 2006 stoudemire only played 3 games. Yet the Suns still managed to win 55 games that year.
with a starting five primarily consisting of Nash, Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, Marion, and Kurt Thomas, and the Suns again managed to finish first in points per game with 108.4 points per game that season with a 102.8 points allowed per game.
for a net rating of (+5.6 points per game) which was just -0.7 lower than the previous year of a net point differential of (6.3 points per game).
Bear in mind as well that despite competing in a tougher conference, Nash with the Suns managed to win more than 50 games three seasons, and 60 wins twice out of the 8 seasons he played in phoenix.
Kidd on the other hand only had his nets win more than 50 games once in his tenure 6 and half year tenure with the nets.
So if you look at the 50+ win season win rate, Nash edged Kidd in that category as well with a 62.5% probability of winning 50+ games and a 25% probability of winning 60+ games.
Kidd on the other hand hand only had a 16.6% probability of his Nets teams winning more than 50 games. Remember this is also before adjusting for the difference in strength of the conference.
So basically in every statistical category, Nash has a higher net impact that Kidd.
If Nash had played in the eastern conference, with his team, I think there is little doubt that he would make the finals, and would also have a high probability of making the finals more than once, and most likely would make the finals more competitive, particularly considering that his teams often played in playoff series against the eventual finals champions or finals opponents multiple times. (including 2005 Spurs, 2006 Mavs, 2007 Spurs, 2010 Lakers). And save for 2005, where Joe Johnson suffered an orbital fracture that hampered the Suns in the 2005 spurs series, every series went to a minimum of 6 games, and Nash consistently performed well in those playoff games averaging 20,10 multiple times with 50% + shooting from the floor..
Well kidd is probably better all around player but speaking about offence Nash was superior by a big margin, not even close.
Exactly. Nash was arguably one of the greatest on-ball scorers in NBA history.
Eastern Conference sucks and he didn't do shit on Dallas. Anybody could've play PG for them cause Dirk were on a tear with the help of JT. Steve Nash also got robbed in 2007 by the refs and has beaten way better teams. Great vid by the way!
Ravens4life5 eastern conference didn’t suck at the time
Kidd was better then nash in every way except shooting
Devin Fuller - Compared to the West they actually did. The Eastern Conference has always been weaker than the West even going back to the Bulls dynasty days.
@@blueblur2273 no way, the eastern conference in the 90's was way harder than the west
@@DrePeezy415 Nash was a more efficient scorer than Kidd per 36 minutes, Nash was a better scorer and passer than Kidd per 36 minutes. Kidd was a better revounder than Nash per 36 minutes. Kidd was a better defender than Nash per 36 minutes. Nash made his teammates better offensively than Kidd per 36 minutes. Kidd made his teammates better defensively than Nash per 36 minutes.
Nash was better than Kidd per 36 minutes.
Sam Cassell was not a veteran
Nashs success in Phx was bc of Dantoni. The Suns were a 2010 team playing in the 2000s. They won 60+ games a season because Dantoni moreso than Nash, as when Nash was injured or on the bench, the team wouldn't skip a beat under Leandro Barbosa
D'Antoni's success was because of Nash.
Shawon Marion's success was because of Nash. Amare Stoudemire's success was because of Nash.
Kidd was a 6'4 Magic Johson.....there is no comparison
He was not magic Johnson. Magic Johnson was far more efficient and definitely a lot more clutch than Kidd was.
I’d take Nash.
J Kidd forever
Lol Nash the better player tho
JoEs_ Do9 hell no lol only thing he did better was shoot .. Passing they were even rebounding and defense not even close.. Jkidd been to the finals way more.. On them nets teams pre Vince he carried them to the chip..
@@Scambityfactsteam that don't make him a better player
@@Scambityfactsteam Shooting actually matters a damn lot though.
Also Nash helped teammates get paid way more than Kidd ever did.
It's still close though.
Steve all day 💯
Robbed 2007 by the cheating spurs
Nash is better
J. Kidd was better.
nash isn't the best phoenix of all time, Barkley is.
Lol no
@@JoEs_Do9 yes Charles barkley was a beast
Deryl Bright jr. He's good but stop the cap
@@JoEs_Do9 Barkley is the best suns player how old are you
Barkley is the best player the Suns got, Nash the greatest Suns player (8 years, 2 MVPs, played longer there)
Steve Nash was better
Nash coudn't handle post season pressure
@@Lexiforlifeacm Yes he could.
Nash is overrated. He looked good because of the d antoni system. And dude, steve is not a better passer than j. Kidd. Even the assist totals tells the story
Nash made passes that D'antoni could never even draw up.
Watching thinking basketball's vid on Nash.
dirk carried jason kidd nash got screwed in 2007
Dirk was obviously the MVP of that team, Kidd was 38yo for goodness sake. But Dirk does NOT win that ring without Kidd! You take Kidd and put him on the Thunder and put Westbrook on the Mavericks that series, and the Thunder would have beaten the Mavs. Likewise, take Mario Chalmers put him on the Mavericks, and put Kidd on the Heat, and the Mavericks would've been swept.
Kidd led all players in the 2011 playoffs in three-pointers made, assists, and steals. LeBron only averaged 17 ppg in the Finals that season, which was largely a result of Kidd's defense on him.
Kidd also hit the dagger three in the WCF, and the dagger three in the crucial game 5 of the Finals. If he didn't make that shot to put the Mavs up 5 with 1 minute remaining, then the Heat might have won that game and that series. Kidd was always clutch af!
Only you the reporter believes that nash was better then J Kid.. bc Jk was clearly a better passer & definitely had better individual success.. nash won 2 bs MVP's which anybody that knows bball knows he definitely didn't deserve them. 2nd JK took the NJ nets to the finals his 1st year there then went back to the finals.. he finished 2nd all time in assist & you said nash was a better passer.. that's like saying John Stockton was better then M. Johnson... since when did winning a mvp give you more success then taking a team that was at the bottom of it's division to the finals 2 yrs straight better.. the goal is to win a championship & the 2nd is to get their Jkid got there twice Nash never got there..
Steve Nash absolutely deserved the 1st one… not even a debate… if you think Shaq was robbed, he didn’t even have a better argument then Dirk or KG…
@@MOCvision Exactly. Tim Duncan was better as well.
Kidd was better you know bash got them mvps do to sports politics . Kobe scored 81 that season 😂 plus 5 games scoring 50+ back to back . They didn’t get it to him cause of rape allegations . Also Kobe agave 28 against bash the previous season . Plus look at Kidd best passes compared to nash . Kidd use to fake camera man out . Bash good but not like kidd
Both Nash MVP's were bogus and basically given because the fans and league were tired of the Lakers' success. Shaq and Kobe were both far superior to Steve Nash in those MVP seasons.
The Lakers didn't even win anything since 2002. Tim Duncan and the Spurs were dominating the league at the time.
Ill pick westbrook
if nash was black he wouldnt even be considered better than Chris Paul. I love Nash btw but why is it that white players never get judged for lack of defense I mean come on it is half the damn game. Nowitzki was a bum defensively but you'd think he was better than Bosh because the media hasnt trained people to say how great of a defender Bosh was and how that made the Heat so good and how if he was the number one option he would have put up 24 ppg like he did in Toronto. But idk I guess white fans have to over do it with the few white players they had that were great so defense be damned lol.
Bosh was an average defender
You sound like dennis Rodman steve Nash is better then cp3 black or white.
Curry is always called the greatest shooter ever but he was a bum on defense.
Why are you turning this into a race thing? There are plenty of black players who can’t play defense who still get credit as players
Stockton better than both of them