Jason Kidd vs. Steve Nash Revisited
There is no doubt in my mind that Steve Nash is currently the best point guard in all of basketball, but a few good years shouldn’t allow him to surpass the overall body of work that other players such as Jason Kidd have put forth.
Nash fans are quick to place him on a pedastal where does not quite belong. Before his return to Phoenix, did any of you actually consider Nash a first ballot Hall of Fame player? I mean, seriously! Prior to 2004-2005 the guy only made a couple of All-Star teams and a couple of All-NBA third teams. Now the average NBA fan probably thinks Steve Nash is a better player now that Gary Payton ever was (which is just absolutely laughable to me). Nash is a good player, but more than anything he is a system player. Meaning he showed up at the right place at the right time. Kind of like how Andre Rison seemed like he was a comparable receiver to Jerry Rice for a couple of years because he was playing in the Atlanta Falcons high-powered 4 wide receiver Run and Shoot offense.
Steve Nash plays in a system that highlights all of his assets. You’re telling me that Jason Kidd in his prime in the with the Suns current roster and system wouldn’t run circles around what Nash currently does? Jason Kidd was made for this system, yet when he played for the Suns he didn’t have a coach as great as Mike D’Antoni or a commitment to a running system the way that Steve Nash currently does have. As well, he never had players as good as Amare Stoudemire or Shawn Marion (Marion was still young and developing when Kidd was around).
In defense of Nash, his fans are quick to point to Jason Kidds current stats. I find that offensive when you consider that Jason Kidd is a shell of his former self, as age and microfracture surgery have finally started to catch up with him.
I emplore you all to look at Jason’s career as a whole vs. Nash’s career as a whole. What about Nash’s current achievements is any better than what Jason Kidd has done his entire career?
When the trade between the Nets and the Suns that sent Jason Kidd to the Nets for Stephon Marbury was first consumated, how many of you actually thought that deal would propel the Nets into an Eastern conference powerhouse? I know I certainly didn’t think that. But that is exactly what J-Kidd did. He took the Nets to the best record in the East and to the Finals two years in a row. And if not for a bum knee against the Pistons in the 2004 playoffs, he probably would have taken them to the Finals for a 3rd consecutive year. If Jason Kidd didn’t get the MVP during those few years, there is no way that Steve Nash should currently have two of them. The year prior to Nash’s arrival the Suns faltered more so because of injuries and coaching inconsistencies than anything else. The Suns were already a healthy franchise, only missing the playoffs a total of two times over a 15 year span. The Nets, on the other hand, were a perennial basement dwelling franchise searching for any ray of light. Jason Kidd single handedly resuscitated that franchise, yet where are all of his accolades and MVP trophies? On top of that, Jason Kidd did more for his team, because he actually played defense. He was Nash with D, minus the Jumpshot. And even his inconsistent jump shot was better than Nash’s non-existent D.
But just in case my words aren’t enough for you, let’s breakdown the stats:
All-Star Apperances: Jason Kidd: 7, Steve Nash: 4
First and Second Team All-NBA Apprearances: Jason Kidd: 6 (Five First Team, 1 Second Team), Steve Nash: 2 (Both First Team)
All Defensive Team Selections: Jason Kidd: 8, Steve Nash: ZERO
Times leading the league in assists: Jason Kidd: 5, Steve Nash: 2
Finals Apperances: Jason Kidd: 2, Steve Nash: ZERO
Jason Kidd also ranks 3rd in all time tripple doubles, 7th all-time in total assists, 5th all-time in assists per game, 13th all-time in steals, and 11th all-time in steals per game.
Again there is no doubt in my mind that Steve Nash is currently the best point guard in the game. My only beef is with the fact that people currently think he is one of the greatest players of all-time. If your career could be based simply on a couple of great seasons, then a guy like Penny Hardaway should also be considered one of the greatest players of all-time (two All-NBA first team appearances, and 4 all-star team appearances…sounds kind of like Nash, doesn’t it?). A quick comparison to Kidd shows you that Nash’s career as a whole can’t stand up against Jason Kidd’s. Jason Kidd is not only one of the greatest point guards of all-time, but simply one of the greatest players of all time. When you look at his stats he’s in the record book next to guys named Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, and John Stockton. Nash has a long way to go to being grouped in with those guys.
But beyond Kidd, think about other guys which typical fans probably think Nash has had a better career than. Has Nash’s career been any better than guys such as Mark Price, Tim Hardaway, and Kevin Johnson?
And what about Gary Payton? Don’t tell me you Nash defenders also think he’s had a better career than Payton? How quickly we forget the former greats.
The real question we all should be asking is how players of similar caliber to Nash (in his current form) have had similar or better years in the past but not been praised in the same manner as him. How come Jason Kidd, John Stockton, and Gary Payton don’t have their hands on MVP awards?
Moreover, how is it that Shaquille O’neal, the greatest basketball force in the last ten years doesn’t have two MVP awards, yet Nash does? Shaq’s teams have won four of the last seven NBA championships, yet the man only has one MVP?
Again, Nash is great, but lets get real about what kind of player he really is. A great point guard? Yes! One of the greatest of all-time? No way. So when the media has gone out of their way to christen Nash a two time MVP, they also ruined what was once an elite group of only the greatest players of all-time. Before Nash, every player on the list of two time MVPs was one of the best players of all-time. But because of media bias, a guy like Steve Nash is now lumped in with Magic, Bird, Michael, and Kareem, and that’s just not right!
I have a feeling that ten years from now Nash will be as forgotten as guys like Tim Hardaway, Mark Price, and Kevin Johnson. But I guess only time will tell.
45 comments:
Nate:
I think people have taken Shaq for granted--the guy's been an absolute beast from the gate since '92. It's pretty boring to pick Shaq for MVP every year when he's putting up 27, 12 and 3 and going deep in the playoffs. But a guy like Nash, with his fading rock star hairline and selfless approach to the game, won over casual fans and critics by playing the PG position no better or worse than Mark Price or Tim Hardaway ever did.
In this era of young stars and minimum impact big men, I think Kobe should have more MVP's than Nash! But he isn't likeable, and again, is a boring pick.
Even when Iverson won the MVP in '01, I think most people didn't feel he was better than Shaq that year, but they wanted to show people how hip and tolerant they were of his thug persona. Plus, he was a 5'11'' 150lb guard carrying a team of vets who couldn't drop 20 if you spotted them 16 (Tyrone Hill, George Lynch, Eric Snow). The Lakers were dominant, high profile and led by the most skilled big man of the decade in Shaq. And Shaq is very likeable, clean cut and gives the media great quotes and stories every year--but he was too great for too long.
You would think that in the post-Jordan era, Shaq would be the deserving perennial MVP. But no; what we've noticed from NBA voters since MJ's hung it up is that they DON'T WANT to recognize a totally dominant player--they like all-stars who have toiled away and finally pushed their team into the upper echelon. Karl Malone, Iverson, Garnett, and Nash exemplify that. I can't bitch about Tim Duncan getting 2 MVP's back to back, but again, more than Shaq?
Nate, you miss out on a few things:
Nash saved the running game. Period. Kidd, try as hard as he could, could not keep an offense honest the way Nash does, hence could not run as much - if you can't shoot, you waste time and try to find your team mates.
You grossly underestimate Kidd's supporting cast when he took the Nets to the Finals in a weak East. Jefferson and K-Mart were better than every single Sun except Marion. Yes, better than Stoudamire, who was too raw when healthy.
Why do you think that coaches are in love with Nash? He makes the game oh so easy for everyone else it's spooky.
Stop emphasizing the damn D. D does not win games. D and O win games. If you're a 9 on defense and an 8 on offence, as Kidd was, you're not better than a guy that's 6 on D and a barely-believable 15 on offence. No way in hell. Nash makes it so easy on O for his teammates that they have energy for D no matter what.
Shaq did not deserve to win the MVP more times than he did. He showed up out of shape, was barely in the top 50 in the League until new year and finished strongly, being amongst the best 2 in the league in the playoffs. Sorry Nate, playoffs don't matter. He sucked during the regular season on a regular basis, and even he admits that he put it on cruise control. Granted, Shaq on cruise is better than most centers, but not the best player.
Stop emphasizng the fact that Kidd never won and Shaq won only once. It's about the competition in that year. If you win the 100m dash in the Olympics that does not make you better than all the runners that run before you and never won, but merely that you're better than the ones that ran against you. Easy, huh? Nash was the best the last two years. That does not mean that he was better than Kidd was x years ago, just that he was better than all the other players in the last two years.
One more thing: don't underestimate the value of percentages. All that separates MJ from AI are percentages. Simply put, Nash is stellar, Kidd sucks. Again, easy.
Adrian, you're bias, and it's obvious. I just stacked an entire list of numbers and accomplishments that show that Kidd is one of the greatest players of all-time, while Nash is a player who has just had a few good seasons. You can deny that all you want, but the numbers and accomplishments speak for themselves.
Nash's career accomplishments to date put him on par with Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway, and Mark Price, not the Gary Paytons, Magic Johnsons, and Jason Kidds of the world.
There is so much wrong with your argument I don't know where to start.
Oh, and don't talk bias as this entire post is completely biased.
The post is not biased. Just compare Nash's accomplishments to that of the greatest PGs of all-time. You're telling me he's had a career that is on par with Payton, Stockton, Kidd, and Magic?
I think all posts are biased, especially when you use stats. I'm biased towards Nash (I am Canadian).
You only put stats that favoured Kidd numerically. What about shooting percentages? Nash wins all of those across the board. How about factoring in the 7 minutes more a game that Kidd has averaged over his career? Maybe stats per 48 minutes would be more representative if going over a career. You could have included number of MVP's in your stat section as well. Stat's can show whatever you want really.
You could also factor in Nash being at a peak in his career, and Kidd being on the twilight of his. Nash's career averages are increasing, while Kidds are decreasing. How will they compare in 5 years? Who knows.
I think we have to wait until careers are over to compare them. I do believe Nash and his team are more fun to watch than any other team and that is probably what pushed him above others for MVP.
As for being in a system that favoured him, I think that can be said for MJ and Magic as well as most MVP winners.
Anyways, just my biased opinion :)
Kidd flourished sooner than Nash, there's no doubt about it. And Kidd has always been a better individual defender and rebounder than Nash. But we can chalk both these facts up to Kidd's being a more physically gifted basketball specimen.
Part of what makes Nash so impressive is his ability to make up for what he lacks as a pure athlete. This is something he's evidently had to cultivate by grinding it out in the NBA for the better part of a decade. Like Kidd, Nash is unique among modern point guards, but less for his pure skill and more for his cerebral approach, his fundamentals, his work ethic, his shooting, his 'coachableness' and, of course, his clutch play. Stockton and Price had all these qualities, and faced similar challenges, but neither of them did so with the effectiveness and strong leadership that Nash has shown night-in and night-out over the past 4 or 5 years. And its unthinkable that either of them could have averaged 30.3 points, 12.0 assists, and 6.5 rebs in a playoff series like Nash did against the Mav's in '05.
It's true Nash is in a system suited to his strengths, but there's no denying that, given your reasoning Nate, his stats should have taken a plunge with Stoudemire--the other pick and roll King--out for a year. But they didn't, did they? Incidentally, Dallas is, statistically speaking, a bad fit for any pass-first PG since Nowitzki, who likes to bring the ball up every chance he can, takes 20+ shots a game.
Don't get me wrong, Kidd is arguably the most gifted PG ever to dribble a ball, but the key word here is 'gift'. He is blessed with strength, speed, size and instincts that have made him the prototype modern PG (and don't believe the roster profiles--Nash is closer to 6'1 than 6'3). Kidd's badass ball-handling and passing skills, on the other hand, are entirely his own doing, so nobody can say that facet of his game is just natural talent.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, maybe the comparison is a bit like apples and oranges, in spite of their playing the same spot on the floor. I agree that it's a stretch to say that Nash is a superior player to Kidd--after all, Kidd deserved the MVP over Duncan in 01/02. But I think it's fair to say that, given Nash's challenges (which range from growing up in the "hoops Mecca" of Victoria, BC, playing in a weak conference in college, and his physical disadvantages), for him to have elevated himself to the level of all-time NBA elite (via 2 MVP's) is more impressive than Kidd's perennial All-Star appearances and lofty statistics, which surprised nobody that followed his highshool and college carreers.
Nash is without a doubt one of the all-time greats, and so is Kidd.
Btw, those Pennys were my fav kicks...I went through 2 pair!
Nate, Nash's accomplishments put him on a par with only Magic Johnson as a point guard that won back-to-back MVP's. The people voting for MVP actually know what they're talking about, Nate, they are pros closely following the game, not the idiots that keep voting Carter to the All-Star Game.
He is also on a par with only Michael Jordan (1991 and 1992), Magic Johnson (1989 and 1990), Larry Bird (1984-86), Moses Malone (1982-83), Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1976 and 1977, 1971 and 1972), Wilt Chamberlain (1967-68) and Bill Russell (1961-63), as one of the few that ever won back-to-back MVP's.
Only Reggie Miller (1993-94), Mark Price (1988-89) and Bird (1986-87, 1987-88) shot at least 50 percent from the field, 40 percent from 3-point range (.439) and 90 percent from the free throw line EVER. Ok, this is why percentages matter.
See? Looking at it this way, accomplishments matter - he's better than Stockton or Kidd, let alone Payton.
One more thing: Thorpe actually called, in an ESPN chat, the statement that Nash is good because the system suits him as the stupidest thing he ever heard. I agree
"Stockton and Price had all these qualities, and faced similar challenges, but neither of them did so with the effectiveness and strong leadership that Nash has shown night-in and night-out over the past 4 or 5 years."
WOW--you must never watched either Stockton or Price play more than a handful of games. Stockton missed like 10 games in 15 years and is the all-time leader in steals and assists. Nash is nice, and he did help the Suns overachieve the last 2 years, but that still doesn't touch John Stockton even the slightest.
Adrian, there's a lot more to being a point guard and an all-time great than just shooting. Jeff Hornacek was very close several times to cracking that group you mentioned, and I don't think you believe he was one of the all-time greats. As well, Bird is the only guy in that group that can be considered and ALL-TIME GREAT. Miller might get in the Hall of Fame because of his clutch performances, but he was nothing more than a GREAT shooter. Bird was one of the GREATEST basketball players of all time. It's an insult to him to just group him in with a bunch of shooters. The guy did everything on the basketball court well. Something that can't be said about the rest of the shooters in that group.
And you're missing the point. I'm not saying that Nash is not currently the best point guard in the league. But I'm saying that for a career he is not on the level of Johnson, Stockton, Payton, and Jason Kidd. That is what I am upset about. Fans and Media types are often so blind to the current accomplishments of players that they place them on a level that they don't deserve to be on.
Next time you're in a David Thorpe chat ask him if Nash has had a career on the level of those guys. I'm positive (because he's a smart guy) that he'll say no. All of those guys have been to two finals, and have stacked up TOTAL NUMBERS (not percentages or averages from a couple year span) that Nash will NEVER catch up to. I mean, unless he's going to play 7-8 more years at the level he currently has. If he does that, then yes. But you tell me if that is realistic. He will NEVER be top 5 in ANY all-time statistical category PERIOD!
The greatest PG's ever did what Nash has only done for the last 3 1/2 years for ENTIRE careers. As well, check the careers of guys like Price, Hardaway, and Kevin Johnson. They won just as much as Nash, and had the same if not BETTER numbers than Nash has had to date, yet you don't hear about them as being all-time greats. Why? because they have been out of the public eye for years. I'm just saying, as time goes on, the accomplishments of only the all-time greats are what will linger in the minds of fans. People only remember guys that have been able to be the best for sustained periods of time. And don't give me that winning b.s. either because KJ, Price, and Hardaway were all winners throughout there career. Nash hasn't gotten to an NBA championship, or even gotten to an NBA final yet, so he has yet to distinguish himself from that group.
So in terms of the winning route he doesn't belong in the Stockton, Johnson, Payton, Kidd group, in terms of the TOTAL statistics route he doesn't belong, and in terms of the ALL-NBA and ALL-Defensive team statistics he doesn't belong in that group. The only place he's got some beat is in MVPs. I really wish we could have a live debate about this.
Nate, I'd love a live debate :)
Still, do remember that Nash also knows how to pass the rock better than anyone except (maybe) Magic. This is not me talking, this is everyone who ever played with him.
One other thing: best ever does not mean best for a long period of time. As far as I'm concerned, if Le Bron pulls a 40-20-20 season (just an example, I know it's not possible) and then goes to play for the NBDL due to bad knees or retires due to drug problems, he'd still be the best ever. One season can suffice.
If you're not saying Nash didn't deserve the MVP's than we're fine. Furthermore, if shooting doesn't make a great point guard, neither does D. Point guards act as QB's for their teams - on offense they have to maximise the other guys' talent (Kidd said he knows so much about what the other positions entail that he could even play center), while on D they have to just take care of their man. Point I'm trying to make - the offensive part of a PG's game vastly outweights the D part of a PG's game. On O he must make the other 4 guys as efficient as possible. On D he must be adequate defending 1 guy. That's it. Nash probably adds up to 20 points to his team on account of him seeing all the angles and making the right pass all the time. If this means that, due to his D, Phoenix gives up 5 more points per night than without him, I'll take that.
yo cipher,
1st of all, i would like to say I like Nash, he's good at what he's doing, making his teammates better and all that jazz, but hell, he really don't compare to J-Kidd. ya'll gotta remember, who was Nash's 1st mentors in the game? it was J-kidd, when nash played back up PG for him back in the day. so how do you think Nash would be the player he is today if it wasn't for Kidd (Kev Johnson et al)? I give it that Nash shoots better, but that's just one category. A player isn't measured on how he shoots, but on how he makes his teammates better and take the team to the next level. i'm not saying nash isn't capable of that, but they haven't even made it to the Finals, where as Kidd has taken the Nets to the Finals twice, consecutively, with lesser talent. come on, you guys are saying if Nash had Carter and Jefferson they'd go all the way? NO WAY. how about if Kidd had D'Antoni, Marion, Stoudemire, Bell et al? Dallas won't even stand a chance, J-Terry would be eating dust just to be in front of Kidd. I'm just dumbfounded when Duncan got the MVP instead of Kidd that time Kidd got into the Swamp.
another thing, do not throw in age and year they entered the league, they only have 2 years apart. And do not make an argument about kidd being bigger and more agile than nash that's why he's inferior to kidd regarding defense. Stockton is even shorter but leads all time in steals and is as good as a defensive player compared to kidd.
bottomline is this: Kidd is better than nash, and even though nash has the M. Podoloff trophy 2x, it's just media hype. Kidd, next to Magic, is the best point guard of all time. Truth.
yo adrian
i'd like to disagree that offense vastly outweighs defense on a point guards game. as a TRUE point guard, you are not only responsible on offense, but on the defensive end as well. Let's take it as a match up game, say you have Nash distributing 20 dimes in a game, but allows his match up to erupt to 30? his contribution falls only at 10. But what if we put defense on it, say nash gives 20 dimes, and shuts his opponents to 13 miserable points and makes him commit 5 turnovers? remember the old adage man, defense is the best offense. and man, the fact that nash gets all those assists in a night is because he got shooters in his team! you're saying he's the better passer compared to Kidd? if someone please show this gentleman a video to showcase kidd's passing ability. and let's not forget ESPN's article wherein they rank the greatest PGs, Kidd's 7th all time, Nash only 9th. don't get me wrong, Nash is great and all, but all the accolades are just overhyped. It even came from nash, KIDD is the premier point guard in the league. the triple double says it all.
I will agree with you that right now the merits of Steve Nash's career doesn't go compare to Jason Kidd's, nonetheless Magic, Stockton, or ugh.. Payton. But you can agree to revisit this debate in a few years when the two have actually retired.
In a not so hypothetical world where the Suns make it through to the second game of the Western Conference Finals with their starting lineup intact for a couple of years Nash could end up with a few Finals MVP's to go along with the regular season trophies.
I'm one who likes to base careers on championships attained and the individual's contribution. If you go to the aforementioned ESPN All Time Point Guard page, this is really how they're gauging it- it's the first actual 'stat' listed for each player. This is why Stockton is Fourth, Kidd is 7th and Payton is 10th, because they never earned a title(Payton was less than wallpaper last year). If Nash gets one or two rings in the process of pulling the league out of the Pistons/Spurs boredom, you'll see ESPN move him up.
I grew up in Arizona, my family had season tickets from 84-92. I've watched the Suns go from KJ to Kidd to Marbury to Nash. I lived in Chicago in 1998 and watched gleefully as Stockton and Malone's cheese was defeated not once but twice. I loved Tim Hardaway and his killer crossover. Payton has the glove, but I'll always remember him for taunting Jordan at a bar in his rookie year and MJ answering with three steals and three nasty dunks five minutes into their first game. Kidd was awesome, but he's not the person that Nash is, of which in the ESPN list Magic is the only one close to being in his league(and we all remember the Magic Hour, right?). If you remember, they jettisoned Kidd from conservative Arizona because he beat his wife.
So, while the comparison overall sides with Kidd for now, my point is that this could change drastically in a few years, and that this is where Nash has the upper hand.
Look, Nash is on a team right now that is built around him and based on his skills. Nash is an excellent decision maker, and he makes just about every important decision in the Suns' offense.
No one on that team can create his own shot. They are all finishers in one way or another. Bell spots up, Marion spots up or finishes on dunks. Stoudamire at most makes one quick move, but the reason why he fits with the team is because he can finish at the rim. Okay, Diaw also makes plays, but the ball generally doesn't get to him until Nash has orchestrated a breakdown in the opponents defense. Barbosa also can create his own shot and is very talented, but he is still raw and is also a bench player.
When Nash was in Dallas he was surrounded by players who liked to create their own shot: Dirk, Jamison, Antoine Walker, and his numbers and effect on the game were much more modest.
What's my point here? You put Nash on any other team and he doesn't even get MVP consideration. Why? Because no other team is built like the Suns.
Now you put Kidd on any team and it's a different story. You surround Kidd with any kind of players and he will be able to contribute because his game is so much more multi-faceted. Yes he can play defense, but not only that. He gets steals (different from defense because steals create offense), REBOUNDS, can go down in the post, he is much more durable and is able to play more minutes. No he doesn't have Nash's outside touch and he doesn't get into the paint as easily, but he is a much more dynamic player. You surround Kidd in his prime with 4 decently talented players and he will take them to the playoffs. You put Kidd on any team with good talent and he will make the game easier for them and help them enjoy the game more (look at VC) and take them deep in the playoffs. You can't say that about Nash.
Now there's no disputing that Nash in the last two years has been the Most Valuable Player to his team. He is phoenix's engine. Hell, he is Phoenix's engine, transmission, alternator... I'd name more parts if I could think of them. Kidd is the better player though. Payton was better as well. And Stockton was better than them all.
Nate:
Great post, I've agreed with you since you first brought this up. I don't know if anybody here checks out 82games.com, but they show the teams performance when a player is on the court versus when he is off the court. Until this year, Kidd has always been better in this category than Nash. This kinda dispels Adrian's 8+9<15+6 argument (which I had trouble with anyway, since there is no way Nash is an above average defender). Also, much of a running game is predicated on defensive stops. When I've seen the Suns play, they make most of their runs when the other team gets cold and the suns sprint out before the other team can recover.
Nash will continue to be surrounded by young and increasingly good players while Kidd will likely spend the rest of his carreer with an aging team supported by a fatally short bench. 3 years from now, when Nash is playing an effective 28 minutes a game, people will say that Nash was definitively better, disregarding the fact that the twilight of his career was perfectly set up for him to look good, while Kidd had to slowly rot in basketball hell.
Not to go too far off-subject, but style outweighs substance in a lot of areas of life. Take it back to 1960 when Nixon refused to wear make-up for his presidential debate w/ JFK (who knew the value of looking good on TV) and none of the viewers remembered a damn thing that either of them said...but everyone agreed that JFK came off much better. Was it because of his views? Or a good point he made? No, it was because he looked good. Same with the Kidd-Nash debate. J-Kidd has toiled around the NBA in relative obscurity - he came out of Cal with a lot of fanfare, but got lumped in with an underachieving Mavs team, then went to the Suns, where it never really clicked for a wide variety of reasons, and even when he was lighting it up in Jersey & having tons of success, it was in the half-empty Meadowlands, coming out a weak Eastern Conference, and with the inevitable conclusion of a beatdown at the hands of the Shaq/Kobe Lakers dynasty. Segue to Nash - is it any coincidence that his success happened right when Shaq (the most dominant force in the league) left for the Eastern Conference? Nash went to Phoenix at the perfect time, got in the perfect system, with the perfect teammates, and the perfect coach. It was the perfect storm. Does this mean Nash sucks? Or Nash isn't the best PG in the league? Of course not, but it does mean that Nash had a lot of things going for him, which explains why he's an MVP despite not one trip to the Finals. Nash is sexy. He's a speedy, flashy, tricky whizkid playing for the funnest team in the league. Who cares if he can't rebound or play defense? Who cares about postseason success? Those are just minor details when you can become a media darling. John Stockton plugged away for years in the basketball Siberia of Utah, wearing tight-ass shorts, playing for adoring Mormon crowds, running that boring-ass pick & roll with the Mailman ad nauseum...but was he ever treated like the second coming of Oscar Robinson? Hardly. This whole Kidd-Nash debate is about a lot of things, but it has a lot more to do with circumstance & sexiness than with basketball. Unfortunate? Yes. But true? Absolutely.
* This is an off-topic comment
Hi Nate,
I'm an Portuguese fan of the old, golden Jordan days NBA. Back then my favourite player was Pat Ewing and my favourite team the NY Knicks.
This comes a bit out of the blue - and I apologise for that - but as I was browsing websites about Basketball I came across a Knicks team that costs almost twice the average NBA team and doesn't have one of Top 20 players in the squad (list from: http://uk.sports.ign.com/articles/703/703785p1.html ).
Why and how does this happen? Howcome there is a salary cap on NBA teams that only 4 teams in 30 seem to respect? (data from: http://www.nationwide.net/~patricia/misc/salaries06.txt ).
Please feel free to email-me your reply (if you wish to do so) to hugo.mocc@gmail.com and sorry again for the off-topic, but I couldn't find any other way to put you my question.
Thank you.
Give Nash Two more years at this level and if they happen to win the 'chip it will only solidy his standing in the top 5 all-time, doing it in an era where everyone is bigger faster and better defensively than the old-timers, check my site Jones
Comparing how Steve Nash and Jason Kidd stack against the all-time greats at this point when both of them are still very productive and have at least a good 3 years left in their NBA playing careers is premature (but fun).
Between the two of them, there's always a good argument for and against one and the other. The good: J-Kidd's consistency, defense, across-the-board numbers; Steve Nash's outside and clutch shooting, daredevil drives, dribbling, left-hand passing, shooting percentages, over-all tantalizing play. The bad: Kidd's low percentage outside shooting, Steve's generous defense.
In the end, however, it comes down to how their peers think of them. For sure, both of them will go to the Hall of Fame and be recognized as among the best point guards of their generation.
As for me, I loved Kidd early in his career when he was the head of the suns' run and gun style and when he transformed the nets to an east powerhouse. As exciting as Kidd was in his prime, he paled in comparison to Nash's wonderful dribbling and passing skills when he joined the suns. Nash's play even prompted Barkley to say how lucky he was he got to watch Nash do his stuff. Hence, at least for the entertainment value (which is the value the NBA is most interested in), I join the majority and go for Nash.
In terms of their overall careers at this point, I'll have to say their at par with each other. You can't belittle the skills set each possesses. And while Kidd may have had a more consistent career, it's hard to argue against Steve Nash's excellent play (and his clutch shooting and 2 MVPs) the past 2 seasons that had ex- and current NBA players gushing with delight and admiration. One or 2 more seasons like those, and I'll be ready to throw my hat to Steve Nash's corner.
Nothing like calling Oscar Robertson "Oscar Robinson" to discredit a basketball-related post. I'm an idiot.
That espn TOP 10, how can you respect it when Jerry West is left off of the list. You really expect me to believe Tiny Archibald was better than Jerry West???!!!
Anyway, Steve Nash is not only a great player, he is a great entertainer in a way we usually don't see on the basketball court - not with his athleticism, but with his skill set. His absolute excellence in the Suns system drives a team that everyone wants to watch. In that system, he looks to feed everyone else but takes the scoring load upon himself when necessary.
Earlier in their careers, the superior athlete that was Kidd was superior to Nash but as they get older Nash is aging better, since speed and leaping ability don't have much effect on handle and shot and judgment. Now the two are peers, with Nash being on a better team and getting more publicity and acclaim.
Over the course of their careers, I will still believe Kidd is better, but I would rather have either of them over Payton or Price or Hardaway. I would rank Nash as about even with the underrated KJ as point guards. Price was Nash, only less so and Hardaway was too much about himself, ala BoomDizzle. Payton is a guy who was always overrated as a defender and it gave him a reputation of greatness when Kidd was the better player. Payton is fading into the woodwork now. Kidd remains great. Nash has become great.
Ok, so I never chime in on these debates, but I have to this time (although I realize everyone has probably stopped reading these comments by now).
Jason Kidd is, make no mistake, the best point guard of the past ten years. Over the prime of his career nobody else really comes close.
But Steve Nash is way more important to the game of basketball. Not only has he played 2.25 seasons of better basketball than Jason Kidd ever has, he isn't a coach-killing, egocentric, wife-beater (which is harsh, but definitely how the casual fans view him).
Yes, Jason Kidd made it to two Finals, but it was only after he got traded to the pathetic East. If he hadn't been traded, he would have continued to get demolished in the first round every single year. He never beat a team in the playoffs (ever) that had a low-post scoring threat (unless you want to count Antoine Walker or an injured Jermaine O'Neal).
Jason Kidd didn't change the way the game was being played. Those Nets teams that went to the Finals were fast-breaking in the regular season, but slow and defensive-minded in the playoffs...just like everyone else.
Steve Nash has been the leader of a team that has ripped apart the league in a way that everyone said couldn't be done. Incidently, it just happens to be a way of winning that everyone likes more.
And please, don't delude yourself into thinking J-Kidd could do as well in the Suns system as Nash does. The Suns system is predicated on having 5 players on the floor who can score, and Kidd can't shoot (even after years of getting better at shooting). The Suns and the Nets (with K-Mart and Richard Jefferson) were both built to emphasize Jason Kidd's talents. Every team does the same with their best player.
I agree, there's no way you can say Steve Nash has had a better career than Jason Kidd (or Isiah, or Magic, or Stockton) to this point. You could debate the merits of him versus Gary Payton (who was way more boring than you seem to remember), but comparing him to Price is just silly.
But the last two-plus seasons of Nash in Phoenix have been the two most electrifying seasons any point guard has had since Magic was in his prime. That's just a fact. And it isn't like he sucked in Dallas either.
The 'other' hogwash I see all the time:
That "Kidd had a better season back in '03 but they didn't win the MVP, so Nash isn't deserving" has got to stop as well. Yeah, Kidd had a great season in '03, but hey, Tim Duncan was pretty darn good as well. Nash in '05 wasn't competing against Kidd in '03, he was competing against the rest of the '05 players. And last I checked, in '05 Kobe was injured, Shaq was injured, LeBron and KG couldn't even get their team to the playoffs, and nobody wanted to vote for an enormous German guy. Nash won because he had weaker competition than Kidd did in '03. That doesn't mean he's undeserving, it just means Kidd was unlucky (actually, Kidd was robbed in '03, but there's nothing that can be done about that...don't take it out on Nash!).
And yes, it seems like Shaq should have more MVPs than he has, but the guy doesn't play the whole season. I think I'm agreeing with most basketball writers when I say that if you're missing 15%-20% of the season (12-16 games) you can't really be the MVP. You're suggesting Shaq should have been winning the MVP trophy over guys like Hakeem, Jordan, and Malone? I don't think so.
The simple facts are these, and they can't be argued with: Jason Kidd is one of the all-time great point guards, but he isn't on the same level as Magic and Thomas and Stockton (who could do everything he could do and shoot too!).
Steve Nash hasn't had an all-time great career, but his last two seasons have been amazing, and his Dallas years didn't exactly suck.
For my money, I'd take Steve Nash over Jason Kidd any day, he's just more fun to watch.
Nash is better than Kidd...as a matter of fact Steve Nash is the second only to Magic Johnson as the BEST point guard of All Time and here's why:
As far as Kidd going to the Finals two years in a row...HE WAS IN THE EASTERN CONFERENCE!!! He also had Kenyon Martin (who played similar to Amare Stoudemire, if not better, before he got hurt) and Richard Jefferson...If Amare was healthy last year the Suns would have went to and won the NBA Finals...NO DOUBT ABOUT IT...they are a MUCH better team than last year's Heat, who would not have even been there if Dwyane Wade hadnt all of the sudden went crazy...and with Stoudemire they would've been better than the Mavs...
Kidd never made anything of Kerry Kittles or Keith Van Horn in the way Steve Nash makes Boris Diaw and Leandro Barbosa play at such higher levels than they ever dreamed of...
Steve Nash had 21 assists on a night he said he wasnt "feeling it" as far as shooting goes...he was also smart enough not to shoot the ball when he wasnt feeling it...
Statistics dont matter as much as you think they do...but here's one for ya...Jason Kidd has only averaged double figures in assists for a season twice in his career...Nash has done it the past two years (more assists and more points than Kidd's years) and is on pace for 20 points and 11 assists this year...something Kidd has NEVER done...he's never even averaged 20 points in a season before...The ONLY thing Jason Kidd has done more better than Nash ever has is rebound...and he's much bigger than Nash is...
Argue all you want to...but Steve Nash is simply better than Jason Kidd and thats that...You'll see by the end of Nash's career...
and to put him in a category with Kevin Johnson and Tim Hardaway is an insult...you should be banned from basketball for that kind of comment...
Nashisbetter, you're right. Putting him in a category with Kevin Johnson and Tim Hardaway is an insult... to Kevin Johnson and Tim Hardaway.
This is what bugs me about Nash winning two MVP's he didn't deserve. It's not that I don't like Nash (he seems like a genuinely nice guy) or the Suns (they're the most exciting team in the A).
But the past two years seemed to have completely warped everyone's perception of basketball. You can argue about Nash vs. Payton. Assuming Nash is able to stay healthy, in a few years you can argue about Nash vs. Kidd (right now, careerwise, it's Kidd by a country mile).
But people are actually saying he's second only to Magic!!! How can he possibly be greater in a historical sense than Oscar, Isiah, Cousy, etc.? Can two (and only 2) years of average John Stockton-ish play (minus the D) really make a guy one of the GOAT's?
First of all, playing with Steve Nash didn't magically make Boris Diaw gain a passing touch, nor did it give Leandro Barbosa his blazing speed. And do you honestly think that any GM (except maybe Billy King or Isiah) would take 02-03 K-Mart and Rich Jefferson over the 04-05 Stoudemire and Marion? Kidd's supporting cast pales in comparison. And he did get just enough out of Kittles and Van Horn to get to 2 Finals (probably 2 more than Nash will ever reach but we'll just have to wait and see). Everyone loves to crow about Nash transforming the Suns, but just two seasons earlier, the Suns were a playoff team who pushed the Spurs to 6 games while being piloted by ballhog extraordinaire Stephon Marbury. If Steph didn't revert back to his old ways, and if Amare doesn't get injured, Nash probably stays in Dallas.
And is it really a surprise that Nash's stats are slightly better than J-Kidd's? Hey, Nash is a better shooter and a better fit for their offense, no doubt. But Kidd spent most of his career playing in an era where a 91-88 game was considered a high score. Nash's best years coincidentally coincide with an era that sees a guy going to the line for getting touched and refs turning a blind eye to moving screens and picks (a staple of the Suns offense by the way). Just a few years ago, you could hand-check somebody all across the court. Now quicker perimiter players like Nash have free reign to move however they like.
And how can a guy who's never even been to the finals be 2nd to Magic? Nash has played very well the past two playoffs, but he still went home. His team has traditionally had a poor record when it comes to trailing in the 4th quarter. He's not particulary clutch or unclutch.
To be fair, I don't think that Nash is a "product of the system." He would have been a good player anyway. But in his physical prime he was a solid 17 and 7 guy who was the third best player on his team. He routinely got his lunch eaten by Mike Bibby for Christsakes (of course he still gets scored upon more than a slutty cheerleader by ANY PG, but I digress).
Nash did not magically go from "pretty good" to "MVP". It happened because he fell into the right place at the right time. He's on a team with exactly the right pieces- shooters, finishers, a force of nature in Amare, an unconventional coach willing to push the ball- for him to succeed. Compare that to Kidd, who is usually stuck with bad teammates but makes them better. Nash is indisputably the best PG in the NBA RIGHT NOW. But don't crown him as an all time great when he clearly doesn't deserve it.
Most experts disagree on the definition of MVP and as such their will almost always be controversy. If by MVP you mean the most valuable player to his team on an elite team then Nash (along with Nowitzki) are presently the two best. I will acknowledge that if they redrafted the entire NBA over again Nash would likely not even be drafted in the first round but that is because most people value athleticism first above other aspects of the game. But to discount his value is to simply not appreciate that basketball involves strategy, intelligence and leadership. He is the closest thing to have an actual coach on the floor. If you watch the Suns over the past three years, you cringe when he is not holding the ball and controlling the offense. When he has the ball you feel relieved and know that good things are likely to happen (this is especially so in the playoffs). It was the same way when he was in college and helped a pathetic group of players reach the NCAA tournament and upset major teams (See Santa Clara v. Arizona).
Further I do not understand the argument that he is lucky to be part of a team that particularly suits his skills. It is managements job to assemble a team that takes advantage of the skill of its players. Don't you think Chicago did that for Jordan? The hall of fame team that surrounded Magic sure didn't suck. Further, putting another hall of fame athletic guard in his place is inappropriate and ignores many other basketball factors. I don't think that any guard can come in there and do what he did, not Kidd, not Marbury, not anyone (And if you still can't understand it then go ahead and put him in the lineup instead of Magic with the showtime Lakers (and there supporting cast who was much better than his) and I bet you would agree that the Lakers would still have won their championships). He deserves the Kudos he gets for bringing that team to an elite level. His value is also extremely evident in the playoffs where he raises his game and clearly is adept and bringing calmness to an otherwise shaky bunch. He is a true stud and truly deserving and can hold his head up high with the likes of Magic, Cousy, Kidd
Further as far as his athleticism goes, I can't think of anyone in the league who has the complete and deadly set of tools he does. He can drive by you (from the left or the right - I imagine he has more lay ups than anyone else in the playoffs), bust over you if you give him an inch (one of the top percentage shooters this year and in league history), and dish right around you (assist leader). And obviously you don't want to foul him (top free throw shooter in the league and top 5 in league history). A true offensive weapon in every sense. As for his defense, he works his tail off with what he has got, taking charges, fighting through screens and it sure doesn't seem like that is an issue with his teams since at the end it is all about wins and coincidentally his teams always do. I imagine he either does an adequate enough job or his offense outweighs his defense to such an extent that his defense cannot be really be looked at as a liability.
Remember that Nash is particularly special since he does not have genetics working for him like Kidd. I am sure you would appreciate that the taller and wider you are the easier it is to rebound and alter shots on D. That is why big tall guys typically are called on to rebound and block shots and why Kidd's numbers are better here. He is not asked to rebound, bang or block shots nor should he as that would be stupid in the same way it would be stupid to make Kidd the teams 3 point shooter. Kidd is blessed, as with Magic with skill along with incredible size - genetics is the only thing that gives Kidd the edge you are speakin of.
Fact is Nash, unlike Kidd, has changed the entire complexion of the NBA. Changed the way teams are playing games as most teams are now trying to mimic Phoenix. Some credit must be given to people who have that kind of effect. Nash can make incredible plays and is a highligh reel himself with his amazing passes, swishing 3 points and left handed drives combined with an intelligence and headiness that is almost never seen. With Nash the NBA is finally exciting to watch again after Jordan's departure. Lastly, it is also nice to watch someone who isn't a criminal and is actually deserving of praise.
No shame in him being a 2 time MVP us believing that his legacy will be one that belongs with the greats.
Compfever
Actually Nash didn't change the way the game is played. He's been playing that way for years. Jerry Colangelo (How convenient), David Stern, and the NBA Rules commitee changed the rules in the summer of 04 and that is why a team like Phoenix is able to play the way they are today. The rule changes and there effects on the game have been well documemented. Again, don't get me wrong, Nash is the best PG in the game today. But what I am saying is that if you analyze his entire career and compare it to that of Jason Kidd, Nash doesn't even come close. If we based his career off of three years, then yes, he would probably be one of the greatest players of all-time. But so would Penny Hardaway and Grant Hill.
Matt (CA): Steve Nash is not the MVP of the NBA. He is in a system which enhances all stats for every player. It's a fallacy to think that he "makes" everyone better. He does not shoot the shots for them, he may help get them open, but that is it. I think Shawn Marion is far more valuable to that team b/c of his versatility. He can start breaks with his rebounding, and finish them with his incredible atheleticism. My quest is to Make sure he does not win the MVP this year. No way he is in the same category as Russell, Jordan, Johnson, Chamberlain, or Bird. All those guys won multiple championships and dominated while doing it. He shouldn't have won the last two years and he shouldn't win this year.
David Thorpe: (12:03 PM ET ) Matt, I honestly feel that people like you just don't get hoops. If you can't see Nash's immense talents, you should consider giving up basketball. Give Dodgeball a try.
Tate (Glendale): Who would you rather have running your team...Stockton or Nash (each in their prime)?
David Thorpe: (12:27 PM ET ) Ouch. Easy to say Nash now since I see him weekly, but JS amazing too. I'd lean to Nash still.
Stupid comments Adrian, just stupid. Actually, Nash is the NBA of the NBA, I just looked to make sure but I am pretty certain he did in fact win it. Further, take a look at Tim Legler's Daily Dime on espn.com today and he ranks Nash as the #1 candidate to win the MVP. Nash better watch out because of your "quest" and your "quest" surely will have an immense impact on all the experts who vote.
In case you didn't know, rules change all of the time and you can't blame the players who play by the rules of the game for their stats nor in the system they play in. Magic's stats were sure increased due to the fast break system the Lakers played in. In fact, Nash's stats would be much better if he didn't sit in the 4th quarter of half of their games because they have already blown the other team out. I have a feeling if the rules were different in the glory days of the players you mentioned their stats would change in many cases for ther worse. In short, you have to evaluate the players under their rules that exist and no matter what system.
Good luck on your quest.
I meant the stupid comments were made by Matt, sorry Adrian.
"Everyone loves to crow about Nash transforming the Suns, but just two seasons earlier, the Suns were a playoff team who pushed the Spurs to 6 games while being piloted by ballhog extraordinaire Stephon Marbury."
Right, and the year before Nash got there they were 29-53. His first season back in Phoenix they were 62-20. A 33 game turnaround. Just want to make sure all the facts are out there.
I just want to point out that Steve Nash's career, up until year 2004, was very similiar to that of Eric Snow. Nash had more assists, but Snow had less TOs and better A/T ratio. Nash shot better and scored more, while Snow was a better defender with more rebounds and steals.
"But Steve Nash is way more important to the game of basketball. Not only has he played 2.25 seasons of better basketball than Jason Kidd ever has, he isn't a coach-killing, egocentric, wife-beater (which is harsh, but definitely how the casual fans view him)."
I think this is a key point. I don't understand why Kidd gets less criticism than players with similar off-court issues. Kidd gets no criticism for his teams' failings in the past; at the same time, Nash is dismissed as "the system's" benefactor.
We should consider the Nets' back-to-back Finals appearance in context, too. In addition to what's been said previously, let's keep in mind that no one considers Byron Scott a great coach, nor does anyone consider Kenyon Martin a great player. Weren't they part of a back-to-back Finals team? Kidd gets a lot of his reputation through those appearances, but critics don't go out of their way to give anyone else credit. (On a similar note, Iverson willed a team to the Finals, but people have no problem calling him a loser.) So I might argue that Kidd's two Finals appearances overrate him in the sense that Nash's two MVPs overrate Nash.
Does Kidd have a better career than Nash? Yes. But he has alienated more teams and teammates than Nash, and Nash's detractors go out of their way to mitigate Nash's accomplishments and out of their way to value Kidd's accomplishments as highly as possible.
"Nash is dismissed as "the system's" benefactor"
--This is the opposite of what I meant. Nash is said to 'merely' benefit from 'the system'. I tried too hard for a Mark Cuban reference I guess.
I think we're missing out on some KEY points here:
Kidd came into the league with hype. Nash did not.
Kidd was a starter for the Dallas Mavs. Nash was not a starter for the Phoenix Suns.
Kidd has played his entire career with the "green light". Nash had "Amber" at best.
Kidd went to the Finals (twice) for the EAST - which, anyone who watches basketball knows is the weaker of the two Conferences since Jordan left the Bulls. Nash has always played in the West.
My point is it's not fair to compare Nash's past 3-5 yrs with Kidd's entire career. There were different circumstances for both players. Who knows what Nash's numbers could've been had he been given the same "green light" that Jason Kidd had throughout his career. It's totally unfair.
Both make their team better than they are. Both play with heart and passion just like John Stockton, Magic Johnson and yes, Mark Price and Kevin Johnson played with.
I would give Jason Kidd the edge as a better PG ONLY because he is a better rebounder than Nash. Relatively the same height, play the same position, yet Kidd's scraping for boards while Nash waits for the outlet pass. That's not a knock against Nash, but it's the truth.
Forget the D, forget the hype out of college, forget which team they play(ed) for and what system is run. Forget what supporting players each have... Kidd rebounds, Nash doesn't.
That (IMHO) is the only fair comparrison we can make between the two.
And I agreed with Shaquille O'Neal when he said on National TV that J-Kidd should've been the real MVP as he hug his Finals trophy back in 01-02.
This kind of discussion is a classic example of differing definitions of greatness--short-term peak value versus long-term excellence. Both have their points. Probably a lot of the argument rests on where you draw the line. For me, a single year, no matter how excellent, is never going to be enough to make someone the greatest ever, or even one of the greatest. You need more than that. If I can bring in another sport, you could call this the Dwight Gooden (or Roger Maris) rule. Gooden was otherworldly for a season, and never as good again.
But on the other hand, you don't need to be great for 15 years to be in the greatness conversation. That wouldn't be a realistic or fair standard either. For me, something like 5 or 6 years at a truly great level is enough. You could call this the Sandy Koufax rule. In Koufax's peak period, which lasted about 6 (or maybe 5) years, everybody knew he was the best. Everybody. And he sustained that for more than 1 year, more than 2, and more than 3. I say that's enough.
Nash, though not a perfect player (who is?), is currently playing at an extremely high level. This is, what, his 3rd (or if you're generous, 4th) year playing at this level? If he can keep this up for another 3 or 4 years, then I say, yeah, send him to the HOF, and talk about him as one of the best PGs you've seen. Don't hold him to some BS standard like saying he's got to have HOF numbers for 12 seasons or something. Nash is slightly unusual for NBA players in that he didn't really hit his stride until relatively late in his career (rather like Billups, if you think about it), but don't let that blind you to the level he's playing on now (and for the past few years).
As for all-timers, Kidd's already there IMO.
Re s-love:
"We should consider the Nets' back-to-back Finals appearance in context, too. In addition to what's been said previously, let's keep in mind that no one considers Byron Scott a great coach, nor does anyone consider Kenyon Martin a great player. Weren't they part of a back-to-back Finals team?"
The reason nobody considers Byron Scott a great coach or K-Mart a great player is that they weren't, and aren't. K-Mart's subsequent career in Denver, when he's been able to play, shows that. Kidd helped make him look better than he was. The fact is that J-Kidd made a bigger difference to that team than anybody. He gets most of the credit because he was the best player on that team and did the most work. Citing his two Finals appearances is not overrating him, because he was the player most responsible for the team getting there. (Iverson deserves credit for getting his team there too, and I for one have never called him a loser.)
Great post, thank you.
I agree with every little detail of your post.
It's as simple as to compare NOW the players that have won the MVP and you can easily see that Nash is the worst among them. It proves how much the level of analysis and critic of all of us have fallen, including the media.
this is blog entry should be read before every Phoenix Suns game. This will be the first ever blog I have ever bookmarked. Many of these comments have been beaten to death amongst my peers, it is refreshing to see a complete stranger share my thought process completely.
love of the game
Nash is good but lets be SERIOUS
he doesnt have that IT factor that
transcends to wins when it matter!
Lets be real we all knew even Suns fans knew they werent gonna win trophy this year. Nash was fortunate to have mentors like Kidd KJ early in his career but when the game is on the line mano a mano a tied series Iverson,Bibby,Baron Davis to name a few would EAT Nash. Iverson took a C-list cast to the finals. Nash
is good but he like Dirk in Dallas
just lack that "thing" that fire of Isiah etc. And honestly the NBA is always looking for the great white hope! The Nets were the laughing stock of the league until Kidd arrived the Suns werent and Amare couldve been Co MVP that year with Nash. They both are good but Im going with Kidd because he knows what it takes to get to the promised land
NASH=SUCKS
KIDD=GREATEST POINT Guard
I think that by the end of their careers Nash is going to be the better player. He'll probably get about 2 finals mvps before he retires. It's safe to say JKidd ain't goin nowhere with his team. Nash has changed the way the game is played and will be a top 5 point god of all time
I am the biggest Steve Nash fan ever, but the argument that Nash has better career credentials than Kidd is absolutely ludicrous (I'm not sure most Nash fans are making this argument, as you contend). In defense of Nash, he came out of college late and didn't really get any PT early in his career (playing behind greats Kevin Johnson and Kidd himself). While Nash has proven to get better with age and the 2 MVP titles work in his favour, he still needs at least 2-3 seasons of 16+ pt, 9+ assist, and perhaps a championship, to be assured of a spot in the Hall of Fame. Both players play in systems that work for their styles, and as great players, make the players around them better than they actually are. I think Nash is a superior players now, although Kidd is not far behind. However, Kidd was a lock of the Hall years ago, while Nash is still on his way. Let's hope nagging injuries and a lack of motivation/ego don't hold him back, because I'd loev a Canadian to get in there.
Post a Comment