Steve Nash or Jason Kidd?

Steve Nash has two more MVP awards but Jason Kidd has led his team to the NBA finals twice which Nash has never done. So who is better a player in there prime?

Kidd. The only negative, he doesn't shoot as well. Well, for that, he's probably the most complete PG we've ever seen, aside from Magic Johnson. Yes, I said it. Nash, very good, but he's always a liability on one end of the floor. I have to take Kidd. Maybe not now that his career is winding down, but in his prime, anyday.

I'd have to go Nash, sure Kidd lead his team to the finals. But it was always in a weak conference.

Nash 2 times MVP does it for me, he can do just as much as kidd but also shoots the ball damm good and is good in the clutch. Nash does have a high amount of turnovers though (many commentators seam to miss this fact)

Jason Kidd

Jason Kidd is the closest the modern game has ever seen to Oscar Robertson and whilst Nash is the ultimate passer, Kidd is the complete deal. He almost averaged a TD last season and whilst his shooting is erratic from game to game, a PG who averages 8rpg is crazy. So I vote for Kidd in his later years (not his prime when he was one-dimensional) just for that wonderful comparison...

In there prime? Easily Kidd. In his prime he was an elite defender. Nash's defense consists of charges, yeh great defense . I think Kidd is even better now.

It depends on what we are selecting Kidd or Nash for...

For example, if I was picking out of those two for a spot in the NBA Hall of Fame; I'd go hands down with Kidd. Statistically he has had twice the career that Steve Nash has had. Plus, he has done it for longer. Yeah Steve Nash has got 2 MVP's to his name, but those are the only two years since MJ's (possibly Duncan's) last MVP where the award was given out on the correct merits - being the Most Valuable Player in the league. My point is, that value doesn't necessarily translate into 'hall of fame' status.

However, if you were asking me if I had the choice of Jason Kidd or Steve Nash in their primes, and I had to pick one to create a championship winning team, I would pick Steve Nash, almost hands down. The reason being is that Nash is the best point guard since Magic to run his teams offence - solely. And just for the record, I don't count Stockton because anyone can run pick-and-rolls after pick-and-rolls (Thats not necessarily saying Stockton wasn't a great player either). Steve Nash has been unquestionably the best point guard in this decade. Jason Kidd can run an offence, thats obvious but not to the same degree that Steve Nash can.

So, that is my answer to your question... what situation are we choosing these two players in?

What does it matter what situation?

You'd want the guard that could handle more situations than the other.

Outside of magic, Jason kidd is the most deadliest pg in the full court. No-one can run a fast break like Kidd, no-one. Nash is better in halfcourt, particularly pick and roll because of his shooting. Teams cant' defend the pick and the roll because if they go under, nash will bury the jumper and if they go over nash will pass it over to someone who is open.

I take kidd in his prime any day because of two things. All around play and defense. Kidd does everthing on the court, nash doesnt.

Hieu, on Aug 31 2007, 08:17 PM, said:

Well I thought I'd made that pretty clear. Whose had a better career? Kidd. Whose most likely going to win you a championship, Nash as a point guard or Kidd as a point guard? I say Nash. Clearly those are two diverse situations which one is better suited than the other. But to say 'Who would you rather?' or 'Who is better?' are questions that are too ambiguous to give a definitive answer to. The second statement is also way to ambiguous to apply to one or the other. What situations are you talking about? More to the point, can a list be made of all the situations one can think of, so that we can systematically check off who has done what and to what degree. But I'll try and read between the lines and say that by handling the more situations it equates to the greatest chance of winning a championship, which like I said is Nash.

melo061, on Aug 31 2007, 10:58 PM, said:

Last time I checked, Kidd is one of the most inconsisitent shooters in the NBA, whereas Nash is the opposite. But anyway... Kidd being the most deadlist point guard in the full court? Wrong. That is Nash hands down. Kidd is a better point guard in transition, but transition does not equate to a full court offence. The reason why Steve Nash has won 2.5 MVPs in the last three seasons (the .5 because he SHOULD have won it again the season just gone) is because he is the most valuable player in the Phoenix Suns' system. The sole reason the Suns have been so successful in the last three years is because of their up tempo style full court game. What makes that up-tempo style, full court game so effective is Steve Nash. The best half court point guard in the NBA is probably Tony Parker... but thats debatable. But in the end... Nash is the best full court point guard in the NBA, and Kidd is the best transition point in the NBA.

Nash.

Jason Kidd.

I'll pre-empt this by stating that both are HOF PGs, and for what it's worth, give me Nash. Not for his numbers alone - because I believe there's not a helluva lot between them. But because of two things: Nash appears to be getting better, whereas Kidd seems to be declining (a lil')... and mainly because Nash turns players into better than they are.

nomisg, on Aug 11 2007, 06:33 PM, said:

Fair call... but... huh?
I'd suggest the reason that commentators miss this 'fact' is because it's not a fact at all. Not sure where you got that, or why you think that... but here are the 'facts' on it:
Nash career T/O avg. - 2.6
Kidd career T/O avg. - 3.2

Neither are particularly bad, neither worthy of note - but Nash is better at protecting the ball. Something worth noting as well is that at Phoenix, they run a much more up-tempo offense than at NJ, so the chance of a turn-over is greater. Not withstanding, Nash still has the lower numbers.

TheBigFundamental, on Aug 14 2007, 12:37 PM, said:

Gotta remember, if Kidd doesn't score, NJ loses... most of the time. Nash doesn't have to score for Phoenix to be phenomenal.

melo061, on Aug 31 2007, 09:58 PM, said:

Err... huh? Deadliest? How? As you state, Nash is a better shooter, much better. Fast break? What do you think Phoenix run over, and over, and over, and over... ?

Thing is, Nash only hit his peak when he moved to Phoenix. At Dallas, he was good... but no-one foresaw what he was going to be at the Suns...

They're almost the same age now, Kidd being a year older. Across the board, Kidd's numbers are declining. Whereas across the board, Nash's are getting better!
Last 3 years, Kidd's ppg are down, his FG% is getting worse... his assists are getting a lil' better... but other than assists (which are marginally better), not as good as his career averages.
Nash is better each year than the last, in almost every statistical category, Nash's numbers are improving - he's having a better year so far this season than when he won his MVP trophies. Last year too. And in almost every category, Nash's numbers are better now, than Kidd's.

I firmly believe that if they played at the same team, Nash's team performs better... wait a second - they DID that! And what happened? Phoenix was MUCH better with Nash than with Kidd!

That is a weak argument. When Kidd was there, there was no amare. Marion was a youngster.

If were going to play like that, Kidd took inferior teams to the nba finals twice!.

Oh what a pithy response melo!
I offer stats & comparisons and your retort is 'that's a weak argument'. SUCH a way with words!
Yawn.
Indeed... Kidd took teams to the NBA finals from the oh-so-weak Eastern Conference. In both times he also had Kenyon Martin, who in those years was anything but a paltry player.
In 2002, they got swept by the Lakers.
In 2003, they took 2 games off the Spurs, and did do very well... all things considered.

Does anyone doubt that if the Phoenix Suns were in the East, that they'd be perennial Eastern Conference champions?

I'm not saying that Kidd's not a HoFer... verily I stated that he is. All I'm asserting is that Nash's better, and better now than Kidd is.

People say Jason Kidd is the complete Point Guard. He almost averages a triple double. Who cares? A triple double is only good if it was to help your team in victories. And his points are always low when he gets a triple double. Nash can get a double double quite easily, 15 assists and 20+ points.

Nash doesn't have defense, so he is only good on the offensive end. But he is an amazing passer and a great shooter.

Eggsackly.

Nash

Nash...

Apart from his play and the way he totally runs the team - and comes through in the clutch both shooting and passing (Kidd doesn't make the pass in last years playoff that Nash makes (behind his back, around two bigs, while under the hoop to a player he can't possibly have seen), there has never been any suggestion that Nash has been anything but a positive team mate in all situations either good or bad for him personally.

Kidd has at times been happy to stat-pad on occasion especially at the end of a stint with a team or when his team was out of playoff contention . Nash seems to not care as long as his team wins.

M

Nash

marriard, on Apr 14 2008, 02:06 PM, said:

I was gonna say pretty much that but mirriad already said it. Nash does not care about individual glory so long as his team wins. For those who constantly harp on the fact that Jason Kidd brought the Nets to the Finals twice, do you believe Nash would've struggled to do the same thing in the weak East? I don't. Were it not for a few bad breaks, Nash's Suns might have contested one or two Finals Series, coming from the much tougher West as well. Nash has two MVPs, Kidd doesn't.

After saying all that though, I recognize that both are exceptional point guards and Hall of Famers and that any franchise would be happy to have them.