RealGM Top 100 List #34

[tsherkin]

Well, part of the difference is Kidd not maximizing production on his own scoring opportunities, whch Payton did comparatively well versus Kidd's general lack of utility as a scorer. This is an area independent of teammates.

obviously correct and conceded. Tho Payton is hardly an efficient scorer himself.

94-03 (Prime run as an All-Star), he was a 20.8 ppg, 7.9 apg guy on 53.4% TS and 113 ORTG (3.5% ORB, 11.9% TOV).

Obviously not an incredible level of efficiency, but that's why I said "comparatively." Kidd was really bad in terms of efficency, whereas league average was only 53% or better when the 3pt line was pulled in, meaning he was generally above league average (and sure enough, he was at 55.4% from 95-97).

Era context matters in fhis case.

[Texas Chuck]

. the change of teams issue is even more personnel related than the offensive differences between Seattle and New Jersey so while it's a point, I don't think it's as valuable a measuring stick.

.

I guess I just can't understand how the team stat of w/l is less telling than the team stat of team offenses. Both are clearly team accomplishments. Especially since winning is worth more than having a great offense. Seems like you have to either ignore the team offense stuff or you have to give more stock to the w/l stuff.

If it happened only once or to a smaller degree I can see dismissing the w/l stuff. But it happens every single time and to a staggering degree. I just can't buy into the idea that Kidd isn't the primary driving force. Obviously there are other factors, but he's the consistent one. tsherkin attempted to discredit it and didn't even come close.

I get the PC board frowns on "rings" or team success which is fine to a degree tho I disagree with it not being important. But what I really don't get is then why so much weight gets put on less important team accomplishments.

[tsherkin]

. the change of teams issue is even more personnel related than the offensive differences between Seattle and New Jersey so while it's a point, I don't think it's as valuable a measuring stick.

.

I guess I just can't understand how the team stat of w/l is less telling than the team stat of team offenses. Both are clearly team accomplishments. Especially since winning is worth more than having a great offense. Seems like you have to either ignore the team offense stuff or you have to give more stock to the w/l stuff.

If it happened only once or to a smaller degree I can see dismissing the w/l stuff. But it happens every single time and to a staggering degree. I just can't buy into the idea that Kidd isn't the primary driving force. Obviously there are other factors, but he's the consistent one. tsherkin attempted to discredit it and didn't even come close.

I get the PC board frowns on "rings" or team success which is fine to a degree tho I disagree with it not being important. But what I really don't get is then why so much weight gets put on less important team accomplishments.

That's not really accurate, Chuck. I never set out to prove his departure had no impact and I successfully showed significant personnel changes while outlining general team context (health, roster quality, etc). Kidd was a very good player, so he was always going to have some impact upon leaving, especially in negative value trades, but the overall scope is blunted by those other factors.

[Texas Chuck]

Let's just disagree about your post on Kidd then. Saying you showed other factors isn't really saying anything. Of course there are other factors. And I agree the trades weren't even--Kidd is that good a player. But even if he was traded for nothing a 20 win gain is pretty significant much less when the team trading for him loses players as good as Cassell, Finley, Green, Marbury, etc.

But you certainly didn't demonstrate that those other factors are the reason behind the massive w/l changes and thus my point stands--we may disagree on how he impacts games, but the fact remains that he has a significant positive impact on his teams.

Now we can certainly disagree on how much impact he's having and whether or not he deserves to be ranked this high or not. But your post did nothing to mitigate the impact Kidd obviously had that is confirmed by a variety of metrics beyond simple won/loss.

[penbeast0]

. the change of teams issue is even more personnel related than the offensive differences between Seattle and New Jersey so while it's a point, I don't think it's as valuable a measuring stick.

.

I guess I just can't understand how the team stat of w/l is less telling than the team stat of team offenses. Both are clearly team accomplishments. Especially since winning is worth more than having a great offense. Seems like you have to either ignore the team offense stuff or you have to give more stock to the w/l stuff.

If it happened only once or to a smaller degree I can see dismissing the w/l stuff. But it happens every single time and to a staggering degree. I just can't buy into the idea that Kidd isn't the primary driving force. Obviously there are other factors, but he's the consistent one. tsherkin attempted to discredit it and didn't even come close.

I get the PC board frowns on "rings" or team success which is fine to a degree tho I disagree with it not being important. But what I really don't get is then why so much weight gets put on less important team accomplishments.

I agree about W/L, just again, hard to compare people with it when one changes teams once in his prime and the other doesn't change teams at all until post-prime. Maybe twice if you consider his last year in Dallas part of his prime but with all of the screwed up relationships there because of the dating incident, I don't. It's just a very small sample size.

And the team offense thing is to counter what I consider a false narrative that is being put forth of Kidd as a Steve Nash style great offensive facilitator . . . he wasn't.

[Texas Chuck]

Oh I didn't realize anyone was trying to argue Kidd being on the offensive level of Nash. I certainly don't agree with that.

I just think there is a gulf between Nash and BAD and that Kidd falls reasonably close to Payton within that gap. You obviously see it differently.

[penbeast0]

Again . . . facilitator; not overall offense because of the shooting.

[trex_8063]

It's been 48 hrs and I make the vote count as of post #67 as follows:

Gary Payton (2)---penbeast0, SactoKingsFan

Kevin Durant (4)---RSCD_3, DQuinn1575, batmana, tsherkin

Jason Kidd (5)---trex_8063, Quotatious, Doctor MJ, drza, Chuck Texas

Isiah Thomas (2)---Warspite, ronnymac2

[Texas Chuck]

Again . . . facilitator; not overall offense because of the shooting.

I personally think having gotten to watch both of them up close for years that Kidd has better vision than Nash and probably better raw passing skills. Now obviously Nash is clearly the more effective facilitator because of his superiority as a shooter,as a penetrator, and as a finisher. So I think if someone is claiming that Kidd is on Nash's level as a playmaker I think that's fine to say as long as they acknowledge that Nash is going to get better results due to the difference in defensive attention the two players require. I wouldn't say it.

But I'm not advocating Kidd here for the same reasons I would advocate Nash. He has other areas in which he excels.

[magicmerl]

I started out writing this post as a vote for Kidd, but as I looked into the numbers I didn't see the case over Payton. Of the candidates showing I'm going to pick Gary Payton.

I think that Durant's career is too short, so we're really looking at the 3 point guards here. Thomas I think also lacks longevity.

Comparing Payton vs Kidd head to head, we have the following:
Category: Kidd - Payton
Win Shares: 138.6 - 145.5
TOV%: 18.8% - 12.8%
AST%: 38.5% - 31.9%
AST/TO: 3.0 - 3.0
TS%: .507 - .528
Reb%: 10.0% - 6.5%

Defensively I don't really have a clear sense of who was better, since they were both excellent. Kidd did a little more on offense as a pure pointguard, but has correspondingly more turnovers as a result. Payton both called his own number more, but he was also more efficient as he did so as well.

[penbeast0]

Even with magicmer1, it looks like the runoff comes down to Kidd v. Durant. Long career by a defensive minded playmaker with poor shooting skills against a short career of a great scorer with good secondary skills.

For me, the consistently poor offenses of Kidd's teams throughout his prime tells against his ability to create for teammates (he was a great passer but teams were able to lay off him so consistently that he couldn't create as much in the half court as you might expect). Durant's peak is short but he's a top 2 player in the league with MVPs, I don't think Kidd was ever close to top 5 in the league. Runoff vote: Durant.

Kevin Durant (5)---RSCD_3, DQuinn1575, batmana, tsherkin, penbeast0

Jason Kidd (5)---trex_8063, Quotatious, Doctor MJ, drza, Chuck Texas

[magicmerl]

Ok, I flip back to Kidd then.

[Basketballefan]

Wow this a close one for me no doubt. As much as i want to go with KD i don't think i can just yet. 7 seasons with just 5 at a top 10 level i don't think is quite enough. KD does have 3 seasons as the 2nd best player in the league along with MVP, multiple scoring titles and a lot of playoff success but Kidd has outstanding longevity and a pretty nice resume of his own.

There's no point in comparing statistics as they're totally different players and impact the game differently. I just don't think KD has done enough in 7 seasons to take him over Kidd's extended career of excellence. Leading a team to consecutive finals is impressive regardless of the conference.

Vote:KIDD

[Jim Naismith]

Wow this a close one for me no doubt. As much as i want to go with KD i don't think i can just yet. 7 seasons with just 5 at a top 10 level i don't think is quite enough. KD does have 3 seasons as the 2nd best player in the league along with MVP, multiple scoring titles and a lot of playoff success but Kidd has outstanding longevity and a pretty nice resume of his own.

There's no point in comparing statistics as they're totally different players and impact the game differently. I just don't think KD has done enough in 7 seasons to take him over Kidd's extended career of excellence. Leading a team to consecutive finals is impressive regardless of the conference.

Vote:KIDD

More accurate to say that Durant was top 5 for 5 years (include #2 for 3 consecutive years).

[Joao Saraiva]

I think Durant is a much better player than Kidd. I'm not voting if I had to choose there would be no doubt in my mind it is KD.

[trex_8063]

It's quite obv Durant has had the higher peak. If we're talking about total career value, though, imo Kidd's just got too many valuable years (19 years, all as a starter and none of them worse than "valuable role player"; he's got more PRIME All-Star level years than Durant has TOTAL years).

To put into perspective: while a peak Durant is obviously the bigger producer than Kidd ever was, Durant's career rs win shares are 88.6. Kidd has 138.6. Just not even in the same ballpark as of yet. In rs and playoff WS combined, he trails Kidd by 52.4.

Durant's calling card is his scoring; led the league in the scoring four of the last five years, has got to be on the short-list of the all-time greatest volume scorers.........and yet even in career points scored he still trails Kidd by >2,600 pts (i.e. he'll STILL likely be trailing Kidd after next season, too; and scoring wasn't even Kidd's strong suit). In rebounds he has less than half of Kidd's total, he has less than one sixth of Kidd's assists.

I only site these things to point out that Kidd has had so much more career than Durant. Higher peak sustained, I just don't think he's yet had a total career value to equal Kidd.

And if that isn't enough, for the devotees of impact data, I'd point out that RAPM---surprising---actually appears to favor Kidd:

Kidd (six prime/peak years in NJ)
'02--->+2.6 (5th in league, behind only prime Shaq, peak Tim Duncan, limited minute Tony Parker, and Doug Christie)
'03--->+3.8 (5th in league, behind only prime Garnett, prime Shaq, peak Duncan, and Doug Christie)
'04--->+4.5 (5th; behind only peak Garnett, prime Shaq, Duncan, Rasheed Wallace)
'05--->+4.8 (6th; behind only Manu Ginobili, Shaq, Duncan, Jason Collins, Brad Miller)
'06--->+3.6 (18th)
'07--->+3.8 (17th)
.....he was also top 30 in '99, '00, and '08. Top 40 in '09 and '10.

prime Durant
'10--->+0.9 (62nd, BEHIND Jason Kidd, who was 40th that year)
'11--->+1.9 (39th)
'12--->+1.8 (43rd)
'13--->+3.21 (20th)
'14--->+4.59 (8th)

[Basketballefan]

Wow this a close one for me no doubt. As much as i want to go with KD i don't think i can just yet. 7 seasons with just 5 at a top 10 level i don't think is quite enough. KD does have 3 seasons as the 2nd best player in the league along with MVP, multiple scoring titles and a lot of playoff success but Kidd has outstanding longevity and a pretty nice resume of his own.

There's no point in comparing statistics as they're totally different players and impact the game differently. I just don't think KD has done enough in 7 seasons to take him over Kidd's extended career of excellence. Leading a team to consecutive finals is impressive regardless of the conference.

Vote:KIDD

More accurate to say that Durant was top 5 for 5 years (include #2 for 3 consecutive years).

KD was not top 5 in 2010 imo. 2011 is debatable, he had no argument over Dirk LBJ Wade or Dwight i know that, then you have Rose, Kobe, and Cp3 who would have a case over KD so ill stick with my original top 10 for 5 years.

[Jim Naismith]

Wow this a close one for me no doubt. As much as i want to go with KD i don't think i can just yet. 7 seasons with just 5 at a top 10 level i don't think is quite enough. KD does have 3 seasons as the 2nd best player in the league along with MVP, multiple scoring titles and a lot of playoff success but Kidd has outstanding longevity and a pretty nice resume of his own.

There's no point in comparing statistics as they're totally different players and impact the game differently. I just don't think KD has done enough in 7 seasons to take him over Kidd's extended career of excellence. Leading a team to consecutive finals is impressive regardless of the conference.

Vote:KIDD

More accurate to say that Durant was top 5 for 5 years (include #2 for 3 consecutive years).

KD was not top 5 in 2010 imo. 2011 is debatable, he had no argument over Dirk LBJ Wade or Dwight i know that, then you have Rose, Kobe, and Cp3 who would have a case over KD so ill stick with my original top 10 for 5 years.

Season rankings for Durant:

MVP Shares
2010: #2
2011: #5
2012: #2
2013: #2
2014: #1

RPOY Shares
2010: #5
2011: #6
2012: #2
2013: #2
2014: #2

[PCProductions]

Vote: Jason Kidd

To paraphrase my peers, he's shown a noticeable impact on a team by team basis throughout his career which is the hallmark of a great and portable player. He's a two way player who adapted his game well throughout rule changes and era differences. He's also carved out a good, long career that I think makes it him over KD for the time being, but this will inevitably change.

[E-Balla]

More accurate to say that Durant was top 5 for 5 years (include #2 for 3 consecutive years).

KD was not top 5 in 2010 imo. 2011 is debatable, he had no argument over Dirk LBJ Wade or Dwight i know that, then you have Rose, Kobe, and Cp3 who would have a case over KD so ill stick with my original top 10 for 5 years.

Season rankings for Durant:

MVP Shares
2010: #2
2011: #5
2012: #2
2013: #2
2014: #1

RPOY Shares
2010: #5
2011: #6
2012: #2
2013: #2
2014: #2

So you're saying he was barely seen as top 5 in 2010 and wasn't seen as top 5 in 2011 (by the realgm voters who vote for player of the year not "Most Valuable Player") and that somehow doesn't prove his point?

I have not been able to follow the threads like I've liked too (for example I saw someone mention a great Gilmore post and I missed it and haven't had the time to find it) but I was able to read this thread and while the argument for KD is strong it is still based on 3 years of ATG level play and 2 other years of top 10 level play compared to 14 years of top 30-20 level play (he was an all star for twice the duration of KD's career). That's before taking into account how horrible his first 2 seasons were and his questionable playoff performance against good defenses without Westbrook to help. Other than having a good team around him what separates KD from TMac? I mean I get he needs to be voted in earlier because he's proven more deep into the playoffs (mainly because TMac's teammates weren't good enough to get him a shot) but looking at their careers they both have 5 top 10 level seasons (KD has 10-14, Mac has 01-05), a great season where they would've won MVP in most situations (14 and 03). The only difference to me is that individually TMac has 2 extra valuable seasons and no individual playoff failures and KD has team success and the benefit of being the clear second best player in the league (in a league with prime/peak Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, and KG he wouldn't have this advantage).