RealGM

Which 70’s team would benefit the most if you added Prime Jason Kidd to their roster?

Ooh, interesting.

The greatest issue with Kidd (him being a bad scoring threat) drops off in relevance back in the 70s. His rebounding, transition play, defense and playmaking all become that much more relevant. Probably an ideal league environment for him, the 60s and 70s, particularly given his size relative to the majority of ball-handlers in those eras.

Not sure why his inability to shoot is less important in the 70s; though defensively, it was the era of big guards so he's not getting drawn out on the perimeter or facing the tiny jets as much. The rebounding might be less important with more packed paint, transition offense I agree matters more.

73 Sixers. Might go from 9 wins to 18, 100% improvement.

The 71 Bullets needed a pure point guard in the worst way with 2 guys averaging 17 boards a game.
But I will go with the Kareem bucks. A prime Kareem with a prime Kidd would be dangerous defensively.
Also the 70s Celtics. Cowens, Silas, Hondo, White, and Kidd.

SkyHookFTW wrote:73 Sixers. Might go from 9 wins to 18, 100% improvement.

But but but, the Freddies were the best thing about that team!

The funny thing about that 1973 76er team is that if not for Seattle throwing a game.

basically out of spite to get their coach sacked they would have just won 8 games.


It makes you wonder how many wins the goat candidates at their peaks would have added to that garbage squad.

70-75 Bulls

Adding Kidd would give them at least 1 title

Narigo wrote:70-75 Bulls

Adding Kidd would give them at least 1 title

Better rebounding?

penbeast0 wrote:Not sure why his inability to shoot is less important in the 70s; though defensively, it was the era of big guards so he's not getting drawn out on the perimeter or facing the tiny jets as much. The rebounding might be less important with more packed paint, transition offense I agree matters more.

No 3, less emphasis on perimeter play. More emphasis on transition than in his actual career. Lower baseline efficiency around the league means his individual scoring is less of an issue... a whole pile of things.

tsherkin wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Not sure why his inability to shoot is less important in the 70s; though defensively, it was the era of big guards so he's not getting drawn out on the perimeter or facing the tiny jets as much. The rebounding might be less important with more packed paint, transition offense I agree matters more.

No 3, less emphasis on perimeter play. More emphasis on transition than in his actual career. Lower baseline efficiency around the league means his individual scoring is less of an issue... a whole pile of things.

That assumes he'd maintain his scoring efficiency though, which isn't a certain thing.

70sFan wrote:That assumes he'd maintain his scoring efficiency though, which isn't a certain thing.

It's not certain, but he didn't really benefit from era-related boosts. I think the extra possessions per game for a transition-oriented guard with size would notably outstrip the backwards movement, personally. YMMV, it's certainly worth a thought, but I think Kidd would thrive in the 70s much moreso than he did in his own time or later eras.

wojoaderge wrote:

Narigo wrote:70-75 Bulls

Adding Kidd would give them at least 1 title

Better rebounding?

Yeah better playmaking and defense. Though Van Lier was an great defender himself

Narigo wrote:

wojoaderge wrote:

Narigo wrote:70-75 Bulls

Adding Kidd would give them at least 1 title

Better rebounding?

Yeah better playmaking and defense. Though Van Lier was an great defender himself

Also, Van Lier dished out more assists than any other player in the decade of the 70s

tsherkin wrote:

70sFan wrote:That assumes he'd maintain his scoring efficiency though, which isn't a certain thing.

It's not certain, but he didn't really benefit from era-related boosts. I think the extra possessions per game for a transition-oriented guard with size would notably outstrip the backwards movement, personally. YMMV, it's certainly worth a thought, but I think Kidd would thrive in the 70s much moreso than he did in his own time or later eras.

Everyone benefit from era-related boosts. Some more so than the others, but it impacts everyone. Kidd wasn't particulary great shooter, but three point line certainly helped him. Kidd had no midrange game, which was a must-have for any star guard in the 1970s. It wasn't required in 2000s anymore though.

I think a faster pace would definitely help him, but he'd do worse in halfcourt settings.

wojoaderge wrote:

Narigo wrote:

wojoaderge wrote:Better rebounding?

Yeah better playmaking and defense. Though Van Lier was an great defender himself

Also, Van Lier dished out more assists than any other player in the decade of the 70s

Van Lier was such a cool player to watch. He's much better than his stats indicate and I haven't seen a lot of defenders better than him at his size.

70sFan wrote:Everyone benefit from era-related boosts. Some more so than the others, but it impacts everyone. Kidd wasn't particulary great shooter, but three point line certainly helped him. Kidd had no midrange game, which was a must-have for any star guard in the 1970s. It wasn't required in 2000s anymore though.

That's not really true, though. He was a marginally competent mid-range shooter who had troubles finishing at the rim and wasn't an elite 3pt shooter for most of his career. He was a 39% guy from 16-23 feet on something close to a quarter of his shots. That isn't great but it isn't the worst, either. 3-15 feet was a weakness for him, as was his tepid draw rate, but he had a post game of sorts. I'm not going to argue too strenuously, because he wasn't a particularly good scorer in any capacity, but he had some mid-range game. Indeed, he had plenty of moves to get free, he just struggled to finish.

I think a faster pace would definitely help him, but he'd do worse in halfcourt settings.

Sure, but I don't think his half court efficiency would change much, and with like 20-25% more possessions per game, many of which were in transition, I think he's either net neutral (eh) or more likely slightly better. Again, who knows? It's speculative. But a 6'4, 6'5 guard would also tend to have a height advantage more regularly in earlier eras of the league, because small guards were more common than they were in the era of "find us another MJ" during which Kidd played.

tsherkin wrote:

70sFan wrote:Everyone benefit from era-related boosts. Some more so than the others, but it impacts everyone. Kidd wasn't particulary great shooter, but three point line certainly helped him. Kidd had no midrange game, which was a must-have for any star guard in the 1970s. It wasn't required in 2000s anymore though.

That's not really true, though. He was a marginally competent mid-range shooter who had troubles finishing at the rim and wasn't an elite 3pt shooter for most of his career. He was a 39% guy from 16-23 feet on something close to a quarter of his shots. That isn't great but it isn't the worst, either. 3-15 feet was a weakness for him, as was his tepid draw rate, but he had a post game of sorts. I'm not going to argue too strenuously, because he wasn't a particularly good scorer in any capacity, but he had some mid-range game. Indeed, he had plenty of moves to get free, he just struggled to finish.

I think a faster pace would definitely help him, but he'd do worse in halfcourt settings.

Sure, but I don't think his half court efficiency would change much, and with like 20-25% more possessions per game, many of which were in transition, I think he's either net neutral (eh) or more likely slightly better. Again, who knows? It's speculative. But a 6'4, 6'5 guard would also tend to have a height advantage more regularly in earlier eras of the league, because small guards were more common than they were in the era of "find us another MJ" during which Kidd played.

16+ feet isn't the range when most guards operated back then though. If we look at his best years, he was 35.3% from 10-16 feet and 37.9% from 16 feet to 3P line. That's not all-time bad, but it's quite bad. With less spacing, more crowded paint and stricter ball-handling rules, it could only go down. I just don't see Kidd being a better scorer in that era compared to the early 2000s.

70sFan wrote:16+ feet isn't the range when most guards operated back then though. If we look at his best years, he was 35.3% from 10-16 feet and 37.9% from 16 feet to 3P line. That's not all-time bad, but it's quite bad. With less spacing, more crowded paint and stricter ball-handling rules, it could only go down. I just don't see Kidd being a better scorer in that era compared to the early 2000s.

I see where you're coming from, but mostly the nuts and bolts of what I"m saying is that the rest of his game would stay the same and he'd get an efficiency boost from extra transition possessions, remember.

tsherkin wrote:

70sFan wrote:Everyone benefit from era-related boosts. Some more so than the others, but it impacts everyone. Kidd wasn't particulary great shooter, but three point line certainly helped him. Kidd had no midrange game, which was a must-have for any star guard in the 1970s. It wasn't required in 2000s anymore though.

That's not really true, though. He was a marginally competent mid-range shooter who had troubles finishing at the rim and wasn't an elite 3pt shooter for most of his career. He was a 39% guy from 16-23 feet on something close to a quarter of his shots. That isn't great but it isn't the worst, either. 3-15 feet was a weakness for him, as was his tepid draw rate, but he had a post game of sorts. I'm not going to argue too strenuously, because he wasn't a particularly good scorer in any capacity, but he had some mid-range game. Indeed, he had plenty of moves to get free, he just struggled to finish.

I think a faster pace would definitely help him, but he'd do worse in halfcourt settings.

Sure, but I don't think his half court efficiency would change much, and with like 20-25% more possessions per game, many of which were in transition, I think he's either net neutral (eh) or more likely slightly better. Again, who knows? It's speculative. But a 6'4, 6'5 guard would also tend to have a height advantage more regularly in earlier eras of the league, because small guards were more common than they were in the era of "find us another MJ" during which Kidd played.

Have you checked that size number for point guards (assuming the 2 guard is more traditional and not able to guard quick 1 guards)? Kidd's era was transitioning into the modern pace and space era with 3 point shooting (and smaller guards) becoming more common whereas the 70s in the NBA having no 3 point shot focused mainly on bigger PGs with the notable exception of Calvin Murphy. I don't have the energy to do the work now but you might find that big point guards were more common in the 70s (which would hurt Kidd's offensive efficiency but help him defensively).