RealGM

I TOTALLY understand that Magic is rightfully tiers above Kidd in the GOAT rankings-no argument there.

But, if Kidd joined LA in 1979, played in the fast, weak Western Conference for the 80's and had KAJ, Worthy, Scott and the rest to run with, I think he'd be just as good or better than Magic. Better on D, better passer, better shooter (later in career). Magic was a better scorer, but some of that was when he played vs. Kidd's prime (toughest time to score in NBA history).

So, am I crazy?

Yeah.

The gap in scoring is absolutely massive and not made up for the gap in defensive or passing (personally pretty doubtful Kidd has an advantage here in the first place). I'm skeptical of a shooting advantage in favor of Kidd too, he was great at taking 3s but he wasn't efficient at making them until after he left New Jersey.

Hard for me to think of any situation where I'd take Kidd as a top 2 player on my team over Magic, once you get into roles below that Kidd gains ground perhaps but the value there is way less to the point where it's effectively insignificant.

pipfan wrote:I TOTALLY understand that Magic is rightfully tiers above Kidd in the GOAT rankings-no argument there.

But, if Kidd joined LA in 1979, played in the fast, weak Western Conference for the 80's and had KAJ, Worthy, Scott and the rest to run with, I think he'd be just as good or better than Magic. Better on D, better passer, better shooter (later in career). Magic was a better scorer, but some of that was when he played vs. Kidd's prime (toughest time to score in NBA history).

So, am I crazy?

The bolded parts are definitely crazy.

70sFan wrote:

pipfan wrote:I TOTALLY understand that Magic is rightfully tiers above Kidd in the GOAT rankings-no argument there.

But, if Kidd joined LA in 1979, played in the fast, weak Western Conference for the 80's and had KAJ, Worthy, Scott and the rest to run with, I think he'd be just as good or better than Magic. Better on D, better passer, better shooter (later in career). Magic was a better scorer, but some of that was when he played vs. Kidd's prime (toughest time to score in NBA history).

So, am I crazy?

The bolded parts are definitely crazy.

I definitely think Kidd was a better passer
Shooter, not sure (weak point for both)

Put Kidd with Scott/Worthy/KAJ and they win 5 titles too

pipfan wrote:I TOTALLY understand that Magic is rightfully tiers above Kidd in the GOAT rankings-no argument there.

But, if Kidd joined LA in 1979, played in the fast, weak Western Conference for the 80's and had KAJ, Worthy, Scott and the rest to run with, I think he'd be just as good or better than Magic. Better on D, better passer, better shooter (later in career). Magic was a better scorer, but some of that was when he played vs. Kidd's prime (toughest time to score in NBA history).

So, am I crazy?

Ok, the "better passer" and "better shooter" takes are pretty far off. Magic consistently led good offenses, better than all-star PG Norm Nixon playing with a younger and more peak/prime who he replaced. Kidd . . . didn't until he was in Dallas where Dirk led some good offenses with Kidd more a bystander. Kidd in early Dallas was not good, in Phoenix didn't seem to impress more than Stephen Marbury and when Steve Nash came in to run the Suns offense, suddenly young stars like Shawn Marion went from below average efficiency to strong efficiency and the offense went from mediocre to legendary. Magic is more the Nash level of passer; Kidd is one of the more overrated guys in terms of getting volume assists that don't seem to maximize his teammates.

In terms of shooting, both only developed a 3 point shot late career but Kidd was mainly shooting open threes as Dirk drew doubles; Magic's man marked him closer. Even adjusted for era, Magic was above average efficiency on decent volume every year of his career (Career TS Added of 2098.5). Kidd was below league average efficiency almost every year of his career except for one year in NJ (barely league average) and two end of career years in Dallas where he was scoring 9-10 points a game as a 4th or 5th option (Career TS Added of -806.5 on significantly lower volumes).

If you are going to make the case for Kidd, it has to be about his defense which was outstanding. Wherever he went, though his offensive impact wasn't all that great during his prime, the defenses he played on improved a ton. So, if you feel his defense can carry him over Magic's offense, that's his selling point. Arguably the GOAT defensive PG (Walt Frazier the other ATG with the strongest claim to that title). I have him closer to 10th than GOAT overall (behind Frazier who was a strong and efficient scorer though the raw assist numbers don't approach Kidd's).

The Lakers did have more talent and enough extra scorers to take up some of Magic's slack. They are probably favored to win 2-3 rings with Kidd instead of Magic due to being one of the league's 3 "superteams" and the one in the clearly weaker conference, but I'd guess the Celtics win at least one, probably 2, of the Laker's titles instead.

pipfan wrote:

70sFan wrote:

pipfan wrote:I TOTALLY understand that Magic is rightfully tiers above Kidd in the GOAT rankings-no argument there.

But, if Kidd joined LA in 1979, played in the fast, weak Western Conference for the 80's and had KAJ, Worthy, Scott and the rest to run with, I think he'd be just as good or better than Magic. Better on D, better passer, better shooter (later in career). Magic was a better scorer, but some of that was when he played vs. Kidd's prime (toughest time to score in NBA history).

So, am I crazy?

The bolded parts are definitely crazy.

I definitely think Kidd was a better passer
Shooter, not sure (weak point for both)

Put Kidd with Scott/Worthy/KAJ and they win 5 titles too

Don't see any case for Kidd over Magic as a passer. Magic wasn't a weak shooter relative to his era after the first 2 years.

pipfan wrote:I TOTALLY understand that Magic is rightfully tiers above Kidd in the GOAT rankings-no argument there.

But, if Kidd joined LA in 1979, played in the fast, weak Western Conference for the 80's and had KAJ, Worthy, Scott and the rest to run with, I think he'd be just as good or better than Magic. Better on D, better passer, better shooter (later in career). Magic was a better scorer, but some of that was when he played vs. Kidd's prime (toughest time to score in NBA history).

So, am I crazy?

So I'm generally a fan of making threads when you realize you have a minority opinion you recognize may well be wrong but you can't see why, so kudos to you for this.

But I'd have to object to Kidd being better at passing or shooting, as I'd say it's the opposite.

On passing:
1. General rule is that a first class brain with more height is going to be the more effective passer, which gives Magic a major edge here even if we assume both are peak passer-brains.

2. Kidd wasn't as effective of a passer as the shorter Nash within his own generation, so I don't really see Kidd as a candidate for best passer-brain. He's excellent, but there are others who impress me more.

On shooting:
1. Kidd's improvement in 3-point shooting came after his peak, and thus while you can argue it's proof of talent, it's not something that existed simultaneously with peak Kidd.

2. A player's 3-point shooting improving after he stops being the focus of defensive attention is not really that impressive. It's what should happen

3. I don't see any reason to think Kidd was better at shooting inside the arc. Even when there was no one guarding him at the charity stripe, he wasn't in Magic's league.

This doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't have been as good of a fit on the early Lakers though as I really like the fit between he and Kareem. Kidd's weakness is in the half court, Kareem's is in transition. They could help each other.

Magic has no offensive weakness at all and thus has the advantage there, but Kidd's defense could conceivably make up the difference. I wouldn't assert it would, but it's logically possible.

Kidd is among the truly greatest PGs and passers ever and raised his teams but this is comparing him to Magic, he is relatively close but doesn't reach that level.

A better comparison is Kidd to Nash. Kidd raised his teams considerably more and it'd be interesting him in the D'Antoni offense, with his defense being so valuable. With the most talent of his career around him, which is the Suns from 2005 onwards, can see them as better with Kidd than Nash. He elevated the likes of Martin and Jefferson and Amare and Marion are far more talented and outright better players.

pipfan wrote:

70sFan wrote:

pipfan wrote:I TOTALLY understand that Magic is rightfully tiers above Kidd in the GOAT rankings-no argument there.

But, if Kidd joined LA in 1979, played in the fast, weak Western Conference for the 80's and had KAJ, Worthy, Scott and the rest to run with, I think he'd be just as good or better than Magic. Better on D, better passer, better shooter (later in career). Magic was a better scorer, but some of that was when he played vs. Kidd's prime (toughest time to score in NBA history).

So, am I crazy?

The bolded parts are definitely crazy.

I definitely think Kidd was a better passer
Shooter, not sure (weak point for both)

Put Kidd with Scott/Worthy/KAJ and they win 5 titles too

On the subject of shooting, Magic was a much better shooter than people give him credit for and better than Kidd's late career shooting. For one thing, he was excellent in the midrange and FT%...even leading the league in FT% one year. Unfortunately, BBREF doesn't show the breakdown of his shots but he was deadly up to 20 feet out. He would often do a pick and pop and could even hit his Jr sky hook from the baseline, elbows and free throw area. People glance at his 30% 3P shooting and say he sucked. But back then, most of his shots in the early to mid 80s are just desparation threes, not designed out of the offense. Once he actually started shooting them within the offense, he was well above average.

70sFan wrote:

pipfan wrote:

70sFan wrote:The bolded parts are definitely crazy.

I definitely think Kidd was a better passer
Shooter, not sure (weak point for both)

Put Kidd with Scott/Worthy/KAJ and they win 5 titles too

Don't see any case for Kidd over Magic as a passer. Magic wasn't a weak shooter relative to his era after the first 2 years.

Even if there was, how relevant would it be? How many valuable passes is Magic missing over the course of a game?

Doctor MJ wrote:

pipfan wrote:I TOTALLY understand that Magic is rightfully tiers above Kidd in the GOAT rankings-no argument there.

But, if Kidd joined LA in 1979, played in the fast, weak Western Conference for the 80's and had KAJ, Worthy, Scott and the rest to run with, I think he'd be just as good or better than Magic. Better on D, better passer, better shooter (later in career). Magic was a better scorer, but some of that was when he played vs. Kidd's prime (toughest time to score in NBA history).

So, am I crazy?

So I'm generally a fan of making threads when you realize you have a minority opinion you recognize may well be wrong but you can't see why, so kudos to you for this.

But I'd have to object to Kidd being better at passing or shooting, as I'd say it's the opposite.

On passing:
1. General rule is that a first class brain with more height is going to be the more effective passer, which gives Magic a major edge here even if we assume both are peak passer-brains.

2. Kidd wasn't as effective of a passer as the shorter Nash within his own generation, so I don't really see Kidd as a candidate for best passer-brain. He's excellent, but there are others who impress me more.

On shooting:
1. Kidd's improvement in 3-point shooting came after his peak, and thus while you can argue it's proof of talent, it's not something that existed simultaneously with peak Kidd.

2. A player's 3-point shooting improving after he stops being the focus of defensive attention is not really that impressive. It's what should happen

3. I don't see any reason to think Kidd was better at shooting inside the arc. Even when there was no one guarding him at the charity stripe, he wasn't in Magic's league.

This doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't have been as good of a fit on the early Lakers though as I really like the fit between he and Kareem. Kidd's weakness is in the half court, Kareem's is in transition. They could help each other.

Magic has no offensive weakness at all and thus has the advantage there, but Kidd's defense could conceivably make up the difference. I wouldn't assert it would, but it's logically possible.

Thanks for your thoughts. Here's how I see it
1-Defense, we all agree Kidd is way above Magic
2-Era, Magic played in the fastest modern era/Kidd played in the slowest
3-Magic had WAY better teammates
4-Kidd had better competition overall
5-Magic played much longer

Add all this up, and I think it's a fair argument. I just think Kidd was a better passer. Magic was great of course, but I think Kidd was better (no evidence for this-I just watch a ton of both of them)

pipfan wrote:1-Defense, we all agree Kidd is way above Magic

Yup.

2-Era, Magic played in the fastest modern era/Kidd played in the slowest

By a marginal amount relative to today's game, as it happens, sure. But his offenses didn't get worse when he slowed down, and in 1991 when the Lakers were the 3rd-slowest team in the league (at 94.1 poss/g), they were still the 5th-best offense in the league, without Kareem. Magic was an excellent halfcourt player, so this isn't really an argument which helps out your stance.

3-Magic had WAY better teammates

Which is surely a contributing factor to why he won so much, no doubt, but not so much in terms of who was the better player. Especially since Magic continued performing well without Karem, and without contemporary spacing, and how Kidd didn't get a lot better as an individual scorer even when he was on good teams.

4-Kidd had better competition overall

No, he really didn't.

5-Magic played much longer

No, he didn't.

Kidd played 1,391 games over 19 seasons; Magic played 906 games over 13 seasons, and the last 32 were after a 4-year layoff, coming off the bench for the 96 Lakers.

Add all this up, and I think it's a fair argument. I just think Kidd was a better passer

There is literally nothing to suggest that Kidd was a better passer.

No

Where on earth did you get the idea that Kidd was a better shooter than Magic or that Magic was a bad shooter. Magic led the entire league in FT% in 88/89 at 91.1%. Yeah he didn’t practice the three much because nobody did back then, but if he did he could have gotten good at them a lot quicker than Kidd did.

Kidd’s most efficient scoring season during his prime, he put up a +1.6 rTS% in the lockout season when everybody came back rusty throwing up bricks. Magic put up a rTS% of +7.5 in ‘83, then improved to +8.5 rTS% in ‘84, and then improved AGAIN to a +9.4 rTS% in ‘85. It’s basically like comparing Westbrook to Curry in terms of scoring efficiency.

I'm somewhat open to the idea of Kidd being a better 'pure' passer, but shooting (and scoring in general) are pretty easily Magic (prime in the high 20s pp100, vs low 20s), allowing him to leverage that passing better (skillsets can often be multiplicative in terms of impact).

Likely would've won titles with the Lakers though, agree with that.

Since most things were already said, just to be more specific towards shooting. Magic has a career FGA of 52%, Kidd is at 40%. If we look at 2 Point Field Goals Magic is at 54%, Kidd at 43%.

Players didn´t go for 3s in Magic´s prime, so most of his attempts during those years were some buzzer beaters, or shots late in the shot clock. Still he has a career 3 Point Field Goal Average of 30.3%, while Kidd is at 34.9%. Also, if I only consider the 4 seasons he actually had more than 1 attempt per game, which were late in his career and include his comeback season, Magic averaged 34.6% from 3. He shot 38.4% from 3 on 3.5 attempts in his 2nd last season before his first retirement, so it´s obvious that he would have been capable to shoot a reliable 3 if that would have been relevant for his era. Same as Jordan, Drexler, Barkley, Nique, who all drastically improved their 3 point attempts and percentage around 1990.

I will never understand how people can believe that ineffective scorers can be better passers than effective scorers.

Jason Kidd was a decent half court player at best that did not captain above average offenses.

His best attribute was being a PG that gave you wing level defense. Having him was like having an extra forward.

But his overall offensive profile wasn't good at all. His inability to take his man in isolation and only being able to operate in set pieces limits his passing and playmaking.

What makes Nash/Magic/Luka/Jokic devasting passers is that they can get whatever they want on offense.

The Rondo/Jason Kidd/Draymond Green type of passers cannot make up this with vision.

Kidd is absolutely one of the most underrated players of all-time. Not a scoring point and many just can't get past that. His teams did nothing but win and win huge after acquiring him after being dreadful before him--and as I always have to point out he got traded for win now talent every time he changed teams and with all-star level players going out. But only one title and he doesn't get much credit for that one.

But Magic was the better player.

threethehardway wrote:I will never understand how people can believe that ineffective scorers can be better passers than effective scorers.

I think the question is whether you're talking about effective passing ability or a more pure notion of passing ability.

Being shorter and not great at shooting makes you a less effective passer, but it may not be because your brain is less talented at the things that actually go into passing.

So then I'd say we can tell that in practice Kidd isn't having top tier passing effects for his team, but it may not be because his passing talents themselves aren't top tier.

Doctor MJ wrote:
I think the question is whether you're talking about effective passing ability or a more pure notion of passing ability.

Being shorter and not great at shooting makes you a less effective passer, but it may not be because your brain is less talented at the things that actually go into passing.

So then I'd say we can tell that in practice Kidd isn't having top tier passing effects for his team, but it may not be because his passing talents themselves aren't top tier.

I think elite passing and scoring ability goes hand in hand.

I think fans in general talk about passing abilities as "fancy" passing.

So someone like Kidd can be deemed a better passing than Nash when Nash is more effective and has led better offenses because his passing is more effective.

But you can have all the passing skills in the world but if you can't get your shot off and not be a threat to score, you will never be able to show it off except in obvious passing situations.

You can think of someone like Kyle Anderson, who in college, was good playmaker but in the league is a connective passer because he can't score.