Your unpopular takes? (PC Board Edition)

[capfan33]

Jordan is the GOAT

Wow, very controversial

LeBron pass KAJ in scoring will make KAJ out of top 5 in the long term

What do you mean by that? Do you think that people will forget about Kareem achievements without the record, or do you think he was overrated because of this record?

I do believe KAJ's all-time scoring title was the first thing coming to mind for ATG ranking and what made him stand out from Wilt/Russel/Shaq/Duncan. Otherwise, peak/prime performance, 6 championships (5 with Magic), and 2 Finals MVPs do not have a distinct advantage over all others.

I'd like to think that people have the ability to rank players beyond something as superficial as total points scored even though it is a major record. And when they do that, it should be pretty evident that Kareem has a strong argument over those other players based on his level of play thoughout his career.

[dygaction]

I do believe KAJ's all-time scoring title was the first thing coming to mind for ATG ranking and what made him stand out from Wilt/Russel/Shaq/Duncan. Otherwise, peak/prime performance, 6 championships (5 with Magic), and 2 Finals MVPs do not have a distinct advantage over all others.

I mean, 6 rings is more than Wilt/Shaq/Duncan and he also has 6 MVPs which is an NBA record.

And he was also more valuable during his prime than anyone mentioned here so...

again, that goes to my unpopular take - 70s are the weakest era, so I don't take the MVPs and era dominance at their face value.

[OhayoKD]

I mean, 6 rings is more than Wilt/Shaq/Duncan and he also has 6 MVPs which is an NBA record.

And he was also more valuable during his prime than anyone mentioned here so...

again, that goes to my unpopular take - 70s are the weakest era, so I don't take the MVPs and era dominance at their face value.

As long as you're consistent and penalize the 60's, 80's, 90's 2000's, and 2010's accordingly

[capfan33]

I mean, 6 rings is more than Wilt/Shaq/Duncan and he also has 6 MVPs which is an NBA record.

And he was also more valuable during his prime than anyone mentioned here so...

again, that goes to my unpopular take - 70s are the weakest era, so I don't take the MVPs and era dominance at their face value.

It's not an unpopular take on here, a lot of people including myself would agree. But a few points to consider.

1. Kareem was by far the best player almost every year he was healthy and was often a country mile better than whoever was 2nd.
2. It was a golden age for big men, virtually every team had a good center, and Kareem thoroughly dominated all of them with the exception of Thurmond and Wilt to a lesser extent. His postseason numbers and resume would look significantly better as well if he hadn't had to face Thurmond and Wilt in 5 out of 6 playoff series the first few years of his career.
3. He had his peak year when the ABA and NBA merged and he had no issues being the best player in a more competitive league despite aging.
4. The limited impact number we have for him are consistently strong across his entire career, he may have the ultimate impact resume outside Lebron when you consider his longevity as well as the amount of impact he was having.

I don't see how having the 70s as the weakest era is inconsistent at all with rating Kareem in the top-3.

[dygaction]

And he was also more valuable during his prime than anyone mentioned here so...

again, that goes to my unpopular take - 70s are the weakest era, so I don't take the MVPs and era dominance at their face value.

It's not an unpopular take on here, a lot of people including myself would agree. But a few points to consider.

1. Kareem was by far the best player almost every year he was healthy and was often a country mile better than whoever was 2nd.
2. It was a golden age for big men, virtually every team had a good center, and Kareem thoroughly dominated all of them with the exception of Thurmond and Wilt to a lesser extent. His postseason numbers and resume would look significantly better as well if he hadn't had to face Thurmond and Wilt in 5 out of 6 playoff series the first few years of his career.
3. He had his peak year when the ABA and NBA merged and he had no issues being the best player in a more competitive league despite aging.
4. The limited impact number we have for him are consistently strong across his entire career, he may have the ultimate impact resume outside Lebron when you consider his longevity as well as the amount of impact he was having.



I don't see how having the 70s as the weakest era is inconsistent at all with rating Kareem in the top-3.

He is my #3 as shown in the recent voting. I am just predicting how he would be valued/evaluated in the future. Guess only time would tell.

[IdolW0rm]

McGrady's 02-03 might be the biggest offensive floor raising job in Regular Season history.
In the 26 games Orlando played TMac over 30mpg, without both injured Mike Miller and GHill, they posted a 109.3 ortg (2nd best offense in the league level), lining up with 34 year old Darrell Armstrong, Pat Garrity, Gordan Giricek and Andrew DeClerq.

[OhayoKD]

again, that goes to my unpopular take - 70s are the weakest era, so I don't take the MVPs and era dominance at their face value.

It's not an unpopular take on here, a lot of people including myself would agree. But a few points to consider.

1. Kareem was by far the best player almost every year he was healthy and was often a country mile better than whoever was 2nd.
2. It was a golden age for big men, virtually every team had a good center, and Kareem thoroughly dominated all of them with the exception of Thurmond and Wilt to a lesser extent. His postseason numbers and resume would look significantly better as well if he hadn't had to face Thurmond and Wilt in 5 out of 6 playoff series the first few years of his career.
3. He had his peak year when the ABA and NBA merged and he had no issues being the best player in a more competitive league despite aging.
4. The limited impact number we have for him are consistently strong across his entire career, he may have the ultimate impact resume outside Lebron when you consider his longevity as well as the amount of impact he was having.



I don't see how having the 70s as the weakest era is inconsistent at all with rating Kareem in the top-3.

He is my #3 as shown in the recent voting. I am just predicting how he would be valued/evaluated in the future. Guess only time would tell.

And is your era-consideration not affecting your assessment of players from the 90's? Because based on what you've written...

It seems that at this point we have to assume that modern players translate better to previous eras, otherwise it's a controversial take...

I'm with eminence here, Luka offensive style isn't as well suited for the 1990s as for now. Again, there is a reason why we didn't see such players back then and it's not because of lack of talent.

Not all, but it certainly is a big part of it.

Your #1 also should have their "dominance" questioned

To quote the good captain

This right here, the bigger issue is that objectively speaking, Jordan loses the relative-to-era argument on both fronts. There is no objective argument to be made that Jordan played in anywhere near the toughest environment compared to other ATG players.

The modern era is objectively much more competitive than Jordan's era, and the aforementioned trailblazers played in a condensed league and had to figure out many parts of the game from scratch essentially. Either way, Jordan doesn't compare favorably.

As it is, it's not like there's much of an era-relative argument here beyond team-success, certain framings of "accomplishment", and theory

[dygaction]

It's not an unpopular take on here, a lot of people including myself would agree. But a few points to consider.

1. Kareem was by far the best player almost every year he was healthy and was often a country mile better than whoever was 2nd.
2. It was a golden age for big men, virtually every team had a good center, and Kareem thoroughly dominated all of them with the exception of Thurmond and Wilt to a lesser extent. His postseason numbers and resume would look significantly better as well if he hadn't had to face Thurmond and Wilt in 5 out of 6 playoff series the first few years of his career.
3. He had his peak year when the ABA and NBA merged and he had no issues being the best player in a more competitive league despite aging.
4. The limited impact number we have for him are consistently strong across his entire career, he may have the ultimate impact resume outside Lebron when you consider his longevity as well as the amount of impact he was having.



I don't see how having the 70s as the weakest era is inconsistent at all with rating Kareem in the top-3.

He is my #3 as shown in the recent voting. I am just predicting how he would be valued/evaluated in the future. Guess only time would tell.

And is your era-consideration not affecting your assessment of players from the 90's? Because based on what you've written...

It seems that at this point we have to assume that modern players translate better to previous eras, otherwise it's a controversial take...

I'm with eminence here, Luka offensive style isn't as well suited for the 1990s as for now. Again, there is a reason why we didn't see such players back then and it's not because of lack of talent.

Not all, but it certainly is a big part of it.

Your #1 also should have their "dominance" questioned

To quote the good captain

This right here, the bigger issue is that objectively speaking, Jordan loses the relative-to-era argument on both fronts. There is no objective argument to be made that Jordan played in anywhere near the toughest environment compared to other ATG players.

The modern era is objectively much more competitive than Jordan's era, and the aforementioned trailblazers played in a condensed league and had to figure out many parts of the game from scratch essentially. Either way, Jordan doesn't compare favorably.

As it is, it's not like there's much of an era-relative argument here beyond team-success, certain framings of "accomplishment", and theory

I don't think players from 90s are weak. You have MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, DRob, Malone, Barkley all in their prime and all arguably top 25 players. Who are the best players good for 5 year or more in the 70s?

[Clyde Frazier]

I fail to worship LeBron and put LeBron above Jordan. LeBron Stans hate that.

Warned for baiting and derailing

See I told you all that I had an unpopular opinion. Don’t oppose praise of LeBron as being being more praise than LeBron deserves. LeBron deserves a lot of praise but his fans take it to far.

When LeBron fans start exaggerated criticisms of LeBron’s teammates to promote LeBron as the GOAT you know something a little strange is going on with the hard core LeBron fans.

That obiously wasn't the problem man. All you needed to say is I don't think lebron is the GOAT.

[OhayoKD]

He is my #3 as shown in the recent voting. I am just predicting how he would be valued/evaluated in the future. Guess only time would tell.

And is your era-consideration not affecting your assessment of players from the 90's? Because based on what you've written...

Not all, but it certainly is a big part of it.

Your #1 also should have their "dominance" questioned

To quote the good captain

This right here, the bigger issue is that objectively speaking, Jordan loses the relative-to-era argument on both fronts. There is no objective argument to be made that Jordan played in anywhere near the toughest environment compared to other ATG players.

The modern era is objectively much more competitive than Jordan's era, and the aforementioned trailblazers played in a condensed league and had to figure out many parts of the game from scratch essentially. Either way, Jordan doesn't compare favorably.

As it is, it's not like there's much of an era-relative argument here beyond team-success, certain framings of "accomplishment", and theory

I don't think players from 90s are weak. You have MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, DRob, Malone, Barkley all in their prime and all arguably top 25 players. Who are the best players good for 5 year or more in the 70s?

They are all(iyo) top 25 players on the basis of what they acheived in an era which you indicate above was relatively bereft of talent. You are going to look better against lesser talent. If Kareem's "dominance" is easier because of who he went up against, then it follows every player you just listed would be find it easier to "dominate" facing a less talented league.

Also not sure the point of listing Hakeem and D-rob who never faced Mike in the playoffs and won MVP's when Jordan was in no position to. Or Shaq who was pre-prime and then injured before ascending as the 90's greats retired or fell off.

[dygaction]

And is your era-consideration not affecting your assessment of players from the 90's? Because based on what you've written...

Your #1 also should have their "dominance" questioned

To quote the good captain

As it is, it's not like there's much of an era-relative argument here beyond team-success, certain framings of "accomplishment", and theory

I don't think players from 90s are weak. You have MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, DRob, Malone, Barkley all in their prime and all arguably top 25 players. Who are the best players good for 5 year or more in the 70s?

They are all(iyo) top 25 players on the basis of what they acheived in an era which you indicate above was relatively bereft of talent. You are going to look better against lesser talent. If Kareem's "dominance" is easier because of who he went up against, then it follows every player you just listed would be find it easier to "dominate" facing a less talented league.

Also not sure the point of listing Hakeem and D-rob who never faced Mike in the playoffs and won MVP's when Jordan was in no position to. Or Shaq who was pre-prime and then injured before ascending as the 90's greats retired or fell off.

They are top 25 players not just imo, but also according to most recent PC board vote and most media rankings, which means 90s were not bereft of talent. Kareem's dominance in the 70s is similar to Mikan's dominance in the 50s, although it is harder as the game was more evolved in the 70s. There are not enough footage for Kareem and not enough moments or rivalry like Magic/Bird for Kareem's legacy. I think he is rightfully top 3 but just my prediction that his legacy is the one to be affected more. Again, it is 'unpopular takes' here so dont expect most to agree.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Warned for baiting and derailing

See I told you all that I had an unpopular opinion. Don’t oppose praise of LeBron as being being more praise than LeBron deserves. LeBron deserves a lot of praise but his fans take it to far.

When LeBron fans start exaggerated criticisms of LeBron’s teammates to promote LeBron as the GOAT you know something a little strange is going on with the hard core LeBron fans.

That obiously wasn't the problem man. All you needed to say is I don't think lebron is the GOAT.

You are right.

[OhayoKD]

I don't think players from 90s are weak. You have MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, DRob, Malone, Barkley all in their prime and all arguably top 25 players. Who are the best players good for 5 year or more in the 70s?

They are all(iyo) top 25 players on the basis of what they acheived in an era which you indicate above was relatively bereft of talent. You are going to look better against lesser talent. If Kareem's "dominance" is easier because of who he went up against, then it follows every player you just listed would be find it easier to "dominate" facing a less talented league.

Also not sure the point of listing Hakeem and D-rob who never faced Mike in the playoffs and won MVP's when Jordan was in no position to. Or Shaq who was pre-prime and then injured before ascending as the 90's greats retired or fell off.

They are top 25 players not just imo, but also according to most recent PC board vote and most media rankings, which means 90s were not bereft of talent. Kareem's dominance in the 70s is similar to Mikan's dominance in the 50s, although it is harder as the game was more evolved in the 70s. There are not enough footage for Kareem and not enough moments or rivalry like Magic/Bird for Kareem's legacy. I think he is rightfully top 3 but just my prediction that his legacy is the one to be affected more. Again, it is 'unpopular takes' here so dont expect most to agree.

Whether it's iyo or in the PC board's "o", that ranking is still based on how those players performed(or what they accomplished) relative to era. If the league was less talented than it is now(per you in your comment on the "luka in 90's thread"), all those players are going to look better/rank higher. It is a circular argument(the conclusion attempts to justify itself)

The "# of players ranked in the top 25" is not actually a commentary on "era-strength", and since you said a "lack of talent" was a "big part" of there not being a Luka equivalent, it logically follows any dominance during the 90's should be diminished much in the same way you are saying we should diminish dominance in the 70's.

[dygaction]

They are all(iyo) top 25 players on the basis of what they acheived in an era which you indicate above was relatively bereft of talent. You are going to look better against lesser talent. If Kareem's "dominance" is easier because of who he went up against, then it follows every player you just listed would be find it easier to "dominate" facing a less talented league.

Also not sure the point of listing Hakeem and D-rob who never faced Mike in the playoffs and won MVP's when Jordan was in no position to. Or Shaq who was pre-prime and then injured before ascending as the 90's greats retired or fell off.

They are top 25 players not just imo, but also according to most recent PC board vote and most media rankings, which means 90s were not bereft of talent. Kareem's dominance in the 70s is similar to Mikan's dominance in the 50s, although it is harder as the game was more evolved in the 70s. There are not enough footage for Kareem and not enough moments or rivalry like Magic/Bird for Kareem's legacy. I think he is rightfully top 3 but just my prediction that his legacy is the one to be affected more. Again, it is 'unpopular takes' here so dont expect most to agree.

Whether it's iyo or in the PC board's "o", that ranking is still based on how those players performed(or what they accomplished) relative to era. If the league was less talented than it is now(per you in your comment on the "luka in 90's thread"), all those players are going to look better/rank higher. It is a circular argument(the conclusion attempts to justify itself)

The "# of players ranked in the top 25" is not actually a commentary on "era-strength", and since you said a "lack of talent" was a "big part" of there not being a Luka equivalent, it logically follows any dominance during the 90's should be diminished much in the same way you are saying we should diminish dominance in the 70's.

I don't know what you want to quote, but I have always said Current Luka would be a top 3-5 player in the 90s, just like he is today

[TheGOATRises007]

Unpopular towards NBA casuals and not the PC board: Steph Curry is the greatest offensive force in NBA history

[ronnymac2]

1. Moses Malone would outplay every big man ever in a playoff series except perhaps Bill Russell. Malone might outplay everybody period regardless of position.

2. Jason Kidd is a top 5 passer/playmaker of all-time, on the level of Magic, Bird, and Nash. To add more unpopularity/controversy, Kidd was a great offensive player.

3. From number 1 to number 450, the 2023 NBA has the greatest collection of talent the league - the sport - has ever seen, but that talent gets wasted to an extent and molded poorly in part due to a misuse of analytics in the Optimization Era. This mainly affects the NBA's middle and lower class, who are mostly interchangeable mediocrities at this point. There are less team constructs with a unique flavor. This isn't a good thing in my opinion from a competitive standpoint, and it's not good for popularity of the league. Which brings me to opinion number 4...

4. Popularity matters. Drawing fans in and making people care about what you do outside of the 48 minutes of competition matters. Every "Real GM" and front office would agree, but I doubt most on this board would. And I get it, because at heart, I enjoy being a purist and analyzing simply who's better, who's best. But if we like and enjoy the game, we should want to see if grow. That's why I actually like narrative-driven awards and a Hall of Fame that is not super strict about who it inducts.

5. Being a 3-level scorer isn't about leveraging an elite jumper to get into the mid-range or the paint. Being a 3-level scorer involves offensive rebounding and a post game being included in your repertoire. I like James Harden and think that from 2010-2020, only a GSW or LeBron was better from the standpoint of health, consistency, quality of on-court play, drawing power, etc, so this isn't me just putting Harden down. But Harden has no post game, and it has hurt his resiliency in the playoffs.

I literally don't remember seeing Harden, Durant, or Curry ever grab an offensive rebound. I'm sure if I hop on bball-ref I'll see OREB with a number greater than 0, and if somebody ran in this thread to correct me, I'd believe them. I'm simply reporting that I don't recall any of them grabbing an offensive rebound. I recognize that this is partially a subjective style preference.

Can you expand on number 2? I **** despise Jason Kidd and think he's one of the most overrated players of all time (especially offensively) so I'd be interested to hear this.

In regards to point number 4, I can't speak for everyone but I don't think people's problem is that we don't think popularity or narrative driven stuff is important for the game. We don't want everyone to be Kawhi Leonard. It's just annoying that increasing popularity all too often is synonymous with appealling to the lowest common denominator. Having 80% of all basketball discussion being dominated with Jordan v Lebron is plain sad.

Pundits saying "I don't care how Westbrook plays or how much he wins, I'll give him an MVP if he averages a triple double" is ridiculous.
Having a popular pundit on the most popular sports show in history say that Nash, Dirk and Jokic only won MVP's because they're white is absolutely **** pathetic, like jesus Christ, are they no lows they're willing to sink to?

Whereas the NFL, the more popular sport, doesn't seem to sink to the lows that NBA discussion does. They hype up ALL their players instead of bringing them down and saying 80's & 90's Uber Alles. They talk about contracts, they talk about coaching a lot , they talk about plays a lot , concept's non existent in NBA discussion. Just wish they'd go about it differently.

He's the only one of those guys who isn't a great scorer. He played in the absolute doldrums of offensive efficiency in the modern era, and he still averaged the APG that he averaged, leading the league five times. His passing was so good he got Kenyon Martin a $94 million contract. He generally speaking tended to take truly horrific offensive teams (especially in NJ) and make them solid when he was on the court (talking specifically about On-Off).

To your response about Point 4, sure, not all the narratives and storytellers involved are high quality. I was speaking more to how unpopular (see OP for relevancy) anything RE: player popularity is taken on this board specifically. I'm not defending a dolt like Kendrick Perkins. And I agree, Jordan vs. LBJ threads are corny and played out at this point.

[penbeast0]

Kidd was an overrated passer and offensive player (my take). People conflate his 3 point ability he developed later with his athleticism which fell off as he aged. Most of his value is his great defense (definite GOAT defensive PG candidate).

Top 5 passer of all time is silly if you are talking about putting him over Oscar, Magic, Stockton, Nash, and Paul, not even looking at all the guys like Muggsy Bogues who were amazing passers but didn't bring the rest of the complete game.

[Dutchball97]

They are all(iyo) top 25 players on the basis of what they acheived in an era which you indicate above was relatively bereft of talent. You are going to look better against lesser talent. If Kareem's "dominance" is easier because of who he went up against, then it follows every player you just listed would be find it easier to "dominate" facing a less talented league.

Also not sure the point of listing Hakeem and D-rob who never faced Mike in the playoffs and won MVP's when Jordan was in no position to. Or Shaq who was pre-prime and then injured before ascending as the 90's greats retired or fell off.

They are top 25 players not just imo, but also according to most recent PC board vote and most media rankings, which means 90s were not bereft of talent. Kareem's dominance in the 70s is similar to Mikan's dominance in the 50s, although it is harder as the game was more evolved in the 70s. There are not enough footage for Kareem and not enough moments or rivalry like Magic/Bird for Kareem's legacy. I think he is rightfully top 3 but just my prediction that his legacy is the one to be affected more. Again, it is 'unpopular takes' here so dont expect most to agree.

Whether it's iyo or in the PC board's "o", that ranking is still based on how those players performed(or what they accomplished) relative to era. If the league was less talented than it is now(per you in your comment on the "luka in 90's thread"), all those players are going to look better/rank higher. It is a circular argument(the conclusion attempts to justify itself)

The "# of players ranked in the top 25" is not actually a commentary on "era-strength", and since you said a "lack of talent" was a "big part" of there not being a Luka equivalent, it logically follows any dominance during the 90's should be diminished much in the same way you are saying we should diminish dominance in the 70's.

In his first few years the competition was good but kind of old already, even then Kareem did as well as can be expected of someone just entering the league and especially on a team that wasn't much of an established powerhouse. The 77-79 period was kind of awkward for everyone by the looks of it. Massive increase in the player pool because of the merger and many of the ABA guys who needed a few years to get as comfortable with the NBA ruleset as they had been with the ABA rules. Whether or nor he could've done more here is up to debate but that goes for just about anyone in this span so not planning to place too much emphasis on Kareem not dominating here, although it sucks for him that Walton came in like a supernova and bested Kareem and then faded away due to injuries before Kareem could get his revenge. Kind of sucks that Kareem could've had very legit rivals in Reed for the first half of the 70s/all of the 70s and then Walton for the latter part of the 70s/first half of the 80s but they were done pretty much as soon as they reached the pinnacle. Still being a legit MVP candidate for a couple years in the 80s and keeping up with the new stars like Moses, Bird and Magic is great and not much more he can do, literally only like a handful of players even have arguments to have aged more gracefully than Kareem.

The main thing for me that needs to be addressed with Kareem is the 73-76 period. I know your stance about not thinking anything about chronological curves but I do think it's relevant. If we're praising Kareem for how good he was in his mid-30s, why can't we be a little more critical of him in his mid-20s? Most of the top guys from the previous era had retired or were on their last legs at this point, outside of Kareem there weren't really many new stars that reached the level of the top stars of the 60s and the ABA being there meant some of the top players in basketball not playing in the same league as Kareem either. We don't have to go into the lack of post-season success of Kareem in 73-76 but what does bother me is the perception of him compared to his peers when looking at MVP voting. In 1973 he ended up behind Cowens and just ahead of Tiny Archibald with 36yo Wilt also being in the mix. In 1974 Kareem won the award but it was a very close race with McAdoo and Lanier. In 1975 Kareem finished 5th behind McAdoo, Cowens, Hayes and Barry. Then in 1976 Kareem won again but this it was an even closer race than 1974 as he just inched out McAdoo and Cowens with Barry also getting some serious traction.

None of those guys are really considered among the best peaks and it doesn't look like Kareem was head and shoulders above the field either in those years. Either we've been underestimating guys like McAdoo and Cowens massively or maybe Kareem simply isn't as impressive in the mid-70s as he is before and after those years.

[Narigo]

The Bulls didn't lose in 1995 because Jordan was rusty. He was averaging close to prime stats in the postseason. Bulls lost because they lost Horace Grant and didn't have enough size upfront

[Texas Chuck]

Kidd was an overrated passer and offensive player (my take). People conflate his 3 point ability he developed later with his athleticism which fell off as he aged. Most of his value is his great defense (definite GOAT defensive PG candidate).

Top 5 passer of all time is silly if you are talking about putting him over Oscar, Magic, Stockton, Nash, and Paul, not even looking at all the guys like Muggsy Bogues who were amazing passers but didn't bring the rest of the complete game.

You aren't wrong about his athleticism and shooting not having much of any overlap.

But strongly disagree this isn't an all-time passer. Particularly considering his combination of half-court, transition, and without question the best outlet passing guard of all-time and I can't think of a close 2nd. Sure, as an overall offensive player he lags far behind the elite names you listed(not quite as far behind Stockton), but as a passer? He was an absolute genius. And beyond the vision and the skill, he also was a master even of the simple swing pass. As an old man in Dallas, his extra passing when Dirk drew doubles just ripped holes in defenses because of how fast and accurate and correct every swing was.

Of course, one of my unpopular takes is that Jason Kidd is maybe the most underrated player of his generation with his team success always diminished because of a weak conference, but the truth is every single team Kidd joined immediately got way better and every team he left immediately got way worse and remember other than be drafted and leaving Dallas for one year in New York he was always traded in a win now trade so it wasn't like a team was giving up expirings and draft picks where of course they should get better.

He was traded for Finley and Cassell. He was traded for Marbury. He was traded for Devin Harris who was immediately an all-star. His impact on winning games is as high as anyone of that generation. It's just that he tended to go to really bad teams(save Dallas in the end) and made them just short of championship level. We see some other players do less lifting and they get revered for it and not held to championship standards. Kidd, because he's not an elite offensive guard, people search for reasons to dismiss him.


His impact is not entirely being the best defensive guard of a generation. Not at all.