RealGM Top 100 List #29

[Doctor MJ]

It's not as set in stone as it may appear. I'm still listening to Paul vs Kidd arguments for example. I defend Paul's longevity relative to some, but I'm not pretending it isn't an issue.

I'm not considering either one this high on the list but i think Kidd should still be ranked ahead of Paul even if it ain't by a lot.

Prime Kidd gives you 15-18 ppg, 10 assists, 6-7 boards and elite defense. And he has superb longevity. Plus, the playoff success, yes i'm aware of the conference disparity but Kidd still played at a very high level in the playoffs and you can't take that away from him.

It's fine you feel that way, but certainly I don't judge point guards simply by their volume stats. Kidd's a great example of why you should: He "gives you" those points? Hell no, I'd much prefer he "took" less of the team's scoring opportunities given his weakness as a scorer. All sorts of point guards can score that much if you let them be so ball dominant, it's not an accomplishment.

I'm totally fine with Kidd > Paul arguments, I think his longevity gives him a great case, but a "Kidd Triple Double" is not a compliment.

[E-Balla]

How good is Dwight Howard's peak v. Durant's or Paul's? We've all seen these guys a lot no matter how young or old we are and Howard has longevity over the other two even if we all remember the Dwightmare and agree that he SHOULD be penalized for throwing his team under a bus that way.

I'd say the 3 are pretty close peak wise. I would probably go KD>Dwight>CP3, with very little separating the 3. Career's i'd rank them KD>Dwight>CP3 as well. Kd peaks higher and has comparable longevity so i put his career over theirs.

I think I might vote both Paul and Dwight over KD and maybe Dwight first. I think Dwight is clearly the best postseason performer and they're all about equal peak for peak. Dwight just has that brickheaded attitude though.

[SactoKingsFan]

Here’s part of an article on Rick Barry from Jim O’Brien’s (1972) ABA All-Stars:

Spoiler:

While driving home from a New York Nets' game one night, my wife, Kathie remarked, "I'd hate to play Scrabble or Hearts with Rick Barry. If you beat him he'd probably overturn the board or shove the cards down your throat. I never saw a guy so tough on himself."

Credit Kathie with keen perception. Barry, at his best, is his own worst enemy -- only in a different way. He simply never satisfies himself, is always critical of his performance after a game, and hates to lose. To believe Barry you'd think he never plays up to his true ability -- he's been bothered by leg ailments in recent years -- but, at times, it's hard to imagine anybody playing better than Barry does. Single-handedly, he often wins games.

For years, Barry has been the ABA at its absolute individual best. In the beginning, he was the young league's leading big-name star, and perhaps had an influence on others following suit and signing on with the upstart pro basketball circuit.

Bill Sharman, who coached Barry at San Francisco of the NBA....can't say enough about Barry:

"This far in his career," says Sharman, "I would have to rank Rick as the greatest and most productive offensive forward ever to play the game. I think he's better than Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, Paul Arizin and Dolph Schayes, and they were all tremendous performers.”

"Not only is he a great shooter, but he's one of the game's finest passers. He hits the open man when he's double-teamed, which is often, and runs the pick and roll, setting up his teammates for easy layups, better than any player I've ever seen.”

"He has to be the quickest 6-7 player the game of basketball has ever seen. He's awfully hard, if not impossible, to match up against defensively. He beats a bigger opponent with his quickness and goes over the little man. He is unstoppable going to the basket on a one-on-one situation and is usually successful one-on-two.”

"I would have to call him super, super on the fast break. He can penetrate, make the basket and draw the foul better than anyone. He has great body-balance and body-control He has all the shots -- the hook, jumper, fade-away, set and the layups with either or both hands.”

"He's an intense competitor, whether it's basketball, golf, checkers or anything else -- he just doesn't want to lose. He's one guy I never had to worry about being up for a game."

Enough said?

Then, too, consider some of Rick's achievements in the ABA:

He was named to the first-team for all-league honors each of his four years in the league. He averaged nearly 30 points a game over that same span, and during the 1969-70 season with the Washington Caps, he averaged 40.1 points in seven playoff games. In the inter-league all-star game, he topped the ABA with 20 points.

"I'm not a good shooter," says Barry. "I'm a scorer, that's all. I'm a good shooter but I can't stand outside all night and pop in 50 per cent of my shots. A good shooter is someone like Jerry West. If I had to have someone outside to shoot an important basket I'd have West do it."

Richard Francis Denny Barry III is too much. Born in Elizabeth, N.J., just across the river from New York City, he's back home in a way, as he once hoped he'd be. As an All-America at the University of Miami, and the top scorer in the NCAA ranks, 37.4 average, he hoped he'd be drafted by the New York Knicks. Someone in their organization said Barry was too skinny, and wouldn't be able to withstand the pro punishment, and they passed him up in favor of Bill Bradley of Princeton. He signed with San Francisco instead, fell in love with the Bay Area, and never thought he'd be going East again. He jumped the Warriors after two seasons of stardom for Oakland of the newly-formed ABA, where Rick's college coach and father-in-law, Bruce Hale, had just been named general manager. He did it for the best possible reason: $50,000 more per season on a five-year contract, apparently including stock options.

He says he wound up losing money on the deal -- the stock turned into worthless paper-but that's the way the red, white and blue ball bounces in the world of high finance. "I've suffered by moving," he said, "but it hasn't been that bad. Compared to other people, I can't complain."
The Oakland franchise failed despite Barry after two years and one ABA title -- in the second year when Barry became eligible to play after sitting out a season on the option year of his NBA contract -- and was sold to Washington, D.C. interests.

Barry balked about moving to Washington, and immediately signed another five-year contract with the Warriors, effective in 1972. The franchise was a flop in Washington, as well, and it was going to Virginia for the following season -- the ABA's fourth -- where it would be a regional franchise in the manner of the Carolina Cougars, rotating home games among several sites in the state. Once more, Barry became disenchanted with the idea of moving.
To begin with, Barry had dragged his sneakers to Washington, but he was determined not to go to Virginia. He forced a trade by insulting the citizens of the state enough so that management was compelled to get rid of him.

Barry announced that Virginia was a state he'd "always gotten out of as soon as he could," and that he considered it his duty to protect Scooter, his three-year-old boy, from picking up so contagious a disease as a Southern accent. Virginia traded him to the Nets.
It was thought that Barry's best value to the league would be in New York, the media capital of the country. I broke the story that Barry had signed with the Nets in the New York Post. It was the best thing that ever happened to the Nets.

After failing to sign the likes of Lew Alcindor, Jim McMillian and Bob Lanier, it was necessary to get a ballplayer like Barry for the club to compare with the NBA Knicks and their stars, Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere, Dick Barnett and, of course, Bradley….

The Nets paid a considerable sum, estimated at $250,000, for Barry, and their No.1 draft choice for the next season.

"If you're going to be any place in sports," said Barry, "New York is the place to be. My interest was at a low ebb when I thought I'd have to play in Virginia, and now my interest has been rekindled. All I want to do is play basketball."

Columnist Larry Merchant took Barry's integrity to task. "It seems," Merchant wrote, "that hardly a day has gone by in the last three years when Rick Barry has not been fast-breaking from one team to another; lawsuits trailing behind him. He is the quintessential modern athlete-gifted, good-looking and corrupted by the business of sports." Barry blushed when Merchant mentioned all his wrong-doings, then denied that he had done anything wrong.
Jack Dolph, the ABA commissioner, wasn't about to share the sentiments of Merchant. How could he? "He is three times more important to us in New York than Virginia," Dolph said. That, of course, was because he could generate more news and attention to the ABA there.
"It's like having my cake and eating it," said Barry, who is paid $165,000 a year to play for the Nets.

When Barry was playing in Oakland, he injured his knee and played only 35 games, scoring 34 points a game. The next year, in Washington, he re-injured his knee and again missed half the season. One of his early experiences as a Net was a broken metatarsal bone, which rendered him useless for the first two months of the season. It still hurts at times. "Well, that's life," he says, reflecting on his recent past. It seems that trainers have always been hovering over Barry since he joined the ABA. First, it was a knee, then the right foot, then the left ankle. Barry hates to think of himself as brittle. He remembers going through high school, college and his first pro season missing only two games.

He's not always up to par when he plays these days, but no one notices it as much as Rick. It's just another frustration to add to his many. "He's got to be snakebit," says coach Lou Carnesecca.

[trex_8063]

For now, I'm going to again cast my vote for Elgin Baylor.

He's a top 25 peak all-time (arguable top 20, imo) with 4-5 pretty fantastic years. Not quite equal to say Durant's last five years (mentioning because Durant is gaining traction), but then he's got an additional 7 seasons ranging from important role-player to legit All-Star, which for me more than covers the spread between his best five seasons and Durant's best five.

Have already posted other arguments in prior posts. Will try to go into more detail later (including comparisons) if time allows.
Would still consider Hondo or Kidd at this point, but for now I'm casting my vote.

[ronnymac2]

Here’s part of an article on Rick Barry from Jim O’Brien’s (1972) ABA All-Stars:

Spoiler:

While driving home from a New York Nets' game one night, my wife, Kathie remarked, "I'd hate to play Scrabble or Hearts with Rick Barry. If you beat him he'd probably overturn the board or shove the cards down your throat. I never saw a guy so tough on himself."

Credit Kathie with keen perception. Barry, at his best, is his own worst enemy -- only in a different way. He simply never satisfies himself, is always critical of his performance after a game, and hates to lose. To believe Barry you'd think he never plays up to his true ability -- he's been bothered by leg ailments in recent years -- but, at times, it's hard to imagine anybody playing better than Barry does. Single-handedly, he often wins games.

For years, Barry has been the ABA at its absolute individual best. In the beginning, he was the young league's leading big-name star, and perhaps had an influence on others following suit and signing on with the upstart pro basketball circuit.

Bill Sharman, who coached Barry at San Francisco of the NBA....can't say enough about Barry:

"This far in his career," says Sharman, "I would have to rank Rick as the greatest and most productive offensive forward ever to play the game. I think he's better than Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, Paul Arizin and Dolph Schayes, and they were all tremendous performers.”

"Not only is he a great shooter, but he's one of the game's finest passers. He hits the open man when he's double-teamed, which is often, and runs the pick and roll, setting up his teammates for easy layups, better than any player I've ever seen.”

"He has to be the quickest 6-7 player the game of basketball has ever seen. He's awfully hard, if not impossible, to match up against defensively. He beats a bigger opponent with his quickness and goes over the little man. He is unstoppable going to the basket on a one-on-one situation and is usually successful one-on-two.”

"I would have to call him super, super on the fast break. He can penetrate, make the basket and draw the foul better than anyone. He has great body-balance and body-control He has all the shots -- the hook, jumper, fade-away, set and the layups with either or both hands.”

"He's an intense competitor, whether it's basketball, golf, checkers or anything else -- he just doesn't want to lose. He's one guy I never had to worry about being up for a game."

Enough said?

Then, too, consider some of Rick's achievements in the ABA:

He was named to the first-team for all-league honors each of his four years in the league. He averaged nearly 30 points a game over that same span, and during the 1969-70 season with the Washington Caps, he averaged 40.1 points in seven playoff games. In the inter-league all-star game, he topped the ABA with 20 points.

"I'm not a good shooter," says Barry. "I'm a scorer, that's all. I'm a good shooter but I can't stand outside all night and pop in 50 per cent of my shots. A good shooter is someone like Jerry West. If I had to have someone outside to shoot an important basket I'd have West do it."

Richard Francis Denny Barry III is too much. Born in Elizabeth, N.J., just across the river from New York City, he's back home in a way, as he once hoped he'd be. As an All-America at the University of Miami, and the top scorer in the NCAA ranks, 37.4 average, he hoped he'd be drafted by the New York Knicks. Someone in their organization said Barry was too skinny, and wouldn't be able to withstand the pro punishment, and they passed him up in favor of Bill Bradley of Princeton. He signed with San Francisco instead, fell in love with the Bay Area, and never thought he'd be going East again. He jumped the Warriors after two seasons of stardom for Oakland of the newly-formed ABA, where Rick's college coach and father-in-law, Bruce Hale, had just been named general manager. He did it for the best possible reason: $50,000 more per season on a five-year contract, apparently including stock options.

He says he wound up losing money on the deal -- the stock turned into worthless paper-but that's the way the red, white and blue ball bounces in the world of high finance. "I've suffered by moving," he said, "but it hasn't been that bad. Compared to other people, I can't complain."
The Oakland franchise failed despite Barry after two years and one ABA title -- in the second year when Barry became eligible to play after sitting out a season on the option year of his NBA contract -- and was sold to Washington, D.C. interests.

Barry balked about moving to Washington, and immediately signed another five-year contract with the Warriors, effective in 1972. The franchise was a flop in Washington, as well, and it was going to Virginia for the following season -- the ABA's fourth -- where it would be a regional franchise in the manner of the Carolina Cougars, rotating home games among several sites in the state. Once more, Barry became disenchanted with the idea of moving.
To begin with, Barry had dragged his sneakers to Washington, but he was determined not to go to Virginia. He forced a trade by insulting the citizens of the state enough so that management was compelled to get rid of him.

Barry announced that Virginia was a state he'd "always gotten out of as soon as he could," and that he considered it his duty to protect Scooter, his three-year-old boy, from picking up so contagious a disease as a Southern accent. Virginia traded him to the Nets.
It was thought that Barry's best value to the league would be in New York, the media capital of the country. I broke the story that Barry had signed with the Nets in the New York Post. It was the best thing that ever happened to the Nets.

After failing to sign the likes of Lew Alcindor, Jim McMillian and Bob Lanier, it was necessary to get a ballplayer like Barry for the club to compare with the NBA Knicks and their stars, Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere, Dick Barnett and, of course, Bradley….

The Nets paid a considerable sum, estimated at $250,000, for Barry, and their No.1 draft choice for the next season.

"If you're going to be any place in sports," said Barry, "New York is the place to be. My interest was at a low ebb when I thought I'd have to play in Virginia, and now my interest has been rekindled. All I want to do is play basketball."

Columnist Larry Merchant took Barry's integrity to task. "It seems," Merchant wrote, "that hardly a day has gone by in the last three years when Rick Barry has not been fast-breaking from one team to another; lawsuits trailing behind him. He is the quintessential modern athlete-gifted, good-looking and corrupted by the business of sports." Barry blushed when Merchant mentioned all his wrong-doings, then denied that he had done anything wrong.
Jack Dolph, the ABA commissioner, wasn't about to share the sentiments of Merchant. How could he? "He is three times more important to us in New York than Virginia," Dolph said. That, of course, was because he could generate more news and attention to the ABA there.
"It's like having my cake and eating it," said Barry, who is paid $165,000 a year to play for the Nets.

When Barry was playing in Oakland, he injured his knee and played only 35 games, scoring 34 points a game. The next year, in Washington, he re-injured his knee and again missed half the season. One of his early experiences as a Net was a broken metatarsal bone, which rendered him useless for the first two months of the season. It still hurts at times. "Well, that's life," he says, reflecting on his recent past. It seems that trainers have always been hovering over Barry since he joined the ABA. First, it was a knee, then the right foot, then the left ankle. Barry hates to think of himself as brittle. He remembers going through high school, college and his first pro season missing only two games.

He's not always up to par when he plays these days, but no one notices it as much as Rick. It's just another frustration to add to his many. "He's got to be snakebit," says coach Lou Carnesecca.

Thanks for that article. I'd love to see Barry's numbers against Bill Bradley.

[RSCD3_]

Is peak Kidd really that different than Ricky Rubio besides being a better scorer and slightly less effective playmaker

His offensive ability is troubling if you think at his prime he should have been scoring less than 15 ppg and it's not like he substituted with all one level passing ability

He sounds like a limited player on O , sort of like how people had brung up Ewing as overrated offensively because he lacked in efficiency and the ability to run an entire offense through him instead of mainly being a finisher.

However in kids case it was his lack of a good jumper that didn't give him good efficiency and he seemed like a player who could be game planned against to prevent him from scoring and his passing wasn't on a Stockton level to make up for it.

Offensively where most of the guards get there value from I see him as below a lot of players at the guard position


Concerning defense Kidd on defense imo is between Chris Paul and The Frazier/Payton duo

Honestly peak wise I might put Chauncey over him, who was a slightly worse defender, a comparable passer and a more efficient scorer yet his prime Is a lot shorter (04-10) so it would be tough to decide



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[SactoKingsFan]

Here’s part of an article on Rick Barry from Jim O’Brien’s (1972) ABA All-Stars:

Spoiler:

While driving home from a New York Nets' game one night, my wife, Kathie remarked, "I'd hate to play Scrabble or Hearts with Rick Barry. If you beat him he'd probably overturn the board or shove the cards down your throat. I never saw a guy so tough on himself."

Credit Kathie with keen perception. Barry, at his best, is his own worst enemy -- only in a different way. He simply never satisfies himself, is always critical of his performance after a game, and hates to lose. To believe Barry you'd think he never plays up to his true ability -- he's been bothered by leg ailments in recent years -- but, at times, it's hard to imagine anybody playing better than Barry does. Single-handedly, he often wins games.

For years, Barry has been the ABA at its absolute individual best. In the beginning, he was the young league's leading big-name star, and perhaps had an influence on others following suit and signing on with the upstart pro basketball circuit.

Bill Sharman, who coached Barry at San Francisco of the NBA....can't say enough about Barry:

"This far in his career," says Sharman, "I would have to rank Rick as the greatest and most productive offensive forward ever to play the game. I think he's better than Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, Paul Arizin and Dolph Schayes, and they were all tremendous performers.”

"Not only is he a great shooter, but he's one of the game's finest passers. He hits the open man when he's double-teamed, which is often, and runs the pick and roll, setting up his teammates for easy layups, better than any player I've ever seen.”

"He has to be the quickest 6-7 player the game of basketball has ever seen. He's awfully hard, if not impossible, to match up against defensively. He beats a bigger opponent with his quickness and goes over the little man. He is unstoppable going to the basket on a one-on-one situation and is usually successful one-on-two.”

"I would have to call him super, super on the fast break. He can penetrate, make the basket and draw the foul better than anyone. He has great body-balance and body-control He has all the shots -- the hook, jumper, fade-away, set and the layups with either or both hands.”

"He's an intense competitor, whether it's basketball, golf, checkers or anything else -- he just doesn't want to lose. He's one guy I never had to worry about being up for a game."

Enough said?

Then, too, consider some of Rick's achievements in the ABA:

He was named to the first-team for all-league honors each of his four years in the league. He averaged nearly 30 points a game over that same span, and during the 1969-70 season with the Washington Caps, he averaged 40.1 points in seven playoff games. In the inter-league all-star game, he topped the ABA with 20 points.

"I'm not a good shooter," says Barry. "I'm a scorer, that's all. I'm a good shooter but I can't stand outside all night and pop in 50 per cent of my shots. A good shooter is someone like Jerry West. If I had to have someone outside to shoot an important basket I'd have West do it."

Richard Francis Denny Barry III is too much. Born in Elizabeth, N.J., just across the river from New York City, he's back home in a way, as he once hoped he'd be. As an All-America at the University of Miami, and the top scorer in the NCAA ranks, 37.4 average, he hoped he'd be drafted by the New York Knicks. Someone in their organization said Barry was too skinny, and wouldn't be able to withstand the pro punishment, and they passed him up in favor of Bill Bradley of Princeton. He signed with San Francisco instead, fell in love with the Bay Area, and never thought he'd be going East again. He jumped the Warriors after two seasons of stardom for Oakland of the newly-formed ABA, where Rick's college coach and father-in-law, Bruce Hale, had just been named general manager. He did it for the best possible reason: $50,000 more per season on a five-year contract, apparently including stock options.

He says he wound up losing money on the deal -- the stock turned into worthless paper-but that's the way the red, white and blue ball bounces in the world of high finance. "I've suffered by moving," he said, "but it hasn't been that bad. Compared to other people, I can't complain."
The Oakland franchise failed despite Barry after two years and one ABA title -- in the second year when Barry became eligible to play after sitting out a season on the option year of his NBA contract -- and was sold to Washington, D.C. interests.

Barry balked about moving to Washington, and immediately signed another five-year contract with the Warriors, effective in 1972. The franchise was a flop in Washington, as well, and it was going to Virginia for the following season -- the ABA's fourth -- where it would be a regional franchise in the manner of the Carolina Cougars, rotating home games among several sites in the state. Once more, Barry became disenchanted with the idea of moving.
To begin with, Barry had dragged his sneakers to Washington, but he was determined not to go to Virginia. He forced a trade by insulting the citizens of the state enough so that management was compelled to get rid of him.

Barry announced that Virginia was a state he'd "always gotten out of as soon as he could," and that he considered it his duty to protect Scooter, his three-year-old boy, from picking up so contagious a disease as a Southern accent. Virginia traded him to the Nets.
It was thought that Barry's best value to the league would be in New York, the media capital of the country. I broke the story that Barry had signed with the Nets in the New York Post. It was the best thing that ever happened to the Nets.

After failing to sign the likes of Lew Alcindor, Jim McMillian and Bob Lanier, it was necessary to get a ballplayer like Barry for the club to compare with the NBA Knicks and their stars, Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere, Dick Barnett and, of course, Bradley….

The Nets paid a considerable sum, estimated at $250,000, for Barry, and their No.1 draft choice for the next season.

"If you're going to be any place in sports," said Barry, "New York is the place to be. My interest was at a low ebb when I thought I'd have to play in Virginia, and now my interest has been rekindled. All I want to do is play basketball."

Columnist Larry Merchant took Barry's integrity to task. "It seems," Merchant wrote, "that hardly a day has gone by in the last three years when Rick Barry has not been fast-breaking from one team to another; lawsuits trailing behind him. He is the quintessential modern athlete-gifted, good-looking and corrupted by the business of sports." Barry blushed when Merchant mentioned all his wrong-doings, then denied that he had done anything wrong.
Jack Dolph, the ABA commissioner, wasn't about to share the sentiments of Merchant. How could he? "He is three times more important to us in New York than Virginia," Dolph said. That, of course, was because he could generate more news and attention to the ABA there.
"It's like having my cake and eating it," said Barry, who is paid $165,000 a year to play for the Nets.

When Barry was playing in Oakland, he injured his knee and played only 35 games, scoring 34 points a game. The next year, in Washington, he re-injured his knee and again missed half the season. One of his early experiences as a Net was a broken metatarsal bone, which rendered him useless for the first two months of the season. It still hurts at times. "Well, that's life," he says, reflecting on his recent past. It seems that trainers have always been hovering over Barry since he joined the ABA. First, it was a knee, then the right foot, then the left ankle. Barry hates to think of himself as brittle. He remembers going through high school, college and his first pro season missing only two games.

He's not always up to par when he plays these days, but no one notices it as much as Rick. It's just another frustration to add to his many. "He's got to be snakebit," says coach Lou Carnesecca.

Thanks for that article. I'd love to see Barry's numbers against Bill Bradley.

Punched Bradley in the jaw in 75.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 75,4326949

[Clyde Frazier]

Is peak Kidd really that different than Ricky Rubio besides being a better scorer and slightly less effective playmaker

Kidd was arguably a top 5 on the fly decision maker in NBA history. Definitely had an innate sense and awareness that most players don't have, and it showed even more when he was past his prime. Rubio may be a gifted passer, but I'd say he parallels pistol pete much more than kidd.

[ronnymac2]

Here’s part of an article on Rick Barry from Jim O’Brien’s (1972) ABA All-Stars:

Spoiler:

While driving home from a New York Nets' game one night, my wife, Kathie remarked, "I'd hate to play Scrabble or Hearts with Rick Barry. If you beat him he'd probably overturn the board or shove the cards down your throat. I never saw a guy so tough on himself."

Credit Kathie with keen perception. Barry, at his best, is his own worst enemy -- only in a different way. He simply never satisfies himself, is always critical of his performance after a game, and hates to lose. To believe Barry you'd think he never plays up to his true ability -- he's been bothered by leg ailments in recent years -- but, at times, it's hard to imagine anybody playing better than Barry does. Single-handedly, he often wins games.

For years, Barry has been the ABA at its absolute individual best. In the beginning, he was the young league's leading big-name star, and perhaps had an influence on others following suit and signing on with the upstart pro basketball circuit.

Bill Sharman, who coached Barry at San Francisco of the NBA....can't say enough about Barry:

"This far in his career," says Sharman, "I would have to rank Rick as the greatest and most productive offensive forward ever to play the game. I think he's better than Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, Paul Arizin and Dolph Schayes, and they were all tremendous performers.”

"Not only is he a great shooter, but he's one of the game's finest passers. He hits the open man when he's double-teamed, which is often, and runs the pick and roll, setting up his teammates for easy layups, better than any player I've ever seen.”

"He has to be the quickest 6-7 player the game of basketball has ever seen. He's awfully hard, if not impossible, to match up against defensively. He beats a bigger opponent with his quickness and goes over the little man. He is unstoppable going to the basket on a one-on-one situation and is usually successful one-on-two.”

"I would have to call him super, super on the fast break. He can penetrate, make the basket and draw the foul better than anyone. He has great body-balance and body-control He has all the shots -- the hook, jumper, fade-away, set and the layups with either or both hands.”

"He's an intense competitor, whether it's basketball, golf, checkers or anything else -- he just doesn't want to lose. He's one guy I never had to worry about being up for a game."

Enough said?

Then, too, consider some of Rick's achievements in the ABA:

He was named to the first-team for all-league honors each of his four years in the league. He averaged nearly 30 points a game over that same span, and during the 1969-70 season with the Washington Caps, he averaged 40.1 points in seven playoff games. In the inter-league all-star game, he topped the ABA with 20 points.

"I'm not a good shooter," says Barry. "I'm a scorer, that's all. I'm a good shooter but I can't stand outside all night and pop in 50 per cent of my shots. A good shooter is someone like Jerry West. If I had to have someone outside to shoot an important basket I'd have West do it."

Richard Francis Denny Barry III is too much. Born in Elizabeth, N.J., just across the river from New York City, he's back home in a way, as he once hoped he'd be. As an All-America at the University of Miami, and the top scorer in the NCAA ranks, 37.4 average, he hoped he'd be drafted by the New York Knicks. Someone in their organization said Barry was too skinny, and wouldn't be able to withstand the pro punishment, and they passed him up in favor of Bill Bradley of Princeton. He signed with San Francisco instead, fell in love with the Bay Area, and never thought he'd be going East again. He jumped the Warriors after two seasons of stardom for Oakland of the newly-formed ABA, where Rick's college coach and father-in-law, Bruce Hale, had just been named general manager. He did it for the best possible reason: $50,000 more per season on a five-year contract, apparently including stock options.

He says he wound up losing money on the deal -- the stock turned into worthless paper-but that's the way the red, white and blue ball bounces in the world of high finance. "I've suffered by moving," he said, "but it hasn't been that bad. Compared to other people, I can't complain."
The Oakland franchise failed despite Barry after two years and one ABA title -- in the second year when Barry became eligible to play after sitting out a season on the option year of his NBA contract -- and was sold to Washington, D.C. interests.

Barry balked about moving to Washington, and immediately signed another five-year contract with the Warriors, effective in 1972. The franchise was a flop in Washington, as well, and it was going to Virginia for the following season -- the ABA's fourth -- where it would be a regional franchise in the manner of the Carolina Cougars, rotating home games among several sites in the state. Once more, Barry became disenchanted with the idea of moving.
To begin with, Barry had dragged his sneakers to Washington, but he was determined not to go to Virginia. He forced a trade by insulting the citizens of the state enough so that management was compelled to get rid of him.

Barry announced that Virginia was a state he'd "always gotten out of as soon as he could," and that he considered it his duty to protect Scooter, his three-year-old boy, from picking up so contagious a disease as a Southern accent. Virginia traded him to the Nets.
It was thought that Barry's best value to the league would be in New York, the media capital of the country. I broke the story that Barry had signed with the Nets in the New York Post. It was the best thing that ever happened to the Nets.

After failing to sign the likes of Lew Alcindor, Jim McMillian and Bob Lanier, it was necessary to get a ballplayer like Barry for the club to compare with the NBA Knicks and their stars, Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere, Dick Barnett and, of course, Bradley….

The Nets paid a considerable sum, estimated at $250,000, for Barry, and their No.1 draft choice for the next season.

"If you're going to be any place in sports," said Barry, "New York is the place to be. My interest was at a low ebb when I thought I'd have to play in Virginia, and now my interest has been rekindled. All I want to do is play basketball."

Columnist Larry Merchant took Barry's integrity to task. "It seems," Merchant wrote, "that hardly a day has gone by in the last three years when Rick Barry has not been fast-breaking from one team to another; lawsuits trailing behind him. He is the quintessential modern athlete-gifted, good-looking and corrupted by the business of sports." Barry blushed when Merchant mentioned all his wrong-doings, then denied that he had done anything wrong.
Jack Dolph, the ABA commissioner, wasn't about to share the sentiments of Merchant. How could he? "He is three times more important to us in New York than Virginia," Dolph said. That, of course, was because he could generate more news and attention to the ABA there.
"It's like having my cake and eating it," said Barry, who is paid $165,000 a year to play for the Nets.

When Barry was playing in Oakland, he injured his knee and played only 35 games, scoring 34 points a game. The next year, in Washington, he re-injured his knee and again missed half the season. One of his early experiences as a Net was a broken metatarsal bone, which rendered him useless for the first two months of the season. It still hurts at times. "Well, that's life," he says, reflecting on his recent past. It seems that trainers have always been hovering over Barry since he joined the ABA. First, it was a knee, then the right foot, then the left ankle. Barry hates to think of himself as brittle. He remembers going through high school, college and his first pro season missing only two games.

He's not always up to par when he plays these days, but no one notices it as much as Rick. It's just another frustration to add to his many. "He's got to be snakebit," says coach Lou Carnesecca.

Thanks for that article. I'd love to see Barry's numbers against Bill Bradley.

Punched Bradley in the jaw in 75.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 75,4326949

Barry didn't even get T'd up.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Basically all of kidd success as a franchise player game in arguably the worst Conference in history

The East wasn't particularly strong in the early 00's but there was some competition and it isn't like Kidd was playing with amazing talent. His best player was Kenyon Martin who (going by memory) absolutely sucked when it came to creating his own offense in the halfcourt.

The fact that Kidd almost led those bums to the Finals 3x in a row is pretty impressive.
I mean they almost knocked off a very strong Detroit team in 2004.
Maybe they would have been Champions if they did and then how would Kidd be viewed?

[Doctor MJ]

Is peak Kidd really that different than Ricky Rubio besides being a better scorer and slightly less effective playmaker

Kidd was arguably a top 5 on the fly decision maker in NBA history. Definitely had an innate sense and awareness that most players don't have, and it showed even more when he was past his prime. Rubio may be a gifted passer, but I'd say he parallels pistol pete much more than kidd.

Care to elaborate?

Maravich was known for extreme volume scoring before anything else in college, and all through his pro career we saw signs of him being a guy who didn't properly see when it was time to NOT shoot despite the fact that his raw passing skills were stellar.

Rubio doesn't have those issues. He knows he can't shoot well all too well, and in fact might be getting in his way further because of hesitance.

[Warspite]

[quote="Doctor MJ"

It's not as set in stone as it may appear. I'm still listening to Paul vs Kidd arguments for example. I defend Paul's longevity relative to some, but I'm not pretending it isn't an issue.

I'm not considering either one this high on the list but i think Kidd should still be ranked ahead of Paul even if it ain't by a lot.

Prime Kidd gives you 15-18 ppg, 10 assists, 6-7 boards and elite defense. And he has superb longevity. Plus, the playoff success, yes i'm aware of the conference disparity but Kidd still played at a very high level in the playoffs and you can't take that away from him.[/quote]

Isiah gives you 18-20pts 8-14asts 4 boards and elite defense. There really is nothing Kidd can do that Isiah cant do better.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Isiah gives you 18-20pts 8-14asts 4 boards and elite defense. There really is nothing Kidd can do that Isiah cant do better.

To be fair Isiah can not be the defender or rebounder that Kidd was.
A big reason for that is because he lacked size. He looks very small on video. Was he even 6+ft?

Kidd is big for a PG. He is a solid 6'4, maybe 6'5 going by how so many guys have their real numbers inflated and he is stocky.

[Warspite]

Isiah gives you 18-20pts 8-14asts 4 boards and elite defense. There really is nothing Kidd can do that Isiah cant do better.

To be fair Isiah can not be the defender or rebounder that Kidd was.
A big reason for that is because he lacked size. He looks very small on video. Was he even 6+ft?

Kidd is big for a PG. He is a solid 6'4, maybe 6'5 going by how so many guys have their real numbers inflated and he is stocky.

Isiah played with maybe the GOAT rebounding duo of Laimbeer and Rodman. Still he was a very good rebounder for a PG. Rebounding for a PG is about as important as 3pt shooting for a C. Isiah has a playoff triple double being guarded my MJ for most of the game. Isiah simply did whatever it took to win while most others put up stats and hoped to win games. Kidd never had the type of game that would scare you unless it was an all star game.

[Jaivl]

Rubio may be a gifted passer, but I'd say he parallels pistol pete much more than kidd.

How so? Just because his passes are flashy? Having the ability to run a very successful offense and averaging >8 apg while being a total non-threat at scoring... that screams all-time level of court vision and passing (and defense but that's another topic).

[Quotatious]

Leaning heavily towards Gilmore here. I'll have to take a closer look at his defensive impact in the NBA (he missed almost a half of the 79-80 season with a knee injury, which may have limited his mobility a bit), because at first glance, it seems somewhat questionable (considering that Chicago had really poor defensive teams after 1977 - in the 76-77 season, they had the second best defense in the league, during A-Train's first season there, but after that, just 20th of 22, 16th of 22, 15th of 22 even with Gilmore out for half a season in 79-80, 14th of 23, and finally 17th of 23 in 1982), and then in San Antonio, he didn't seem to anchor good defensive teams - just 15th of 23 in 1983, then 21st of 23, and 17th of 23 in both 1985 and 1986.

Anyway, Artis may just fall into the same category as peak Ewing (Knicks finished just 13th in DRtg in 1990, and 12th in 1991), or KG in Minnesota, where his teams were just about average defensively, except for 2004. May be as simple as playing on weak teams, which didn't allow them to give as much effort defensively as they otherwise would have given, if they had good teams around them.

Still, Gilmore's ABA defensive impact is irrefutable - he anchored the best (three times) or the second best (two times) defense in the ABA in each of his five seasons.

Gilmore's numbers and longevity, combined with his defensive impact during his first six pro seasons, IMO makes him as good a candidate as you can have at this point in the project.

[Clyde Frazier]

Is peak Kidd really that different than Ricky Rubio besides being a better scorer and slightly less effective playmaker

Kidd was arguably a top 5 on the fly decision maker in NBA history. Definitely had an innate sense and awareness that most players don't have, and it showed even more when he was past his prime. Rubio may be a gifted passer, but I'd say he parallels pistol pete much more than kidd.

Care to elaborate?

Maravich was known for extreme volume scoring before anything else in college, and all through his pro career we saw signs of him being a guy who didn't properly see when it was time to NOT shoot despite the fact that his raw passing skills were stellar.

Rubio doesn't have those issues. He knows he can't shoot well all too well, and in fact might be getting in his way further because of hesitance.

I was responding to RSCD3's claim that kidd was a less effective play maker than rubio. My comparing rubio to maravich was purely from a passing / play making standpoint, where decision making tends / tended to take a back seat at times. It's obvious they differ when it comes to scoring mentality.

[Texas Chuck]

Regarding Jason Kidd:

I made this post:

Spoiler:

Well I'm thrilled to see there is one other guy who views Kidd as highly as me. And I'm glad he made a case because I could never do it that well.

But as Colts18 has posted a bunch about Nash before/after on team ortg entering and leaving Phoenix the 2nd time. I like looking at Kidd and his impact on before/after w/l because well its hard to ignore the impact he was having on winning games. He's not the offensive savant Nash is so judging him on offensive numbers doesn't do justice to his impact. But this effect is so clear and obvious---and with the exception of being drafted and signing with the Knicks and the very beginning and end of his career--he was traded for which means the team he joined had to lose meaningful assets to get him unlike Nash in Phoenix.

Obviously I understand this is a team accomplishment and that there are other factors besides Kidd in play in each one. But the same is true of Nash and the ortg stuff. Plus this much smoke....

93-94 Mavs (pre-Kidd) 13-69
94-95 Mavs (with Kidd) 36-46

95-96 Mavs (Kidd's final full year) 26-56
97-98 Mavs (first full year no Kidd) 20-62
96-97 Mavs (8-14 with Kidd, 16-44, no Kidd)

95-96 Suns(No Kidd) 41-41
96-97 Suns( 17-32 no Kidd, 23-10 with Kidd)
97-98 Suns (first full year with Kidd) 56-26

00-01 Suns (with Kidd) 51-31
01-02 Suns (no Kidd) 36-46

00-01 Nets (no Kidd) 26-56
01-02 Nets (with Kidd) 52-30

06-07 Nets (last full year with Kidd) 41-41
07-08 Nets (22-29 with Kidd, 12-17 no Kidd)
08-09 Nets (no Kidd) 34-48


Now the Mavs didn't see this impact from Kidd when he joined them in 08 tho he was a key part to the title run in 2011. But its hard for me to look at those impact numbers and not realize no matter how how "ugly" Kidd might be doing it--the guy manages to have enormous impact on his team's chance to win games

.

tsherkin posted the following rebuttal explaining that in his opinion this was more coincidental than anything:

Spoiler:

Obviously I understand this is a team accomplishment and that there are other factors besides Kidd in play in each one. But the same is true of Nash and the ortg stuff. Plus this much smoke....

Ehh, let's look at these.

93-94 Mavs (pre-Kidd) 13-69
94-95 Mavs (with Kidd) 36-46

94: Quinn Buckner coaching, worst offense in the league, 4th-worst defense, -8.19 SRS. Kidd comes in as a rookie. Dick Motta takes over. Offense jumps to 15th out of 27. Defense improves to 21st. Kidd plays 33.8 mpg. Jim Jackson plays less (51 GP bc of the ankle), Fat Lever retires. They played like +0.3 possessions faster, but went from 18th in pace to 6th.

Jackson was having a phenomenal season; Mashburn had a much better second season than his rookie year in 04, when he was also a feature offensive player on that team. Clearly, the offensive improvement was larger than the defensive, which is actually atypical of Kidd-run teams, but he was definitely involved, despite his customarily poor individual scoring.

Having a not-terrible coach probably had the largest impact beyond Mashburn having a full season under his belt, but Kidd's passing can't be ignored too much, since he wasn't much LESS efficient than some of the offensive weapons from the previous season, and his passing very likely enabled Jackson and Mash at least a little. But there's a convergence of factors there worth considering.

95-96 Mavs (Kidd's final full year) 26-56
97-98 Mavs (first full year no Kidd) 20-62

Interesting point, the offense slacked off again in 96 compared to 95, team ORTG sliding by about -1.6 and dropping them down to 19th. Mash barely played and George McCloud was the stand-in. JJ was back. McCloud was actually more efficient than Mash and Jackson had a far better season than his 94 year. Kidd was himself playing and shooting a lot more. Defense was 25th of 29.

96-97 Mavs (8-14 with Kidd, 16-44, no Kidd)

Jim Cleamons coaching, not Dick Motta. 2nd-worst offense in the league. 46 GP from Jim Jackson, 56 GP and 36 GS from Michael Finley. 37 GP from Mash (21 GS). 41 GP from McCloud.

Looking at roster presence, it's kind of hard to pull much of consequence from that particular season given how little consistency they had in their roster, especially with a coaching change on top of that. They were 16-44 without Kidd and then 20-62 in a full season without him, but in 98...

Cleamons gives up after a 4-12 start and they go 16-50 under Don Nelson.

They are the 3rd-worst O in the league, and 24th of 29 on D. Their team DRTG of 107.2 is 4 points better than it was in Kidd's last full season.

No Mash, no JJ, no McCloud. 52 games of Dennis Scott, a full season of Finley. Only two guys started more than 54 games. Only 4 guys PLAYED more than 67 games (Finley, AC Green, Khalid Reeves and Hubert Davis).

Again, hard to evaluate Kidd's impact given the total crap nature of the roster. This is one of those "DEAN GARRETT!!!" kind of moments, you know? We talk about Minnesota's supporting casts, but the mid/late-90s Mavericks were bloody freaking terrible. There was no one of consequence on that team besides Finley, and he was decent, but he was also a 52.2% TS / 107 ORTG player in a league environment of 52.4% TS and 105 ORTG. A marginally above-average volume scorer on a team plagued with roster inconsistency is never going to compare to a more balanced team with better coaching. And the weird bit is that Nelson was actually a good RS offensive coach, I mean we've seen that in multiple locations. Before he went stupid/senile in the 2000s, he was innovative, daring, experimental, I mean he was pretty creative at drawing out the best in his teams. And he got nothing out of those guys, because he had no consistency or talent with which to work.

So again, not a great point of comparison.

95-96 Suns(No Kidd) 41-41
96-97 Suns( 17-32 no Kidd, 23-10 with Kidd)
97-98 Suns (first full year with Kidd) 56-26

95-96, they were the 7th-best offense in the league without Kidd, and 23rd on D. They went 27-22 under Cotton Fitzsimmons after he took over from Westphal (under whom they were 14-19), so their final record is a tad misleading.

Keep in mind that they lost Charles Barkley after the 96 season, he went to the Rockets, and that KJ was falling apart (56 GP that year, too), and Barkley himself played only 71 games, while they began to use more of Michael Finley.

In 97, they open up 0-8 under Fitzsimmons and then go 40-34 under Danny Ainge. 6th best offense, 20th-best defense. Not a ton different than the year before, similar final record. KJ plays 70 games (39-31), Kidd plays 33 and starts 23 (23-10, including an 11-game winning streak). KJ played the whole winning streak as well, and of course Manning was healthy, as was Wesley Person. That team had talent, and with KJ posting 20/9 on 63% TS / 124 ORTG, they could afford to bring Kidd off of the bench as a secondary guard, which worked wonders. Hell, even Steve Nash played 65 games for that team, heh, and Sam Cassell 22.

Then we go to 98. Big season, right? Big win increase.

Well, they added 15/7.5 from Antonio McDyess for the whole season, Nash got better, KG played only 50 games, but they added Clifford Robinson as well. Two major frontcourt additions, a huge defensive improvement and then a theoretical offensive improvement to 6th (but they actually regressed in team ORTG compared to the previous season, from 109.3 to 107.4).

So again, it's very difficult to isolate Kidd's particular impact that year as a result of those additions. McDyess was a 57.1% TS player that year, and of course would explode in Denver the year after, make the AS team in 01 and then his body gave out and he was never the same guy. Uncle Cliffy was an excellent defender and Nash ended up playing backup to Kidd while shooting 41.5% from 3 and making a nuisance of himself for 22 mpg. But again, you see that the team took a backwards step on O to take a forwards step on D, and Kidd wasn't the only player who played solid (or better) defense who'd been added to that team. That Suns team was top 10 in defensive rebounding and 6th in defensive TOV%, and both McDyess and Robinson played a large role in that shift. Kidd did as well, of course, but it remains food for thought and once again, an example of major roster shifts explaining more of the changes in team success/performance than simply the addition or subtraction of Kidd from that squad.

00-01 Suns (with Kidd) 51-31
01-02 Suns (no Kidd) 36-46

Yup. But again, let's look at that team more closely:

01: 22nd offense, 2nd on defense, Scott Skiles coaching. Known for his ability to drag defense out of his teams.

That team had Shawn Marion and Clifford Robinson as well, both playing a lot of games, not just Kidd.

I won't lampoon Kidd too badly for putting up numbers on a crap squad (offensively speaking only, of course), but that is what was happening. In his defense, I can understand why they weren't a really GOOD offense, though: they didn't have a lot of shooters, Googs was injured, Elie missed games and while Cliffy was a good 3pt shooter for a 4, he didn't do a lot else particularly well on offense. Kidd did not have the same effect on Marion as did Nash and Rodney Rogers was past his prime (and past his shooting touch, no less).

It's kind of hard to overlook that Kidd had Marion (a note defensive force) and Clifford Robinson (who was All-Defensive 2nd Team in both 2000 and 2002) on his squad that season while they played that well, while playing under a coach noted for his defensive style. Kidd clearly fit in well, and was part of their success, but he was also not contributing much to the success of their offense despite his raw averages and there were enough other factors on that team that cooperate to the detriment of Kidd's credit for the team's success.

Now 2002. Skiles gives way to Frank Johnson after starting 25-26, and Johnson promptly goes 11-20. They go from a 2nd-ranked 98 DRTG to a 12th-ranked 104 and they are 13th on offense (moving from 100.3 with Kidd to 103.3 without him). They actually slow down a little from 93.1 (6th in the league) to 91.4 (10th). Kidd and Uncle Cliffy depart, Kidd to New Jersey, Cliff to Detroit. They have no bench to speak of.

Marion's there, Marbury's there. Penny plays 80 games, starting 55, but is a shell of himself offensively and not especially good on D either. Googs, Rodney, Voskhul... their frontcourt is riddled with injuries or weak players, etc. They don't really have much to work with.

This one looks pretty favorable for Kidd in the sense that he was clearly exerting a palpable defensive force on the team, even if he was being aided by another All-Defensive player, and clearly the Suns didn't have the ability to ramp up the offense enough to cover up their defensive shortcomings, though again, some of that was related to injuries and old guys. They did give Majerle a final season send-off, Googs played half of the season, they didn't have Nash as their backup guard any longer and Penny sucked. The coaching change didn't help either.

We all know Kidd is a good defender, and that his mixture of turnover generation, defensive rebounding and his versatility as far as guarding the one or the two make him a valuable defender, so he was clearly a big part of that equation, but there remain other factors in play. You'll notice that the team was still nearly at .500 before Frank Johnson took over, which is still a drop-off, but one of lesser note when you consider that they lost their bench guard, an All-D stretch big AND their point guard.

00-01 Nets (no Kidd) 26-56
01-02 Nets (with Kidd) 52-30

This is the bad one, and not for the counter-Kidd argument.

The 01 Nets were riddled with injuries. Kerry Kittles didn't play at all, then came back to give Kidd 82 games of 40.5% 3pt shooting in 2002. They added Richard Jefferson after this season. Keith Van Horn played 49 games in 01, then 81 in 2002. Kenyon Martin, 68 as a rookie, then 73 in 2002. Marbury himself missed 15 games. They added Todd MacCulloch after the 01 season.

Now, in a mirror image of the Phoenix situation, the Nets went from 23rd on defense at 105.5 to 1st on defense at 99.5. They played in an absolutely ABYSMAL Eastern Conference (and Atlantic Division), but Kidd was again impacting the team strongly. MacCulloch and Martin's shot-blocking definitely helped a lot, and the team as a whole generated a lot of turnovers (Kittles, again, was fairly helpful here himself, but so were Martin, Van Horn, etc all in conjunction). Kidd clearly captained this team, and they averaged roughly a -5.0 defense from 02 through 04, tailed off in 05 and 06 and then dropped off of a cliff thereafter... which aligns rather well with Kenyon Martin's trip to Denver, as well as the rules changes (though they were still -3.0 to -3.8 in 05 and 06).

This one's a fuzzier one, because again, there was a huge difference in health and the usual ton of roster turnover compared to the previous season, all of which works to obfuscate individual player impact.

06-07 Nets (last full year with Kidd) 41-41
07-08 Nets (22-29 with Kidd, 12-17 no Kidd)
08-09 Nets (no Kidd) 34-48

Mmmm. The 09 Nets lost Richard Jefferson, relied on 69 games of volume scoring from Devin Harris, were 4.3 points per 100 possessions better on offense than they were the previous season but were around 2 points per 100 possessions worse on defense. They ended up with the same record as the season before. I know you showed the with/without Kidd record situation, but again, you're looking at a minimal difference (again, 35.4 wins versus 34 wins, not really a substantive difference), and that casts a different light on things than the presentation of the 29 games they played without Kidd.

22-29 with Kidd in 2008 is equivalent to a 35-win season, so what you showed is that while they worsened defensively, because they improved dramatically (and more so than than tailed off on the defensive end), they were basically the same caliber of team in the full season without him. The trade obviously affected things, but that isn't unusual with mid-season trades, especially those involving core players.

Of course, the team was 23-29 before the trade, 11-19 after the trade, so it really works out to the team WITH Kidd was more like a 37-win team and the 09 rendition was a 34-win squad, but again, Harris was injured and Jefferson buggered off to the Bucks, so there are some issues with a direct record analysis anyway.



Context is important there. We can see that Kidd as a defensive guard is a pretty significant player, even for a point, but there are huge and consistent issues of health and roster turnover in each of those major turnarounds that you're discussing.

So I'll you everyone decide if my Occam's Razor viewpoint of seeing teams improve significantly upon adding Kidd(an avg of 21 more wins the first full season with Kidd compared to the last) and drop off considerably upon losing Kidd(more than 9 fewer wins) is correct, or if you share tsherkin's take. I agree with him obviously that there are other factors than Kidd in each case, duh right? But just like we can see how playing with a Lebron or a Dirk or a Nash seems to really help the players around them I think its fair to see the results and suggest Kidd may be doing the same--and that because his offensive game is "ugly" or because guys have decided his impact is defensive and that defensive PG's can't have impact like we seem to be seeing that we look for other reasons.

[Clyde Frazier]

Rubio may be a gifted passer, but I'd say he parallels pistol pete much more than kidd.

How so? Just because his passes are flashy? Having the ability to run a very successful offense and averaging >8 apg while being a total non-threat at scoring... that screams all-time level of court vision and passing (and defense but that's another topic).

I like rubio, too... but I don't think we're there yet. Yes, purely from a play making / decision making standpoint, the flashy passing can get in the way of making the successful play. I'm not blaming him for all those late game collapses last season, but maybe his execution could have been better. He's still only 23 years old.

[Texas Chuck]

but a "Kidd Triple Double" is not a compliment.

Triple Doubles are obviously an arbitrary achievement and have no inherent value. That said Kidd's ability to to contribute in so many areas to help his teams seems like it should be complimented, no?

I mean take just that fact that for his career he averages 6 rebounds( 5 def) and 2 steals a game. This is one of the best transition PG's of all time and that's 7 possessions a game where he's not having to wait on an outlet pass. And in terms of the steals most of those lead immediately into fast break opportunities and we all know Kidd was always extremely aggressive in looking to advance the ball very quickly looking for easy offense.


I think we all know what he was not, and that's why he's going to end up in the 30's and not up there with Nash and Stock, but what he was, well that was pretty darn special too.

I'm going to leave this here because I think it makes a good example of the sort of things Jason Kidd was doing on the regular in terms of his high B-ball IQ:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB8KtMOnGvY[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnV8BhDbDrg[/youtube]