Chauncey Billups vs Jason Kidd

[Ryoga Hibiki]

5 years prime, who would you take?
Am I the only one going for Billups?
The difference as a scorer and shooter is just too much for me.

One of the most underrated what ifs is "what if Minnie kept Billups?" He was offered the MLE, nothing crazy.

[No-more-rings]

I wouldn't call it an insulting comparison but what's the case for Billups? Kidd has double the amount of all star games, 5 first team selections to 0 for Billups, 9 defensive selections to Billups' 2, etc. I don't think narrowing it to 5 year stretch helps Billups any either.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

It's not about the all NBA teams and awards, it's about who you want im your team.

Sent from my SM-N975F using RealGM mobile app

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Let's try to make a case.
First of all, this is not who should be ranked higher in an All Time List but who you would take for your team.
Why Billups?
* he's super portable, basically the perfect skillset for a PG. Can play on ball and off ball, he can shoot, he can defend, he's big, he is a good passer and he can put pressure on a defense in half court
* he can low key take over a game with his scoring, he's a good enough threat on the pick and roll, he can get and make free throws
Kidd is a better passer, better defender, better on transition, but he's limiting you if he's your best or second best offensive player, for being so little of a threat in halfcourt.
To be clear, no team built around Billups would be good enough offensively, but Chanucey has the skillset to be a more effective #2 and fit in any situation. Who would you prefer to pair with Duncan? Garnett (sic)? Shaq? Dirk? Or maybe Kobe? Wade? Of the two I would go for sure with Chauncey.
Another if you have already two other max players, and then it could get tricky and Kidd might be a better option, especially his later version that could be somewhat of a threat from 3. But not by much.

Overall, I want Chauncey in my team.

[penbeast0]

The case for Billups: Shooting efficiency, some impressive playoff performances, can work off ball as well as on ball.

The case for Kidd: Rebounding and defense, assist totals, much longer prime.

I can make a good case that Billup's peak and 5 year prime are better especially if you are among those who don't think PG defense is important (and Billups was an above average defender himself, just Kidd is arguably GOAT defensive PG), much harder to say that about career.

[prophet_of_rage]

At no point has Billups been better than Kidd. Nor can he run a team as well. Don't let the step in 3 fool you.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Lost92Bricks]

At no point has Billups been better than Kidd. Nor can he run a team as well. Don't let the step in 3 fool you.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Funny how being a winner isn't important to you here.

Chauncey not only won a championship and Finals MVP in 2004 but he outplayed and eliminated Jason Kidd out of the playoffs on the way. Then in 2005, he was one Robert Horry shot away from another Finals MVP.

In 2006, Chauncey and the Pistons won 64 games and Chauncey was top 5 in MVP voting. Kidd wasn't anywhere close to that.

[therealbig3]

So here’s the issue with this comparison...when Kidd was in his prime, outside shooting and volume scoring from your PG was not considered a necessity and the true value of that stuff via analytics was not popular at all yet, and so Kidd’s impressive all around game and versatility got him a lot more praise than Billups’s shooting ability. Also, people were still using FG% to measure efficiency, and so you basically had two guys shooting around 40%, but one was the consensus better passer, better rebounder, better defender, and was scoring on more volume too. If these two came up today, we would quickly point out that Billups being able to get to the line and hit his FTs at 90% and hit his 3s at 40% made him a far more efficient scorer, despite the similarity in FG%.

And Billups got better after Kidd exited his prime. He was a beast in the mid to late 00s. Paul and Deron got a lot of praise, but Billups was ballin out and I think was right up there with a case as a top 3 PG in the league after Nash and Paul. Probably was top 3 in the league tbh.

He led some excellent offenses in Detroit and Denver as well, and I think as his role expanded and he started playing better, the analytics supported him as well.

This is a tough one for me...I know the consensus is that Kidd was clearly better, but a lot of that imo is coming from the fact that different things were valued more when their primes overlapped, and that Billups hadn’t even peaked yet during that time, and the things that Billups was good at has become far more appreciated nowadays than it was in the early 00s. I think if both came up today, Billups would get a lot more support in this comparison. Kidd would probably be seen in the same light as Rubio.

[therealbig3]

At no point has Billups been better than Kidd. Nor can he run a team as well. Don't let the step in 3 fool you.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Billups was clearly better from like 04 onwards.

[therealbig3]

With all of that said, speaking of analytics, Kidd was consistently among the league leaders in terms of +/-, so there is a good argument to be made that his non scoring attributes WERE strong enough to overcome his weaknesses as a scorer/half court threat, and he was justifiably considered the best PG in the league and was a worthy perennial All-Star.

[Odinn21]

Billups was clearly better from like 04 onwards.

With all of that said, speaking of analytics, Kidd was consistently among the league leaders in terms of +/-, so there is a good argument to be made that his non scoring attributes WERE strong enough to overcome his weaknesses as a scorer/half court threat, and he was justifiably considered the best PG in the league and was a worthy perennial All-Star.

Here's comparison of them by their BPM and RAPM ranks from 2003-04 to 2010-11;

BPM/RAPM
Kidd; 8/5, 12/6, 12/18, 15/17, 29/25, 15/9, 13/21, 21/57
Billups; 18/33, 19/187, 9/100, 13/12, 5/12, 18/24, 17/74, 31/117

Aside from 2007-08 season, Billups had no clear edge over Kidd. In fact, Kidd was better in 6 of them and 2006-07 was a close call going slightly in favour of Billups.

And even if we were to mention single season RAPM having its certain limits, look at this;
https://public.tableau.com/profile/dsmok1#!/vizhome/BPMvs_RAPM/BoxPlusMinusvs_14YearRAPM
The time frame is in favour of Billups and Kidd is clearly ahead.

Kidd had the better peak.
Kidd had the better prime.
Kidd was the better player in general.
And even when leaving in his prime, Kidd was the more impactful player in their time together.

This is just one of the random pointless comparisons.
Yes, OP, even if you are not only one, you're definitely in a very small minority if you mean by "Am I the only one going for Billups?" that you'd take Billups over Kidd in most scenarios and not particular ones.

[SA37]

Billups turned into a very good player for the Pistons, but to me he is one of those solid NBA starters who became a borderline all-star in the right system.

I would take Kidd in a heartbeat, especially in today’s NBA, because of his playmaking and ability to get out and run. He ended up shooting the ball well enough to keep defenses honest.

[penbeast0]

Billups turned into a very good player for the Pistons, but to me he is one of those solid NBA starters who became a borderline all-star in the right system.

I would take Kidd in a heartbeat, especially in today’s NBA, because of his playmaking and ability to get out and run. He ended up shooting the ball well enough to keep defenses honest.

But by the time he was shooting the ball well enough, he was in his decline in all the things he did that made him an ATG. It was Dallas before he got his TS% consistently over .500 (which is a very low bar), before that you could see teams sagging off of him.

Doesn't mean he's not valuable even today, he did everything else extremely well. Just means he's Ben Simmons.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Billups turned into a very good player for the Pistons, but to me he is one of those solid NBA starters who became a borderline all-star in the right system.

I would take Kidd in a heartbeat, especially in today’s NBA, because of his playmaking and ability to get out and run. He ended up shooting the ball well enough to keep defenses honest.

But by the time he was shooting the ball well enough, he was in his decline in all the things he did that made him an ATG. It was Dallas before he got his TS% consistently over .500 (which is a very low bar), before that you could see teams sagging off of him.

Doesn't mean he's not valuable even today, he did everything else extremely well. Just means he's Ben Simmons.

Simmons without the finishing ability.

[Owly]

Billups turned into a very good player for the Pistons, but to me he is one of those solid NBA starters who became a borderline all-star in the right system.

I would take Kidd in a heartbeat, especially in today’s NBA, because of his playmaking and ability to get out and run. He ended up shooting the ball well enough to keep defenses honest.

But by the time he was shooting the ball well enough, he was in his decline in all the things he did that made him an ATG. It was Dallas before he got his TS% consistently over .500 (which is a very low bar), before that you could see teams sagging off of him.

Doesn't mean he's not valuable even today, he did everything else extremely well. Just means he's Ben Simmons.

If they were sagging I'd argue they were wrong to do so.

"Ason" was an early career thing (arguably very early, by year 2 he's okay from beyond the shorter line, by year 3 we know he's okay from 16 feet to 3 and by year 4 he he's over his free throw issues). By '03-'07 he's at .403 from 16ft to the line, .344 from three. The problem is that he is probably, otoh, best at the least valuable shot (16-line) and bad at getting to and bad at making the easiest (.531 from 0-3 feet and they make up .215 of his attempts for that spell) and as a result he's not getting to the line. I think it's this (not getting or making close shots, not getting FTs) rather than shooting from distance (where he's mostly, at very least, competent) that killed Kidd's efficiency. I don't think he's Simmons.

Billups isn't necessarily better from at the rim, (more volatile) but got there more (and even if not relatively good at the shot it's a high percentage shot) drew more fouls (circa double Kidd's FTr). He was king of what Hollinger called secondary percentage (gap between fg% and TS%, because good at the 4 factors, took threes, accurate from 3, drew FTs, accurate from the stripe).

[cupcakesnake]

I would have loved to see these 2 guys play together. They mask each others shortcomings, they're both big enough to play both backcourt positions, stout defenders and super smart. Old Dallas Kidd made me wonder what Kidd might have looked like if he played more of his career next to a scoring guard. I think Kidd thrives more as a versatile utility guy that creates chaos on both sides of the ball with his strength and smarts. But Kidd was never super threatening with the ball in his hands. Billups was. Billups felt dangerous with the ball, whether he was sizing up a defense from the top, or posting up on the wing.

I'd definitely take Kidd here. He just does so many things that Billups does not. Billups was a more threatening lead guard with few holes in his game, but couldn't sniff Kidd's passing vision, rebounding and physical presence. They're both good defenders, but Kidd was a level or 2 up on him there as well.

[Amares]

It's Kidd, but pretty close. Both them and Isiah are among 40-60 all-time greatest players and quite close to each other, still Kidd was the best, then Billups and Isiah.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

This is just one of the random pointless comparisons.
Yes, OP, even if you are not only one, you're definitely in a very small minority if you mean by "Am I the only one going for Billups?" that you'd take Billups over Kidd in most scenarios and not particular ones.

There a numbers of things that Billups does better than Kidd, without having any particular weakness, and fits a role that is much easier to include when constructing a team.
Kidd can do many things, but he's not that far from the Rubio/Lonzo/Rondo mold in a halfcourt offence. He's going to make all the right passes, but he won't create much if you let him handle the ball and off the ball he's not going to be a big threat with his shooting. I am not sure this is enough for a max player playing the guard position, you must put him next to a real offensive monster to still have a top level offense, and in most cases you'll need to build a team that is not realistic to have. You'll still need someone able to create off the dribble to win, and that forces you pair him with another creator and I am not sure this is efficient team construction.
When you get Billups you have a guy who is a step below in the things Kidd excels at, but it's much better than him on the things he's below average.
Billups will still be a very good defender and distributor, he can still defer to his teammates but providing better spacing and off ball threat. At the same time, though, he's a guy who can actually score and have the ball in his hands in crunch time, and make a world of a difference.

[prophet_of_rage]

At no point has Billups been better than Kidd. Nor can he run a team as well. Don't let the step in 3 fool you.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Funny how being a winner isn't important to you here.

Chauncey not only won a championship and Finals MVP in 2004 but he outplayed and eliminated Jason Kidd out of the playoffs on the way. Then in 2005, he was one Robert Horry shot away from another Finals MVP.

In 2006, Chauncey and the Pistons won 64 games and Chauncey was top 5 in MVP voting. Kidd wasn't anywhere close to that.

Both players won championships as key pieces. So that's not really a factor. We're looking at 5 year peaks. So we're looking at talent. Billups isn't as talented as Kidd. Nice try being slick, though.

If we're talking equal talent then you look at winning. That's why the Horry has to be better than Jordan arguments are pathetic attempts at discrediting the winning argument.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Ryoga Hibiki]

At no point has Billups been better than Kidd. Nor can he run a team as well. Don't let the step in 3 fool you.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Funny how being a winner isn't important to you here.

Chauncey not only won a championship and Finals MVP in 2004 but he outplayed and eliminated Jason Kidd out of the playoffs on the way. Then in 2005, he was one Robert Horry shot away from another Finals MVP.

In 2006, Chauncey and the Pistons won 64 games and Chauncey was top 5 in MVP voting. Kidd wasn't anywhere close to that.

Both players won championships as key pieces. So that's not really a factor. We're looking at 5 year peaks. So we're looking at talent. Billups isn't as talented as Kidd. Nice try being slick, though.

If we're talking equal talent then you look at winning. That's why the Horry has to be better than Jordan arguments are pathetic attempts at discrediting the winning argument.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Billups had a much, MUCH bigger roles than Kidd in those finals teams. It's just ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

Sent from my SM-N975F using RealGM mobile app