RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #36 (Jason Kidd)

[Joao Saraiva]

Gervin reached higher heights than Kidd in my opinion. His peak and prime are better.

Jason Kidd however was a could do it all for his team, and showed he could play under other roles other than the leader in a way I believe Gervin didn't. But it's not like Gervin was terrible for most of the later years of his career.

It's close but if I had to choose I'd go with Gervin.

[euroleague]

Gervin was a great scorer, but the versatility and playmaking of Kidd, in addition to Kidd's defense, earn him the spot here. He led multiple teams to Finals appearances, and won a ring as a role-player, while Gervin played in a weak conference and couldn't do as much.

Kidd > Gervin

[70sFan]

while Gervin played in a weak conference and couldn't do as much.

Throughout Gervin's prime, West wasn't weak at all.

In 1977-79 West and East were evenly matched.
In 1980 East was weaker than the West, then in 1981 and 1982 West was comparable again (though a bit less top power).
In 1983 the West was actually stronger than the East (outside of one Philly team).

It wasn't until 1984 when the East became significantly better than the West and Gervin was past his prime by then.

Not to mention that it's Kidd who actually played his best years in much weaker conference.

[euroleague]

while Gervin played in a weak conference and couldn't do as much.

Throughout Gervin's prime, West wasn't weak at all.

In 1977-79 West and East were evenly matched.
In 1980 East was weaker than the West, then in 1981 and 1982 West was comparable again (though a bit less top power).
In 1983 the West was actually stronger than the East (outside of one Philly team).

It wasn't until 1984 when the East became significantly better than the West and Gervin was past his prime by then.

Not to mention that it's Kidd who actually played his best years in much weaker conference.

Yes, Kidd was in the weakest conference. However, he took games in the Finals.

I disagree strongly regarding the 80s. In the early 80s - Lakers were in the West, 76ers/Celtics/Bucks were in the East. Those were the 4 strongest teams, and 3 were in the East. Bucks were in the West prior to 80-81.

77-78, it's true that the difference wasn't so pronounced - but in 79, Phoenix and Seattle were clearly the stronger teams (West) while San Antonio was in the East.

Gervin had very little playoff success, regardless of conference rankings.

[70sFan]

I disagree strongly regarding the 80s. In the early 80s - Lakers were in the West, 76ers/Celtics/Bucks were in the East. Those were the 4 strongest teams, and 3 were in the East. Bucks were in the West prior to 80-81.

East was stronger in 1981 and 1982, but Suns were up there in 1981 and Seattle was actually better than Bucks in 1982. Then West was deeper in 1983 with comparable top power - Suns, Spurs and Lakers were on the same level as Celtics and Bucks (only Sixers were better).

There was no huge difference between the conferences either way until 1984 and any minimal edge shouldn't be used as an argument against certain player.

77-78, it's true that the difference wasn't so pronounced - but in 79, Phoenix and Seattle were clearly the stronger teams (West) while San Antonio was in the East.

Bullets had the best record and SRS in 1979 and they played in the East.

Gervin had very little playoff success, regardless of conference rankings.

Gervin made 3 conference finals, I wouldn't call it "very little".

[euroleague]

I disagree strongly regarding the 80s. In the early 80s - Lakers were in the West, 76ers/Celtics/Bucks were in the East. Those were the 4 strongest teams, and 3 were in the East. Bucks were in the West prior to 80-81.

East was stronger in 1981 and 1982, but Suns were up there in 1981 and Seattle was actually better than Bucks in 1982. Then West was deeper in 1983 with comparable top power - Suns, Spurs and Lakers were on the same level as Celtics and Bucks (only Sixers were better).

There was no huge difference between the conferences either way until 1984 and any minimal edge shouldn't be used as an argument against certain player.

77-78, it's true that the difference wasn't so pronounced - but in 79, Phoenix and Seattle were clearly the stronger teams (West) while San Antonio was in the East.

Bullets had the best record and SRS in 1979 and they played in the East.

Gervin had very little playoff success, regardless of conference rankings.

Gervin made 3 conference finals, I wouldn't call it "very little".

Quote 1: In 83, there's no way the Spurs or Suns were on the same level as the Celtics or Bucks. The Nuggets beat the Suns in the first round, and the Spurs got beat down by the Lakers - and the Lakers were about the same as the Celtics.

Quote 2: In 79, Bullets got crushed by Seattle. Pretty obvious who the better team was. Suns and Seattle was very close.

Quote 3: Gervin won 3 NBA playoff series in his entire career. I would call that 'very little'.

[DQuinn1575]

I disagree strongly regarding the 80s. In the early 80s - Lakers were in the West, 76ers/Celtics/Bucks were in the East. Those were the 4 strongest teams, and 3 were in the East. Bucks were in the West prior to 80-81.

East was stronger in 1981 and 1982, but Suns were up there in 1981 and Seattle was actually better than Bucks in 1982. Then West was deeper in 1983 with comparable top power - Suns, Spurs and Lakers were on the same level as Celtics and Bucks (only Sixers were better).

There was no huge difference between the conferences either way until 1984 and any minimal edge shouldn't be used as an argument against certain player.

77-78, it's true that the difference wasn't so pronounced - but in 79, Phoenix and Seattle were clearly the stronger teams (West) while San Antonio was in the East.

Bullets had the best record and SRS in 1979 and they played in the East.

Gervin had very little playoff success, regardless of conference rankings.

Gervin made 3 conference finals, I wouldn't call it "very little".

Quote 1: In 83, there's no way the Spurs or Suns were on the same level as the Celtics or Bucks. The Nuggets beat the Suns in the first round, and the Spurs got beat down by the Lakers - and the Lakers were about the same as the Celtics.

Quote 2: In 79, Bullets got crushed by Seattle. Pretty obvious who the better team was. Suns and Seattle was very close.

Quote 3: Gervin won 3 NBA playoff series in his entire career. I would call that 'very little'.

79 the Sonics won by 2,4,10,10 points and lost a game - and lost the year before - they were the better team, but they didnt crush the Bullets.

[trex_8063]

Gervin reached higher heights than Kidd in my opinion. His peak and prime are better.

Jason Kidd however was a could do it all for his team, and showed he could play under other roles other than the leader in a way I believe Gervin didn't. But it's not like Gervin was terrible for most of the later years of his career.

It's close but if I had to choose I'd go with Gervin.

I appreciate the quick reply, though was a little surprised by your pick, given you explicitly stated in your vote post that the next two up for your were Kidd and Gilmore [not Gervin]. Did something shift your view in the last 36 hours?

[euroleague]

East was stronger in 1981 and 1982, but Suns were up there in 1981 and Seattle was actually better than Bucks in 1982. Then West was deeper in 1983 with comparable top power - Suns, Spurs and Lakers were on the same level as Celtics and Bucks (only Sixers were better).

There was no huge difference between the conferences either way until 1984 and any minimal edge shouldn't be used as an argument against certain player.


Bullets had the best record and SRS in 1979 and they played in the East.


Gervin made 3 conference finals, I wouldn't call it "very little".

Quote 1: In 83, there's no way the Spurs or Suns were on the same level as the Celtics or Bucks. The Nuggets beat the Suns in the first round, and the Spurs got beat down by the Lakers - and the Lakers were about the same as the Celtics.

Quote 2: In 79, Bullets got crushed by Seattle. Pretty obvious who the better team was. Suns and Seattle was very close.

Quote 3: Gervin won 3 NBA playoff series in his entire career. I would call that 'very little'.

79 the Sonics won by 2,4,10,10 points and lost a game - and lost the year before - they were the better team, but they didnt crush the Bullets.

Compared to the Suns games, it was crushed. Seattle scored .2ppg more over the 7 game series, winning by 1 point in game 6 and by 4 points in game 7, with HomeCourt Advantage.

The Bullets beat them once, by 2 points at home in game 1. They lost by an average of almost 7ppg. Seattle won the series 4-1 without HomeCourt advantage.

Bullets were a very good team, no doubt. Crushed may be strong language, but it was a clear victory.

[DQuinn1575]

Quote 1: In 83, there's no way the Spurs or Suns were on the same level as the Celtics or Bucks. The Nuggets beat the Suns in the first round, and the Spurs got beat down by the Lakers - and the Lakers were about the same as the Celtics.

Quote 2: In 79, Bullets got crushed by Seattle. Pretty obvious who the better team was. Suns and Seattle was very close.

Quote 3: Gervin won 3 NBA playoff series in his entire career. I would call that 'very little'.

79 the Sonics won by 2,4,10,10 points and lost a game - and lost the year before - they were the better team, but they didnt crush the Bullets.

Compared to the Suns games, it was crushed. Seattle scored .2ppg more over the 7 game series, winning by 1 point in game 6 and by 4 points in game 7, with HomeCourt Advantage.

The Bullets beat them once, by 2 points at home in game 1. They lost by an average of almost 7ppg. Seattle won the series 4-1 without HomeCourt advantage.

Bullets were a very good team, no doubt. Crushed may be strong language, but it was a clear victory.

You've got a year with only 1 player in the Top 35 of all-time - Moses, 1st team all-nba, 11 teams within 9 wins of best record, and 12 teams within 4 points of SRS from the top. Maybe the most balanced league of any year. Really really hard to say either conference was better in 79 -

[Hal14]

Thru post #19:

Jason Kidd - 4 (LA Bird, Magic Is Magic, Odinn21, trex_8063)
Kawhi Leonard - 2 (Dutchball97, Joao Saraiva)
George Gervin - 2 (DQuinn1575, penbeast0)
Reggie Miller - 1 (Doctor MJ)
Isiah Thomas - 1 (Hal14)
Bob Cousy - 1 (euroleague)


Times up on this one. 11 votes requires 6 for a majority, so we'll eliminate those bottom three. That transfers one to Gervin and ghosts two....

Kidd- 4
Gervin - 3
Leonard - 2
(ghosted) - 2

So Kawhi is next eliminated, which unfortunately only ghosts two more....

Kidd - 4
Gervin - 3
(ghosted) - 4

So I need to call upon the four ghost votes (Dutchball97, Joao Saraiva, euroleague, and Hal14) to please state their picks [ASAP] between Gervin and Kidd, to see if that will settle this spot.


[spoiler]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Hmm, interesting that I have to choose between Gervin and Kidd here. Neither is in my top 3 guys for this thread (I voted, Isiah, McHale, Reed) and after those 3 I'd go Gilmore, Thurmond....THEN Kidd/Gervin/Drexler/Hayes

So, I don't know, didn't expect to compare these 2 guys at this point. I mean, Kidd and Gervin is a tossup IMO..so is Kidd vs Payton and Gervin vs Drexler.

Gun to my head, I'm taking Kidd over Gervin. Kidd was tougher, meaner, better defender, more fierce, he was a bull. He was a winner, led Nets to the finals twice without much help and then showed he could be a lesser/role player on a good team and win a title. He just wanted to win. People have posted that Kidd was a GOAT level defensive guard but he was also one of the top 6 or 7 passers of all time as well.

[trex_8063]

Haven't heard from one of the ghosts, but two of the three we have heard from opted for Kidd, which gives him the majority. Will get the next up in a moment.

[Dutchball97]

Haven't heard from one of the ghosts, but two of the three we have heard from opted for Kidd, which gives him the majority. Will get the next up in a moment.

I was asleep but I would've went with Kidd over Gervin as well.

[70sFan]

I disagree strongly regarding the 80s. In the early 80s - Lakers were in the West, 76ers/Celtics/Bucks were in the East. Those were the 4 strongest teams, and 3 were in the East. Bucks were in the West prior to 80-81.

East was stronger in 1981 and 1982, but Suns were up there in 1981 and Seattle was actually better than Bucks in 1982. Then West was deeper in 1983 with comparable top power - Suns, Spurs and Lakers were on the same level as Celtics and Bucks (only Sixers were better).

There was no huge difference between the conferences either way until 1984 and any minimal edge shouldn't be used as an argument against certain player.

77-78, it's true that the difference wasn't so pronounced - but in 79, Phoenix and Seattle were clearly the stronger teams (West) while San Antonio was in the East.

Bullets had the best record and SRS in 1979 and they played in the East.

Gervin had very little playoff success, regardless of conference rankings.

Gervin made 3 conference finals, I wouldn't call it "very little".

Quote 1: In 83, there's no way the Spurs or Suns were on the same level as the Celtics or Bucks. The Nuggets beat the Suns in the first round, and the Spurs got beat down by the Lakers - and the Lakers were about the same as the Celtics.

Quote 2: In 79, Bullets got crushed by Seattle. Pretty obvious who the better team was. Suns and Seattle was very close.

Quote 3: Gervin won 3 NBA playoff series in his entire career. I would call that 'very little'.

1. Celtics got swept in first round as well in 1983, it was the worst Celtics team of the 1980s with Bird. There is no way that this Celtics team was much better than Spurs team.

2. As it was said, Bullets weren't crushed by Sonics and they were clearly the best team in RS.

3. It's due to shorter playoffs format. He still managed to beat very solid teams like 1979 Sixers or 1983 Seattle and he pushed 1978 and 1979 Bullets to the limit while playing ATG series.

[Joao Saraiva]

Gervin reached higher heights than Kidd in my opinion. His peak and prime are better.

Jason Kidd however was a could do it all for his team, and showed he could play under other roles other than the leader in a way I believe Gervin didn't. But it's not like Gervin was terrible for most of the later years of his career.

It's close but if I had to choose I'd go with Gervin.

I appreciate the quick reply, though was a little surprised by your pick, given you explicitly stated in your vote post that the next two up for your were Kidd and Gilmore [not Gervin]. Did something shift your view in the last 36 hours?

Yes.

I've always stated ABA and the 70s are a part of the NBA I'm not so much aware of. So I went back to check some stuff about Gervin. Not that it matters now.

Didn't expect him to be sooo close to Kidd I thought he had less longevity. His last 2 playoff runs in the ABA look impressive, and I also found the arguments for his not so good team situation good ones.

It's all right, Kidd is still a good choice. On to the next one.