...which could just mean Jason Kidd's not a complete ******* like Marbury.... an attribute that any # of PG's possess.
How is Marbury doing in Phoenix? Phoenix 21 wins, 22 losses with a healthy Hardaway and Marion? Just last season the Suns were spoken of in the same breath as the Lakers, Spurs and Kings. Marbury is the most overated player in the NBA today. Good skills but no concept of how to win. Now Kidd on the other hand...
Another major factor that doesn't come out too obviously is defense. Kidd may be the best defensive guard in the league period, at a minimum he and Payton are the two best PGs defensively. Stats hint at this. Kidd is 3rd in the league in steals, Marbury is 3rd ON HIS team. Kidd himself is probably also worth 4 or so defensive boards you otherwise wouldn't get. Further, defensive prowess is really limited by stats, probably the defensive difference between the players is far more pronounced that a few stats can indicate. Also, there is a reason the Nets are far better then they were than last year, and Pheonix is a worse team despite getting some production from Hardaway which they didn't get last year. If it only went 1 way, NJ got better, Phx stayed the same, you might attribute it to the Nets improved health. But the principle reason for the degree of turnaround in the Nets IMO is Jason Kidd, he is that much of better at getting Ws for you than Marbury. Call it the team intanglibles or what not, there is a huge differences in their W producing capability. In addition to defense, the one principle major difference I see from Kidd to Marbury, and even to Francis, is Kidd's total determination to push the ball and ability to stay focused on the game--this creates a lot of easy shots for his teammates. Call it Stockton's relentlessness and floor sense with Payton's physical attributes skills, there you have Jason Kidd. To bad he has a worse jumpshot than either, or he would be an Oscar Robertson or Magic Johnson.
The thing that I have a problem with is how a large part of the media has portrayed him as some messiah figure who has resurrected a franchise almost single-handedly. Let's take into account that Marbury, Van Horn, and Martin did not play one game together last year, let alone those 3 and Kittles together. The Nets were believed to be cursed, and had no talent bench fodder like Sherman Douglass playing significant minutes. I'm not implying that the Nets would have been this good, but I certainly think they would have been a playoff-caliber team if Marbury was still there. Kidd's impact has been overrated though, and I don't see how that can be argued. The Nets got back a healthy Kerry Kittles, who's a good player with or without Kidd (people seem to forget how good he was at Villanova and in his first few seasons), Kenyon Martin's leg healed, and Keith Van Horn finally recovered from his major leg injuries. Then, they add a guy in Macullough whose strongsuit, his hands and touch around the basket, make him an ideal player for Kidd to utilize. Jefferson and Collins have provided solid contributions as well. Kidd is great at utilizing the kind of players he's been surrounded by his entire career, which is why he can make this Nets team top-10 material whereas Marbury would have lead them to perpetual mediocrity. Desert Scar, Steals are one of the most misleading stats in basketball. Kidd is an average defender with amazing intelligence. He compensates for his lack of lateral quickness by playing well off his man inviting him to take the shot, and generally looks at his best on that end when he cheats off of his man to play the passing lanes. He's in no way a stopper though.
Kidd makes Todd MacCulloch a passable offensive center. Kittles is at a career high for season FG%- after a very slow start (was shooting around 37% end of November, up to 47% now) Lucious Harris is about as productive in 20 minutes as he was last year in 30 minutes. Marbury, Martin and Van Horn played together just over 2 months last season- from mid January (when Van Horn returned from a broken leg) until late March (when Martin broke his leg). It wasn't pretty. Marbury can create his own shot. Doesn't D up every night, treats defensive rebounds like the ball was covered with anthrax, walks the ball up, and has a Moochie-like tendency to dribble, dribble, dribble until deep in the shot clock. Scowls when his teammates can't handle his bullet-like entry passes, and pouts when they put up weak shots cause there's no time left on the clock when they do.
<B>Let's take into account that Marbury, Van Horn, and Martin did not play one game together last year, let alone those 3 and Kittles together. </b> Those three HAD to play more than one game together. Marbury played 67 games, Martin 68, and Van Horn 49. Those three had to have played at least 20 games all together. <B>Kidd is great at utilizing the kind of players he's been surrounded by his entire career, which is why he can make this Nets team top-10 material whereas Marbury would have lead them to perpetual mediocrity. </b> Isn't that exactly what all the Pro-Kidd people are saying, though? No one's saying that he's the ONLY reason they are better, just that they are substantially better with him than they would be with Marbury instead.
Just a note on the defensive side of things ... last year the Suns were 7th in defensive FG%, and the Nets 24th. This year so far the Nets are 4th, and the Suns 16th.
Kidd is a great player but calling him MVP is a joke he is last in points per shot (in the whole league ) and his offence suck , he is a great player but he cant shoot the ball and offense is the game most important thing without it you cant be MVP (try to name one player who was MVP and wasnt a great offensive player ) .
Are you talking about what an MVP should be or what an MVP happens to be? Just because his offense is lame doesn't mean he shouldn't be MVP of that team or the league.
in regards to stats, think of this.... The nets last year sucked...were a selfish team led by marbury. If they were down big in a game, time running out in the 4th, who cares if those players are gonna pad their stats to make their line look good, even if it doesn't translate to a 'W?' They'll take their crap dunks and layups vs the other team's bench. On the other hand, if you have a deeper team WITH everyone healthy, then ppg might go down. Or, if you are actually winning big in the 4th, and you bench your starters, ppg might go down. I say, look at assists per game, total points per game, points allowed per game, and field goal percentage to see if kidd has made them better, or to see 'WHO" kidd has made better. Most important of all, look at WINS. Shouldn't that count for something?? Remember, statistics can say anything you want them to say, and you saying that ppg for specific players is down is you wanting those stats to say kidd is overrated....
That was a key point I made, that the defensive difference between Marbury and Kidd is <i> underestimated </i> by the stats (Kidd having a substantial gap in steals and defensive rebounds). Also, intelligence, reactions, anticipation, reading other players strength and weakness--these attributes you recognize in Kidd-- are the most important parts of being a defender. You can be long, lean, quick and athletic, but if you don't know where to be, or where your opponent might go, you will sucks as a defender. Kidd is also very strong for a PG, he is very much in the Joe Dumars mold as a defender, and noboby thought Joe wasn't a great defender--however you want to define it "on the ball","stopper", or "team defender". As far as Kidd and the overrated argument. Perhaps it is true to an extent that other things have also worked out well in NJ--it is not 100% do to Kidd. But the degree Phx is worse this year despite playing in a weaker WC than last year and having Hardaway contribute this year removes much doubt that Kidd is far better at producing W's for you than Marbury is--thus is the far better player by my fundemental criteria of who is better player.
KellyDwyer This might be beside the point, but I must inform you that those little plastic yhings are very nice to have when you´re putting the laces in your shoes. Without them it´s very annoying. Trust me.
Even in street basketball... if you have a teammate who knows how to pass and hustles... your game gets so much easier
What does Jason Kidd make better? The only thing that matters, the team. The Nets were horrible last season, one of the worst teams in the NBA, are you telling me Kerry Kittles is the X factor in going from 20 wins to say 50? No, if Marbury were still on the Nets they'd still stink. Andre Miller? All stats. Brandon? That's a joke Stats is such a bad indicator sometimes. If you saw the Nets last season, they were disjointed and looked like garbage. With Kidd there, they are playing enthusiastic basketball, and look like a cohesive unit. The team feeds off him. Phoenix were a 50 win team with Kidd. Look at them now, they have more losses than wins. And that's with Penny Hardaway back in the lineup.
I'll give you Andre Miller, he's just as good and on his way to being better than Kidd but Marbury, and Brandon are not nearly the leader that Kidd is. Since the Nets are healthy this year it's not really fair to compare what Kidd is doing with the Nets to what Marbury did with the Nets. The better determining factor is the Suns. The Suns were always at very least a mid level playoff team that had 50+ win seasons. Other than Cliff Robinson the team is basically the same as when Kidd was there. Oh yea, they also have a healthy Penny now. With Marbury running the show in Phoenix they will be lucky to even make the 8th seed in the playoffs much less win 50 games. So what is Kidd doing that Marbury can't? How about lead a team to victories. Would you really rather have your team do better market wise? Or would you rather have them do better as far as WINS are concerned? To me it doesn't matter how flashy a player is I just don't want my team to suck. Kidd is one of the best PG's at running the break. He will always find the open man, and if there isn't an open man he will take it to the hole. Marbury on the other hand will try to take it to the hole first. If he get stuck in the air he will force the pass to one of his teammates. As for Brandon, he was very good during his prime but he's a little old now, and is not the real leader of that team. Kidd stays healthy, and is without question the leader of his team.
he definitely makes todd macculloch better... and check out this box score. http://www.nba.com/games/20020131/MILNJN/boxscore.html
Everyone else on his team. There's no way to prove anything unless you take Kidd out of the lineup and see what happens. Sort of like taking Steve Francis out... wait, we tried that and lost fifteen straight.
He makes the overall team better...just look at their record, that is all that matters. MORE WINS = BETTER !!!! DaDakota
You could take this thread two ways: (1) Kidd has made the Nets better, or (2) he should be the MVP of the league. Who can argue with the first point - of course he has made the team better. It's the second argument that I want to have - it's a lot more fun. Let me start out by saying this - a guy who jacks up 14-15 shots per and can't hit any better than 37% is not the MVP, period. I'll give you another reason: John Stockton. During his prime, even Stockton usually hit at least 50% (sometimes 56 or 57%) to go along with his 12 or 13 assists and 2 or 3 steals per game. His teams won a few games, too. Guess what - he never even got close to being MVP. Some of you will say that Karl Malone was the reason Stockton had such success. But I could just as easily say that Stockton was the reason for Malone's great numbers too. Doesn't really matter either way. Kidd can't hold a candle to Stockton in his prime. Therefore, SORRY - no MVP for Kidd. Oh, how about a few more reasons: Shaq, Kobe, Vince, Iverson, Garnett, Duncan(!!!), Nowitzki, and oh yeah, maybe even that Michael guy.
