Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not really. I attribute it more to the fact that Kidd's physical talents were deteriorating in his 13th NBA season.
Not likely. I'd say Vince's arrival had a more dramatic impact on Kidd's scoring, given that the rest of his stats were still more or less in line with what he did in 2002. Anyways....
If Chauncey Billups led his team to a championship, led his team to the NBA's best record, and put up nearly identical numbers to Steve Nash's (whom you now say was the best PG at that time), how is it again a stretch to say that he was the best PG in the league that season? Other than numbers and actual games won, what else is there to go off? You could say that Nash was better because he passes better and has better vision, but I could say that Chauncey was more clutch (which he was) and has a larger body, thereby enabling him to guard larger players and post up smaller ones. Plus, Nash averaged more turnovers than Billups, and by your own admission, he's not a good defender. So I guess you don't factor in defense now, huh?
You could argue that Nash was better until you're blue in the face (even though many people felt he didn't deserve ANY MVPS little less two of them). But to say that it's a "stretch" to consider Billups the best PG in the league during '05-06 is stupid. You act as if Nash was observably superior to all of the other PGs in the NBA. One could easily make the argument, off of the stats, the winning percentage, and the HARDWARE, that Billups was a better PG in the mid 2000s.
Again, Billups was part of an ensemble, with three other all-stars. I still maintain that you could have replaced Billups moreso than you could have replaced Ben Wallace. That Billups has hardware while Nash doesn't, speaks more to the Pistons being a better team than the Suns, than it does Billups being better than Nash. If we fast forward 20 years down the line, I'm sure history is going to see Nash as the better player. Hell, Nash at 36 is still putting up 18 and 10, since you're so enamored with stats.
Once again, the record thing is without context. Nash played in a tougher conference. For starters, Nash led the Suns to the best record, in 2004-05 with 62 wins. Second, in 2005-6 Nash lead the Suns to 54 wins with Amare Stoudamire injured and replaced by Boris Diaw. You could very easily make the point that Nash did more with less in 2005-06.
Ummm, what do you mean I 'now' say Nash was the best point guard at the time? I never made a case for anyone else being the best at that time, other than perhaps Kidd and I retracted that statement several posts back.
You're pretty good at putting words in my mouth. At what point did I say defense doesn't factor in? I consider Nash the better shooter, scorer, passer, better court vision. Billups being better defensively doesn't negate that Nash was superior in other aspects of the game, especially ones that are integral to a point guard: passing, court vision. Even your point about Billups being more clutch, is there some definitive stat to back that up? Or is that just a comment you threw in there? Nash was pretty damn clutch himself. Yeah Nash averaged more turnovers, he also averages alot more assists while shooting a more efficient percentage. Really, we can **** at each other back and forth all night, reality is both players( and I'll throw Kidd into the mix here) have their strengths and weaknesses.
Hell, I don't think Nash should have won those MVPs either, but I do think he was the better point guard than Billups. You can even make the argument that Billups was more rounded since he did play defense, but strictly from a point guard playmaking standpoint, Nash in my opinion was better. I'm not even saying Nash was markedly better, and his lack of defense would be a strike against him in my book.
Anyone see the Bulls/Lakers game tonite? Rose is starting his ascent rapidly as top 3. This kid is becoming clutch.
Yes, and the scariest part is the refs dont call anything for him. I forget what game it was, maybe boston, D Rose had 25 shots and got to the line exactly 0 times. And if you have seen Rose play you know he is driving and getting contact.
The guys on the prententious "we are smarter" than you forum that I read chalk it up to the fact he is always trying to pump fake in the air or reverse layup which takes the eye away from the contact. Yet guys like Paul Pierce can fail at a head fake, then just hurl themselves into a still defender 18 feet away from the rim and get two shots.
Either way, I love watching D Rose play, he is more explosive than any player I can remember in a bulls uni, that includes #23. No I don't mean Rose is better in any way than Michael, he just explodes to the hoop in a more impressive way, which I am sure is a function of his size/speed.
Jason Kidd. Great rebounder, great assistman, and his shooting has really improved over the course of his career. He's what? 36, 37 now? So he doesn't have many years left - he deserves a ring before he retires.
Yes, and the scariest part is the refs dont call anything for him. I forget what game it was, maybe boston, D Rose had 25 shots and got to the line exactly 0 times. And if you have seen Rose play you know he is driving and getting contact.
The guys on the prententious "we are smarter" than you forum that I read chalk it up to the fact he is always trying to pump fake in the air or reverse layup which takes the eye away from the contact. Yet guys like Paul Pierce can fail at a head fake, then just hurl themselves into a still defender 18 feet away from the rim and get two shots.
Either way, I love watching D Rose play, he is more explosive than any player I can remember in a bulls uni, that includes #23. No I don't mean Rose is better in any way than Michael, he just explodes to the hoop in a more impressive way, which I am sure is a function of his size/speed.
No offense but I think you are forgetting EARLY Michael and remembering the 30+ version which was more the full arsenal with the fade-away and less drive to the basket stuff.
I can't post it from here but there are some youtube montages out there....
Nash has dropped off a bit but would still be part of that conversation.
(Personally, I've long felt his defensive short comings should never have allowed him a number of awards but most of those awards are for regular season scrub busting which he is as good at as anyone. Come playoff time teams exploit him.)
Rose is on the way up but until he makes and all-nba team I can't put him in that discussion.
No offense but I think you are forgetting EARLY Michael and remembering the 30+ version which was more the full arsenal with the fade-away and less drive to the basket stuff.
I can't post it from here but there are some youtube montages out there....
Well yeah, MJ was a different level and a much more complete player than D Rose. I didn't suggest otherwise, did I?
Edit-- ok I see it, and yeah, I do remember later Michael moreso tbh.
Last edited by Orangeish; 01-24-2011 at 07:42 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
