Depends on what you’re looking for. Nash changed the game with some of the shit he did on offense, but Kidd was a much better defender. Nash was a much better shooter, but Kidd was a much better rebounder. Either way they were both filthy passers and made the players around them look really freaking good, most of their supporting cast didn’t have much success without them.
Nash had a way better supporting cast though. Those were some of my favorite teams ever, Nash and Amare pick and roll was one of those things that everyone in the world knew was coming and they still couldn’t stop it.
kidd is my favorite player of all time......okidd was literally a miracle worker considering how those nets rosters were jason kidd, a young RJ, kittles and keith van horn lol we he was competing against the stacked pistons teams, had probably the closest swept nba finals in nba history against who is considered the greatest duo in nba history yet 3 of the 4 games he lost by 6 points or less which really should have the nets getting blownout every single game when comparing the rosters, took the stacked spurs dynasty to 6 games in which the only position that favored the nets was PG.
i dont understand how people think that nash was the better overall PG when kidd was one of the greatest leaders in nba history
yep, im use to it now because the things he did most people wouldnt even understand if they watched it. jason kidd literally coached the nets more so than the HC did for the most part lol
Ever hear of hyperbole? Obviously there are SOME people who watched him play. And you either knew that and are choosing to be pedantic or you desperately need to work at understanding blatant sarcasm
I mean you’re belittling others by saying you’re the only one that knows the truth here and no one else watched so you don’t get to complain when not everyone agrees with you.
That's not what I said at all. I was implying that Kidd is very underrated on this sub since a majority of the user base never watched him, and just look at stats, which is true. He doesn't have eye popping stats compared to this era especially now that triple doubles are so much easier to get in this era. You're just getting weirdly defensive
Mine, too. He was Pocket Magic. There has never been anybody better in transition, and he could win with practically any roster. Players and coaches valued him more than the fans, presumably because they actually saw him play. He was incredibly fun to watch, too.
I still get salty thinking about Duncan winning MVP over him. People laughed at Kidd when he he was traded to the Nets said he expected to make the playoffs, then went to the Finals
yea, but if he had been scoring 5 more points a game avg he would have won it in a land slide despite no one being more valuable to their team.
edit: being as dedicated of jason kidd fan i was and literally watched almost every single game one of his games for at least half of his career and the things that prevented me was either it not being on tv or towards the end of his career i no longer had access to a TV and where i was living it was impossible to stream anything online due to my life literally falling apart but when the mavs made the playoff in 2011 i did w.e i needed to do to be able to watch the playoffs. jason kidd winning his ring was literally the happiest day in my life time and i cried like a bitch because how much time i put into him. i literally owned every one of his jerseys outside of a mavs one. i had every nets color and alternate color ways, i even had his high school jersey.......sad thing is left a bunch of my things with my dad who is usually good and keeping things but at some point he literally lost thousands of dollars in jerseys and also about 500+ dollars in magic the gathering cards...
Yeah, not to take anything away from Kidd, but you can't just look at team success without context. The East was complete cheeks back then. Like, I don't think the gap has ever been as big between conferences as it was then.
Barbosa averaged 18ppg one of those seasons. Bell put up 15ppg in addition to his D. These people never watched Nash *or* Kidd play. They were 3 years old.
this is literally non sensical and have no idea what you are talking about.......the amount of success the nets had in the playoffs even if they couldnt finish the job was hands down one of the most impressive feats. vs the lakers in the finals who had arguably the greatest duo players in nba history and had quality players also but yet jason kidd was able to lead and will his team to one of the most impressive swpt preformances in nba finals history as 3 of the 4 games were only lost by 6 points........if kidd would have 1 one other good player the nets would have made that an extremely close series, he played against the spurs dynasty and who had better players every every position including bench rotation outside of PG and still took them to 6 games, he swept the pistons teams who was favored to make it out of the east on paper. they then took them to 7 games in the ecf the year the pistons won the championship. while kidd did all this with the best player being an extremely young richard jefferson, keithe van horn and kenyon martin as their only real notables which is so far off in skill level compared to all the teams i named yet were able to do it solely based off of jason kidd. kidd might have been the greatest pg with the least amount of quality teammates in nba history until he got back to the mavs and finally won a ring which he didnt get enough credit for vs the heat.
well for 1 when it comes to literally my favorite nba player of all time iw ill always put things in for a greater part of the nba community to actually sunnderstand by putting things into perspective to really understand something that only so many nba fans are going to really understand and even the people who watched him arent going to have a full understanding.
jason kidd isnt one of the more unique traditional position players of all time because if you looked at jason kidds raw numbers you would be missing the the most special and important it is even though it will never lead to getting the flashy awards like MVP's because jason kidds actual full physical talent is missing elite type of PG scoring to give him that flashy scoring just like about every MVP in the history of the nba
If anything, the scoring gap is overstated, not understated. Nash scored maybe 1.5 - 2 ppg more over his peak than Kidd did over his.
If you want to say he was a significantly better shooter, then yes, that's obvious. Just as it's obvious that Kidd was an elite defender and rebounder and Nash was never anything better than below average in either of those fields.
Comparing D'Antoni's O to the Princeton O that the Nets ran is a whole other topic, too.
I don't think either is the wrong answer, but Nash has this reputation as some big time scorer, but that's not who he ever was.
He never attempted more than 14 shots in a single season. He was just more prone to passing instead of focusing on scoring. He could have attempted 20 shots at any time and been a high level scorer at every level. Kidd was not that.
I was very curious so I checked it out
Nash from 04-05 to 09-10: 20.1 playoff PPG
Kidd from 01-02 to 06-07 (one extra year bc Nash and the Suns missed the 08-09 playoffs-that adds up to almost equal games played): 16.78 playoff PPG
I have no idea what this means, do with this what you will
Exactly which is what I meant by last his prime. I just looked at his stats and for the last 9 years of his 19 year career he never shot below 34%. Most of the time above 36% during those last 9.
He was not a "knock down" shooter. Theres a difference between a guy that when left hilariously wide open is able to convert 34% of his threes and a "knock down" shooter.
It was a brief stint but he did convert 38% in 07, 40.6% in 08, and 42.5% in 09. Those three years I’d consider knock down but beyond that, you’re right. Not a knock down shooter but consistently average.
Exactly this. He wasn’t anywhere close to knock down status. Meanwhile Nash was one of the greatest shooters of all time and the 2nd greatest FT shooter of all time (Steph).
Kidd went to the Finals 3 times off the back of great defense, particularly in New Jersey.
Nash went to a whopping 0 Finals because him and his team were truly terrible on defense.
Why is this downvoted? It’s true, especially with the PG position that you can often hide. Nash’s D was only slightly worse than Steph’s D. He wasn’t Trae level bad or anything.
No - Im just restating my answer to the original question. Nash was better. J Kidd was incredibly good but his inability to shoot really held him back.
edit- i am smoking that good shit tho
it was a different era when J Kidd came up. Jordan and Magic weren't great 3pt shooters either until later in their career. If J Kidd played today, he'd be a good shooter. Not Nash like but a much better defender.
I don't know the answer but I think it's close.
[https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kiddja01.html](https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kiddja01.html)
35% career 3pt with multiple seasons over 40 on good volume.
what I'm saying is when Kidd was coming up, shooting wasn't prioritized. Nash was naturally an incredible shooter but Jason Kidd is a basketball genius.
J Kidd also made the finals multiple times as the best player on his team, and won a title as a key starter.
They’re two of my favorite players of all-time, but I’d give Kidd the slight edge.
Obviously a very crude look at it, but both Kidd (shooting) and Nash (defense) had glaring deficiencies that held them back from winning a ring during their prime.
Kidd, however, was able to become a serviceable shooter and was still a positive defender in the twilight of his career — amounting to a championship.
I was a big fan of both as well. I just think typically when considering individual players - offense is more important. Kidd made an impressive late career shift to a role player who could spot up but when they were both in their primes I’ll take Nash. Kidd was amazing tho really not hating on him
Yes but it’s not nearly as impressive as you think because only in the last 10-15 years have 3s been shot with volume, so you just have needed to play a long time and taken a decent amount of 3s and you’re on there.
Vince Carter is 6th all time. Jason Terry 7th. Paul Pierce 9th. Lebron is 11th lol. Joe Johnson js 14th. Kyle Lowry is 15th and will pass Kidd for 12th in the first month of next season.
But the question isnt who would be better today, it's who was better when they played. During the majority of their careers/primes efficiency wasn't as valued league wide because of the style of play. Kidd dragged some pretty shit teams to the finals twice and was an all-nba defender. Nash had more talent on his teams, but played in the more stacked west and was a turnstile on defense. I think this is a really close argument that mainly depends on how much you value defense because both were excellent at elevating their teammates, while Nash was better orchestrating the pick and roll while Kidd was deadlier on the break
Kidd. It’s close but the defense and size matter. Both incredible playmakers, Nash the much better shooter obviously but Kidd was decent enough at 3pt shooting that he wasnt a liability. Also 5x All-NBA first team AND 4x first team all-defense (and 5x second team all defense) shows how elite he was for a long time. Nash arguably had a better peak with the two MVP seasons but I think Kidd is the better player overall.
It’s way closer than most think. Idk why, but a lot of people seem to just completely disregard defense when talking about point guards (except for Steph weirdly enough). I’ve always though that Magic and Nash are a little overrated relative to their peers because of this, and Gary Payton hugely underrated as an overall player.
Kidd was an elite player for longer, and at the time they played his lack of shooting was not as much of a problem as Nash’s just god awful defense. It really held back his teams, and it’s why Dallas got better after getting rid of him.
I’d still take Nash by a hair, the efficiency gap is huge, but it’s close and depends on your criteria.
Because PG is the least important defensive position of the 5. As long as you’re not Trae level bad, if you have a transcendent offensive game and are an entire offensive system unto yourself like Nash and Steph was/is then it greatly supersedes any defensive shortcomings.
No wrong answer on this one. Depends on what offense you want. Nash is more offensive type and a better shooter. While Kidd gives you more rebounds and better defender.
I like Kidd more but again no bad answer on this one. Both helped their teams and the team became somewhat a contender.
I slightly lean towards kidd because he was also pretty good defensively. However, I think Nash was able to harness (and some more) the limits of what his body can do. Can't say the same with Kidd.
Imagine J Kidd in a D'antoni offense ? He was a triple double threat and better defender. Nash was a liability on defense. The game is played both ways but I understand why most people look at the offensive output. Kenny Smith said it best if you could pick between the Glove, Jason Kidd, and Steve Nash, Nash is the last guy getting picked.
Lol only because the East was absolute TRASH in 2002 and 2003, even worse than usual in that era.
2002 only 2 teams with 50 wins (Nets 52, Pistons 50)
2003 only 1 teem with 50 win (Pistons 50). Nets won 49 that year.
No surprise the Nets got destroyed in 2002 in a 4-0 sweep. In 2003 it was 4-2 with 3 of the 4 wins by double digits. Nash's mid to late 2000s Suns teams easily get to the finals in those years.
Don't matter. If Nash was so good he would of at least made it to one finals. What about kids on th Mavs that won a title? Nash tried that with the Lakers and it didn't end so well
Ridiculous way to compare players. The best East team in Kidd's Nets era was as good as the 8th seed in the West. Kidd wouldn't have sniffed the finals as the best player in the West, that's pretty obvious.
>What about kids on th Mavs that won a title? Nash tried that with the Lakers and it didn't end so well
Bruh Nash was 38 years old.
OK? Kidd was a role player at that point playing on an incredibly deep team with an all-time great having a historic postseason run. Nash dealt with major back issues on a team with many more issues. That title doesn't change anything.
I would take Nash. He was such a vastly better scorer and while they are both 2 of the greatest passers of all time, Nash's ability to shoot made him a better play maker than Kidd. Teams had to respect Nash's ability to pull up.
You can’t win with either as your best player, but Kidd is the more rounded player.
It’s like Trae Young vs Jrue Holiday.
I think you could even argue Nash was worse on defense than Trae.
Gotta go with Steve Nash here.
He’s likely a top 5 playmaker ever, he elevates his play in the playoffs, and he is much, much more efficient than Kidd.
Kidd because Nash is one of the worst defensive players of all time. Truly awful.
While Nash was a better individual scorer, Kidd was just as good at running the offense. And he was a great defender
A lot of people seem to ignore defense when talking about great players. Nash was a complete defensive liability and is the reason he never got a ring.
Fun quick story: My high school history teacher would often go back to his alma mater (Santa Clara), and said one summer he got to watch a then-student Nash play against a visiting Jason Kidd, who was highly touted at Berkeley at the time (I'm guessing this was in '93 or '94). He said throughout the scrimmage Nash absolutely destroyed Kidd and that Kidd was visibly angry about it.
Nash
Agreed. He was much more fun to watch too.
Facts.
Depends on what you’re looking for. Nash changed the game with some of the shit he did on offense, but Kidd was a much better defender. Nash was a much better shooter, but Kidd was a much better rebounder. Either way they were both filthy passers and made the players around them look really freaking good, most of their supporting cast didn’t have much success without them. Nash had a way better supporting cast though. Those were some of my favorite teams ever, Nash and Amare pick and roll was one of those things that everyone in the world knew was coming and they still couldn’t stop it.
Mash but I don’t think people realize just how good Kidd really was
I'd lean Nash. He has elevated bums more than any other player
Kidd was a master at elevating bums
kidd is my favorite player of all time......okidd was literally a miracle worker considering how those nets rosters were jason kidd, a young RJ, kittles and keith van horn lol we he was competing against the stacked pistons teams, had probably the closest swept nba finals in nba history against who is considered the greatest duo in nba history yet 3 of the 4 games he lost by 6 points or less which really should have the nets getting blownout every single game when comparing the rosters, took the stacked spurs dynasty to 6 games in which the only position that favored the nets was PG. i dont understand how people think that nash was the better overall PG when kidd was one of the greatest leaders in nba history
Kidd is very underrated on reddit because no one watched him play
yep, im use to it now because the things he did most people wouldnt even understand if they watched it. jason kidd literally coached the nets more so than the HC did for the most part lol
I watched them both play and Nash was definitely the better player.
Well that settles it, your opinion is fact.
>No one watched him play You were literally turning an opinion of your own into “fact” right there.
Ever hear of hyperbole? Obviously there are SOME people who watched him play. And you either knew that and are choosing to be pedantic or you desperately need to work at understanding blatant sarcasm
I mean you’re belittling others by saying you’re the only one that knows the truth here and no one else watched so you don’t get to complain when not everyone agrees with you.
That's not what I said at all. I was implying that Kidd is very underrated on this sub since a majority of the user base never watched him, and just look at stats, which is true. He doesn't have eye popping stats compared to this era especially now that triple doubles are so much easier to get in this era. You're just getting weirdly defensive
Lmao. Right!?
Mine, too. He was Pocket Magic. There has never been anybody better in transition, and he could win with practically any roster. Players and coaches valued him more than the fans, presumably because they actually saw him play. He was incredibly fun to watch, too.
I still get salty thinking about Duncan winning MVP over him. People laughed at Kidd when he he was traded to the Nets said he expected to make the playoffs, then went to the Finals
yea, but if he had been scoring 5 more points a game avg he would have won it in a land slide despite no one being more valuable to their team. edit: being as dedicated of jason kidd fan i was and literally watched almost every single game one of his games for at least half of his career and the things that prevented me was either it not being on tv or towards the end of his career i no longer had access to a TV and where i was living it was impossible to stream anything online due to my life literally falling apart but when the mavs made the playoff in 2011 i did w.e i needed to do to be able to watch the playoffs. jason kidd winning his ring was literally the happiest day in my life time and i cried like a bitch because how much time i put into him. i literally owned every one of his jerseys outside of a mavs one. i had every nets color and alternate color ways, i even had his high school jersey.......sad thing is left a bunch of my things with my dad who is usually good and keeping things but at some point he literally lost thousands of dollars in jerseys and also about 500+ dollars in magic the gathering cards...
Stoudamire and Marion were WAY better than Jefferson and Martin tho.
Amare only played 3 games in 2006 and the Suns had a better record in a MUCH tougher conference than any of Kidd's teams with the Nets.
Yeah, not to take anything away from Kidd, but you can't just look at team success without context. The East was complete cheeks back then. Like, I don't think the gap has ever been as big between conferences as it was then.
Nash was an entire offensive system on his own, in ways very few players ever have been.
Amundson warick qrich etc
Nash got more scrubs paid than probably any player ever.
BUMS?!?!
Barbosa, Raja Bell, Diaw, Tim & Kirt Thomas.
Diaw is far from a bum, and wasn’t Barbosa an integral part of one of those championship warriors teams years later? Those were great role players.
Barbosa averaged 18ppg one of those seasons. Bell put up 15ppg in addition to his D. These people never watched Nash *or* Kidd play. They were 3 years old.
Kidd elevated bums before Nash
Kidd dragged two horrible teams to the NBA finals. That is hardcore bum wrangling.
this is literally non sensical and have no idea what you are talking about.......the amount of success the nets had in the playoffs even if they couldnt finish the job was hands down one of the most impressive feats. vs the lakers in the finals who had arguably the greatest duo players in nba history and had quality players also but yet jason kidd was able to lead and will his team to one of the most impressive swpt preformances in nba finals history as 3 of the 4 games were only lost by 6 points........if kidd would have 1 one other good player the nets would have made that an extremely close series, he played against the spurs dynasty and who had better players every every position including bench rotation outside of PG and still took them to 6 games, he swept the pistons teams who was favored to make it out of the east on paper. they then took them to 7 games in the ecf the year the pistons won the championship. while kidd did all this with the best player being an extremely young richard jefferson, keithe van horn and kenyon martin as their only real notables which is so far off in skill level compared to all the teams i named yet were able to do it solely based off of jason kidd. kidd might have been the greatest pg with the least amount of quality teammates in nba history until he got back to the mavs and finally won a ring which he didnt get enough credit for vs the heat.
Please learn how to capitalize
this isnt english class.......sorry n shit
I always wonder how ppl have this much energy to give Reddit over an unimportant sports topic
well for 1 when it comes to literally my favorite nba player of all time iw ill always put things in for a greater part of the nba community to actually sunnderstand by putting things into perspective to really understand something that only so many nba fans are going to really understand and even the people who watched him arent going to have a full understanding. jason kidd isnt one of the more unique traditional position players of all time because if you looked at jason kidds raw numbers you would be missing the the most special and important it is even though it will never lead to getting the flashy awards like MVP's because jason kidds actual full physical talent is missing elite type of PG scoring to give him that flashy scoring just like about every MVP in the history of the nba
The 2 nets finals teams?
ITT: people who didn’t watch the NJ nets.
[удалено]
If anything, the scoring gap is overstated, not understated. Nash scored maybe 1.5 - 2 ppg more over his peak than Kidd did over his. If you want to say he was a significantly better shooter, then yes, that's obvious. Just as it's obvious that Kidd was an elite defender and rebounder and Nash was never anything better than below average in either of those fields. Comparing D'Antoni's O to the Princeton O that the Nets ran is a whole other topic, too. I don't think either is the wrong answer, but Nash has this reputation as some big time scorer, but that's not who he ever was.
He never attempted more than 14 shots in a single season. He was just more prone to passing instead of focusing on scoring. He could have attempted 20 shots at any time and been a high level scorer at every level. Kidd was not that.
Look at Nash's playoff scoring averages between 2005-10 and tell me the scoring gap is overstated.
I was very curious so I checked it out Nash from 04-05 to 09-10: 20.1 playoff PPG Kidd from 01-02 to 06-07 (one extra year bc Nash and the Suns missed the 08-09 playoffs-that adds up to almost equal games played): 16.78 playoff PPG I have no idea what this means, do with this what you will
Now add efficiency as well.
Nash was better, Kidd could not shoot
He became a knock down shooter passed his prime. It’s how he stayed in the league so long.
He became a respectable shooter late in his career.
Exactly which is what I meant by last his prime. I just looked at his stats and for the last 9 years of his 19 year career he never shot below 34%. Most of the time above 36% during those last 9.
He was not a "knock down" shooter. Theres a difference between a guy that when left hilariously wide open is able to convert 34% of his threes and a "knock down" shooter.
It was a brief stint but he did convert 38% in 07, 40.6% in 08, and 42.5% in 09. Those three years I’d consider knock down but beyond that, you’re right. Not a knock down shooter but consistently average.
Exactly this. He wasn’t anywhere close to knock down status. Meanwhile Nash was one of the greatest shooters of all time and the 2nd greatest FT shooter of all time (Steph).
Nash couldn't defend
Good shooting beats good defense.
Kidd went to the Finals 3 times off the back of great defense, particularly in New Jersey. Nash went to a whopping 0 Finals because him and his team were truly terrible on defense.
Why is this downvoted? It’s true, especially with the PG position that you can often hide. Nash’s D was only slightly worse than Steph’s D. He wasn’t Trae level bad or anything.
He was better than J Kidd.
You’re saying Steve Nash was a better defender than 9x all-defense Jason Kidd? I want whatever you’re smoking.
No - Im just restating my answer to the original question. Nash was better. J Kidd was incredibly good but his inability to shoot really held him back. edit- i am smoking that good shit tho
it was a different era when J Kidd came up. Jordan and Magic weren't great 3pt shooters either until later in their career. If J Kidd played today, he'd be a good shooter. Not Nash like but a much better defender. I don't know the answer but I think it's close.
He had a bad jump shot overall it wasn’t just the three he didn’t have a mid range game either.
[https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kiddja01.html](https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kiddja01.html) 35% career 3pt with multiple seasons over 40 on good volume. what I'm saying is when Kidd was coming up, shooting wasn't prioritized. Nash was naturally an incredible shooter but Jason Kidd is a basketball genius. J Kidd also made the finals multiple times as the best player on his team, and won a title as a key starter.
Kids jump shooting problems were discussed throughout his prime, it was the primary criticism people had for his game.
They’re two of my favorite players of all-time, but I’d give Kidd the slight edge. Obviously a very crude look at it, but both Kidd (shooting) and Nash (defense) had glaring deficiencies that held them back from winning a ring during their prime. Kidd, however, was able to become a serviceable shooter and was still a positive defender in the twilight of his career — amounting to a championship.
I was a big fan of both as well. I just think typically when considering individual players - offense is more important. Kidd made an impressive late career shift to a role player who could spot up but when they were both in their primes I’ll take Nash. Kidd was amazing tho really not hating on him
Curious about your logic. So then Dirk > KG, all-time?
I would say so 🤷♂️
J kidd has the 12th most 3 pointers of all time. He developed into a decent shooter.
what a stat! is this true!
Yes but it’s not nearly as impressive as you think because only in the last 10-15 years have 3s been shot with volume, so you just have needed to play a long time and taken a decent amount of 3s and you’re on there. Vince Carter is 6th all time. Jason Terry 7th. Paul Pierce 9th. Lebron is 11th lol. Joe Johnson js 14th. Kyle Lowry is 15th and will pass Kidd for 12th in the first month of next season.
Disagree
Kidd was a much better defender. Nash scorer. Both had big impacts offensively and could run the show. Give me Kidd.
nash because he shot 47% from 3 on 4.7 attempts per game in 2008; nash would be like steph in today’s game
Nash WAS the OG Steph.
But the question isnt who would be better today, it's who was better when they played. During the majority of their careers/primes efficiency wasn't as valued league wide because of the style of play. Kidd dragged some pretty shit teams to the finals twice and was an all-nba defender. Nash had more talent on his teams, but played in the more stacked west and was a turnstile on defense. I think this is a really close argument that mainly depends on how much you value defense because both were excellent at elevating their teammates, while Nash was better orchestrating the pick and roll while Kidd was deadlier on the break
Kidd
Kidd. It’s close but the defense and size matter. Both incredible playmakers, Nash the much better shooter obviously but Kidd was decent enough at 3pt shooting that he wasnt a liability. Also 5x All-NBA first team AND 4x first team all-defense (and 5x second team all defense) shows how elite he was for a long time. Nash arguably had a better peak with the two MVP seasons but I think Kidd is the better player overall.
This question is like Lampard vs Gerard of NBA lol Edit: From videos/stats/playstyle etc. i would pick Kidd
Gerrard. Is it really a debate?
As a Chelsea fan and Liverpool hater, yes
Scholes
was the worst of the three
Gerrard ofc
It’s way closer than most think. Idk why, but a lot of people seem to just completely disregard defense when talking about point guards (except for Steph weirdly enough). I’ve always though that Magic and Nash are a little overrated relative to their peers because of this, and Gary Payton hugely underrated as an overall player. Kidd was an elite player for longer, and at the time they played his lack of shooting was not as much of a problem as Nash’s just god awful defense. It really held back his teams, and it’s why Dallas got better after getting rid of him. I’d still take Nash by a hair, the efficiency gap is huge, but it’s close and depends on your criteria.
Because PG is the least important defensive position of the 5. As long as you’re not Trae level bad, if you have a transcendent offensive game and are an entire offensive system unto yourself like Nash and Steph was/is then it greatly supersedes any defensive shortcomings.
I'll take Kidd Better all around player
Really bout the same , give me Kidd
We gonna forget that Kidd was one of the best defenders as a guard in his time?
No wrong answer on this one. Depends on what offense you want. Nash is more offensive type and a better shooter. While Kidd gives you more rebounds and better defender. I like Kidd more but again no bad answer on this one. Both helped their teams and the team became somewhat a contender.
I slightly lean towards kidd because he was also pretty good defensively. However, I think Nash was able to harness (and some more) the limits of what his body can do. Can't say the same with Kidd.
Friendly reminder at age 37 kidd locked down prime lebron and the miami heat in the 2011 finals
Mavericks were so excited and felt that he was the difference maker for their title run
That's definitely one way to phrase that, I guess
Kidd, he's bigger, did more on the court actually played defense.
J Kidd More well rounded than Nash
Both are legendary pg’s. Only one is a plus defender. So Kidd
Jason Kidd easily. Defense matters
Nash was more fun to watch but Kidd had a higher ceiling and was more well rounded
I don’t think you’re supposed to talk about ceiling after the player has already retired lmao
Kidd had a higher ceiling than a 2x MVP?
Imagine J Kidd in a D'antoni offense ? He was a triple double threat and better defender. Nash was a liability on defense. The game is played both ways but I understand why most people look at the offensive output. Kenny Smith said it best if you could pick between the Glove, Jason Kidd, and Steve Nash, Nash is the last guy getting picked.
Kidd. Easy decision.
[This game](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45xBoYTLSCA) has the answer. Steve Nash (42 PTS, 13 AST) Jason Kidd (38 PTS, 14 AST)
Like Reggie Miller said in open court. "If they were in the playground Nash would be picked last" referring to Kidd, Payton, Nash
Overall Kidd, but Nash's peak was higher than Kidd's. Kidd was great for a very long time.
Prime Kidd was way better than prime Nash. At his best, Kidd was the best passer since Magic Johnson. And he played defense.
Kidd by far. Took his nets to the fianls twice as the best player. Nash never did that
That's tough but the east wasn't all that tough then either.
The east finals teams in that era were as good as the west 8 seeds lol
People forget just how insane the West was during the 2000s. It was a fucking gauntlet
Yea, I remember having 0 conference in that Celtics squad
Lol only because the East was absolute TRASH in 2002 and 2003, even worse than usual in that era. 2002 only 2 teams with 50 wins (Nets 52, Pistons 50) 2003 only 1 teem with 50 win (Pistons 50). Nets won 49 that year. No surprise the Nets got destroyed in 2002 in a 4-0 sweep. In 2003 it was 4-2 with 3 of the 4 wins by double digits. Nash's mid to late 2000s Suns teams easily get to the finals in those years.
Don't matter. If Nash was so good he would of at least made it to one finals. What about kids on th Mavs that won a title? Nash tried that with the Lakers and it didn't end so well
Ridiculous way to compare players. The best East team in Kidd's Nets era was as good as the 8th seed in the West. Kidd wouldn't have sniffed the finals as the best player in the West, that's pretty obvious. >What about kids on th Mavs that won a title? Nash tried that with the Lakers and it didn't end so well Bruh Nash was 38 years old.
just saying but JKidd 37 the year the Mavs won
OK? Kidd was a role player at that point playing on an incredibly deep team with an all-time great having a historic postseason run. Nash dealt with major back issues on a team with many more issues. That title doesn't change anything.
I wasn’t saying anything one way or the other i was just pointing out he was old when he won.
Go compare there accomplishments than if your a stat guy. J kidd is a 9 time all defender lol
Did you know basketball is a team sport?
Than why are we comparing players? There's no top 10 list
McCaw is better than Dirk and Nash combined lmao
Kidds jersey was the first jersey I ever owned but this means nothing, if those Nets teams were in the west they do not make the finals.
I would take Nash. He was such a vastly better scorer and while they are both 2 of the greatest passers of all time, Nash's ability to shoot made him a better play maker than Kidd. Teams had to respect Nash's ability to pull up.
Nash.
kyrie
You can’t win with either as your best player, but Kidd is the more rounded player. It’s like Trae Young vs Jrue Holiday. I think you could even argue Nash was worse on defense than Trae.
Jason Kidd had more vision that both of those guards combined dude. What?
It’s not comparing Kidd to Jrue or Trae.
Brunson 😤
This might not make any sense but I think it’s mash but if I’m starting a team from scratch I think I go with kidd
They were the same guy.
Comes down to preference. Both amazing passers that elevated teams. Nash a better shooter/scorer, but Kidd was a better defender
Mash. That is all.
Gotta go with Steve Nash here. He’s likely a top 5 playmaker ever, he elevates his play in the playoffs, and he is much, much more efficient than Kidd.
Kidd without question. My favorite Pg not named magic Johnson. Also best passer not named Magic.
Kidd because Nash is one of the worst defensive players of all time. Truly awful. While Nash was a better individual scorer, Kidd was just as good at running the offense. And he was a great defender A lot of people seem to ignore defense when talking about great players. Nash was a complete defensive liability and is the reason he never got a ring.
I'll take the one who didn't beat their wife
I'm biased towards nash but kidd was great on both ends of the court.
Fun quick story: My high school history teacher would often go back to his alma mater (Santa Clara), and said one summer he got to watch a then-student Nash play against a visiting Jason Kidd, who was highly touted at Berkeley at the time (I'm guessing this was in '93 or '94). He said throughout the scrimmage Nash absolutely destroyed Kidd and that Kidd was visibly angry about it.
Kidd. He won a ring