Let me preface any of my comments on this subject by divulging that I
am one of the few Nets fans on this planet. Initially, I did not
like the Kidd trade because watching him and seeing his statistics
underwhelmed me. Having watched him more closely this year I can say
that I may have been a bit harsh on him for being a poor shooter (the
stats don't lie, his shooting is ugly). Without tracking it
statistically, it does seem that Kidd is a better defender than
Marbury was. (I still feel that Marbury will be clearly a better
player Kidd in a matter of a year or two). The only other special
thing I notice about Kidd (that I had not seen before) is his ability
to push the ball effectively once his team gains possession of the
ball. (This value may be in some way tied to his defensive
ability). It seems like he finds guys on fast breaks much better
than marbury did. THat being said, the primary reason the nets have
improved is that kittles has replaced lucious harris and macullouch
has replace mcilvaine (and the other crap they played their).
Kittles and Jefferson help immesurably in terms of creating offense
and actually playing defense and Macullouch can actually block a shot
and make a lay up. I would venture to say that Kidd for marbury is
probably equal in terms of value right now.
--- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
> i agree that kidd "...ain't so efficient...", at least not as much
> could be (he is still very good), but i believe primarily because
> shoot. his career effective FG% is less than 45% (pretty bad),
> someone taking 13 shots/game. his career 43% on 2s and 32% on 3s is
> plain awful for a 38-40 min/g player.....
> however his turnovers are not high, on the contrary his ratio of
> per possession is 5% (1 turnover per 20 ball possessions), ever so
> higher than average but in line with most point guards (for
> thomas' career mark is 6%, one of the worst for a name point guard,
> stockton's is 4%, robert pack was close to but not quite at 7%,
> was between 3%-4%). ...
> his career TO/MIN is .089, in line with stockton (.090), marbury
> strickland (.087), and sam cassell (.092). for comparison mark
> career TO/MIN is .081, and other players for comparison are gary
> (.069) and van exel (.065)....
> while his career eff FG% is < 45%, stockton's is 55% and marbury,
> and cassell's are all at 46%-47%. i also agree that his defense
> itself, as his 1st team nominations attest to, and that is key as
> superior to most if not all point guards, with payton in his prime
> good comparison. but his abysmal shooting, not his turnovers, is
> reason for his overall effectiveness not being as good as say
> stockton in his prime.....
> bob chaikin