Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The mystery of Jason Kidd (fwd)

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    Kidd is a fine player. We recognize that. What my numbers have always said, however, is that his defense is what is so fine. His offense is OK, pretty good
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 11, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Kidd is a fine player. We recognize that. What my numbers have always
      said, however, is that his defense is what is so fine. His offense is OK,
      pretty good even, but not spectacular. Sure, we see his showtime passes
      and he does seem to make forwards pretty happy (Shawn Marion, Tom
      Gugliotta, Antonio McDyess come to mind). But my individual numbers for
      him show he ain't so efficient, primarily because he turns the ball over a
      lot.

      Clearly, the Nets are better this year. He is there, but so is
      Kerry Kittles and Todd MacCulloch, both upgrades over what they had at
      those positions last year. And Kenyon Martin is a year older. The Suns,
      on the other hand, inherited Stephon Marbury and don't seem any better.
      They are probably worse even though they also got Penny Hardaway back.
      They did ditch Cliff Robinson and Gugliotta hasn't been the same in a
      while.

      So I wanted to look at Kidd's teams, as he's changed from one to the next.
      Did their offense or defense improve/decline when he left/joined?
      Offensive and defensive efficiency for teams are pretty much indisputable
      -- coaches evaluate these as points per 100 possessions all the time.
      Though they don't isolate the effect of Kidd, they may say something. My
      individual numbers isolate the effect of Kidd, but they are estimates --
      not indisputable if there are "other factors" at work.

      Below are his teams, their offensive and defensive Ratings, as well as who
      was manning the point with their individual offensive and defensive
      ratings:

      Year Team ORtg DRtg PG Name IORtg IDRtg
      2002 NJN 98.7 95.3 Kidd 101.9 92.7
      2002 Pho 107.1 105.9 Marbury 112.0 110.0

      2001 NJN 98.8 104.2 Marbury 108.7 107.2
      2001 Pho 98.7 96.4 Kidd 102.1 95.5


      1997 Pho 107.5 106.8 Kidd 113.6 103.7
      1997 Dal 99.4 106.4 DHarper 106.0 109.0

      1996 Pho 108.8 108.5 KJ 121.0 109.1
      1996 Dal 104.4 109.4 Kidd 104.1 107.0

      To summarize, I grouped things into 3 periods, before Kidd, with Kidd, and
      after Kidd. The team offensive and defensive ratings were

      ORtg DRtg
      Before Kidd 103.8 106.4
      With Kidd 102.3 102.0
      After Kidd 103.3 106.2

      Defense is about 4 pts better with him. Offense is about 1 pt worse with
      him. Seems to support my individual numbers. But is it really his
      defense? It just seems weird.

      Other effects: Shawn Marion isn't getting the same number of touches, but
      his efficiency is about the same with Kidd gone. Van Horn and Martin are
      both at about the same efficiency, maybe a little worse, with Kidd around.

      One last thing -- Does Kidd's ability to play D aid transition offense?
      Maybe. Not sure how to measure it though....

      Dean Oliver
      Journal of Basketball Studies
      www.rawbw.com/~deano/index.html
      deano@...
    • bchaikin@aol.com
      i agree that kidd ...ain t so efficient... , at least not as much as he could be (he is still very good), but i believe primarily because he can t shoot. his
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 11, 2001
      • 0 Attachment

        i agree that kidd "...ain't so efficient...", at least not as much as he could be (he is still very good), but i believe primarily because he can't shoot. his career effective FG% is less than 45% (pretty bad), especially for someone taking 13 shots/game. his career 43% on 2s and 32% on 3s is just plain awful for a 38-40 min/g player.....

        however his turnovers are not high, on the contrary his ratio of turnovers per possession is 5% (1 turnover per 20 ball possessions), ever so slightly higher than average but in line with most point guards (for comparison isiah 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%, muggsy bogues was between 3%-4%). ...

        his career TO/MIN is .089, in line with stockton (.090), marbury (.086), rod strickland (.087), and sam cassell (.092). for comparison mark jackson's career TO/MIN is .081, and other players for comparison are gary payton (.069) and van exel (.065)....

        while his career eff FG% is < 45%, stockton's is 55% and marbury, strickland, and cassell's are all at 46%-47%. i also agree that his defense speaks for itself, as his 1st team nominations attest to, and that is key as it is superior to most if not all point guards, with payton in his prime being a good comparison. but his abysmal shooting, not his turnovers, is the key reason for his overall effectiveness not being as good as say someone like stockton in his prime.....

        bob chaikin
        bchaikin@...















      • harlanzo@yahoo.com
        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
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 12, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          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
          as he
          > could be (he is still very good), but i believe primarily because
          he can't
          > shoot. his career effective FG% is less than 45% (pretty bad),
          especially for
          > someone taking 13 shots/game. his career 43% on 2s and 32% on 3s is
          just
          > plain awful for a 38-40 min/g player.....
          >
          > however his turnovers are not high, on the contrary his ratio of
          turnovers
          > per possession is 5% (1 turnover per 20 ball possessions), ever so
          slightly
          > higher than average but in line with most point guards (for
          comparison isiah
          > 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%,
          muggsy bogues
          > was between 3%-4%). ...
          >
          > his career TO/MIN is .089, in line with stockton (.090), marbury
          (.086), rod
          > strickland (.087), and sam cassell (.092). for comparison mark
          jackson's
          > career TO/MIN is .081, and other players for comparison are gary
          payton
          > (.069) and van exel (.065)....
          >
          > while his career eff FG% is < 45%, stockton's is 55% and marbury,
          strickland,
          > and cassell's are all at 46%-47%. i also agree that his defense
          speaks for
          > itself, as his 1st team nominations attest to, and that is key as
          it is
          > superior to most if not all point guards, with payton in his prime
          being a
          > good comparison. but his abysmal shooting, not his turnovers, is
          the key
          > reason for his overall effectiveness not being as good as say
          someone like
          > stockton in his prime.....
          >
          > bob chaikin
          > bchaikin@b...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.