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

Re: [APBR_analysis] The mystery of Jason Kidd (fwd)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , Nov 11, 2001

      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 2 of 3 , Nov 12, 2001
        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.