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

Re: The mystery of Jason Kidd (fwd)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.