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

Re: Kidd v. KJ and comparing eras

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    ... teams. ... Brain spasm here. Kidd never played with Finley. They were traded for each other (something I even wrote about when it happened). I had been
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 8, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
      > >
      >
      > Opinion first -- KJ was generally a better offensive weapon because
      > he could score. He wasn't as good a passer. Kidd has always been a
      > good defender, though, one thing that he's never gotten the credit
      > for. KJ generally did seem to have a greater impact on better
      teams.
      > What Kidd does to pass a ball is legendary. Overall, I don't think
      > he has been as effective as KJ, but his passing flare is impressive.
      > He helped make Michael Finley a star that he hasn't matched
      > in Dallas (though KJ did, too). He made Antonio McDyess a star that

      Brain spasm here. Kidd never played with Finley. They were traded
      for each other (something I even wrote about when it happened). I had
      been making this list in my head for a while of the forwards that
      seemed to play best with Kidd. And Finley accidentally creeped onto
      it. I do have to wonder how Marion would do with another team. His
      numbers this year are pretty gaudy, but how much of that is Jason
      Kidd. Of course, neither Mashburn nor J. Jackson played very well
      with Kidd.

      Dean Oliver
      Journal of Basketball Studies
    • Dean Oliver
      ... My point is that McDyess was MUCH better with the Suns than he has ever been with the Nuggets -- this All-Star year fully withstanding. Gugliotta before
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 8, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > Just some observation here Dean-
        >
        > While I think having Kidd to distribute the ball helps somewhat, most
        > of Marion's points come from short jumpers around the basket and
        > offensive rebounds. (his outside shot still isn't that reliable) Kidd
        > certainly is helpful when it comes to the transition game, he's
        > probably one of the best ever at getting the ball up the court.
        >

        My point is that McDyess was MUCH better with the Suns than he has ever
        been with the Nuggets -- this All-Star year fully withstanding. Gugliotta
        before his hurts was also much better with Kidd giving him the ball.
        Rodney Rogers and Clifford Robinson seems to have improved a little with
        Kidd distributing the ball (not as much). There is a Kidd effect, I
        think. I do wonder how big it is on Marion, who was not deemed to be as
        good as he apparently is.

        > As for the Kidd-KJ comparison, first I'll have to note that I'm a big
        > KJ fan, so keep that in mind. Kidd's strengths of course are passing,

        Frankly, I am a big KJ fan, too. Ever since Cleveland, in fact.

        My thought is that, ignoring defense, KJ is clearly the better player.
        Defense is a much harder thing to get your hands around, but Kidd looks
        better to me statistically and observationally. That is more important in
        this defense-oriented era than it was in KJ's earlier days.

        Two ways of looking at the comparison then:

        1. Would the Suns of right now win more with KJ than they are with Kidd?
        2. Would most teams win more with KJ than they would with Kidd? (This
        gets at my overall evaluation of players.)

        I can do a quick analysis of the first one (but not right now during my 5
        minute break from the torture known as Charnock -- my environmental
        project). Bob Chaikin can definitely do this and I'd be curious to see
        that. Use KJ at the same age as Kidd.

        The second question is a lot more extensive. But Bob could take a stab
        with his software, too.

        > Until then I'll pick Johnson because hew was virtually unguardable and
        > his teams were much more successful that Kidd's have been so far.

        This gets at Q#2 and I would tend to agree (not strongly). Looking at the
        current Suns team is a tougher call for me. I think Kidd is a very
        important part of a good defense and KJ would hurt that. (Completely
        ignoring the injury factor, too.)

        Dean Oliver
        Journal of Basketball Studies
        www.tsoft.com/~deano/index.html
        deano@...
      • Robert Bradley
        ... Personally, I think Johnson would be a better fit on the current team considering their weaknesses (which are scoring and perimeter shooting - two areas he
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 8, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          > This gets at Q#2 and I would tend to agree (not strongly). Looking
          > at the
          > current Suns team is a tougher call for me. I think Kidd is a very
          > important part of a good defense and KJ would hurt that. (Completely
          > ignoring the injury factor, too.)

          Personally, I think Johnson would be a better fit on the current team
          considering their weaknesses (which are scoring and perimeter shooting
          - two areas he has a big advantage over Kidd). Kidd would probably fit
          in much better on some teams such as Philadelphia or the Lakers where
          he would have a big scorer to compliment him. And I agree Kidd's a
          better defender, but smaller, quicker guards do give him a problem at
          times.

          Now who's better - Paul Westphal or Dennis Johnson? Talk about
          complete opposites....



          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
          http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
        • Dean Oliver
          ... Very opposite. I really will have to work to dig up their numbers. I m still accumulating old data through a source with the league. The Group database
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 8, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Robert Bradley <bradleyrd13@y...> wrote:

            > Now who's better - Paul Westphal or Dennis Johnson? Talk about
            > complete opposites....
            >

            Very opposite. I really will have to work to dig up their numbers.
            I'm still accumulating old data through a source with the league. The
            Group database that we started with APBR has very incomplete
            individual turnover data and that's what my source is getting for me.
            For just these two players, I can hand enter the info, but it's a
            total of about 3200 man-seasons of individual turnovers I'm missing.

            I always respected Johnson's game more than Westphal's. But, frankly,
            I was pretty young when Westphal was in his heyday. And my judgment
            is somewhat clouded by my general disdain for Westphal's coaching
            style. I'll run the numbers soon.

            Dean Oliver
            Journal of Basketball Studies.
          • msg_53@hotmail.com
            ... For their careers: Westphal: sco 20.8, reb 2.5, ast 5.6, stl 1.7, TO 3.2, blk .4 DJohnson: 14.4 4.3 5.2 1.5 2.6 .7 regular
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 8, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Robert Bradley <bradleyrd13@y...> wrote:
              > Now who's better - Paul Westphal or Dennis Johnson? Talk about
              > complete opposites....
              >
              For their careers:
              Westphal: sco 20.8, reb 2.5, ast 5.6, stl 1.7, TO 3.2, blk .4
              DJohnson: 14.4 4.3 5.2 1.5 2.6 .7

              regular season totals: Westphal 29.9, DJ 25.4
              playoff totals: Westphal 25.8, DJ 25.7

              Westphal was the more skilled player in general.
              Dennis Johnson played better under pressure and against greater
              competition.

              I rate DJ #66 alltime, Westphal #120
              >
              >
              > __________________________________________________
              > Do You Yahoo!?
              > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
              > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
            • Robert Bradley
              ... Johnson of course enjoyed a much longer period of productivity and was far superior defensively, Westphal was as good offensively as Maravich an Gervin in
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 8, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                > For their careers:
                > Westphal: sco 20.8, reb 2.5, ast 5.6, stl 1.7, TO 3.2, blk .4
                > DJohnson: 14.4 4.3 5.2 1.5 2.6 .7
                >
                > regular season totals: Westphal 29.9, DJ 25.4
                > playoff totals: Westphal 25.8, DJ 25.7
                >
                > Westphal was the more skilled player in general.
                > Dennis Johnson played better under pressure and against greater
                > competition.
                >
                > I rate DJ #66 alltime, Westphal #120

                Johnson of course enjoyed a much longer period of productivity and was
                far superior defensively, Westphal was as good offensively as Maravich
                an Gervin in the late 70s when he was playing in Phoenix before his
                foot problems began.

                An interesting trade - Westphal, the great offensive player, for
                Johnson the great defensive player. Obviously Phoenix got the better
                of the deal with Westphal's injury in Seattle, but up to that point I'd
                consider Westy superior.

                Did your alltime rating take into account longevity or team W-L record?
                (just curious)


                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
              • msg_53@hotmail.com
                To all who wonder: Mike Goodman s alltime rankings, based on statistics compiled since 1952, are based on standardized per-game averages, career totals,
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 8, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  To all who wonder: Mike Goodman's alltime rankings, based on
                  statistics compiled since 1952, are based on standardized per-game
                  averages, career totals, per-minute averages, and playoff performance.
                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Robert Bradley <bradleyrd13@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Johnson of course enjoyed a much longer period of productivity and
                  was
                  > far superior defensively, Westphal was as good offensively as
                  Maravich
                  > an Gervin in the late 70s when he was playing in Phoenix before his
                  > foot problems began.
                  >
                  > An interesting trade - Westphal, the great offensive player, for
                  > Johnson the great defensive player. Obviously Phoenix got the
                  better
                  > of the deal with Westphal's injury in Seattle, but up to that point
                  I'd
                  > consider Westy superior.
                  >
                  > Did your alltime rating take into account longevity or team W-L
                  record?
                  > (just curious)
                  >
                  >
                  > __________________________________________________
                  > Do You Yahoo!?
                  > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                  > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.