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

Re: [APBR_analysis] The Kidd Effect

Expand Messages
  • Michael K. Tamada
    On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, mikel_ind wrote: [...] ... Count me as a Kidd fan, and anti-Marbury, for the standard reasons mentioned by fans and media. Now the
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 14, 2002
      On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, mikel_ind wrote:


      > One player that always seems overrated to me (statistically speaking)
      > is Jason Kidd. So I have endeavored to debunk the notion that he is
      > All That. (There is even MVP talk out there.)
      > One could argue that Kidd isn't a lot better than Marbury, and simply

      Count me as a Kidd fan, and anti-Marbury, for the standard reasons
      mentioned by fans and media. Now the domestic violence stuff against Kidd
      IS serious, and I can understand why Phoenix decided to get rid of him.
      But I that they could have and should have gotten more than Marbury for


      > Min. Pct. Scor. Reb. Ast. Stl. (.TO.) Blk
      > with Kidd 23.8 .516 13.24 6.30 2.38 1.03 (1.73) .71
      > without K 24.4 .501 12.01 6.24 2.48 1.05 (1.85) .69
      > I believe this is both astounding and significant. I have looked for
      > possible skewings of the results, but I can't find any. Jason Kidd
      > gets 10% more scoring out of his teammates!

      I agree that it is significant, not quite as astounded as you because I've
      believed all along that Kidd makes his teammates better (much more so than

      > Even the 'anecdotal' evidence indicates that Kidd tends to work
      > wonders for his teammates. Lucius Harris played with Kidd in Dallas,
      > then worked without him for 5 mostly terrible years, and is again
      > flourishing in New Jersey. George McCloud became stellar in Dallas
      > with Kidd, sucked in LA, regained his form in Phoenix, and has mostly
      > stunk in Denver.

      I hadn't noticed Harris, but McCloud I sure had. I think he started with
      Indiana? Did nothing, but became a 3-point bomber in Dallas. But he's
      clearly a player who needs to be in the right situation in order to be
      effective. Good teams are usually better at providing the right situation
      (another example: Bob McAdoo in Buffalo and LA, vs. NY, NJ, Boston, and

      > The only member of the Nets not showing improved numbers this season
      > is Aaron Williams.

      Aaron's always been an active, relatively productive per-minute player,
      even with the Sonics. But Karl never gave him playing time, and (unlike
      some of Karl's bad playing time decisions) I think for good reason.
      AWilliams can grab some rebounds, and he'll put up a lot of shots and
      actually make some of them, but with the Sonics at least he simply didn't
      know what he was doing out there. Athleticism and hustle can get you so
      far, and even lead to rebounds and points in the NBA, but to become an NBA
      starter a certain knowledge of basketball, court sense, team play, self-
      discipline, or whatever, is needed. In AWilliams case, I don't know what
      it was that he lacked, but it was definitely something, he simply was not
      in the team flow and despite his rebounds and points was not contributing
      in a team way.

      Possibly the same thing is still happening in NJ. You won't benefit from
      Kidd's presense if you don't know when to cut to the basket versus when to
      spot-up for a jumper versus when to post-up inside versus when to set
      a pick versus when to get position for an offensive rebound.

      I have not seen the Nets play much recently so I don't know if these
      statements are still applicable to AWilliams, but that's the way he was in

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.