When Stats lie

[Pointguard]

Your style is that when you start losing an argument, you deflect, go everywhere but where the argument is. Bring up as much craziness as to not show you totally lost it.

It's all about fit and role. And no, in 03...Duncan won a title...with a team I'm not even sure is any better than the Nets in 02 and 03. In fact, it's just not as I'm typing this...the 02 team around Kidd was just better than the 03 team around Duncan.

Huh, that SA team was one of the best defensive team ever.
Steve Jackson was superb
Robinson was blocking as many shots as Kenyan was
Bowen was the best perimeter defender
Malik Rose and Kevin Willis were tough
Ginobli was very good

Its an absolute joke to compare undersized Kenyan Martin/Aaron Williams and Collins to them. Have you totally lost your mind. First way off perception.

Malik Rose was one of the best role players in the league. Steve Kerr, Steve Smith each made more big shots than Kittles, Harris and Van Horne cumulatively. Bowen shot better than them from the field. Claxton was the best point coming off the bench. Then you throw in the playoff experience, many already being champions against playoff virgins and not one consistent offensive player?

Did you really just say that Shaq playing in the east in 02 couldn't have won 52 games? Holy ****ing shit dude...I now see the problem. You have just lost your mind and don't understand how bad the East was back then...nor understand that the 02 Nets were a different team than the 01 Nets. 3 new players in the top 6 rotation and you are going on about turning the same team around. As if it's remotely comparable...

You know full well I am saying Shaq doesn't win it all with that crew. You reach when you get scared and start panicking. When Shaq was in the East he had a better position player at every position than the Nets and only made it out the East once while facing a complete Jordan once.

It wasn't magic...it was the fact that Kidd was an awesome basketball player...especially in 02 and 03..now that you are bringing up 03. Kidd had a 24/10/6 series against the Pistons in 03 in which he did that and absolutely shut down Billups (9 points 42% TS)...

You are using one example from another year because you couldn't find anything in the four rounds he played in the year in question?

The 02 Nets played the easiest schedule in the league. Say that with me again. They played the easiest schedule in the league and won 52 games.

A schedule doesn't differ much. They play the West two games each, probably miss a game from another division twice in their conference. Means absolutely nothing because they beat the best in the playoffs. You are reaching... yet again. Second way off assumption.

Could kobe or tmac have done that? Hell yes...in fact those teams would have probably been better overall...certainly offensively they would have been more dangerous that's for sure. T-Mac got his 02 Magic to the 7th best offense and 44 wins. Kobe...all the same shit.

You are completely oblivious to chemistry and leadership. Most players don't win two rounds unless they have solid top player next to them or a top coach. Shaq, Kobe and Tmac haven't proved any different. Scott hasn't proven to be a good coach.

The Nets wouldn't have been as good defensively with those guys, but they still would have been top 10 or so...and the offense would have been way better....way better.

Also, who the hell was a better guard defender/rebounder than 02 Kidd?

I said defender. Stop reaching. You always do that. Third totally off base craziness.

See, this is where the East being utter garbage is really skewing things. Kidd gets the Nets to 52 wins in a conference that had 1 other team win over 50. Plays the easiest schedule in the league while doing so...and you have people like you claiming that Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, T-Mac...couldn't have done the same thing? Wow...just wow...

Hello. Tmac was in the East. Fourth bit of craziness. Kobe and Shaq had the most talented productive teammates in the modern era. Shaq and Kobe had chemistry issues left and right and had leadership issues left and right. Super great players but neither seemed equipped to carry teams for years.

And stop saying Kidd did it alone. It was a completely different and better team. Say it with me again...Kittles, Jefferson, T-Mac, and Collins...3 new players in the top 6 rotation.

You do know that Collins and Jefferson were rookies and were never very good players even in their prime. Outside of Kmart, only Jefferson could approach a sixth man award on that team and he definitely wouldn't win it.

They got Kittles back...who was at least worth a lot on offense as the Nets saw their offense fall off dramatically in 01 without him...and were top 10 in 00.

Kittles 13ppg on 54%TS percentage. That's not a lot of offense. Stop making nonsense up. That is ok, offense. Not a lot or good offense. Fifth crazy assumption.

Take a look at the roster;

Kidd
Martin
Kittles
Van Horn
Jefferson
Todd
Harris
Williams
Collins

That is a quality roster. You really think it's crazy that they won 52 games while playing in a shit conference with the easiest schedule in the league? We really gonna go crazy about this?

They won three playoff series. This is never easy with inexperienced, young players and players that never went deep in the playoffs. Kittles and Van Horn, the third and fourth best players on the team were sensitive players that took their lesser roles hard a few years back. They were not confident players when Kidd got there.

Van Horn was a proven 20 ppg type scorer before Kidd.

Was not a proven 20 ppg scorer as he reached that level once. Was a proven 525 TS% guy. The guy had to stop shooting - he had no other choice. Here you are misrepresenting like crazy and you love TS%. Sixth leap into craziness.

Harris and Williams were two proven solid pros.

In what way??? Williams was 31yo tweener that was reached 10ppg once in his career. He was ok, not solid. Harris the same thing but 30 yo.

Kittles was a proven do it all man that.

No he wasn't. Kittles could shoot a little but never was the same after the injury a few years before. 13ppg and did little else. Stop making stuff up. Seventh leap into craziness.

Also, you do realize that the Nets didn't win a title...right? They got swept in the finals by the first good team they played in the playoffs. Obviously nobody was expecting them to win and they shouldn't have, but when you play cupcakes en route to the finals...you can make the finals. Again...not one 50 win opponent...and that is even worse because the East sucked ass back then.

Its hard to win playoff series when you don't have consistent shooters, nobody with a reliable post game, nobody really rebounding outside of Kidd, and a brand new coach sporting a 32% winning percentage the year before that and didn't have this success anyplace else. I'm sure the history of the league has plenty of stories like this one. Your eight crazy assumption.

Think about this...the Nets made back to back finals. And to get there...they beat one 50 win team. And by 50 wins...I mean 50 wins. The Pistons won exactly 50 wins...and were sadly the only team in the conference to win 50 games that season. What a ****ing joke...in 02 and 03 combined. there were three teams to win 50 or more games. The nets in 02...and the pistons in 02 and 03...LOL...it's a joke.

If you think playoff series are easy, you know nothing about basketball. Funny they definitely beat the world champions in 04 if Kidd wasn't hurt. They beat the Pistons for sure. This was a last place team.

I think the above post I quoted says enough to everyone in this thread about how lost you are. Do you have any clue how much better 03 Duncan was than 03 Kidd?

Why would I care. I never said that. Ninth crazy assumption.

Kidd shot 36% and had a sub 45% TS...all the rest of his teammates that he supposedly gets great shots for were awful. Where was the guru? Why couldn't he outplay Duncan if he was a better player?

Kenyon Martin was in foul trouble very early in every game. They still won two games despite the great handicap. But without Martin their best defensive player there was no way they were going to win.

This isn't about Duncan. Its about Marbury.

I know you want to escape and get off topic. A last place team, without the addition of any players that would be very good pros in their prime. Went to the championship twice. That's still sitting there staring you in your face.

[Pointguard]

Dmavs, I notice its social realities that you have problems with.

1)You really lack an ability to know how Chemistry works on a team.
You can't just mix and match players like you did in the post above. That team wasn't really built around Kidd, it was a last place team with inexperienced players but he turned it into something. Most players can't do that and you haven't approached acknowledging it. Not close.

2)You have no knowledge of how age and experience is a factor. Most great players aren't ready to lead good players, much less average ones, deep in the playoffs until they are in their prime - like 26 years old. You thinking Kobe and Tmac were ready for that at their stage in their career is crazy. You also did this with Rose who was waaaay ahead of the curve. In the Nets case, without a great coach its even harder. You seemingly didn't notice the difference in experience in all of the Nets examples above especially vs the Spurs. Kidd was the only player that really played a lot of playoff ball. Horne a little bit but with no success at all.

3)You don't understand how leadership works on a team. You have failed in nearly every example to even mention it. Shaq had real bad leadership issues along with his chemistry issues. He was indeed one of the most dominant players ever but he never lead a team without drama with another player or coach. He had some great teams in the east and didn't do much with them despite his playing like a complete beast and players not really getting in his way.

4)The concept of keeping players on the same page you don't get. Some players are by nature organizers of men. When things are not organized they go in all directions (like your post when you know you lost the argument). This is why Phil Jackson gets a lot of directionless great talent and molds them into three peaters. Magic and Bird had this quality just as Kidd did. And this was the reason the USA teams wanted Kidd. The stats don't show it but they win.

5) The concept of making others better is totally lost on you. You have negatively called it "magic" in this thread. You have never used it appropriately and nervously jump to another topic when its brought up. Kidd didn't have one winner on that team and had a total lack of offensive weapons and not one experienced player that handled themselves in high pressure playoff situations. Yet they got the baskets needed through three playoff series twice.

6)You don't understand it when I say Kidd inspires, rewards, highlights and exuded confidence enough to have offensively challenged guys overachieve in tight playoff games. Their confidence level was above any other time in their career. That their execution was sharper when needed then it ever was. Kenyan and Jefferson got contracts based on their early Kidd years moreso than what they showed otherwise. There is a lot of fear in your first playoff games and when you have big responsibility for the first time in them. And Kidd had them on top of their game doing timely stuff despite a majority of the players new to the game.

7)In general this whole concept of quality is just lost on you. Some people have the ability to influence better focus and goal attainment to others.

I don't know if it is that you haven't been exposed to team and social dynamics but its a bit too much to consistently miss. And to never bring up qualities accidentally and to overlook it consistently.

It was one of the greatest turn arounds ever with a young inexperienced team and you don't have a clue as to the dynamics and the elements that went into it. You are really missing out on the sweeter dynamics of the game.

[Pointguard]

When have I ever said Rondo or Lever would lead this team anywhere? They are not in the same level as Kidd. Payton was not the player Kidd was in 2002, but I do think prime Payton would take this team somewhere. Especially in the East.

The thing that should be looked at is that in the playoffs, you have to tweak a ton and adjust like crazy when you don't have experienced players and great offensive weapons. Execution has to be great. It so much harder then when you don't have finishers, shooters, post players and scorers. Payton had a far superior defensive rebounding team for several years with offensive weapons galore: a beast down low, a sharpshooter, one of the games best all around players, along with the smart defensive juggernaut in McMillan. I thought that team should have had several really good years.

Payton was the best defensive PG I ever saw.

[DMAVS41]

PG

It's really not hard.

The stats didn't lie.

Kidd doesn't hold a candle to the likes of Shaq or Duncan.

Kidd without his defense and rebounding honestly might not be better than Marbury. It would be all about the fit and role on a team. If it was a stacked offensive team...Kidd would be better. If it was a team lacking scoring...Marbury would be better.

Your OP is horribly flawed because of this. You can't grasp the big reasons why the Nets were better. Kidd's defense/rebounding and a clearly improve roster.

You listed incomplete stats and tried to jump to a conclusion about intangibles.

Then you spun the conversation into a bunch of different areas to shift the focus on your failed OP.

All the rest is just noise.

You have argued for Kidd to be a great offensive player...and he just wasn't. His teams kind of routinely struggled on offense. And that was in part because Kidd didn't play with a ton of offensive talent...and in part because he wasn't a great offensive player. He had serious deficiencies in his offensive game.

It's just the way it is...Kidd was a solid floor general and great passer. But he couldn't shoot for shit early on and he didn't really do things to a defense that a guy like, Nash, for example did....or even a guy like Marbury would do in certain situations.

Kidd on offense alone was a pretty "meh" player...including all the intangibles that you keep listing off and arguing with perhaps someone you've met that disputes that shit...but nobody here has.

I have yet to see one person say Kidd didn't have better intangibles. The problem is...even with that...and an improve offensive roster...Kidd barely improved the offense. They still weren't very good on offense...much like nearly every Kidd led team of his career before he played with Dirk...and even then he was worse than Harris solely on offense...LOL

Sorry...you can keep trying to tell me what I don't get, but the thing is...I do get it. It's not magic. It's the simple fact that Kidd wasn't a great offensive player and all the evidence supports this. Just like all the evidence supports Marbury being a shit defender.

But you choose to ignore reality in favor of your own biased thoughts. Obviously we aren't getting anywhere.

And it's clear to everyone with a brain following this thread that your OP was wrong...it was a terrible example because you tried to compare the offense of two players...when the real difference was defense/rebounding.

Get a clue man...really. It's just sad at this point.

[Pointguard]

PG

It's really not hard.

The stats didn't lie.

You still haven't shown the counter stats.

Your OP is horribly flawed because of this. You can't grasp the big reasons why the Nets were better. Kidd's defense/rebounding and a clearly improve roster.

You are right if you show me the metrics where 4 more rebounds per game by one player and better defense by a point guard took a last place team to the championship. I will agree with you. Or easier you show me where those metrics have caused a team to win twice as many games I will agree with you. An improved roster with only one player that could ever start with significant minutes without Kidd the rest of their careers? And the one who did, was a disappointment his whole career once Kidd left.

You listed incomplete stats and tried to jump to a conclusion about intangibles.

Then you spun the conversation into a bunch of different areas to shift the focus on your failed OP.

I totally annihilated your sidebars misdirections above just for sport. Nine totally crazy assumptions and you didn't even attempt to defend yourself because you can't.

You always go in different directions when you can't deal. If I don't reel you in, you would be all over the place.

You have never shown a complete metric because you can't.

You have argued for Kidd to be a great offensive player...and he just wasn't. His teams kind of routinely struggled on offense. And that was in part because Kidd didn't play with a ton of offensive talent...and in part because he wasn't a great offensive player. He had serious deficiencies in his offensive game.

You measure everything by quantity because you can't understand quality. Show me the other teams in history that won three rounds without a player scoring more than 15ppg in the regular season? And this wasn't an alltime great defensive team either. Use your metrics, I want to see that. And when that's done add in the years of playoff experience. How did this team without consistent shooters, low post play or scorers execute at the end of games without a masestro at the end of games. Name me the players that could that in the history of the game. GOOD OFFENSE gets what it needs to win the game. Any guard can lead a high scoring offense but how many players can get the score when they really need it or get the most out of their players when they really need it. With a team that doesn't have offensive strengths its much harder. Few players in the history of the game had this quality. But you have a great inability to recognize qualities.

You haven't even recognized that Kidd did a lot with very little in one of the best turnarounds in the history of the sport. Without the addition of stars, and only one to be starter who never proved himself without Kidd. You measure offense by more points per possession. You don't even have a full concept of the game in mind because stats have possessed you.

It's just the way it is...Kidd was a solid floor general and great passer. But he couldn't shoot for shit early on and he didn't really do things to a defense that a guy like, Nash, for example did....or even a guy like Marbury would do in certain situations.

Once Kidd got in the league he was considered better than them and they never would have been considered over Kidd on international teams. And this is totally because of him being a floor general.

Sorry...you can keep trying to tell me what I don't get, but the thing is...I do get it. It's not magic. It's the simple fact that Kidd wasn't a great offensive player and all the evidence supports this.

You can't get what you don't understand. You have a social disconnect. Concepts of leadership, making others better and team integration are not things you are good with. Your computer doesn't have the right program to decipher it.

[DMAVS41]

Please answer these questions;

1. How many wins do you think Kidd's defense/rebounding alone would add to a team by replacing Marbury? Just assume Marbury and Kidd play the exact same offense?

2. How many wins do you think the additions of Kittles, Jefferson, T-Mac, and Collins added to the team on their own?

3. How many wins do you think Kidd's far better clutch play added?

4. How many wins do you think playing the easiest schedule in the league rather than the 18th ranked schedule added?

Please answer this. We have to know where you are coming from.


Bonus questions;

1. Why have Kidd led teams on offense been so mediocre for his career?

2. Why were the Nets a top 10 offense in 00 with Marbury and a worse offensive roster than Kidd had in 02...and they played at a slower pace?

3. Why do you continue to ignore that the Nets added 4 new key rotation players in 02 along with Kidd? Do you just hate Kerry Kittles or something? Why do you ignore that he and marbury had a top 10 offense together in 00?

[tpols]

PG

It's really not hard.

The stats didn't lie.

Kidd doesn't hold a candle to the likes of Shaq or Duncan.

Kidd without his defense and rebounding honestly might not be better than Marbury. It would be all about the fit and role on a team. If it was a stacked offensive team...Kidd would be better. If it was a team lacking scoring...Marbury would be better.

Your OP is horribly flawed because of this. You can't grasp the big reasons why the Nets were better. Kidd's defense/rebounding and a clearly improve roster.

You listed incomplete stats and tried to jump to a conclusion about intangibles.

Then you spun the conversation into a bunch of different areas to shift the focus on your failed OP.

All the rest is just noise.

You have argued for Kidd to be a great offensive player...and he just wasn't. His teams kind of routinely struggled on offense. And that was in part because Kidd didn't play with a ton of offensive talent...and in part because he wasn't a great offensive player. He had serious deficiencies in his offensive game.

It's just the way it is...Kidd was a solid floor general and great passer. But he couldn't shoot for shit early on and he didn't really do things to a defense that a guy like, Nash, for example did....or even a guy like Marbury would do in certain situations.

Kidd on offense alone was a pretty "meh" player...including all the intangibles that you keep listing off and arguing with perhaps someone you've met that disputes that shit...but nobody here has.

I have yet to see one person say Kidd didn't have better intangibles. The problem is...even with that...and an improve offensive roster...Kidd barely improved the offense. They still weren't very good on offense...much like nearly every Kidd led team of his career before he played with Dirk...and even then he was worse than Harris solely on offense...LOL

Sorry...you can keep trying to tell me what I don't get, but the thing is...I do get it. It's not magic. It's the simple fact that Kidd wasn't a great offensive player and all the evidence supports this. Just like all the evidence supports Marbury being a shit defender.

But you choose to ignore reality in favor of your own biased thoughts. Obviously we aren't getting anywhere.

And it's clear to everyone with a brain following this thread that your OP was wrong...it was a terrible example because you tried to compare the offense of two players...when the real difference was defense/rebounding.

Get a clue man...really. It's just sad at this point.

woah.. now this is all just flat out wrong. Kidd was absolutely a great offensive basketball player. He's one of the best passers/court vision ever routinely went off in the playoffs for 20 pt 10 ast give or take averages.. knew how to set up his teammates games and make them better..

Comparing him to Dirk? Whose always had more umtempo teams filled with way better offensive talent? How was Dirk going to create for Kittles, or Collins, or Mumtumbo or KM in slow paced defensive battles with teams like the pistons every year? The best offensive player besides Kidd on those teams was RJ and even he doesnt compare to the finleys, nashs, jamisons, and terrys that the mavs had.. some all at the same time.



Go look up Detroit, Indy, NJ and other top teams from the eastern conference in the early to mid 2000s.. everyone shot in the low 40%s.. the defenses were just that good.

Paul Pierce shot 41% from the field in the playoffs from 01 to 05. Allen Iverson shot 40%.. Are they not great offensive players? Because they arent known for their defense..

[DMAVS41]

woah.. now this is all just flat out wrong. Kidd was absolutely a great offensive basketball player. He's one of the best passers/court vision ever routinely went off in the playoffs for 20 pt 10 ast give or take averages.. knew how to set up his teammates games and make them better..

Comparing him to Dirk? Whose always had more umtempo teams filled with way better offensive talent? How was Dirk going to create for Kittles, or Collins, or Mumtumbo or KM in slow paced defensive battles with teams like the pistons every year? The best offensive player besides Kidd on those teams was RJ and even he doesnt compare to the finleys, nashs, jamisons, and terrys that the mavs had.. some all at the same time.



Go look up Detroit, Indy, NJ and other top teams from the eastern conference in the early to mid 2000s.. everyone shot in the low 40%s.. the defenses were just that good.

Paul Pierce shot 41% from the field in the playoffs from 01 to 05. Allen Iverson shot 40%.. Are they not great offensive players? Because they arent known for their defense..

Uhhh...no...just no.

He was not a great offensive player. He was a great playmaker and floor general.

Huge, and I mean huge, difference.

Unless this is semantical difference...you are just so wrong about Kidd. His teams routinely struggled offensively. Over the course of his career...he only improved his teams offense by 3.7 points per 100 possessions.

Kidd was a really good offensive player overall. He's really no better than Marbury offensively. It would be more situational...need scoring? Go with Marbury. Need team play and playmaking on a better offensively talented team? Go with Kidd...

This shit really has to stop.

You can't barely improve your teams offense throughout your career...have serious limitations in your offensive game...and be known as a "great" offensive player.

Great is reserved for different guys...unless, this is just a semantics thing.

How was Dirk going to do it? By being a far better offensive player overall and it's not close.

I'd ask you then...how did Marbury do it in 00? How did he lead a top 10 offense with a worse team in 00? Why couldn't the offensive guru match Marbury? With more help mind you...LOL

You bring up the playoffs? Kidd led playoff teams...out of 16;

97 - 14th
98 - 12th
99 - 8th
00 - 14th
01 - 15th
02 - 7th
03 - 12th
04 - 11th
05 - 14th
06 - 9th
07 - 12th

Then he comes to Dallas and we get worse offensively with him on the court vs Devin Harris.

Now, it would be one thing if his teams were solid offensively in the regular season against weaker competition and just played a different style in the playoffs, but his teams weren't good offensively in the regular season throughout his career either.

I'm sorry, but if Kidd was half as good offensively as you guys are claiming...the results would be different. You'd see the "guru" transform teams offensively. You'd see scoring efficiency go way up...

[tpols]

Well everything comes down to the difference between "really good" and "great" lol



The evidence you give is contradictory though.. you state Kidd was a great floor general and one of the best passers ever, the two most important offensive duties a point guard has to have, and yet he isnt a great offensive PG or offensive player in general?

[DMAVS41]

Well everything comes down to the difference between "really good" and "great" lol



The evidence you give is contradictory though.. you state Kidd was a great floor general and one of the best passers ever, the two most important offensive duties a point guard has to have, and yet he isnt a great offensive PG or offensive player in general?

Well, yes...one can be a great passer and floor general and not be a great offensive player. Kidd had serious limitations in his game.

Take a look at this man...

I'd ask you then...how did Marbury do it in 00? How did he lead a top 10 offense with a worse team in 00? Why couldn't the offensive guru match Marbury? With more help mind you...LOL

You bring up the playoffs? Kidd led playoff teams on offense...out of 16;

97 - 14th
98 - 12th
99 - 8th
00 - 14th
01 - 15th
02 - 7th
03 - 12th
04 - 11th
05 - 14th
06 - 9th
07 - 12th

Then he comes to Dallas and we get worse offensively with him on the court vs Devin Harris.

Now, it would be one thing if his teams were solid offensively in the regular season against weaker competition and just played a different style in the playoffs, but his teams weren't good offensively in the regular season throughout his career either.

Now, and I have said this repeatedly, he didn't play with a ton of help offensively...especially some years...but come on now.

I'm sorry, but if Kidd was half as good offensively as you guys are claiming...the results would be different. You'd see the "guru" transform teams offensively. You'd see scoring efficiency go way up...

Also, since when is the 02 Nets roster bad offensively? Martin, Kittles, Van Horn, and Jefferson were all solid offensive players in their own right. That just isn't some awful offensive roster or something. Van Horn was a proven 20 ppg guy...and Kittles and martin could get you 13 to 17 a night with or without Kidd. Surrounding those 3 guys with T-Mac, Jefferson, Harris, and Williams is just not a bad offensive team.

Again, Marbury led a worse offensive team in 00 to top 10. Again, it's situational...need more scoring...and Kidd is going to struggle. It's a big reason why his teams struggled so much offensively in the playoffs. Sometimes you need to be able to score and get a big bucket...and Kidd's limitations prevent him from doing that for a team consistently.

[Pointguard]

Please answer these questions;

1. How many wins do you think Kidd's defense/rebounding alone would add to a team by replacing Marbury? Just assume Marbury and Kidd play the exact same offense?

2. How many wins do you think the additions of Kittles, Jefferson, T-Mac, and Collins added to the team on their own?

3. How many wins do you think Kidd's far better clutch play added?

4. How many wins do you think playing the easiest schedule in the league rather than the 18th ranked schedule added?

Please answer this. We have to know where you are coming from.


Bonus questions;

1. Why have Kidd led teams on offense been so mediocre for his career?

2. Why were the Nets a top 10 offense in 00 with Marbury and a worse offensive roster than Kidd had in 02...and they played at a slower pace?

3. Why do you continue to ignore that the Nets added 4 new key rotation players in 02 along with Kidd? Do you just hate Kerry Kittles or something? Why do you ignore that he and marbury had a top 10 offense together in 00?

I have asking you since you came into the thread, to show me the metrics that prove otherwise. That's all that I ask. I asked you to provide a better example because you said it was horrible. Horrible examples are easy to outdo. But you haven't done that either. So you are blowing smoke until you prove otherwise. I'm not doing your work for you.

You say defense and rebounding from the point guard position was the main reason for doubling their wins, or for 26 wins. When SA acquired Rodman, who was a vastly superior rebounder and defensive player than Kidd and did it from a more significant position(s), SA record improved by 6 wins and one less round in the playoffs. This was one of the greatest rebounding years in the modern era. The rebounding difference between Carr and Rodman was almost 12 rebounds per game. Much more than the four between Kidd and Marbury. So I'm not feeling this defense and rebounding thing.

You say the addition of rotational players with not one of them having any impressive feature, any impressive numbers or being really impressive elsewhere in their careers. And that's hard to do when all of them were young. They were fine players and professionals though. Kittles was the best of the bunch, but he averaged 13ppg and little else as a starter. Second best was RJ who was a 9 and 4 guy. TMac was a 9 and 6 guy also a starter for most of the games. All average less with another point guard. This isn't blowing anybody away or turning a team around, unless you can show me where players like this turned a team into conference champions.

All four of the rotational players were not really starters and I would rather have the bench on several other teams:
Not one of them on the level of the current Nets Livingston/Thorton/Blatche/Kirlenko
Not one of them on the level of Darren Collison/Jamal Crawford.
Not one of them on the level of Aski/Beverly

This isn't a team turn around argument either. Much less for a team winning more playoff rounds than any team those two years.

The strength of schedule argument is a joke. It might mean they miss a game against a playoff team that they would beat later on.

[DMAVS41]

I have asking you since you came into the thread, to show me the metrics that prove otherwise. That's all that I ask. I asked you to provide a better example because you said it was horrible. Horrible examples are easy to outdo. But you haven't done that either. So you are blowing smoke until you prove otherwise. I'm not doing your work for you.

You say defense and rebounding from the point guard position was the main reason for doubling their wins, or for 26 wins. When SA acquired Rodman, who was a vastly superior rebounder and defensive player than Kidd and did it from a more significant position(s), SA record improved by 6 wins and one less round in the playoffs. This was one of the greatest rebounding years in the modern era. The rebounding difference between Carr and Rodman was almost 12 rebounds per game. Much more than the four between Kidd and Marbury. So I'm not feeling this defense and rebounding thing.

You say the addition of rotational players with not one of them having any impressive feature, any impressive numbers or being really impressive elsewhere in their careers. And that's hard to do when all of them were young. They were fine players and professionals though. Kittles was the best of the bunch, but he averaged 13ppg and little else as a starter. Second best was RJ who was a 9 and 4 guy. TMac was a 9 and 6 guy also a starter for most of the games. All average less with another point guard. This isn't blowing anybody away or turning a team around, unless you can show me where players like this turned a team into conference champions.

All four of the rotational players were not really starters and I would rather have the bench on several other teams:
Not one of them on the level of the current Nets Livingston/Thorton/Blatche/Kirlenko
Not one of them on the level of Darren Collison/Jamal Crawford.
Not one of them on the level of Aski/Beverly

This isn't a team turn around argument either. Much less for a team winning more playoff rounds than any team those two years.

The strength of schedule argument is a joke. It might mean they miss a game against a playoff team that they would beat later on.

1. It's not my job to come up with another example of when stats lie...I don't think they lie actually...I think ignorant people don't know how look in depth or comprehend them

2. You are changing the argument. It was never about the playoffs...never. It was about why the team was turned around.

3. The rodman example is a terrible one. You still won't concede that Marbury was a terrible defender. Just subtracting him from the team made them a top 13 type defense. Combine that with Kidd (elite) and two centers and you get solid reasons for the jump.

Please understand...they had the best defense in the league...this is not something to gloss over.

4. As you have failed to answer any questions or debate in good faith...I see no reason to continue. We have shredded the OP and shown via stats why the team turned around. If you'd like to pick another example...I'd be glad to talk about that with you, but Im' done on this one. It's apparent to everyone with a brain why the Nets were better. Kidd's defense/rebounding and an improved offense while playing an even easier joke of a schedule in a joke conference.

[Pointguard]

Unless this is semantical difference...you are just so wrong about Kidd. His teams routinely struggled offensively. Over the course of his career...he only improved his teams offense by 3.7 points per 100 possessions.

Kidd was a really good offensive player overall. He's really no better than Marbury offensively. It would be more situational...need scoring? Go with Marbury. Need team play and playmaking on a better offensively talented team? Go with Kidd...

This shit really has to stop.

There is no other player in the game, that you can count on, to win close games without consistent shooters, post players, scorers (not one player getting 15ppg) or rebounders but make winning from execution. You have to be great offensively to make something materialize from nothing. Don't go to your points per possession. This is a concept that consistently proved itself over 200 games.

Its great to make something from nothing. That's what you just don't get.

[DMAVS41]

There is no other player in the game, that you can count on, to win close games without consistent shooters, post players, scorers (not one player getting 15ppg) or rebounders but make winning from execution. You have to be great offensively to make something materialize from nothing. Don't go to your points per possession. This is a concept that consistently proved itself over 200 games.

Its great to make something from nothing. That's what you just don't get.

Marbury in 00 led a worse offensive roster to the 10th best offense in the league.

Why? Because he was close to as impactful overall as Kidd offensively...and the team he was on needed scoring...which he was just way better than Kidd at.

It's all situational between those two guys offensively. The more offensive talent you have...the more you want Kidd. The less help individually you have...the more you'd want a guy like prime Marbury that could score the ball much better.

It's not difficult...

[Pointguard]

1. It's not my job to come up with another example of when stats lie...I don't think they lie actually...I think ignorant people don't know how look in depth or comprehend them.

You really believe stats are complete? That you don't have to see games? Anything that is not complete is partial. Do you know what partial means? Why haven't you shown us in concrete measure then, what you are trying to say.

2. You are changing the argument. It was never about the playoffs...never. It was about why the team was turned around.

So the turnaround of a team can't be seen in the playoffs? You're a briiight one aren't you.

3. The rodman example is a terrible one. You still won't concede that Marbury was a terrible defender. Just subtracting him from the team made them a top 13 type defense.

Please show me the metric of this. Wow, when you get desperate you will make up anything. This is utter nonsense. So now you saying the distance between Carr and Rodman is less than Marbury to Kidd defensively? Rodman was unquestionably one of the best defenders ever. They took Robinson off of Shaq and put Rodman on him that year and Rodman handled Shaq. And its a terrible example to even compare it to Kidds great defensive edge on Marbury.

Please understand...they had the best defense in the league...this is not something to gloss over.

That definitely helps. No question there.

4. As you have failed to answer any questions or debate in good faith...I see no reason to continue.

Ohhh right you presented a counter statement worth something. You haven't even presented anything. Not one thing that proved anything.

We have shredded the OP and shown via stats why the team turned around. If you'd like to pick another example...I'd be glad to talk about that with you, but Im' done on this one. It's apparent to everyone with a brain why the Nets were better. Kidd's defense/rebounding and an improved offense while playing an even easier joke of a schedule in a joke conference.

Anybody can look at this one page and see the meaning of shredded. And see who has the brain. But you came in here like a Bull and are now leaving like a lamb - more like Theon on the Game of Thrones. Its ok by me.