Jason Kidd, Jim Jackson, and Jamal Mashburn video.

[ALlArOuNDPIaya]

[COLOR="White"]text[/COLOR]

:

[Hstone]

Whos toni braxton?

[Durant35]

Whos toni braxton?

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Have to consider a couple things....


They peaked at 36 games but before Kidd got there they won 11 and 13 games. They went into the last 2 weeks of both seasons trying to avoid having the worst record in NBA history(9 wins by a philly team in the 70s). They were perhaps the worst non expansion teams of the last 30 years. So to go from 11 to 36 wins was impressive. It was one of the biggest turnarounds in history.

And they would have been better had Jackson not missed the last 2 months. he was killing it that year. Came right out the gate and dropped 30ppg the first month. Had a few 40 point games and a 50.

They might have gone from 11 and 13 wins to the playoffs in one season had he stayed healthy. Thats impressive to me.

Then Mashburn missed 5 months of the next season and it was all broken up.

They didnt have much time to peak. At the time they were expected to be together until like....now.

ok, but what kind of potential did you see in that team, really, with the JJJ as the big3? They've been all some pretty inefficient scorers all over their careers, and usually putting those type of players together doesn't lead to much success.
At best they could have become as good as the current Nets or Kidd's Suns (at best, imo), so perennial first round exits in the west.
Not really much of a best case scenario.

I don't mean to be an a$$, it's just that my perspective is that "big" numbers (that often aren't that big once you factor scoring efficiency) mean very little without team success.

[Kblaze8855]

Mashburn shot 44% and Jackson shot 47% in the only season both were able to play with Kidd. Fine by me for the kind of players they were. Besides what did their shooting percentage really stop them from doing? Didnt Keep Kidd from having a HOF career and making the finals twice. Mashburn had a fine career and good playoff success. Jackson bounced around but his shooting wasnt why. He fell off when he left Kidd and got a lot of injuries over the years.

And I just dont get what you could expect from a first year group on a team that won 11 and 13 games the previous two years. They supposed to be the only team to ever go from sub 15 wins to the playoffs in one season or it wasnt success? I doubt they played a total of 80 games together in 2 years. Mash missed almost all of one season and Jackson 30 games of the first.

How on earth can you expect a lot of success in a 2 year period where they were rebuilding from a terrible stretch and were not even healthy to do it?

Id say the rapid improving shows more of their potential than the final record.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Mashburn shot 44% and Jackson shot 47% in the only season both were able to play with Kidd. Fine by me for the kind of players they were. Besides what did their shooting percentage really stop them from doing? Didnt Keep Kidd from having a HOF career and making the finals twice. Mashburn had a fine career and good playoff success. Jackson bounced around but his shooting wasnt why. He fell off when he left Kidd and got a lot of injuries over the years.

And I just dont get what you could expect from a first year group on a team that won 11 and 13 games the previous two years. They supposed to be the only team to ever go from sub 15 wins to the playoffs in one season or it wasnt success? I doubt they played a total of 80 games together in 2 years. Mash missed almost all of one season and Jackson 30 games of the first.

How on earth can you expect a lot of success in a 2 year period where they were rebuilding from a terrible stretch and were not even healthy to do it?

Id say the rapid improving shows more of their potential than the final record.

1) I'm more concerned by ts% than fg%, and both Mashburn and Jackson have never been efficient from that pow. Never seen a good offensive team with two leading scoreres like them.
2) Kidd had a HOF career, but he has NEVER been part of a great offence and his teams always struggled in halfcourt sets (only exception when he was playing with Nash and KJ).
3) the team that won 13 games, had both Mashburn and Jackson. I know Kidd is good, I'm not that sure the other two were special enough
4) you didn't answer me how good that team was supposed to be
5) it's not like Mash and JJ are unknown entities, we've seen plenty of games from them...

[Kblaze8855]

1) I'm more concerned by ts% than fg%, and both Mashburn and Jackson have never been efficient from that pow. Never seen a good offensive team with two leading scoreres like them.

I couldnt possibly care less about TS percentages. Nobody even seemed to be aware of it till like 2005. One of those things like PER that overnight people started judging people by when they had gone 20-30 years not caring about it.

2) Kidd had a HOF career, but he has NEVER been part of a great offence and his teams always struggled in halfcourt sets (only exception when he was playing with Nash and KJ).

"Great" offenses or not all his teams that have been good to great were that way due to the offense more than defenses. Really matter if you consider an offense great when that offense is the reason for back to back finals?

3) the team that won 13 games, had both Mashburn and Jackson. I know Kidd is good, I'm not that sure the other two were special enough

Special enough for what exactly? I saw in the other topic you didnt think it was right for someone to say the Hornets were "awesome" because they only won 50 games once. So its hard to see what you choose to consider special.

4) you didn't answer me how good that team was supposed to be

Depends on a lot of factors. Plenty of people then(former coaches and such who were announcers) seemed to thin kthey could become a great team. At the time it was them, the Sonics, and Lakers who many had as the best teams of the future. The other were closer to that status but like I said...the Mavs thing didnt last long due to injury and other issues.

5) it's not like Mash and JJ are unknown entities, we've seen plenty of games from them...

Not sure what im being told there.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I couldnt possibly care less about TS percentages. Nobody even seemed to be aware of it till like 2005. One of those things like PER that overnight people started judging people by when they had gone 20-30 years not caring about it.

ts% is a very easy formula, if you read Italian I can give you a link to google groups when I was discussing something similar to that like 6 years ago (when I started playing with the numbers). I'm sure variations of that have been known to real bball statisticians for decades, just there was no internet to make them popular to casual people.
Btw, even if it was something new? It's not like we ignore relativity or quantum mechanics because mankind survived without them for thousends of years.
The problem is when people argue using stats they don't understand, as it happens with PER, but ts% is a very objective way to measure scoring efficiency, while being easy to understand.

"Great" offenses or not all his teams that have been good to great were that way due to the offense more than defenses. Really matter if you consider an offense great when that offense is the reason for back to back finals?

well, you're wrong. Since he left Dallas, the lockout season is the only time a Kidd's team had a better offence than defence. When the Nets went to the Finals they were a top3 defensive team in the league.
I can give you the numbers if you wish.

Special enough for what exactly? I saw in the other topic you didnt think it was right for someone to say the Hornets were "awesome" because they only won 50 games once. So its hard to see what you choose to consider special.

Awesome is a title contender or something close to that, in my book (at least). 50w is good but there are like 7-8 teams every year reaching that mark.
Maybe it's because I don't like superlatives, I just find that some words must be saved for the very best.
If the Hornets were awesome, what were the Bulls?

Depends on a lot of factors. Plenty of people then(former coaches and such who were announcers) seemed to thin kthey could become a great team. At the time it was them, the Sonics, and Lakers who many had as the best teams of the future. The other were closer to that status but like I said...the Mavs thing didnt last long due to injury and other issues.

great is contender or 50w and moderate playoff success?

Not sure what im being told there.

that there's not much room for what ifs, we know know what JM and JJ achieved so we can also use hindsight. There's no Len Bias effect there.

[Kblaze8855]

ts% is a very easy formula, if you read Italian I can give you a link to google groups when I was discussing something similar to that like 6 years ago (when I started playing with the numbers). I'm sure variations of that have been known to real bball statisticians for decades, just there was no internet to make them popular to casual people.

Btw, even if it was something new? It's not like we ignore relativity or quantum mechanics because mankind survived without them for thousends of years.

The problem is when people argue using stats they don't understand, as it happens with PER, but ts% is a very objective way to measure scoring efficiency, while being easy to understand.

It isnt a lack of understanding that makes me not care for it. Its just that it provides nothing I cant tell without it. I know Jamal Mashburn took some questionable shots and later in hsi career became a fadeaway addict. I know Kidd is streaky. I dont need a formula to understand their issues. It doesnt tell me one bit more info than shooting percentage which I also wouldnt need to tell how good they were at getting the ball i nthe basket.

Besides shooting percentages have always been the most overrated stats to me. Unless its free throw percentage none of them really tell you whats going on. FTs are easy. Either make it or you dont. From the field? Always more complicated than how good you are at it. coaching, teammates, and so on factor in too heavily.

well, you're wrong. Since he left Dallas, the lockout season is the only time a Kidd's team had a better offence than defence. When the Nets went to the Finals they were a top3 defensive team in the league.
I can give you the numbers if you wish.

Dont need to see the numbers. A teams defense or offense being higher 1-30 in the league doesnt mean that is the side that wins them games. For example...the 86 Celtics who won 67 games and went like 50-1 at home counting the playoffs. They gave up 104.7. ppg 3rd best in the NBA. They scored 114.1 which was 8th. They were still an offensive team. Their 3 best players were better on offense than defense. Bird and Mchales offense was the driving force of that team. The Celtics offense was among the best in the history of basketball. They had a good defense...but not as good as the offense. The numbers just dont tell the story.

The Nets were killing teams in the open court more than by shutting them down. Jason Kidd as good as he is on D is a better offensive player...and his offensive impact had more to do with the Nets turnaround than any defensive changes.

Awesome is a title contender or something close to that, in my book (at least). 50w is good but there are like 7-8 teams every year reaching that mark.

Maybe it's because I don't like superlatives, I just find that some words must be saved for the very best.

If the Hornets were awesome, what were the Bulls?

Well if its just an issue of your like or dislike of some words I dont suppose there is any reason to argue.

great is contender or 50w and moderate playoff success?

Sounds about right. From there you never know what you can become.

that there's not much room for what ifs, we know know what JM and JJ achieved so we can also use hindsight. There's no Len Bias effect there.

We know what they did outside the situation the hypothetical is set in. Fact that bot hwere better with the Mavericks than they were after leaving. Thats why the question is what could they have become had they stayed together. We know they didnt do so well broken up. Thats why the "what if" is asked in the first place.

[Kblaze8855]

*well aware that nobody cares right now*

These 3 about to play on ESPN classic. a 1994 game Celtics vs Dallas.

http://databasebasketball.com/teams/...9941215&tm=dal

That game there. Nique had 33. Kidd, Mashburn, and Jackson and even Popeye balling.

Jackson had 40.

Offseason now...not like a better game is coming on.

[305Baller]

Original vid is deleted. A shame, I wanted to see it.

Mashburn getting injured kind of sealed the fate of this team, he was never the same again.

[SilkkTheShocker]

What was with Jackson getting traded like 30 times? The guy must have been a real pain in the ass in the locker room. I know Kidd said he was selfish at one point

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Jackson getting injured is what sealed the deal for the 3. When he broke hs ankle he was never the same. He had no explosion at all.

Another major change for the team was Dick Motta. Motta loved the post small forward offense. Mashburn was used in the same vein as Aguirre was back in the 80s under Motta. When Motta left, Jim Cleamons started playing Chris Gatling huge minutes. And Mashburn was an afterthought in the offense. And Nelson traded him.

There was not a single player left over from the Three Js era (94-96) during the 97-98 season. Nelson completely overhauled that team.

[9512]

Remember when the Mavs were the worst team in 93-94? (11-71)

They didn't improve til Kidd was drafted. They didn't that far but still.

It was full circle when they won it all in 2011 (Kidd won it with them)

[Patrick Chewing]

Jamal Mashburn would've been Top 25 I do believe had his career not been cut short

Loved his game