<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Martin Johnson of the New York Sun is a stats maven so you might think he is impressed with the triple double. Not so and in an article that calls the triple double the most overrated stat in basketball, Johnson of course discusses Mr. Triple Double, Jason Kidd. What's so significant about the number 10, he argues, if Kidd is shooting poorly? Not to demean Kidd, he says, just pointing up the need for a better stat to measure any player's all around game.</div> Source What an idiot.
<div class="quote_poster">authentiq Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">....or somethign a stat-padder shoots for (not saying Kidd is one, but y'know what i mean).</div> Bob Sura and Ricky Davis. Can never forget that.
Kidd has earned every triple double he has had. Kidd never cheated. Kidd gets triple doubles simply because he can. Triple doubles don't come easy. If it does, then how come Kidd has more triple doubles than the rest of the NBA? How come there are not more players getting one? If it's something overrated then answer me Mr. Johnson. How come the Bryant's, Duncan's, Wade's doesn't do it more often. Jason Kidd is one of the rare players who looks to contribute in other ways than just scoring. Which can be less said to the players of today who looks to burn the scoring column everytime. Mr. Johnson, if there's anything that's not to be overrated. it's your writing! Your better off writing fiction or for the tabloids.
i agree with the guy... a trip double is overrated... what if someone had 10 - 10 - 10 and the guys team lost... it would be considered a waste... or have 17 - 12 - 10 on 4/17 FG shooting... that isnt impressive
<div class="quote_poster">kobe23 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">i agree with the guy... a trip double is overrated... what if someone had 10 - 10 - 10 and the guys team lost... it would be considered a waste... or have 17 - 12 - 10 on 4/17 FG shooting... that isnt impressive</div> Considered a waste? How about when Kobe scored 58 pts and the Lakers still lost. Wouldn't that be considered a waste too? Where are you pulling these numbers from? It isn't impressive if close to every player can do it. Yet they can't.
<div class="quote_poster">kobe23 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">i agree with the guy... a trip double is overrated... what if someone had 10 - 10 - 10 and the guys team lost... it would be considered a waste... or have 17 - 12 - 10 on 4/17 FG shooting... that isnt impressive</div> What are you talking about? If anything that should tell how tough the game is. Jason had 38/14/14 in a loss to Phx this season. Without him doing all that, we wouldnt have even been close to winning. You're incoherent.
LOL, triple doubles apparently don't win games either. If it was that great, nets wouldnt be doing so poorly when they were touted to win this division jus the beginning of this season. Nash doesn't get triple doubles, but he makes his team win. Winning is more important than trying to make yourself look impressive with that stat
<div class="quote_poster">intrepid1983 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">LOL, triple doubles apparently don't win games either. If it was that great, nets wouldnt be doing so poorly when they were touted to win this division jus the beginning of this season. Nash doesn't get triple doubles, but he makes his team win. Winning is more important than trying to make yourself look impressive with that stat</div> Are you saying Jason Kidd is more concerned about getting triple doubles than winning?
<div class="quote_poster">intrepid1983 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">LOL, triple doubles apparently don't win games either. If it was that great, nets wouldnt be doing so poorly when they were touted to win this division jus the beginning of this season. Nash doesn't get triple doubles, but he makes his team win. Winning is more important than trying to make yourself look impressive with that stat</div> Check the stats first. As I posted before, in Kidd's 81 triple doubles, he has a win-loss record of 61-20. So is that not winning games?
I get the feeling that a lot of you didn't actually read the article before you made a judgment, simply because it sounded like it attacked Kidd. I agree with him, triple doubles get accepted at face value and really don't tell enough about a player. The dude said that it wasn't a shot at Kidd, but simply a call for discretion from fans and the sports media.
I read the article. But honestly when you talk about triple doubles, who do you think of? Yao? Kobe? Lebron? No. Jason Kidd. He even sighted an example of one of Kidd's triple double performances. I agree there have been a few instances where triple doubles have been cheated by players. But those are very few cases. Today's game is completely different from what it was before. Today, players look to score and that's a fact. It's a game of high flyers, stepping back for three's, trigger happy players who wants to get more than Kobe's 81. Why does a triple double performance get much attention? Simply because it is a rarity. Players score 30, 40 + points on a regularity nowadays. Johnson points out Kidd's 4-14 shooting percentage as a flaw on his triple double performance. Answer me this? How many players who shoots 14 shots in a game and still manages to get 10 boards and 10 assists? Johnson looks at Kidd's FG percentage and manages to overshadow the other stats. Consider first the rarity of the stats before calling it overrated. Might as well say that Kobe's 81 point performance is overrated.
<div class="quote_poster">intrepid1983 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">LOL, triple doubles apparently don't win games either. If it was that great, nets wouldnt be doing so poorly when they were touted to win this division jus the beginning of this season. Nash doesn't get triple doubles, but he makes his team win. Winning is more important than trying to make yourself look impressive with that stat</div> When Kidd gets a triple double more than 50 percent of the time, the team he is playing on wins. Triple doubles don't just mean that they are good numbers. Players work really hard for them. Getting 10 rebounds and 10 assists is great, but also scoring 10 points along side it is even better. Most of the time when a player gets a triple double, it means that they have played an overall great game. The fact that you think Kidd is more concerned about his numbers is just plain stupid. Kidd is one of the most unselfish players to ever play the game and by his play on the court he loves to get others involved and tries to win games, but his supporting cast isn't as good as Nash's. Nash has Stoudimire, Marion, Bell, Diaw, and much more. Kidd only has Vince and RJ. Nenad Krstic is out so his assist numbers are getting lower too. The bench is mostly filled with smaller players so Kidd doesn't have anyone to dish to in the middle which also makes the Nets lose. So don't ever mistake Kidd's determination and will for wanting better stats.
<div class="quote_poster">kobe23 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">i agree with the guy... a trip double is overrated... what if someone had 10 - 10 - 10 and the guys team lost... it would be considered a waste... or have 17 - 12 - 10 on 4/17 FG shooting... that isnt impressive</div> If someone gets a triple double and his team losses, it is a waste, but it is still impressive. Why? Because not everyday and not every player can accomplish such a feat. Even with a low shooting percentage, it doesn't make his triple double any less impressive as you say. Why? Despite the fact a player shot a low percentage, he was still able to do other things on the floor. Unlike most players who try to shoot the lights out of the arena. Most players who put up 17 shots alone in a game, usually needs to be on the floor for at least 30 minutes. With a 4/17 shooting night, most players would end up with something like 13-3-2 and calling it a bad night. Ending up with 17 pts off 4/17 shooting while grabbing 12 boards and dishing out 10 dimes in 30-35 minutes is impressive.
<div class="quote_poster">Carter Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> The fact that you think Kidd is more concerned about his numbers is just plain stupid. Kidd is one of the most unselfish players to ever play the game and by his play on the court he loves to get others involved and tries to win games, but his supporting cast isn't as good as Nash's. Nash has Stoudimire, Marion, Bell, Diaw, and much more. Kidd only has Vince and RJ. Nenad Krstic is out so his assist numbers are getting lower too. The bench is mostly filled with smaller players so Kidd doesn't have anyone to dish to in the middle which also makes the Nets lose. So don't ever mistake Kidd's determination and will for wanting better stats.</div> I agree i guess with your first paragraph, but not at all with the second. Boris Diaw was never that good prior to Nash, and no one even looked at Raja prior either. Just because Nash has made his whole team become even more amazing, one would all of a sudden think that all of those players were great before. That is not true, except for Marion and Stoudemire i would suppose. Besides, Nash can take the last shot in the game and win and go all out scoring himself to make his team win. Kidd can't do that anymore like he used to, so he's no longer the same.
