<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BasX @ Jan 10 2008, 01:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Guards shooting 50% Deron Williams Jose Calderon Mike Miller John Salmons Steve Nash Jason Kapono Anthony Carter Brent Barry CJ Miles Tony Parker You make a good point but a lot of times the ball can come to the PG near the end of a shot clock and hitting that shot at the back end off a 24 second clock can be huge for a team. Then again Kidd's never had a true shot, a 40% lifetime shooter. Granted he does not get enough respect for his rebounding ability. The true thing is he has the 3rd most triple doubles in NBA history, those stats should/will speaks for themselves.</div> Sharif Abdur-Rahim fills the stat sheet nicely. He must be a great PF.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shookem @ Jan 11 2008, 09:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Kidd certainly has made an art of getting a nice triple-double when his team loses.</div> His team has won 70 of the 97 games he's had one in.
It's a 3 way tie right now for third. Kidd and Paul are playing out of their minds and Nash is always right there at the top. They're very different types of PGs but all great. After that I'd say it's Baron. Maybe its just my bias but I think its crazy to think he isn't an obvious choice for #4 in the league. He's averaging 22 ppg/5 rpg/8 apg/2.3 spg/0.5 bpg/2.86 TOpg. That is what you call filling up the stat sheet from the PG position. Talking about guys who are clutch, hes THE MOST clutch of all the PGs IMO. Chauncey is right there with him but he can't take over a game like Baron can and when Baron is in his zone he's out of Chauncey's league. Not to mention hes far and away the best defender out of all of these PGs except Kidd. Chauncey would probably be a close #5 and then Deron at 6.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shookem @ Jan 11 2008, 10:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So 27 of those triple doubles are meaningless.</div> Way to turn it around.
Yeah the only way someone would find 27 as a more significant number than 70 is when they're desperately trying to hold their argument together. Nash and Kidd are above anyone else, and in that sense are the best in the league. However if I'm taking my pick from a GM's perspective I'm taking Chris Paul. He's got a future ahead of him, but is already playing at a level close to the statesmen.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shookem @ Jan 11 2008, 10:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So 27 of those triple doubles are meaningless.</div> Exactly! <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Celtic Fan @ Jan 11 2008, 09:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ed the Decider @ Jan 11 2008, 05:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I would take Parker over everyone listed. Nash/Kidd are fine, but I know Parker will show up Game 7 of the NBA finals...</div> because Tim Duncan carried him there. </div> Yeah, I'd love to see Parker carry that team without Tim Duncan.
I'm not impressed by the stats of losers. Kidd's one of the greatest guards of all time, no doubt, I love watching him play. But if 30 per cent of your biggest games come when your team loses, what's the point.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shookem @ Jan 11 2008, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not impressed by the stats of losers. Kidd's one of the greatest guards of all time, no doubt, I love watching him play. But if 30 per cent of your biggest games come when your team loses, what's the point.</div> So when MJ averaged 37.1 PPG and his team lost over 50% of their games, there was no point in him scoring that much?
I think it's time to move on and put Kidd and Nash being the lock best PG's in the past. They're both still top 3 but I think Chris Paul has taken the #1 spot.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shookem @ Jan 11 2008, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not impressed by the stats of losers. Kidd's one of the greatest guards of all time, no doubt, I love watching him play. But if 30 per cent of your biggest games come when your team loses, what's the point.</div> I've seen two of the most idiotic posts I've ever read this week. And this one is number 2. Imagine how stupid the other one was.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shookem @ Jan 11 2008, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not impressed by the stats of losers.</div> Finally i've found the necessary logic to explain why Toronto didn't win the Atlantic division last year. Go figure it'd come from a Raptors fan!?
Its a damn impressive stat (his triple double total), but I find it annoying how that's the first thing brought up when people discuss Kidd. His yearly triple double total has replaced his regular statline in most conversations I have, which kind of masks how he's starting to age a bit (you miss out on the FG%, turnovers).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Celtic Fan @ Jan 11 2008, 09:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ed the Decider @ Jan 11 2008, 05:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I would take Parker over everyone listed. Nash/Kidd are fine, but I know Parker will show up Game 7 of the NBA finals...</div> because Tim Duncan carried him there. </div> Kidd has Carter and Jefferson, Nash has Amare....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ed the Decider @ Jan 12 2008, 04:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Celtic Fan @ Jan 11 2008, 09:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ed the Decider @ Jan 11 2008, 05:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I would take Parker over everyone listed. Nash/Kidd are fine, but I know Parker will show up Game 7 of the NBA finals...</div> because Tim Duncan carried him there. </div> Kidd has Carter and Jefferson, Nash has Amare.... </div> Kidd leads his team. Nash leads his team. Parker...no. Duncan most definitely leads that team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (peg182 @ Jan 12 2008, 05:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Kidd leads his team. Nash leads his team. Parker...no. Duncan most definitely leads that team.</div> Well then, they need to lead there teams better in the playoffs then
Alright, lets remove Parker from the Spurs, and add Kidd. But since Kidd is no Parker, the Spurs obviously don't even make it to the playoffs.
I would say Chauncey because of his veteran status on the court, he can control the game very well and has a very high basketball IQ. Not to mention his clutchness, and being if not the strongest point gaurd in the league.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jan 11 2008, 05:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Its a damn impressive stat (his triple double total), but I find it annoying how that's the first thing brought up when people discuss Kidd. His yearly triple double total has replaced his regular statline in most conversations I have, which kind of masks how he's starting to age a bit (you miss out on the FG%, turnovers).</div> Exactly how I feel, Kidd is a hell of a player, to avg a triple double at his age. But people seem to forget about everything else.
