It's just been bothering me for quite some time now how it is been written that Kidd hasn't won against Parker. Misleading. This of course is being based on the games outcome. Given. But if we look at the "Kidd vs. Parker" match-up from an individual standpoint, who's better? Let's start with their stats. This season Parker has a statline of 18.4 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 5.8 APG, 0.8 SPG, 48% FG, 71% FT, 26% 3PFG, 34 MPG and an EFF rate of + 16.91. Kidd on the other hand has averages of 10.8 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 10.1 APG, 1.8 SPG, 38% FG, 81% FT, 38% 3PFG, 36 MPG, and an EFF rate of +20.59. Except for the point production and the FG%, Jason Kidd, hands down has the better statline. This from a 35 year old man who "supposedly" has lost a step. Let's not even put in the 12 triple doubles. In 7 seasons, Parker has averages of 15.9 PPG, 3.1 RPG, 5.5 APG, 0.5 SPG, 49% FG, 71% FT and 31% from beyond the arc in 33 MPG. Jason Kidd in 15 seasons has averages of 14.2 PPG, 6.7 RPG, 9.6 APG, 2.4 SPG, 40% FG, 78% FT and 34% 3PFG in 37 MPG. With 99 triple doubles of course. Again except for the scoring and the shooting %, Jason Kidd, again has bested Parker. Let's strip them of their career numbers shall we. Tony Parker has 3 rings and a Finals MVP. Kidd has 0. Again, misleading. Tony Parker was never the main guy for San Antonio. He never had that responsibilty on his shoulders. Fact remains, Duncan and the Spurs courted Jason Kidd to be their floor general. This, after just winning the NBA championship against Kidd and the Nets. I'll give him his Finals MVP. He played well against Cleveland. But would they have won without him. Of course they could. They have Tim Duncan. Jason Kidd from day 1 was already given the burden of being the main guy. From Dallas to Phoenix to New Jersey. And it has been well documented on how Jason Kidd has turned those teams into legitimate contenders. Throughout his career, he has been the man, as a rookie in Dallas he had Jim Jacskon and Jamal Mashburn to turn to, both still in their early years. In Phoenix, Marion and Stoudamire were still kids trying to find their way in the league. The swamps of New Jersey were no different. He had Kenyon Martin, Vanhorn and Jefferson. All in their 1st and 2nd seasons. But Kidd took them to back to back finals appearances. A first for the Nets. I'm sure a lot of you out there would say that the East was weak. So why didn't Iverson and the Sixers go through? Pierce and the Celtics? What about Detroit? And why the Nets? A team that has been lottery bound year after year ater year. Why them? Simple. It was because of Jason Kidd. Love him or hate him, the guy is a winner and is Hall-of-Fame bound. San Antonio is better than Dallas, maybe. San Antonio is better than New Jersey, sure. Parker better than Kidd? Never.
Parker hasn't and never will be better than Kidd. End of story. I'll elaborate more tomorrow, if I don't forgot.
On my train ride home today I thought about this thread a little bit. I also realized how ridiculous it is to think that Parker is better than Kidd. You can't even classify Parker as a point guard. In reality, he's just a better version of Marbury. Now if you look at both player's numbers; clearly Kidd is the better player. The thing is, it's not all about numbers. Kidd makes an impact by just being in the game, can you say the same about Parker? I doubt it. Up until now, Parker's team had a significant advantage over Kidd's team. If you want to make an argument, then there it is. Parker's team has always been better than Kidd's. Individually speaking, I can't even remember when Parker outplayed Kidd, anyway. I really don't think I need to go any further.
Well said. Its just misleading how a lot of articles match up Parker and Kidd as if their on the same level. What makes it worst is how they say that Kidd has yet to beat Parker. And whats even funny is that Mr. Eva Longoria seems to believe that he is better than Kidd. Parker should thank his lucky stars Kidd didn't come to San Antonio.
