Kidd vs. Stockton…at age 34

[NJNetz]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Charley Rosen tried to pick an all-World team this week and then added to the challenge by comparing the Dream Team of 1992 with Team USA of 2007. Kidd, he wrote, would make the all-World team, but he would have to pick John Stockton over Jason Kidd &ldquo;by the smallest of margins&rdquo;. Trying to compare players from different eras is never easy. But taking a look at the two players at age 34, Kidd&rsquo;s current age, is an interesting exercise.</div></p>

Source</p>

 

[Legacy]

I'm not gonna lie, I have seen Stockton play only a few times and they were all NBA's greatest games. He was one hell of a player. He plays like a smaller Kidd. But he is more of a pick and roll guy then fast break. It would be tough to choose between them.

 

[Big Frame]

It really depends on the team...But that 92 team only had one flaw, and his name is Lattner.</p>

 

[CelticKing]

I still pick Kidd over Stockton. Not sure why but thats how I see it.

 

[Real]

I think Stockton is very underrated by many in the sports world. I know that's a hard thing to say considering he's the all time NBA leader in assists AND steals, but obviosly alot of people think that he earned all of his accolades because of Karl Malone and the pick and roll, adding to the fact he never won a title.</p>

People forget how great he really was. He's the Dan Marino of the NBA.</p>

 

[fruitcake]

stockton is a better shooter, no doubt.

 

[Ma3oxuct]

Stockton was as point guard as it gets. Kidd can rebound. I think that is biggest difference. Stockton would have no trouble getting TD if he were taller and stronger. Kidd definitely has the athletic advantage here.

</p>

Kidd is more accomplished than Stockton. Stockton had Malone for his entire career. Kidd on the hand has been making something from just about anyone. It is absolutely remarkable how he was able to turn the Nets around.

</p>

In terms of court smartness, I think they are even. Both know what to push and when not to. Both know how to get the offense rolling on on cylinders.

</p>

Defensively, I think Stockton is better, despite the fact he did not win as many defensive player of year awards. The steals speak for themselves; he was't the type of player who would let people blow by him either.

 

[xcalibur]

im biased towards kidd of course, but i would take stockton if i had a malone. kidd never had a malone and stockton wasnt in kidds position. stockton is great, but what kidd has done with the talent he has had over his career has been great. the bottom line is that i cannot recall how many games i have seen our captain will our team to victory. you hear coach and capper/cc mention it all the time about kidd's will; it is true. even if there was a malone on my team you know kidd would be excellent with him and that malone player would make jason better as well. its just a tough comparison because they both are excellent HOF pg's who can do so many things for their team.</p>

whenever kidd comes up in a comparison the one negative everyone will always point out is his shooting. if you watch kidd/nets once in a while and you see a poor shooting performance then you can easily come to the conclusion that he cant shoot for crap and stockton is easily the better pg. hell if kidd had more of a consistant shot, people in the league would recognize him as the best pg in the league over nash. that might change this year because everyone on teamUSA fell in love with jason, rightfully so. </p>

 

[CelticKing]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real)</div><div class='quotemain'>

I think Stockton is very underrated by many in the sports world. I know that's a hard thing to say considering he's the all time NBA leader in assists AND steals, but obviosly alot of people think that he earned all of his accolades because of Karl Malone and the pick and roll, adding to the fact he never won a title.</p>

People forget how great he really was. He's the Dan Marino of the NBA.</p></div>

Kidd is the Brett Favre of the NBA.

</p>

 

[Dark Defender]

Lets not forget Stockton had one of the best big man in history playing by his side. Kidd has never had that luxury.</p>

 

[starman85]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GM3)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Lets not forget Stockton had one of the best big man in history playing by his side. Kidd has never had that luxury.</p></div>

I don't think that that had as big an impact as people like to think. Sure it helped, and I'm sure if you factored in how many of Stock's ungodly amount of assists went to the Mailman, it would be a lot. But I feel that if Malone wasn't on his team, many of those assists would have been to other guys, from Thurl Bailey and Darrell Griffith to Jeff Hornacek and Matt Harpring.</p>

Think about this: Stock had huge assist numbers per minute before Malone was on the team and before Malone was a huge scoring threat. He even led the team in assists his third season while backing up Rickey Greene. In fact, none of the other top assist men in history ever played backup point guard in their primes, a situation Stock was stuck with for three seasons(his first season as a starter he won the first of 9 straight assist titles, easily outpacing guys like Magic and Isiah). </p>

Yes, Kidd is a better rebounder. I'd even venture to say that he's a better defender(even though Stock was way better at procuring steals) due to his superior size and strength, which allows him to guard 2's as well as 1's. But Stockton wasn't a liability on defense. And his court sense is unsurpassed. Even at 34, he was averaging well into double digit assists. No one who remembers his clutch shooting in the playoffs(remember Houston?) will question his scoring ability. I'm not faulting Kidd for his lack of shooting ability, though. Just as Stock was a better shooter, Kidd was more athletic and could get to the rim better, enabling more drives and dishes than Stock could manage. </p>

But if you had to put the same four guys around Stock and Kidd, and took either at age 34, I think you'd have to go with Stock. If it was a bad team, I think you'd see more of what Nash has exhibited the past couple years, of high scoring balanced with steady playmaking. And if it was a good team, would you rather have four guys who can score and one who only sets them up, a la Kidd? Or would you rather have someone who can hit his shot when forced to, so defenders can't drop back in coverage and prevent the drive?</p>

 

[Kidd Karma]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ed the Decider)</div><div class='quotemain'>

It really depends on the team...But that 92 team only had one flaw, and his name is Lattner.</p>

</div></p>

</p>

They wanted a college guy for some moronic reason. I would have gone with O'neal. </p>

</p>

 

[Kidd Karma]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (starman85)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GM3)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Lets not forget Stockton had one of the best big man in history playing by his side. Kidd has never had that luxury.</p></div>

I don't think that that had as big an impact as people like to think. Sure it helped, and I'm sure if you factored in how many of Stock's ungodly amount of assists went to the Mailman, it would be a lot. But I feel that if Malone wasn't on his team, many of those assists would have been to other guys, from Thurl Bailey and Darrell Griffith to Jeff Hornacek and Matt Harpring.</p>

Think about this: Stock had huge assist numbers per minute before Malone was on the team and before Malone was a huge scoring threat. He even led the team in assists his third season while backing up Rickey Greene. In fact, none of the other top assist men in history ever played backup point guard in their primes, a situation Stock was stuck with for three seasons(his first season as a starter he won the first of 9 straight assist titles, easily outpacing guys like Magic and Isiah). </p>

Yes, Kidd is a better rebounder. I'd even venture to say that he's a better defender(even though Stock was way better at procuring steals) due to his superior size and strength, which allows him to guard 2's as well as 1's. But Stockton wasn't a liability on defense. And his court sense is unsurpassed. Even at 34, he was averaging well into double digit assists. No one who remembers his clutch shooting in the playoffs(remember Houston?) will question his scoring ability. I'm not faulting Kidd for his lack of shooting ability, though. Just as Stock was a better shooter, Kidd was more athletic and could get to the rim better, enabling more drives and dishes than Stock could manage. </p>

But if you had to put the same four guys around Stock and Kidd, and took either at age 34, I think you'd have to go with Stock. If it was a bad team, I think you'd see more of what Nash has exhibited the past couple years, of high scoring balanced with steady playmaking. And if it was a good team, would you rather have four guys who can score and one who only sets them up, a la Kidd? Or would you rather have someone who can hit his shot when forced to, so defenders can't drop back in coverage and prevent the drive?</p>

</div></p>

</p>

That jumpshot is the difference maker with me too. If Kidd had that jumper, greatest all time no question. Stock ran up 5.1 assists in 18.2 minutes his rookie season, incredible. </p>

</p>

 

[pegs]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kidd Karma)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ed the Decider)</div><div class='quotemain'>

It really depends on the team...But that 92 team only had one flaw, and his name is Lattner.</p>

</div></p>

</p>

They wanted a college guy for some moronic reason. I would have gone with O'neal. </p>

</p> </div>

</p> Same here. Then, there would be no doubt as to that team being flawless.