Vince Carter for MVP?

by **hipn** on Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:31 pm

Pretty sure he was serious. Carter is good, but he can't do it himself.

I think... BILLUPS FOR MVP!!!!!!!! even though Im not a Pistons fan.

by **Matthew** on Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:38 pm

You say that Vince cant do it himself, then say Billups for MVP? Look at who's on the Piston roster :crazy:

.

And Vince is doing it by himself. Kidd helps him out becuase he distributes the ball, but Carter is the one who carries them offensively.

by **AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy** on Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:50 pm

Kidd helps him out becuase he distributes the ball, but Carter is the one who carries them offensively.

I hardly call 16/10/7 in the last 11 games 'carrying the ball'... :lol:

by **Matthew** on Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:36 pm

I didnt say that either. I said he distributes the ball. Compare the two this season:
Kidd: 14/7/8
Carter: 25/ 6/ 4

Now you tell me who's carrying the Nets offensively.

by **Matt** on Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:39 pm

that's a no brainer, the offense runs through Carter.

by **AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy** on Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:29 pm

Now you tell me who's carrying the Nets offensively.

Ehmmm... Kidd? :mrgreen:

Just wait till Kidd gets injured and we'll see who'll be carrying the Nets into oblivion. Toronto, anyone?

by **H Rock** on Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:37 pm

I think they sort of share the ball together and run the offense the same way.

by **Matthew** on Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:40 pm

I could point out all the legitimate reasons in the world as to why Vince is carrying the Nets and you'd still think it's Jason Kidd. What is your obsession with people from Oakland anyway? Its gone beyond Homer status.

by **AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy** on Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:43 pm

Matthew wrote:I could point out all the legitimate reasons in the world as to why Vince is carrying the Nets and you'd still think it's Jason Kidd. What is your obsession with people from Oakland anyway? Its gone beyond Homer status.

Haha, thans for reminding me. Now I definitely won't budge from my standpoint.

Oh, and when I say 'carry a team offensively', I think of the player who brings victories with his all around offensive play, not with his stats. Just a pointer there.

by **Matthew** on Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:48 pm

Of course it's not all about stats. Kidd does make others better, but he hasnt had that big of an impact on Vince. If you remember last season, Kidd was playing on one leg. It was Carter who carried them to the playoffs. Also when he was in toronto, he posted massive numbers where his next best player was antonio davis.

Vince is best with the ball in his hands to create for himself. Kidd is best at creating shots for players who cant create for each other (ie catch and shoot situations).

Also, how can people say his teams record is a detriment? They are second in the East with that shell of a frontcourt. I'd say he's a top 3 candidate for MVP right now

by **AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy** on Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:56 pm

Of course it's not all about stats. Kidd does make others better, but he hasnt had that big of an impact on Vince.

I doubt that. My personal conviction is that he does get VC many open looks to shoot from the outside. Looks that he would otherwise have to create for himself. That's at least 3-5 ppg more for him.

Vince is best with the ball in his hands to create for himself. Kidd is best at creating shots for players who cant create for each other (ie catch and shoot situations).

True. But see above.

by **Matthew** on Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:06 pm

I hate to continuely go back to stats, but..

2000/01 Vince:
27.6 ppg, 47 fg%, 41% 3pt

2005/06 Vince (with Kidd):
25.5 ppg, 46% fg, 38% 3pt

2000/2001 Vince created for himself becuase he had no one else to create for him and he posted better shooting percentages than he does now with alongside Kidd. As you can see, Kidd isnt making a huge impact on Vince's individual game.

by **AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy** on Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:29 pm

I agree. But as I said before, my own definition of a player 'carrying the offense', is of a guy who has the most offensive impact in his team's victories. And that's still Kidd, for New Jersey.

by **Fenix** on Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:45 pm

I don't agree with you. Kidd's role on offensive end is seriously reduced. I was watching a game agains Toronto other night (probably a bad example, because they were playing without Jefferson) and Carter was obviously the guy with the ball constantly in his hands.

by **air gordon** on Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:58 am

D-Weaver wrote:I agree. But as I said before, my own definition of a player 'carrying the offense', is of a guy who has the most offensive impact in his team's victories. And that's still Kidd, for New Jersey.

how are you measuring offensive impact?

by **AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy** on Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:06 am

W's throughout an extended period of time, combined with at least above average offensive stats.

by **Matthew** on Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:18 am

Hahah what does longevity has to do with thier success this season? Career wise Jason Kidd has had the better numbers and signficantly higher in terms of his career, but thats so far off what the topic is its not even funny.

Vince Carter, this season, has had a much bigger impact for the nets than Jason Kidd on the offensive end of the floor.

Out of curiosity, how many Nets games have you watched this season?

by **air gordon** on Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:20 am

interesting. Carter and Kidd are on the same team and both have impressive stats. How do you conclude that one decisively has more impact/doing more carrying then the other?

by **AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy** on Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:33 am

Hahah what does longevity has to do with thier success this season?

Extended period of time does not equal longevity. For me, it's 15 games or thereabouts. :wink:

Out of curiosity, how many Nets games have you watched this season?

5. 3 of which during the 10 game winning streak.

nteresting. Carter and Kidd are on the same team and both have impressive stats. How do you conclude that one decisively has more impact/doing more carrying then the other?

And that's the whole point. Ia sk myself: "which of the two would not be able to be at exactly the same level he is now, if the other one was not on the team,during this stretch?" And the voice of reason said: "Carter". :wink:

by **cklitsie** on Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:34 am

Isn't the MVP award just for the most valuable player of this season? Not for a player who has been on a winning team with above average offensive stats for an extended period of time? :roll:

by **Matthew** on Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:35 am

How could you come to that conculsion after I showed you the stats of Vince playing with Kidd and then playing alongside him? Some voice of reason...

by **AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy** on Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:35 am

cklitsie wrote:Isn't the MVP award just for the most valuable player of this season? Not for a player who has been on a winning team with above average offensive stats for an extended period of time?

Extended period of time does not equal longevity. For me, it's 15 games or thereabouts.

by **air gordon** on Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:43 am

Dweaver- you're bouncing around with your reasoning. first it's stats and win totals. Then Matthew showed you the stats

now it's which player could stay at en elite level if the other one was out?

by **Matthew** on Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:46 am

Extended period of time does not equal longevity. For me, it's 15 games or thereabouts.

What are you talking about? Vince has played in 88 games for the nets! :lol:

by **dada** on Fri Jan 13, 2006 8:04 am

Career ppg with kid= 26.9 (45.9%)
Career ppg without kid= 23.4 (44.5%)

Just felt like adding because its related.

Vince Carter for MVP?

Who is online