SportsHubLA

With Sunday night’s Lakers/Nets tilt being a local game instead of a national one, we were spared ad-nauseum updates on what “storylines” made this game worth watching (Vince Carter vs. Kobe! BFF’s Richard Jefferson and Luke Walton meet in the NBA… Again! etc.). But the big subplot was actually interesting: Jason Kidd and Andrew Bynum playing against each other for the first time since Kobe’s Summer of Discontent, where he infamously called out Lakers management for not pulling the trigger on a makable Bynum-for-Kidd deal last season.

Bynum has stepped up his game this year, averaging a double-double, while Kidd has finally started to show his age a little bit, averaging only 11.2 points (three short of his career average) on a catastrophic 36.6% from the floor. (Of course, he’s still averaging 10 assists and eight boards a game, so don’t call the old folks home quite yet.) Meanwhile, with the loss the Lakers dropped to 7-6, and don’t look like they’ll be contending for a title this year. So did Lakers GM Mitch Kupchack make the right move by holding off on giving up his phenom for a future Hall of Famer? Let’s break it down:

Big Question #1: Would Jason Kidd be as effective with the Lakers as he has been with the Nets?

On the surface, getting Jason Kidd would have made the Lakers an immediate contender in the west. He’s still one of the five best point guards in the game, and putting him with Kobe would make the best backcourt of all-time, hands down. I’ve been trying to prove myself wrong on this one all day, but I can’t seem to do it. There’s a short list of shooting guards better than Kobe, and another of point guards better than Kidd, and none of them ever had as great sidekick in the backcourt. Jordan never had an All-Star point, and he’s just about the only shooting guard with a more complete resume than Kobe. Joe Dumars was no Kobe Bryant. Jeff Hornacek was no Kobe Bryant. Magic’s star running mates were a forward and a center. GP never had an All-Star shooting guard.

I might be missing someone here, but in my mind, there’s no doubt. (And just think what would have happened if the Lakers had somehow finagled Dwayne Wade away from the heat instead of Caron Butler, which seemed like a possibility at the time, although the Heat knew better than the casual fan just how much potential he had.)

So having the best backcourt of all-time would seem to be a definite plus, right? On the other hand, maybe the reason a point and shooting guard as good as Kidd and Kobe have never been paired is that it wouldn’t work to have two ultra-talented guards sharing one ball. This has been brought up many times before, but would a guy who loves to create off the dribble as much as Kobe does benefit from having a guy like Kidd create for him? If ego doesn’t become a factor, and since Kobe’s the one who wants Kidd, I would say yes.

To play effectively with Kidd, Kobe would probably have to take fewer shots, something he’s shown he’s willing to do if it will get his team wins. Like I said, ego shouldn’t be a problem, especially not with one of the all-time best ego-strokers running things from his giant chair. The best way to quantify how Kidd would change Kobe’s game is to look at what happened to Vince Carter. (Yes, there are two problems with this comparison: First, Kobe is a much better player than Vince and V.C. was openly mailing it in his last two years in Toronto, which are the only pre-Kidd seasons 82games.com has data for, but it’s the best comparison I can find.)

Kidd allowed Carter to get more shots where he wants them- around the basket. In V.C.’s last two years in Toronto, about 80% of his shots were jumpers and the rate at which he drew fouls was around 7%. With New Jersey, about 65% of his shots are jumpers, and his foul rate has jumped to around 12%. Currently, Kobe is forced to take too many shots from outside. He’s much better at getting to the hole and more willing to go towards contact than Carter, but because Bryant doesn’t have anyone setting him up with looks around the basket like Kidd, he generally has to generate his own opportunities around the basket. Obviously, that’s a tougher proposition.

It’s all hypothetical, but I actually believe that Jason Kidd would make Kobe Bryant a more efficient and ultimately better player. Additionally, he’d give the Laker offense more balance by involving the rest of his teammates on a nightly basis like Kobe does on an erratic basis. And Kidd’s smart enough to just hand Kobe the ball and get out of the way when Kobe gets that look in his eye, unlike certain guards we currently have who sometimes think that the fourth quarter is “Sasha Time.” (Although that clutch three Sasha hit Sunday was nice.)

The second main concern with Jason Kidd coming to the Lakers is how he would fit in with Tex Winter’s famous Triangle offense. Kidd’s a guy who likes to push the ball at every possible opportunity and get in the open court, while Phil Jackson’s teams typically like to get in their set and operate from the half-court. Fortunately for Phil, Kobe balances his freak athleticism with enough finesse and meticulousness off the dribble that he’s just as effective in the half-court as he is on the break, much like a certain shooting guard who used to play for Jackson back in the ’90s. Having a fast-breaker like Kidd would threaten to upset Phil’s preferred pace of play. Also, the triangle is generally run by a forward, with the point guard being relegated to playing defense and shooting jumpers, the latter being one thing at which Kidd is only mediocre.

Not to worry. While it’s largely gone unnoticed leaguewide, the Lakers have been playing at a quicker pace this year. They’re fourth in the league in points scored per game, and last I checked my ESPN Insider (which tragically expired last week) they were in the top 10 in the league in “pace” factor. This year, the Lakers’ PG platoon consists of Derek Fisher, a classic triangle point, and Jordan Farmar, a push-the-pace guard; The Lakers are 10.2 points better when Farmar’s on the floor, and 2.6 points worse when Fisher’s on the floor. While +/- numbers should always be taken with a large grain of salt, that’s a very positive sign that an up-tempo point can work on the Lakers.

Worries that a pick-and-roll point like Kidd would have trouble operating in the half-court sets of the triangle (Laker points have never had high assist totals in the Phil era) are more legitimate than sweating over the “pace” question, but I think Kidd would work through it for two reasons: He’s big enough to post up other guards and is a confident playmaker from the high-post, which is integral to the triangle (originally known as the “triple-post” offense). More importantly, Phil is one of the best ever (the superlatives are flying today) at adapting his system to the talent he has on his team, and in turn Kidd is smart enough to adapt his game to the system. I think Jason Kidd would be extremely effective in Phil Jackson’s offense.

Big Question #2: Kidd’s a point guard over 30. Shouldn’t point guards over 30 be avoided at all costs, especially ones making max-money?

Generally, yes. More than any other position, point guards rely on their speed to be effective. That tends to be the first thing NBA players lose as they get older, which is why most point guards not named Iverson fall off the table after 30 (Stephon Marbury, Andre Miller, Steve Francis, Speedy Claxton, et al.). However, ESPN.com’s John Hollinger has pointed out that some point guards do in fact age well, if they rely on size, the ability to pass, and the ability to shoot to be successful. Two of three will do, actually. Steve Nash and Chauncey Billups have remained All Stars into their 30s because they possess all three. Kidd isn’t a great shooter by any stretch of the imagination, but he’s built like a linebacker and is behind only Magic Johnson, John Stockton, Oscar Robertson, and Isiah Thomas in assists per game over his career. Fair to say he can pass it a little.

Additionally, he remained effective despite having seriously limited mobility in the two or so years it took for his knee to become completely healthy after microfracture surgery, so I wouldn’t put Kidd’s age as a major concern. As for the max-money, I’m not a cap guru, but it’s a major detriment assuming the Nets wouldn’t absorb some of L.A.’s dead money.

Big Question #3: Just How Good is Andrew Bynum?

Since I’ve spent 1,500 or so words exalting Jason Kidd, you’re probably expecting me to call Bynum overrated and get on Kupchack for not making the deal.

Sorry. The thing is that Bynum is good. Really, really good. Good enough to justify passing on Kidd? Yes, Bynum is still a little raw. He only makes 30% of his jumpers (and we’re not talking about a guy who graduated from the Mehmet Okur school of centering), and 50% on “close” shots, which is way below the league average. Basically, if he’s not dunking it, he’s probably not going to make the shot. But he likes to dunk. A full 31% of his attempts are dunks, which is as high as anybody in the league. And the rest of his offensive game could well come around:

Look at the jump/close percentages from Bynum’s first years in the league next to another high school center who dunks as much as Bynum over their first three years in the league:

Bynum: .286/.383, .364/.545, .306/.500

Player X: .287/.432, .263/.452, .280/.520

Player X is Dwight Howard, who might be a top five big man at age 22. Howard has the same kind of offensive game as Bynum, built on getting the ball near the basket and overpowering people, and it seems to be working out for him nicely. Howard has become a dominant scorer this year, and he didn’t even have Kareem helping him out. Howard and Bynum dunk on the same percentage of their shots, and while Howard goes to the line more, Bynum’s better touch from the line evens things out. And believe it or not, Bynum is actually cleaning the glass at at a higher pace than Howard, at least over 48 minutes (Bynum 18.9, Howard 18.3). And at 1.5 blocks per game, Bynum’s defense is starting to come around as well.

As for the “little things” Jason Kidd does that “Make his teammates better?” Well, remember how I said that Farmar’s +/- has been great this year? He’s second on the team. Bynum is first. (Both of them are ahead of Kobe- like I said, take these ratings with a grain of salt, especially Koby Karl’s +54.0 rating.) The Lakers are 14.7 points better per 100 possessions offensively when he’s on the floor, and 9.8 points better defensively, for an overall improvement of 24.2 points, better than even Kidd’s high rating of +13.4.

So there are the facts… with a significant amount of bias. Kidd’s a great player, and there’s no reason to think he wouldn’t continue to be a great player with the Lakers. But where Kidd is old, small, and expensive, Bynum is young, cheap, and big. Really big. And still growing (in weight and strength, if not height). Am I saying Bynum is better than Kidd right now? No. Watching the game Sunday night, there was really no doubt who made the larger impact. Even though Kidd was having an off-night in terms of shooting and turnovers, he still made New Jersey’s offense go, while Bynum only impacted the game in spurts.

But could I pull the trigger on giving away a player who is so young, so talented, so good right now and could get so much better? No. Mitch did the right thing. I think Laker fans will be glad he did. Kobe, too.

John Krolik is the author/host of Truth in a Bullet Fedora. His work can also be found on Free Darko, and the Most Valuable Network.

Discuss: