Pre-injuries Grant Hill vs. Scottie Pippen

[jrong]

(This is an appropriate comparison thread for Scottie Pippen)

Pippen was better defensively, and Hill was better offensively, but to me this is a matchup that tennis announcer Cliff Drysdale would call "dead solid even" (Why the Cliff Drysdale reference? Because it's US Open time, and I felt like it....)

Some might disagree, but I don't think even a prime Hill was cut out to be a #1 option on a championship-level team. However, with the right pairing, he could have given Scottie a run for his money as the best #2 ever (throwing whichever one turns out to play the sidekick role between Wade/Bron into that discussion is not fair)....

[ShaqAttack3234]

Pippen was a lot better defensively and they were basically equal in the other aspects of the game. Hill was a better ball handler and had a better pull up jumper, but Pippen had a longer wingspan, was atleast as good of a passer, had a better post game and more range on his jumper. Both were deadly in the open court, point forwards and excellent rebounders for their position, but Pippen's defense set him apart.

[jrong]

Pippen was a lot better defensively and they were basically equal in the other aspects of the game. Hill was a better ball handler and had a better pull up jumper, but Pippen had a longer wingspan, was atleast as good of a passer, had a better post game and more range on his jumper. Both were deadly in the open court, point forwards and excellent rebounders for their position, but Pippen's defense set him apart.

I think you are undercrediting Grant Hill. I'm inclined to give the edge to Pippen too, but I think I'm probably being swayed by the rings, and I would bet that you are also.

The one full season Pippen played without Jordan, he basically put up prime Hill numbers. Interestingly though, Scottie's numbers as "the man" are not substantially different than his numbers during his best seasons playing alongside Jordan.

And in both cases, those are those are the numbers of a #2 option, as were those of Grant Hill. But, like I said, if Hill had stayed healthy and had found the right alpha-dog, I think he could have definitely made a run at the title of best second option ever....

[SinJackal]

Have to agree with Shaq. Pippen's defense was very elite. It definitely set him apart from Hill. He was also a bigger 3pt threat. Hill was very good though, and I can see the comparison to Pippen.

Pippen was a great #2, but he also proved to be a good #1 as well when Jordan retired. He led the Bulls to over 50 wins the following year. Both are pretty underappreciated.

[DatWasNashty]

I'd take Scottie for his defensive prowess. Scottie has a vast edge there which makes him a superior overall player. Grant's stats were a bit inflated in the system Doug Collins ran. He ran the penetrate and pinch offense that allowed Hill to handle the ball and kick out to shooters. He was also surrounded by deadly shooters like Dumars, Houston and co. MJ also had his best pure statistical season under Collins when he made a PG. So, Hill's stats don't impress me that much; at least not under proper context. Pippen's numbers were kind of held back in the triangle because it's not a system based on a player dominating the ball and he had to share duties with MJ.

Hill does have an edge on offense since he's more of an assertive, dynamic and aggressive scorer. He had one of the best handles for anyone 6'7"+ as well as an explosive first step and more of an unpredictable game. Good mid range game as well. He never impressed me in the playoffs, however.

Pippen's edge on the defensive end can't be ignored and he's a superior playoff performer as well although there isn't an extensive sample from Hill's Detroit days. I also felt Scottie was a smarter player in terms of knowing what to do and knowing how to operate properly in a system. I'd say he has an edge on range by default. All in all, I'm leaning towards Scottie and I love Hill here in Phoenix.

I feel Penny was better than Hill contrary to the popular belief. He was a much better player than what his stats reflect and just a very creative, innovative and veteran savvy type of guy. His '97 series against Miami is one of the best individual series I've seen by a player.

[noob cake]

Hill had the handling, shooting, athleticism, IQ, and work ethic to be GOAT.

[Bigsmoke]

Hill had the handling, shooting, athleticism, IQ, and work ethic to be GOAT.

and a subpar playoffs performer.

i was following the NBA back then and do not remember him being a Lebron james of 10-15 years ago at all.

[CambyLandCan]

Sounds like people forgot how terrific of a player pre-injury Hill was.

[Rose]

Scottie's defense just makes him better. Although I do admire Hill's defense now-a-days. I think it's pretty solid considering he's 37. But Pip was just a better defender. But I do feel it's pretty close.

[Roundball_Rock]

The one full season Pippen played without Jordan, he basically put up prime Hill numbers. Interestingly though, Scottie's numbers as "the man" are not substantially different than his numbers during his best seasons playing alongside Jordan.

And? That is a good thing. That is why he won wherever he went. He was not a ballhog trying to take 25 shots a night. Players like Pippen and Duncan (he always was in the 20-23 ppg range in his prime, aside from one year at 25.5)>Dominique and AI types. Check out the W-L column.


"He had a phenomenal year," Paxson said. "I think the thing that stood out the most to me that year was that statistically, things didn't change much for Scottie from what his years were with Michael. You could always pencil Scottie in for between 20 and 23 points a game, he would have the eight, nine rebounds, the five, six, seven assists. And it didn't deviate [without Jordan] which to me that spoke volumes, and I think to those of us who were teammates, it showed what kind of a teammate he was. He wasn't out there to try to prove to people that he could score 30. For Scottie it was about winning. And we won 55 games that year, mostly because of him."

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bulls/post/_/id/1500/paxson-pippen-was-great-teammate

The answer is Pippen. They are similar offensively, although Hill was a bit better, but Pippen crushes him defensively. Pippen also was a superior leader.


Pippen was a lot better defensively and they were basically equal in the other aspects of the game. Hill was a better ball handler and had a better pull up jumper, but Pippen had a longer wingspan, was atleast as good of a passer, had a better post game and more range on his jumper. Both were deadly in the open court, point forwards and excellent rebounders for their position, but Pippen's defense set him apart.

[JayGuevara]

Didn't Hill win a defensive player of the year award in college? I never really thought of him as a defensive liability, though obviously Pippen was a better defender, but I feel like people in here are thinkin he was just terrible. :confusedshrug:

But I think a lot of you are forgetting how good Grant Hill was. In his 3rd year, he led a Pistons team to 54 wins with a pretty bad cast around him. He had a declining 33 year old Dumars average 14.7/4 (though Dumars did have manage 79 games that year, after being in the 60's the past couple), Lindsey Hunter averaging 14/2 (random note: I forgot how inefficient he was, his highest year in FG% was 43.5), a 34 year old Otis Thorpe, and Terry Mills averaging almost 11 and almost 5 off the bench. And that year Hill averaged 21.4, 9 rebounds, and 7.3 assists, on just under 50% shooting. Maybe I'm looking back through a biased view cuz I really liked Grant Hill as a kid, but I don't seem to recall him every having a very "good/great" team.

The 2nd best player on his teams here was either a declining Dumars or Jerry Stackhouse. After that was Lindsey Hunter. It wasn't exactly the Heat, ya know? In his last year in Detroit Christian Laettner started all 82 games. Who wasn't really THAT bad, but it's Christian Laettner. Luckily they hadn't gotten to the "Start Michael Curry a shitload of games" phase yet though.

However I do admit that Grant Hill never led the team to any real postseason success. Of course neither did Dumars/Stackhouse/Lindsey/etc. But his numbers were still solid, and he lost to Shaq and Penny in 96 (no shame there), and a pretty damn good Hawks team in 97 and 99.

[Round Mound]

Pippen was a lot better defensively and they were basically equal in the other aspects of the game. Hill was a better ball handler and had a better pull up jumper, but Pippen had a longer wingspan, was atleast as good of a passer, had a better post game and more range on his jumper. Both were deadly in the open court, point forwards and excellent rebounders for their position, but Pippen's defense set him apart.

This

[momo]

(This is an appropriate comparison thread for Scottie Pippen)

Pippen was better defensively, and Hill was better offensively, but to me this is a matchup that tennis announcer Cliff Drysdale would call "dead solid even" (Why the Cliff Drysdale reference? Because it's US Open time, and I felt like it....)

Some might disagree, but I don't think even a prime Hill was cut out to be a #1 option on a championship-level team. However, with the right pairing, he could have given Scottie a run for his money as the best #2 ever (throwing whichever one turns out to play the sidekick role between Wade/Bron into that discussion is not fair)....

I would have enjoyed seeing Hill on a squad of #2, sort of like what the 03-04 pistons had working... no clear cut #1 but a bunch of capable defenders who can mostly all score. That would have been interesting to me.

Pip VS Hill is pretty compelling. Pip is the choice for the reasons stated already in the thread... call it the freak thing. And the "I would gnaw off my own finger for a ring" thing. Most people would pick him. But Hill was really freeking good. He had the full package.

[jrong]

I feel Penny was better than Hill contrary to the popular belief. He was a much better player than what his stats reflect and just a very creative, innovative and veteran savvy type of guy. His '97 series against Miami is one of the best individual series I've seen by a player.

That I agree with. I'll put a healthy, prime Penny above either one because he's a legit offensive #1, something I don't think either Pippen or Hill were meant to be. Shaq/Penny was much closer to Shaq/Kobe than it was to Jordan/Pippen.


And? That is a good thing. That is why he won wherever he went. He was not a ballhog trying to take 25 shots a night.

The fact that his numbers didn't significantly change with or without Jordan also shows that he played with good teammates-- with or without Jordan....

And nobody takes 25 shots anymore. Kobe had one year at 27, but that was an outlier. LeBron and Wade have each led the league in scoring on 22 shots.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I feel Penny was better than Hill contrary to the popular belief. He was a much better player than what his stats reflect and just a very creative, innovative and veteran savvy type of guy. His '97 series against Miami is one of the best individual series I've seen by a player.

I also think Penny was better. The fact that he could post up almost any guard defending him and hit 3s made him a better scorer than Hill, IMO. I also feel he was a better passer, the assist numbers are almost identical, but I think most who watched them will agree with me, and a reason for Penny's assists not being higher is because he wasn't in the ball-dominant role Hill was. A lot of Orlando's offense went through Shaq in the post. Penny was also more clutch and a better leader than Hill, IMO. People look back on the stats and see that Hill's rebounding made his stats look a lot more impressive, but really, i didn't notice Hill's rebounding to be the difference in impact when I was watching them, besides, Penny had both Shaq and Horace Grant in his prime. A Past his prime Penny averaged 6 boards with the Suns in 2000 and the difference between Hill and Penny was defensive rebounding which isn't a fair comparison because when you don't have very good big men on your team, defensive boards which often go uncontested will go to the perimeter player easier, this happened with Jason Kidd a lot. Penny had Shaq and Grant in the paint to grab the rebounds.

[DatWasNashty]

That I agree with. I'll put a healthy, prime Penny above either one because he's a legit offensive #1, something I don't think either Pippen or Hill were meant to be. Shaq/Penny was much closer to Shaq/Kobe than it was to Jordan/Pippen.


I'm not too sure about that. Penny was a legit offensive #1 but his defense and rebounding were considerably worse than Scottie's. He could play tenacious defense at times but whatever quickness he displayed on offense didn't translate to the defensive end. His post defense against bigger guards was also mediocre.

I can see where you're coming from, though. Penny was clutch, more of an aggressive scorer, mentally tougher and his athleticism blows Pippen's out of the water. He had a nasty first step, was way faster laterally, end to end and from a dead stop. Better jumper off the dribble and could penetrate just as well. He had a better post game, though. Better than any guard save for Jordan. Just displayed terrific footwork and a bunch of moves (counters, turnarounds, step throughs etc). They were matched up in the 1996 ECF and Penny routinely had Scottie's lunch. He dominated Jordan in a match up early in that season. He just performed with an effortless grace while playing like a savvy vet simultaneously.

I'm kind of skeptical about picking him over Scottie but I think it depends on your team needs more than anything.



I also think Penny was better. The fact that he could post up almost any guard defending him and hit 3s made him a better scorer than Hill, IMO. I also feel he was a better passer, the assist numbers are almost identical, but I think most who watched them will agree with me, and a reason for Penny's assists not being higher is because he wasn't in the ball-dominant role Hill was. A lot of Orlando's offense went through Shaq in the post. Penny was also more clutch and a better leader than Hill, IMO. People look back on the stats and see that Hill's rebounding made his stats look a lot more impressive, but really, i didn't notice Hill's rebounding to be the difference in impact when I was watching them, besides, Penny had both Shaq and Horace Grant in his prime. A Past his prime Penny averaged 6 boards with the Suns in 2000 and the difference between Hill and Penny was defensive rebounding which isn't a fair comparison because when you don't have very good big men on your team, defensive boards which often go uncontested will go to the perimeter player easier, this happened with Jason Kidd a lot. Penny had Shaq and Grant in the paint to grab the rebounds.

Yeah. Penny was kind of held back by their offense. It certainly helped the team because they were better off running the offense through O'Neal but Penny could've done more (statistically speaking) if the offense catered to his game. They moved him to 2 guard in that 1997 series with Miami and he EXPLODED to the extent of 31 a game on 47% shooting. For instance, MJ only managed to put up 30 ppg, 3 apg, 8 rpg, 2 spg on an abysmal 38% from the field against the defense. Furthermore, Orlando most likely wins that series if Grant was healthy, Seikaly didn't go down with a broken foot and Scott/Nick Anderson actually managed to show up. Just a testament to the greatness of Lil Penny.

I definitely agree about Hill's stats which are a bit misleading in comparison to Penny. He was placed in a more ball dominant role and had the keys to run the team from the beginning. Penny, meanwhile, had to adjust his game a bit and be more of a playmaker (hence the Magic comparisons) which he did great job of.

About the rebounds, I think offensive rebounds are more telling about your skill and instincts. Hardaway topped off at 2.3/game in his rookie year while mainly playing away from the basket (hadn't developed his post game or bulked up by this time) so that's a pretty telling stat. Hill never approached those numbers despite playing with much worse rebounders although the Pistons were a team that liked to slow things down like Fratello's Cavs and Riley's heat.

[Da_Realist]

I have a couple of games between Scottie Pippen and Grant Hill. Grant Hill in his prime gave Pippen more problems than anyone. Too bad his career was slowed by injuries. I'll post what I have here in this thread.

Grant Hill blows by Pippen and dunks on Wennington (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imdEIlqKhoQ)

Grant Hill drives past Scottie Pippen then spins past Dennis Rodman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGS2cnSrHcQ)

[rammerman]

as a number 1, hill

as a number 2, pippen

[DatWasNashty]

I have a couple of games between Scottie Pippen and Grant Hill. Grant Hill in his prime gave Pippen more problems than anyone. Too bad his career was slowed by injuries. I'll post what I have here in this thread.

Grant Hill blows by Pippen and dunks on Wennington (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imdEIlqKhoQ)

Grant Hill drives past Scottie Pippen then spins past Dennis Rodman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGS2cnSrHcQ)
Thanks.

I think early 1990s Mullin gave Pippen a lot of trouble as well. I remember they had to switch Jordan on to him and he proceeded to shut him down in a game early in the 1991-92 season. It was pretty telling because Jordan hardly switched on to SFs during that time period. Mullin must've been some sort of mismatch for Scottie.

[ginobli2311]

as a number 1, hill

as a number 2, pippen

i tend to agree with this. although i really think hill is under-rated here pre injury. the dude could do everything. he had no weaknesses. he could play a floor game and take over when he needed to. he was a very good defender as well. very similar to pippen with more raw talent and upside in my opinion.

i'll take hill for sure as my number 1 guy. number 2 is debatable. i probably lean towards pippen, but its a tough call for me.

as for penny. i think he had the most raw talent/upside than both hill/pippen as well. he could have been magic 2.0 in the right situation with great coaching. such a shame that penny/hill dealt with injuries their entire primes really. could have been two of the best all around players of all time. could have been two of the best 25 players of all time in the right situations with health. sucks we missed out on that....and sucks even more for them.

[Da_Realist]

Grant Hill had the talent, but I don't think he had the temperament. He was immediately the best player on the Pistons and had to haul a heavy load from jump. Dumars was a good mentor, but he himself never had to bear that much weight for his team to win. If Grant had another guy on that team that was good enough to ease Grant in and show him how it's done, he could have been something special. Something like what Magic had in LA, Pippen had in Chicago, Duncan had in San Antonio and what Penny had in Orlando.

[sh0wtime]

We got to see how good Hill was during his prime, but we did not get to see how good he was during his absolute prime, which he was just entering before he was decimated by injuries. Grant Hill was on his way to becoming the face of the NBA after Jordan retired and he would have been the one that carried the torch into the new millenium and been the poster boy for the NBA.

He was coming off of a 26/6.6/5.2 on near 50% shooting and led his fairly weak Pistons team to the playoffs as Stackhouse was really the only other star on the team. The rest of the team was filled up with role players like Lindsey Hunter and Christian Laettner. Although these two were very solid role players, the team was definitely lacking outside of Grant and Stack.

Don't get me wrong, Scottie Pippen is an All-Time great and most likely a top 5 small forward to ever play the game, but if Pippen was the first option for the duration of his career, a large part of what makes him so great (6 Championships) will be gone because I don't think that he had what it took to lead a team to the promise land as the main man.

He was an elite second fiddle, perhaps the greatest of All-Time, but he did not posses the leadership capability nor did he have "it" (you know what I mean, at least I hope as it would be hard to explain lol) to be an elite first option and franchise player. Grant Hill had "it" and, if he was not decimated by injuries and management put the right players around him, he would have led his team to multiple championships.

If Grant was never hit by injuries and had a healthy career, he would be a top 10 player of All-Time and would've gave Larry Bird a run for his money as well (although I don't think he ever would've surpassed Bird, he would be the undisputed second best small forward to ever play the game). I don't think that Pippen would not have been top 10 ever if he was the number one option for his entire career.

It truly is a shame that Hill was hit so hard by injuries, because the NBA and us as fans, missed out on seeing a truly special player, and one that does not come along often.

Pippen obviously had a better career, but in terms of potential, talent, skill and so on im gona go with Grant Hill on this one.

[Da_Realist]

We got to see how good Hill was during his prime, but we did not get to see how good he was during his absolute prime, which he was just entering before he was decimated by injuries. Grant Hill was on his way to becoming the face of the NBA after Jordan retired and he would have been the one that carried the torch into the new millenium and been the poster boy for the NBA.

He was coming off of a 26/6.6/5.2 on near 50% shooting and led his fairly weak Pistons team to the playoffs as Stackhouse was really the only other star on the team. The rest of the team was filled up with role players like Lindsey Hunter and Christian Laettner. Although these two were very solid role players, the team was definitely lacking outside of Grant and Stack.

Don't get me wrong, Scottie Pippen is an All-Time great and most likely a top 5 small forward to ever play the game, but if Pippen was the first option for the duration of his career, a large part of what makes him so great (6 Championships) will be gone because I don't think that he had what it took to lead a team to the promise land as the main man.

He was an elite second fiddle, perhaps the greatest of All-Time, but he did not posses the leadership capability nor did he have "it" (you know what I mean, at least I hope as it would be hard to explain lol) to be an elite first option and franchise player. Grant Hill had "it" and, if he was not decimated by injuries and management put the right players around him, he would have led his team to multiple championships.

If Grant was never hit by injuries and had a healthy career, he would be a top 10 player of All-Time and would've gave Larry Bird a run for his money as well (although I don't think he ever would've surpassed Bird, he would be the undisputed second best small forward to ever play the game). I don't think that Pippen would not have been top 10 ever if he was the number one option for his entire career.

It truly is a shame that Hill was hit so hard by injuries, because the NBA and us as fans, missed out on seeing a truly special player, and one that does not come along often.

Pippen obviously had a better career, but in terms of potential, talent, skill and so on im gona go with Grant Hill on this one.

Allan Houston should have stayed in Detroit. That was a lethal offensive tandem. I'm not sure Grant Hill in his prime isn't better than Lebron James right now. He was a better rebounder and was just as good (if not better) passer. What really separates the two? Maybe not as explosive offensively, due to his temperament but also because he didn't play in a league that catered to creating star wing players. He played better off the ball and was actually a good defender.

[ginobli2311]

We got to see how good Hill was during his prime, but we did not get to see how good he was during his absolute prime, which he was just entering before he was decimated by injuries. Grant Hill was on his way to becoming the face of the NBA after Jordan retired and he would have been the one that carried the torch into the new millenium and been the poster boy for the NBA.

He was coming off of a 26/6.6/5.2 on near 50% shooting and led his fairly weak Pistons team to the playoffs as Stackhouse was really the only other star on the team. The rest of the team was filled up with role players like Lindsey Hunter and Christian Laettner. Although these two were very solid role players, the team was definitely lacking outside of Grant and Stack.

Don't get me wrong, Scottie Pippen is an All-Time great and most likely a top 5 small forward to ever play the game, but if Pippen was the first option for the duration of his career, a large part of what makes him so great (6 Championships) will be gone because I don't think that he had what it took to lead a team to the promise land as the main man.

He was an elite second fiddle, perhaps the greatest of All-Time, but he did not posses the leadership capability nor did he have "it" (you know what I mean, at least I hope as it would be hard to explain lol) to be an elite first option and franchise player. Grant Hill had "it" and, if he was not decimated by injuries and management put the right players around him, he would have led his team to multiple championships.

If Grant was never hit by injuries and had a healthy career, he would be a top 10 player of All-Time and would've gave Larry Bird a run for his money as well (although I don't think he ever would've surpassed Bird, he would be the undisputed second best small forward to ever play the game). I don't think that Pippen would not have been top 10 ever if he was the number one option for his entire career.

It truly is a shame that Hill was hit so hard by injuries, because the NBA and us as fans, missed out on seeing a truly special player, and one that does not come along often.

Pippen obviously had a better career, but in terms of potential, talent, skill and so on im gona go with Grant Hill on this one.

great post.

i disagree a little in that i think hill's peak would have been top 15 of all time considering guys like kobe/lebron/duncan/shaq/kg in this era are all better players than him.

but i agree with everything else. hill could have gone down as one of the greatest to ever play.

[Niquesports]

And? That is a good thing. That is why he won wherever he went. He was not a ballhog trying to take 25 shots a night. Players like Pippen and Duncan (he always was in the 20-23 ppg range in his prime, aside from one year at 25.5)>Dominique and AI types. Check out the W-L column.



http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bulls/post/_/id/1500/paxson-pippen-was-great-teammate

The answer is Pippen. They are similar offensively, although Hill was a bit better, but Pippen crushes him defensively. Pippen also was a superior leader.

Sometimes people just say anything. What are you basing that Pip was a better leader? IF there was any area that Hill was better for certain it would be leadership. As far as the Ai and Dominique comment Pippen couldn't avg 30 ppg if he tried. I dont understand people who think just ball hogs do that. That is just as much a skill and talent as getting assist. IF you ever played the game you would know how hard it is to avg 30 ppg. Cant everybody do that .Grant would come much closer than Pippen would though and Grant pre injury wasnt a bad defender either

[Da_Realist]

OT Classic!

Chicago Bulls @ Detroit Pistons 02-15-96 (http://www.youtube.com/user/tjhunt76?feature=mhum#g/c/E1E83022A5751742)

Grant Hill 20 pts (9-18 fgs), 10 rebs, 9 asts, 1 stl
Scottie Pippen 23 pts (7-23 fgs), 13 rebs, 6 rebs, 3 stls, 2 blks

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199602150DET.html

[97 bulls]

Im picking pippen. You guys forget that hill never to defer to a player like jordan. And for the most part, they scored about even. Now hills had a spike with the 26 ppg, but give pippen a few year without mj and he would've too.

And for the life of me, I just can't understand why guys continue to prop the myth that pip wasn't a leader. Why do you say that? What constitutes a leader in your eyes? I really want to know.

[wakencdukest]

Pippen was probably the better all around player because of his elite defense, but not by much. I definitely liked watching Hill play more than Pippen. He was more dynamic.

[Da_Realist]

Christmas Day 1996

Detroit Pistons @ Chicago Bulls 12-25-96 (http://www.youtube.com/user/tjhunt76?feature=mhum#g/c/209348682E832CC5)

Grant Hill 27 pts (12-24 fgs), 8 rebs, 2 asts, 1 stl, 1 blk
Scottie Pippen 27 pts (11-25 fgs), 8 rebs, 8 asts, 2 stls, 2 blks

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199612250CHI.html

[Da_Realist]

Detroit snaps a 19 game losing streak to Chicago behind Grant Hill's triple double.

Chicago Bulls @ Detroit Pistons 04-13-97 (http://www.youtube.com/user/tjhunt76?feature=mhum#g/c/598D1E56C33C554A)

Grant Hill 27 pts (11-23 fgs), 12 rebs, 10 asts, 1 stl
Scottie Pippen 21 pts (9-19 fgs), 5 rebs, 3 asts

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199704130DET.html

[Lebron23]

Give me the guy who won a playoffs series without his no.1 option. And the guy who was one bad call away from leading his team in the Conference Finals. Playoffs Pippen was the superior player.

[Smoke117]

Give me the guy who won a playoffs series without his no.1 option. And the guy who was one bad call away from leading his team in the Conference Finals. Playoffs Pippen was the superior player.

Scottie Pippen >> Grant Hill > Bran James

[Lebron23]

Scottie Pippen >> Grant Hill > Bran James

You're a f@ggot.

[HoopsNY]

We got to see how good Hill was during his prime, but we did not get to see how good he was during his absolute prime, which he was just entering before he was decimated by injuries. Grant Hill was on his way to becoming the face of the NBA after Jordan retired and he would have been the one that carried the torch into the new millenium and been the poster boy for the NBA.

He was coming off of a 26/6.6/5.2 on near 50% shooting and led his fairly weak Pistons team to the playoffs as Stackhouse was really the only other star on the team. The rest of the team was filled up with role players like Lindsey Hunter and Christian Laettner. Although these two were very solid role players, the team was definitely lacking outside of Grant and Stack.

Don't get me wrong, Scottie Pippen is an All-Time great and most likely a top 5 small forward to ever play the game, but if Pippen was the first option for the duration of his career, a large part of what makes him so great (6 Championships) will be gone because I don't think that he had what it took to lead a team to the promise land as the main man.

He was an elite second fiddle, perhaps the greatest of All-Time, but he did not posses the leadership capability nor did he have "it" (you know what I mean, at least I hope as it would be hard to explain lol) to be an elite first option and franchise player. Grant Hill had "it" and, if he was not decimated by injuries and management put the right players around him, he would have led his team to multiple championships.

If Grant was never hit by injuries and had a healthy career, he would be a top 10 player of All-Time and would've gave Larry Bird a run for his money as well (although I don't think he ever would've surpassed Bird, he would be the undisputed second best small forward to ever play the game). I don't think that Pippen would not have been top 10 ever if he was the number one option for his entire career.

It truly is a shame that Hill was hit so hard by injuries, because the NBA and us as fans, missed out on seeing a truly special player, and one that does not come along often.

Pippen obviously had a better career, but in terms of potential, talent, skill and so on im gona go with Grant Hill on this one.

Yea, you make a good point regarding Hill and hitting his peak. He got injured at 27 and who knows what we would have continued to see from him had his career not declined. The league really suffered from big losses with him and Penny getting injured. Not to mention the losses of guys like Zo and a few years earlier, KJ.

All of these guys were All-NBA players and had their careers disrupted significantly due to injury.

[Whoah10115]

You're a f@ggot.

To be fair, you bumped a 10 year old thread and aren't basing it on anything you really watched.

Scoring isn't debatable between them. Who's better? They were both great, but upside was definitely in Hill's favor.

[Roundball_Rock]

27 is your peak. Hill was what he was: a great individual player but one who never became the "next MJ" that the media and fans wanted him to be and had zero team success (despite playing with Dumars, Houston, and Stackhouse). He wasn't going to suddenly become that guy at 28/year 7.

It is funny how going 42-40 with Stackhouse is somehow a success. When he got hurt he was in the process of flaming out in the first round yet again.

Like I said in another Hill thread, he benefits from the JFK effect, like Penny: they were tragically cut short in their primes so they get the benefit of every "what if" and no scrutiny for their shortcomings during their actual careers. No one asks why JFK couldn't get civil rights or Medicare anywhere in Congress and no one asks why Hill had zero team success (despite playing with Dumars and Houston) or why Orlando went down the tubes after Shaq left partly because Penny's efficiency nose-dived without Shaq. Etc.

Hill benefits from nostalgia and sympathy for injuries but anyone else who did what he did in his prime would get ripped for it (see McGrady, Tracy).


Scoring isn't debatable between them.

Their RS prime offensive numbers were basically the same--but Pippen blows him away on defense. That was always the flaw on the Hill side of the argument: his 2 PPG edge doesn't erase the difference on defense. People talk about Hill like he was Dominique when he scored 20-21 PPG every year except one. His playoff career high was 28 PPG--Pippen's was 37, for instance.

In the PO Pippen and Hill were basically identical statistically--with the difference again being Pippen's large defensive edge, which isn't captured on the stat sheet.

Hill 95'-00': 19.6/6.9/5.6 52% TS
Pippen 91'-98': 19.2/7.9/5.5 52% TS
Pippen 94': 22.8/8.3/4.6 52% TS (as #1 option)

Yet one guy is hyped as a great offensive player and the other dissed as a bad offensive player on ISH. :oldlol: Facts won't sway Pippen haters, but the numbers speak for themselves for the benefit of everyone else.

[HoopsNY]

27 is your peak. Hill was what he was: a great individual player but one who never became the "next MJ" that the media and fans wanted him to be and had zero team success (despite playing with Dumars, Houston, and Stackhouse). He wasn't going to suddenly become that guy at 28/year 7.

I don't think the expectation here is that he was the next MJ. That was media over-hype that just didn't add up. He mostly played with an over the hill Joe Dumars, but in his second season, he led the team to 46 wins (up from 28) and a playoff birth. Houston played just 2 seasons with him, one of which was Houston's second season and Hill's rookie year. And that year he started just 39 games.

Third season the Pistons won 54 games and Houston had left for the Knicks (I remember getting his jersey). So Hill won 54 games with an over the hill Dumars and....? He has to get some credit for that.


It is funny how going 42-40 with Stackhouse is somehow a success. When he got hurt he was in the process of flaming out in the first round yet again.

Probably because Stackhouse is a poison and couldn't seem to win alongside Iverson, Hill, or even Jordan. Stackhouse was another one dimensional player who didn't bring much to the table outside of scoring. It's no wonder the Pistons won a championship without him, and then the Mavericks, too.

And Hill got hurt in game 2 in the second quarter when the score was almost even. In fact, the Pistons might have been up at halftime. So it's tough to say for sure how that series turns out with a healthy Hill. Chances are Miami wins, but there is a much greater chance of Detroit winning with a healthy Hill.


Like I said in another Hill thread, he benefits from the JFK effect, like Penny: they were tragically cut short in their primes so they get the benefit of every "what if" and no scrutiny for their shortcomings during their actual careers. No one asks why JFK couldn't get civil rights or Medicare anywhere in Congress and no one asks why Hill had zero team success (despite playing with Dumars and Houston) or why Orlando went down the tubes after Shaq left partly because Penny's efficiency nose-dived without Shaq. Etc.

Now you're just hating. Hill would have ended up a top 30 player. You're acting like Joe Dumars was a prime player for all of Hill's career. In Hill's second season Dumars played in 67 games, but started just 40. Here is Dumars' spread after Hill's rookie year:

1995-96: 12/2/4 on 43%
1996-97: 14/2/4 on 44%
1997-98: 13/1/3.5 on 42%
1998-99: 11/3/3.5 on 41%

These look like perennial HOF numbers to you? Dumars was a shell of himself. And he played 2 entire seasons with Allan Houston, one of which saw Houston start just 39 games.


Hill benefits from nostalgia and sympathy for injuries but anyone else who did what he did in his prime would get ripped for it (see McGrady, Tracy).

No, Hill benefits from being an elite player during his time. Hill was an all-star every year between 1995-00, with the exception of the strike shortened season, and he was All-NBA 5x. Hill was the man. I don't get the underrating coming from you.

[Roundball_Rock]

Dumars was an all-star as late as 97' (Reggie Miller wasn't in 97' for some SG context). Not exactly washed up.


So Hill won 54 games with an over the hill Dumars and....? He has to get some credit for that.

An all-star Dumars but the problem is that was the high water mark: 54 wins (5th seed) and getting bounced in the first round. It wasn't something they built on. This is exactly what some of us have been talking about: who else would get praise for losing in the first round?

The next year it was 37-45, then 29-21 (5th), and 42-40 in his final prime year. These are poor team outcomes.


Now you're just hating. Hill would have ended up a top 30 player.

Agree he would have finished top 25-30 if he stayed healthy. He gets talked about as a potential top 10 player, though. Maybe not here (this is the first Hill thread in a while) but I see it on social media when he comes up.

No, not hating. I like JFK too. I am just pointing out because of tragedy and sympathy their flaws are brushed under the rug. That doesn't mean I can't recognize JFK lacked the legislative skills LBJ had and that was the difference in civil rights and Medicare. Chris Paul gets flack for never getting past the second round as a #1, he reached the WCF as a #2 option. T Mac for never getting past the first round--same as Hill. Wilkins for no team success. Etc. Hill gets a pass because of sympathy and nostalgia.

[goozeman]

Give me the guy who won a playoffs series without his no.1 option. And the guy who was one bad call away from leading his team in the Conference Finals. Playoffs Pippen was the superior player.

What did Pippen ever accomplish as a team's first option? Best showing was a second-round exit in which the dude literally quit on the bench while a rookie saved the team being down 0-3. He wasn't even the Bulls best player in the Knicks series. Horace Grant had higher game scores and win shares across the board. Game 7 Pippen shot a miserable 40TS% (8 of 22 FG%, 1 for 6 3%, and .50 FT%) and got outplayed by Pete Meyers on the perimeter. I must say, ya'll have some very selective memories regarding one Scottie Maurice Pippen. I put his middle name in there because I want to make sure we all talking about the same person.

Grant Hill was far and away the better offensive player. Basically, rookie Grant Hill > peak veteran Pippen on offense. He made all-star team as rookie and in his first few seasons casually led the league in triple-doubles three straight seasons. Back then triple-double were rare and Hill was putting up 10 or more per season, which was insane at the time. Hill's injury ended his athletic prime before his basketball peak also. He was coming off a 26ppg before he injured his ankle and was being marketed as the face of the league. Pippen never achieved that kind of cache because he wasn't that kind of player in the eyes of the fans or the NBA league office. Grant Hill on the other hand was being marketed as a superstar and heir apparent of Jordan in late 90's.

[insidious301]

Pippen was the better all-around player because of the defense he provided. His box numbers that isolate impact were better in the playoffs as well. Had Pippen got his own team for longer than a season & a 1/2, his numbers would have all shot up, and he would still have the team achievements. Playoff BPM, Playoff VORP all in his favor & that is while scoring the ball similarly. When defense is accounted for, its not a fair comparison for Grant Hill. He is looking from the ground up.

[goozeman]

Pippen was the better all-around player because of the defense he provided. His box numbers that isolate impact were better in the playoffs as well. Had Pippen got his own team for longer than a season & a 1/2, his numbers would have all shot up, and he would still have the team achievements. Playoff BPM, Playoff VORP all in his favor & that is while scoring the ball similarly. When defense is accounted for, its not a fair comparison for Grant Hill. He is looking from the ground up.


BPM and VORP are broken composite metrics because they overrate assists. That's why according to BPM John Stockton is top ten all-time and Chris Paul is like the third greatest player all-time or some stupid crap like that. Most of Pippen's play making occurred in the triangle as a function of that offense. He also had the greatest assist target all-time to pass the ball too. Look at his numbers outside the triangle and prime Hill's numbers blow Pippen's away.

[insidious301]

BPM and VORP are broken composite metrics because it overrates assists. That's why according to BPM John Stockton and Chris Paul is like the third greatest player all-time or some stupid crap like that. Most of Pippen's play making occurred in the triangle as a function of that offense. He also had the greatest assist target all-time to pass the ball too. Look at his numbers outside the triangle and prime Hill's numbers blow Pippen's away.

Not how it works at all. You better brush up on how the metrics are determined and measured. Regardless Pippen's game was more versatile and better suited for championship play. After all, defense wins championships. And we all recognize Pippen as the greatest wing defender.

[HoopsNY]

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14074441]Dumars was an all-star as late as 97' (Reggie Miller wasn't in 97' for some SG context). Not exactly washed up.

Sorry, but I'm not buying this. You cherry picked one season that Dumars got selected to an all-star team where he didn't deserve it (a clear outlier) as proof of Dumars not being washed up.

Dumars was a 13/2/4 player shooting 42% in those last four seasons. That's washed up any way that you want to slice it.


An all-star Dumars but the problem is that was the high water mark: 54 wins (5th seed) and getting bounced in the first round. It wasn't something they built on. This is exactly what some of us have been talking about: who else would get praise for losing in the first round?

54 wins as a 5th seed in a competitive conference is nothing to shoot down. It's even more impressive when you consider that 6 teams won 54+ games that year. They lost to a Hawks team in 5 games that was the 3rd ranked defense.

So let's look at who Hill and co. lost to:

1996: 2nd ranked Orlando (60-22)
1997: 4th ranked Atlanta (56-26)
1999: 4th ranked Atlanta (31-19)
2000: 2nd ranked Miami (52-30)

When did Detroit outrank any of their opponents here?


Agree he would have finished top 25-30 if he stayed healthy. He gets talked about as a potential top 10 player, though. Maybe not here (this is the first Hill thread in a while) but I see it on social media when he comes up.

If you agree that Hill would have finished top 25-30 if healthy, then people aren't just basing it off of nostalgia. They're basing it off of the fact that he was an elite player who earned his recognition being an All-Star starter and All-NBA selection every single year.


No, not hating. I like JFK too. I am just pointing out because of tragedy and sympathy their flaws are brushed under the rug. That doesn't mean I can't recognize JFK lacked the legislative skills LBJ had and that was the difference in civil rights and Medicare. Chris Paul gets flack for never getting past the second round as a #1, he reached the WCF as a #2 option. T Mac for never getting past the first round--same as Hill. Wilkins for no team success. Etc. Hill gets a pass because of sympathy and nostalgia.

The comparison really isn't fair, though. Hill played 6 seasons until his career ended due to that ankle injury. He clearly wasn't the same after it. Tmac played 11 seasons until it was a wrap for him and could no longer play. And Tmac played alongside Vince and Yao. If Hill has a low post presence (like Yao), in the era of the centers, do you honestly think he doesn't get out of the first round?

[Roundball_Rock]

Sorry, but I'm not buying this. You cherry picked one season that Dumars got selected to an all-star team where he didn't deserve it (a clear outlier)

Washed up but an all-star in 95' and 97'? :confusedshrug: We always hear how awesome prime Miller was. Dumars was an all-star over him in 97'.


54 wins as a 5th seed in a competitive conference is nothing to shoot down.

It is if that and a first round loss is the high water mark.


When did Detroit outrank any of their opponents here?


Get better seeding.


If you agree that Hill would have finished top 25-30 if healthy, then people aren't just basing it off of nostalgia

People don't talk about him as top 25-30 AT. Look at whenever he is compared to Pippen, a consensus top 20-30 AT player. He is discussed as >>>>>Pippen.

The nostalgia/sympathy also issues him a free pass for stuff any other ATG would get criticized for. The standard Pippen is held to is starkly higher: he had to win a chip in 94' and 94' alone (his 6 chips don't count) and that he didn't is a damning indictment. Hill doesn't win in half a decade--doesn't even win a series or get a top seed--and he gets roses for it. This is from people who say Hill is vastly better yet he gets held to a far lower standard.


The comparison really isn't fair, though. Hill played 6 seasons until his career ended due to that ankle injury. He clearly wasn't the same after it.

I'm saying it doesn't come up at all because of nostalgia/sympathy. He could have turned it around it thereafter if healthy but it is erased from the discussion (the same reason JFK's legislative problems are overlooked and only the success he had is remembered). Meanwhile we basically had another Hill in the same era (same offense, elite defense). He gets critiqued 24/7 on ISH--often from the same people who hype Hill. How can one version be trash and the other be awesome?


Not how it works at all. You better brush up on how the metrics are determined and measured. Regardless Pippen's game was more versatile and better suited for championship play. After all, defense wins championships. And we all recognize Pippen as the greatest wing defender.

The constant line from MJ stans: no statistic matters except PPG. :lol

This guy was demolished last week when we compared Pippen's numbers to Kukoc's in the same system with the same teammates when Kukoc was the #2 option and filling Pippen's role for half a season. Refresher:

Pippen 97': 20/7/6 on 55% TS 16.6 GS
Kukoc 98': 14/4/5 on 52% TS 11.0 GS

These are bad faith Pippen haters who are insecure about MJ but recall I applied their logic to Paul George and Gallinari in the same system.

Gallinari 19': 20/6/3 63% 4.3 BPM
George 20': 22/6/4 59% 4.8 BPM

This is with PG getting a bubble boost too.

George basically produced identical numbers as Gallo, a Kukoc-level player, in the same system while Pippen produced a ton more than Kukoc. Yet in that thread there was no comment on how George basically was an overpaid version of Gallo on offense and no acknowledgment of the Pippen-Kukoc gulf because the agenda is to diminish Pippen to sooth their insecurity, not have a legitimate discussion.

[insidious301]

Washed up but an all-star in 95' and 97'? :confusedshrug: We always hear how awesome prime Miller was. Dumars was an all-star over him in 97'.



It is if that and a first round loss is the high water mark.



Get better seeding.



People don't talk about him as top 25-30 AT. Look at whenever he is compared to Pippen, a consensus top 20-30 AT player. He is discussed as >>>>>Pippen.

The nostalgia/sympathy also issues him a free pass for stuff any other ATG would get criticized for.



I'm saying it doesn't come up at all because of nostalgia/sympathy. He could have turned it around it thereafter if healthy but it is erased from the discussion (the same reason JFK's legislative problems are overlooked and only the success he had is remembered). Meanwhile we basically had another Hill in the same era (same offense, elite defense). He gets critiqued 24/7 on ISH--often from the same people who hype Hill. How can one version be trash and the other be awesome?



The constant line from MJ stans: no statistic matters except PPG. :lol

This guy was demolished last week when we compared Pippen's numbers to Kukoc's in the same system with the same teammates when Kukoc was the #2 option and filling Pippen's role for half a season. Refresher:

Pippen 97': 20/7/6 on 55% TS 16.6 GS
Kukoc 98': 14/4/5 on 52% TS 11.0 GS

These are bad faith Pippen haters who are insecure about MJ but recall I applied their logic to Paul George and Gallinari in the same system.

Gallinari 19': 20/6/3 63% 4.3 BPM
George 20': 22/6/4 59% 4.8 BPM

This is with PG getting a bubble boost too.

George basically produced identical numbers as Gallo, a Kukoc-level player, in the same system while Pippen produced a ton more than Kukoc. Yet in that thread there was no comment on how George basically was an overpaid version of Gallo on offense and no acknowledgment of the Pippen-Kukoc gulf because the agenda is to diminish Pippen to sooth their insecurity, not have a legitimate discussion.

Why is that though? We know that points are like hitting home runs, but it makes you wonder if these people ever played a sport. Even in a rec league you are taught about the impact rebounding has. And of course playmaking and defense. Other things that don't go into gamelogs too like offball movement & setting picks. I know this because I used to coach. Posters like that guy talk like they never leave their house and play 2k all day. Reality isn't fantasy.

[goozeman]

Not how it works at all. You better brush up on how the metrics are determined and measured. Regardless Pippen's game was more versatile and better suited for championship play. After all, defense wins championships. And we all recognize Pippen as the greatest wing defender.

If you don't believe that Chris Paul is the third greatest player all-time, then why do you have such faith in BPM as a comparative tool when comparing Scottie Pippen to other players? What's the difference? I've never even seen an all-time list where Chris Paul is ranked in the top 25, let alone top 3. ESPN ranks him at 40, which is fair I suppose. Scottie Pippen is somehow consistently ranked in top 20 or close to it on this board when he isn't even in top 35 all-time in BPM, even though that is the statistic du jour around around here. Why? If it is overrating Paul, how much more is it overrating Pippen by comparison? Is Pippen even a top 50 player? Maybe I could understand your position if you were making a contextual case for Pippen while using BPM/VORP as supporting evidence, but that is not the argument. BPM/VORP is THE EVIDENCE. The reason you don't do that is because context doesn't favor Pippen. His raw numbers are often bad outside of his defense and assist numbers in the triangle, especially in the playoffs. His numbers outside of a Chicago Uniform peg him as low-volume adequate score with slightly better than average advanced numbers. Basically, a good starter.

BTW, Anthony Davis is flirting with top 10 all-time BPM and Wade is still top 25. Just thought you should know that.

[Roundball_Rock]

Why is that though? We know that points are like hitting home runs, but it makes you wonder if these people ever played a sport. Even in a rec league you are taught about the impact rebounding has. And of course playmaking and defense. Other things that don't go into gamelogs too like offball movement & setting picks. I know this because I used to coach. Posters like that guy talk like they never leave their house and play 2k all day. Reality isn't fantasy.

Not sure. It is bizarre. At first thought you think it is driven by their MJ agenda since he is the all-time PPG leader--but he was an elite all-around player so you could make a stronger case for MJ on the basis of his all-around dominance than you could acting like he was a better Dominique.

It also is dumb as stats have improved over time. We have a lot better ways to gauge player performance with stuff like BPM and VORP. NBA fans are a lot slower to adopt those. For MLB fans WAR (baseball's version of VORP) is the gold standard to compare players. You don't see MLB fans going around saying home runs or batting average are the sole metrics for a player like you do with PPG (almost all from MJ stans FWIW).

Maybe pure laziness? Look up one stat, that's it. You are done.

To me you can gauge a lot about a player's value by seeing how their teams perform without them. Often it is the loss of facilitators that hurt teammates more than the loss of a scorer or the loss of versatile player. Pippen's Portland teams were below average without him but top 5 with him(unfortunately for Portland, all the top teams were in the West)--it wasn't his PPG they were missing. :lol

[warriorfan]

If you don't believe that Chris Paul is the third greatest player all-time, then why do you have such faith in BPM as a comparative tool when comparing Scottie Pippen to other players? What's the difference? I've never even seen an all-time list where Chris Paul is ranked in the top 25, let alone top 3. ESPN ranks him at 40, which is fair I suppose. Scottie Pippen is somehow consistently ranked in top 20 or close to it on this board when he isn't even in top 35 all-time in BPM, even though that is the statistic du jour around around here. Why? If it is overrating Paul, how much more is it overrating Pippen by comparison? Is Pippen even a top 50 player? Maybe I could understand your position if you were making a contextual case for Pippen while using BPM/VORP as supporting evidence, but that is not the argument. BPM/VORP is THE EVIDENCE. The reason you don't do that is because context doesn't favor Pippen. His raw numbers are often bad outside of his defense and assist numbers in the triangle, especially in the playoffs. His numbers outside of a Chicago Uniform peg him as low-volume adequate score with slightly better than average advanced numbers. Basically, a good starter.

BTW, Anthony Davis is flirting with top 10 all-time BPM and Wade is still top 25. Just thought you should know that.

Bpm is a pretty shitty statistic. Even the creator admits DPBM is a complete mess and not very accurate. According to the metric Nate McMillan is the greatest defensive player of all time.

[goozeman]

Why is that though? We know that points are like hitting home runs, but it makes you wonder if these people ever played a sport. Even in a rec league you are taught about the impact rebounding has. And of course playmaking and defense. Other things that don't go into gamelogs too like offball movement & setting picks. I know this because I used to coach. Posters like that guy talk like they never leave their house and play 2k all day. Reality isn't fantasy.

It does make you wonder because anybody that has ever played at any kind of competitive level knows that scoring is the hardest thing to do on basketball court, and it really isn't close. That's the reason why players consistently hold Kobe is such high regard while fans and writers are in love with cumulative box score numbers and favor players like Lebron. The players are in awe of Kobe because they know how hard it is to score. Also if you have ever tried to defend an elite scorer like Kobe (doesn't matter what level), you know how much is sucks, how draining it is, and how much pressure that dude is putting on you every time down the court. The simplest explanation possible is to do a thought experiment where you put your good rec player in an actual NBA game. I'm talking somebody that has played organized ball in the past, has some skills, is in decent shape and fairly athletic compared to the average, not a couch potato. That person could get assists, maybe grab a couple of boards, or pick up a loose ball or two, but they would not score a bucket. They might even not get a shot off depending on how seriously their defender took the game. Ya'll overrating cumulative box scores and that's why teams have specialists for those roles, i.e. Tristan Thompsons, etc.

[insidious301]

If you don't believe that Chris Paul is the third greatest player all-time, then why do you have such faith in BPM as a comparative tool when comparing Scottie Pippen to other players? Scottie Pippen is somehow consistently ranked in top 20 or close to it on this board when he isn't even in top 35 all-time in BPM, even though that is the statistic du jour around around here. Why? If it is overrating Paul, how much more is it overrating Pippen by comparison?
BTW, Anthony Davis is flirting with top 10 all-time BPM and Wade is still top 25. Just thought you should know that.

Every stat has an outlier. Every single one of them. And bpm isn't something you use by itself. It is your box total however those are just log numbers. Like points. I mentioned Value Over Replace too. And of course, defense. You going on and on about Chris Paul is nonsense and I will tell you why. He is still one of the best point guards ever. There's Magic-Oscar-Steph and then Chris Paul is commonly ranked with or ahead of Isiah Thomas. In fact for people who don't subscribe to ring count, they rank Chris Pual with Magic and Steph just on pure impact. With Pippen he was also #8 in scoring during his peak. So the argument against him not being able to score is a myth. Completely made up and out of thin air. His all-around play is high impact just as the numbers indicate.

In BPM/VORP he rates fairly well in case you were wondering. But that's just a stat log. When defense is mentioned, Pippen was a monster. I made a thread on the 90s BEST #2 wing. There is a reason he and Drexler were ranked #2 by the majority of ISH.


It does make you wonder because anybody that has ever played at any kind of competitive level knows that scoring is the hardest thing to do on basketball court, and it really isn't close. That's the reason why players consistently hold Kobe is such high regard while fans and writers are in love with cumulative box score numbers and favor players like Lebron. I'm talking somebody that has played organized ball in the past, has some skills, is in decent shape and fairly athletic compared to the average, not a couch potato. That person could get assists, maybe grab a couple of boards, or pick up a loose ball or two, but they would not score a bucket. They might even not get a shot off depending on how seriously their defender took the game. Ya'll overrating cumulative box scores and that's why teams have specialists for those roles, i.e. Tristan Thompsons, etc.

And then you realize Jordan & Lebron, good scorers, also led the league in stats like BPM & VORP. Another reason why everything goes into being an elite player not just scoring. Otherwise Dominique Wilkins, Alex English, Dantley, Carmelo Anthong and every other one dimensional scorer would be more celebrated. But they aren't. That is becasue they're looked at as surface level, one-trick players. And that's despite having little weakness putting the ball into the hoop. Elite AAU players who were coached by friends of mine never instilled that mindset. It is inefficient, selfish isolation ball that gets your teams nowhere. This is why Jordan was so great coming out of college. Dean Smith instilled all the principles that go into a team game onto the individual. No, not just scoring like you 2k millenials preach.

[insidious301]

Not sure. It is bizarre. At first thought you think it is driven by their MJ agenda since he is the all-time PPG leader--but he was an elite all-around player so you could make a stronger case for MJ on the basis of his all-around dominance than you could acting like he was a better Dominique.

It also is dumb as stats have improved over time. We have a lot better ways to gauge player performance with stuff like BPM and VORP. NBA fans are a lot slower to adopt those. For MLB fans WAR (baseball's version of VORP) is the gold standard to compare players. You don't see MLB fans going around saying home runs or batting average are the sole metrics for a player like you do with PPG (almost all from MJ stans FWIW).

Maybe pure laziness? Look up one stat, that's it. You are done.

To me you can gauge a lot about a player's value by seeing how their teams perform without them. Often it is the loss of facilitators that hurt teammates more than the loss of a scorer or the loss of versatile player. Pippen's Portland teams were below average without him but top 5 with him(unfortunately for Portland, all the top teams were in the West)--it wasn't his PPG they were missing. :lol

That's the thing. Jordan is one of the best all-around players ever. Had seasons leading in all the cumulative numbers too. Only reason they'd ignore that is off ignorance. Then again NFL/MLB fans look like scholars compared to most NBA fans. Haha. I like your way of judging players too. Just so long as the team in question is equally structured. Even a different coach who likely has a unique system could offset that.

[Roundball_Rock]

According to MJ stans you are supposed to ignore the following:

*Any advanced stat, especially BPM and VORP
*Accolades
*What GM's, coaches, players said at the time
*What sports writers said at the time
*What basketball experts have said since the 90's
*How teams performed without a player

Instead you simply are to take MJ stan's word for everything that happened. They are cult-like: reject all outside evidence, only the cult's propaganda counts.

2ball is embarrassing to them because he often says the quiet part out loud, his style, etc. but in many ways he is their intellectual leader. Look at goozeman/LostCause/Soundwave?'s posts here. Every word could have been written by 2ball himself. The one caveat is 2ball bears all the blame (he has value as the lighting rod who blots out the army pushing the same agenda) but he didn't start posting until 2014. He didn't create new agendas--he simply made the existing and future MJ stans on ISH more extreme. When is the last time you saw a MJ fan, other than Kuniva or Phoenix, argue Pippen was great/better than someone/etc., for example?


I like your way of judging players too. Just so long as the team in question is equally structured. Even a different coach who likely has a unique system could offset that.

Injuries are bad of course but one value is you get to see the same system, coach, players just with the injured player removed.

[insidious301]

goozeman/LostCause/Soundwave?

Those are the same guy? Wasn't far off on my analysis then. These posts read like someone with a legit lack of basketball foundation. Good point about the injuries. That is a little more in line with how I view things.

[Roundball_Rock]

He probably is LostCause. I and at least one other person suspects Soundwave too but who knows: they are all robots who parrot the same stuff so it is hard to tell. What gives it away is "verbal tics" etc. Goozeman is an account to say dumb stuff directly like "Pippen was a system player" while merely implying it to keep up appearances on other accounts.

I do think they use alts because they often fallback on their strength in numbers. That is why they flood every agenda-relevant thread. Look at your thread about 90's perimeters players. They made it look like Pippen vs. Drexler was close when it was basically only MJ stans picking Drexler (so Drexler is awesome but Pippen, the more accomplished player in the same era, somehow was a bum?). Not all, but they were the ones who fueled the close impression. In the recent George/Pippen thread they marched to it to give George a landslide win. They often explicitly will cite that all these other people agree with them--without the intellectual honesty to concede these are all people singing from the same agenda song sheet.

[HoopsNY]

Washed up but an all-star in 95' and 97'? :confusedshrug: We always hear how awesome prime Miller was. Dumars was an all-star over him in 97'.

My comment was in reference to Dumars' last 4 seasons. 1994-95 happened to be Hill's rookie year. He went 20/6/5 winning ROY. The team improved from 20 to 28 wins. Dumars was an all-star that year. Surely you don't blame Detroit's missing the playoffs on Hill, a rookie?

But what happened after that year? Dumars was washed up. A 13/2/4 player on 43%. 1997 he was an All-Star replacement, so I'm not sure why you keep citing it.


It is if that and a first round loss is the high water mark.

IF we're talking about an elite seed. The Pistons were 5th.


Get better seeding.

So it's his fault his team sucked? Great.


People don't talk about him as top 25-30 AT. Look at whenever he is compared to Pippen, a consensus top 20-30 AT player. He is discussed as >>>>>Pippen.

And they're wrong. People can't hinge the argument on what would have been. It doesn't work that way. But that's no excuse for underrating Hill.


The nostalgia/sympathy also issues him a free pass for stuff any other ATG would get criticized for. The standard Pippen is held to is starkly higher: he had to win a chip in 94' and 94' alone (his 6 chips don't count) and that he didn't is a damning indictment. Hill doesn't win in half a decade--doesn't even win a series or get a top seed--and he gets roses for it. This is from people who say Hill is vastly better yet he gets held to a far lower standard.

Again, comparing Hill to guys like Tmac and Dominique isn't fair. Hill racked up a whole 6 seasons of play by age 27. Guys like Tmac and Dominique got to play 10-12 seasons before they were inoperable.


I'm saying it doesn't come up at all because of nostalgia/sympathy. He could have turned it around it thereafter if healthy but it is erased from the discussion (the same reason JFK's legislative problems are overlooked and only the success he had is remembered). Meanwhile we basically had another Hill in the same era (same offense, elite defense). He gets critiqued 24/7 on ISH--often from the same people who hype Hill. How can one version be trash and the other be awesome?

After months of posting, you should know by now that I don't care what other posters on ISH say about Pippen. Pippen was great end of story. Pippen > Hill, period. Having said that, your criticisms of Hill are a bit unfair.

[72-10]

if they had five-tool players in basketball these would be two of them - true all-around players

between Hill and Pip, who had their peaks around the same time, Hill's peak and prime were better

I think Hill did more with less

[knicksman]

Why is that though? We know that points are like hitting home runs, but it makes you wonder if these people ever played a sport. Even in a rec league you are taught about the impact rebounding has. And of course playmaking and defense. Other things that don't go into gamelogs too like offball movement & setting picks. I know this because I used to coach. Posters like that guy talk like they never leave their house and play 2k all day. Reality isn't fantasy.

Because unselfishness has huge impact too. Unselfish player makes teammates happy and high team morale. And players like lebron or westbrook are the worst type of players to play with. As a scorer, its easier to score playing off ball but you wont getting assists playing that way. So if youre unselfish, youre willing to sacrifice your apg for the betterment of the team. But if you want those stats, you play lebron/westbrook ball.

Thats the reason why we dont include apg coz high assists for scorers means youre playing bad basketball. Replace jordan with lebron on those 96 team and pippen wont be happy that lebron is stealing his assists same with rodman. And so they couldnt win even 1 ring coz team has low morale and Lebron is nowhere near the scorer jordan is. Now is lebron better than jordan coz he has higher apg and rpg despite them winning nothing? Sorry but were not sacrificing 3 rings for higher apg and rpg for our star player.

Theres a reason why unselfish players are winners(russell, duncan, magic) while selfish players are losers(wilt, oscar, lebron). Theres a reason why houston is underachieving with 2 MVPs while okc is overachieving with 0 MVPs. Thats why apg and rpg dont mean much for us. Coz higher means theres a big chance that a player is selfish playing for stats instead of wins.

[insidious301]

Because unselfishness has huge impact too. Unselfish player makes teammates happy and high team morale. And players like lebron or westbrook are the worst type of players to play with. As a scorer, its easier to score playing off ball but you wont getting assists playing that way. So if youre unselfish, youre willing to sacrifice your apg for the betterment of the team. But if you want those stats, you play lebron/westbrook ball.

Thats the reason why we dont include apg coz high assists for scorers means youre playing bad basketball. Replace jordan with lebron on those 96 team and pippen wont be happy that lebron is stealing his assists same with rodman. And so they couldnt win even 1 ring coz team has low morale and Lebron is nowhere near the scorer jordan is. Now is lebron better than jordan coz he has higher apg and rpg despite them winning nothing? Sorry but were not sacrificing 3 rings for higher apg and rpg for our star player.

Theres a reason why unselfish players are winners(russell, duncan, magic) while selfish players are losers(wilt, oscar, lebron). Theres a reason why houston is underachieving with 2 MVPs while okc is overachieving with 0 MVPs. Thats why apg and rpg dont mean much for us. Coz higher means theres a big chance that a player is selfish playing for stats instead of wins.

I agree with most of this. And I like the theme of your post, knicksman. The only issue I take are certain players you call selfish. LeBron for example is not what you call a selfish iso hog. Here is why. This season he took a step back from scoring and relied more on making the young guys better. Of course also post feeding AD. And so far a success. His play has directly led to LA grabbing the 1 seed in a conference many thought he would struggle in. Most importantly however, LeBron has the second most FMVPs of all time. You are not THAT successful by being a losing player. It just isn't what reality tells us. Westbrook and Harden are to be determined but I agree that iso ball is a detriment.

[knicksman]

I agree with most of this. And I like the theme of your post, knicksman. The only issue I take are certain players you call selfish. LeBron for example is not what you call a selfish iso hog. Here is why. This season he took a step back from scoring and relied more on making the young guys better. Of course also post feeding AD. And so far a success. His play has directly led to LA grabbing the 1 seed in a conference many thought he would struggle in. Most importantly however, LeBron has the second most FMVPs of all time. You are not THAT successful by being a losing player. It just isn't what reality tells us. Westbrook and Harden are to be determined but I agree that iso ball is a detriment.

The reason why hes now willing to take a backseat coz hes in desperation mode. Hes already at the end of his career. But a true unselfish is willing to sacrifice even if youre in your prime. And Lebron may not be a loser coz he has won a ring but in terms of GOAT rankings. Since other players never formed superteams then its just not fair to compare Lebron to them. So in terms of GOAT rankings, I still consider him a loser.

[goozeman]

Bpm is a pretty shitty statistic. Even the creator admits DPBM is a complete mess and not very accurate. According to the metric Nate McMillan is the greatest defensive player of all time.

Agreed. Biggest issue is that team efficiency is calculated as part of BPM. The assumption is that the player is contributing more to team efficiency when in fact coaching is probably just as much a factor. The list is long of players who thrived under one coach and then dropped off greatly under a different system.

[insidious301]

The reason why hes now willing to take a backseat coz hes in desperation mode. Hes already at the end of his career. But a true unselfish is willing to sacrifice even if youre in your prime. And Lebron may not be a loser coz he has won a ring but in terms of GOAT rankings. Since other players never formed superteams then its just not fair to compare Lebron to them. So in terms of GOAT rankings, I still consider him a loser.

A better reason is him playing with a legit big who needs touches. LeBron scaled back the scoring and raised his assists. Leading the league there by the way. Yet you wont give him credit because he is allegedly "desperate". I don't know man. That sounds kind of silly. LeBron sacrificed his game plenty with Kyrie and Love. Another reason Kyrie got to put up big scoring numbers in the finals. Moreover, FMVP and GOAT status are not mutually exclusive. 3 FMVPs is the second most in history and whether you agree or not, reality says he put in the work to win those rings. LeBron is comfortably on Mt Rushmore.

[insidious301]

Agreed. Biggest issue is that team efficiency is calculated as part of BPM. The assumption is that the player is contributing more to team efficiency when in fact coaching is probably just as much a factor. The list is long of players who thrived under one coach and then dropped off greatly under a different system.

You are not making sense. Without a doubt efficiency should be calculated. You really don't think points are points & assists are in assists in a vacuum, right? A one-dimensional scorer who is poor from the field wont bode well in bpm. Just like that same player would not look good in fg%. Box plus minus takes your entire log into consideration. That's a good thing.

[goozeman]

He probably is LostCause. :no:

I do think they use alts because they often fallback on their strength in numbers. That is why they flood every agenda-relevant thread. Look at your thread about 90's perimeters players. They made it look like Pippen vs. Drexler was close when it was basically only MJ stans picking Drexler (so Drexler is awesome but Pippen, the more accomplished player in the same era, somehow was a bum?). Not all, but they were the ones who fueled the close impression. In the recent George/Pippen thread they marched to it to give George a landslide win. They often explicitly will cite that all these other people agree with them--without the intellectual honesty to concede these are all people singing from the same agenda song sheet.

First of all, Pippen is not as accomplished as Drexler, so there is that fact.

Secondly, not an alt. For the record, I'm actually a Pippen fan. And I get it. For a little bit there Pippen was kind of underappreciated playing in Jordan's shadow, but in truth Pippen was a very good player in his own right. However, now that people have come to appreciate Pippen a bit more, the cure has become worse than the disease. What he have now with Pippen and the Bulls in general is a kind of wild overcorrection. For example, ESPN disgracefully dropped a clearly superior player in Drexler out of the top 50 and hyped their employee Scottie Pippen obscenely out of proportion with his skill and impact on the game of basketball. Right of the top my head I can think of probably eight centers who had waaaaay better careers than Pippen and couple of more like Artis Gilmore whose accolades blow Pippen's away, if we are being honest. Center has historically been the most dominant position in NBA history by far, so how exactly are plugging a non-center, career second option in one the remaining thirteen or so spots to get a Pippen at 21 all-time, huh? Defense isn't that important. He was a great defender, but there have been others who were even better defensively and have won championships, like Ben Wallace, for example. They are not catapulted into the top 50 all-time on that basis.

Face it. There are good reasons to dispute the constant overhyping Pippen around here at the expense of other players who had better careers or were simply better players. Nobody is hating on Pippen or trying to diminish him for the sake of Jordan's legacy. I've always said Pippen is an all-time great. I really don't personally care that much what people think of Jordan, so I'm not even really a Jordan fan per se. I just acknowledge the fact that he's the best player I've ever seen, and it is pretty obvious to anybody paying attention. In my mind, there is no real debate there between Kareem and Jordan, Lebron and Jordan, Magic and Jordan, etc. with or without Pippen. My reason for saying that is not strictly based on pure skill either or championships. Jordan changed the aesthetic of the game, the style of it, and even its technology if you think about pretty much every perimeter player is pattern off how Jordan played the game. Jordan's like that first high jumper who figured out he could go over the bar back first or whatever. Nobody wants to give Jordan credit for being a basketball genius and they just chalk everything up to competitiveness and athleticism.

[goozeman]

You are not making sense. Without a doubt efficiency should be calculated. You really don't think points are points & assists are in assists in a vacuum, right? A one-dimensional scorer who is poor from the field wont bode well in bpm. Just like that same player would not look good in fg%. Box plus minus takes your entire log into consideration. That's a good thing.

I'm not saying that team efficiency shouldn't be calculated. It really doesn't matter. I'm sure it's possible to create a metric that doesn't use it. I'm saying that I don't think BPM can always accurately measure how efficiency is created in the first place, but it always reduces a team stat to a player metric. Like I said, the list is long of players who are great in one system but average in another. On some level, efficiency is about performing the play the coach draws up. A good play is going to be more efficient than a bad play, etc.

[knicksman]

A better reason is him playing with a legit big who needs touches. LeBron scaled back the scoring and raised his assists. Leading the league there by the way. Yet you wont give him credit because he is allegedly "desperate". I don't know man. That sounds kind of silly. LeBron sacrificed his game plenty with Kyrie and Love. Another reason Kyrie got to put up big scoring numbers in the finals. Moreover, FMVP and GOAT status are not mutually exclusive. 3 FMVPs is the second most in history and whether you agree or not, reality says he put in the work to win those rings. LeBron is comfortably on Mt Rushmore.

Lebron knows that no one wants to play with him. And the only way he could attract big FAs is to change his game. He already said to kawhi that he will let kawhi be the man if he joins him but kawhi said no. His time is running out. If he still played the way he is, he wont be playing with AD right now. Thats the reason why kyrie left coz he doesnt like the way he plays. If he really is unselfish then his stats would be the same as those celtics big 3.

Yeah FMVPs and GOAT status arent mutually exclusive but winning with superteams is. Thats why players before dont form superteams until theyre old when they know that GOAT status is already out of reach and they just dont want to retire ringless. Theres a reason why lebron still not getting that respect no matter how much ESPN tries to hype him up. And Theres a reason why his peers dont rank him above kobe.

[MrFonzworth]

Give me Grant Hill.

Give offense triumphs good defense.

[Lion's pride]

My all-time SF list go as:

TIER 1

1-BIRD
1A-LEBRON
3-KD

TIER 2

1-KAWHI
2-PIPPEN

TIER 3

1-BERNARD KING
2-HAVLICEK
3-GRANT HILL
4-JAMES WORTHY

PG will be up their, probably Tier 3..

[Lion's pride]

Give me Grant Hill.

Give offense triumphs good defense.

But does it "triumph" over the BEST defense.. (Pippen was a GOAT level perimeter defender)

[3ball]

Does anyone actually watch the footage anymore?

Grant Hill treated Pippen like a junior higher when they faced off - Hill scored like Pippen wasn't there.. it's literally all over YouTube.. then MJ had to guard Hill to slow him down

Worthy did the same.. or dominique, dumas, Kersey or Schrempf... kobe used to laugh at Pippen while destroying him .. Everyone got theirs on Pippen.. Pippen being a goat defender is a myth..

[Roundball_Rock]

What underrating Hill? We both have him as top 25-30 all-time caliber if he stayed healthy. The underrating going on in this thread isn't about Hill...It is interesting Hill walks on water while Pippen sucks. Their primes briefly overlapped. Pippen was ahead of him in all-NBA in 95', 96', Hill in 97'. Hill again in 98' but Pippen missed half the season.


1997 he was an All-Star replacement

He was chosen over Reggie Miller, ISH's gold standard for non-MJ 90's guards. :oldlol: In other words, coaches thought he was better in 97' than prime Miller. That is being washed up?


IF we're talking about an elite seed. The Pistons were 5th

Being in the bottom half of anything isn't elite. The 54 wins are misleading--wins were inflated after the 96' expansion. That was the only time they cleared 50+. Usually they were around .500.

[Rolando]

Grant Hill was better. I watched them play. Hill was a triple double machine, cool as a cucumber, #1 option, Alpha. Pippen was also good but just not at the same level. Sure his defense was better. That's it.

[Roundball_Rock]

But does it "triumph" over the BEST defense.. (Pippen was a GOAT level perimeter defender)

There also is a myth that there was this vast difference on offense.

Prime Hill: 21.6/7.9/6.3 54.4% TS
Prime Pippen: 20.0/7.3/6.0 54.6% TS
Pippen as #1: 22.2/8.5/5.5 55.2% TS (141 RS games)

1.6 PPG is the scoring difference we keep hearing about and Pippen actually outscored him when both were #1 options on superior efficiency.

In assists, the prime difference is 0.3 and the triangle deflated assists as well (not to mention star scoring--that after all was the point of implementing the triangle.)

Offensive rebounds? 2.1 for Pippen, 1.4 for Hill and Pippen played with Rodman for much of his prime.

In the playoffs:

Prime Hill: 19.6/6.9/5.6 52% TS
Prime Pippen: 19.2/7.9/5.5 52% TS
Pippen as a #1: 22.8/8.3/4.6 52% TS (94')

0.4 PPG scoring difference. :lol

The number speak for themselves but the combination of Pippen hate from the usual MJ stans and Hill nostalgia/sympathy from others makes this a fact free discussion (at least from the Hill side). :oldlol: Sprite commercials don't count as PPG.

[houston]

Pippen of course Grant Hill was overrated

[Roundball_Rock]

Here is how they compared in augmented plus-minus when both players were in their primes:

Augmented Plus-Minus for Select Stars 1995-1998

1995: Robinson 8.4, Pippen 5.8, Shaq/Penny 5.6, Malone 5.3, Hakeem 5.1, Barkley 3.9, Ewing 3.6, Miller 2.4, Payton 2.3, Hill 2.2
1996: Robinson 6.5, Penny 5.6, Pippen 5.5, Malone 5.1, Shaq/Hill 4.1, Hakeem 3.9, Miller 3.6, Barkley 3.1, Ewing/Payton 2.9
1997: Pippen 6.4, Ewing 5.7, Malone 5.2, Shaq 4.9, Payton 4.5, Penny/Hakeem 4.0, Hill 3.5, Barkley 2.9, Miller 1.8, Robinson 1.6
1998: Shaq 7.8, Malone 5.5, Hill 5.3, Miller 5.1, Pippen/Payton 4.7, Robinson/Ewing 4.6, Barkley 3.6, Hakeem 3.4, Penny 1.9

[97 bulls]

Does anyone actually watch the footage anymore?

Grant Hill treated Pippen like a junior higher when they faced off - Hill scored like Pippen wasn't there.. it's literally all over YouTube.. then MJ had to guard Hill to slow him down

Worthy did the same.. or dominique, dumas, Kersey or Schrempf... kobe used to laugh at Pippen while destroying him .. Everyone got theirs on Pippen.. Pippen being a goat defender is a myth..

I dont believe you just typed that.

[Roundball_Rock]

I dont believe you just typed that.

He is insane. :lol

[3ball]

I dont believe you just typed that.

Footage is different from live games

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=grant+hill+Pippen+Jordan

[HoopsNY]

What underrating Hill? We both have him as top 25-30 all-time caliber if he stayed healthy. The underrating going on in this thread isn't about Hill...It is interesting Hill walks on water while Pippen sucks. Their primes briefly overlapped. Pippen was ahead of him in all-NBA in 95', 96', Hill in 97'. Hill again in 98' but Pippen missed half the season.

I'm not discussing Pippen though. I've already stated that Pippen > Hill.


He was chosen over Reggie Miller, ISH's gold standard for non-MJ 90's guards. :oldlol: In other words, coaches thought he was better in 97' than prime Miller. That is being washed up?

Just because he was chosen over Miller doesn't mean he was deserving of that selection. And yes, he was washed up. 13-2-4 on 43% over his final 4 seasons is solid to you? How about Dumars' playoff numbers during that stretch: 12/2/3 on 42%

I loved Joe Dumars as a player. But you're hinging your argument about Hill's failures in the playoffs based on a very shaky standard that includes:

- a washed up Dumars
- two seasons with Allan Houston (one of which was Hill's rookie season where Houston started just 39 games)
- Jerry flippin Stackhouse, a natural cancer to any team despite playing with great players

The only strong argument you have is Hill's rookie season where Dumars was still a great player. The team won just 28 games but Hill put up 20/6/5 on 48%. But are you really going to blame Hill for his team not making the playoffs, with those numbers, as a rookie?


Being in the bottom half of anything isn't elite. The 54 wins are misleading--wins were inflated after the 96' expansion. That was the only time they cleared 50+. Usually they were around .500.

That's my point, though. They weren't a strong enough team to have a high enough seed, which would have at least secured them home court advantage for a round.

Detroit's team was trash. Stackhouse was a cancer, Dumars became washed up after Hill's rookie year, and Houston was a shooter who didn't provide elite defense, any leadership, and wasn't versatile. He was a shooter. And even with that, how many full seasons did he play with Hill?

That one season they did the Houston/Hill full combo, they faced a 60 win Orlando team. You expected them to beat that team? C'mon.

[Roundball_Rock]

We both fundamentally agree: Hill was a top 25-30 AT caliber guy who just got hurt. We are arguing around the edge when we agree on the substance. We aren't saying Hill is Draymond or something like that, akin to the idiots talking about Pippen on ISH (didn't read their specific posts here but its usually the same BS thread to thread).

My point was warts are erased by sympathy/nostalgia (with JFK being the prime non-sports example--good president but his legislative skills were an important weakness.). These guys will have some flaws, hence being top 25-30 AT types instead of top 2-3 types.