Is Grant Hill Hall of Fame bound?

[swi7ch]

Yes early on in his career but he got injured big time and missed a lot of years so I don't think he'll be going to the HoF. The voters tend to look at the player's entire career rather than just a few good years.

[Cali Syndicate]

You just answered your own question.

[Smoke117]

If he does it will take multiple nominees to finally get in. He's certainly not getting in right off the bat if he ever does. I would say he probably doesn't get in at all though.

[Meticode]

He is will. You have to look at his college career as well. They take that into account as well. It's not just the NBA HoF.

[jbryan1984]

He is will. You have to look at his college career as well. They take that into account as well. It's not just the NBA HoF.


Exactly what I was thinking. And adding on the fact that he was an elite NBA player for several years as well won't hurt his chances either. Probably not a first ballet but I think he will get in.

[rodman91]

7 time allstar.
5 All NBA team
17.5 6.3 rpg 4.3 apg (despite injury years, its almost same as Scottie Pippen :eek: )
Great College Career
Gold medal in olympics.
3 time sportmanship award, one of the most classy & beloved basketball player.

I think he is gonna make it.

[Meticode]

7 time allstar.
5 All NBA team
17.5 6.3 rpg 4.3 apg (despite injury years, its almost same as Scottie Pippen :eek: )
Great College Career
Gold medal in olympics.
3 time sportmanship award, one of the most classy & beloved basketball player.

I think he is gonna make it.
Also led Duke to 3 title games, and won twice in a row. First time a college team since in the 70s were a program won back-to-back titles since UCLA.

[L.Kizzle]

Chris Mullin just got into the Hall of Fame, ok peoples.

Hill is in.

[DMV2]

Yeah, the Duke success and the Gold Medals would get him in.

[Noob Saibot]

I think Grant's college years alone might be good enough for him to make the hall of fame. And now he's 39, a starter for an NBA team, and still not retired. Remarkable.

[Cali Syndicate]

Chris Mullin just got into the Hall of Fame, ok peoples.

Hill is in.

While Mullin and Hill both had nice college careers,

Mullin had a better NBA career

and Mullin has 2 Olympic gold medals.

Hill is one of of my favorite players so I'm not disregarding him as a player in any way but Hill shouldn't get in.

If he does get in, it will mainly be because of the way he overcame his tribulations if that counts at all.

[TheFan]

they will bullshit his way in... similar to Yao, something like, nicest player offcourt.

[L.Kizzle]

While Mullin and Hill both had nice college careers,

Mullin had a better NBA career

and Mullin has 2 Olympic gold medals.

Hill is one of of my favorite players so I'm not disregarding him as a player in any way but Hill shouldn't get in.

If he does get in, it will mainly be because of the way he overcame his tribulations if that counts at all.
He did ...

Hill had more All-Stars and All-NBA teams and a better college career.

If Hill had Timmy and Richmond/Webber and Sprewell ... instead of Jerry Stackhouse and old Joe Dumars.

[ihatetimthomas]

He probably will, but this is why I just do not like how people get into the hall. I dont think he really doesn't deserves to be in. He had a nice college career and a good 5-6 years in the NBA, but to me that shouldn't be enough to get in. Had he not been injured, he would have been a lock in the hall. I dont even think Chis Mullin should be in. I wish the Hall was more exclusive. But based on how players are inducted, Hill certainly has a good chance.

[L.Kizzle]

He probably will, but this is why I just do not like how people get into the hall. I dont think he really doesn't deserves to be in. He had a nice college career and a good 5-6 years in the NBA, but to me that shouldn't be enough to get in. Had he not been injured, he would have been a lock in the hall. I dont even think Chis Mullin should be in. I wish the Hall was more exclusive. But based on how players are inducted, Hill certainly has a good chance.
So who should get into the Hall of Fame? Players with 10+ years primes, never got injured and went deep into the playoffs year after year?

In that case, the hall would have about 20 players.

Everyone isn't Kareem, Jordan, Wilt or Russell. Hell, everyone isn't Barkley or Malone.

[JMT]

He probably will, but this is why I just do not like how people get into the hall. I dont think he really doesn't deserves to be in. He had a nice college career and a good 5-6 years in the NBA, but to me that shouldn't be enough to get in. Had he not been injured, he would have been a lock in the hall. I dont even think Chis Mullin should be in. I wish the Hall was more exclusive. But based on how players are inducted, Hill certainly has a good chance.

Agreed. My feeling has always been that the Hall should be for the truly elite.

Hill has had a remarkable career, but it's mostly remarkable for the fact that he overcame injury to become a very effective role player at an advanced age.

He's not Walton, who is in the argument as best college player ever and who carried one team to a title in his prime, playing at an incredibly high level, then became a major contributor to another title team.

Hill's a guy who had a really good college career, a couple of really good NBA seasons, and a time as a really solid player on mediocre teams.

Earlier posters mentioned Mullin, and there's much discussion today on ISH about McGrady and Carter. I don't think any of them belong.

[bizil]

I think G Hill is in when u throw in the college career. It's a shame it's even a debate cause G Hill seemed to be on track to possibly be the 2nd or 3rd GOAT SF of all time. It seemed he was like Dr. J and Pippen all rolled into one. In that sense, he redefined the SF spot. From there, a guy like Bron took the G Hill type model to new levels in a 6'8 265 pound body. Would have love to see those two battle as well. Hill was only 30 or 31 when Bron came in the L. So they could have had great battles. Teaming with T Mac would have been a devastating combination. One sure to get some rings. But due to injuries, they never got to show what they could do. But the thing is when G Hill was right, he was a top 5 player in the L. All around wise, I think Hill, MJ, Pippen, and Penny were the top four guys in the L in that sense as well. Hill gets in due to the great college career, great pro career cut short, and his character. I think when u were as great as G Hill was peak value wise, it gives him an edge. He has 5 all nba teams and seven all star games to boot as well.

[Cali Syndicate]

He did ...

Hill had more All-Stars and All-NBA teams and a better college career.

If Hill had Timmy and Richmond/Webber and Sprewell ... instead of Jerry Stackhouse and old Joe Dumars.

Some of Hill's all star appearances came cause of his popularity. Mullin in all of his selections had legitimacy. They came in a 5 year span where Mullin was scoring 25ppg on 50% shooting. Not many players have done that. And college careers is debatable. Hill may have the championships but he played for Duke who was a powerhouse even before Hill got there. They have a proven track record. Mullin played for St. John. Nuff said. And even so the NCAA still paid him his dues.

With all that said, Hill was overall a better player than Mullin but his career was obviously cut short. A brief career of elite play won't get you in. If he does, great, I just don't see it happening unless they give brownie points for the point I made earlier.

[L.Kizzle]

Some of Hill's all star appearances came cause of his popularity. Mullin in all of his selections had legitimacy. They came in a 5 year span where Mullin was scoring 25ppg on 50% shooting. Not many players have done that. And college careers is debatable. Hill may have the championships but he played for Duke who was a powerhouse even before Hill got there. They have a proven track record. Mullin played for St. John. Nuff said. And even so the NCAA still paid him his dues.

With all that said, Hill was overall a better player than Mullin but his career was obviously cut short. A brief career of elite play won't get you in. If he does, great, I just don't see it happening unless they give brownie points for the point I made earlier.
Only one of them came from popularity. He was injured in 2001, yet still voted in. His other years were legit, even in 2005.

[Cali Syndicate]

Only one of them came from popularity. He was injured in 2001, yet still voted in. His other years were legit, even in 2005.

Eh...I'm looking at the vote results now and Hill getting more votes than Nash and Dirk kinda tells me it was more of a popularity contest, it kinda always has been though. 05 was his first solid year back from his ankle surgeries so fans were just happy to see him back even though he clearly wasn't the same player.

[L.Kizzle]

Eh...I'm looking at the vote results now and Hill getting more votes than Nash and Dirk kinda tells me it was more of a popularity contest, it kinda always has been though. 05 was his first solid year back from his ankle surgeries so fans were just happy to see him back even though he clearly wasn't the same player.
What year, 01 or 05?

'Nash and Dirk were never popular players. Nash might have only been voted in once as a started, Dirk still has zero. He only got put into the lineup once cause someone (Yao I think) was injured.

[Cali Syndicate]

What year, 01 or 05?

'Nash and Dirk were never popular players. Nash might have only been voted in once as a started, Dirk still has zero. He only got put into the lineup once cause someone (Yao I think) was injured.

I was looking at the 05 voting results.

Nash played in a conference with 3 of the more popular guards of this era in Kobe, Iverson and McGrady so it makes sense.

Look at McGrady's 06 bid.....All Star games are a popularity contest.

[RobertdeMeijer]

From 1992 to 2000, Grant Hill was one of the first dozen players that came to mind when I heard basketball.
To me it would be strange not to have him enshrined.

[west_tip]

Some of Hill's all star appearances came cause of his popularity. Mullin in all of his selections had legitimacy. They came in a 5 year span where Mullin was scoring 25ppg on 50% shooting. Not many players have done that. And college careers is debatable. Hill may have the championships but he played for Duke who was a powerhouse even before Hill got there. They have a proven track record. Mullin played for St. John. Nuff said. And even so the NCAA still paid him his dues.

With all that said, Hill was overall a better player than Mullin but his career was obviously cut short. A brief career of elite play won't get you in. If he does, great, I just don't see it happening unless they give brownie points for the point I made earlier.

Duke may have been a powerhouse but Coack K had gotten to a few Final 4s without winning a National title, its not like he was Bill Walton slotting into a program well used to winning it all.

[Kyle_korver]

Hell no!!!.. I doubt t Mac going n that's one of my fav players .. Why would grant hill go??

[Cali Syndicate]

Duke may have been a powerhouse but Coack K had gotten to a few Final 4s without winning a National title, its not like he was Bill Walton slotting into a program well used to winning it all.

That wasn't my point. Hill's winning college career has a lot to do with him playing for Duke program. Mullin played for St. John so it was very unlikely he was playing for a solid contender year in year out like Hill was. That was the contrast I was making. However had Hill played in a weaker basketball program, I'm sure he could have still been regarded a great college player regardless if he hadn't made any finals appearances as Mullin was.

[Smoke117]

I think G Hill is in when u throw in the college career. It's a shame it's even a debate cause G Hill seemed to be on track to possibly be the 2nd or 3rd GOAT SF of all time. It seemed he was like Dr. J and Pippen all rolled into one. In that sense, he redefined the SF spot. From there, a guy like Bron took the G Hill type model to new levels in a 6'8 265 pound body. Would have love to see those two battle as well. Hill was only 30 or 31 when Bron came in the L. So they could have had great battles. Teaming with T Mac would have been a devastating combination. One sure to get some rings. But due to injuries, they never got to show what they could do. But the thing is when G Hill was right, he was a top 5 player in the L. All around wise, I think Hill, MJ, Pippen, and Penny were the top four guys in the L in that sense as well. Hill gets in due to the great college career, great pro career cut short, and his character. I think when u were as great as G Hill was peak value wise, it gives him an edge. He has 5 all nba teams and seven all star games to boot as well.

How was he Dr. J and Pippen rolled into one? Grant Hill was basically Scottie but more nimble and quicker so more successful off the dribble but with less range as a shooter and not as good in the post. (and obviously nothing close to Pippen defensively) The key thing was that nimbleness and quickness that allowed him to attack the basket and get to the ft line a lot more than a guy like Pippen did. (though Pippen never got any calls anyway even when he was hammered...probably because he played next to Jordan) If you replace Pippen with Hill in that Doug Collins offense that he ran on the Pistons (which basically allowed him to run the offense and whatever he pleased), Pippen would replicate every stat the same except probably average more assist as he was just more of a natural pg. That and you would just have a far, far superior defensive player. The whole Dr. J thing is where you are throwing me off. That just makes no complete sense. Though Scottie Pippen's offensive game replicates Dr. J's more than anybodies as he was his hero, so maybe they are all linked in the sense that their games are similar as far as scoring goes? Pippen was also Dr. J's favorite player of the 90s era. But Grant Hill did not "redefine" anything. If anything Pippen redefined the SF position long before Grant Hill joined the league. He was just basically Scottie Pippen better off the dribble with less range as a shooter. That year when Hill averaged 25ppg in 2000 his all around game and defense suffered (as most players do...the more energy you put on scoring less you have for defense)

[Sarcastic]

If Grant Hill makes it, then so should Vince Carter.

[get these NETS]

shouldn't be


never got out of first round as the man

[bizil]

How was he Dr. J and Pippen rolled into one? Grant Hill was basically Scottie but more nimble and quicker so more successful off the dribble but with less range as a shooter and not as good in the post. (and obviously nothing close to Pippen defensively) The key thing was that nimbleness and quickness that allowed him to attack the basket and get to the ft line a lot more than a guy like Pippen did. (though Pippen never got any calls anyway even when he was hammered...probably because he played next to Jordan) If you replace Pippen with Hill in that Doug Collins offense that he ran on the Pistons (which basically allowed him to run the offense and whatever he pleased), Pippen would replicate every stat the same except probably average more assist as he was just more of a natural pg. That and you would just have a far, far superior defensive player. The whole Dr. J thing is where you are throwing me off. That just makes no complete sense. Though Scottie Pippen's offensive game replicates Dr. J's more than anybodies as he was his hero, so maybe they are all linked in the sense that their games are similar as far as scoring goes? Pippen was also Dr. J's favorite player of the 90s era. But Grant Hill did not "redefine" anything. If anything Pippen redefined the SF position long before Grant Hill joined the league. He was just basically Scottie Pippen better off the dribble with less range as a shooter. That year when Hill averaged 25ppg in 2000 his all around game and defense suffered (as most players do...the more energy you put on scoring less you have for defense)


The reason that Grant is similar to Dr. J is the fact that they were legit number one Batman options. Something Pip NEVER was. G Hill was way more willing to put a team on his back that Pip ever was scoring wise. Doc and Hill were freakish athletes and very smooth with that. Grant just didn't get to do it as long as Doc due to the injuries. Grant also had the point forward capabilities of Scottie Pippen as well, something Doc didn't have. Thus Grant combined the two in one. The only thing Pip had in common with Doc was the fact they were freakish athletes. Over than that, Pip and Doc didn't have much in common. Doc was a true Batman, while Pip was a true Robin. G Hill was considered a Batman, but probably not quite on the level of Doc. Cause Grant got hurt when he should have been really getting into his prime. And he had point forward skills of Pip along with.

The reasons I pointed out are why Hill did redefine the SF spot. Pip did too however. Pip combined Dr. J type athletic ability with point forward skills. But Pip was never a Batman or true number one option. Grant Hill added that scoring takeover ability that Pip didn't exhibit consistently enough. Therefore, Hill did redefine the SF spot. And now Bron is taking what Hill did to sick levels. Bottom line is Doc and Hill were Batman while Pip was always a Robin.

And if u dont see some Doc in Hill's game u are crazy! I see more Doc's game in Hill than I do Pip. Pip shoots more three pointers and has more range that Doc or Hill. Finishing at the hoop wise, Hill and Doc are more similar as well. U r insane to say Pip has more Dr. J in his game than Grant Hill. Pip has similarities as I said before. But Hill reminded me of Dr. J more than Pip. Hill had tremendous defense what are u talking about! But Pip is arguably the greatest perimeter player of all time. Hill had just as much point forward or point guard capabilities had Pip EVER had! U r delusional for real! LMBAO! Pip peak value wise aint ****ing with G Hill peak value wise. G Hill in my book was on a whole other level than Pip. Hill is closer to the Dr. J, Bird, Hondo, Barry level of SF than Pip ever will be. The year before Hill got his first serious injury, he put up 26 points a night, 7 boards, and 5 dimes. Hill has had seasons of 9.8 boards and also seasons of 7.3 assists. That's Larry Bird level production. Peak Pip simply isn't on Peak Hill's level at all. Hill was being groomed to be THE AMBASSADOR of the NBA along with Shaq! Pip was never close to that. Dr. J was the first ambassador type player when the NBA was slowly making that push worldwide. He then passed the torch to Magic and Larry. Then they passed it to Mike. Shaq and Hill were the next two guys for that. Shaq got to reap while Hill had the injuries. Pip was simply never on this type of playing field!

[Smoke117]

The reason that Grant is similar to Dr. J is the fact that they were legit number one Batman options. Something Pip NEVER was. G Hill was way more willing to put a team on his back that Pip ever was scoring wise. Doc and Hill were freakish athletes and very smooth with that. Grant just didn't get to do it as long as Doc due to the injuries. Grant also had the point forward capabilities of Scottie Pippen as well, something Doc didn't have. Thus Grant combined the two in one. The only thing Pip had in common with Doc was the fact they were freakish athletes. Over than that, Pip and Doc didn't have much in common. Doc was a true Batman, while Pip was a true Robin. G Hill was considered a Batman, but probably not quite on the level of Doc. Cause Grant got hurt when he should have been really getting into his prime. And he had point forward skills of Pip along with.

The reasons I pointed out are why Hill did redefine the SF spot. Pip did too however. Pip combined Dr. J type athletic ability or with point forward skills. But Pip was never a Batman or true number one option. Grant Hill added that scoring takeover ability that Pip didn't exhibit consistently enough. Therefore, Hill did redefine the SF spot. And now Bron is taking what Hill did to sick levels. Bottom line is Doc and Hill were Batman while Pip was always a Robin.

Pippen was Batman enough to lead his team to 55 (while missing those 10 games they went 4-6) wins and 7 games in the 2nd round (which they should have won if not for a bullshit call) vs the eventual team who lost in the finals in 7 games. He did a hell of a lot more as the "batman" than Hill ever did in ONE season. And no, sorry, Hill never had Pippen's ability as a PG. He was just frankly allowed to do whatever he pleased in Doug Collins offense. As I said in my post, you replace Hill with Pippen and Pippen would average around 9apg given that much freedom.

[bizil]

Pippen was Batman enough to lead his team to 55 (while missing those 10 games they went 4-6) wins and 7 games in the 2nd round (which they should have won if not for a bullshit call) vs the eventual team who lost in the finals in 7 games. He did a hell of a lot more as the "batman" than Hill ever did in ONE season. And no, sorry, Hill never had Pippen's ability as a PG. He was just frankly allowed to do whatever he pleased in Doug Collins offense. As I said in my post, you replace Hill with Pippen and Pippen would average around 9apg given that much freedom.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda don't mean nothing. Sure Pip got the Bulls to 55 wins. But that team needed more scoring to reach that next level. Pip only average like a point more than he did WITH Mike! lol That simply doesn't cut it. The standard in Chicago was RINGS and not simply making the playoffs. They just came off a damn three peat. He had a tremendous coach in Phil Jackson and great system in the triangle. And the Bulls were a tremendous defensive team. I think a peak Hill would have got that Bulls team farther than Pip would have. Cause Hill would have stepped up his scoring more. That Bulls team simply needed more scoring punch. Replace MJ with Pip on that team. The Bulls would have made the Finals and even win another title. It wouldn't have came down to that bad call by the ref in the Knicks series.

For u to say Pip was more of a Batman than Hill ever was that season is frankly delusional. Hill's best seasons trumps Pip's best seasons. For u to say Pip clearly would have averaged 9 assists in place of Hill is a bold statement. When both guys were actually very comparable as passers. I would say Hill was the better passer. And Hill DIDN'T have the luxury to pass to the greatest player of all time! LOL Put Hill in place of Pippen on those Bulls teams and I feel they would have been even more dominant!

[Smoke117]

Shoulda, coulda, woulda don't mean nothing. Sure Pip got the Bulls to 55 wins. But that team needed more scoring to reach that next level. Pip only average like a point more than he did WITH Mike! lol That simply doesn't cut it. The standard in Chicago was RINGS and not simply making the playoffs. They just came off a damn three peat. He had a tremendous coach in Phil Jackson and great system in the triangle. And the Bulls were a tremendous defensive team. I think a peak Hill would have got that Bulls team farther than Pip would have. Cause Hill would have stepped up his scoring more. That Bulls team simply needed more scoring punch. Replace MJ with Pip on that team. The Bulls would have made the Finals and even win another title. It wouldn't have came down to that bad call by the ref in the Knicks series.

For u to say Pip was more of a Batman than Hill ever was that season is frankly delusional. Hill's best seasons trumps Pip's best seasons. For u to say Pip clearly would have averaged 9 assists in place of Hill is a bold statement. When both guys were actually very comparable as passers. I would say Hill was the better passer. And Hill DIDN'T have the luxury to pass to the greatest player of all time! LOL Put Hill in place of Pippen on those Bulls teams and I feel they would have been even more dominant!

Phil Jackson didn't want Pippen to start taking 20 shots are taking anything. Why do you think the 94 Bulls are better defensively than the 93 Bulls even though they lost Jordan? Because they concentrated more on that and Scottie especially became more of an actual ANCHOR real before it was more of a three headed dragon with: Jordan, Pippen, Grant. Pippen absolutely dominated defensively in 94. He didn't need to score 25+ppg to be a super star. God defense is so underrated. You act like he COULDN'T have averaged more points when it was just the fact that he just didn't shoot that much. He only took 17.8 shots in 94. It's not that he couldn't score more it's just that, that's not what they wanted him to do. Antoine Walker should be an example enough that ppg doesn't mean shit. That guy basically took as many shots as it took him to score his points. He took about 19 shots to average 20 points. Pippen just didn't shoot the ball that much. That hardly means he couldn't have. Besides before that 2000 season, Hill had never once averaged more points than Pippen did in 94 or 95.

[bizil]

Phil Jackson didn't want Pippen to start taking 20 shots are taking anything. Why do you think the 94 Bulls are better defensively than the 93 Bulls even though they lost Jordan? Because they concentrated more on that and Scottie especially became more of an actual ANCHOR real before it was more of a three headed dragon with: Jordan, Pippen, Grant. Pippen absolutely dominated defensively in 94. He didn't need to score 25+ppg to be a super star. God defense is so underrated.

See now u are putting words in my mouth. I never said D was underrated. Or that Pip wasn't a superstar. Because Pip was indeed a superstar. But John Stockton was also a superstar as well. Bob Cousy was a superstar. Rodman was a superstar. Bill Russell was a superstar. Jason Kidd was a superstar. I NEVER SAID PIP WASN'T A SUPERSTAR!

Jackson didn't want Pip doing than cause THAT'S NOT IN PIP'S NATURE! It's different when the number one priority is u. Pip had the luxury of MJ being there to make life easier, which is fine. Cause many teams had multiple HOFers on them. But when it's time for YOU to be the number one option and the legend or legends are gone, how are u gonna perform? Phil wouldn't have told MJ the same thing. Because MJ was the ultimate Batman AND the ultimate all around game all in one. MJ would put up 20 shots or 25 shots if that's what it took. But MJ was very effcient and can get 30 a night taking under 20 shots a night. BUT NO WAY IN HELL WOULD PHIL EVER TELL MJ NOT TO TAKE 20 SHOTS! He told Pip that cause he knew Pip's mentality that's why!

[Smoke117]

See now u are putting words in my mouth. I never said D was underrated. Or that Pip wasn't a superstar. Because Pip was indeed a superstar. But John Stockton was also a superstar as well. Bob Cousy was a superstar. Rodman was a superstar. Bill Russell was a superstar. Jason Kidd was a superstar. I NEVER SAID PIP WASN'T A SUPERSTAR!

Jackson didn't want Pip doing than cause THAT'S NOT IN PIP'S NATURE! It's different when the number one priority is u. Pip had the luxury of MJ being there to make life easier, which is fine. Cause many teams had multiple HOFers on them. But when it's time for YOU to be the number one option and the legend or legends are gone, how are u gonna perform? Phil wouldn't have told MJ the same thing. Because MJ was the ultimate Batman AND the ultimate all around game all in one. MJ would put up 20 shots or 25 shots if that's what it took. But MJ was very effcient and can get 30 a night taking under 20 shots a night. BUT NO WAY IN HELL WOULD PHIL EVER TELL MJ NOT TO TAKE 20 SHOTS! He told Pip that cause he knew Pip's mentality that's why!

No, he told him that because he knew that's not what was going to help the team. Okay, so your team just lost the best player in the league and if not the best player in the league, arguably the best scorer in the league, a guy who was averaging 30ppg on great efficiency for your team...and replaced him with Pete Myers. Is Scottie Pippen going out there and shooting 20-25 shots no matter how good he is going to replace that? Especially when he has no...well Scottie Pippen as his 2nd option? I don't know how old you are or how much you watched the 94 Bulls play, but they actually utilized the triangle offense in it's most purest form and played some of the best team ball I've EVER seen. This is why I hate people (and i'm not talking about you, you're obviously smarter than that) that just look at ppg and go wow that guys good. One season Antoine Walker averaged 23.4ppg...yet needed 21.2 shots to do that...lol...if Pippen had taken 21.2 shots in 94 he probably would have averaged somewhere around 26pts. Yet because he Walker actually averaged more points than him for an entire season does that make him a better scorer? OF COURSE NOT, because the clown was just chucking away. You have to understand that Scottie had to expend as much energy on the defensive end as he did on the offensive end (especially in 95...which was when they used to say that he looked too tired to finish teams off offensively because of how HARD HE PLAYED DEFENSIVELY...tell me ONE OTHER SUPERSTAR YOU EVER HEARD THEM SAY THAT ABOUT?) without Michael being there. The reason why Michael can't be better defensively than Scottie is because he NEVER was close to as dominant as Pippen was in 94 and especially 95 and just plain couldn't legitimately anchor a defense like Pippen did in 94 and 95 as a perimeter player.

Hell Phil Jackson and Michael Jordan have said themselves that Scottie Pippen could go out there and there and score 30 points every game, that he was that talented. Over glorifying teammates and someone you coached? Probably somewhat? But it's been stated before that Phil pretty much said that he never really wanted Scottie to take more than 15-17 shots a game because he wanted him to set up his teammates and do other things and not be preoccupied with scoring the ball.

[L.Kizzle]

shouldn't be


never got out of first round as the man
So is Baron Davis a HoF'er? He's been out the first round many of times ...

[Lebron23]

He probably will, but this is why I just do not like how people get into the hall. I dont think he really doesn't deserves to be in. He had a nice college career and a good 5-6 years in the NBA, but to me that shouldn't be enough to get in. Had he not been injured, he would have been a lock in the hall. I dont even think Chis Mullin should be in. I wish the Hall was more exclusive. But based on how players are inducted, Hill certainly has a good chance.

This is the basketball hall of fame. By the way the NBA needs to have their own hall of fame ceremonies.

[bizil]

This is the basketball hall of fame. By the way the NBA needs to have their own hall of fame ceremonies.

Yes indeed! The L needs its own Hall of Fame. Baseball and football don't have this problem at all. If the NBA had its own HOF, guys like Walton for example shouldn't be in. Even though Bill was a HOF type talent, he simply wasn't good long enough. For guys like a Dominique or Reggie Miller not to be a first ballot HOFer is a travesty. The NBA needs to go ahead and have its own Hall.

[Meticode]

they will bullshit his way in... similar to Yao, something like, nicest player offcourt.
I don't feel they will need to bullshit his way in. He had a great college career and was a NBA star until his injury, after that he was a solid NBA player.

[Meticode]

If Grant Hill makes it, then so should Vince Carter.
Did Vince Carter win two college titles?

[L.Kizzle]

Yes indeed! The L needs its own Hall of Fame. Baseball and football don't have this problem at all. If the NBA had its own HOF, guys like Walton for example shouldn't be in. Even though Bill was a HOF type talent, he simply wasn't good long enough. For guys like a Dominique or Reggie Miller not to be a first ballot HOFer is a travesty. The NBA needs to go ahead and have its own Hall.
You know why they don't have this problem, cause America is the only place those sports really get played at.

It's sort of like wrestling, there is only a WWE Hall of Fame I believe, no (Wrestling) Hall. So if Vince doesn't like you, well, tough luck.

[bizil]

No, he told him that because he knew that's not what was going to help the team. Okay, so your team just lost the best player in the league and if not the best player in the league, arguably the best scorer in the league, a guy who was averaging 30ppg on great efficiency for your team...and replaced him with Pete Myers. Is Scottie Pippen going out there and shooting 20-25 shots no matter how good he is going to replace that? Especially when he has no...well Scottie Pippen as his 2nd option? I don't know how old you are or how much you watched the 94 Bulls play, but they actually utilized the triangle offense in it's most purest form and played some of the best team ball I've EVER seen. This is why I hate people (and i'm not talking about you, you're obviously smarter than that) that just look at ppg and go wow that guys good. One season Antoine Walker averaged 23.4ppg...yet needed 21.2 shots to do that...lol...if Pippen had taken 21.2 shots in 94 he probably would have averaged somewhere around 26pts. Yet because he Walker actually averaged more points than him for an entire season does that make him a better scorer? OF COURSE NOT, because the clown was just chucking away. You have to understand that Scottie had to expend as much energy on the defensive end as he did on the offensive end (especially in 95...which was when they used to say that he looked too tired to finish teams off offensively because of how HARD HE PLAYED DEFENSIVELY...tell me ONE OTHER SUPERSTAR YOU EVER HEARD THEM SAY THAT ABOUT?) without Michael being there. The reason why Michael can't be better defensively than Scottie is because he NEVER was close to as dominant as Pippen was in 94 and especially 95 and just plain couldn't legitimately anchor a defense like Pippen did in 94 and 95 as a perimeter player.

Hell Phil Jackson and Michael Jordan have said themselves that Scottie Pippen could go out there and there and score 30 points every game, that he was that talented. Over glorifying teammates and someone you coached? Probably somewhat? But it's been stated before that Phil pretty much said that he never really wanted Scottie to take more than 15-17 shots a game because he wanted him to set up his teammates and do other things and not be preoccupied with scoring the ball.

The main difference Pip had on MJ was the size to defend some PF's. Or a big ass PG like Magic at 6'9. I will give u that. But in terms of guarding PG, SG, and most SF's, MJ was just as good as Pip. And the bottom line is that Bulls team that Pip led needed more scoring on it. Let's say a Mitch Richmond got on the Bulls somehow in MJ's absence. Pip would have been cool averaging 22 cause Mitch would have chipped in maybe 22 points minimum. Then the Bulls still have a shot to make the Finals. The Bulls just needed some more punch that's all I'm saying. And to think this whole back and forth started JUST because I said G Hill had elements of Dr.J and Pip in his game all in one. The observation I made is not out of the realm of possibility at all. Especially when u say shades of Doc and Pip in G Hill's game.

[bizil]

You know why they don't have this problem, cause America is the only place those sports really get played at.

It's sort of like wrestling, there is only a WWE Hall of Fame I believe, no (Wrestling) Hall. So if Vince doesn't like you, well, tough luck.

Exactly right! Bball is unique cause of the big three sports, it's by far the most global. And the Naismith HOF tries to cater to international, college, and NBA. The NBA is the greatest bball league EVER! It shouldn't have to be dumbed down to accomodate other levels of bball.

U bring a great point about the WWE HOF! It's a total joke. To not have inducted the late great Randy Savage while he was alive reeked of something weird. Not having Savage in the Hall is like leaving out a Magic or Bird. Hogan was the MJ of wrestling. Which meant Savage HAD to be like the Magic or Bird.

[Cali Syndicate]

Exactly right! Bball is unique cause of the big three sports, it's by far the most global. And the Naismith HOF tries to cater to international, college, and NBA. The NBA is the greatest bball league EVER! It shouldn't have to be dumbed down to accomodate other levels of bball.

U bring a great point about the WWE HOF! It's a total joke. To not have inducted the late great Randy Savage while he was alive reeked of something weird. Not having Savage in the Hall is like leaving out a Magic or Bird. Hogan was the MJ of wrestling. Which meant Savage HAD to be like the Magic or Bird.

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc272/umdatz/philosopher-or-warrior176447287.jpg

What about this guy?

[bizil]

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc272/umdatz/philosopher-or-warrior176447287.jpg

What about this guy?

Hell ya Warrior too!

[ihatetimthomas]

So who should get into the Hall of Fame? Players with 10+ years primes, never got injured and went deep into the playoffs year after year?

In that case, the hall would have about 20 players.

Everyone isn't Kareem, Jordan, Wilt or Russell. Hell, everyone isn't Barkley or Malone.

lol, there would def. be a lot more than 20 players, even with the requirements you have listed.

I just think it should be more difficult than it is to get in. To be honest, he didn't accomplish much in the NBA. He had all-star appearances and all nba 2nd teams. But that shouldn't be enough.

He had a legendary playoff career. This will likely be the deciding factor if he gets in. But it was Christian Laetnner who was the heart and soul of those teams.

In his first 4 playoff appearances, he lost every single playoff series. I will be the first to say you cant judge only on those results because it is a team game but winning still has merit in ranking players.

I am not trying to take away from him because he is a great player, I just think the bball HOF is just too easy to get in. Are you trying to refute that? To me, his resume is nice but not that great

[get these NETS]

So is Baron Davis a HoF'er? He's been out the first round many of times ...


most hall of famers are integral if not KEY players on championship teams


Hill was not an integral or key player on any team that advanced beyond first round of the playoffs..

[L.Kizzle]

lol, there would def. be a lot more than 20 players, even with the requirements you have listed.

I just think it should be more difficult than it is to get in. To be honest, he didn't accomplish much in the NBA. He had all-star appearances and all nba 2nd teams. But that shouldn't be enough.

He had a legendary playoff career. This will likely be the deciding factor if he gets in. But it was Christian Laetnner who was the heart and soul of those teams.

In his first 4 playoff appearances, he lost every single playoff series. I will be the first to say you cant judge only on those results because it is a team game but winning means a lot in judging players.

I am not trying to take away from him because he is a great player, I just think the bball HOF is just too easy to get in. Are you trying to refute that? To me, his resume is nice but not that great
That's no different than me saying what I said. You just said he didn't accomplish much? Which you mean he didn't go deep into the playoffs, and not a 10 year prime since he got injured, same thing. He's not Kareem or Bird or for non title winner/non MVPs Stockton or Ewing.

Alex English, Bob Lanier, Walt Bellamy what the hell did they accomplish in their league. About the same as Grant Hill.

[ihatetimthomas]

That's no different than me saying what I said. You just said he didn't accomplish much? Which you mean he didn't go deep into the playoffs, and not a 10 year prime since he got injured, same thing. He's not Kareem or Bird or for non title winner/non MVPs Stockton or Ewing.

Alex English, Bob Lanier, Walt Bellamy what the hell did they accomplish in their league. About the same as Grant Hill.

What does English and Lanier have to do with anything I have said? Yea they are in the Hall. My point is that its way too easy to get in. If you read what I said in my first post, I said that he will likely get in based on how people are inducted. This is my opinion on the hall. To me, Grant didnt do enough to merit the Hall. He got 2 NCAA titles and a decent NBA career. I think the standards should be higher for the hall but its not.

[L.Kizzle]

What does English and Lanier have to do with anything I have said? Yea they are in the Hall. My point is that its way too easy to get in. If you read what I said in my first post, I said that he will likely get in based on how people are inducted. This is my opinion on the hall. To me, Grant didnt do enough to merit the Hall. He got 2 NCAA titles and a decent NBA career. I think the standards should be higher for the hall but its not.
As I was stating, you must have really high standards for the hall. Like I said early, 20 or so players would make the hall by your standards (probably more than 20, maybe around 40ish, but you get my pick.)

That's why I listed guys like English and Bob Lanier. Do you think they are Hall worthy?

[97 bulls]

Shoulda, coulda, woulda don't mean nothing. Sure Pip got the Bulls to 55 wins. But that team needed more scoring to reach that next level. Pip only average like a point more than he did WITH Mike! lol That simply doesn't cut it. The standard in Chicago was RINGS and not simply making the playoffs. They just came off a damn three peat. He had a tremendous coach in Phil Jackson and great system in the triangle. And the Bulls were a tremendous defensive team. I think a peak Hill would have got that Bulls team farther than Pip would have. Cause Hill would have stepped up his scoring more. That Bulls team simply needed more scoring punch. Replace MJ with Pip on that team. The Bulls would have made the Finals and even win another title. It wouldn't have came down to that bad call by the ref in the Knicks series.

For u to say Pip was more of a Batman than Hill ever was that season is frankly delusional. Hill's best seasons trumps Pip's best seasons. For u to say Pip clearly would have averaged 9 assists in place of Hill is a bold statement. When both guys were actually very comparable as passers. I would say Hill was the better passer. And Hill DIDN'T have the luxury to pass to the greatest player of all time! LOL Put Hill in place of Pippen on those Bulls teams and I feel they would have been even more dominant!
Let's compare hills best two seasons to pippens only two.

96-97 pistons
54-28
Their core players were

Lindsay Hunter = BJ Armstrong
Joe Dumars >>> Pete Myers
Otis Thorpe < Horace Grant
Theo Ratliff > Bill Cartwright
Terry Mills = Toni Kukoc as a rookie
Michael Curry = Steve Kerr
Grant Long = Bill Wennington

Forunately for the Hill led pistons, 96-97 was the year after expansion. That netted the pistons an extra 5 wins.


How bout we compare Hills season when he avg 26 ppg. Or as bizil likes to call "batman". Vs Pippens 95 season

That season, Hills core was

Jerry Stackhouse
Christain Laetner
Lindsay Hunter
Terry Mills
Jerome Williams
Michael Curry

This team managed to only win 42 games

How does pippen stack up in 95? His core was
Kukoc
Armstrong
Myers
Perdue
Wennington
Krystowaik, blount, or simpkins at pf

Pippen had the bulls at 34-31 before jordans return. On pace for 44 wins. With far less talent than hill.

[bizil]

Let's compare hills best two seasons to pippens only two.

96-97 pistons
54-28
Their core players were

Lindsay Hunter = BJ Armstrong
Joe Dumars >>> Pete Myers
Otis Thorpe < Horace Grant
Theo Ratliff > Bill Cartwright
Terry Mills = Toni Kukoc as a rookie
Michael Curry = Steve Kerr
Grant Long = Bill Wennington

Forunately for the Hill led pistons, 96-97 was the year after expansion. That netted the pistons an extra 5 wins.


How bout we compare Hills season when he avg 26 ppg. Or as bizil likes to call "batman". Vs Pippens 95 season

That season, Hills core was

Jerry Stackhouse
Christain Laetner
Lindsay Hunter
Terry Mills
Jerome Williams
Michael Curry

This team managed to only win 42 games

How does pippen stack up in 95? His core was
Kukoc
Armstrong
Myers
Perdue
Wennington
Krystowaik, blount, or simpkins at pf

Pippen had the bulls at 34-31 before jordans return. On pace for 44 wins. With far less talent than hill.


Wow u Pip homers are insane! lol Pip had a great season when MJ wasnt there. However, no matter how u slice it, nobody was checking for Hill's Pistons to really go all the way. Pip was taking the mantle from a three peat title team. Chemistry, coaching, and systems make a difference in all of this. U say Terry Mills equals Kukoc. But Toni was a multi faceted player who was more versatile than Mills. Toni was really a SF-PF combo player. On many teams, Toni would have been a point forward outright and putting up more numbers. And once Toni got going, he trumps ANYTHING Mills ever did! I give Pip mad props for getting the Bulls to 55 wins. U Pip homer are very sensitive. But let's say MJ was in Pip's place. And that Pip suddenly retired. That Bulls team would make it to the NBA Finals. '

Pip was awesome, a superstar, and HOFer all day. But a peak G Hill was on another level. If u polled NBA experts in the know, I feel they would prefer peak G Hill over peak Pip. But in GOAT terms, Pip is above G Hill. Cause G Hill had the injuries. And u can NEVER gloss over that fact that Pip played with the GOAT. Pip never consistently had the pressure to be the guy. And when he did, he did great. But put MJ in Pip's place. Or Bird. Or a peak G Hill. The Bulls trump that 55 win season. And if u deny that u are delusional as HELL!

[97 bulls]

Wow u Pip homers are insane! lol Pip had a great season when MJ wasnt there. However, no matter how u slice it, nobody was checking for Hill's Pistons to really go all the way. Pip was taking the mantle from a three peat title team. Chemistry, coaching, and systems make a difference in all of this. U say Terry Mills equals Kukoc. But Toni was a multi faceted player who was more versatile than Mills. Toni was really a SF-PF combo player. On many teams, Toni would have been a point forward outright and putting up more numbers. And once Toni got going, he trumps ANYTHING Mills ever did! I give Pip mad props for getting the Bulls to 55 wins. U Pip homer are very sensitive. But let's say MJ was in Pip's place. And that Pip suddenly retired. That Bulls team would make it to the NBA Finals. '

Pip was awesome, a superstar, and HOFer all day. But a peak G Hill was on another level. If u polled NBA experts in the know, I feel they would prefer peak G Hill over peak Pip. But in GOAT terms, Pip is above G Hill. Cause G Hill had the injuries. And u can NEVER gloss over that fact that Pip played with the GOAT. Pip never consistently had the pressure to be the guy. And when he did, he did great. But put MJ in Pip's place. Or Bird. Or a peak G Hill. The Bulls trump that 55 win season. And if u deny that u are delusional as HELL!
Toni Kukoc was a rookie from another country who barely spoke english. At that time, id say mills and kukoc were equal. Even giving a slight edge to mills cuz he was a veteran.

And I wouldn't call my stance sensitive or dilusional. You feel pippen wasn't a "batman" type player. But according to you, Hill was. But the fact remains, pippen did a better job leading teams than hill did even though hill had better player. Or no less than equal. And you can't run behind the theory that the 94 bulls were a championship caliber team. A lot of the key players on the bulls roles diminished due to age and injuries. Paxson, and Cartwright were through. Scott Williams was only played in 38 games. Stacey King was a scrub, hodges and trent tucker were gone. Not to mention jordan who was the greatest ever. And I guarantee you noone expected much from the bulls.

And pippens 95 season trumps anything thing hill ever did while leading his team. Your just a stat junkie bro. Even more, you overrate scoring. Just think if pippen had jerry stackhouse instead of pete myers. Or christain laetner insteaad of the power forward core of larry krystowiak, corie blount, dickie simpkins, and toni kukoc playing out of position. Or theo ratliff instead of will perdue. How did hill only manage to lead them to only 42 wins?

Just face the facts biz. Pippen was better than hill.

[LJJ]

He is will. You have to look at his college career as well. They take that into account as well. It's not just the NBA HoF.

It's fine that massive contributions outside of the NBA are taken into consideration. Legitimate basketball is played in Europe, at the Olympics, at the various international tournaments.

But NCAA is amateur college ball. I don't see why a lot of stock needs to be put into it. NCAA is not premier basketball competition by any stretch.

[bizil]

Toni Kukoc was a rookie from another country who barely spoke english. At that time, id say mills and kukoc were equal. Even giving a slight edge to mills cuz he was a veteran.

And I wouldn't call my stance sensitive or dilusional. You feel pippen wasn't a "batman" type player. But according to you, Hill was. But the fact remains, pippen did a better job leading teams than hill did even though hill had better player. Or no less than equal. And you can't run behind the theory that the 94 bulls were a championship caliber team. A lot of the key players on the bulls roles diminished due to age and injuries. Paxson, and Cartwright were through. Scott Williams was only played in 38 games. Stacey King was a scrub, hodges and trent tucker were gone. Not to mention jordan who was the greatest ever. And I guarantee you noone expected much from the bulls.

And pippens 95 season trumps anything thing hill ever did while leading his team. Your just a stat junkie bro. Even more, you overrate scoring. Just think if pippen had jerry stackhouse instead of pete myers. Or christain laetner insteaad of the power forward core of larry krystowiak, corie blount, dickie simpkins, and toni kukoc playing out of position. Or theo ratliff instead of will perdue. How did hill only manage to lead them to only 42 wins?

Just face the facts biz. Pippen was better than hill.

Im not a stat junkie and I DON'T overate scoring. Career wise, Pip was better than Hill. But peak for peak, give me G Hill all day long! That Bulls team if anything had tremendous chemistry. And that counts for a lot. The Dumars G Hill got was past his prime. If I overrated scoring, why would I rather have a rookie Kukoc INSTEAD of Terry Mills?

If I'm a stat junkie why would I rather have a rookie Kukoc who hit the game winning shot while your boy Pip REFUSED to go in the game instead of Mills. Toni's best position was SF, but he had Pip in front of him. When Pip left, Toni was putting up 19 points, 7 boards, and 5 assists per game. Which are All Star type numbers.

The Bulls team that Pip inherited thrived cause they were a great defensive team, had a great coach, great system, and tremendous chemistry. U had two All Star players in Pippen and Grant already. They had great shooters and defenders around them. So that bullshit u are saying about the Pistons being SO much more stacked is BS.

And finally u are comparing Hill's season to Pip's correct? Well these are two different seasons u are talking about. For one, Pip had that career year in 1994 not 1995! lol Secondly, the L was a different league then. Back in Pip's day, the L allowed physical defense still. Which fit into the great D the Bulls played. Those Pistons D man for man weren't a great defensive team. For example, Pete Myers was a better defender than Jerry Stackhouse. Horace Grant was an all league caliber defender getting 11 boards a game. The Pistons didn't have a PF close to Grant. These are things u conveniently gloss over.

[bizil]

Toni Kukoc was a rookie from another country who barely spoke english. At that time, id say mills and kukoc were equal. Even giving a slight edge to mills cuz he was a veteran.

And I wouldn't call my stance sensitive or dilusional. You feel pippen wasn't a "batman" type player. But according to you, Hill was. But the fact remains, pippen did a better job leading teams than hill did even though hill had better player. Or no less than equal. And you can't run behind the theory that the 94 bulls were a championship caliber team. A lot of the key players on the bulls roles diminished due to age and injuries. Paxson, and Cartwright were through. Scott Williams was only played in 38 games. Stacey King was a scrub, hodges and trent tucker were gone. Not to mention jordan who was the greatest ever. And I guarantee you noone expected much from the bulls.

And pippens 95 season trumps anything thing hill ever did while leading his team. Your just a stat junkie bro. Even more, you overrate scoring. Just think if pippen had jerry stackhouse instead of pete myers. Or christain laetner insteaad of the power forward core of larry krystowiak, corie blount, dickie simpkins, and toni kukoc playing out of position. Or theo ratliff instead of will perdue. How did hill only manage to lead them to only 42 wins?

Just face the facts biz. Pippen was better than hill.

Im not a stat junkie and I DON'T overate scoring. Career wise, Pip was better than Hill. But peak for peak, give me G Hill all day long! That Bulls team if anything had tremendous chemistry. And that counts for a lot. The Dumars G Hill got was past his prime. If I overrated scoring, why would I rather have a rookie Kukoc INSTEAD of Terry Mills?

If I'm a stat junkie why would I rather have a rookie Kukoc who hit the game winning shot why your boy Pip REFUSED to go in the game instead of Mills. Toni's best position was SF, but he had Pip in front of him. When Pip left, Toni was putting up 19 points, 7 boards, and 5 assists per game. Which are All Star type numbers.

The Bulls team that Pip inherited thrived cause they were a great defensive team, had a great coach, great system, and tremendous chemistry. U had two All Star players in Pippen and Grant already. They had great shooters and defenders around them. So that bullshit u are saying about the Pistons being SO much more stacked is BS.

And by the way, the Bulls had three All Stars in '94. Pip and his ugly ass red shoes, Grant, and BJ all made the All Star team. So don't get on here spittin that BS about Pip having less talent on his team than G Hill had. BJ has had 15 points per game seasons. Hunter's best scoring season was 14 points. If anything it's a wash with them. Horace was one of the best defenders and rebounders at the PF. And had a nice midrange shot and was very athletic. One of the more underrated PF's of his era. U are putting your foot in your mouth by saying G Hill had so much more help on his team than Pip. Pete Myers was a better defender than Jerry Stackhouse. So Myers fit great with the Bulls defensive mentality. U got Pip putting up 22 points, while Horace and BJ were getting 15 points a night each. Kukoc came off the bench with 10 points. Everybody else it seemed was a very good defender, physical, or a very good spot up shooter. They mixed it great for 55 wins. Kudos to them!

And Pip having that team on pace for 44 wins without MJ is nothing special. A 44 win season means jack shit in my book. 44-38 is a very, very average season. That's nothing to brag about at all. Losing Grant was big I agree. But still Pip having them on pace for that is nothing to brag about at all.