Grant Hill vs. Vince Carter

[StateOfMind12]

Who do you guys have ranked higher in your all-time ranking?

Who do you guys think was better in their peak, prime, and had a better career?

[L.Kizzle]

Grant Hill

[WockaVodka]

Hill for all of the questions except maybe longevity. People act as if Hill's prime only lasted for like 1-2 seasons when it was much longer than that. Hill was the original version of Lebron in my opinion. He obviously wasn't as good or as talented as LeBron was but I feel like his style of play was almost the same.

[wakencdukest]

Grant Hill was a better player in every way except dunking and 3 point shooting

[roffie]

prime grant hill was a work of art when he was on the court..
therefore hill >>> carter

[wagexslave]

Hill was playing like he could've been a top 10 GOAT player before he started getting plagued with injuries. Despite his loss of athleticism from the injuries and age, Hill is still a valuable player to this day because he's a skill player who makes smart plays, takes good shots, and plays great defense. He could do it all, shooting, playmaking, rebounding, defense... he averaged 21/9/7 one season. That's near triple double averages. He was the type of guy who could be used for any situation, guarding any player on the court(he still does to this day). It's a shame his career was riddled with injuries... I wonder how his career would've been differently if he never got injured.

Carter on the other hand is hella overrated. I've never seen what people see in him. Aside from his athleticism and amazing dunks, Grant Hill is on a whole nother level than Carter. Especially as far as pure basketball skill and intelligence goes. Carter is a chucker, a volume scorer who takes a lot of bad shots and gets really streaky sometimes. His defense is mediocre and he doesn't seem to have much heart for the game. He could've been a great player, but he lacked the heart, hard work, and effort that separates a good player from a great.

Vince was good for some highlight plays and flashy dunks, and he was a solid volume scorer once upon a time, but give me Grant Hill in his prime over VC in his prime any day. I'll take the substance over the style in this case any day.

[L.Kizzle]

Hill for all of the questions except maybe longevity. People act as if Hill's prime only lasted for like 1-2 seasons when it was much longer than that. Hill was the original version of Lebron in my opinion. He obviously wasn't as good or as talented as LeBron was but I feel like his style of play was almost the same.
Longevity, you can argue that Hill is better today than Vince Carter and he was in the league 5 seasons before he was.

[bizil]

Peak wise I would say G Hill. Even though G Hill's peak wasn't nearly as long as it should have been, he was considered by many as the best perimeter player in the L once MJ was done with the Bulls. G Hill was one of those guys like MJ, Kobe, Hondo, Big O, Bron, Penny, TMac, etc. that could play and defend PG, SG, and SF all very good to great. And be an alpha dog on top of it. Those kind of guys are very special players.

But overall career wise, I would say Vince. Vince more years of superstar type play. Vince at his best was a premier alpha dog as well. I feel his all around game is underrated as well in terms of dimes and rebounding. And his total scoring skillset in my mind was better than G Hill's.

But it's hard to top an alpha dog type guy with a great all around game. It's why u see MJ, Magic, Bird, Kobe, and Big O in the top 10 GOAT. Vince was no doubt an alpha dog and a top 10 player in the L at his best. But Hill was on a pace to be a top 5 GOAT SF of all time. He was indeed a smoother version of LBJ. I always thought GHill's game was a mix of Dr. J and Scottie Pippen rolled into one. Which is a sick combination!

[Rake2204]

I'm pretty sure I'd go with Grant Hill, though I've never been as big a fan of slighting Vince Carter as many others are. It's just in this case, we seem to be comparing a star player with one of the best all-around players of all-time, and that's a tough comparison to pull off. I'll say this though, upon giving each career a look, there's not as big of a gap between peak numbers of Carter and Hill as I imagined there was going to be.

At Hill's peak, we're likely looking at 21, 9 and 7. With Carter: 28, 6, and 4. Folks may want to look toward Hill's top scoring year as his peak, but with that extra scoring came a drop in rebounds and assists (26, 6 and 5), numbers which are a little more comparable to Carter's line. Surely, some select numbers never give the full story. I was just surprised to see them to be more comparable than I was planning.

As a Pistons fan, I don't recall a ton about Grant Hill's Detroit defense. I don't remember it being recognized as being magnificent but I don't think it was a shortcoming. In Carter's case, he's been long criticized for his defense but again, I did not interpret him to be an automatic blow-by per se. Carter seemed to thrive in late-game situations. I think Hill developed that feel over time, though Carter's ability to create to kill difficult shots may give him the edge there.

As others often say, Hill was similar (though not the same) as LeBron James in the respect he'd seem to do everything that was needed and he'd do it very well. Score? Rebound? Pass? He did it all. Carter was clearly a little more compartmentalized and I feel his ability in that compartment did not equal what Hill provided everywhere.

I like them both though.

[SwayDizzle]

prime grant hill was a work of art when he was on the court..
therefore hill >>> carter
This, This and more of This :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

[It's A VC3!!!]

People are overrating Grant Hill. He had two great seasons then injuries sidelined him. Vince Carter has been a 20 PPG+ scorer for a decade and dominanted in the playoffs for most of his career. Compared to Grant Hills 13 PPG in the playoffs, Vince Carter averaged 22/6/4. Even I as a Vince Carter fan believe that he lacked the Jordan killer instinct. He had the complete package but failed to fulfill his capabilities. Even with that said, he still had a better career then 99% of players in NBA history.

[DStebb716]

People are overrating Grant Hill. He had two great seasons then injuries sidelined him. Vince Carter has been a 20 PPG+ scorer for a decade and dominanted in the playoffs for most of his career. Compared to Grant Hills 13 PPG in the playoffs, Vince Carter averaged 22/6/4. Even I as a Vince Carter fan believe that he lacked the Jordan killer instinct. He had the complete package but failed to fulfill his capabilities. Even with that said, he still had a better career then 99% of players in NBA history.

This. I'd take Carter over Hill anyday. The perfect record, good guy with no real flaws always wins on ISH. Grant Hill is a pretty boy, and Vince Carter has some question marks because he never became what he REALLY could have been... and that's the "next Jordan."

[Rake2204]

People are overrating Grant Hill. He had two great seasons then injuries sidelined him. Vince Carter has been a 20 PPG+ scorer for a decade and dominanted in the playoffs for most of his career. Compared to Grant Hills 13 PPG in the playoffs, Vince Carter averaged 22/6/4. Even I as a Vince Carter fan believe that he lacked the Jordan killer instinct. He had the complete package but failed to fulfill his capabilities. Even with that said, he still had a better career then 99% of players in NBA history.
I'm in both camps because I'm a Vince Carter fan and I've always been a Detroit Pistons guy, but I must clarify that I believe Grant Hill had at least six great seasons before a serious ankle injury cut his prime short. Also, I feel referencing Grant Hill's career playoff numbers can be a little deceiving. Pre-ankle injury Grant Hill was a 23ppg scorer in the playoffs (not accounting for the two Pistons playoff games of which he participated in 2000 with the injury).

I suppose a head-to-head comparison here is going to depend upon we want to judge who had the higher peak, who was able to string together the best five seasons, or just straight up compare one season to the other for as long as each player's career has gone. In truth, I feel any career comparison to Grant Hill is going to be a little weird due to his unfortunate injury.

But if we cut it down to this: we've got two prime players standing before us - 2001 Vince Carter and 1997 Grant Hill. Making no assumptions of forthcoming injuries or off court issues, which one would you guys take?

[It's A VC3!!!]

But if we cut it down to this: we've got two prime players standing before us - 2001 Vince Carter and 1997 Grant Hill. Making no assumptions of forthcoming injuries or off court issues, which one would you guys take?

Vince Carters best year wasn't even 2001. From 2001-2006 he was basically the same. He averaged 25 PPG 6 years in his elusive career and his NJ tenure was the best of his career. His first year in NJ was 28/6/5. He was very consistent in NJ averaging 21 PPG each season there. 2001 is remembered because of the dunk contest and that's when he desired to poster people and do windmills and 360's like it was nothing. His first and second Nets year were his most productive because aside from the regular season, he averaged 27/9/6 and 30/7/5 in his first two Nets playoff seasons.

[Rake2204]

Vince Carters best year wasn't even 2001. From 2001-2006 he was basically the same. He averaged 25 PPG 6 years in his elusive career and his NJ tenure was the best of his career. His first year in NJ was 28/6/5. He was very consistent in NJ averaging 21 PPG each season there. 2001 is remembered because of the dunk contest and that's when he desired to poster people and do windmills and 360's like it was nothing. His first and second Nets year were his most productive because aside from the regular season, he averaged 27/9/6 and 30/7/5 in his first two Nets playoff seasons.
Either way. I selected 2001 because I thought not only was he playing at a high level, but he was also at his athletic peak (though 2000 was the dunk contest year, not '01). We can go with '06 Vince Carter just as well. Just like we could go with 2000 Grant Hill in lieu of 1997. My point was, if we were to take one player while they were at their best, which would it be?

[It's A VC3!!!]

Either way. I selected 2001 because I thought not only was he playing at a high level, but he was also at his athletic peak. We can go with '06 Vince Carter just as well. Just like we could go with 2000 Grant Hill in lieu of 1997. My point was, if we were to take one player while they were at their best, which would it be?

I would select Vince Carter.

Even to this day you can still put the ball in his hands and expect some type of production. He initiated a lot of the Mavericks offense in the regular season as well as the playoffs. That shows how much respect Rick Carlisle has for Vince. Back then you could put the ball in Vince's hands any possession of the game and he will get you a bucket. He's my all-time favorite player and it will sadden me to no extent when he retires.:( :cry:

[L.Kizzle]

People are overrating Grant Hill. He had two great seasons then injuries sidelined him. Vince Carter has been a 20 PPG+ scorer for a decade and dominanted in the playoffs for most of his career. Compared to Grant Hills 13 PPG in the playoffs, Vince Carter averaged 22/6/4. Even I as a Vince Carter fan believe that he lacked the Jordan killer instinct. He had the complete package but failed to fulfill his capabilities. Even with that said, he still had a better career then 99% of players in NBA history.
Damn, 2 great years gets you 7 all-star games and 5 all-nba team selections ...

[Noob Saibot]

I'd give the nod to Vince mainly due to durability and overall peak.

[k-vil]

I would select Vince Carter.

Even to this day you can still put the ball in his hands and expect some type of production. He initiated a lot of the Mavericks offense in the regular season as well as the playoffs. That shows how much respect Rick Carlisle has for Vince. Back then you could put the ball in Vince's hands any possession of the game and he will get you a bucket. He's my all-time favorite player and it will sadden me to no extent when he retires.:( :cry:
I feel you man... Vince is hands down my all time favorite player and I will miss what he brings to the game when re retires.

Back to the topic, Grant Hill was a beast (pre injury) and one of the best in the league. Vince Carter is in another league during his peak, heck he was considered the best player in the league for sometime even with Kobe. I'll take Vince over Grant.

[StateOfMind12]

Even with that said, he still had a better career then 99% of players in NBA history.
What exactly did VC accomplish in his career that Hill didn't besides being the slam dunk champion in 2000?

And Hill was a great player for more than two seasons. I'm not sure where people get the idea that Grant Hill was a flash in the pan and only good for like 2-3 years or something. Hill clearly had injuries that slowed him down and stopped him from reaching his full potential but he was a great player for more than just a few seasons.


I'm pretty sure I'd go with Grant Hill, though I've never been as big a fan of slighting Vince Carter as many others are.
I'm with you. The one reason why I don't have a problem with Vince anymore is because he has grown up and it seems like most people fail to realize that. A lot of people hate Vince because of what he did in Toronto and how immature he was. Vince has clearly grown up since then though and he proved it in New Jersey. I remember every Nets fans wishing him the best when he was traded to Orlando because he had done so much for the Nets and was a professional bout it. I can't say the same for his cousin Tracy McGrady though, he is still an immature goof.

With that being said, if we were to add Tracy McGrady into this conversation, how would you rank the three?

[WockaVodka]

Longevity, you can argue that Hill is better today than Vince Carter and he was in the league 5 seasons before he was.
Well in terms of mileage and minutes logged, I would say Carter has more longevity, more productive seasons per se.

[Brick Rick]

Grant Hill's prime years:

Year RPG APG PPG
1994–95 6.4 5.0 19.9
1995–96 9.8 6.9 20.2
1996–97 9.0 7.3 21.4
1997–98 7.7 6.8 21.1
1998–99 7.1 6.0 21.1
1999–00 6.6 5.2 25.8

Vince Carter's Prime Years:

Year RPG APG PPG
1999–00 5.8 3.9 25.7
2000–01 5.5 3.9 27.6
2001–02 5.2 4.0 24.7
2002–03 4.4 3.3 20.6
2003–04 4.8 4.8 22.5
2004–05 3.3 3.1 15.9
2004–05 5.9 4.7 27.5
2005–06 5.8 4.3 24.2
2006–07 6.0 4.8 25.2
2007–08 6.0 5.1 21.3
2008–09 5.1 4.7 20.8

Here is my assessment:

Shooting: This one is complicated. Over the span of their careers, Grant Hill has shot a higher fg % but Vince Carter has taken more 3's and shot them at a higher percentage than Hill and he has taken a lot of shots with a high degree of difficulty.

Blocks and Steals: A wash. Stats virtually identical.

Rebounding and Assists: Advantage Hill.

Scoring: Advantage Carter. Throughout his prime Carter was a legitimate 25 ppg scorer and averaged 27 ppg twice. Grant Hill's high was 25.8 but throughout his prime he was a 21 ppg scorer.

Clutch: Carter. Not a knock against Hill, just that anyone who is a Nets or Raptors fan can attest to the fact that Carter might be one of the greatest clutch players of all time.

Better all around game: Advantage Hill. Higher rebounding and assists averages, and those higher numbers could be attributed to his playmaking role and longer length.

Athleticism: Carter obviously.

Longevity: Carter.

Work Ethic/Intangibles: Hill.

Playoff Success: Carter.

------------------------------------

Conclusion: In his prime, Grant Hill was a 21/9/7 guy and Carter was a 25/5/4 guy. So who do you pick if intangibles mean nothing and you go strictly by stats? I myself would go with Carter, in his prime he was a top 10 player, an underrated passer/playmaker and averaged 25+ ppg (superstar stat as far as scoring goes) for six seasons and came through in the clutch many many times.

[It's A VC3!!!]

Great post Brick Rick. Vince was a top 5 player in his prime though. He was a top 10 player for most of his career. Charles Barkley, Mark Jackson, Magic Johnson all stated the same thing too. When Devin Harris got to the Nets they all started bashing what he had left in the tank despite putting up 21/5/5 that year and being only one of four guys to do so.

[StateOfMind12]

Great post Brick Rick. Vince was a top 5 player in his prime though. He was a top 10 player for most of his career. Charles Barkley, Mark Jackson, Magic Johnson all stated the same thing too. When Devin Harris got to the Nets they all started bashing what he had left in the tank despite putting up 21/5/5 that year and being only one of four guys to do so.
What seasons was VC a Top 5 player in? I really can't think of a season where he was Top 5.

And also, I asked the same question to Rake but he hasn't answered yet so I want to ask you the same thing. If we were to add Tmac in this discussion, how would you rank the three? Is Tmac behind both Hill and Carter is he ahead of both or is he in the middle?

[It's A VC3!!!]

What seasons was VC a Top 5 player in? I really can't think of a season where he was Top 5.

And also, I asked the same question to Rake but he hasn't answered yet so I want to ask you the same thing. If we were to add Tmac in this discussion, how would you rank the three? Is Tmac behind both Hill and Carter is he ahead of both or is he in the middle?

I grew up watching both and I'll be quite honest. Tmac's shitty attitude lost my interest and respect for him. Vince left because Tmac left. If Tmac had stayed that year that Toronto played the Sixers in the playoffs, the Raptors would have easily won.

That has very little to do with his skill level on the court though. Tmac had better regular season then Vince Carter and was more dominant. Tmac wanted to be the man while Vince talked about being the man and was afraid to tell Richard Jefferson to take a backseat. Richard Jefferson and Vince Carter was a horrific combination. Tmac ranks ahead of Vince Carter in my book and I don't really like Tmac. I don't dislike him, I just don't have a liking for him. I slightly exaggerated by saying that VC was a top 5 player in one season, but it spent the majority of his career being a top 10 player.

[Sarcastic]

Grant Hill is so damn overrated on this forum. In Detroit, he represents the failed era after the Bad Boys. Once he finally left for Orlando, the Pistons rebuilt a championship quality team. He never even took Detroit to the second round.

But he put up 1 season of 21/9/7, and everyone falls in love.

[Rake2204]

And also, I asked the same question to Rake but he hasn't answered yet so I want to ask you the same thing. If we were to add Tmac in this discussion, how would you rank the three? Is Tmac behind both Hill and Carter is he ahead of both or is he in the middle?
My fault, missed that one. That's a really tough question, considering I can hardly decide between Hill and Carter. As I mentioned either in this thread of the other thread on Webber/Carter, I think McGrady had a higher peak than Carter. However, it seems Carter has played at a high level for a longer period of time.

Moreover, I'm incredibly biased. Vince Carter is one of my favorite all-time players and Grant Hill served the Pistons very well during his time here. I have no real association with McGrady. In fact, I did not particularly enjoy watching him play (I know, crazy). So it's really tough to say. I thought McGrady settled for more jumpers than Vince did, and subsequently McGrady shot a slightly lesser (to very lesser) percentage.

All that said, if we take a look at each player and we decide we're picking from the best version of each, I'd suppose the popular vote would have Carter in the three spot with McGrady and Hill battling for the top. I'd personally go with Hill for his efficiency and not having to dominate the ball to make things happen.



Grant Hill is so damn overrated on this forum. In Detroit, he represents the failed era after the Bad Boys. Once he finally left for Orlando, the Pistons rebuilt a championship quality team. He never even took Detroit to the second round.

But he put up 1 season of 21/9/7, and everyone falls in love.
I respectfully disagree with that notion. To me, he does not represent the failed era after the Bad Boys. Ron Rothstein, Rafeal Addison and Ivano Newbill represent the failed era after the Bad Boys to me. Grant Hill represents the rise from the ashes. I feel Detroit largely over-achieved in the mid- to late 90's thanks to Grant Hill. To me, there's a reason he was never able to take the Pistons to the 2nd round and that is: his team wasn't very good.

At their best (1997), the Pistons somehow won 54 games with leading scorers 2-5 being a 33 year old Joe Dumars, Lindsey Hunter, 33 year old Otis Thorpe, and Terry Mills. Off the bench we were looking at a raw Theo Ratliff, Grant Long, Michael Curry, Don Reid, and Litterial Green. And sure, that's not the worst list of players we've ever seen. Joe Dumars was an All-Star in '97 (his final appearance) and Otis Thorpe has always been solid. But could one ever really expect any player to have the ability to lead such a squad deep into the playoffs? Is Otis Thorpe (or in later years the slightly underrated Bison Dele) really the answer in the middle? Is Terry Mills really going to be the offensive explosion off the bench?

For me, I always felt the Pistons achieved greatly considering the pieces they had to work with. Grant Hill is the reason those Pistons were able to succeed as much as they did. In my opinion, if we were to place another All-Star small forward like Glen Rice in Hill's spot on those Pistons teams, Detroit would have never sniffed the playoffs. I don't find a player's worth always to be judged by how deep they lead their team in the playoffs. Sometimes leading a horrible team to the playoffs in the first place is an achievement in itself.

The Pistons were fortunate enough to benefit from a Grant Hill sign-and-trade. Just as no-one could really foresee Ben Gordon being so horrible in a Pistons uniform, no one really saw the impending greatness of Ben Wallace. A lot of great chips fell into place after Hill left, but it's not as if they won simply because they did not have Hill. To be truthful, if a healthy prime Hill had the opportunity to run with the '03-'08 Pistons lineup in place of either Tayshaun Prince or Richard Hamilton, I'm sure he wouldn't have had an issue escaping the first round.

[LockoutOver11]

man **** vince,, and i bought his jersey,,,

did nothing for the nets...

[WockaVodka]

Grant Hill is so damn overrated on this forum. In Detroit, he represents the failed era after the Bad Boys. Once he finally left for Orlando, the Pistons rebuilt a championship quality team. He never even took Detroit to the second round.

But he put up 1 season of 21/9/7, and everyone falls in love.
Grant Hill from 1995-1996 to 1999-2000 averaged 22/8/7 with a FG% of 48%. He was great and dominant for more than just one season.

[Brickz187]

Vince Carter is easily the better player, I don't even have to think about it.

[Sarcastic]

Grant Hill from 1995-1996 to 1999-2000 averaged 22/8/7 with a FG% of 48%. He was great and dominant for more than just one season.

In that time he had 1 season above 22ppg, 2 seasons above 8rpg, and 1 season above 7apg.

Rounding up for the win I suppose. :confusedshrug:

[RaininTwos]

What seasons was VC a Top 5 player in? I really can't think of a season where he was Top 5.

And also, I asked the same question to Rake but he hasn't answered yet so I want to ask you the same thing. If we were to add Tmac in this discussion, how would you rank the three? Is Tmac behind both Hill and Carter is he ahead of both or is he in the middle?

He was definitely up there in 04-05.

[WockaVodka]

He was definitely up there in 04-05.
Vince was never close to being a top 5 player and even if he was close in 04-05 it was only for a short span since he started to breakout as soon as he put on a Nets uniform. He was playing like hot garbage with Toronto since he was still whining about playing there.

[Rake2204]

Vince was never close to being a top 5 player and even if he was close in 04-05 it was only for a short span since he started to breakout as soon as he put on a Nets uniform. He was playing like hot garbage with Toronto since he was still whining about playing there.
I think his '05 could be argued of being top 5 territory during his time in New Jersey (the majority of the season). His level of play would never be reflected in MVP voting that year due to the manner with which he left Toronto, but he was clearly a prime time player at that point. He actually had a great '06 and '07 as well. That's not to argue him over Grant Hill (because I believe I chose Hill myself) but just in terms of Carter's best moments. . . he was pretty great for a while there.