No Injuries - Who Would Have the Better Career? Grant Hill or Tracy McGrady? [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Koresh

10-13-2015, 03:42 AM

I hate 3ball's guts but he really got me obsessed with watching prime Hill. I remember being his biggest fan from Duke and he came to the NBA. The first pair of NBA shoes I ever got were his 1996 shoes. I believe if he didn't get hurt he would be talked about more.

Don't get me started on T-Mac. I slaughtered the Ai with the 99-00 Raptors and man that team has some talent! Also, 2003 T-Mac is one of the greatest players, ever. Then I played with the 2008 Rockets and it's like, damn that team was loaded but the injuries!

Who would have a better career if they weren't injured? By the way, they were both on the Magic, which makes you drool to think how good they could have been together.

Lebron23

10-13-2015, 03:43 AM

Mcgrady. Both were 2nd round virgins in the prime of their NBA Career, but Mcgrady put up better stats in the playoffs.

BasedTom

10-13-2015, 03:46 AM

tmac could have been top 10 all time talent

bobopenguin

10-13-2015, 04:03 AM

thought tmac had a mental break down first, then major injury followsed.

Grant hill was pure warrior all the way through.

talent wise, wasnt grant hill named MJ no.2?

Lebron23

10-13-2015, 04:11 AM

thought tmac had a mental break down first, then major injury followsed.

Grant hill was pure warrior all the way through.

talent wise, wasnt grant hill named MJ no.2?

Nah. Marketing wise he was on Jordan level. But Hill had a history of s*cking in the first round of the playoffs. That's why he never led Detroit in the 2nd round.

Reggie43

10-13-2015, 06:02 AM

Grant hill for me because he was equally skilled while having a higher basketball iq, he always seem to provide what the team needed on both ends.

Dragonyeuw

10-13-2015, 07:12 AM

We can only go off the best we saw of either. Tmac's 2003 is better than Hill's 2000, or if you prefer one of the earlier seasons when Hill was putting up 21/9/7. And Tmac was 23/24 in 2003, whereas Hill was 27/28 so he was pretty much at the start of his prime. It's fair to assume that Tmac hadn't even reached his prime in 2003. If I had to project both had their careers panned out without the injuries, Tmac had top 15 GOAT potential and Hill maybe in the top 20-25 GOAT.

Kobe_6/8

10-13-2015, 08:15 AM

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/933/362/ScreenShot2013-06-24at1.37.29PM_original.png

McGrady.

ShaqTwizzle

10-13-2015, 08:15 AM

T-Mac playoff stats (2001-2005)

****************
31.6 / 6.8 / 6.1-apg on 55%TS (26.8 PER)

Prime T-Mac was a beast.

aj1987

10-13-2015, 08:30 AM

T-Mac playoff stats (2001-2005)

****************
31.6 / 6.8 / 6.1-apg on 55%TS (26.8 PER)

Prime T-Mac was a beast.
4-0 (1st round)
4-0 (1st round)
4-3 (1st round)
4-3 (1st round)

ShaqTwizzle

10-13-2015, 09:01 AM

4-0 (1st round)
4-0 (1st round)
4-3 (1st round)
4-3 (1st round)

Basketball is a team sport.
T-Mac was stuck with horrible rosters from 01-04 and even in 05 the Mavericks clearly had a better and deeper supporting cast then the Rockets had (and Houston could have easily won that series).

Looking at those series I find it hard to say that T-Mac disappointed in terms of end results.

I mean is Prime Kobe (with a putrid roster) taking a 3-1 lead over a 2003 Detroit team that humiliated him the following year?
Is Prime Kobe beating that Mavericks team or even taking them to 7 games?
Maybe but it certainly isn't a sure thing. T-Mac performed very well in that series.

I don't agree with the notion that Peak early 00's T-Mac was not an amazing player because he lost to better (usually far better) teams in the 1st round.

ShawkFactory

10-13-2015, 09:02 AM

4-0 (1st round)
4-0 (1st round)
4-3 (1st round)
4-3 (1st round)
Absolutely garbage squads..

JohnnySic

10-13-2015, 09:09 AM

Grant hill for me because he was equally skilled while having a higher basketball iq, he always seem to provide what the team needed on both ends.
This.

HylianNightmare

10-13-2015, 09:23 AM

tmac, dude had it all

Dragonyeuw

10-13-2015, 09:26 AM

Basketball is a team sport.
T-Mac was stuck with horrible rosters from 01-04 and even in 05 the Mavericks clearly had a better and deeper supporting cast then the Rockets had (and Houston could have easily won that series).

Looking at those series I find it hard to say that T-Mac disappointed in terms of end results.

I mean is Prime Kobe (with a putrid roster) taking a 3-1 lead over a 2003 Detroit team that humiliated him the following year?
Is Prime Kobe beating that Mavericks team or even taking them to 7 games?
Maybe but it certainly isn't a sure thing. T-Mac performed very well in that series.

I don't agree with the notion that Peak early 00's T-Mac was not an amazing player because he lost to better (usually far better) teams in the 1st round.

His teams choked away two 3-1 leads but I don't think you can pin it on him. I'm too lazy to look up stats but his teams didn't lose due to under-performance from him. If anything, that Orlando team had no business winning a game in 2003 againt Detroit, that roster was horrid. Had he not provided locker-room board material with his 'glad to finally be in the second round' comment, they very well may have beaten the Pistons that year.

miles berg

10-13-2015, 10:02 AM

Grant Hill is the 2nd best wing I've ever witnessed after Jordan.

!@#$%Vectors!@#

10-13-2015, 10:06 AM

TMAC based on offense alone:bowdown:

TOp 10-20 GOAT

aj1987

10-13-2015, 10:08 AM

Basketball is a team sport.
T-Mac was stuck with horrible rosters from 01-04 and even in 05 the Mavericks clearly had a better and deeper supporting cast then the Rockets had (and Houston could have easily won that series).

Looking at those series I find it hard to say that T-Mac disappointed in terms of end results.

I mean is Prime Kobe (with a putrid roster) taking a 3-1 lead over a 2003 Detroit team that humiliated him the following year?
Is Prime Kobe beating that Mavericks team or even taking them to 7 games?
Maybe but it certainly isn't a sure thing. T-Mac performed very well in that series.

I don't agree with the notion that Peak early 00's T-Mac was not an amazing player because he lost to better (usually far better) teams in the 1st round.
2003:

Game 5 - Closeout game. T-Mac went off for 19 points on 20 shots.
Game 6 - Shot like shit, but still had a good game. Bills destroyed them.
Game 7 - 24 shots to score 21. 29% shooting. Rest of the team shot ~50%.

In short, dude was amazing the first couple of games and played like shit to close out the series. Went from 36/6/5 on 63% TS to 26/8/5 on 46% TS.

2005:

Game 4 - T-Mac was good, but was terrible in the 4th.
Game 5 - 25 points on 32% shooting. Yao scored 30 on 13 shots. Yao killed it in the 4th and T-Mac was ass.
Game 7 - 27 points on 38% shooting. Yao scored 33 on 57%.

Same story again 32/7/7 on 59% TS to 26/8/7 on 45% TS in the 2 games they could've won.

!@#$%Vectors!@#

10-13-2015, 10:11 AM

ShawkFactory

10-13-2015, 10:22 AM

Grant Hill is the 2nd best wing I've ever witnessed after Jordan.
:biggums:

Pushxx

10-13-2015, 10:24 AM

Tough call but I think Grant Hill would have easily been at least top 25 all-time if he stayed healthy.

ClipperRevival

10-13-2015, 10:25 AM

Putting up great, individual numbers on bad teams doesn't necessarily mean that this player is playing the right way or that he is making his teammates better. It all comes down to how you get your points. Was it within the flow of the offense or at the expense of the offense? There are guys who can get theirs at the expense of the offense and still put up impressive numbers. But in the grand scheme of things, he's not helping his team win. What good are great numbers if they are obtained at the expense of the offense?

I'm not discrediting any particular player in this thread. I'm just saying people shouldn't look at great, individual numbers on bad teams and just assume the guy was great. It's all about context. Stats don't tell the whole story.

ShaqTwizzle

10-13-2015, 10:29 AM

2003:

Game 5 - Closeout game. T-Mac went off for 19 points on 20 shots.
Game 6 - Shot like shit, but still had a good game. Bills destroyed them.
Game 7 - 24 shots to score 21. 29% shooting. Rest of the team shot ~50%.

In short, dude was amazing the first couple of games and played like shit to close out the series. Went from 36/6/5 on 63% TS to 26/8/5 on 46% TS.

2005:

Game 4 - T-Mac was good, but was terrible in the 4th.
Game 5 - 25 points on 32% shooting. Yao scored 30 on 13 shots. Yao killed it in the 4th and T-Mac was ass.
Game 7 - 27 points on 38% shooting. Yao scored 33 on 57%.

Same story again 32/7/7 on 59% TS to 26/8/7 on 45% TS in the 2 games they could've won.

Yeah he struggled down the stretch of that 03 series but the fact that he got Orlando a 3-1 lead sort of makes up for that.

I don't see many other guys (even the greatest of the great) getting 3 wins in that series let alone a 3-1 lead.

I can't completely give him a pass for his poor play in the last 2-3 games but I still think it was an excellent series.

In that 2005 series he was great for the most part.
32 / 7 / 7 on 59%TS over the first 4 games.
Bad G5 (thats the game he deserves the most blame for).
Great G6.

G7 he was also bad but I think that game was a blowout from the start so without remembering the specifics I can't say for sure how much blame he deserves or if a slightly better performance by him would have changed anything or not.

aj1987

10-13-2015, 10:38 AM

Yeah he struggled down the stretch of that 03 series but the fact that he got Orlando a 3-1 lead sort of makes up for that.

I don't see many other guys (even the greatest of the great) getting 3 wins in that series let alone a 3-1 lead.

I can't completely give him a pass for his poor play in the last 2-3 games but I still think it was an excellent series.

In that 2005 series he was great for the most part.
32 / 7 / 7 on 59%TS over the first 4 games.
Bad G5 (thats the game he deserves the most blame for).
Great G6.

G7 he was also bad but I think that game was a blowout from the start so without remembering the specifics I can't say for sure how much blame he deserves or if a slightly better performance by him would have changed anything or not.
I'm not saying that he's bad or a terrible player. Heck, I used to own(and I might still have them) his 5's. Dude wasn't mentally tough though. He had his shortcomings and I was just pointing that out. For a player of his caliber, he should've been able to carry the '05 team past the Mav's, considering he had a 22 PPG Yao beside him.

ShawkFactory

10-13-2015, 10:49 AM

I'm not saying that he's bad or a terrible player. Heck, I used to own(and I might still have them) his 5's. Dude wasn't mentally tough though. He had his shortcomings and I was just pointing that out. For a player of his caliber, he should've been able to carry the '05 team past the Mav's, considering he had a 22 PPG Yao beside him.
Doc said it best. Absolute superstar player with a role player mentality. He was not born with the leadership gene.

stalkerforlife

10-13-2015, 10:52 AM

Hill, easily. Hill was a walking potential triple double nightly.

Dude's game was more complete.

Dragonyeuw

10-13-2015, 10:54 AM

Makes you wonder why he left Toronto, wasn't it to get away from being in Vince's shadow? But in 2000, Tmac was just an up and comer and Hill( before the injury) was the superstar in his prime. That situation was never intended for Tmac to take the alpha role, but it gave him the opportunity to show his vast offensive ability( but not leadership skills). That said, he did 'lead' those woeful Orlando teams *to* the playoffs, if you look at those rosters that unto itself was an accomplishment that he had those teams above .500. That team couldn't even keep a consistent starting lineup due to various injuries.

j3lademaster

10-13-2015, 11:16 AM

4-0 (1st round)
4-0 (1st round)
4-3 (1st round)
4-3 (1st round)Do you know who Andrew Declercq is? That was Tmac's center. The next best players on those Orlando squads were Pat Garrity and Mike Miller.

aj1987

10-13-2015, 11:20 AM

Do you know who Andrew Declercq is? That was Tmac's center. The next best players on those Orlando squads were Pat Garrity and Mike Miller.
Darrell Armstrong?

And Andrew played a total of 167 minutes over 3 seasons. Definitely not worse than Joel Anthony and that dude play a TON for the Heat.

Crown&Coke

10-13-2015, 04:18 PM

GHill

jlip

10-13-2015, 04:30 PM

His teams choked away two 3-1 leads but I don't think you can pin it on him. I'm too lazy to look up stats but his teams didn't lose due to under-performance from him. If anything, that Orlando team had no business winning a game in 2003 againt Detroit, that roster was horrid. Had he not provided locker-room board material with his 'glad to finally be in the second round' comment, they very well may have beaten the Pistons that year.

Yep. Also, 2003 was the first season the 1st round was extended to seven games. He possibly would have led the Magic to a first round upset if it were yet a five game series.

OldSchoolBBall

10-13-2015, 04:46 PM

Big Hill fan, but TMac was visibly more talented. It would have been him.

poido123

10-13-2015, 05:09 PM

Grant Hill.

He was touted to be the next big thing after MJ in basketball.

Sakkreth

10-13-2015, 05:15 PM

Tmac in his prime was better than Kobe, just his teams were complete shit.

Timmy D for MVP

10-13-2015, 05:26 PM

Grant Hill.

While I agree that T-Mac was more gifted (I have said here numerous times that I think he is one of the few who I felt had GOAT potential) he didn't have the mental aspect of the game. It just didn't feel like basketball was number one for him. Which is cool. But basketball wise I'd give Hill the edge because of it.