KBlaze888555, tell me how good Detroit Grant Hill would be in this era.

[Carbine]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H18Kc2xykPg

If he's shaking the best perimeter defender ever like that in what I would call modern spacing (for this particular play) what is he doing this era?

He one of the top 4 player in the league with Bron, Kawhi & Greek Freak?

[1987_Lakers]

Top 10? Maybe. Top 5? No way in hell am I putting him in the tier of LeBron, Kawhi, Giannis, Harden, AD, healthy Steph & KD. He would probably be in the bottom tier top 10 or somewhere between top 10-15.

[Im so nba'd out]

not kblaze

worse than giannis but better than pascal


that type of player though.Like a faster pascal.Amazing footwork that helped him get to the rim easily

[D.J.]

He was putting up trip dubs almost 25 years ago. Put him in an era with no handchecking and easier trips to the line, he would dominate. Not like Harden or ABC but he would still be a trip dub threat every night.

[Reggie43]

Top 5 easy. He was built for the modern era.

[Kblaze8855]

He would be an elite player but with numbers that made it hard for people to get why. He wasnt as much of a scorer as a lot of the people hes compared to. Not because he didnt have the skillset...but because he was playing point and really keeping others involved. He picked his spots. He might play 45 minutes and take 12-13 shots. It was deep into his career before they could get him to try to really score. He would be something like Ben Simmons with Paul George handles....and the ability to make you pay midrange if you sagged off. But more athletic. There are people who played Jordan and AI who still have Grant Hill as the best first step they ever dealt with. I think hes the type who would keep all the shooters around him fed.....get to the basket like Giannis but more legally and with more grace. Hes one of the best examples of "If everyone is on the same floor...." guys. He doesnt have the resume or even the numbers in his prime to compare to other all timers but put peak Grant Hill in this league he wouldnt stand out as worse than the other elites on the same floor. People would hate on him for not shooting threes but nobody could say he flat out couldnt shoot.

He would be polarizing.....but his teams would be really good I suspect. He was built for 2020 position-less ball. He would play all 5 positions depending on the team he had around him and the matchup. He would probably put up like 22/9/9 on a Lebron/Giannis like 53-56% shooting or so with the open lanes and emphasis on getting to the basket.

Hes elite....it just might not be easy to see for fans used to big point totals nightly from the people they call elite.

[Phoenix]

Grant was doing 9 rebounds in an era where the bigs could stay around the basket. He was also one of the better passing non-PGs of the era doing around 6-7 assist a game and its not like those Piston squads were loaded with scoring talent most years. He produced 26 points a night right before the ankle injury. He had a do it all game, very much a precursor to Lebron. Nowadays with his handle against defenders who can't get up on him like 25 years ago, he'd be getting to the rim pretty easily. Give him some targets on the wing to pass to when the defense collapses and he'll be a problem, or live with him on the line 10-11 times a night. He could be a 25ppg/10rpg/8apg guy on the right team today.

[tontoz]

Ankle injury really screwed him. I don't remember the details but it was a mess that lasted for years.

I agree that Ben Simmons with a decent jumper would be a good comp. Not as strong but a quicker first step and better hops.

He was strange in that his shot seemed better pulling up off the dribble instead of catch and shoot. Not comfortable from 3.

[Whoah10115]

Like Manu, I'm confident his PPG would jump, even if he wasn't stats-focused.

But why anyone would think he isn't better than Westbrook, for example? Westbrook doesn't defend, ecpect when he wants to pretend to be Kobe. Grant wasn't a great defender until he got to Phoenix, but Westbrook is worse. Grant could put up those numbers, better rebounder and without backing off in a contrived effort to average a triple double.

Would take him over Harden. Would take him over Kawhi. I think Leonard was truly impressive last season, but he didn't exactly lack for help. Marc Gasol was still close to prime, along with Lowry and a great bench.

People don't realize how good Grant Hill was? He was keeping up with a prime Malone, Payton, later KG and Duncan, Shaq those years and even Admiral.

He was great.

[Phoenix]

Like Manu, I'm confident his PPG would jump, even if he wasn't stats-focused.

But why anyone would think he isn't better than Westbrook, for example? Westbrook doesn't defend, ecpect when he wants to pretend to be Kobe. Grant wasn't a great defender until he got to Phoenix, but Westbrook is worse. Grant could put up those numbers, better rebounder and without backing off in a contrived effort to average a triple double.

Would take him over Harden. Would take him over Kawhi. I think Leonard was truly impressive last season, but he didn't exactly lack for help. Marc Gasol was still close to prime, along with Lowry and a great bench.

People don't realize how good Grant Hill was? He was keeping up with a prime Malone, Payton, later KG and Duncan, Shaq those years and even Admiral.

He was great.

Who is making the argument he wouldn't be? Grant was a much more cerebral player than Westbrook. Russ's best attribute is his athleticism and relentlessness, his motor is off the chart. Grant's natural talent and athleticism easily carries into today. The question moreso is how will he harness that talent? Will he thrive to be more of a distance shooter to keep defenders honest? If he did that he'd be untouchable. Everything else is there to dominate, and he'd be getting to the basket with less resistance than 25 years ago.

[imdaman99]

He would be LeBron-lite. Not nearly as good because he was fragile in his prime but yeah a poor man's LeBron aka Westbrook

[Kblaze8855]

Grant Hill wasn’t fragile till he got that one major injury. And on the floor at the same time? You wouldn’t notice Lebron being way better than grant hill.

[imdaman99]

Grant Hill wasn’t fragile till he got that one major injury. And on the floor at the same time? You wouldn’t notice Lebron being way better than grant hill.

For that game no, you might not notice much difference but brons literally done this his entire career. GH was really good on the pistons. But he didn't keep it up, it's all a what if. Are you telling me what you saw in Detroit convinced you he would be comparable to LeBron?

There's a guy in this thread talking about how easy it would be to average a triple double if they wanted to :lol I'm sorry dude, that takes motor and energy galore

[Whoah10115]

For that game no, you might not notice much difference but brons literally done this his entire career. GH was really good on the pistons. But he didn't keep it up, it's all a what if. Are you telling me what you saw in Detroit convinced you he would be comparable to LeBron?

There's a guy in this thread talking about how easy it would be to average a triple double if they wanted to :lol I'm sorry dude, that takes motor and energy galore


You're talking about me and obviously your reading comprehension lacks.

Grant Hill was healthy and great for 6 years. Cut short but hardly a small sample size.

[Phoenix]

For that game no, you might not notice much difference but brons literally done this his entire career. GH was really good on the pistons. But he didn't keep it up, it's all a what if. Are you telling me what you saw in Detroit convinced you he would be comparable to LeBron?

There's a guy in this thread talking about how easy it would be to average a triple double if they wanted to :lol I'm sorry dude, that takes motor and energy galore

For one, he 'didn't keep it up' because his ankle got fukked. It's not like he was injury prone prior to that. 3 of his 6 Detroit years he played 80 or more games, 70 as a rookie, 74 another year, and then 50 in the shortened season. Nothing suggests he couldn't have remained relatively healthy for most of his career if not for the ankle issue. On a somewhat related note, him and Penny basically came in together and are often lumped together because of how injuries ruined their careers. I was on the bandwagon while they were playing thinking that Grant was a bit better, and I think had their careers played out he may have created some separation. Grant was a bit bigger than Penny and had a bit more of a physical element to his game, even though they were both 'finesse' players.

Grant was doing 20/10/7 his second season in the league, and his numbers were very much 'in the flow of the game'. You don't think with today's pace he could either drop or at least flirt with a triple D? You got Luka in his 2nd year doing 29/9/9 and I wouldn't say he has an exceptional motor.

[Kblaze8855]

For that game no, you might not notice much difference but brons literally done this his entire career. GH was really good on the pistons. But he didn't keep it up, it's all a what if. Are you telling me what you saw in Detroit convinced you he would be comparable to LeBron?

There's a guy in this thread talking about how easy it would be to average a triple double if they wanted to :lol I'm sorry dude, that takes motor and energy galore


He was comparable to Lebron in a lot of ways. Doing something a long time doesn’t make you better at it means you had a better career. The way the game is played now I suspect it would be easier to tell just how good he was.

He could easily flirt with triple doubles for entire seasons. The league is geared towards that for a player like him. He would make an all time position less basketball short list.

[Absolut Prince]

I have never worn Fila entirely due to Grant Hill becoming a what if.

[Marchesk]

He was comparable to Lebron in a lot of ways. Doing something a long time doesn’t make you better at it means you had a better career. The way the game is played now I suspect it would be easier to tell just how good he was.

He could easily flirt with triple doubles for entire seasons. The league is geared towards that for a player like him. He would make an all time position less basketball short list.

Good lord! Lebron has MVPs and titles. He's taken all sorts of teams to the finals and won FMVPs. What season was Grant Hill ever the best player in the game?

Lebron >>> Grant Hill per season, career, playoffs, etc.

[Kblaze8855]

Good lord! Lebron has MVPs and titles. He's taken all sorts of teams to the finals and won FMVPs. What season was Grant Hill ever the best player in the game?

Lebron >>> Grant Hill per season, career, playoffs, etc.


When your argument involves basketball ill consider it. Youre talking about legacy which is worth precisely nothing on a basketball court. Lebron isnt winning rings with end of the road Dumars and Lindsay Hunter so there is no reason to compare it that way. Lebron being better isnt an unreasonable opinion to have. But you arent backing it up with an actual basketball case and over the years ive cared less and less about legacy talk. IVe seen too many players be clearly the same level on the floor then end up dozens of spots apart all time because greatness isnt...goodness...for lack of a better word.

Put 97 Hill and 2010 Lebron on the same floor....youre gonna have a hell of a battle. One being top 3-10 all time and the other top 100 means absolutely nothing.

[Phoenix]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUPCeB3X-pg

[Charlie Sheen]

The comparisons to Lebron are not out of the question. What's been mostly forgotten in time was what happened after Grant Hill's first step. He was an elite finisher at the rim. He was also a playmaker. He didn't come into the league as a great shooter, but he was never a bad one. Sounds like the skillset of the greatest players from any era, doesn't it?

I don't like the argument that penalizes Grant for the ankle injury. I don't like dismissing the argument for longevity because you find it boring either. It counts. It doesn't ultimately decide who was better at basketball, but it can absolutely be an element of that greater discussion.

[pauk]

He would be an elite player but with numbers that made it hard for people to get why. He wasnt as much of a scorer as a lot of the people hes compared to. Not because he didnt have the skillset...but because he was playing point and really keeping others involved. He picked his spots. He might play 45 minutes and take 12-13 shots. It was deep into his career before they could get him to try to really score. He would be something like Ben Simmons with Paul George handles....and the ability to make you pay midrange if you sagged off. But more athletic. There are people who played Jordan and AI who still have Grant Hill as the best first step they ever dealt with. I think hes the type who would keep all the shooters around him fed.....get to the basket like Giannis but more legally and with more grace. Hes one of the best examples of "If everyone is on the same floor...." guys. He doesnt have the resume or even the numbers in his prime to compare to other all timers but put peak Grant Hill in this league he wouldnt stand out as worse than the other elites on the same floor. People would hate on him for not shooting threes but nobody could say he flat out couldnt shoot.

He would be polarizing.....but his teams would be really good I suspect. He was built for 2020 position-less ball. He would play all 5 positions depending on the team he had around him and the matchup. He would probably put up like 22/9/9 on a Lebron/Giannis like 53-56% shooting or so with the open lanes and emphasis on getting to the basket.

Hes elite....it just might not be easy to see for fans used to big point totals nightly from the people they call elite.

3PT shot:
Lebron - 30% to 41% career 3PT shooter on high volume & less cherry picking.
Giannis - 15% to 30% career 3PT shooter on low volume & more cherry picking/open shots.

3-10 feet =
Lebron - up to 55%
Giannis - up to 39%


10-16 feet =
Lebron - up to 48%
Giannis - up to 42%


16-23 feet =
Lebron - up to 45%
Giannis - up to 41%


% of points/fieldgoals Giannis makes is like 90% from 0-3 feet & 99% from 0-6 feet.


So.... :no:

Giannis has very little scoring skills. He is more closer to something like high volume attempting Ben Simmons.

[Kblaze8855]

He shot 53-58% the last 3 years which is all I referenced. Not that it really matters anyway. You don’t get bonus points for being forced to settle for worse shots because you can’t live at the rim taking the best ones.

[Kblaze8855]

The comparisons to Lebron are not out of the question. What's been mostly forgotten in time was what happened after Grant Hill's first step. He was an elite finisher at the rim. He was also a playmaker. He didn't come into the league as a great shooter, but he was never a bad one. Sounds like the skillset of the greatest players from any era, doesn't it?

I don't like the argument that penalizes Grant for the ankle injury. I don't like dismissing the argument for longevity because you find it boring either. It counts. It doesn't ultimately decide who was better at basketball, but it can absolutely be an element of that greater discussion.


Boring isn’t the reason I dismiss it. I dismiss it because basketball has 3 elements. Offense, defense, and the transition between(rebounding) with several intangibles that impact all three.

Longevity like rings is a helpful divider used by people who often lack the information to really discuss the players ability or people just needing a way to split up players too close to call. It’s the easy way out. What someone accomplished and how many numbers and so on they built up make it easy to dismiss a lot of people who don’t give you much basketball reason.

Its the “That man got 6,000 points” argument Shaq uses against Bill Walton that when on the same floor....didn’t help the many people he outplayed who now have 20,000. Of what use is career totals when a game is to be played?

It makes it hard to nail down a list. Perhaps even impossible. So I get why people just lost number of this and how many times they did that. It’s easy.

It just has little to do with who is better at a game of basketball. Who had the greater career? Yea. Then you need accomplishments and longevity. They aren’t the same question. 87 Jordan had accomplished nothing. Doesn’t mean he wouldn’t destroy you at a rate beyond that of say....Earl Monroe...who at that point had a better career.

Your accomplishments don’t help you when you’re on an island trying to keep a guy out of the lane. You have to have a whole different kind of discussion.

[SamuraiSWISH]

In this era? No defense? No rim protection? And not the super physical, grind it out, defensive focused late 90s? With ample pace and space and surrounded by shooters?

28 ppg
10 rpg
8 apg

Easy. Give me prime AD and he’s in the Finals. No questions asked whatsoever.

[Lebron23]

In this era? No defense? No rim protection? And not the super physical, grind it out, defensive focused late 90s? With ample pace and space and surrounded by shooters?

28 ppg
10 rpg
8 apg

Easy. Give me prime AD and he’s in the Finals. No questions asked whatsoever.

People easily forget that Piston's Grant Hill was a second round virgin. Good regular season performer, but he always under performed in the playoffs. He only made it to the 2nd round when he played for the Suns.

[SamuraiSWISH]

People easily forget that Piston's Grant Hill was a second round virgin. Good regular season performer, but he always under performed in the playoffs. He only made it to the 2nd round when he played for the Suns.

Dude:

23 years old, with trash roster in 1996 Playoffs: 19 ppg, 7 rpg, 4 apg
24 years old, with trash roster in 1997 Playoffs: 24 ppg, 7 rpg, 5 apg
25 years old, with trash roster in 1998 Playoffs: 19 ppg, 7 rpg, 7 apg

Under performed? This is with trash rosters, and super slow paced. Increase the pace, and style of play that caters to his entire Point Forward game? Those numbers go way up.

[Marchesk]

When your argument involves basketball ill consider it. Youre talking about legacy which is worth precisely nothing on a basketball court. Lebron isnt winning rings with end of the road Dumars and Lindsay Hunter so there is no reason to compare it that way. Lebron being better isnt an unreasonable opinion to have. But you arent backing it up with an actual basketball case and over the years ive cared less and less about legacy talk. IVe seen too many players be clearly the same level on the floor then end up dozens of spots apart all time because greatness isnt...goodness...for lack of a better word.

Put 97 Hill and 2010 Lebron on the same floor....youre gonna have a hell of a battle. One being top 3-10 all time and the other top 100 means absolutely nothing.


Lebron has four MVPs and has a decade long stretch where people considered him the best player in the game. And yes, I would expect Lebron to get those Detroit teams past the first round.

It's like saying put 2003 Tracy McGrady in a game against 2006 Kobe and you're going to have a hell of a battle. Sure. But one player is an MVP and five time champion and the other was a very good scorer who never led his team to the second round. There's a world of difference. It's like arguing Mitch Richmond versus Michael Jordan.

As in, there is no argument. Everyone knows who the better player is. And that's not Grant Hill.

[Kblaze8855]

Nothing about your evaluation of basketball seems to concern playing a game of it. You’re making an argument that doesn’t even require having seen a game played in your life. Such arguments don’t interest me much these days. I know the almanac facts better than maybe anyone you know. That isn’t basketball playing. Especially when it’s concerning two players who never even shared a league(meaning of course the true grant hill).

Your argument could just as easily be used to compared two quarterbacks. It’s generic sports radio talk with no sport specific substance. I’m not very interested in that.

[MiseryCityTexas]

top 10? Maybe. Top 5? No way in hell am i putting him in the tier of lebron, kawhi, giannis, harden, ad, healthy steph & kd. he would probably be in the bottom tier top 10 or somewhere between top 10-15.


people in here claim i'm an idiot, yet you got people in here who actually think james harden is better than prime grant hill. The bufoonery in insidehoops message boards is at an all time high.

[MiseryCityTexas]

A lot of the top eastern conference teams in 2020 would be lottery teams if they played during grant hill's era. (mainly the bucks and raptors in particular).

[Phoenix]

It's becoming a bit of a cliche to say this, but Grant is on a list of players that would likely be better today than in his own era. People will look to his lack of a range shot, but there's nothing to say he couldn't work on it to be a bigger part of his arsenal, and all of his other attributes translate today. He'd be an elite athlete by today's standards. He was a swiss army knife skillwise and he'll play anywhere from 1-3 at an elite level with some 4 thrown in. You couldn't keep him out of the lane when teams were actually focused on doing so. He's going to be an issue if you put shooters on either wing and let him do his thing at the top of the key.