At their peak - Grant Hill, Penny Hardaway, and Scottie Pippen

Rank these 3 players peak from best to worst between Grant Hill, Penny Hardaway, and Scottie Pippen.

I suspect the peak years of the three are...1997 for Hill, 1996 for Penny, and 1994 for Pippen.

Pippen.

He put up nearly identical numbers to Hill but played much better overall D.

Penny to me, isn't really in the comparison. Lesser numbers, D wasn't as good.

1. Grant Hill (come on now, he was on his way to maybe be the Lebron before Lebron, i remember Jordan comparing his game to him in 1999 where grant averaged 26-7-5 and saying he passed the torch to him and so on, he was only getting better, then the injury happened)

2. Scottie Pippen

3. Penny Hardaway


But i was more of a Penny fan, one of the smoothest/fluid games i ever seen and playing PG at 6'7 made it even sexier...

When i think about it all these players were pretty damn similar, athletic point-forwards that could do everything...

1) Hill
2) Pippen
3) Hardaway

[QUOTE=scm5]Pippen.

He put up nearly identical numbers to Hill but played much better overall D.

Penny to me, isn't really in the comparison. Lesser numbers, D wasn't as good.[/QUOTE]

Penny was the better most polished scorer of the three though. Had he played his natural position and the team relied more on his scoring instead of his facilitating, his numbers would be marginally better IMO.

[QUOTE=pauk]1. Grant Hill (come on now, he was on his way to maybe be the Lebron before Lebron, i remember Jordan comparing his game to him in 1999 where grant averaged 26-7-5 and saying he passed the torch to him and so on, he was only getting better, then the injury happened)

2. Scottie Pippen

3. Penny Hardaway


But i was more of a Penny fan, one of the smoothest/fluid games i ever seen and playing PG at 6'7 made it even sexier...

When i think about it all these players were pretty damn similar, athletic point-forwards that could do everything...[/QUOTE]

Hill:

21/9/7 on 50% shooting 1.8spg .6bpg in 97'
26/7/5 on 49% shooting 1.6spg .6bpg in 00'

Pippen:

21/8/7 on 51% shooting 1.9spg 1.1bpg in 92'.
22/9/6 on 49% shooting and 2.9spg 1.1bpg in 97'

Those were their two best years for each players, in my opinion... and they are all very close. I would give the nod to Pippen because of his dominance on the defensive end of the floor.

[QUOTE=scm5]Pippen.

He put up nearly identical numbers to Hill but played much better overall D.

[B]Penny to me, isn't really in the comparison. Lesser numbers, D wasn't as good[/B].[/QUOTE]

Apparently efficiency doesn't matter to you in terms of numbers. Penny's FG% and TS% were threw the roof.
They were second only to MJ (yup, better than Wade, C. Paul, Deron...and of course the less efficient guys like T-mac, Carter, etc). The only people to meet that level since are Lebron and Durant.

He also had more assists per game than Grant Hill, yet one less turnover per game. Regardless, he was clearly a better passer than Hill was.

Defensively, Hill wasn't that great...he's actually been a better defender during his Phoenix resurrection than his prime days.

In 1996, Penny was 3rd in MVP voting behind MJ and Malone. And he deserved it.

Penny > Hill

[QUOTE=Cali Syndicate]Penny was the better most polished scorer of the three though. Had he played his natural position and the team relied more on his scoring instead of his facilitating, his numbers would be marginally better IMO.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, if you didnt look at the stats and only saw one game of these three players you would think Penny was a superstar (one of the top 3 players in the NBA or something)... he was much more aesthetically pleasing to watch, beautiful game, beautiful jumpshot, beautiful dribbling, beautiful scoring arsenal, could rebound and had amazing vision/passing skills (better than Grant/Pippen), flashy but efficient.... and remember his post game? People forget....

I say it again, Penny to me had the most beautiful game... silky smooth... everything was FINESSE...

[QUOTE=tmacattack33]Apparently efficiency doesn't matter to you in terms of numbers. Penny's FG% and TS% were threw the roof.
They were second only to MJ (yup, better than Wade, C. Paul, Deron...and of course the less efficient guys like T-mac, Carter, etc). The only people to meet that level since are Lebron and Durant.

He also had more assists per game than Grant Hill, yet one less turnover per game. Regardless, he was clearly a better passer than Hill was.

Defensively, Hill wasn't that great...he's actually been a better defender during his Phoenix resurrection than his prime days.

In 1996, Penny was 3rd in MVP voting behind MJ and Malone. And he deserved it.

Penny > Hill[/QUOTE]

I posted up Hill's numbers above... here are Penny's two peak seasons:

22/4/7 on 51% FG% 2.0spg .6bpg in 96'
21/4/7 on 51% FG% 1.7spg .3bpg in 95'

In terms of scoring, Penny was the more natural scorer and scored more efficiently, but he wasn't as good as Hill.

Hill was like a mini-Lebron while Penny was like a mini-Wade.

1. Pippen
2. Hill
3. Penny

Hill would have likely had a better peak than Pippen if it weren't for injuries. Pippen's D is what kept him above hill on my list.

[QUOTE=pauk]Indeed, if you didnt look at the stats and only saw one game of these three players you would think Penny was a superstar (one of the top 3 players in the NBA or something)... he was much more aesthetically pleasing to watch, beautiful game, beautiful jumpshot, beautiful dribbling, beautiful scoring arsenal, could rebound and had amazing vision/passing skills (better than Grant/Pippen), flashy but efficient.... and remember his post game? People forget....

I say it again, Penny to me had the most beautiful game... silky smooth... everything was FINESSE...[/QUOTE]

I agree, it isn't all about numbers. Their numbers are actually kinda close, but Hill just did more throughout the game. It's about defense as well, and while Hill and Penny were more or less on the same level defensively, Pippen was on another level.

Pippen's defense, plus putting up numbers that are arguably greater than Hill and Penny's is ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Myth]1. Pippen
2. Hill
3. Penny

Hill would have likely had a better peak than Pippen if it weren't for injuries. Pippen's D is what kept him above hill on my list.[/QUOTE]

The thing is, we're just talking about peaks. Peak play, Pippen was better. Hill was more consistently good, and put up better numbers than Pippen overall, when he was healthy. Enough to cover the gap defensively.

[QUOTE=scm5]I posted up Hill's numbers above... here are Penny's two peak seasons:

22/4/7 on 51% FG% 2.0spg .6bpg in 96'
21/4/7 on 51% FG% 1.7spg .3bpg in 95'

In terms of scoring, Penny was the more natural scorer and scored more efficiently, but he wasn't as good as Hill.

Hill was like a mini-Lebron while Penny was like a mini-Wade.[/QUOTE]

Wade's passing is closer to Hill's. Lebron and Penny's vision and passing are closer. (Penny was also a much better shooter than Wade, so that comparison is off). Lebron himself said that he'd compare himself to Penny and Magic.

As for the stats...

96 Penny: 21.7 pts on .605 TS%, 4.3 reb, 7.1 assists, 2.8 turnovers

99 Hill: 25.8 pts, .565 TS%, 6.6 reb, 5.4 assists, 3.2 turnovers


Basically an even stat line. And to me, from watching the games, Penny was a better scorer and on another level in terms of passing.




Biggest argument on Penny's behalf...was what he did without Shaq for 30 games in 1996. This was also what helped him come 3rd in MVP voting:

In the first part of the season (a 22 game span) without Shaq in 1996: Penny stats: 26.3 ppg, .622 TS% (there is no other way to describe this than purely amazing), 6.8 assists/3.2 turnovers, 5.3 reb

Penny clearly doesn't fit in with how short his prime is. Hill+Pippen are evenly matched and debatable. VERY similar players. Hill was better score, Pippen better defender IMO.

[QUOTE=Cali Syndicate]Had he played his natural position and the team relied more on his scoring instead of his facilitating, his numbers would be marginally better IMO.[/QUOTE]



This is not true. Penny Hardaway was 6'7 in high school, and played PG in high school.


Penny was a PG, in the mold of Magic Johnson, if anyone could be. Even without injuries, his stats were down when he moved to SG, including his points.



I understand they're all shorter, but Rose (who I think is a PG), Curry, and especially Westbrook are PG's, so I can't see how Hardaway's natural position is SG..not when we're talking about his actual game and not his height.

Also if you want to talk stats, let's talk about the real season.

Penny: 22.0 pts, .568 TS%, 4.5 reb, 6.6 assists, 3.1 TO (over 41 games)

Grant Hill: 20.9 pts, .514 TS%, 7.1 reb, 5.8 assists, 3.0 TO (over 13 games)

Hill only played playoff 13 games in Detroit, and that's a small sample size, so what we are mostly looking at here is Penny's numbers. Which are great playoff numbers (better TS% than even Lebron).

Pippen's playoff stats in the 90's on the Bulls for comparison

19.2 pts, .521 TS%, 7.9 reb, 5.5 assists, 3.0 TO (over 136 games)

[QUOTE=scm5]The thing is, we're just talking about peaks. Peak play, Pippen was better. Hill was more consistently good, and put up better numbers than Pippen overall, when he was healthy. Enough to cover the gap defensively.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you are saying, because you say 2 things that contradict each other: "Peak play, Pippen was better" and "[Hill did] enough to cover the gap defensively."

But I was well aware that this is just talking about peaks. I believe Pippen's peak was better than Hill's. I only mentioned Hill's injuries, because I think that Hill would have had an even better peak in his career if it weren't for injuries.

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]Penny clearly doesn't fit in with how short his prime is. Hill+Pippen are evenly matched and debatable. VERY similar players. Hill was better score, Pippen better defender IMO.[/QUOTE]
We're talking peak though, not prime, so when they were all at their best. I think you could argue Penny was better. He was pretty dominant in 1996 and he stepped up big time when Shaq went out that season. He was 3rd in MVP that season because of how big time he was.

[QUOTE=StateOfMind12]We're talking peak though, not prime, so when they were all at their best. I think you could argue Penny was better. He was pretty dominant in 1996 and he stepped up big time when Shaq went out that season. He was 3rd in MVP that season because of how big time he was.[/QUOTE]

Again Penny's best season doesn't match the other two's. Hill had the best single season of the bunch and one of the best in NBA history giving just declining Jordan and Malone a run for their money for MVP.

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]Again Penny's best season doesn't match the other two's. Hill had the best single season of the bunch and one of the best in NBA history giving just declining Jordan and Malone a run for their money for MVP.[/QUOTE]
This is based on what though?

Penny's peak was just as good as Hill's, if not better. Hill was never as good of a playoff performer as Penny and Penny and Hill were both 3rd in MVP voting at one point. What exactly separates Hill from Penny?

You can't just pass your opinion as a fact without even backing it up.

[QUOTE=StateOfMind12]This is based on what though?

Penny's peak was just as good as Hill's, if not better. Hill was never as good of a playoff performer as Penny and Hill was never voted as high in the MVP rankings like Penny was in 1996.

You can't just pass your opinion as a fact without even backing it up.[/QUOTE]

Grant Hill's MVP runner up season... was 99 right?

25.8 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 5.2 apg, 1.5 spg on 56.5 TS%. Not to mention Hill's always been a respectable/good defender, although not as good as he has been the last 5-6 years. Penny on the other hand was a mediocre defender who could be classified as average at best.

Penny was an awesome and unique talent but he can't touch prime Hill. As for Pippen his numbers may not be quite as good as peak Hill BUT he's a top 3 perimeter defender of all time and has a case for the top spot in that regard, that alone puts him above Penny IMO.

Penny is one of those players that have become insanely overhyped long after they are gone. I watched him and he was very very gifted and good. That being said his prime was extremely short lived and outside of getting carried by young Shaq didn't do much to impress me. People act like he's Lebron but forget that he only had what 4 seasons as a top caliber player, then vanished? By comparison Tmac and Vince Carter who people act like were a flash in the pan had at leasy 7-8 seasons at the highest level at their position.

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]Again Penny's best season doesn't match the other two's. Hill had the best single season of the bunch and one of the best in NBA history giving just declining Jordan and Malone a run for their money for MVP.[/QUOTE]


Penny's year and level of play in 1996 is something that Grant Hill never matched.

Penny was ahead of Malone in voting in 1996 by the way.

And I hope you didn't just try to say 1996 had a low level of top tier players, because those were some of the NBA's Golden Years. That was a great year for MJ, David Robinson (2nd in MVP voting), Pippen himself, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Karl Malone. It was an amazing time for the league.

[QUOTE=tmacattack33]Penny's year and level of play in 1996 is something that Grant Hill never matched.

Penny was ahead of Malone in voting in 1996 by the way.

And I hope you didn't just try to say 1996 had a low level of top tier players, because those were some of the NBA's Golden Years. That was a great year for MJ, David Robinson (2nd in MVP voting), Pippen himself, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Karl Malone :facepalm.[/QUOTE]

Hill in 99>>>Penny in 96.

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]Grant Hill's MVP runner up season... was 99 right?[/quote]
No, Hill's highest MVP ranked year was 1997 where he was 3rd just like Penny was in 1996.

Hill wasn't even top 5 in MVP voting in 1999, don't know what you're talking about here.

[QUOTE]That being said his prime was extremely short lived and outside of getting carried by young Shaq didn't do much to impress me. People act like he's Lebron but forget that he only had what 4 seasons as a top caliber player, then vanished? [/QUOTE]
We're talking peak here, best season and at their absolute best, who cares how long it lasted?

Plus, a large reason why Penny was 3rd in MVP voting was because of how much he stepped up when Shaq was out. The Penny needs Shaq argument is invalid.

[quote]By comparison Tmac and Vince Carter who people act like were a flash in the pan had at leasy 7-8 seasons at the highest level at their position.[/QUOTE]
Yes, Penny was pretty much McGrady before McGrady, more efficient, lesser volume, but similar overall.

[QUOTE=StateOfMind12]No, Hill's highest MVP ranked year was 1997 where he was 3rd just like Penny was in 1996.

Hill wasn't even top 5 in MVP voting in 1999, don't know what you're talking about here.


We're talking peak here, best season and at their absolute best, who cares how long it lasted?

Plus, a large reason why Penny was 3rd in MVP voting was because of how much he stepped up when Shaq was out. The Penny needs Shaq argument is invalid.


Yes, Penny was pretty much McGrady before McGrady, more efficient, lesser volume, but similar overall.[/QUOTE]

I put a question mark because I wasn't sure which year it was. I personally think 99 was his best year though and that's why I used it. Worse APG but 4+ ppg more and better defense. Nobody seems to be factoring how much better of a defender Hill was than Penny BTW.

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]I put a question mark because I wasn't sure which year it was. I personally think 99 was his best year though and that's why I used it. Worse APG but 4+ ppg more and better defense. Nobody seems to be factoring how much better of a defender Hill was than Penny BTW.[/QUOTE]
Hill wasn't really that good of a defender until recently as he aged. He wasn't that good of a defender in his Pistons days. He was still better than Penny, no doubt, but he wasn't some all-defensive caliber player.

BTW Penny was the better playoff performer no doubt although he choked in 99. I shouldn't make it sound like it's not debatable but when defense+efficiency is factored in I prefer Hill strongly over Penny.

[QUOTE=StateOfMind12]Hill wasn't really that good of a defender until recently as he aged. He wasn't that good of a defender in his Pistons days. He was still better than Penny, no doubt, but he wasn't some all-defensive caliber player.[/QUOTE]

I already said that :D . Not a "fantastic" or elite perimeter defender like later in his career but at least "good" or "above average" defensively in younger years, better than Penny defensively.

99 was probably the weakest year in the nba in the past 30-40 years.

[QUOTE=tpols]99 was probably the weakest year in the nba in the past 30-40 years.[/QUOTE]

:no: 2011-2012 waves hello

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]Grant Hill's MVP runner up season... was 99 right?

25.8 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 5.2 apg, 1.5 spg on 56.5 TS%. Not to mention Hill's always been a respectable/good defender, although not as good as he has been the last 5-6 years. Penny on the other hand was a mediocre defender who could be classified as average at best.

Penny was an awesome and unique talent but he can't touch prime Hill. As for Pippen his numbers may not be quite as good as peak Hill BUT he's a top 3 perimeter defender of all time and has a case for the top spot in that regard, that alone puts him above Penny IMO.

Penny is one of those players that have become insanely overhyped long after they are gone. I watched him and he was very very gifted and good. That being said his prime was extremely short lived and outside of getting carried by young Shaq didn't do much to impress me. People act like he's Lebron but forget that he only had what 4 seasons as a top caliber player, then vanished? By comparison Tmac and Vince Carter who people act like were a flash in the pan had at leasy 7-8 seasons at the highest level at their position.[/QUOTE]



This is incorrect. Hardaway was clearly a better defender than Grant Hill. Grant Hill was no more than decent back then, and Penny was very much a good defender. You have that one backwards.


Hardaway is one of those players where revisionist history has taken over. The lack of credit for his defense is an example. Penny Hardaway was considered the best PG in the NBA, and Stockton was still in his prime. Hardaway reaching his prime would have been better than any PG in the league today. The guy scored 22 a game and his stats don't do him justice. He didn't dominate the ball to rack up 7APG. Like early Magic, the assists don't bear out the reality of his playmaking and his vision. He was a great passer, but his vision was where he stood out.


Hardaway was 1st Team All-NBA in his 3rd season (3rd in MVP voting), but also the year prior, in only his 2nd season. He beat out Gary Payton, just as he would the next year, when Payton was DPOTY and led his team to the 2nd best record in the league behind the 72win Bulls.


Penny Hardaway was incredible.

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]BTW Penny was the better playoff performer no doubt although he choked in 99. I shouldn't make it sound like it's not debatable but when defense+efficiency is factored in I prefer Hill strongly over Penny.[/QUOTE]
He actually didn't play that bad. He had two really bad games and two really good games in the series. It kind of just balanced out. Honestly, when you look at playoff series averages, you have to look at game by game instead of just total averages to get a better view.

But, Penny's peak was in 1996, not 1999 so it's kind of moot. It would be like saying Tmac sucked in the playoffs because he sucked in the 2007 playoffs but Tmac was past his prime and was a pretty good playoff performer for the most part.

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]I put a question mark because I wasn't sure which year it was. I personally think 99 was his best year though and that's why I used it. Worse APG but 4+ ppg more and better defense. [B]Nobody seems to be factoring how much better of a defender Hill was than Penny BTW[/B].[/QUOTE]

Because I don't think it was that big of a difference. I was a young fan then, and since then I've seen a few full games of theirs in youtube and stuff, so i am no expert here but Penny was an above average defender and Hill was an above average defender to good defender. Not a huge difference.

I don't know, i'd take Penny overall for his offensive prowess. Hill is very close though, with his better D and rebounding giving him a very good argument.

[QUOTE=tmacattack33]Because I don't think it was that big of a difference. I was a young fan then, and since then I've seen a few full games of theirs in youtube and stuff, so i am no expert here but Penny was an above average defender and Hill was an above average defender to good defender. Not a huge difference.

I don't know, i'd take Penny overall for his offensive prowess. Hill is very close though, with his better D and rebounding giving him a very good argument.[/QUOTE]

Not huge but worth noting man. LOL at Woah saying Penny was clearly the better defender and calling me the revisionist. At no point in either players career was Penny the better defender. Maybe only slightly worse but not equal or better.

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]Not huge but worth noting man. LOL at Woah saying Penny was clearly the better defender and calling me the revisionist. At no point in either players career was Penny the better defender. Maybe only slightly worse but not equal or better.[/QUOTE]



Penny was the better defender. Hill was not a particularly good defender back then. He even jokes about it now. Hill was simply a player on defense. He was never above average until he got to Phoenix.



Penny came into the league above average. He played good defense in the post and had great feet on the perimeter. He fought thru screens, had great lateral movement, and stayed in front of his man. He also used his wingspan very well and got a lot of steals, man to man.


No, you're wrong here. Penny Hardaway was a better defender than a no-more than average Grant Hill.

[QUOTE=Whoah10115]Penny was the better defender. Hill was not a particularly good defender back then. He even jokes about it now. Hill was simply a player on defense. He was never above average until he got to Phoenix.



Penny came into the league above average. He played good defense in the post and had great feet on the perimeter. He fought thru screens, had great lateral movement, and stayed in front of his man. He also used his wingspan very well and got a lot of steals, man to man.


No, you're wrong here. Penny Hardaway was a better defender than a no-more than average Grant Hill.[/QUOTE]

Hill was not an all NBA defender early in his career but he was an above average defender, Penny wasn't. I never once said Penny was a poor defender I said he was average or slightly above average where as Hill was better.

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]Hill was not an all NBA defender early in his career but he was an above average defender, Penny wasn't. I never once said Penny was a poor defender I said he was average or slightly above average where as Hill was better.[/QUOTE]


But it's not accurate. What's more, that was not the general opinion. The general opinion was that Hill was not aggressive enough and needed to become a better defender, because he had the tools to be good.


Penny was considered a very strong man-to-man defender on the perimeter, able to guard in the post, get steals, and had great shot-blocking instincts, maximizing his athleticism.

[QUOTE=Whoah10115]But it's not accurate. What's more, that was not the general opinion. The general opinion was that Hill was not aggressive enough and needed to become a better defender, because he had the tools to be good.


Penny was considered a very strong man-to-man defender on the perimeter, able to guard in the post, get steals, and had great shot-blocking instincts, maximizing his athleticism.[/QUOTE]

Again we may perceive it different and remember it differently but I disagree. I give Grant Hill the defensive and efficiency edge as well as the scoring edge.

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]Again we may perceive it different and remember it differently but I disagree. I give Grant Hill the defensive and efficiency edge as well as the scoring edge.[/QUOTE]



I think Hill had the potential to be better than Pippen, because of the scoring ability. He had the sickest handles. He could have become the 2nd best SF ever (tho Lebron would come along).


But thinking about it now (I hadn't before), I think Penny was probably better. He didn't fall off. Those injuries killed him quick. Like Hill, he came back in Phoenix, but he was never again elite. I think he could have become the 2nd best PG ever.