Grant Hill vs Dave DeBusschere

[EasternHeretic]

Better prime, peak and career?

[70sFan]

Peak goes for Hill, but the rest is clearly in Dave's favour to me.

[tsherkin]

Peak goes for Hill, but the rest is clearly in Dave's favour to me.

This is where I land on this one too.

[Dr Positivity]

I'd have Hill as a different level player than DeBusschere who's defense/spacing made him kind of the Sheed of his team to me (probably edge to DeBusschere over Sheed)

[70sFan]

I'd have Hill as a different level player than DeBusschere who's defense/spacing made him kind of the Sheed of his team to me (probably edge to DeBusschere over Sheed)

I'd take Sheed over Hill all-time without thinking twice as well.

[trex_8063]

I'm going to disagree with the first two responders and go with Grant Hill by a small margin.

Longevity is probably a small edge to Hill (MUCH smaller than the difference in years/games suggests; Hill's prime was shorter, but he did ultimately make a meaningful comeback).
Defense obvious an obvious edge to DeBusschere, though Hill was mostly a plus defender [imo].
Rebounding is actually only a very small edge to Dave on a per 100 basis, and that's with him playing more PF (again: Hill was pretty darn good here in his own right).
Scoring is not close (solidly in Hill's favour), and playmaking is a remarkably lop-sided comparison. And Hill did it all in a tougher era.

While appreciate [from a legacy standpoint] DeBusschere's role on a couple title teams, it's just not quite enough to offset the above which leans in Hill's favour.

[tsherkin]

I'm going to disagree with the first two responders and go with Grant Hill by a small margin.

Longevity is probably a small edge to Hill (MUCH smaller than the difference in years/games suggests; Hill's prime was shorter, but he did ultimately make a meaningful comeback).
Defense obvious an obvious edge to DeBusschere, though Hill was mostly a plus defender [imo].
Rebounding is actually only a very small edge to Dave on a per 100 basis, and that's with him playing more PF (again: Hill was pretty darn good here in his own right).
Scoring is not close (solidly in Hill's favour), and playmaking is a remarkably lop-sided comparison. And Hill did it all in a tougher era.

While appreciate [from a legacy standpoint] DeBusschere's role on a couple title teams, it's just not quite enough to offset the above which leans in Hill's favour.

12 seasons from DD, one a 15-game season. Similar level of play over the other 14. Hill obviously has him on peak. Hill actually has 12 season of like 65+ games played (and the 99 lockout season, where he played all 50). So longevity actually looks similar and DD's career was shorter than I initially recalled.

I'd actually forgotten how long Hill had played for Phoenix; didn't remember that it was a half-decade, with three seasons of 80+ games and one full 82.

I reconsider my answer, lol.

[70sFan]

I'm going to disagree with the first two responders and go with Grant Hill by a small margin.

Longevity is probably a small edge to Hill (MUCH smaller than the difference in years/games suggests; Hill's prime was shorter, but he did ultimately make a meaningful comeback).
Defense obvious an obvious edge to DeBusschere, though Hill was mostly a plus defender [imo].
Rebounding is actually only a very small edge to Dave on a per 100 basis, and that's with him playing more PF (again: Hill was pretty darn good here in his own right).
Scoring is not close (solidly in Hill's favour), and playmaking is a remarkably lop-sided comparison. And Hill did it all in a tougher era.

While appreciate [from a legacy standpoint] DeBusschere's role on a couple title teams, it's just not quite enough to offset the above which leans in Hill's favour.

Longevity is up to how you judge Hill's post-injury years (he does have 6 full seasons after comeback) and how you judge Dave's prime (10 seasons). If you think that Hill's prime is substantially better, you choose him, but I actually might prefer Dave's prime overall.

Defense is a massive advantage to me to be honest. Dave's reputation is well deserved, Hill was between neutral and slight plus on that end.

Maybe I am biased towards defensive stars, but Dave to me looks like the perfect guy to be underrated by the boxscore and I think he had very high impact with his shooting range as well, despite inefficient scoring.