RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #73 (Grant Hill)

[trex_8063]

Thru post #20:

Hal Greer - 2 (dhsilv2, Clyde Frazier)
Grant Hill - 1 (pandrade83)
Tony Parker - 1 (trex_8063)
James Worthy - 1 (Outside)
Mel Daniels - 1 (penbeast0)

Unfortunately I cannot count Narigo's vote for Shawn Marion as it was not accompanied by any supporting arguments (as per protocols established at the onset of the project).

Greer is in the runoff for sure; will go to the secondary votes to narrow the runoff further. Of those with one 1st-ballot vote, Grant Hill is the only one who also received a secondary vote:

Hal Greer - 2 (dhsilv2, Clyde Frazier)
Grant Hill - 2 (pandrade83, Outside)

If your name is not shown ^^^here, please state your pick between Hill and Greer, with reasons why.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[penbeast0]

Hill was more of a standout at his peak, Greer gives you a decade plus of outstanding play plus the spacing that makes him fit with the scoring post player model of his day. Between the two, I vote

Hal Greer

[trex_8063]

Runoff vote: Grant Hill

Briefly, Hill comes out higher (for respective peaks, primes, and career wholes) in basically every statistical analysis I've run to "measure" career value (even without any era considerations). Small longevity edge to Greer, as well as honors/accolades (era-considerations need apply there). But Hill was ultimately a superior player in respective primes (by a substantial margin), Hill at his peak being comparable to peak Scottie Pippen, imo. Greer was a better shooter and likely better all-around scorer (though not by a big margin), but Hill was more athletic and better at basically everything else [substantially in some areas]: passing/playmaking, defense, rebounding.
Hill was also an A+ teammate and team-player, who proved capable late in his career of molding/adapting his game into decidedly supportive roles (something that not all superstars prove capable of: Kobe, Melo, etc)--->EDIT: not that this particular trait necessarily separates him from Greer by any noteworthy margin.

[penbeast0]

Runoff vote: Grant Hill

Briefly, Hill comes out higher (for respective peaks, primes, and career wholes) in basically every statistical analysis I've run to "measure" career value (even without any era considerations). Small longevity edge to Greer, as well as honors/accolades (era-considerations need apply there). But Hill was ultimately a superior player in respective primes (by a substantial margin), Hill at his peak being comparable to peak Scottie Pippen, imo. Greer was a better shooter and likely better all-around scorer (though not by a big margin), but Hill was more athletic and better at basically everything else [substantially in some areas]: passing/playmaking, defense, rebounding.
Hill was also an A+ teammate and team-player, who proved capable late in his career of molding/adapting his game into decidedly supportive roles (something that not all superstars prove capable of: Kobe, Melo, etc)--->EDIT: not that this particular trait necessarily separates him from Greer by any noteworthy margin.

Grant Hill is a bigger floor raiser, but I just don't think he was efficient enough as a scorer or playmaker to make the kind of game he played in Detroit valuable on a top team. He'd still be valuable on a good team but I would guess the lesser range and ball dominance of his prime years (which generated those big numbers) would not work as well on a good team. In later years he added a 3 point shot which greatly increased his value in secondary roles but he didn't do much of that in his prime years.

Greer seems to me to be more of a ceiling raiser. Excellent range, able to score in bunches or be a playmaker, plays off ball well, very good defensive rep (don't know how good his defense actually was but contemporary observers liked it). I can see Greer playing a very similar game to what he did even on a team as loaded as the 67 Sixers.

[dhsilv2]

Regarding the discussion on Worthy, my views obviously aren't shared by others, so I'll let it go until someone else decides to bring him up. We've whittled down to a small group of participants, and I don't want to annoy others by promoting someone the group doesn't support. He'll hopefully get in eventually.

Unless you're calling us idiots for not voting for him, I can't see anyone getting upset with you championing Worthy here.

[dhsilv2]

Runoff vote: Grant Hill

Briefly, Hill comes out higher (for respective peaks, primes, and career wholes) in basically every statistical analysis I've run to "measure" career value (even without any era considerations). Small longevity edge to Greer, as well as honors/accolades (era-considerations need apply there). But Hill was ultimately a superior player in respective primes (by a substantial margin), Hill at his peak being comparable to peak Scottie Pippen, imo. Greer was a better shooter and likely better all-around scorer (though not by a big margin), but Hill was more athletic and better at basically everything else [substantially in some areas]: passing/playmaking, defense, rebounding.
Hill was also an A+ teammate and team-player, who proved capable late in his career of molding/adapting his game into decidedly supportive roles (something that not all superstars prove capable of: Kobe, Melo, etc)--->EDIT: not that this particular trait necessarily separates him from Greer by any noteworthy margin.

I feel like I need to go back and rewatch some hill, but I don't buy that Hill was a clearly better play maker. So much of why Hill got assists, and I've touched on this before, was due to basically running a system where he attacked the basket and kicked it out to 3 point shooters (and for any negative views one has on those Piston teams, he had shooting!). Now you have to be really good to do that, especially in that era, but that speaks more to how athletic and how great his ball handling was for a guy of his size, not play making.

[trex_8063]

Regarding the discussion on Worthy, my views obviously aren't shared by others, so I'll let it go until someone else decides to bring him up. We've whittled down to a small group of participants, and I don't want to annoy others by promoting someone the group doesn't support. He'll hopefully get in eventually.

Unless you're calling us idiots for not voting for him, I can't see anyone getting upset with you championing Worthy here.

Absolutely. I have a feeling I'll be championing Parker for awhile (have compiled/presented a fair bit of data and argumentation already in the last 2-3 threads), as I don't appear to have the ball rolling yet. And by the time he gets voted in, I imagine [since Hill, Marion, Bosh, and probably Ben Wallace will be off the table by then] my support will be fully behind Dan Issel......and I'll probably have a hard time generating support for him, too (I think he's generally underrated). Oh well.

Worthy will get in, no question. It's just a matter of when.

[dhsilv2]

Regarding the discussion on Worthy, my views obviously aren't shared by others, so I'll let it go until someone else decides to bring him up. We've whittled down to a small group of participants, and I don't want to annoy others by promoting someone the group doesn't support. He'll hopefully get in eventually.

Unless you're calling us idiots for not voting for him, I can't see anyone getting upset with you championing Worthy here.

Absolutely. I have a feeling I'll be championing Parker for awhile (have compiled/presented a fair bit of data and argumentation already in the last 2-3 threads), as I don't appear to have the ball rolling yet. And by the time he gets voted in, I imagine [since Hill and Marion and probably Ben Wallace will be off the table by then] my support will be fully behind Dan Issel......and I'll probably have a hard time generating support for him (I think he's generally underrated). Oh well.

Worthy will get in, no question. It's just a matter of when.

I have a feeling Webber is going to struggle to get in, but Issel is rather high up there after the players you listed are off the table for me.

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff Vote: Grant Hill

Hill's not LeBron...but of course no one is at spot 73. He has a career with a dent and a scar, but it's still one in which he showed himself as both a 2nd tier superstar and an adept role player. That's no small thing.

Greer's never really been my guy. I don't think he's unworthy at spot 73, but to be honest it would be hard to personally make much of an argument for him.

[trex_8063]

I feel like I need to go back and rewatch some hill, but I don't buy that Hill was a clearly better play maker. So much of why Hill got assists, and I've touched on this before, was due to basically running a system where he attacked the basket and kicked it out to 3 point shooters (and for any negative views one has on those Piston teams, he had shooting!).

It wasn't just kicking to outside shooters; fwiw, Pistons in his prime years were usually around the middle of the league in 3PA/g (though they were toward the bottom in pace). But at any rate, it's peanuts compared to the 3PAr of recent years, and one could [with as much truth] make the same basic statement of Steve Nash, fwiw (slight amount of qualifying that statement in videos below).

Now you have to be really good to do that, especially in that era, but that speaks more to how athletic and how great his ball handling was for a guy of his size, not play making.

Putting yourself and your teammates in a position to score is part of playmaking. I mean, it's not just standing or dribbling in one place, waiting for your teammates to do all the movement: just holding in one position while they scramble off-ball, come off screens or make some brilliant cut wherein then you hit them with a bullet pass. Sometimes it's about the ball-handler creating the play ("play-making"); e.g. breaking down the defense, and then hitting the man who's suddenly open as a direct result of how you distorted/broke down the defense.

Grant Hill didn't have the vision or creativity in passing of say, Lebron or Bird or Manu. But neither did Scottie Pippen, for example, nor does Draymond Green presently for another example. Are they not better playmakers than Hal Greer either? Hal Greer, who peaked at an estimated 5.3 assists per 100 possessions (most of his career around 4 to 4.5), and who I've never seen [in my admittedly very small sample for eye-test] evidence of passing/vision/playmaking brilliance.

Gonna paste a couple videos.....

Watch on YouTube

One game, but note none of the assists shown were kick outs to outside shooters; one or two very nice ones (mostly to Otis Thorpe).

One more highlight reel [obv from a casual fan fixated on the slam-dunk as the pinnacle of basketball brilliance]:

Watch on YouTube

As it relates to the element of playmaking I referred to above (breaking down defenses), look at Hill's quickness and brilliant handles for a guy who's 6'8". His cross-over is just phenomenal, and even old man Hill froze Kobe Bryant in isolation in one of the clips.

[dhsilv2]

.

Hmm, I'll agree that in terms of playmaking in that he creates plays with his attack, that is part of play making so I'll agree with that to a degree. I just watched the first video, the second one not being a game is like to not do much for me. On that, Hill showed that he could read a bad defensive plan and Shaq was at least in this small sample pretty off in over committing and leaving not just an open man but easy passing angles for hill. That said you made a nice point, I was over simplifying. The pistons having a plethora of great shooters (greatish) did open up what you showed there.

Perhaps my point is lost and perhaps it isn't needed. I think Hill is seen as a guy who was/could be an actual point guard in his vision and reading of a defense and could use his passing like a pass first point guard. Instead Hill was an insanely great athlete who created offense and forced doubles, he got what I'd call the "Kobe" assists where his on ball skill was so high he got hard doubles that gave him easy passes. Lets leave Nash out of here, lol....nash was not getting defensive attention like hill.

Anyway great response and great clips. Hopefully this clears up my point a bit more, the focus on his passing and reading defenses as a passer vs his insanely high skill in attacking and scoring. I must admit, I still feel perhaps I've not explained my view here well enough.

Anyway I'm starting to come around to Hill here, there are a really solid 5 years of prime and I might have not adjusted 99 for the shorter season as I should have when I first looked at him.

BTW, no need to talk about his handles and quickness, that aspect of his game is why he's even being talked about, he's got a case for the best ball handler at his height ever.

[pandrade83]

.

Hmm, I'll agree that in terms of playmaking in that he creates plays with his attack, that is part of play making so I'll agree with that to a degree. I just watched the first video, the second one not being a game is like to not do much for me. On that, Hill showed that he could read a bad defensive plan and Shaq was at least in this small sample pretty off in over committing and leaving not just an open man but easy passing angles for hill. That said you made a nice point, I was over simplifying. The pistons having a plethora of great shooters (greatish) did open up what you showed there.

Perhaps my point is lost and perhaps it isn't needed. I think Hill is seen as a guy who was/could be an actual point guard in his vision and reading of a defense and could use his passing like a pass first point guard. Instead Hill was an insanely great athlete who created offense and forced doubles, he got what I'd call the "Kobe" assists where his on ball skill was so high he got hard doubles that gave him easy passes. Lets leave Nash out of here, lol....nash was not getting defensive attention like hill.

Anyway great response and great clips. Hopefully this clears up my point a bit more, the focus on his passing and reading defenses as a passer vs his insanely high skill in attacking and scoring. I must admit, I still feel perhaps I've not explained my view here well enough.

Anyway I'm starting to come around to Hill here, there are a really solid 5 years of prime and I might have not adjusted 99 for the shorter season as I should have when I first looked at him.

BTW, no need to talk about his handles and quickness, that aspect of his game is why he's even being talked about, he's got a case for the best ball handler at his height ever.

Question & maybe this will help clear it up - let's say (and the Lakers video that Trex & myself posted disputes this but whatever) that HIll isn't actually a great playmaker per se - that his ability to attack the hoop coupled with being an unselfish player is what creates the action for his teammates.

Does it really matter how he does it, if the end result is the same?

[penbeast0]

Regarding the discussion on Worthy, my views obviously aren't shared by others, so I'll let it go until someone else decides to bring him up. We've whittled down to a small group of participants, and I don't want to annoy others by promoting someone the group doesn't support. He'll hopefully get in eventually.

Unless you're calling us idiots for not voting for him, I can't see anyone getting upset with you championing Worthy here.

Absolutely. I have a feeling I'll be championing Parker for awhile (have compiled/presented a fair bit of data and argumentation already in the last 2-3 threads), as I don't appear to have the ball rolling yet. And by the time he gets voted in, I imagine [since Hill, Marion, Bosh, and probably Ben Wallace will be off the table by then] my support will be fully behind Dan Issel......and I'll probably have a hard time generating support for him, too (I think he's generally underrated). Oh well.

Worthy will get in, no question. It's just a matter of when.

Mel Daniels might not though; people don't BELIEVE in the greatness of the ABA.

[dhsilv2]

.

Hmm, I'll agree that in terms of playmaking in that he creates plays with his attack, that is part of play making so I'll agree with that to a degree. I just watched the first video, the second one not being a game is like to not do much for me. On that, Hill showed that he could read a bad defensive plan and Shaq was at least in this small sample pretty off in over committing and leaving not just an open man but easy passing angles for hill. That said you made a nice point, I was over simplifying. The pistons having a plethora of great shooters (greatish) did open up what you showed there.

Perhaps my point is lost and perhaps it isn't needed. I think Hill is seen as a guy who was/could be an actual point guard in his vision and reading of a defense and could use his passing like a pass first point guard. Instead Hill was an insanely great athlete who created offense and forced doubles, he got what I'd call the "Kobe" assists where his on ball skill was so high he got hard doubles that gave him easy passes. Lets leave Nash out of here, lol....nash was not getting defensive attention like hill.

Anyway great response and great clips. Hopefully this clears up my point a bit more, the focus on his passing and reading defenses as a passer vs his insanely high skill in attacking and scoring. I must admit, I still feel perhaps I've not explained my view here well enough.

Anyway I'm starting to come around to Hill here, there are a really solid 5 years of prime and I might have not adjusted 99 for the shorter season as I should have when I first looked at him.

BTW, no need to talk about his handles and quickness, that aspect of his game is why he's even being talked about, he's got a case for the best ball handler at his height ever.

Question & maybe this will help clear it up - let's say (and the Lakers video that Trex & myself posted disputes this but whatever) that HIll isn't actually a great playmaker per se - that his ability to attack the hoop coupled with being an unselfish player is what creates the action for his teammates.

Does it really matter how he does it, if the end result is the same?

The question with a guy like Hill is for me if he could translate his game to being with another allstar/all nba guy and they would together be as good as or better than the sum of their parts. The old "ceiling raiser vs floor raiser".

As a floor raiser Hill is rather high for me, but in ceiling raising I believe passing and elite court vision in numerous situations really adds more value than I believe others do. Hill never in his prime got to be that guy, outside of a handful of games with Tmac I guess but not enough to judge anything on. With Reed who I pushed earlier than most I looked at his shooting range for a big and how that adds spacing, that told me in my view that his value was higher than the stats said while being on a title team. The reason I wasn't voting for Westbrook when he got in is that like Hill I'm not sold his game translates as well to a better team (lets not debate westbrook here and he was in a LONG time ago so the context has changed clearly).

So for me to move Hill up over guys who won titles or were on contenders, I want to see skills that I think translate to that synergy that raises ceilings and I'm coming up short here. He had a poor shot, the passed numbers imo are overstated by the system, and while I think he was a quality intangibles and defense guy I'm struggling to move him up based on a 5 year prime.

[trex_8063]

Unless you're calling us idiots for not voting for him, I can't see anyone getting upset with you championing Worthy here.

Absolutely. I have a feeling I'll be championing Parker for awhile (have compiled/presented a fair bit of data and argumentation already in the last 2-3 threads), as I don't appear to have the ball rolling yet. And by the time he gets voted in, I imagine [since Hill, Marion, Bosh, and probably Ben Wallace will be off the table by then] my support will be fully behind Dan Issel......and I'll probably have a hard time generating support for him, too (I think he's generally underrated). Oh well.

Worthy will get in, no question. It's just a matter of when.

Mel Daniels might not though; people don't BELIEVE in the greatness of the ABA.

[pandrade83]

Hmm, I'll agree that in terms of playmaking in that he creates plays with his attack, that is part of play making so I'll agree with that to a degree. I just watched the first video, the second one not being a game is like to not do much for me. On that, Hill showed that he could read a bad defensive plan and Shaq was at least in this small sample pretty off in over committing and leaving not just an open man but easy passing angles for hill. That said you made a nice point, I was over simplifying. The pistons having a plethora of great shooters (greatish) did open up what you showed there.

Perhaps my point is lost and perhaps it isn't needed. I think Hill is seen as a guy who was/could be an actual point guard in his vision and reading of a defense and could use his passing like a pass first point guard. Instead Hill was an insanely great athlete who created offense and forced doubles, he got what I'd call the "Kobe" assists where his on ball skill was so high he got hard doubles that gave him easy passes. Lets leave Nash out of here, lol....nash was not getting defensive attention like hill.

Anyway great response and great clips. Hopefully this clears up my point a bit more, the focus on his passing and reading defenses as a passer vs his insanely high skill in attacking and scoring. I must admit, I still feel perhaps I've not explained my view here well enough.

Anyway I'm starting to come around to Hill here, there are a really solid 5 years of prime and I might have not adjusted 99 for the shorter season as I should have when I first looked at him.

BTW, no need to talk about his handles and quickness, that aspect of his game is why he's even being talked about, he's got a case for the best ball handler at his height ever.

Question & maybe this will help clear it up - let's say (and the Lakers video that Trex & myself posted disputes this but whatever) that HIll isn't actually a great playmaker per se - that his ability to attack the hoop coupled with being an unselfish player is what creates the action for his teammates.

Does it really matter how he does it, if the end result is the same?

The question with a guy like Hill is for me if he could translate his game to being with another allstar/all nba guy and they would together be as good as or better than the sum of their parts. The old "ceiling raiser vs floor raiser".

As a floor raiser Hill is rather high for me, but in ceiling raising I believe passing and elite court vision in numerous situations really adds more value than I believe others do. Hill never in his prime got to be that guy, outside of a handful of games with Tmac I guess but not enough to judge anything on. With Reed who I pushed earlier than most I looked at his shooting range for a big and how that adds spacing, that told me in my view that his value was higher than the stats said while being on a title team. The reason I wasn't voting for Westbrook when he got in is that like Hill I'm not sold his game translates as well to a better team (lets not debate westbrook here and he was in a LONG time ago so the context has changed clearly).

So for me to move Hill up over guys who won titles or were on contenders, I want to see skills that I think translate to that synergy that raises ceilings and I'm coming up short here. He had a poor shot, the passed numbers imo are overstated by the system, and while I think he was a quality intangibles and defense guy I'm struggling to move him up based on a 5 year prime.

I think he does fine in the situation you described. Now you have two players with powerful gravity and whom are quality passers (bringing back in the video Trex & I showed). You put shooters around them & you're set.

If one video of game tape isn't convincing, here's another in '98 of strong passing going against the Bulls.

Watch on YouTube

I guess for me this boils down to
1: Your argument of him not being a strong passer isn't that compelling based on the tape
2: Given his unselfish playing style and the fact you can't just ignore him when he penetrates, there are very few players of the allstar/all nba caliber where it would become redundant.

[Outside]

Regarding the discussion on Worthy, my views obviously aren't shared by others, so I'll let it go until someone else decides to bring him up. We've whittled down to a small group of participants, and I don't want to annoy others by promoting someone the group doesn't support. He'll hopefully get in eventually.

Unless you're calling us idiots for not voting for him, I can't see anyone getting upset with you championing Worthy here.

I know sometimes communication get crossed on forums, but calling anyone here an idiot was the last thing I intended.

I made a case for Worthy. I got pushback from a couple of posters, another poster or two said they'd support Worthy but not until another 10-15 spots, and no one else chimed in to support Worthy at this point. That's all fine. The points I was making in the post quoted above were:

1) No one else seems to be in support of Worthy for a while, a couple of people are strongly opposed to Worthy at this point, and my arguments weren't resonating.

2) Given all that, I'll just wait until I see some semblance of support for Worthy, like a poster listing him as an alternate, before picking up his case again.

That seems like a reasonable approach. Voting in groups with limited numbers is a matter of building consensus. If the consensus isn't there, then a common approach is to pull back for a while and try again at a later point.

I'm not here to insult anyone. I've been a player, coach, and fan of basketball for a long time and I'm knowledgeable about the game, but I'm new to RealGM and this project. The project mods were gracious enough to let me participate, for which I'm grateful. I have a different approach to how I rank players and confidence in my opinions, but I'm not going to throw my opinions around like I'm the only one who knows the real deal and anyone who disagrees is wrong. There are many ways to look at things, and I hope my voice adds value to the mix of perspectives.

Worthy will be back at some point. Let's move on to the other guys under discussion.

[penbeast0]

I want to believe . . .

Did you see that the former head of the UFO division of the US Government leaked some documents that the government had classified? Haven't looked at them yet but . . .




THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

[penbeast0]

Regarding the discussion on Worthy, my views obviously aren't shared by others, so I'll let it go until someone else decides to bring him up. We've whittled down to a small group of participants, and I don't want to annoy others by promoting someone the group doesn't support. He'll hopefully get in eventually.

Unless you're calling us idiots for not voting for him, I can't see anyone getting upset with you championing Worthy here.

I know sometimes communication get crossed on forums, but calling anyone here an idiot was the last thing I intended.

I made a case for Worthy. I got pushback from a couple of posters, another poster or two said they'd support Worthy but not until another 10-15 spots, and no one else chimed in to support Worthy at this point. That's all fine. The points I was making in the post quoted above were:

1) No one else seems to be in support of Worthy for a while, a couple of people are strongly opposed to Worthy at this point, and my arguments weren't resonating.

2) Given all that, I'll just wait until I see some semblance of support for Worthy, like a poster listing him as an alternate, before picking up his case again.

That seems like a reasonable approach. Voting in groups with limited numbers is a matter of building consensus. If the consensus isn't there, then a common approach is to pull back for a while and try again at a later point.

I'm not here to insult anyone. I've been a player, coach, and fan of basketball for a long time and I'm knowledgeable about the game, but I'm new to RealGM and this project. The project mods were gracious enough to let me participate, for which I'm grateful. I have a different approach to how I rank players and confidence in my opinions, but I'm not going to throw my opinions around like I'm the only one who knows the real deal and anyone who disagrees is wrong. There are many ways to look at things, and I hope my voice adds value to the mix of perspectives.

Worthy will be back at some point. Let's move on to the other guys under discussion.

If you truly think he's the best, you can always list him as either primary or secondary and someone you know has support in the other slot. It's what I've been doing with Mel Daniels.

[Outside]

If you truly think he's the best, you can always list him as either primary or secondary and someone you know has support in the other slot. It's what I've been doing with Mel Daniels.

Yep, I get that. I almost mentioned your steadfast support of Daniels as an alternative approach to the "wait until later" one. Honestly, it's not that big of a deal either way. Would I prefer that others got on board with Worthy? Sure. But 'm not losing sleep over it. This is all an interesting exercise, and the end result of where each player winds up on the list is secondary to me compared to the process, the discussion. I'm here to absorb more than anything. Like I said, I haven't participated in this type of project before, so it's interesting seeing the different approaches people take and the arguments made for players I'm less familiar with, like Daniels.

Honestly, the "wait until later" method has another advantage -- I don't have to work so hard. If I were to keep promoting Worthy, I'd have to do more research and craft new arguments or rework the ones I've already made. For me, that requires time and effort. Thurmond was the one guy I was willing to do that for. Worthy can wait. I'm perfectly fine taking a path of lesser resistance. I don't know how you guys spend as much time as you do on this.