RealGM

Does either of them average 30+ today?

Because I mean neither is really mentioned for just their scoring prowess.

Playing the style they did in their prime (and Hill showed he could develop a 3 point shot) or are we assuming modern players who have 3 point training from HS on?

KG probably not largely because he does too much in other areas of the game to really have the energy to go for 30 with any consistency. Hill, probably could but I agree it depends a lot on how much he could develop a 3-pointer. But his slashing ability was excellent, especially considering the era he played in, and so today it would be even more so.

penbeast0 wrote:Playing the style they did in their prime (and Hill showed he could develop a 3 point shot) or are we assuming modern players who have 3 point training from HS on?

The latter.

I don't see 30 ppg for either.

I swear KG was second in the league in scoring in 2004 at 24PPG, with Tmac being first at 28PPG.

With that being said though, his free throw rate would still be ass on account of his playstyle, so even if he was KAT from 3 point range he likely wouldn't break 30.

If he was his team's best player, Hill would have the better chance at 30 ppg, but it's still unlikely. As mentioned above, it would heavily depend on how much his 3 point shooting would improve.

Incidentally, I always thought Hill would have been outstanding as the second star on a championship team. Even in his post prime, post surgery seasons in his late 30s with the Suns, he was a very good and versatile defender. In his prime, with less offensive resonsibility, I think his defense would be significantly better than what he showed in Detroit, and he'd be among the best wing defenders in the league. He played and moved well off the ball offensively when he had to, and would be a dangerous weapon as secondary ballhandler.

I could see Grant Hill being Jimmy Butler with less defense but (based on his late career work) a better 3 point shot.

KG at 23-24ppg. Grant I don't think had the mindset to be a super high scorer. So probably 25-27ppg in his peak years(injury free).

With Hill I feel like he'd see him focus more on passing, but with only one season above 22ppg I don't think it's likely. KG perhaps it would be more possible but I still don't think he'd get the attempts in today's game.

Low 20s for KG (think Adebayo)
Low to mid 20s for Hill I feel (think PG or Kawhi).

I think both close to 30 but probably not over it, Grant Hill was a special player before his injuries and played in the 3 point era most probably improves on it. Was sad to see his career go the way it did.

I think for KG it depends on what kind of guard he was playing with, but that's true of his own era as well so doesn't really answer your question.

The positive thing about imagining modern KG is that he wouldn't be so force-fed in the post. 2023 KG would probably completely eliminate those baseline post up fadeaway that were the staple of his early 2000s shot diet. KG would be more heavily utilized as a spacer, and a playmaking hub inside a motion offense.

I'm not convinced KG would score more points per game necessarily, but he'd be a better offensive player and more optimized based on his skill set. KG was wasted as a post-up guy but that was how we believed bigs should play back in the late 90s.

Jaivl wrote:Low 20s for KG (think Adebayo)

While I don't disagree with low 20s necessarily, I think the Bam comparison isn't generous haha. KG is so much taller/longer than Bam (Bam is under 6'10" in shoes with a 7'2" wingspan, where KG was reported to be 6'11" barefoot with a 7'5" wingspan), so even in the same kind of scoring role, he'd be a lot more dangerous. Bam always feels very held back by his lack of shooting range. Bam is under 33% on career-long 2s, while KG was at 45% and there's an enormous gap there on offense.

Plunk KG right now onto that Heat team in Bam's exact role (I think that would be KG's ideal role btw), and I think you're getting a monstrous performance. You're basically increasing Bam's size, shooting touch, and passing ability without taking anything away besides maybe a bit of physical strength (though I'm not sure Bam has a practical application for this strength advantage that would boost him somewhere over KG? Maybe post defense but he's giving up length).

I'm not saying KG's ppg would be some amazing thing in this era, but putting him in Bam's role I think would maximize him. He'd be feeding those shooters and finishing plays off those ball handlers all day in ways Bam can only dream of.

I think KG would be a 25 point scorer. His PPG was very high relative for his era.

He averaged 22 PPG in the slowest pace era in the NBA's history so I would think it would at least improve by one field goal. I know his minutes would decline though.

cupcakesnake wrote:I think for KG it depends on what kind of guard he was playing with, but that's true of his own era as well so doesn't really answer your question.

The positive thing about imagining modern KG is that he wouldn't be so force-fed in the post. 2023 KG would probably completely eliminate those baseline post up fadeaway that were the staple of his early 2000s shot diet. KG would be more heavily utilized as a spacer, and a playmaking hub inside a motion offense.

I'm not convinced KG would score more points per game necessarily, but he'd be a better offensive player and more optimized based on his skill set. KG was wasted as a post-up guy but that was how we believed bigs should play back in the late 90s.

I think his ball handling and athleticism would get a lot more utilized in this era too. Point-Center with the foot speed to push the floor in ways the other ones can not.

I just can't see a way that a guy who excelled as a ball handler, jump shooter and athlete suffers a fall off in scoring in an era that embraces ball handling, shooting, athletiicsm, and pace in wasy his own era did not.

HEAT33 wrote:I think both close to 30 but probably not over it, Grant Hill was a special player before his injuries and played in the 3 point era most probably improves on it. Was sad to see his career go the way it did.

He was great and it would've been interesting how good he would've been with Mcgrady, as his best season was with Stackhouse scoring well.

NO-KG-AI wrote:

cupcakesnake wrote:I think for KG it depends on what kind of guard he was playing with, but that's true of his own era as well so doesn't really answer your question.

The positive thing about imagining modern KG is that he wouldn't be so force-fed in the post. 2023 KG would probably completely eliminate those baseline post up fadeaway that were the staple of his early 2000s shot diet. KG would be more heavily utilized as a spacer, and a playmaking hub inside a motion offense.

I'm not convinced KG would score more points per game necessarily, but he'd be a better offensive player and more optimized based on his skill set. KG was wasted as a post-up guy but that was how we believed bigs should play back in the late 90s.

I think his ball handling and athleticism would get a lot more utilized in this era too. Point-Center with the foot speed to push the floor in ways the other ones can not.

I just can't see a way that a guy who excelled as a ball handler, jump shooter and athlete suffers a fall off in scoring in an era that embraces ball handling, shooting, athletiicsm, and pace in wasy his own era did not.

The era embracing "ball handling, shooting, athleticsm, and pace" in a way his own era did not means the threshold a player has to meet to stand out in all those areas is higher. KG's athleticism, and ball handling falls well short of someone like Giannis, and many of those openings he was hitting to find "higher percentage of high quality reads than lebron"(backpicks) are harder to find/execute today:
viewtopic.php?p=102962677#p102962677

falcolombardi wrote:

DraymondGold wrote:

PF4 wrote:All of these are good passes, correct reads.(even the bailout pass in the air once he got himself there) but neither is remarkable, they are 6's, 7's maybe one or two 8's. But not the 9's and 10's that the best passers do with relative frequency

As has been said before, changes in raw production do not matter. What matters are shifts in relative production. To that end, pretty much all of KG's strengths are far more common now in general and specifically among big-men.(versatility, passing, shooting, handles, ect).

Raw production may not fall off, but offensive impact should

False.

NO-KG-AI wrote:False.

What part of the post do you disagree with and why? This doesn't help.