RealGM

Who has the better player in peak?

I trust Penny quite a bit more in the postseason because his scoring was substantially more resilient. If I were higher on Hill’s defence, that could swing things, but for the most part I thought he was more fine than outright good.

I would go Penny.

I think he was a better player from what we saw, and he also showed better in the PS in the limited sample we have.

Penny Hardaway peak from 95-97

22.7 IA Pts/75
+4.8 rTS%

3-year On/Off: +14.6


1997-99 Grant Hill:

23.3 IA Pts/75
+1.6 rTS%

3-year On/Off: +6.8

I know Penny benefitted in terms of team success by getting to play with Shaq and well-built squad, however what Penny did without Shaq perhaps makes him look even better as a player.

In 54 games WITH Shaq:

The Magic went 40-14 (74.1 win pct%), and Hardaway averaged a "solid," 19.8 ppg and 7.5 apg on 59.3 TS%.


In 28 games without Shaq in 96,

The Magic went 20-8 (71.4% win percentage), and Hardaway averaged 25.5 pts per game on 62.5 TS% along with 6.4 APG.


This was an incredible floor-raising effort by Penny, and underscores that he perhaps had the ability to score on more volume and higher efficiency if he was the undisputed #1 on offense. Penny arguably sacrificed and had to find a way to fit next to Shaq in a way that Grant didn't. This isn't a negative towards Grant, but I think it underscores that perhaps Penny had the capacity to do more, and we should consider that when we put him next to someone like Grant who was given the ultimate reigns, and teammates had to be more focused on fitting around him.

As an aside, Penny, Hill and Mourning being lost to injuries really weakened the top end of the talent pool for that generation of players.

sp6r=underrated wrote:As an aside, Penny, Hill and Mourning being lost to injuries really weakened the top end of the talent pool for that generation of players.

Missing out on them having healthy primes really sucked.

LukaTheGOAT wrote:I would go Penny.

I think he was a better player from what we saw, and he also showed better in the PS in the limited sample we have.

Penny Hardaway peak from 95-97

22.7 IA Pts/75
+4.8 rTS%

3-year On/Off: +14.6


1997-99 Grant Hill:

23.3 IA Pts/75
+1.6 rTS%

3-year On/Off: +6.8

I know Penny benefitted in terms of team success by getting to play with Shaq and well-built squad, however what Penny did without Shaq perhaps makes him look even better as a player.

In 54 games WITH Shaq:

The Magic went 40-14 (74.1 win pct%), and Hardaway averaged a "solid," 19.8 ppg and 7.5 apg on 59.3 TS%.


In 28 games without Shaq in 96,

The Magic went 20-8 (71.4% win percentage), and Hardaway averaged 25.5 pts per game on 62.5 TS% along with 6.4 APG.


This was an incredible floor-raising effort by Penny, and underscores that he perhaps had the ability to score on more volume and higher efficiency if he was the undisputed #1 on offense. Penny arguably sacrificed and had to find a way to fit next to Shaq in a way that Grant didn't. This isn't a negative towards Grant, but I think it underscores that perhaps Penny had the capacity to do more, and we should consider that when we put him next to someone like Grant who was given the ultimate reigns, and teammates had to be more focused on fitting around him.

I will say ...
95-97 Penny is his consensus three strongest years (pretty clearly so by the boxscore ... perhaps impact too?).
97-99 Hill misses one of his stronger boxscore years (2000) and from Reference and the Pollack data from this community 3 of his stronger impact years (95, 96, 2000) [granted the Hill on-off aggregate from Reference for the seasons cited is weaker than the one you gave].

I'd also be hesitant in trusting that 28 game sample as a reliable "without Shaq" indicator. I'd have to check in to the '97 health situation but we aren't there (or anywhere, but this seems like the best chance) seeing 62.5 TS% duplicated.

This isn't to opine on the overall but give some possible context and mitigation to the numbers as presented.

Grant Hill for me.

tsherkin wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:As an aside, Penny, Hill and Mourning being lost to injuries really weakened the top end of the talent pool for that generation of players.

Missing out on them having healthy primes really sucked.

Both Penny and Hill had floor games that would have helped extend their primes as their athleticism started to slowly fade. I think Penny's injuries were more devastating as they robbed him of the smoothness and subtlety that was the foundation of his game. Hill's injuries robbed him of explosion resulting in him playing more of a grounded game, but it still allowed him to have a productive late career arc as a valuable role player ala McDyess.

Unfortunately I think Mourning's injuries are the result of bulking up/wear and tear. He was a lighter, quicker player in Charlotte which allowed him to play face up outside the paint, whereas in Miami he was bigger and playing around the basket quite a bit more.

SSUBluesman wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:As an aside, Penny, Hill and Mourning being lost to injuries really weakened the top end of the talent pool for that generation of players.

Missing out on them having healthy primes really sucked.

Both Penny and Hill had floor games that would have helped extend their primes as their athleticism started to slowly fade. I think Penny's injuries were more devastating as they robbed him of the smoothness and subtlety that was the foundation of his game. Hill's injuries robbed him of explosion resulting in him playing more of a grounded game, but it still allowed him to have a productive late career arc as a valuable role player ala McDyess.

Unfortunately I think Mourning's injuries are the result of bulking up/wear and tear. He was a lighter, quicker player in Charlotte which allowed him to play face up outside the paint, whereas in Miami he was bigger and playing around the basket quite a bit more.

For Mourning, I think it was just the kidney thing. Once that happened he was never going to be the same. But I'll defer to people with medical backgrounds.

sp6r=underrated wrote:

SSUBluesman wrote:

tsherkin wrote:
Missing out on them having healthy primes really sucked.

Both Penny and Hill had floor games that would have helped extend their primes as their athleticism started to slowly fade. I think Penny's injuries were more devastating as they robbed him of the smoothness and subtlety that was the foundation of his game. Hill's injuries robbed him of explosion resulting in him playing more of a grounded game, but it still allowed him to have a productive late career arc as a valuable role player ala McDyess.

Unfortunately I think Mourning's injuries are the result of bulking up/wear and tear. He was a lighter, quicker player in Charlotte which allowed him to play face up outside the paint, whereas in Miami he was bigger and playing around the basket quite a bit more.

For Mourning, I think it was just the kidney thing. Once that happened he was never going to be the same. But I'll defer to people with medical backgrounds.

I'm reasonably confident it was just the kidney thing, and it's impressive that it did not retire him.

It's very close, but I'd take Hill. An underrated aspect of his abilities was defense. He was an oustanding defender in college. And he had excellent and versatile defensive potential in the NBA which wasn't realized because of the offensive burden he had early in his career, and diminished athleticism in his mid/late 30s (although he remained a very good defender in his Phoenix days).

Either one would have been outstanding #2 options or weak #1s on championship caliber teams.

Always Penny. His game was so beautiful and smooth and was a big time playoff performer.

tsherkin wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:

SSUBluesman wrote:
Both Penny and Hill had floor games that would have helped extend their primes as their athleticism started to slowly fade. I think Penny's injuries were more devastating as they robbed him of the smoothness and subtlety that was the foundation of his game. Hill's injuries robbed him of explosion resulting in him playing more of a grounded game, but it still allowed him to have a productive late career arc as a valuable role player ala McDyess.

Unfortunately I think Mourning's injuries are the result of bulking up/wear and tear. He was a lighter, quicker player in Charlotte which allowed him to play face up outside the paint, whereas in Miami he was bigger and playing around the basket quite a bit more.

For Mourning, I think it was just the kidney thing. Once that happened he was never going to be the same. But I'll defer to people with medical backgrounds.

I'm reasonably confident it was just the kidney thing, and it's impressive that it did not retire him.

Oh yea, the kidney issue was the big injury for Mourning and unrelated to previous issues. My point is unlike Penny and Hill who were relatively injury free until their career changing injuries, Zo dealt with injury issues before the kidney issue.

SSUBluesman wrote:Oh yea, the kidney issue was the big injury for Mourning and unrelated to previous issues. My point is unlike Penny and Hill who were relatively injury free until their career changing injuries, Zo dealt with injury issues before the kidney issue.

Yeah, but I don't think that was from bulking up. I think that was late-90s smashmouth ball in the post, to be honest. And he had injuries early in his career when he was still smaller while playing with the Hornets, so I don't see the correlation.

Penny all day long. Better handles, better post moves, better passer, better jump shot, better range, more polished all around game etc. Hill was a better slasher but his jump shot was weak and his range was limited. He was basically Pippen with better offense and worse defense. Hill had top 30 talent. Penny had top 10 talent. Both had Bill Walton’s body unfortunately.