RealGM

Who would you build around, given both are in their prime and no future career ending injuries?

Grant Hill. With no injuries he was incredible, a definitely franchise leading talent.

chilluminati wrote:Grant Hill. With no injuries he was incredible, a definitely franchise leading talent.

Healthy Grant Hill with TMac would have been epic

Hill. He was more aggressive as a scorer.

Hill, no contest.

Much better player

Petergrifindor wrote:Hill, no contest.

Much better player

Was he? He was better on offense, but Pippen was clearly superior on defense. And it's not like Pippen was a bad offensive player.

In this era Hill would/could avg a triple double. Most people weren’t old enough to see him play but he was a mofo. He playing injured in a first round series with the pistons ruined his career trajectory.

Pippen was my favourite player....loved everything about his game (less so his off court stuff in recent years !), but for me , a fully healthy Grant Hill is the better player.

Pippen is obviously the better defender, but I think Hill's ability to be the No1 guy, gives it to him.

Effigy wrote:

Petergrifindor wrote:Hill, no contest.

Much better player

Was he?

Yeah, complete different tiers.

Effigy wrote:

Petergrifindor wrote:Hill, no contest.

Much better player

Was he? He was better on offense, but Pippen was clearly superior on defense. And it's not like Pippen was a bad offensive player.

You double team Hill and hedge.

You double off of Pippen and dare him to shoot.

Its close but minus defense i think Grant Hill was better at pretty much everything else. 6’8” playmaker and scorer with nice handles and a smooth mid range game.

Health notwithstanding, it becomes an interesting discussion, particularly when you consider Hill's last healthy season with the Pistons. He was looking like he was making The Leap. We'll never know, of course.

Dude was a crazy athlete, though. 6'8, strong handle, nasty first step, strong. Excellent passer and rebounder. Pip was a better defender and I think he had a better feel for how an offense wanted to move but Hill was clearly a superior scorer.

Kinda depends on what you need. Pip was a great #2, probably better at that alongside a high-volume scorer than Hill would be, but Grant had a better chance to be a viable #1.

I'm trying to come up with a realistic argument for Scottie, but I just can't.

Grant Hill was probably the first player dubbed 'The Next Michael Jordan' who actually had the resume and skill to actually live up those expectations.

Just an all around great talent.

Jamaaliver wrote:I'm trying to come up with a realistic argument for Scottie, but I just can't.

So defense suddenly doesn't matter? If it does, then it's very easy to come up with a realistic argument.

70sFan wrote:

Jamaaliver wrote:I'm trying to come up with a realistic argument for Scottie, but I just can't.

So defense suddenly doesn't matter? If it does, then it's very easy to come up with a realistic argument.

It's not as if Grant Hill was a bad defender, though.

Jamaaliver wrote:

70sFan wrote:

Jamaaliver wrote:I'm trying to come up with a realistic argument for Scottie, but I just can't.

So defense suddenly doesn't matter? If it does, then it's very easy to come up with a realistic argument.

It's not as if Grant Hill was a bad defender, though.

He was not an especially good one either. He was fine; not a weak one, and could be decent, but never one of the better forwards in the league on that end.

And offensively, they both had issues as a first option scorer in the playoffs.

Jamaaliver wrote:

70sFan wrote:

Jamaaliver wrote:I'm trying to come up with a realistic argument for Scottie, but I just can't.

So defense suddenly doesn't matter? If it does, then it's very easy to come up with a realistic argument.

It's not as if Grant Hill was a bad defender, though.

It's not as if Scottie Pippen was a bad offensive player though.

The thing with Grant Hill is that I’m not really sure there was some other level to him that we didn’t see. He got injured in his age-28 season. Players are generally right in the middle of their peak years by that point. Of course, there’s some exceptions—for instance, Hakeem’s best years were later than that, as were Karl Malone’s. But I tend to think that what we saw before Grant Hill’s injury was probably not going to be meaningfully improved upon absent injury. He just would’ve had more years at that level IMO.

That said, Grant Hill was a solidly top 5-10 player in the league in those years before his injury. I would say he was at the same tier as Pippen, but given that Pippen was proven to be able to slot into a GOAT-level team as a second-fiddle, I’d take him over Grant Hill. If you want to win championships, I don’t think you’ve got a great chance with either of those guys as the best player on your team, so I think it matters a lot how they could fulfill a secondary role. Maybe Grant Hill could’ve done it just as well, but it’s hard to have the same confidence about that as for Pippen.

If you magically take injuries away, it's Grant Hill and it's not close. Hill was a consummate professional, had no character issues, and was way better in commercials. Handsome guy - even today, possesses an immaculate hairline.

Sprite could have been the next Gatorade if not for Hill's ankle injuries - which by the way, he suffered trying to help his team in the playoffs while fighting through injury. Hill was a tough guy. With Scottie, the first chance he got leading a team in the playoffs, he was so egotistical he quit on his team.

Grant Hill was #2 in total defensive rebounds in 1996. Think about that. LOL at anybody even thinking he was a weak defender.

Unlike Scottie, we saw Grant progressing as his early prime wore on in terms of shooting. Check out his improvement into year 2000 from 16-23 feet. Grant had a nasty pull-up jumper to go along with the much more explosive first step and superior handles.

Better teammate, much more marketable, and a different level of USG%/primacy. The only people taking Scottie are dweebs and defense puritans who need to appear more intelligent than everybody else.

Speaking of intelligence, Grant Hill is one of the few professionals athletes who could be a national diplomat. Guy is smart, articulate, and humble. If Scottie was 5'7" instead of 6'7" and he said the things he's said, he'd be in a rubber room at the puzzle factory.

Pippen.

It's much easier to build around an historically great defender in Pippen than Grant Hill within a championship construct.

Grant Hill as a scorer leaves a lot to be desired, he's a volume slasher who can't shoot anywhere on the court outside of Long 2 pointers. He couldn't shoot from 8FT-18FT from the basket.

He couldn't shoot 3 pointers and wasn't some impervious rim finisher as shown in the Playoffs series' against the Atlanta Hawks.

Hill couldn't capitalize on his Foul Drawing abilities either since he was a poor FT shooter. He shot 74%-75% from the FT Line where the league average in FT shooting at Small Forward during Hill's prime was 78%-79%. All the while playing a heliocentric ball dominant style of basketball. In a Playoff setting, Hill is very predictable to guard.