Pippen vs Grant Hill

[Tim Lehrbach]

I actually think it's a tough question.

I prefer Hill for his offensive repertoire. We would generally say that a lead guy is better and more important than a sidekick, too. Was Hill an elite leading man? Pippen was certainly an elite -- nearly ideal -- #2. We can ask whether Pippen projects into Hill's role and responsibility as well as Hill did (and we can even answer that to an extent with "no," as ronnymac2 put it amusingly above), but the comparison doesn't have to be so reductive, either. Each was valuable with very different skillsets in vastly different contexts.

Pippen's body of work counts for a lot too; yes, even without Jordan. He was the best player on a 55-win, second-round Chicago team, and then top-three in minutes, points, rebounds, assists, and steals for the 59-win 2000 Blazers, falling one infamous quarter short of the Finals. Sure, those sans-Jordan playoff returns were limited, but consider that Hill also only managed to make the second round as a supporting player in his twilight years.

Ultimately, I would probably take Hill and hope to build a complementary cast, but I can't say I would be overly confident of making deep playoff runs with either one as my cornerstone. In other words, I don't think Hill distinguishes himself from Pippen-level as clearly as some are suggesting.

[Cavsfansince84]

I actually think it's a tough question.

I prefer Hill for his offensive repertoire. We would generally say that a lead guy is better and more important than a sidekick, too. Was Hill an elite leading man? Pippen was certainly an elite -- nearly ideal -- #2. We can ask whether Pippen projects into Hill's role and responsibility as well as Hill did (and we can even answer that to an extent with "no," as ronnymac2 put it amusingly above), but the comparison doesn't have to be so reductive, either. Each was valuable with very different skillsets in vastly different contexts.

Pippen's body of work counts for a lot too; yes, even without Jordan. He was the best player on a 55-win, second-round Chicago team, and then top-three in minutes, points, rebounds, assists, and steals for the 59-win 2000 Blazers, falling one infamous quarter short of the Finals. Sure, those sans-Jordan playoff returns were limited, but consider that Hill also only managed to make the second round as a supporting player in his twilight years.

Ultimately, I would probably take Hill and hope to build a complementary cast, but I can't say I would be overly confident of making deep playoff runs with either one as my cornerstone. In other words, I don't think Hill distinguishes himself from Pippen-level as clearly as some are suggesting.

This is roughly how I see it. For as much as people like to say what a nice guy Hill was I'm not sure those kinds of qualities actually translate well to being a leader of an nba team. Much like some of the criticism DRob got for being too much of a nice guy. In that way I sort of prefer Pippen even though he wasn't seen as mentally tough early on. I just like his defensive grit which I think is going to also make teammates play harder on that end. Basically a wash to me in terms of which guy I'd prefer. Be different if I thought Hill had a legit 3 pt shot but Pippen actually shot higher from behind the arc for his career.

[pipfan]

I'm the biggest Pippen fan on this board, but Hill, at his peak, was a better player

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm the biggest Pippen fan on this board, but Hill, at his peak, was a better player

Some of you keep repeating this like its just a fact but it isn't. Its something you've just decided in your head must be true. It's like use something, anything to prove it if you think its that simple but as someone with no dog and who can remember Hill playing at Duke I don't think its that clear which guy was better at their peak. Hill had one season as a highly efficient scorer but by then he wasn't putting up the big box score numbers either. Pippen combined volume scoring, box score and defense while also leading a team that wasn't too far off from winning a title. Hill never led a team much of anywhere.

[penbeast0]

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.

From this post, it seems marketability is something you value and I would certainly agree that Hill is a more polished spokesman than Pippen has ever been. Even purely looking at on court value, Hill showed more class and leadership qualities pretty consistently in his prime. I think it's also clear that Pippen was a far superior defensive player.

So let's look at the offense. Hill scored at higher volumes, a consistent 10% plus higher through their respective primes. On the other hand, Hill was the primary focus of the Detroit offenses while Pippen was always second to Jordan when it came to touches and having the offense designed for him except when Jordan was out. In terms of scoring efficiency, Pippen has a slight edge relative to league, though again, having Jordan to draw attention might make a difference in this. Hill has a playmaking edge by the numbers we have with more assists and similar turnover rate, though again, with the caveat that he was the guy with the ball in his hands the most where Pippen was second.

Pippen has the rebounding edge as well. So, the question is how these 6 factors balance out. I would call this very close with the intangibles and defense the strongest areas of separation. I don't use marketing as a major factor because I think winning has a lot more to do with team marketing success than star personalities. Personally, I'd probably take prime Pippen as he developed by a little; but drafting them knowing their skill sets and how those could develop, I'd draft Hill as the surer thing. It's harder to tell how Pippen would have developed in a different environment.

Good comp.

[tsherkin]

Hill has a playmaking edge by the numbers we have with more assists and similar turnover rate, though again, with the caveat that he was the guy with the ball in his hands the most where Pippen was second.

With scoring, this makes sense, but with playmaking? The Bulls explicitly took Jordan off-ball with Pippen under Phil, and empowered Scottie to make a lot of decisions in the triangle. And it's not like he was a hugely higher-volume playmaker without Jordan in 94 and 95, or after Jordan retired again.

[penbeast0]

Hill has a playmaking edge by the numbers we have with more assists and similar turnover rate, though again, with the caveat that he was the guy with the ball in his hands the most where Pippen was second.

With scoring, this makes sense, but with playmaking? The Bulls explicitly took Jordan off-ball with Pippen under Phil, and empowered Scottie to make a lot of decisions in the triangle. And it's not like he was a hugely higher-volume playmaker without Jordan in 94 and 95, or after Jordan retired again.

They did but who on the Grant Hill Pistons had the ball in their hands as much as Jordan? Lindsay Hunter was the main PG I remember with him and is one of the PGS with the least playmaking responsibility I remember in the history of the NBA. Dumars was also used mainly off ball and Stackhouse wasn't much of a playmaker for others either.

Harper and Kerr were also not strong playmakers but in addition to Jordan, the Bulls used Kukoc as playmaker at times and in the 1st 3 peak, they had BJ Armstrong who, while not exactly John Stockton, was still more involved than Hunter.

[tsherkin]

They did but who on the Grant Hill Pistons had the ball in their hands as much as Jordan? Lindsay Hunter was the main PG I remember with him and is one of the PGS with the least playmaking responsibility I remember in the history of the NBA. Dumars was also used mainly off ball and Stackhouse wasn't much of a playmaker for others either.

Harper and Kerr were also not strong playmakers but in addition to Jordan, the Bulls used Kukoc as playmaker at times and in the 1st 3 peak, they had BJ Armstrong who, while not exactly John Stockton, was still more involved than Hunter.

Dumars was a 4-5 apg guy when Hill hit the league for the first couple years. By 98, they did also have Hunter and Dumars and then 4 guys other than Hill averaging double-digit FGA/g.

Ultimately, I don't think it's the raw APG which made Hill the better playmaker, though. He was a massively superior dribble penetrator, which meant he was far more reliable for creating from nothing. He was particularly good at hitting the shuffle pass after isolation or PnR got him into the paint with drawn defenders. He had great vision, and he was always looking. He was particularly good at passing through traffic, and finding guys even if he was mid-air on a fadeaway or pulling a reverse layup against two defenders, etc, etc. His spatial awareness was really, really good. Pretty good passer from the post, too.

I think that stuff really set him apart from Scottie as a playmaker, more so than just raw APG. I don't think Pippen really had the juice to create as well when Jordan wasn't on the floor because he wasn't an especially impressive scoring threat or dribble penetrator himself. Not that he was bad, he just wasn't elite, and he sure couldn't shoot well from any kind of range (even for the time).

[migya]

As much as I liked Hill, and he was a superstar, Pippen is not much below him offensively but his defense is alltime elite. Pippen didn't get the ball to score much next to Jordan so his value was as an absolute secondary player but he showed at times, might be relatively small sample, that he could lead and be quite good. It's close, both in their primes were among the best ever at their position.

[penbeast0]

As much as I liked Hill, and he was a superstar, Pippen is not much below him offensively but his defense is alltime elite. Pippen didn't get the ball to score much next to Jordan so his value was as an absolute secondary player but he showed at times, might be relatively small sample, that he could lead and be quite good. It's close, both in their primes were among the best ever at their position.

I don't have either up in my first tier group with LeBron, Bird, Erving, etc. but Pippen is in tier 2 or 3 with the likes of Arizin, Havlicek, etc, and Hill I have 1 tier down from PIppen for prime.

To put it another way, would you take Hill's 4 year peak over the 4 year peak of Bernand King?

[migya]

As much as I liked Hill, and he was a superstar, Pippen is not much below him offensively but his defense is alltime elite. Pippen didn't get the ball to score much next to Jordan so his value was as an absolute secondary player but he showed at times, might be relatively small sample, that he could lead and be quite good. It's close, both in their primes were among the best ever at their position.

I don't have either up in my first tier group with LeBron, Bird, Erving, etc. but Pippen is in tier 2 or 3 with the likes of Arizin, Havlicek, etc, and Hill I have 1 tier down from PIppen for prime.

To put it another way, would you take Hill's 4 year peak over the 4 year peak of Bernand King?

Think Hill's first 6 years, which were in Detroit, was his prime. Not sure it was better than Bernard King but he was more allround so maybe he was slightly better.

[penbeast0]

Certainly better than Bernard King in everything but scoring and offensive rebounding, the question is whether his playmaking and better defense make up for King's far superior scoring volume and efficiency. Using TS Add as a first cut look at scoring (and Hill doesn't really get bonuses for range or the like in his prime), Hill was over 100 once in his career. King was over 200 3 times. Someone like Adrian Dantley (the poster boy for TS Add) was over 300 5 times and over 400 once!

That's the problem with Hill in ATG conversations. He was a 20 ppg guy who filled the stat sheet but the guys he's competing with for ATG are guys who were 25+ ppg guys who were far more efficient scorers or guys like Pippen who were ATG defenders. Hill was good, but not great, at a lot of things.

Just in the 80s, look at Bird, English, Dantley, King, Aquirre, (all guys who score more and more efficiently and most for better teams) and that's not even including Marques Johnson, Worthy, and Nique.

[tsherkin]

Certainly better than Bernard King in everything but scoring and offensive rebounding, the question is whether his playmaking and better defense make up for King's far superior scoring volume and efficiency. Using TS Add as a first cut look at scoring (and Hill doesn't really get bonuses for range or the like in his prime), Hill was over 100 once in his career. King was over 200 3 times. Someone like Adrian Dantley (the poster boy for TS Add) was over 300 5 times and over 400 once!

That's the problem with Hill in ATG conversations. He was a 20 ppg guy who filled the stat sheet but the guys he's competing with for ATG are guys who were 25+ ppg guys who were far more efficient scorers or guys like Pippen who were ATG defenders. Hill was good, but not great, at a lot of things.

Just in the 80s, look at Bird, English, Dantley, King, Aquirre, (all guys who score more and more efficiently and most for better teams) and that's not even including Marques Johnson, Worthy, and Nique.

I'd take Hill over Worthy or Nique, I'd think. Nique certainly. Worthy... we didn't have a chance to see what he'd be without Magic until he was old and injured, so he's harder to sort out, but he definitely wasn't the same caliber of playmaker as Hill. But yeah, the 80s were a decade riddled with high-end SFs, for sure.

[migya]

Certainly better than Bernard King in everything but scoring and offensive rebounding, the question is whether his playmaking and better defense make up for King's far superior scoring volume and efficiency. Using TS Add as a first cut look at scoring (and Hill doesn't really get bonuses for range or the like in his prime), Hill was over 100 once in his career. King was over 200 3 times. Someone like Adrian Dantley (the poster boy for TS Add) was over 300 5 times and over 400 once!

That's the problem with Hill in ATG conversations. He was a 20 ppg guy who filled the stat sheet but the guys he's competing with for ATG are guys who were 25+ ppg guys who were far more efficient scorers or guys like Pippen who were ATG defenders. Hill was good, but not great, at a lot of things.

Just in the 80s, look at Bird, English, Dantley, King, Aquirre, (all guys who score more and more efficiently and most for better teams) and that's not even including Marques Johnson, Worthy, and Nique.

Hill had big scoring games but his teams were offensively pretty horrible. Besides one year of Allan Houston early on, Stackhouse late in Detroit and Dumars past his prime, that team was awful offensively. Hill is one of the best playmaking SFs ever though, something those great SF scorer certainly were not. His rebounding was among the best at SF as well.

[penbeast0]

King was a better offensive rebounder than Hill; Hill a clearly superior defensive rebounder.

[DorianRo]

Gimme Grant all day.. Dude was crazy good at his peak before injuries. Way better than Scottie

[Hair Jordan]

Pip. He was better defensively than Hill was offensively and closer to Hill offensively than Hill was to him defensively. Pip was also one of the best second bananas ever. Not sure if a prime Hill would be as good as Pippen was if he wasn’t the alpha.

[Jaivl]

Prime Hill scored around 20 ppg on 52 TS% between all his playoff runs... worse than Scottie's lone run as a #1. Not seeing the Jordan comparisons, not even remotely close.

Does he even clear, erm... Brandon Roy or Derrick Rose on offense? No, those are too good. Does he clear Mitch Richmond? (only half kidding)

[O_6]

Grant Hill was one of the first athletes I became a “fan” of. Back in the late 90s, it was Ken Griffey Jr. and Grant Hill who all the kids like me loved regardless of where we grew up. Hill wasn’t quite Griffey but he really was the “next in line” to MJ in terms of the way he was pushed by the media/advertisers. He was also probably/possibly the first black man I ever saw receive “he could become President one day” comments, and this was when he was around 25 years old. It’s hard to think of a young athlete since who marketing execs were completely sold on to the degree they were on Hill. He checked so many boxes. He’ll always have a special place in my mind due to his standing as an athlete during the years I started to develop into a bigtime sports fan.

All that being said, Pippen is being underrated on this thread possibly partially atleast due to all that good stuff I said about Hill above.

3s and defense.

So do I need to explain the defensive gap here? You guys already know it, no? Pippen is one of the great versatile defenders in league history. 27 year old Scottie? Insane. Hill even back at his most hyped wasn’t considered some great defender and even when he became an older defensive role player, he wasn’t even that good at D.

Hill was spoonfed a Nash/D’Antoni offense that was revolutionary at the time and still averaged only 1.2 3PA for Phoenix on .354 shooting. With Nash in ‘08 to ‘12. In 30.1 MPG so he was getting plenty of time. Pippen averaged 5.0 3PA on .361 shooting way back during the 2nd 3peat (‘96-‘98) on 37.3 MPG. Shot selection is always important and something mentioned a ton in player comparisons here because it’s worth mentioning. Why are we ignoring it here? Pippen was generations better than Hill at utilizing the 3pt line and understanding spacing.

34 year old Pippen switches to a Blazers team built around their interior players which is totally different from what he did with MJ, and he effortlessly fits in and is like a super Warriors Iguodala. Had the Shaq/Kobe Lakers on the ropes to say the least.

Pippen peaked at 5.7 FTA per game in ‘94 when he shot .660 from the line. Hill has 6 seasons at that FTA level and peaked at 8.2 FTA per game in ‘00. Hill was a more dangerous and explosive player in terms of driving. It would translate really well today too. One of the great highlights from that era is Hill blowing by the perimeter defender to dunk all over ‘Zo at his peak. Hill was the man.

But Pippen was better. Peak/Prime/Career/One game. Much more well rounded.