Detroit Grant Hill's fit in today's small-ball 3 point happy era..

[coolhandsteve]

Seeing as how Hill wasn't a good 3 point shooter, how do you see a player like he was with the Pistons (his healthy years) fitting in today's NBA? Would you build a team around him? Or would you rather have him as a great 2nd option?

[juju151111]

Seeing as how Hill wasn't a good 3 point shooter, how do you see a player like he was with the Pistons (his healthy years) fitting in today's NBA? Would you build a team around him? Or would you rather have him as a great 2nd option?
Wade plays in this league bro

[Tking714]

if guys like Giannis, Gallinari, and MCW have jobs then I think he'd be good

[Real Men Wear Green]

You can still base your offense on a guy that doesn't shoot threes. Hill was a point forward, just make sure the other guys can shoot and he's still great. Within his range he was a good scorer.

[Fire Colangelo]

He'll be great.

Injury free he'd be the third best SF behind KD and LeBron, and a top 5-10 player depending on his team.

He was never one of those guys that let it fly beyond the arc, but like Jason Kidd he was able to add the 3 pointer to his game near the end of his career while being an asset defensively.

Fact that he was able to average 13/4/3 at 38 years old while being one of the better defenders in the league shows you how good he could be in his prime.

[Dragonyeuw]

One, if he was coming along today the 3 would probably be a bigger part of his game.

Two, he was a legit starter as recently as 4 years ago at 39, light years past his prime. I think its safe to say prime Hill would fit in just fine.

[Orlando Magic]

The fact that you are asking this question pretty much proves you didn't watch him in his prime. Dude was a ****ing baller. Easily top 10 in today's league. Bordering top 5.

[Fire Colangelo]

The fact that you are asking this question pretty much proves you didn't watch him in his prime. Dude was a ****ing baller. Easily top 10 in today's league. Bordering top 5.

To be fair, his prime was almost 16 years ago. It isn't really that surprising that some people hasn't seen him, or don't remember much of him.

[Rake2204]

You can still base your offense on a guy that doesn't shoot threes. Hill was a point forward, just make sure the other guys can shoot and he's still great. Within his range he was a good scorer.True words.

Also, Hill's jumper began coming along in year two but the nature of his super strengths still led him to preferring to get to the rim or stepping in from the three-point line and pulling from mid-range. I think if he'd decided to crank more attempts from deep, as opposed to just one every three games or so, his 3-point accuracy would look a little prettier on paper. When you're shooting just one triple every 100 minutes, the percentages probably won't be on your side. Once he began cranking with semi-consistency (98 attempts in 2000), the percentage bumped as well (34.7%).

But even then, with or without being a deep threat, surrounding him with guys like he had - Joe Dumars, Lindsey Hunter, Terry Mills, would still theoretically allow the Pistons to play the long ball game of today.

[dhsilv]

True words.

Also, Hill's jumper began coming along in year two but the nature of his super strengths still led him to preferring to get the rim or stepping in from the three-point line and pulling from mid-range. I think if he'd decided to crank more attempts from deep, as opposed to just one every three games or so, his 3-point accuracy would look a little prettier on paper. When you're shooting just one triple every 100 minutes, the percentages probably won't be on your side. Once he began cranking with semi-consistency (98 attempts in 2000), the percentage bumped as well (34.7%).

But even then, with or without being a deep threat, surrounding him with guys like he had - Joe Dumars, Lindsey Hunter, Terry Mills, would still theoretically allow the Pistons to play the long ball game of today.

I was basically going to write something along these lines. Those Pistons surrounded him with 3 point shooters and they shot a LOT of 3's. Guys who can beat anyone off the dribble, are exceptional passers, can finish at the rim, and still CAN shoot will excel in any era. Oh yeah he was pretty good on the boards as well.

[AintNoSunshine]

Great players always find ways to thrive. And you're assuming he wouldn't add anything to his game even though the environment changed. Didn't he develope a very respectable shot during his tenure with the Suns?

[Clifton]

He was able to be effective on the Phoenix Suns, the original run-and-gun 3s-and-dunks team, in his late 30s. And he still couldn't shoot 3s even then.

So in his prime years, if he's the one catching lobs and/or running the pick and roll? He'd do great. He'd do the kinds of things Lebron does, with more smoothness but less dominance.

[Dragonyeuw]

A less physically dominant Lebron would probably be the best description. Hill in many ways was Lebron 1.0. Just plucking him from back then and throwing him into todays game, with no additions like better 3point shooting? 22-24ppg, 7-8 rpg, 6-7apg, 49%. Team makeup will dictate to a degree his statline, but thats about what I'd expect.

[Genaro]

He could play like Lebron does with less effectiveness of course. Surround him with 3 shooters, one guy to make good picks and he would thrive penetrating and in the drive-kick game.

[Thorpesaurous]

He would also probably pick up some value in other aspects of the current game. The zone allowances and shrinking of the league, which are somewhat related, would make his passing and ballhandling even more valuable to the teams that are really whipping it around, and defensively he'd be a monster with the ability to move up to PF. This is a guy who twice averaged better than 9 rebounds a game. Really only his first six seasons matter. After that he barely played for three years, and then wasn't the same player beyond that. And in those six seasons your talking basically 7.5 boards a game from the SF position in a much bigger league. So you could be looking at the best small ball PF in the league with him.

Draymond Green just signed a huge extension. Jimmy Butler is a max level guy. Kawhi Leonard is considered a foundational building block. Old Andre Iguadalla is still a factor, and he's cut from the same cloth as Hill. Hill is a much better ball handler and passer than any of those guys. The shooting becomes more of an issue if the ball isn't in his hands, but he's too good to not have the ball in his hands on 25 or so of the teams in the league as the primary ball handler. And even then he'd be fine because he's too smart a passer and playmaker and ball handler. And all that assumes he wouldn't make himself a passable shooter in this environment.

[SHAQisGOAT]

You can still base your offense on a guy that doesn't shoot threes. Hill was a point forward, just make sure the other guys can shoot and he's still great. Within his range he was a good scorer.

One, if he was coming along today the 3 would probably be a bigger part of his game.

Two, he was a legit starter as recently as 4 years ago at 39, light years past his prime. I think its safe to say prime Hill would fit in just fine.

^This.

Peak Grant Hill would've been a top3 SF today, with a great case for top5 player...

Shame for injuries.

[GIF REACTION]

He would be about as good as he was back then

Same with pretty much every player from any era

[ralph_i_el]

You don't have to be a great 3 point shooter if you're a great passer and have shooters on your team.

Guys like John Wall aren't great 3 point shooters, but contribute to the entire team shooting more 3's at a higher %. Hill could have the same impact.

[coolhandsteve]

Good stuff yall :applause:

[90sgoat]

Hill would do great in the modern league.

'A less effective Lebron'?

Tell me why he would be less effective.

In fact, Hill does almost everything better on offense than Lebron except 3 point shooting (small edge Lebron) and passing (arguable).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWBiBsD4Z1E

Hill was far superior at driving to the basket and finishing. He was virtually unstopppable 1 on 1 in his prime on the drive and that's why he was pegged to be the new face of the league after MJ. People seem to forget this, he was really being put forward to be the new MJ along with his rival Jason Kidd, Penny, Shaq etc. Instead what happened was that he got injured and Penny got injured and they had to jump a couple of years to Stackhouse, Iverson, those fools.

Imagine how much better the league would be with Grant Hill as its face. Not only was Hill a great dynamic basketball player he was also was an eloquent speaker who for 15 years in the league said and did all the right things in a grammatically correct language. As said, a great role model, unlike AI.

Anyway, Grant Hill was an ELITE perimeter penetrator and post player. He did not need a screen to get past his man, which leads me to believe that if you put him in this screen and drive league with no touch and defensive 3 second, then I see his scoring and assist rate go up, just like Lebron. He is going to be dunking on fools frequently! He scored what - 25ppg - in his prime? Lets add a couple and say 27ppg, just from the increased FTr, add his 8 rpg and a few more drive and kick assists, 27-8-8 or basically prime Lebron numbers.

[SwishSquared]

I think peak, injury-free Grant Hill would be an amazing player in this era. Especially if he played on a team that ran lineups of PG-3 wings-rim protector. If he played alongside a sweet-shooting SG and a tweener/combo F, he'd have plenty of space to operate and to thrive.

You know how the Pacers are hoping PG-13 works out as a pseudo-PF? Grant Hill would murk teams running the same way, assuming the supporting cast is decent (which Indy's is not, to be fair to George).

[Levity]

He could easily have a tony parker like role for a team. one of your main ball handlers whose job is to penetrate, and by doing so he either gets to the rim or finds open shooters when teams collapse on him.

[ralph_i_el]

Hill would do great in the modern league.

'A less effective Lebron'?

Tell me why he would be less effective.

In fact, Hill does almost everything better on offense than Lebron except 3 point shooting (small edge Lebron) and passing (arguable).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWBiBsD4Z1E

Hill was far superior at driving to the basket and finishing. He was virtually unstopppable 1 on 1 in his prime on the drive and that's why he was pegged to be the new face of the league after MJ. People seem to forget this, he was really being put forward to be the new MJ along with his rival Jason Kidd, Penny, Shaq etc. Instead what happened was that he got injured and Penny got injured and they had to jump a couple of years to Stackhouse, Iverson, those fools.

Imagine how much better the league would be with Grant Hill as its face. Not only was Hill a great dynamic basketball player he was also was an eloquent speaker who for 15 years in the league said and did all the right things in a grammatically correct language. As said, a great role model, unlike AI.

Anyway, Grant Hill was an ELITE perimeter penetrator and post player. He did not need a screen to get past his man, which leads me to believe that if you put him in this screen and drive league with no touch and defensive 3 second, then I see his scoring and assist rate go up, just like Lebron. He is going to be dunking on fools frequently! He scored what - 25ppg - in his prime? Lets add a couple and say 27ppg, just from the increased FTr, add his 8 rpg and a few more drive and kick assists, 27-8-8 or basically prime Lebron numbers.
:facepalm come on man. LeBron has him in finishing, post game, 3 point shooting, and ball handling.

[SHAQisGOAT]

:facepalm come on man. LeBron has him in finishing, post game, 3 point shooting, and ball handling.

3 point shooting? Definitely.

Finishing at the rim? Yes.

Post-game and ball-handling? Think I'd give it to Grant, tbh.

But then again, I've watched prime Hill ball... And prime Bron.

Peak James is CLEARLY a better overall player than peak Hill but there are some "areas" where Grant's above, and others extremely close...

[90sgoat]

:facepalm come on man. LeBron has him in finishing, post game, 3 point shooting, and ball handling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PM9EhcJ4HE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSwA1ocUdkE

Pay attention to the sweet crossovers, something that Lebron simply does not have. Pay attention to Hill dunking over Mutombo and Mourning chest to chest, two of the best shotblockers every in the league. Lebron gets flustered going up again Mr. Garbage Can Hibbert. Not to mention dunking over 7'7'' Muresan, Ewing and Joakim Noah

Hill is simply a better dribbler than Lebron, while Lebron is a better more willing passer.

Tell me how you arrive at Lebron being a better finisher than Hill?

Show me a collection of ankle breakers leading to slams from Lebron like what I showed above. And over centers mind you.

[90sgoat]

3 point shooting? Definitely.

Finishing at the rim? Yes.

Post-game and ball-handling? Think I'd give it to Grant, tbh.

But then again, I've watched prime Hill ball... And prime Bron.

Peak James is CLEARLY a better overall player than peak Hill but there are some "areas" where Grant's above, and others extremely close...

How is Lebron a better finisher you must be kidding me. You are forgetting Lebron plays in an era where there are no centers and he gets away with stiff arming and gets a FT if someone looks at him.

Again, show me a highlight reel like Grant Hill has there.

Hill is a far superior drive and finish player than Lebron, what Lebron has is slightly better passing.

[Dragonyeuw]

:facepalm come on man. LeBron has him in finishing, post game, 3 point shooting, and ball handling.

:biggums:

Lebron is NOT a better ballhandler. This isn't a stat thing, the eye-test can see that Hill had smoother, more refined handles and better ISO dribbling ability. Better first step as well.

Honestly, the more I think about it, after Lebron, Durant and Davis, prime Hill would be right in the mix with Westbrook, Curry, Harden. He was top 5 in the late 90s, and he'd be arguably top 5 today. Clearly, people have forgotten how good this guy was 15 years ago.

[SHAQisGOAT]

How is Lebron a better finisher you must be kidding me. You are forgetting Lebron plays in an era where there are no centers and he gets away with stiff arming and gets a FT if someone looks at him.

Again, show me a highlight reel like Grant Hill has there.

Hill is a far superior drive and finish player than Lebron, what Lebron has is slightly better passing.

Listen, you don't have to sell me on Grant Hill, he's one of my favorite players ever.

Every argument you made there is true but I'll stand by my word, and what you've said can be a "game-changer" but not to that extent, imho...

You can definitely make a case for Hill at that, but strictly talking about finishing inside - and not including slashing to the rim - I think LeBron's above... James is stronger, bigger and a freak of an athlete, enabling him to finish through lots of contact and whatnot, and he has finishing skills... But I've never said it ain't pretty close because it definitely is, pre-injuries G-Money could jump out of the gym and he had that soft-touch inside, plus that man was explosive AF.

Like I've said, I'd give ball-handling to Grant... I mean, LeBron can take care of the rock, he's pretty good at protecting it enabling him to play PG a lot, but James simply cannot do plenty of the moves that a dude like G Hill was pulling (or a dude like T-Mac)... And prime Hill also went against some form of hand-checking.

And Grant was more skilled in the post than Bron.

As far as passing, I'll also give a slight edge to LeBron. Think Hill is probably a better rebounder though. James' definitely a better defensive player, but Hill wasn't FAR behind.

[bizil]

For the modern day point forward the natural evolution was:

Pip-G Hill-Bron

The sad thing is Hill's injuries stopped him from being that true bridge from Pip to Bron. The transition from Pip to Hill was a natural and smooth one. But the transition from Hill to Bron didn't go down the way we would have liked. Hill was only 30 years old when Bron hit the L. And Bron became a great player DAMN QUICK!

So even though their peaks wouldn't have matched up, we still have gotten some great battles. But until Bron came around, NO SF EVER had Hill's blend of scoring, passing, rebounding, defense, and athletic ability. Baylor was close for sure. But I think was a better passer and defender than Baylor. AT WORST, peak Hill would be the 3rd best SF in the world only behind Bron and KD in today's game. Some would argue Hill over KD and rightfully so...

[90sgoat]

For the modern day point forward the natural evolution was:

Pip-G Hill-Bron

The sad thing is Hill's injuries stopped him from being that true bridge from Pip to Bron. The transition from Pip to Hill was a natural and smooth one. But the transition from Hill to Bron didn't go down the way we would have liked. Hill was only 30 years old when Bron hit the L. And Bron became a great player DAMN QUICK!

So even though their peaks wouldn't have matched up, we still have gotten some great battles. But until Bron came around, NO SF EVER had Hill's blend of scoring, passing, rebounding, defense, and athletic ability. Baylor was close for sure. But I think was a better passer and defender than Baylor. AT WORST, peak Hill would be the 3rd best SF in the world only behind Bron and KD in today's game. Some would argue Hill over KD and rightfully so...

Hill could have gone to be regarded as the worst of the 3 or the best of the 3. It all would depend on how he translated to winning and my honest opinion is that he would have been a great team leader. It really is a tragedy that he got injured.

[Dragonyeuw]

I think Hill had top 20 potential written all over him. No, he didn't have much postseason success between 95 and 2000, but he was only 27 when he injured his foot/ankle, so we can't say that he would have went the Tmac route and been an annual first round casualty. I think Hill had certain intangibles that would have led to some degree of postseason success with the right team, had he not gotten injured. It would be remiss to speak of Hill without mentioning Penny Hardaway. As Jordan was on the way out, and before Kobe/Tmac/Wade/ Lebron etc established themselves, that would have been a great matchup for years had they maintained their health.

[ralph_i_el]

If he was a more skilled post player, ball handler, and finisher, how come he never got close to Bron's efficiency, even at significantly lower USG%?

He might be more skilled head to head, but relative to size LeBron has him beat. Think about it, Nate Robinson has a sick handle, but you guard him with quick, small players. You can guard Grant Hill with quicker players who might not be able to defend the larger LeBron. It's not what LeBron can do that makes him great, it's what he can do at 260+ lbs and elite athleticism.

[bizil]

Many talk about the comparison between Bron and Magic. BUT when u think about it, a more fitting comparison would be Bron and G Hill in my opinion. The had these traits in common:

- Point forwards
- Freak athletes
- Great defenders capable of defending PG, SG, SF, and PF
- Alpha dog scoring ability BUT from a pass first kind of approach
- Epic triple double ability
- Both groomed to be the face of the league. Hill just didn't get to enjoy the fruits like Bron has.

I wouldn't call Bron-Hill an MJ-Kobe style comparison. But when u break down their attributes, I think AT LEAST they come from a similar blueprint. But Bron has the body of a Karl Malone. While Hill had your prototype SF greyhound kind of build. In other words, Bron is the EVOLUTION to things that Hill brought to the table.

[Clifton]

'A less effective Lebron'?

Tell me why he would be less effective.
Because he wasn't as good.

That's like saying, "Tell me why Hakeem wasn't better than Shaq." It's like... yeah on NBA 2k Hakeem would have better stats in most categories... but Shaq was an utterly dominant once in a generation freak and Hakeem wasn't. You expect 25 and excellent defense from Hakeem. Shaq will give you 35 of the most demoralizing points in NBA history and will make whole teams afraid to try to score in the paint. It's different.

Lebron and Hill is like that. Both triple double point forwards... but Hill would give you a smooth 25. Lebron has the ability to get either a dunk or a WIDE open jumpshot for a teammate on every single possession. It's different.

[90sgoat]

Many talk about the comparison between Bron and Magic. BUT when u think about it, a more fitting comparison would be Bron and G Hill in my opinion. The had these traits in common:

- Point forwards
- Freak athletes
- Great defenders capable of defending PG, SG, SF, and PF
- Alpha dog scoring ability BUT from a pass first kind of approach
- Epic triple double ability
- Both groomed to be the face of the league. Hill just didn't get to enjoy the fruits like Bron has.

I wouldn't call Bron-Hill an MJ-Kobe style comparison. But when u break down their attributes, I think AT LEAST they come from a similar blueprint. But Bron has the body of a Karl Malone. While Hill had your prototype SF greyhound kind of build. In other words, Bron is the EVOLUTION to things that Hill brought to the table.

That's the point though, I think Lebron would have been listed as PF/SF in the 90s. A lot of the things he does he wouldn't be able to in the 90s. The entire drive and kick game simply was not as effective, which would limit his effectiveness as a playmaker. As a result he'd have to play PF and post more, which would change his stats.

You're right though that the Magic comparison is faulty and that Hill is the better comparison.

Grant Hill was massively popular and outwardly humle guy who everyone loved. That's the biggest difference.

[90sgoat]

Because he wasn't as good.

That's like saying, "Tell me why Hakeem wasn't better than Shaq." It's like... yeah on NBA 2k Hakeem would have better stats in most categories... but Shaq was an utterly dominant once in a generation freak and Hakeem wasn't. You expect 25 and excellent defense from Hakeem. Shaq will give you 35 of the most demoralizing points in NBA history and will make whole teams afraid to try to score in the paint. It's different.

Lebron and Hill is like that. Both triple double point forwards... but Hill would give you a smooth 25. Lebron has the ability to get either a dunk or a WIDE open jumpshot for a teammate on every single possession. It's different.

Lol, somehow you must have missed that Olujawon beat Shaq already or that the Greg Ostertag Jazz swept Shaq too. Shaq even struggled mightily against Rik Smits. Shaq only won when those guys all retired.

And lol at thinking Lebron's high pick, drive, kick would work in the 90s.

[Dragonyeuw]

If he was a more skilled post player, ball handler, and finisher, how come he never got close to Bron's efficiency, even at significantly lower USG%?

He might be more skilled head to head, but relative to size LeBron has him beat. Think about it, Nate Robinson has a sick handle, but you guard him with quick, small players. You can guard Grant Hill with quicker players who might not be able to defend the larger LeBron. It's not what LeBron can do that makes him great, it's what he can do at 260+ lbs and elite athleticism.

You answered your first question with the second paragraph. Lebron has a level of physicality and athleticism that was above Hill, as athletic as he was Lebron is a different animal. Its like comparing Hakeem and Shaq in the post: Hakeem was more skilled but that didnt translate to being more dominant.

[ralph_i_el]

Grant Hill's best seasons on 2P%: .513, .500

LeBron's best season on 2P%: .622, .602, .560, .556, .552, .536, .535, .531, .518


LeBron shoots 4 3's per game on .342% career
Grant Hill shot .7 3's per game on .314%


On top of that, Bron gets to the line way more than prime Hill.


How is this possible if Hill was a better finisher, post player, and ball handler??? Is Bron really that much better as a jump shooter?


It's not even close folks. Shut it down.

[catch24]

Lol, somehow you must have missed that Olujawon beat Shaq already or that the Greg Ostertag Jazz swept Shaq too. Shaq even struggled mightily against Rik Smits. Shaq only won when those guys all retired.

And lol at thinking Lebron's high pick, drive, kick would work in the 90s.

Those are terrible arguments. :oldlol: That was 3rd year Shaq and he essentially played Peak Hakeem to a statistical draw.

And Ostertag? Shaq murked him in 1998. It wasn't Shaq's fault that his teamamtes decided to pack it in for an early cancun vacation. Shaq owned Rik Smits in the 2000 finals as well, so whats with the disingenuous talk?

[90sgoat]

Grant Hill's best seasons on 2P%: .513, .500

LeBron's best season on 2P%: .622, .602, .560, .556, .552, .536, .535, .531, .518


LeBron shoots 4 3's per game on .342% career
Grant Hill shot .7 3's per game on .314%


On top of that, Bron gets to the line way more than prime Hill.


How is this possible if Hill was a better finisher, post player, and ball handler??? Is Bron really that much better as a jump shooter?

No, it's because Hill like everyone else shot a lot more mid range jumpers because the paint was clogged. Lebron for several years basically only took layups and fastbreak dunks to preserve his stats.

I give up though, it is really uphill to discuss with you if you think those stats tell the story.

[ralph_i_el]

Those are terrible arguments. :oldlol: That was 3rd year Shaq and he essentially played Peak Hakeem to a statistical draw.

And Ostertag? Shaq murked him in 1998. It wasn't Shaq's fault that his teamamtes decided to pack it in for an early cancun vacation. Shaq owned Rik Smits in the 2000 finals as well, so whats with the disingenuous talk?

He's just 3ball's alt (or ******ger). Ignore him.

[bizil]

That's the point though, I think Lebron would have been listed as PF/SF in the 90s. A lot of the things he does he wouldn't be able to in the 90s. The entire drive and kick game simply was not as effective, which would limit his effectiveness as a playmaker. As a result he'd have to play PF and post more, which would change his stats.

You're right though that the Magic comparison is faulty and that Hill is the better comparison.

Grant Hill was massively popular and outwardly humle guy who everyone loved. That's the biggest difference.

Lebron has PG level handles, IQ, and control. BUT he doesn't have the showtime kind of handles. But Magic, Big O, or Mark Jackson didn't have fancy handles either. Plus the league was BIGGER AND MORE PHYSICAL back in the day. Bron's best position is as a SF-point forward. Who ALSO has the versatility to be great at PG, SG, or PF. At a perimeter position, he has the size and speed on his side. At the PF, he size isn't unique at all. So even in the 90's or 80's, he would have been an SF.

And in terms of personality, I think Bron has been a GREAT AMBASSADOR for the NBA. Other than the Decision shit, I think he's been awesome as the face of the league. Bron is ARGUABLY the most popular active athlete in the world today. Hill was being groomed for that same spot, but the injuries messed it up.

[Dragonyeuw]

Grant Hill's best seasons on 2P%: .513, .500

LeBron's best season on 2P%: .622, .602, .560, .556, .552, .536, .535, .531, .518


LeBron shoots 4 3's per game on .342% career
Grant Hill shot .7 3's per game on .314%


On top of that, Bron gets to the line way more than prime Hill.


How is this possible if Hill was a better finisher, post player, and ball handler??? Is Bron really that much better as a jump shooter?


It's not even close folks. Shut it down.

What do their percentages have to do with ballhandling? Lebron is a higher percentage finisher, and a better 3point shooter. You cant use statistics to measure their ballhandling, if youve seen both its obvious off the eyetest.

[OldSchoolBBall]

If he was a more skilled post player, ball handler, and finisher, how come he never got close to Bron's efficiency, even at significantly lower USG%?


Because he played from '94-'01, not '06-'15. Lebron wouldn't be as efficient as he has been had he played back then either.

[catch24]

He's just 3ball's alt (or ******ger). Ignore him.

Whoever that guy is, he is severely underrating LeBron and his impact.

Grant Hill isn't even on LeBron's radar. The only perimeter player clearly better than LeBron is Jordan, but that's mostly because of his other-worldly resume. In-terms of impact on the basketball court? I believe they're in the SAME tier.

[ralph_i_el]

Because he played from '94-'01, not '06-'15. Lebron wouldn't be as efficient as he has been had he played back then either.

You act like nobody was efficient back then

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=1994&year_max=2001&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&shoot_hand=&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&birth_state=&college_id=&draft_year=&is_active=&debut_yr_nba_start=&debut_yr_nba_end=&debut_yr_aba_start=&debut_yr_aba_end=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=&award=&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=mp_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=30&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=ws


Grant Hill's best season of TS% between 93-01 was the 56th best during that period among all players who played 30mpg+

Would all those guys be shooting 70% TS if they played today? :facepalm **** no


How would playing in a more physical league hold back the most physical wing of all time? Imagine Bron being free to use his off hand on offense, and handcheck people on D