Originally Posted by francesco totti
this types of list always favor the new generations.
Originally Posted by kshutts1
Because you think he's better.. that's fine. I can't argue with that. They're close, and I'd flip them, but to each their own I guess, so long as you're aware of the arguments against Reggie being better.
But I still want to hear an argument for Hill being in the top 10 list, lol.
Of course...it's all subjective, at least to a point.
I explained most of it, as far as how much he actually got to play and how much he accomplished. As far as peak goes, I'd take him over most. There's this revisionism amongst people who talk a lot but Hill was an elite player and he'd be elite today. His peak was good enough and he did enough to merit inclusion. Worthy, Arizin, English, Dantley (who I certainly am not ranking). Bernard King played much less. McGuire, Mullen. Bernard King may have the highest peak amongst these guys, but Grant isn't so far behind he has the better career. And he has a higher peak than any of the other guys and was better overall...at least I think, on the latter.