Why did people think Grant Hill and Penny Hardaway were so great

[che guevara]

You have to realize Penny's scoring numbers will suffer because he had Shaq as #1 option. Put Shaq along with 25 year old LeBron and watch LeBron's scoring output drop

They played different roles in their respective teams, you just can't compare their stats head to head.

BTW, Penny and Grant Hill easily had top 20 GOAT potential easily.

Penny without Shaq would only be winning 45 games, his shooting percentages would drop, his assists would be down, and his turnovers would be up. It goes both ways.

[atljonesbro]

Only on ISH a peak 21/7/4 player is guarenteed top 20 all time

[houston]

Penny and Hill, like all players who got injured in their prime, get overrated, often severely so. 15 years from now Derrick Rose is going to get the same treatment, with people stupidly saying he could've been as good as Lebron, Durant, Anthony Davis, or whoever the next top tier superstar is.


Grant was 27 when he got injured. If he improved at all afterwards, it was going to be incremental, especially considering he was a guy who relied enormously on his athleticism.

People severely overestimate the age at which players peak statistically - for stars, it's typically at 25-28, with rare exceptions - Hakeem because he didn't start playing basketball until he was in his late teens, and Bird because he entered the NBA really late at 23 and never relied on explosive run/jump athleticism in the first place. Otherwise it's in that 25-28 age range - Jordan, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Lebron, Oscar, Moses, Doc, KG, Barkley, Wade, etc. all peaked statistically from 25-28, sometimes even earlier. Their play may have peaked at later ages, but for non-statistical reasons.

2000 definitely wasn't his best season, either, 1997 was clearly better. His scoring was up, but everything else was down, and in the case of rebounding, passing and defense, significantly so. Hill wasn't a guy who was showing steady improvement every year, he peaked in '97, and every year after that was just not quite as good. We might not have seen the absolute best of Hill, but we clearly knew what he was.

And why is it never, ever mentioned that Hill was below average in the playoffs? This is a guy who played just 13 playoff games in his prime, and in those 13 games, averaged 21/7/6, but with 3 turnovers and a bad 51 TS%. He never cracked 30 points in a playoff game and never got out of the first round.

Penny's much more of a mystery - unlike Hill, he'd still been showing signs of improvement up until he got injured. The idea that he could've been as good as Lebron is completely laughable, though - he never had nearly the tools or athleticism Lebron had. Lebron's much stronger, more athletic, a far better finisher, a better shooter from '09 on (Penny shot just .315 on threes pre-injury, and that was with the pulled in 3 point line), a better passer with better court vision (Penny was great there though, no doubt), and obviously is better defensively with far better defensive tools and versatility than Penny had. Lebron at age 20 was probably better than Penny ever was, and was definitely better by a significant margin in his third season at 21 than Penny was in his third season at age 24. Penny also was a more polished player at 24 than Lebron was as a Cav, which limits how much better he could've gotten.

exactly this man knows his basketball. Plus both Penny and Hill was soft players. Never really had first option talents. Alot of times injury prone players are soft players.

Funny you mention Hill playoff disappointments. The Pistons had enough to beat the Hawks in both those playoff series. Hill got outplayed by Lang of all people

[poido123]

Not even close. Penny is one of the most overrated players. Penny suffered his first major injury in 1997 at the age of 26 early in the season. His play was poor that season up until the injury and the season before he was healthy at age 25 and averaged 20-6-5 and that's with prime Shaq taking up double teas.

Lebron was average 30-9-7 at the age of 25...are you really gonna compare 20-6-5 by Penny at age 25 vs Lebron's 30-9-7 at age 25?

Penny's peak season was in 95 at age 24 when he went 22-7-4....Lebron at age 24 went 28-8-7.

Penny is an example of nostalgia at it's finest...the funny part is that I was around to see Penny so I actually see the classic nostaligia overrating form from scratch right before my eyes. 20 years from now Penny will have 4.1 speed, 7'6 height and was still growing, 55 inch vertical, and carried the Magic to the 95 finals

Lebron was one missed shot away from having one of the most unfulfilled and disappointing resumes in basketball(Pending further accomplishments).

When people look back on Lebron's career, they may even suggest that he was alot like Chamberlain in that he could of been that much greater and achieved so much more...

Now, I can't predict what he will do in the future, but if the past is anything to go by, he is capable of being dangerously passive and shying away from the big moments.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Hill reached his peak. He just couldn't sustain due to injury. Penny was cut down pre peak.

[sundizz]

Steph Curry (current season)
23.5 ppg, 8.5 apg, 4.4 rpg on 46%, 41%, 88%

Penny (95-96 best season)
21.7 ppg, 7.1 apg, 4.3 rpg on 51%, 31%, 77%

Grant Hill (96-97 Best Season)
21.4 ppg, 9 rpg, 7.3 apg on 50%, 31%, 71%

Honestly, people here are nostalgic like crazy. Curry is one of the most effective offensive weapons EVER. It's unbelievable how good he is at offense. He can score every which way, make every pass, and run an offense like few others.

If you put him alongside a true superstar player like a Shaq, or a Duncan, or KD etc....he's every bit as good (and i think better) than what a Penny or a Hill could of produced.

Again, I'll say Curry + Shaq > Hill + Shaq or Penny + Shaq. In sure there are situations I'd take Hill or Penny over Curry, but with a true dominant center or pf I would def take Curry.

[bdreason]

Statistical peak doesn't necessarily coincide with peak performance. People are so fukcing obsessed with stats these days they completely ignore context.

[Soundwave]

Steph Curry (current season)
23.5 ppg, 8.5 apg, 4.4 rpg on 46%, 41%, 88%

Penny (95-96 best season)
21.7 ppg, 7.1 apg, 4.3 rpg on 51%, 31%, 77%

Grant Hill (96-97 Best Season)
21.4 ppg, 9 rpg, 7.3 apg on 50%, 31%, 71%

Honestly, people here are nostalgic like crazy. Curry is one of the most effective offensive weapons EVER. It's unbelievable how good he is at offense. He can score every which way, make every pass, and run an offense like few others.

If you put him alongside a true superstar player like a Shaq, or a Duncan, or KD etc....he's every bit as good (and i think better) than what a Penny or a Hill could of produced.

Again, I'll say Curry + Shaq > Hill + Shaq or Penny + Shaq. In sure there are situations I'd take Hill or Penny over Curry, but with a true dominant center or pf I would def take Curry.

I wouldn't.

Curry is a good player, but being 6'3 he's simply not as versatile as Penny or GHill and both would match/exceed his scoring given the modern rules and lack of big men in the paint to guard the basket.

Both would abuse Curry in the post.

Penny gave Pippen problems, he was an extremely difficult to guard player, if anything I think a criticism of Penny's game was that he didn't look for his shot enough. He could've scored a lot more.

Shaq was too immature in his Orlando days, he couldn't deal with the fact that Penny had a more popular marketing campaign (the Lil' Penny thing which was everywhere) than he did.

[Pointguard]

Penny and Hill, like all players who got injured in their prime, get overrated, often severely so. 15 years from now Derrick Rose is going to get the same treatment, with people stupidly saying he could've been as good as Lebron, Durant, Anthony Davis, or whoever the next top tier superstar is.

Hey, hey. Derrick Rose improved a lot each year. If he got some range down he would have been pretty much unstoppable. Its not like you can name another MVP at his age either or a few guys with his leadership qualities at that age. Once Rose left it wasn't like other players were stepping up like that. Its hard to make that final leap into getting all the attention and being headstrong for 82 games. And don't act like you got some crystal ball or some basketball deities cluing you in on things not known.

Lets retell your story a different way for Hill...

The qualities in Hill were his leadership, all around play, smart play, team improvement and good defense. In a right system with good players he would have excelled - he was a lot like Pippen without the length. But in a good system he operates the same way a little better on offense, a little worse on defense but slightly better overall and easier to measure for not so deep fans. And Pippen was considered a top five player for many years. And his numbers aren't going to blow you out the water either.

Hill played in a defensive outfit that went from the worse team in the league 27th place to 7th in 1997 once they got their defense down in the second year centered around him and Thorpe. They win 18 more games as well (from 28 to 46). Goes to the playoffs and is 24/7/5

Year after that they also become an offensive team as well moving up from 24th place two years before to now 5th and improve to 56 wins with Hill the centerpiece on both offense and defense. Allan Houston helps on offense. Next year, Dumars is old, Houston leaves, Hunter shoots 38 percent Dumar only three points better. Bison Dele is the second option and defense falls on Hill pretty much alone. Stackhouse is the only decent teammate.

In the playoffs 1999. Hill goes 19/7/7 45 FG%. Not bad for a defensive mainstay. He has no teammate score more than 10per game and Hill leads the team in rebounds per game. They lose to Atlanta which has five players scoring more than 12per game and Mutombo clogging the lane and getting 13 plus rebounds per game. Its amazing that series went to the max. Hill has the highest PER in the playoffs that year at 29. Long was nowhere near playing Hill equally as suggested somewhere here.

Next year Hill is 26/7/5 shooting 49% but the team is in turmoil with different types of coaches. The team had three coaches within three years. With a great coach its a much different story.

[atljonesbro]

When players get injured people will always think best case scenario. Especially when the nostalgia kicks in. No one thinks realistically. It baffles me that people say someone who peaked at 21/7/4 was gonna be one of the greatest over just hecause he was big and got injured. He's not that good get over it. Good player but no where even close to an all time great.

[sundizz]

I wouldn't.

Curry is a good player, but being 6'3 he's simply not as versatile as Penny or GHill and both would match/exceed his scoring given the modern rules and lack of big men in the paint to guard the basket.

Both would abuse Curry in the post.

Penny gave Pippen problems, he was an extremely difficult to guard player, if anything I think a criticism of Penny's game was that he didn't look for his shot enough. He could've scored a lot more.

Shaq was too immature in his Orlando days, he couldn't deal with the fact that Penny had a more popular marketing campaign (the Lil' Penny thing which was everywhere) than he did.

Lol. No way Curry would be guarding Penny and especially would not be guarding Hill. He'd equally give them fits if they tried to guard him. He's way too fast laterally, and with the ball for them to stay on him for an entire game. He creates separation really really well.

And no they wouldn't. They are just not that great at scoring. Hill is a different player completely from Curry. He could be argued to be better definitely. However, Penny is really overrated. He was great, but gets overrated a ton due to his popularity. In those days he was one of my fav players too. However, now, it's likely that James Harden is a much superior player to him when I take off the nostalgia glasses.

They did a lot, but neither proved anything in the playoffs. Curry's one playoff run he had last year was so much better than anything either Penny or Hill did in the playoffs.

In the only true playoff sample size we have for Penny (21 games), the year they did really well 94-95, he averaged at age 23: 19.6 ppg, 7.7 apg, 3.8 rpg on 47%, 40%, 76%.

Grant Hill at age 24, 26, 27 in the playoffs lost and shot 43.7%, 45.7%, 37.5% with basically no tres a game.

In Steph's first playoff run (12 games), at age 24, he registered an upset without the only "all-star" on his team, and with a gimpy ankle for part of the Spurs series put up: 23.4 ppg, 8.1 apg, 3.8 rpg

[necya]

Penny Hardaway...like someone said, Magic staff did an atrocious job with their players injured. 6 weeks of rest for the same injury as Kidd (who stayed away near 3 months) and Stoudemire (Suns medical decided to rest him for an entire season)
dude was amazing, the complete package with an incredible ball IQ and what a court vision. his skill set and his foot work were outstanding. he was the best guard with MJ in the low post, so many different move...2 things were crazy for me. the maturity of his game after 3 years, was playing like a veteran in his 3rd year (all nba 1st team in his 2nd and 3rd year in the league with guards like Stockton, Payton, MJ, Drexler, Miller), and his faculty to play at an all nba first team level at PG and SG.
his athleticism...some like to point (and they get reason) how athletic are guards like Westbrook or Rose. i have 200 games on dvd of Penny, i still don't have found another guard dunking as much as Penny. (and when the paint was full of traffic in the 90's) He recorded in some games 4,5 and 6 dunks in a single ****ing game
Also, people always bring stats first, like it was the whole mirror of players' game. so Penny was basically 22-7-5 in 95-96. not impressive i guess for the guy who posted Curry stat line, or for the other who said that Hill was able to average 25-8-6.
first, Hill under Collins, had a free pass to do whatever he wanted on the court. on the other hand, penny had to play with a lot of scorers and the big Shaq. either you are as dumb as Stephon Marbury or you play smart and share the ball with your dominant center and your shooters. his rebound ? he played with O'Neal and Horace Grant. what do you want him to average ?? once he played without Shad, he was closer of 6 boards (99,00)
Penny's game was built in a team spirit, he was known to get all the players involved on the offense.
It's like Magic Johnson and people who want to watch his best games. they will try to find his 43pts in playoffs or his 20-20 games. i have seen better games from him when he finished with 18pts 10ast 8rbds.
always be careful with sats...a good one comes from his best season in 95-96. he averages 21,7pts on 51% (thanks to Shaq some bad mouths will say) with a SEASON HIGH of 23 FGA. And with the injury of Shaq who missed 23 games at the start of the season, he just averaged 27-6-6-2 leading Orlando to a 17-5 start.
on the 33 games the Shaq missed during his Orlando days with penny, Hardaway averaged 28pts per game, playing at times at SG with Brian shaw at PG position for a 23-9 record.
After Shaq left, Penny unfortunately had his first surgery at the beginning of the 96-97 season. the starting five played like 10 games together but still, penny with his "bad numbers" led Orlando to a 38-18 record (i removed the last 3 games - 3 defeats - as Orlando could not move up or down, staying at the 7th spot in the east, with Penny averaging 10ppg, preparing for the playoffs where he blowout a top 2 defense of the league with back to back 40pts game whiteout Horace Grant and Rony Seikaly)
His impact on the game is so much underrated. same thing with the suns when he played with Kidd in 99-00. Kidd was seen as the most important piece whereas the suns only went 11-11 during Penny's absence and 10-6 when both Kidd (ankle broken) and Gugliotta were out. after 2 surgeries on his left knee, he outplayed Kobe during the season and the playoffs except for game 5 which was completely dominated by the Lakers.
so, Penny is overrated because of the "what if"... everyone has his opinion, but some facts had to be reminded.

concerning Grant Hill, i think we saw a lot more his potential (in fact Penny never reached his prime) and i was a bit disappointed after his brilliant 3rd year. He got the same team approximatively and fell off a 55-27 year to miss the playoffs the year after.
also, i think he was more valuable when he played more a leader rather than a scorer as he did in 2000.
And i don't understand the Pippen- Hill comparison... Both were great athletic all a rounded, but their games were very different to me. i can only see similar aptitudes to drive to the basket.
unfortunately, the Magic staff did another horrible job concerning his ankle...

a last rectification about the penny - MJ myth : they met in 18 games.
in the only game of the RS in 94-95 (3rd game of MJ) Penny played better ok, but MJ had the best of him during the 6 games of the playoffs with a wide marging.
In fact everything started in game 6, MJ started to play him one on one and penny went for 18 first QT points. then, beginning of the 95-96 season, first game : no shaq, no rodman. MJ defended on Penny and Pippen on some actions. Hardaway just put on a show in one on one. after that, second meeting in Chicago, Bulls won, and MJ only defended him on the first isolation. after that they did not played one on one anymore (only on some occasion due to rotation..). Pippen was mostly on him, but surprisingly, the one who defended Penny the best during the season and the 96 playoffs was Ron Harper.

[tmacattack33]

Penny without Shaq would only be winning 45 games, his shooting percentages would drop, his assists would be down, and his turnovers would be up. It goes both ways.

Without Shaq for the first two months of the 1996 season, Penny lead Orlando to a 17-5 record.

He averaged 26.4 ppg, 6.8 apg, 5.3 rpb, on .503 FG% (and .622 TS%)

[STATUTORY]

Only on ISH a peak 21/7/4 player is guarenteed top 20 all time

tyreke evans was also big on here

[tmacattack33]

Lol. No way Curry would be guarding Penny and especially would not be guarding Hill. He'd equally give them fits if they tried to guard him. He's way too fast laterally, and with the ball for them to stay on him for an entire game. He creates separation really really well.

And no they wouldn't. They are just not that great at scoring. Hill is a different player completely from Curry. He could be argued to be better definitely. However, Penny is really overrated. He was great, but gets overrated a ton due to his popularity. In those days he was one of my fav players too. However, now, it's likely that James Harden is a much superior player to him when I take off the nostalgia glasses.

They did a lot, but neither proved anything in the playoffs. Curry's one playoff run he had last year was so much better than anything either Penny or Hill did in the playoffs.

In the only true playoff sample size we have for Penny (21 games), the year they did really well 94-95, he averaged at age 23: 19.6 ppg, 7.7 apg, 3.8 rpg on 47%, 40%, 76%.

Grant Hill at age 24, 26, 27 in the playoffs lost and shot 43.7%, 45.7%, 37.5% with basically no tres a game.

In Steph's first playoff run (12 games), at age 24, he registered an upset without the only "all-star" on his team, and with a gimpy ankle for part of the Spurs series put up: 23.4 ppg, 8.1 apg, 3.8 rpg

Wow. One of the worst posts I've read in a while.