Since Artist likes to hi-jack other threads with his belabourous silly opinions on Grant Hill---- I think a whole new thread is needed to help him try to cement his argument that Grant Hill was the most overrated player ever prior to his injury.

This is relevant, because as a Bucks Fan.. we did have the #1 pick in 94. We could have taken Grant or Jason kidd.. instead we took the Puppy (who in his own right was a decent player).

Ok, back to Hill. Between 94-00' the years in which Grant Hill was SO OVERRATED as Artist says he posted... oh..

23 pts per game, about 6.2 apg, 8 rpg, shot 48% from the field, 1.6 spg, .8 bpg.

Last time I checked, those kind of numbers would get you on the all-star team IN ANY SEASON of recent memory. The guy was phenomenal during this timespan. In 2000-2001 - he had an injury that forever changed his career. We all know this. But to say this guy was "the most overrated player" during the span when he was healthy in the NBA is false. If anything he wasn't appreciated enough.

Your turn Artist. Now here are the rules
1. Use actual statistics - not idiotic rants w/o back-up
2. Justin Timberlake is and always will be gay. Just sayin.
3. Prove that Grant Hill was the most overrated player (championship theories aside) because no one outside of Houston and Chicago won Championships during this time period. With that baseless argument, you'd be saying that most everyone in the NBA was overrated because they didnt win a championship. The only true stars that did during this time were... Jordan, Pippen, Olajawon, Drexler, and maybe Robinson/Duncan at the tail end. That's a very small amount of the would be stars of this time period.

Good Luck.

Again how many playoff series did the great one win? GOOSE EGG. 27 % from the 3 point line.

Big Dog was a 20.3 point per game scorer and had playoff victories. Next....

Grant Hill wasn't a three point shooter. Never was, so what... if that is your argument..... that is pathetic.


He was also on very bad teams other than himself. Does that make him overrated?

The East during this time period was very dominating. Not many teams won playoff series. The key is, you needed to be on very good TEAMS.. or be on the Bulls to have won during this time period. Any other wins are serious outliers.


Again, your argument is lame and ill-backed. Keep trying son.

If you are comparing him to Big Dog, points is about where the comparison can be made. Even in points Hill wins... hands down, Hill was the better player.

Also, when the Bucks made the playoffs.... Robinson had Cassell and Allen, not to mention a corps of very good role players (Scotty Williams, Darvin Ham, EJ, Tim Thomas had a good playoffs during the 01' season)

Big Dog also had guys like Vin Baker in the 90s and even a guy like Alvin Robertson. The Bucks were not as void of talent as the Pistons were. The closest thing the Pistons got to talent was Bison Dele.. or geez.. Jerry Stackhouse (when they traded for him in 97') And even an over-the-hill Joe Dumars through 97'.

Seriously man, your argument is very very weak. The Pistons did manage to assemble some good records in 96-97 and they were respectable through 2000, nothing to laugh at considering what they had to work with. The Bucks on the other hand just were not as good during this period.

At the time it was a toss up to me for the 3. I had serious likes and dislikes for all of them.

1. Big Dog (at that time) great shooter, had serious ups, looked like a rebounder and a hustler. Down side, just a shooter, horrible with the ball which was needed at small forward, couldn't play a lick of defense.

2. Kidd, really never thought he would have had as an outstanding career that he has had. Thought, great passer, great floor leader, but could he handle the grind of the nba. HORRIBLE SHOOTER.

3. Hill, looked like the real deal. His only downside I thought was a bit undersized and that he was coming from Duke, and few were making the transition from Duke to the NBA. That was my only beef against him.

Watching the first four years of respective careers, give me hill over big dog every day of the week. Give me Kidd every day of the week. Dog to me was the more overrated of them all.

I laugh whenever I see Stackhouses name mentioned. When I see him, I see Michael Redd.

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
If you are comparing him to Big Dog, points is about where the comparison can be made. Even in points Hill wins... hands down, Hill was the better player.

Also, when the Bucks made the playoffs.... Robinson had Cassell and Allen, not to mention a corps of very good role players (Scotty Williams, Darvin Ham, EJ, Tim Thomas had a good playoffs during the 01' season)

Big Dog also had guys like Vin Baker in the 90s and even a guy like Alvin Robertson. The Bucks were not as void of talent as the Pistons were. The closest thing the Pistons got to talent was Bison Dele.. or geez.. Jerry Stackhouse (when they traded for him in 97') And even an over-the-hill Joe Dumars through 97'.

Seriously man, your argument is very very weak. The Pistons did manage to assemble some good records in 96-97 and they were respectable through 2000, nothing to laugh at considering what they had to work with. The Bucks on the other hand just were not as good during this period.

Dude, Alvin Robertson was in prison when Big Dog was in the league. I don't know where this one came from?


A great player has a great all-around game when they are playing Point forward. Again, Big Dog averaged 20.3 points per game, what the **** are the talking about? Rewatch Mike Sherman highlights chocking away in the playoffs...sheesh.

However, despite Hill's individual accomplishments in Detroit, the Pistons never made it far in the playoffs, either losing in the first round (1996, 1997 and 1999), or missing the playoffs entirely in the 1994-95 and 1997-98 seasons. The 2000 playoffs would be no different. On April 15, 2000, 7 days before the start of the playoffs, Hill sprained his left ankle in a game against the Philadelphia 76ers. Despite his hurting ankle, Hill was bothered by being labeled "soft" by some Pistons fans and thus decided to play against the first round opponent, Miami Heat. However, his injured ankle got worse and Hill was forced to leave halfway through game 2.

This is for those people that keep arguing Grant Hill was a better choice than Big Dog. Jason Kidd is the player that was the better choice but not I can't shoot Hill.

"In 1994, the Detroit Pistons traded Robertson to the Denver Nuggets in exchange for Mark Macon and Marcus Liberty. However, he never actually saw any playing time for the Nuggets due to pre-existing back injuries.[7]

Robertson scored the first points in Toronto Raptors' history. Ed Pinckney won the franchise's opening tip-off, Robertson hit a three-pointer, and the Raptors were ahead 3–0.[8]

Robertson has a history of off-court problems during and after his career. In August of 1997, he pleaded no contest to four misdemeanor charges of abusing a former girlfriend and was sentenced to one year in prison.[9] He also spent a month in jail during the 1990 NBA off-season for reportedly beating his then-wife. Alvin Robertson was arrested again in San Antonio, Texas in January, 2007, on a variety of charges, several related to domestic violence.[10]"

Well, I guess this shoots the Alvin Robertson theory you had in the foot.

quote:

This is for those people that keep arguing Grant Hill was a better choice than Big Dog. Jason Kidd is the player that was the better choice but not I can't shoot Hill.

Hill WAS a better player than Big Dog. Better player, better teammate, greater impact, more complete game, everything. Big Dog was one thing- a scorer. Hill was the whole package.

Now the question comes up- who was the best choice of the three? Well, they all had warts. And before we drool all over ourselves about Kidd, remember that he spent a large part of his early career being shipped from team to team for a reason. Hill has never been a long range bomber, but that was never his game. He slashed and got to the rim as well any anyone ever, and drew more than his share of fouls. Big Dog was a jump shooter who played half-assed D and was a black hole when passed the ball. Hill only lead some mediocre Piston teams in every key offensive category (points, rebounds, and assists) 3 of his 6 years in Detroit, as well as being the team's top assist man in every year he played for them except his rookie year.

And let's not be bashing Grant Hill's career 48% FG shooting and calling him a "can't shoot" guy, when compared to Kidd and Big Dog. Dog- 45 % career shooter. Hill- 48%. 3 pointers? Big Dog a career 34% 3 point shooter in 1800+ attempts. Hill shot just 27%- but over 1500 less attempts. Hill knew that the 3 was not where it was at, anyways. During his prime years, Hill AVERAGED over 600 FT attempts/year. Big Dog went to the line less than 400 times/year over the same period.

But that's just the stats. You watch the player play, and you know. Big Dog- jump shooter. Grant Hill- all around game. The total package. The blind may refuse to see, but that doesn't change the truth.

And I don't know why we're debating playoff success- Glenn Robinson's teams didn't make the playoffs for his first 4 seasons, then lost in the first round each of the next 2. One season to the EC Finals and that makes him better than Hill? Sorry dude... that's just stupid.

Grant Hill needs to be tempered due to his injury-riddled career, but, when healthy?

There is NO comparison between Big Dog and Hill. Hill was substantially better. It's not even close. Better passer, better ball hendler, better defensive player, better slasher, better inside game, better personality.

It is not even close.