^Of course. In Hill's first 6 seasons in the league he was amazing. One of the most all around players in league history. In his first 6 seasons he averaged 22 ppg, 8 rpg, 7 apg.He put up crazy all around numbers.
Grant. I've seen some of Hill's early games, and he was simply incredible. We're talking about a guy who could score, rebound and pass in the flow of the offense. He was a triple double threat every single night, and was actually putting them up at a solid pace. While he didn't ahve Pierce's scoring ability, he could pass the ball better, and rebound the ball better. He also had a better midrange jumper, and played decent defense.Hill for me
without a doubt Hill. He was a revelation in his first 6 years. If he hadn't had the injuries he would be going down as one of the greatest to play the game. Hill could do everything, and do it all well.
Ya, it's strange to remember, but people were calling him the next Jordan, and he was living up to the hype
It's a real shame guys like Grant Hill and Penny Hardaways careers had to slow down because of injurys. In there primes they were really good. My pick is Grant Hill.
Penny was good, but not at Hill's level though. I really think Hill would have been a Top 10 player ever if not for that injury. He was a LeBron James with less range, stat-wise
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KMart @ May 24 2006, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ya, it's strange to remember, but people were calling him the next Jordan, and he was living up to the hype</div>I remember that, it's hands down Hill. He did amazing things, I dont think Pierce even touches Grant Hill, this guy was a freak at every end of the floor. Too bad an injury wrecked his career. He wouldve been definite GOAT potential.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I dont think Pierce even touches Grant Hill, this guy was a freak at every end of the floor</div>Hill was a tad bit better rebounder than Pierce was. They are pretty much on par defensively and Hill definately was a better passer. Pierce has the edge in scoring though. Pierce vs. old grant hill one on one would be pretty sick.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Definatly Grant Hill, very good all-around game. in his good years would get you 22/9/7 a game.</div>Yeah but that was only two seasons, his other years it was more of a 21/6/6Also what consists of Pierce's prime? Because technically this season was his prime
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WELCOMEtotheJUNGLE @ May 25 2006, 05:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah but that was only two seasons, his other years it was more of a 21/6/6Also what consists of Pierce's prime? Because technically this season was his prime</div>err, how do you figure that?There is no steadfast rule that says a player hits his prime at a certain age. Hil WOULD have been hitting his prime around now, but he got injured.I think you are looking at stats a little too much as well (where Hill was better than Pierce anyway), but Hill really wins it when you see the way he could just dominate a game in every aspect. As much as I like Pierce, he doesn't do that as much.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>There is no steadfast rule that says a player hits his prime at a certain age. Hil WOULD have been hitting his prime around now, but he got injured.I think you are looking at stats a little too much as well (where Hill was better than Pierce anyway),</div>I figure this year was Pierce's prime becaue he had career high in scoring, his rebounding numbers were up over the past previous 2 seasons, he had career high in field goal percentages, and this was the first year he took a leadership role for the Celtics.Take a look at the scoring and stealsAlso Hill's stats were declining when he was on his way out of Detroit so he clearly had already passed his "prime" and he obviously wasn't gaining a ton of interest conisdering how he was traded for Ben Wallace (who at the time wasn't thought much of) and Chucky Atkins.
I think it's amazing people are forgetting Pierce has had 4 seasons of 25+ ppg, 6+ rpg, and 3+ apg (3 of them were in a row). Not to mention his 27/7/5 this year (rounding up). But enough with stats, Pierce is underrated. 5 consecutive All-Star appearances, has lead the NBA in total points, has been 2nd in steals, has been to the Eastern Conference Finals. With that said, Hill was absolutely amazing as well and would have continued to get better had he not been screwed with health problems. It's unbelievably tough because I am a Celtics fan and Pierce is my favorite player, but even then, I have to give the edge to Pierce. I hate when people make biased picks just because they play for their team, especially when there is no contest. This one isn't an unbelievably margin, but Hill gets the nod due to his passing/timing. He never forced anything, Pierce does at times. Pierce is/was the better scorer easily and more clutch, but Hill's passing does it for me. He could play 3 positions on the floor and he was a smart player. Grant Hill (prime) > Paul Pierce - but again, not a crazy margin