# Who Was Better In Their Prime: Grant Hill or Penny Hardaway?



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Here's a video to help you out:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CS7yjpdikNA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CS7yjpdikNA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

What do you guys think?


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Damn, this is hard. Very, very hard. They were both top level talent in the 90's. But if I have to pick one, I will go with Hill. He was a 22/7/6/2 player, and had an imediate impact on the game. The guy was putting up LeBron type number his first 3 years, and was really looking like he was going to be something very, very special. I mean look at his stats... 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hillgr01.html

Too bad injuries really killed their careers. Such a shame.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

I'd also pick Hill, although Penny was no slouch either. Both were two of my favourite players early in their careers (Hill with Detroit and Penny with Orlando, I almost lost interest following them later, although I was really happy every time I heard that Grant did well in rehab and was expected to play for more than 20-ish games - which, sadly, happened very rarely) and were a treat to watch. I fully agree with your last paragraph too... I don't think I've ever felt sorrier for a player getting injured, than I did for those two. The potential to have a HOF career turned to mediocreness with such a swift stroke. Man, what could've been. :/

p.s.: is there a sadder / more sour end to a career than that of Hardaway's? (if he doesn't play anymore) From being one of the players touted to carry the torch from MJ himself to getting cut by your team to make cap space for Luke Jackson. Luke... Jackson.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uvvgVn0gg1E&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uvvgVn0gg1E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dhd5SWS8u4Y&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dhd5SWS8u4Y&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

*I'd take Hardaway in a second..

Penny could run an offense, distribute the ball, and play wayyyyy better defense than Grant Hill, plus he had range out beyond the arc where Grant Hill is just now becoming comfortable beyond the arc.

IMO The only thing Grant Hill had on Penny was scoring mentality and size...Hill was a scorer, Hardaway was always a pass first , legit floor general who could run an offense, and still averaged 20-22 ppg.

- Plus Penny and a hobbled Shaq swept Grant Hill in the '96 Playoffs 3-0 eace:*


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

Give me Hill. Penny was a better shooter and a slightly more creative passer, but that's about it. Where are people getting the idea that Penny was a better defender than Hill? Common thought was actually the opposite.

Hill also had one of the 2 best handles for a 6'8"+ guy ever, along with young TMac.


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

I'd go with Grant Hill, but not by much, and probably more based on attitude than talent or production. Both were brilliant talents, guys whose injuries contributed to what I consider a weak time in NBA history, those late 90s and early 00s when there seemed a dearth of quality unfortunately at the exact time the league was expanding. But Hardaway was a guy who pretty quickly developed into a cancer, got a coach fired, complained that he wanted to be a PG, then a SG, then a PG--as I recall, when things would go wrong, it was how he was being used. Hill wasn't anywhere near as sexy a player, but he got the job done just the same. It's close, because it's true that sometimes Penny had Magic-like charisma and skills.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

AGree, I never saw Penny care much about defense. He had the big scoring numbers and the cute commercials but Shaq carried that team. Hill played with a far weaker supporting cast but made them dangerous, played much better defense, and seemed to be much more of a "we" guy rather than a "me" guy. I'd take Grant Hill pretty easily.


----------



## KillWill (Jul 1, 2003)

Grant Hill = Lebron James
Penny = Tracy McGrady

before injuries derailed these guys, they roughly reminded me of these guys. hope that helps neophytes.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> AGree, I never saw Penny care much about defense. He had the big scoring numbers and the cute commercials but Shaq carried that team. Hill played with a far weaker supporting cast but made them dangerous, played much better defense, and seemed to be much more of a "we" guy rather than a "me" guy. I'd take Grant Hill pretty easily.


take a look at the start of the '96 season. first 22 games to be exact. shaq wasn't playing. 

i don't see how hill played much better defense. neither guy was great, neither guy was weak. 

i actually take penny overall. hill had more limitations which could limit his overall effectiveness offensively against good defenses, imo. penny was the more dynamic overall player. hill's rebounding might be his biggest differentiator. but penny played the 1. he was a matchup problem. 

hill had the better career, unquestionably. but if i had to pick, at their peaks i'd pick the too brief peak of penny.


----------



## theEnforcer (May 19, 2008)

According to Basketball-reference.com :

Allstar games: Hill 7, Penny 4
All-NBA (1st or 2nd) teams: Hill 5-2

Top 10 in the league: 
Hill: Points (3x), DReb (2), Ast (1)
Penny: Pts (1), Ast (1), Stl (3)

MVP votes: Hill finished 3rd in '97 with .327 of possible votes; lesser amounts 4 other times; totalling .529
- Penny was 3rd in '96; got votes 2 other years; total .341

Hall of Fame likelihood:
Hill .863 (#70 alltime)
Penny .064 (#158)

"In their prime", they were close to equal. Hill's prime was about twice as long. Penny came to a team that had Shaq; Hill's supporting cast never arrived.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

Very hard question. Anyone who grew up watching 90s basketball knows just how talented and touted these two guys were.

In the past I probably take Hill but now that I think about it I gotta agree with Prolific and take Penny.

But I don't agree with some the points made in his post.

First, Hill was not a scorer. Some people called him the best "point" in the game. Also, Penny didn't play better defense. None were stellar and many people forget just how highly touted Hill was coming out of Duke for his defense. Too bad that didn't materialize in the NBA.

To me, Penny was actually the better scorer. He had more offensive weapons than Hill and he had a "killer instinct" that let him take over games with his scoring. That was the problem with Hill.

Shaq made the Magic into championship contenders but don't forget the season when Shaq was out early and the Magic went 17-5 behind Penny who averaged over 26 PPG. 

Hill was the better rebounder and even though Penny had more assists and more "flashy" passes Hill was the better offensive coordinator. Penny had Shaq to throw into and had 3D and Anderson to pass to for 3s when he drove the lane. Who did Hill have? Both were atlethic, Penny was quick, Hill had his very effective cross over. 

In the end it is very close. Hill was the more-rounded talent. Penny was the killer. 



Prolific Scorer said:


> *I'd take Hardaway in a second..
> 
> Penny could run an offense, distribute the ball, and play wayyyyy better defense than Grant Hill, plus he had range out beyond the arc where Grant Hill is just now becoming comfortable beyond the arc.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

Good comparisons.

Lebron is much better than Hill and he is not even at the age when most people consider is a player's prime. Also, Lebron is pure power, strength, and athletism. Hill was more cerebral and quickness.

TMac in his prime was also better than Penny but they both played very similar since TMac patterned his game around Penny.



KillWill said:


> Grant Hill = Lebron James
> Penny = Tracy McGrady
> 
> before injuries derailed these guys, they roughly reminded me of these guys. hope that helps neophytes.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Penny gets it. Mr Hill was mostly a non-factor in the post season, especially with the Pistons, matter of fact the Pistons started doing better after Hill was traded.

If you look at it solely from a stats point, I guess you could make the argument that Hill was in fact better than Penny. I'd take Penny though, cause his teams actually won meaningful game. He also had a flair for the dramatic


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Penny!


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

The reason I said Penny was the better defender because he was more tenacious on both ends of the court, he was a high energy guy in his prime and was always hounding defensively.

Penny was indeed the better offensive player IMO (mainly because of his range), but like I said in my first post his mentality was that of a PG. Hill had more of the scoring will to go out there and put up shots.

I disagree with gilgamesh with Hill was the better "offensive coordinator", you have to remember that while Penny had Shaq to dump it down low to and at times lob or get easy asts, he played in a excellent offense and had to move the ball around the perimeter - not always being able to handle the rock 24/7 and make plays. Really the offense was never built around Hardaway's playmaking skills, he was just really a component in the Orlando offense, never utilizing his talents, where as Detroit was Hill's playground


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

Penny didn't defend any better than Hill and actually Hill had a better defensive pedigree than Penny. Many people forget he was named defensive player of the year in college and was compared by some to Pippen. 

Hill never had a scorer's mentality except for one season when he was asked to score more. Unlike Hill, Penny was surrounded by scorers where as Hill was not until Stackhouse came into the picture so Penny didn't have to take the scoring load. If Hill had a scorer's mentality he easily could have put up 25 ppg early in his career. This was always his problem when it came to big games when he had to take over especially in the playoffs. That is where Penny shines. Penny always had the killer instinct that Hill lacked. Penny actually had more of a scorer's mentality than Hill from highschool (Penny averaged 37 ppg in highschool) but like I said because he played PG and was surrounded by more scorers than Hill he did not look for his shot as much as in college or highschool but when he was asked to do so Penny was by far a better scorer and offensive weapon than Hill. Check his numbers the season when Shaq was out he was putting up 26 ppg and that was when all the MJ comparisons started. Like I said also, many people regarded Hill as the best "point" in the game.

The offense was built around Shaq. I watched the Magic a lot in the 90s as they were my favourite team. IMO Hill was the better offensive coordinator because he basically ran and controlled all the plays which is why he had the rock in his hands a lot. He was more of a floor general than Penny was. Hill was the Pistons. 




Prolific Scorer said:


> The reason I said Penny was the better defender because he was more tenacious on both ends of the court, he was a high energy guy in his prime and was always hounding defensively.
> 
> Penny was indeed the better offensive player IMO (mainly because of his range), but like I said in my first post his mentality was that of a PG. Hill had more of the scoring will to go out there and put up shots.
> 
> I disagree with gilgamesh with Hill was the better "offensive coordinator", you have to remember that while Penny had Shaq to dump it down low to and at times lob or get easy asts, he played in a excellent offense and had to move the ball around the perimeter - not always being able to handle the rock 24/7 and make plays. Really the offense was never built around Hardaway's playmaking skills, he was just really a component in the Orlando offense, never utilizing his talents, where as Detroit was Hill's playground


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Grant Hill, great question though.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Penny surrounded by Scorers? 

The only scorer he had besides Shaq was Nick Anderson, who after Penny's Rookie season was more of a spot up shooter who would occasionally dribble drive.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Nice comparison - two promising players whose careers were cut short by injuries.

I've always had Hill on this one. I see him as just being the better all around player.

*I guess for comparison's sake:*
- Hill was a better post up player, Penny was a better mid range shooter. - Neither had long distance range.
- Both were great driving to the hoop, though I'd give Grant the nod here.
- Hill most definitely was a better defender than Penny. The comparisons to Pippen were unjustified, but he was a solid defender.
- Hill was a much better rebounder.
- I believe that Grant was a better play-maker, but it's debatable since they played on such different squads.
- Both were excellent ball-handlers.

Penny's biggest edge for me would be that he was more of an 'alpha'. I believe this may have caused problems with Shaq, but Penny most certainly wanted to be the main man and had no problem taking over in the clutch. 

Grant always seemed a little too passive, like he would have loved playing with Shaq or Jordan or Hakeem or somebody who could take the limelight and let Grant do all the little things right.

I've always likened Grant to Pippen, albeit as a decidedly inferior defender, but a superior offensive player.

I'm not really sure who to compare Penny to...like Grant, he was a very unique talent and I remember him having a quickness and mobility not often seen among today's top wings (perhaps due to his lighter build).
*
For me, Grant was a lock to be one of the top five small forwards of all time while Penny was a perennial all star and probable hall of famer.*


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

JPSeraph said:


> *I guess for comparison's sake:*
> - Hill was a better post up player, Penny was a better mid range shooter. - Neither had long distance range.
> 
> 
> [/B]


Grant Hill is about 2 inches taller than Hardaway, but Penny had the superior postup game. That was one of Penny's favorite things to do (especially after his first knee injury) was postup on the block, he had a killer postup game. Hardaway also had 3-point range (hit about 85-90 per year in his prime)


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Prolific Scorer said:


> Grant Hill is about 2 inches taller than Hardaway, but Penny had the superior postup game. That was one of Penny's favorite things to do (especially after his first knee injury) was postup on the block, he had a killer postup game. Hardaway also had 3-point range (hit about 85-90 per year in his prime)


I don't remember Penny posting up much in the Orlando days...did he have a post up game all along?

Penny's three point numbers were never very good. I'd argue that shooting around 30% from downtown, a player with Penny's great offensive talents would actually be better off avoiding taking threes...that was more or less my rationale in ranking them equal on threes - although I suppose it's possible that Grant really didn't have that range at all!


----------

