# Vince Carter or Grant Hill



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

In their absolute prime, who would you take and why?


----------



## Hairy Midget (Nov 28, 2005)

Grant Hill


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Grant Hill.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Well you could probably say Vince is in his prime right now, and considering he is one of the few players in the league that you can give the ball to and say do your thing, I'll easily take him over Grant.


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

Grant Hill, he could pass as well as the best point guards and get as many rebounds as the best big men. He was such a good all-around player. He averaged 20, 10, 7 and 1.3 steals one year, which is pretty amazing.


----------



## AIFAN3 (Sep 17, 2005)

you guys totally forgot what kind of beast carter was back in his prime toronto days.. He's now just a shadow of that and he's turned into more of a pansy.. I think it's a lot closer than it seems it's really just a tossup, but i'm leaning more towards hill...


----------



## Hairy Midget (Nov 28, 2005)

Hill was a better passer, defender, shooter, rebounder, etc...


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

> Hill was a better passer, *defender*, *shooter*, rebounder, etc...


Even though I think Hill was better, he definitely was not better at shooting. Hill was a horrible three point shooter. He was shooting like 20% in his prime. I didnt watch him play defense, but from what Ive heard that is one of the main knocks on him.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

I'd take Hill, but not in a wash. Too bad he was cut short right as he was going into his prime. Watching a healthy Hill and Tmac would have been a sight to see.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

LamarButler said:


> I didnt watch him play defense, but from what Ive heard that is one of the main knocks on him.


He was a better defender than Carter.


----------



## ravor44 (Feb 26, 2005)

I take Grant Hill...


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

LamarButler said:


> Even though I think Hill was better, he definitely was not better at shooting. Hill was a horrible three point shooter. He was shooting like 20% in his prime. I didnt watch him play defense, but from what Ive heard that is one of the main knocks on him.



He was no Ron Artest, but he was a better defender than Carter. Actually, even recently when healthy I was surprised at how well he defended. He's a smart defender and a position defender. He's not going to try to block the shot or take many risks. One of the last times Orlando played the Lakers I was pleasantly surprised at how well Grant handled Kobe one on one. One of the better defensive jobs I've seen on Kobe.


----------



## atz (Jul 11, 2006)

LamarButler said:


> Even though I think Hill was better, he definitely was not better at shooting. Hill was a horrible three point shooter. He was shooting like 20% in his prime. I didnt watch him play defense, but from what Ive heard that is one of the main knocks on him.


Actually, in his final season in Detroit (just before the injuries) Hill was a pretty decent 3pt shooter looking to get better. I remember two of the biggest changes in his game that year were a) becoming more of a scorer and b) developing a 3 pt shot that the opponents had to respect (not a dead-eye shooter by any means but you couldn't leave him open at the 3pt line that season). He shot .347 from the 3 too that year (granted that he only took 98 shots). Still, he was getting there and I wouldn't go as far as saying he was a _horrible_ 3pt shooter. Then the injuries happened and left something, a lot more than just his 3pt stroke, to wonder about.

That being said, prime Carter was still the better shooter, but prime Hill was the better player, even though prime Carter just might have been the most "fun" player to watch ever.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

Hairy Midget said:


> Hill *was* a better passer, defender, shooter, rebounder, etc...


That's the truth. We'll always talk about Hill in past tense. That's why I choose Vince.

If Hill's prime had been longer, there would be no argument.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

in his prime, Hill was one of the best all around offensive players in the entire league, with so much versatility and skill......

so asking who was better in their prime, I say Hill. Hill had a 21.4 ppg, 9 rpg, 7.3 apg, 1.8 spg on 49.6% in 1996/1997. Just an amazing player. 1995-2000 were all years like this, with great statistics in all the major categories


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Hill was the better all round player, Vince is and was the superior offensive player.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Hill in a heartbeat. One of the most talented, incredibly versatile players of his era. His prime was actually a fine length, but in some ways his peak wasn't as high as expected, or at least was different than expected. He never seemed to be the kind of intense leader who pushed, carried and kicked his team to victory, and he didn't emerge as a monster scorer. He pretty clearly needed a brilliant running mate to get to the Finals...someone who was an equal talent but had complementary strengths (like, oh, Tracy McGrady?).

Carter has been a decent rebounder and underrated passer and playmaker, but Hill blows him away in those categories, and was also a better defender. Obviously Carter is a better shooter and more consistently dominant scorer, so it's easy to call it a wash and acknowledge that each of us will lean toward his preferred style of player. 

But I've gotta go with Hill, giving him the edge for being such a solid professional, dedicated teammate and gracious human being. Hill never quit on his team, or took many (if any) nights off. Carter, well...let's just diplomatically say he's needed the right circumstances around him to really push himself to the top of his game.


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

Hill.


----------



## Saint Baller (May 3, 2006)

Whats with all the comparing of one player that is not injured to one player that was injured in his prime?

First Dirk Prime to Chris Webber Prime and now this?

I'd take Hill but still there is no absolute way to compare them as they didnt play each other in their primes


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Carter easily.


----------



## Hairy Midget (Nov 28, 2005)

Air Fly said:


> Carter easily.


You could have just left a blank post and we would have assumed your answer.


----------



## STUCKEY! (Aug 31, 2005)

Hill.


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

Grant Hill was not have been a better 3 point shooter but certainly had a reliable mid range game. Carter's offensive game is not superior to Hill. Hill's last full season in Detroit showed his efficiency, shooting 49% while getting 25 ppg, 6 rpg, and 5 rpg. Too bad the guy could never stay healthy and most of his prime was overshadowed by the Bull's dynasty.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

f22egl said:


> Grant Hill was not have been a better 3 point shooter but certainly had a reliable mid range game. Carter's offensive game is not superior to Hill. Hill's last full season in Detroit showed his efficiency, shooting 49% while getting 25 ppg, 6 rpg, and 5 rpg. Too bad the guy could never stay healthy and most of his prime was overshadowed by the Bull's dynasty.


So you dont think the fact that he rarely shot the 3 ball would have an effect on his FG%


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

JNice said:


> I'd take Hill, but not in a wash. Too bad he was cut short right as he was going into his prime. Watching a healthy Hill and Tmac would have been a sight to see.


That team could be a dynasty right now if they kept all their stars, and assuming that all of these guys are injury free.

Tmac
Hardaway
Hill
Dwight
Shaq

who's gonna stop that starting five?

Sadly, I could not watch Grant Hill in his prime, but I did get the chance to see what VC did on the court. In his prime days (second season to third season) he was my Michael Jordan. The way he dunked and his almost endless range, it was amazing to a little kid like me...VC for me.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

There's not any real comparison because Grant was so much more well rounded...But honestly Hill was still getting better when his injury problems began and noone has any idea how good he could have been.


----------



## NJ+VC (Feb 8, 2005)

as mosst of the younger people here, never really saw hill in his prime so no vote


----------



## dwade3 (Sep 12, 2005)

JNice said:


> He was no Ron Artest, but he was a better defender than Carter. Actually, even recently when healthy I was surprised at how well he defended. He's a smart defender and a position defender. He's not going to try to block the shot or take many risks. One of the last times Orlando played the Lakers I was pleasantly surprised at how well Grant handled Kobe one on one. One of the better defensive jobs I've seen on Kobe.


i remember that game......he did defend well.....id take Hill over VC on most days, he could post up better, better midrange....rebound, pass with the best of them....


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

Voting for Vince in this particular circumstance is crazy. Hill was the ultimate team player, and could do anything you ask him. Especially if you consider this Vince's prime, Hill was a better player in almost every facet of the game.


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

HB said:


> Hill was the better all round player, Vince is and was the superior offensive player.


Scorer, probably, offensive player, probably not. Grant Hill was a phenomenal passer and playmaker, and even if Vince is underrated in this category, Hill still blows him away.

And _AirFly_, do you mind explaining how Vince is 'easily' better than a prime Grant Hill?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Grant Hill


----------



## DuMa (Dec 25, 2004)

hill was a triple double machine happening every night. he was the next big O


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Ras said:


> Scorer, probably, offensive player, probably not. Grant Hill was a phenomenal passer and playmaker, and even if Vince is underrated in this category, Hill still blows him away.
> 
> *And AirFly, do you mind explaining how Vince is 'easily' better than a prime Grant Hill*?


Jersey homer.


----------



## ludovico (Mar 29, 2006)

Carter is one of the players I like the most, but Grant Hill in his prime was better than him.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

jericho said:


> He pretty clearly needed a brilliant running mate to get to the Finals...someone who was an equal talent but had complementary strengths (like, oh, Tracy McGrady?).


If your definition of brilliant means McGrady or better, then I disagree. The list of Hill's best teamates before he was hurt reads Bison Dele, Jerry Stackhouse, and Lindsey Hunter. Forget about him playing with someone of McGrady's caliber - he never even played with anyone one or two tiers below that. If he did, then the Pistons playoff performances would have been quite different. And Hill's quiet, leading-by-example demeanor would have been applauded instead of criticized, a la Tim Duncan.

As for the the comparison, Carter is the better scorer, but Hill has him beat in all other categories. I'll take Hill.


----------



## Auggie (Mar 7, 2004)

grant heal (damn injuries)


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

Ras said:


> Scorer, probably, offensive player, probably not. Grant Hill was a phenomenal passer and playmaker, and even if Vince is underrated in this category, Hill still blows him away.
> 
> And _AirFly_, do you mind explaining how Vince is 'easily' better than a prime Grant Hill?


Come on now. He's Air Fly. He's a VC homer.

Carter was the better scorer & shooter but Hill was a better all around player.


----------



## fruitcake (Mar 20, 2005)

neoxsupreme said:


> Carter was the better scorer & shooter but Hill was a better all around player.


I agree.

Grant Hill used to be a lock for the hall of fame


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

fruitcake said:


> I agree.
> 
> Grant Hill used to be a lock for the hall of fame


It definitely looked like he was headed for the hall. It's unfortunate injuries had to ruin his career.


----------



## EwingStarksOakley94 (May 13, 2003)

Grant Hill


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Ras said:


> Scorer, probably, offensive player, probably not. Grant Hill was a phenomenal passer and playmaker, and even if Vince is underrated in this category, Hill still blows him away.
> 
> And _AirFly_, do you mind explaining how Vince is 'easily' better than a prime Grant Hill?


Carter in his prime averaged 27.6 ppg, 6 RPG and 4 assists, while shooting 46% and 40% from the 3 point. He was the nba nex Michael Jordan.

In the playoffs Carter put up numbers that are way better than Hills.

Stats don't lie. Carter is and will always be better than Hill.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

neoxsupreme said:


> Come on now. He's Air Fly. He's a VC homer.
> 
> Carter was the better scorer & shooter but Hill was a better all around player.


Homer but i argue with facts. Watching VC in his prime nobody was as good as him imo except Kobe. He was out of this World.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

When was the last time Grant Hill was comared to Micheal Jordan? When was the last time Grant Hill carried a team into the playoffs? When was the last time Grant Hill took a team to the second round?


----------



## Black Mamba 24 (Jul 20, 2006)

Hill, better player and person.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> When was the last time Grant Hill was comared to Micheal Jordan? When was the last time Grant Hill carried a team into the playoffs? When was the last time Grant Hill took a team to the second round?


How long has his prime lasted? What is his career playoffs average? He fall shorts compared to Vince in those catagories. He did get a little comparison to Jordan but Carter was the stronger candidate of course.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Black Mamba 24 said:


> Hill, better player and person.


How can you really judge if he is a better person? Do you know Hill personally? 

BTW Air Fly, me thinks Vince is in his prime right now, not when he first came into the league.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Air Fly said:


> How long has his prime lasted? What is his career playoffs average? He fall shorts compared to Vince in those catagories. He did get a little comparison to Jordan but Carter was the stronger candidate of course.




I know that. I'm just saying Hill has always been a person who put good numbers on bad teams.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

HB said:


> How can you really judge if he is a better person? Do you know Hill personally?
> 
> BTW Air Fly, me thinks Vince is in his prime right now, not when he first came into the league.


Well to be honest, i don't think Vince now is as good as he was back in 01. He's not even a top 10 player when people discuss him in general. Back then, he was top 5-7 player. Thats the truth.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Hill career high in points is 46. Carter 51 twice without counting how many 45+ points he scored during his career. He's the superior offfensive player no doubt.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

HB said:


> How can you really judge if he is a better person? Do you know Hill personally?
> 
> BTW Air Fly, me thinks Vince is in his prime right now, not when he first came into the league.



It is pretty easy to judge Hill is a better person. Hill is widely known as one of the better guys in all of sports and is considered somewhat of a renaissance man. And while Hill spent countless months doing rehab for 4 years just to get back on the court when he could have easily untied his shoes and cashed his checks, Vince selfishly tanked in Toronto just to get himself moved ripping of the organization and the fans who supported him. Carter is not nearly as respected as Hill in many various ways.

It is quite easily to see the consensus among the thread aside from an expected few. And to say Carter takes Hill easily, that is laughably ludicrous.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

JNice said:


> It is pretty easy to judge Hill is a better person. Hill is widely known as one of the better guys in all of sports and is considered somewhat of a renaissance man. And while Hill spent countless months doing rehab for 4 years just to get back on the court when he could have easily untied his shoes and cashed his checks, Vince selfishly tanked in Toronto just to get himself moved ripping of the organization and the fans who supported him. Carter is not nearly as respected as Hill in many various ways.
> 
> It is quite easily to see the consensus among the thread aside from an expected few. And to say Carter takes Hill easily, that is laughably ludicrous.


Just rememer that a few years ago, Kobe was the golden boy of the league. The fact lies that as long as we dont know whats going through the other person's mind, who are we to judge. Vince made a huge mistake with the way he went about things in Toronto, does that mean we should discredit the numerous good things he has done for the city and the countless charity work he has done. Does that mean the one Toronto incident makes him a bad person?


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Just rememer that a few years ago, Kobe was the golden boy of the league. The fact lies that as long as we dont know whats going through the other person's mind, who are we to judge. Vince made a huge mistake with the way he went about things in Toronto, does that mean we should discredit the numerous good things he has done for the city and the countless charity work he has done. Does that mean the one Toronto incident means he is a bad person?


No, but it can still be taken into consideration when comparing him to Grant Hill. And I never thought Kobe was the golden boy ...


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

JNice said:


> It is pretty easy to judge Hill is a better person. Hill is widely known as one of the better guys in all of sports and is considered somewhat of a renaissance man. And while Hill spent countless months doing rehab for 4 years just to get back on the court when he could have easily untied his shoes and cashed his checks, Vince selfishly tanked in Toronto just to get himself moved ripping of the organization and the fans who supported him. Carter is not nearly as respected as Hill in many various ways.
> 
> It is quite easily to see the consensus among the thread aside from an expected few. And to say Carter takes Hill easily, that is laughably ludicrous.


I doubt many people here have watched full games of VC in his prime rather just highlights of his dunks. Hence, the "Hill is better" comments with no facts backing it up. Really, the only thing Hill got on Vince is a slight edge on defence.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Air Fly said:


> I doubt many people here have watched full games of VC in his prime rather just highlights of his dunks. Hence, the "Hill is better" comments with no facts backing it up. Really, the only thing Hill got on Vince is a slight edge on defence.


lol ... again, laughably ludicrous. I've watched Vince since HS and he even played my HS team. Hill was a better player. The only things Carter had on Hill were deep outside shooting and dunking. And dunking is pretty and exciting but it still only counts two points and there wasn't a better finisher on the break than Hill ... even if they were layups some of the time.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Air Fly said:


> Really, the only thing Hill got on Vince is a slight edge on defence.


...and passing, rebounding, scoring efficiency, etc.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

JNice said:


> lol ... again, laughably ludicrous. I've watched Vince since HS and he even played my HS team. Hill was a better player. The only things Carter had on Hill were deep outside shooting and dunking. And dunking is pretty and exciting but it still only counts two points and there wasn't a better finisher on the break than Hill ... even if they were layups some of the time.


So you wanna argue that Hill is a better scorer than Carter? thats laughable, stats don't lie my man.


----------



## Black Mamba 24 (Jul 20, 2006)

And ball handling...


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

HB said:


> So you dont think the fact that he rarely shot the 3 ball would have an effect on his FG%


Yes, but it has little effect on his eFG%, which was 50% or above in his best two seasons. Carter achieved this once [in '01], shooting an impressive 51% [eFG%].


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

How long was Hill's prime? Was it even long enough to make this comparison. He has only averaged over 25 ppg once in his career. Ever since then his numbers have drastically gone down. And unlike Airfly, I actually think Vince is in his prime right now as he is a much complete player. 

A better comparison would be Hill and Penny


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Air Fly said:


> So you wanna argue that Hill is a better scorer than Carter? thats laughable, stats don't lie my man.



Where did I say that? Carter was a marginally better scorer but there is more to the game than PPG, which I know some people have a hard time realizing. Hill PPG wasn't too shabby and he was much more efficient.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

HB said:


> How long was Hill's prime? Was it even long enough to make this comparison. He has only averaged over 25 ppg once in his career. Ever since then his numbers have drastically gone down. And unlike Airfly, I actually think Vince is in his prime right now as he is a much complete player.
> 
> A better comparison would be Hill and Penny



Again, all you bring up is PPG. In 95-96 Hill nearly averaged 20-10-7 ... Carter can't sniff that type of all-around game.

And I think it is safe to assume that Hill would have continued with the numbers he was putting up, if not bettered them. Of course with Hill's injuries there have to be some assumptions.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

HB said:


> *How long was Hill's prime?* Was it even long enough to make this comparison. He has only averaged over 25 ppg once in his career. Ever since then his numbers have drastically gone down. And unlike Airfly, I actually think Vince is in his prime right now as he is a much complete player.
> 
> A better comparison would be Hill and Penny


Exactly, Carter's prime lasted longer. So this comparison goes to Vince due to longetivity and him being the superior player offensivley.

Compare Penny to Hill. Now you get a good comparison.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

JNice said:


> Again, all you bring up is PPG. In 95-96 Hill nearly averaged 20-10-7 ... Carter can't sniff that type of all-around game.


Dude my point has always been Vince was the better scorer. Go read my earlier posts, I said Hill was the better all round player.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Air Fly said:


> So you wanna argue that Hill is a better scorer than Carter? thats laughable, stats don't lie my man.


In Grant Hill's best scoring season ['00, in my opinion] he was just as good of a scorer as Carter in his best season ['01, in my opinion]. Hill was slightly more efficient and scored almost exactly as much as Carter [slightly less, by about .017 points per possession]. It is very arguable. "Stats don't lie."


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Dude my point has always been Vince was the better scorer. Go read my earlier posts, I said Hill was the better all round player.


Sorry, my brain can only process so much outright homerism until it begins to overheat and shutdown.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Premier said:


> In Grant Hill's best season ['00, in my opinion] he was just as good of a scorer as Carter in his best season ['01, in my opinion]. Hill was slightly more efficient and scored almost exactly as much as Carter [slightly less, by about .017 points per possession]. It is very arguable. "Stats don't lie."


I'd say Vince's best season was two seasons ago when he joined the Nets. 46% from the field and over 40% from 3, and still putting up a respectable 27 points per and the nice touch rules werent in effect either. Of course some would argue that it was over 50 or so games, but seriously the man was in a zone I dont think anything could have stopped him.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

JNice said:


> Sorry, my brain can only process so much outright homerism until it begins to overheat and shutdown.


Or your just always grasping for straws, trying to find an arguement when there is none.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

JNice said:


> Again, all you bring up is PPG. In 95-96 Hill nearly averaged 20-10-7 ... Carter can't sniff that type of all-around game.
> 
> And I think it is safe to assume that Hill would have continued with the numbers he was putting up, if not bettered them. Of course with Hill's injuries there have to be some assumptions.


That don't mean nothing. Going by that logic, Hill all-around game is better player than most of these elite wing players. You have to take the circumstances players are playing in when including stats like rebounds and assists in your argument.


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

HB said:


> *How long was Hill's prime? Was it even long enough to make this comparison*. He has only averaged over 25 ppg once in his career. Ever since then his numbers have drastically gone down. And unlike Airfly, I actually think Vince is in his prime right now as he is a much complete player.
> 
> A better comparison would be Hill and Penny





> In their *absolute prime*, who would you take and why?


 Grant Hill's prime > Vince's prime whether you think its the beginning of his career or now.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Or your just always grasping for straws, trying to find an arguement when there is none.


Yep, that must be it ... that must be it.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

JNice said:


> Again, all you bring up is PPG. In 95-96 Hill nearly averaged 20-10-7 ... Carter can't sniff that type of all-around game.
> 
> And I think it is safe to assume that Hill would have continued with the numbers he was putting up, if not bettered them. Of course with Hill's injuries there have to be some assumptions.


Are you sure that even w/o injuries he would of continued those stats b/c he had Tracy McGrady in Orlando? Who was the better player between Tracy & Hill? I think he would of been the 2nd option to TMac but would of been the Magic's top playmaker since Darrell Armstrong isn't that strong @ distributing.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

HB said:


> I'd say Vince's best season was two seasons ago when he joined the Nets. 46% from the field and over 40% from 3, and still putting up a respectable 27 points per and the nice touch rules werent in effect either. Of course some would argue that it was over 50 or so games, but seriously the man was in a zone I dont think anything could have stopped him.


Hill, in the '99-'00 season, averaged more points than Vince Carter, in the '04-'05 season [with the Nets], after standardising the amount of shot-attempts and possessions used.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

JNice said:


> Yep, that must be it ... that must be it.


LOL am only joking J :clown:


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Air Fly said:


> That don't mean nothing. Going by that logic, Hill all-around game is better player than most of these elite wing players. You have to take the circumstances players are playing in when including stats like rebounds and assists in your argument.



Hill's all-around game was as good or better than most elite wing players, including today's wings. That is why he was a surefire HOF'er and considered one of, if not the best, all-around player in the game before his ankle injury.

So what circumstances am I supposed to take into account? What a load.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Premier said:


> Hill, in the '99-'00 season, averaged more points than Vince Carter, in the '04-'05 season [with the Nets], after standardising the amount of shot-attempts and possessions used.


And thats why I said Vince WITH the Nets


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Premier said:


> In Grant Hill's best scoring season ['00, in my opinion] he was just as good of a scorer as Carter in his best season ['01, in my opinion]. Hill was slightly more efficient and scored almost exactly as much as Carter [slightly less, by about .017 points per possession]. It is very arguable. "Stats don't lie."


Thats 1 season. Carter's prime lasted longer, see the difference?


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

neoxsupreme said:


> Are you sure that even w/o injuries he would of continued those stats b/c he had Tracy McGrady in Orlando? Who was the better player between Tracy & Hill? I think he would of been the 2nd option to TMac but would of been the Magic's top playmaker since Darrell Armstrong isn't that strong @ distributing.



He likely would have gone down from the 25 ppg and gone back to the 20-10-7 type numbers he was putting up before ... but let's remember, Tmac wasn't "Tmac" when he got signed to Orlando. He developed into the crazy scoring machine he became. No way initially Hill would have been 2nd banana to Tmac right off the bat. Although in the scoring department it would have happened soon thereafter.

Had Hill been healthy, Tmac's game might have evolved much differently than it did. He wouldn't have needed to score 30+ ppg for Orlando to be able to win some games.


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

neoxsupreme said:


> Are you sure that even w/o injuries he would of continued those stats b/c he had Tracy McGrady in Orlando? Who was the better player between Tracy & Hill? I think he would of been the 2nd option to TMac but would of been the Magic's top playmaker since Darrell Armstrong isn't that strong @ distributing.


T-Mac would've been the 2nd option to Hill. Hill was a a lock for the HOF and T-Mac was a defensive stopper with lots of potential. Not to mention the Magic nearly got Tim Duncan that offseason as well.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">Originally Posted by *HB*

And thats why I said Vince WITH the Nets
</td></tr></tbody></table>
I guess you missed this:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Hill, in the '99-'00 season, averaged more points than Vince Carter, in the '04-'05 season *[with the Nets]*, after standardising the amount of shot-attempts and possessions used.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Air Fly said:


> Thats 1 season. Carter's prime lasted longer, see the difference?


The OP asked about their "absolute prime."


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

T-Mac was the 2nd best player on the Raptors teams when he played alongside VC. Hill was the 2nd option when he played w/ T-Mac therefore VC was the better player :biggrin: . [/sarcasm]


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Premier said:


> <table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">Originally Posted by *HB*
> 
> And thats why I said Vince WITH the Nets
> </td></tr></tbody></table>
> ...



Grant Hill 99-00 season 25.8ppg 74 games
Vince Carter 04-05 Season 27.5ppg 57 games (NETS)

Of course maybe thats what you meant by standardizing it, but thats all hypothetical both you and I cant evaluate fully what would happen if Vince played the same amount of games. People arent machines, you cant expect them to do the same thing over and over again.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

JNice said:


> Hill's all-around game was as good or better than most elite wing players, including today's wings. That is why he was a surefire HOF'er and considered one of, if not the best, all-around player in the game before his ankle injury.
> 
> So what circumstances am I supposed to take into account? What a load.


Hill was a crazy rebounder and a good passer, but due to injuries i say Vince is better cuz of longetivity.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

K-Dub said:


> T-Mac would've been the 2nd option to Hill. Hill was a a lock for the HOF and T-Mac was a defensive stopper with lots of potential. Not to mention the Magic nearly got Tim Duncan that offseason as well.


Would've? Your just basing this on your own assumption. Maybe T-Mac improved so much he surpassed Hill.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

HB said:


> Grant Hill 99-00 season 25.8ppg 74 games
> Vince Carter 04-05 Season 27.5ppg 57 games (NETS)
> 
> Of course maybe thats what you meant by standardizing it, but thats all hypothetical both you and I cant evaluate fully what would happen if Vince played the same amount of games. People arent machines, you cant expect them to do the same thing over and over again.


I remember lotta of the media people saying if the regular season was a bit longer Carter would have broke the 30 ppg mark. Dude was unreal scoring 40 a night like it's nothing. He was on a mission.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

K-Dub said:


> T-Mac would've been the 2nd option to Hill. Hill was a a lock for the HOF and T-Mac was a defensive stopper with lots of potential. Not to mention the Magic nearly got Tim Duncan that offseason as well.


I highly doubt that. And am pretty sure Tmac wasnt going to Orlando to play second fiddle to Hill when he could have done that in Toronto with Vince.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Air Fly said:


> Hill was a crazy rebounder and a good passer, but due to injuries i say Vince is better cuz of *longetivity*.


Yep, he just dropped 30/7/5 in the playoffs this past season. Something Hill has yet and will never get close to accomplish. Sadly.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Air Fly said:


> Hill was a crazy rebounder and a good passer, but due to injuries i say Vince is better cuz of longetivity.



:laugh: ... now the argument shifts. Well you'd have to be a real idiot to say you'd take Hill over Carter over the last 6-7 years. DeShawn Stevenson would be a better option than an injured Hill sitting on the bench for four years. But the argument is basically an assumption of who is better in a perfect world where the injuries did not occur.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

HB said:


> I highly doubt that. And am pretty sure Tmac wasnt going to Orlando to play second fiddle to Hill when he could have done that in Toronto with Vince.



I completely disagree. At least initially ... Tmac signed to play with Hill, not the other way around.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

HB said:


> Grant Hill 99-00 season 25.8ppg 74 games
> Vince Carter 04-05 Season 27.5ppg 57 games (NETS)
> 
> Of course maybe thats what you meant by standardizing it, but thats all hypothetical both you and I cant evaluate fully what would happen if Vince played the same amount of games. People arent machines, you cant expect them to do the same thing over and over again.


Hills' points per 40 minutes in '99-'00: 27.5
Carter's points per 40 minutes in '04-'05 with Nets: 28.3

Hill's TS% in '99-'00: 56.5%
Carter's TS% in '04-'05 with Nets: 55.6%

Hills' estimated amount of possessions used per 40 minutes in '99-'00: 28.9
Carter's estimated amount of possessions used per 40 minutes in '04-'05 with Nets: 30.2


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

JNice said:


> :laugh: ... now the argument shifts. Well you'd have to be a real idiot to say you'd take Hill over Carter over the last 6-7 years. DeShawn Stevenson would be a better option than an injured Hill sitting on the bench for four years. But the argument is basically an assumption of who is better in a perfect world where the injuries did not occur.


And although am not buying Air Fly's arguement, if that was the case with both players not having any of the injuries they had, Vince would be my obvious choice. With the way he was playing the first two or 3 years in Toronto, he was unstoppable. In 2 years, he developed from a pretty bad 3 pt shooter into a very deadly one. The sky was the limit. I dont think any GM would have picked an older Hill over a young, budding Vince at that point.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

JNice said:


> I completely disagree. At least initially ... Tmac signed to play with Hill, not the other way around.


That i would agree with. I wouldn't even rule out that Tmac would have asked to be traded cuz thats the reason he screw Toronto over, not to play second fiddle to Carter.


----------



## Shady* (Jul 3, 2005)

Another player comparison without a poll...


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

JNice said:


> I completely disagree. At least initially ... Tmac signed to play with Hill, not the other way around.


With being the operative word, not as his sidekick but as an equal if not better.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Air Fly said:


> That i would agree with. I wouldn't even rule out that Tmac would have asked to be traded cuz thats the reason he screw Toronto not to play second fiddle to Carter.



So Tmac screwed Toronto and Vince didn't? :laugh: Tmac left as a free agent to go sign a max contract for the team playing in his hometown and for the opportunity to play with Hill who at the time was considered one of, if not the top, player in the league. And additionally, at the time, Orlando was still also trying to get Tim Duncan as well. So again, how did he screw Toronto? It just keeps getting better.

Initially Tmac would have been 2nd banana to Hill, but in the scoring department that wouldn't have lasted more than one season. Obviously Tmac is a world class scorer.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Premier said:


> Hills' points per 40 minutes in '99-'00: 27.5
> Carter's points per 40 minutes in '04-'05 with Nets: 28.3
> 
> Hill's TS% in '99-'00: 56.5%
> ...


This looks pretty close to me.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">  Originally Posted by *HB* This looks pretty close to me. 

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> 
It's fairly close, with Hill scoring more points. To say that arguing Hill, in his best scoring season, is as good of a scorer, if not better, as Carter, in his best scoring season, is "laughable" is wrong.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

JNice said:


> So Tmac screwed Toronto and Vince didn't? :laugh: Tmac left as a free agent to go sign a max contract for the team playing in his hometown and for the opportunity to play with Hill who at the time was considered one of, if not the top, player in the league. And additionally, at the time, Orlando was still also trying to get Tim Duncan as well. So again, how did he screw Toronto? It just keeps getting better.
> 
> Initially Tmac would have been 2nd banana to Hill, but in the scoring department that wouldn't have lasted more than one season. Obviously Tmac is a world class scorer.


I dunno much about the Tmac incident but all i know is that he gave his words to the raptors that he'll sign with them, but it was obviously all lies.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Air Fly said:


> I dunno much about the Tmac incident but all i know is that he gave his words to the raptors that he'll sign with them, but it was obviously all lies.



Yeah? And who told you that? The little birdy on your shoulder?

Hill > Carter


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

JNice said:


> Yeah? And who told you that? The little birdy on your shoulder?
> 
> Hill > Carter


It's common thing among raps fans hence they boo him everytime he comes to Toronto to play the raptors.

Carter > Hill.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Wow, i'm so sorry i'm so late to this thread, GRANT HILL easily in his prime over VC.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Anybody who picks Vince Carter over Grant Hill in their primes either doesn't know basketball, or hasn't been watching it very long (enough to stretch back to Hill from 94-99).

Ball Handling - Hill by a mile.
Passing - Hill by a mile.
Rebounding - Push, but i'd give the slight edge to Hill.
Scoring - Really a push, because Hill could've scored more if he wanted......but Vince is the better long distance shooter.
Leadership - Hill
Defense - Push


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Prolific Scorer said:


> Anybody who picks Vince Carter over Grant Hill in their primes either doesn't know basketball, or hasn't been watching it very long (enough to stretch back to Hill from 94-99).
> 
> Ball Handling - Hill by a mile.
> Passing - Hill by a mile.
> ...


Does those apply to Tmac as well? I'm just wondering.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Prolific Scorer said:


> Anybody who picks Vince Carter over Grant Hill in their primes either doesn't know basketball, or hasn't been watching it very long (enough to stretch back to Hill from 94-99).
> 
> Ball Handling - Hill by a mile.
> Passing - Hill by a mile.
> ...




LMAO!!!


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> LMAO!!!


Please, feel free to elaborate.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

I cant decide because i never saw Hill in his prime.
Heres another question(because i like to screw up threads and make them go OT :biggrin: ) Which one is/was better in their prime: AI or Hill? :biggrin:


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

It's hard to compare those two, but Hill single handedly took his team to the Playoffs year in and year out in Detroit , by himself.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

HB said:


> This looks pretty close to me.


and that just takes in scoring

thats why people say Hill was just a better all around player in his prime. Rebounding, passing, ball handling and defense all above Carter


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

Prolific Scorer said:


> It's hard to compare those two, but Hill single handedly took his team to the Playoffs year in and year out in Detroit , by himself.


At least Carter's lead his team to the East Semis twice. Hill has never gotten passed the 1st round in his career even when his team won 54 games in '97.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

neoxsupreme said:


> At least Carter's lead his team to the East Semis twice. Hill has never gotten passed the 1st round in his career even when his team won 54 games in '97.


Ding Ding Ding


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

neoxsupreme said:


> At least Carter's lead his team to the East Semis twice. Hill has never gotten passed the 1st round in his career even when his team won 54 games in '97.


Carter had a pretty good team in 01, full of very good role players, Alvin Williams, Antonio Davis, etc etc....but i'll give him that one, he was the undisputed leader of that team.

But last year, it wasn't just Carter alone with a cast of role players, he had 1 undisputed, and 1 soon to be all-star.

But i'll give you that one.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

But at the same time Grant Hill never had Charles Oakley call him out for his lack of leadership?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Prolific Scorer said:


> But at the same time Grant Hill never had Charles Oakley call him out for his lack of leadership?


Lol prolific you just contradicted yourself though. You already gave Hill the leadership edge, why would he need someone to call him out if he was a leader.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

I'm talking about Carter being called out by Oakley, not Hill...lol.


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

Unfortunately Hill never reached his prime potential, I think when he went to Orlando he was supposed to be in his prime, but I would take a detroit pistons Hill over a VC any day


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Grant Hill was one of the best penetrators i've ever seen, and that includes Jordan, Wade, LeBron, Kobe, anyone.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

DuMa said:


> hill was a triple double machine happening every night. he was the next big O


At one point Grant Hill was trouncing JKidd in triple doubles.

In his rookie year, lead the league with 10.
Sophomore year, lead the league in triple doubles again.

I think he's at 29 right now which is pretty impressive considering his lack of floor time.
Put that in context:

1) Robertson - 181
2) Magic Johnson - 138
3) Chamberlain - 78
4) Kidd - 75
5) Bird - 59

At the pace he was going at, he would had been closing in at Johnson at this point.

-Petey


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Ding Ding Ding



Ding Ding Ding Bat. The "never got out of the first round" argument is one of the most over-used and useless arguments used. KG hasn't exactly had the greatest playoff success in the world. So is Carter better than KG? It's a useless argument when comparing two players.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

JNice said:


> Ding Ding Ding Bat. The "never got out of the first round" argument is one of the most over-used and useless arguments used. KG hasn't exactly had the greatest playoff success in the world. So is Carter better than KG? It's a useless argument when comparing two players.


Useless lmao. Hill's pistons team won 54 games one year. Thats a pretty good team I'd say. So is it Vince's fault that he actually had some playoff success.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Useless lmao. Hill's pistons team won 54 games one year. Thats a pretty good team I'd say. So is it Vince's fault that he actually had some playoff success.



I didn't say it is Vince's fault his _teams _ have had playoff success. I think you missed (ie, ignored) the point.

And Hill's 54 win team lost to a 56 win team (a pretty good team I'd say). So that is Hill's fault?


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

I guess HB didn't want to rebuttle to the Oakley point....figures.

Good Point J.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Prolific Scorer said:


> I guess HB didn't want to rebuttle to the Oakley point....figures.
> 
> Good Point J.


Well cause everyone will tell you Vince isnt a leader, so him being called out by Oakley isnt really that out of place. Why would Hill need such motivation

Oh BTW Jnice, just trying to say for a guy that was viewed as the next Jordan you'd think whilst he was relatively healthy he would have better playoff success


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

Prolific Scorer said:


> Please, feel free to elaborate.


The guy lmao at you? Why do u want to elborate when you are being mocked? lol, I wouldnt ask!


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Oh BTW Jnice, just trying to say for a guy that was viewed as the next Jordan you'd think whilst he was relatively healthy he would have better playoff success



Well, the Jordan comparisons obviously weren't fair. Hill was more Pippen than Jordan. But Hill's team never lost a series against a team that didn't come in with a better record.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

JNice said:


> Well, the Jordan comparisons obviously weren't fair. Hill was more Pippen than Jordan.  But Hill's team never lost a series against a team that didn't come in with a better record.


Have you even seen his playoff numbers, for a guy who supposedly was one of the premier players at that period of time, it sure doesnt look like he stepped up his play when it matters. Now I am waiting on someone to tell me thats a useless arguement


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

John said:


> The guy lmao at you? Why do u want to elborate when you are being mocked? lol, I wouldnt ask!


You do not have the authority to tell posters whether they are allowed to enjoy this website. We do not tolerate this. Don't do it again.

- *Premier*


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Have you even seen his playoff numbers, for a guy who supposedly was one of the premier players at that period of time, it sure doesnt look like he stepped up his play when it matters. Now I am waiting on someone to tell me thats a useless arguement



His playoff numbers are about the same as his career numbers. And I'm not certain, but given he only played 15 playoff games his numbers were likely skewed by the last playoffs series where he was actually playing on a broken ankle.

Here is some more ammo for Hill. Carter can't match these credentials.



> Grant Hill was drafted by the Detroit Pistons with the third pick in the NBA Draft after graduating from Duke in 1994. In his first season, Hill averaged 19.9 points, 6.4 rebounds, 5.0 assists and 1.77 steals per game, sharing NBA Rookie the Year honors with Jason Kidd. *He was named to the all-NBA first team in 1997* and also regularly played in the NBA All-Star Game, where he made history by being the first rookie ever to lead an NBA All-Star fan balloting (1994-95), narrowly defeating Shaquille O'Neal. In his second season (1995-96), he once again led the fan balloting, this time edging Michael Jordan (his first All-Star game after returning from retirement). During the 1995-96 season, Hill showcased his all-round abilities by *leading the NBA in triple doubles* (10). He also won a gold medal at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta as a member of the U.S. Men's Basketball Team. Hill's 1996-97 season was his finest yet with averages of 21.4 points, 9.0 rebounds, 7.3 assists and 1.80 steals per game. *Once again, he led the league in triple-doubles, where his 13 represented 35 percent of the league's triple-double total*. He was awarded NBA's IBM award, given to the player with the biggest statistical contributions to his team. *He finished third in MVP voting, behind Karl Malone and Michael Jordan*. In the shortened 1999 season, as he *led his team in points, rebounds and assists for the third time, Hill joined Wilt Chamberlain and Elgin Baylor as the only players in NBA history to lead their teams in scoring, rebounding and assists more than once*.


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

HB said:


> So you dont think the fact that he rarely shot the 3 ball would have an effect on his FG%


That has a high effect and also the fact that he did not have to shoot the three because Allan Houston was a capable outside shooter who complimented Hill's weakness. His last season in Detroit indicated that his three point shooting increased to 98 attempts while shooting 35% but he played to the strenghts to his game. 

I believe in comparison to Grant Hill, Carter shoots too many three pointers especially with somebody of his skill set. Vince Carter may be one of the best (if not the best) at getting to the rim but does not do it enough. He has a consistent three point shot but he would not be confused as being an elite shooter. Also, as of late, his three point shooting does not appear to show up in the postseason where he only shot 25%. Against the Heat, he shot 20% yet attempted 5 three pointers a game. 

Hill was much better in his era at getting to the free throw line. While Carter and Hill's free throw attempts are similar, they played in different eras. Defenders could get away with much more on defense (hand check) which deflate Hill's free throw attempts to the modern era. Still, Hill was within the top 5 of free throw attempts from 1998 to 2000 while Carter has never been, which is surprising for someone who has that ability to get to the rim.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

f22egl said:


> That has a high effect and also the fact that he did not have to shoot the three *because Allan Houston was a capable outside shooter who complimented Hill's weakness*. His last season in Detroit indicated that his three point shooting increased to 98 attempts while shooting 35% but he played to the strenghts to his game.
> 
> *I believe in comparison to Grant Hill, Carter shoots too many three pointers especially with somebody of his skill set. Vince Carter may be one of the best (if not the best) at getting to the rim but does not do it enough*. He has a consistent three point shot but he would not be confused as being an elite shooter. Also, as of late, his three point shooting does not appear to show up in the postseason where he only shot 25%. Against the Heat, he shot 20% yet attempted 5 three pointers a game.
> 
> *Hill was much better in his era at getting to the free throw line*. While Carter and Hill's free throw attempts are similar, they played in different eras. Defenders could get away with much more on defense (hand check) which deflate Hill's free throw attempts to the modern era. Still, Hill was within the top 5 of free throw attempts from 1998 to 2000 while Carter has never been, which is surprising for someone who has that ability to get to the rim.



Allan Houston only played 2 seasons in Detroit.

Carter doesn't attack the rim as much as Hill because he's not that good of a ballhandler, or a dribble penetrator.

Hill got to the rim and to the line more because he was a top notch (one of the greatest) ball handlers for a 3. Actually probably had the best handles for a SF in NBA history (Even better than LeBron).


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

JNice said:


> His playoff numbers are about the same as his career numbers. And I'm not certain, but given he only played 15 playoff games his numbers were likely skewed by the last playoffs series where he was actually playing on a broken ankle.
> 
> Here is some more ammo for Hill. Carter can't match these credentials.


Thats very nice of Hill. The regular season accomplishments are very nice. I dont know what your trying to get at, but for a guy who has had so much accomplishments you dont think 15 playoff games is a bit low. Not only that, with those 15 games his numbers should certainly be better being such a low sample. Vince on the other hand in 30 playoff games is averaging 27 points per, and virtually the same amount of rebounds and assists that Hill has.

And oh by the way, the playoffs are usually the best indicator of a player's true worth. Those are when the games actually matter.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

HB said:


> Thats very nice of Hill. The regular season accomplishments are very nice. I dont know what your trying to get at, but for a guy who has had so much accomplishments you dont think 15 playoff games is a bit low. Not only that, with those 15 games his numbers should certainly be better being such a low sample. Vince on the other hand in 30 playoff games is averaging 27 points per, and virtually the same amount of rebounds and assists that Hill has.
> 
> And oh by the way, the playoffs are usually the best indicator of a player's true worth. Those are when the games actually matter.


Yeah but you're acting like Vince has been spectacular or has done so much in the Postseason.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

f22egl said:


> That has a high effect and also the fact that he did not have to shoot the three because Allan Houston was a capable outside shooter who complimented Hill's weakness. His last season in Detroit indicated that his three point shooting increased to 98 attempts while shooting 35% but he played to the strenghts to his game.
> 
> I believe in comparison to Grant Hill, Carter shoots too many three pointers especially with somebody of his skill set. Vince Carter may be one of the best (if not the best) at getting to the rim but does not do it enough. He has a consistent three point shot but he would not be confused as being an elite shooter. Also, as of late, his three point shooting does not appear to show up in the postseason where he only shot 25%. Against the Heat, he shot 20% yet attempted 5 three pointers a game.
> 
> Hill was much better in his era at getting to the free throw line. While Carter and Hill's free throw attempts are similar, they played in different eras. Defenders could get away with much more on defense (hand check) which deflate Hill's free throw attempts to the modern era. Still, Hill was within the top 5 of free throw attempts from 1998 to 2000 while Carter has never been, which is surprising for someone who has that ability to get to the rim.


Vince's 3pt shooting was pretty bad this year. I dont know what happened, but during the playoffs he did try to avoid falling in love with it. He would get the ball at the 3pt line then hesitate before driving or passing out. Usually those shots were going up without any second guessing.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

HB said:


> And oh by the way, the playoffs are usually the best indicator of a player's true worth. Those are when the games actually matter.



That's nice rhetoric. Meaningless, but nice.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Prolific Scorer said:


> Yeah but you're acting like Vince has been spectacular or has done so much in the Postseason.


Sadly he hasnt made it to the finals yet, but hey his career isnt over yet. But I'd say his 27/7/5 playoff averages arent too shabby.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

JNice said:


> That's nice rhetoric. Meaningless, but nice.


LOL was that all you got out of that post. Short and precise


----------



## thacarter (Mar 27, 2006)

Prolific Scorer said:


> Yeah but you're acting like Vince has been spectacular or has done so much in the Postseason.


Better than Tmac in the playoffs :banana: ...but before u come at me,yes i know that indeed Tmac>>>Carter and the reason being Tmac's jumper is deadly when hes on fire,its the range that gives him the nod over his cousin


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

HB said:


> Sadly he hasnt made it to the finals yet, but hey his career isnt over yet. But I'd say his 27/7/5 playoff averages arent too shabby.


But what does this have to do with making Carter a better player than Hill?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Prolific Scorer said:


> But what does this have to do with making Carter a better player than Hill?


Everything my friend, everything.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

thacarter said:


> Better than Tmac in the playoffs :banana: ...but before u come at me,yes i know that indeed Tmac>>>Carter and the reason being Tmac's jumper is deadly when hes on fire,its the range that gives him the nod over his cousin


No, Tracy being better at every facet of the game than Vince makes him better, silly.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

HB said:


> Everything my friend, everything.


LOL, you've lost.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Prolific Scorer said:


> LOL, you've lost.


Not that it really matters to me if you think have won or lost, but read this again



HB said:


> Thats very nice of Hill. The regular season accomplishments are very nice. I dont know what your trying to get at, but for a guy who has had so much accomplishments you dont think 15 playoff games is a bit low. Not only that, with those 15 games his numbers should certainly be better being such a low sample. Vince on the other hand in 30 playoff games is averaging 27 points per, and virtually the same amount of rebounds and assists that Hill has.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

I really dont understand what you are arguing HB

you said Hill was the better all around player (at least that was admitted) in your first post of the thread, and now you are bring in playoff numbers to try to dispel what you said earlier?


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

HB said:


> Not that it really matters to me if you think have won or lost, but read this again


LOL, 15 games would be low if he played more than 15-50 games for the last 6 seasons.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Prolific Scorer said:


> LOL, 15 games would be low if he played more than 15-50 games for the last 6 seasons.


But we are talking about his prime, his injury concerns didnt start till later on his career. You dont think with the way he was playing back then he should have done more.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

wadeshaqeddie said:
 

> I really dont understand what you are arguing HB
> 
> you said Hill was the better all around player (at least that was admitted) in your first post of the thread, and now you are bring in playoff numbers to try to dispel what you said earlier?


Hill was also a better all round player than most of the guys in the league right now, dont think anyone would be starting a team with him though.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

When arguing who's a better player in their respective primes, we're judging by talent, playoff games or appearances nothing to do with a player's talent level. 

Playoff games are god / team willing.

Someone said Tracy was better than Vince, but Tracy went though a 19 game losing streak and a 21 win season.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Prolific Scorer said:


> When arguing who's a better player in their respective primes, we're judging by talent, playoff games or appearances nothing to do with a player's talent level.
> 
> Playoff games are god / team willing.
> 
> Someone said Tracy was better than Vince, but Tracy went though a 19 game losing streak and a 21 win season.


Good point, but if you are comparing two players what do you use to judge? Stats right


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Well IMO when people just base all their arguements off stats, in certain situations, it's wrong.

Because if you're a knowledgable NBA fan, and remember this is just my opinion.....

You can tell who's better just by watching players play.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

It's kind of hard to explain.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

Prolific Scorer said:


> You do not have the authority to tell posters whether they are allowed to enjoy this website. We do not tolerate this. Don't do it again.
> 
> - *Premier*


why emotional? Come on.. Accept the challenge.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

John said:


> why emotional? Come on.. *Accept the challenge*.


Sorry, i'm not up for brick breaking with my head....maybe next time.


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

HB said:


> Good point, but if you are comparing two players what do you use to judge? Stats right


Stats are different by era especially since they encompass different players and in some cases different rules. What also has to be taken into account is how they performed in different eras in comparison with their peers.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

I went out for a while and came back to see HB owning people in this thread. Nice, lol.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Air Fly said:


> I went out for a while and came back to see HB owning people in this thread. Nice, lol.


Say NO to drugs.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Prolific Scorer said:


> In no way has HB owned anything in this argument.


Yes, he did.

How come you haven't answerd my question? Oh i get it, you agree, Hill in his prime is way better than Tmac also.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Air Fly said:


> Yes, he did.
> 
> How come you haven't answerd my question? Oh i get it, you agree, Hill in his prime is way better than Tmac also.


Possibly.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Air Fly said:


> I went out for a while and came back to see HB getting owned by people in this thread. Nice, lol.



Fixed.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

Grant Hill


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Referring to my initial question, I would easily pick Grant Hill over Vince Carter, of course this is neglecting the fact Hill's health in discussion. Grant Hill was just better in every aspect of the modern game besides scoring. This is not a knock on Carter in anyway, as he has proven he can co-exist with any player (so far in his career), but Grant Hill was rare back then in a sense of how rare Lebron's talent is in todays league. He was a player who can do it all, he can have an impact in a game and in turn involve his teammates in the process. Personally I believe Grant Hill has more leadership material in him, Vince Carter was given a chance in Toronto, he had a full license to run his team but his stint was not a complete success. Grant Hill had a similar run, a marquee/franchise type, only a lot less lucky, one of the many talented players whose opportunity was cut short.



Just to clear things up and avoid any animosity between some hardcore Vinsanity fanatics and Grant Hill supporters out here, I think these two players are too close in terms of impact and atleticism to determine and assess in general who has the advantage over the other, but its fun nonetheless to evaluate each players strenght and equally their flaws. So keep it civil guys...


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> Referring to my initial question, I would easily pick Grant Hill over Vince Carter, of course this is neglecting the fact Hill's health in discussion. Grant Hill was just better in every aspect of the modern game besides scoring. This is not a knock on Carter in anyway, as he has proven he can co-exist with any player (so far in his career), but Grant Hill was rare back then in a sense of how rare Lebron's talent is in todays league. He was a player who can do it all, he can have an impact in a game and in turn involve his teammates in the process. Personally I believe Grant Hill has more leadership material in him, Vince Carter was given a chance in Toronto, he had a full license to run his team but his stint was not a complete success. Grant Hill had a similar run, a marquee/franchise type, only a lot less lucky, one of the many talented players whose opportunity was cut short.
> 
> 
> 
> Just to clear things up and avoid any animosity between some hardcore Vinsanity fanatics and Grant Hill supporters out here, I think these two players are too close in terms of impact and atleticism to determine and assess in general who has the advantage over the other, but its fun nonetheless to evaluate each players strenght and equally their flaws. So keep it civil guys...


Great post


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> Just to clear things up and avoid any animosity between some hardcore Vinsanity fanatics and Grant Hill supporters out here, I think these two players are too close in terms of impact and atleticism to determine and assess in general who has the advantage over the other, but its fun nonetheless to evaluate each players strenght and equally their flaws. So keep it civil guys...


Civility is for the weak.

:sfight:


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Hill.... better in all aspects except the stamina and endurance in putting up shots.


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

grant hill never did it for me. i think i posted about it some months back, but i don't know if i can understand what people see/saw in him. he's a great human, he's had hollywood good looks forever and he comes from a fantastic gene pool, but how much does any of that really matter when you're talking hoops?

his early career stats will always be raised- always- but i'll personally vouch for the idea that those are really deceiving numbers (imo). he had good games and you'd be a sucker if you didn't have him on your fantasy team, but i never saw him as a 'winner'- whatever that is- at all. yes, he had a fantastic collegiate career at duke but he was playing behind two megastars for the meat of it. even then, though, it occured to me that he was getting a lot of (undeserved?) favorable press. i'm not saying he is/was a horrible player at any stage, he was consistently (imo) among the most valuable players on the floor, it's just that it always seemed a little contrived to me. 

now, i have nothing against grant hill, which would have to emphasize my point even more: i don't know if i could _be_ any more objective about anyone. i'm sure there's still a bias there (of some variety... on some level) but, my oh my, i'd have to be living an incredible lie for it to have achieved that kind of an effect on me.

what's more, i've long felt that this man has gotten off relatively easy in terms of public perception since he signed his max deal with orlando in 2000. i'm not saying he should be ripped, i'm just suggesting that most players in the same position _would_ be. how has he avoided the same? i don't know. we tend to flame signings like allan houston ("what a waste! nyc is a joke!") or even austin croshere, but what exactly has grant hill done in orlando to justify those enormous paychecks? again, i don't think he _should_ be blamed, but we appear to have some tolerance for his bad luck that we don't seem to have for anyone else's. i can't explain it.

anyway, this thread wasn't about that- so who would i rather have in his prime, vince or grant? vince. i'm not saying grant was awful, nor am i saying vince was formidable- i'm not on the extremes here- but it's still not much of an argument in *my* world. and i'm thinking that says less about vince than it does about grant (at least in terms of how i see them).

peace


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

ballocks said:


> grant hill never did it for me. i think i posted about it some months back, but i don't know if i can understand what people see/saw in him. he's a great human, he's had hollywood good looks forever and he comes from a fantastic gene pool, but how much does any of that really matter when you're talking hoops?


horrible post, you obviously didn't watch Grant Hill in his prime, if you're referring to his looks being better than his output.....22 9 and 7 isn't enough to match his 'hollywood looks'.




ballocks said:


> his early career stats will always be raised- always- but i'll personally vouch for the idea that those are really deceiving numbers (imo). he had good games and you'd be a sucker if you didn't have him on your fantasy team, but i never saw him as a 'winner'- whatever that is- at all. yes, he had a fantastic collegiate career at duke but he was playing behind two megastars for the meat of it. even then, though, it occured to me that he was getting a lot of (undeserved?) favorable press. i'm not saying he is/was a horrible player at any stage, he was consistently (imo) among the most valuable players on the floor, it's just that it always seemed a little contrived to me.



You're referring to Grant Hill not being a 'winner', but we're comparing him to Vince, are you saying Vince is that much of a winner? In my eyes, not really.




ballocks said:
 

> now, i have nothing against grant hill, which would have to emphasize my point even more: i don't know if i could _be_ any more objective about anyone. i'm sure there's still a bias there (of some variety... on some level) but, my oh my, i'd have to be living an incredible lie for it to have achieved that kind of an effect on me.


Senseless babble.



ballocks said:


> what's more, i've long felt that this man has gotten off relatively easy in terms of public perception since he signed his max deal with orlando in 2000. i'm not saying he should be ripped, i'm just suggesting that most players in the same position _would_ be. how has he avoided the same? i don't know. we tend to flame signings like allan houston ("what a waste! nyc is a joke!") or even austin croshere, but what exactly has grant hill done in orlando to justify those enormous paychecks? again, i don't think he _should_ be blamed, but we appear to have some tolerance for his bad luck that we don't seem to have for anyone else's. i can't explain it.


When he signed the contract in 2000, he was a top 5 player in the league, you can't say the same thing for Allan Houston or Austin Croshere.



ballocks said:


> anyway, this thread wasn't about that- so who would i rather have in his prime, vince or grant? vince. i'm not saying grant was awful, nor am i saying vince was formidable- i'm not on the extremes here- but it's still not much of an argument in *my* world. and i'm thinking that says less about vince than it does about grant (at least in terms of how i see them).
> 
> peace


That's your choice, but it's obvious you didn't see vintage Grant Hill, dude was better at pretty much every aspect than Vince except scoring mentality, and range.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Wow that is an incredibly tough one at first glance.

Vince in his two best seasons (if you count NJ05 as a season) had an average PER of less than 25. Grant Hill's prime two seasons had an average PER of exactly 25. 

So stastically these guys were about dead even in their best seasons. 

However Grant Hill was more versatile and the better containment defender. Overall I would say the difference is Grant Hill being the superior containment defender. Even though VC had better defensive stats I still have to give the edge to Grant because he was an excellent defender in his prime. Vince might be have an above average defender due to his help defense (athleticism), but not as good as Grant Hill.

Overall I give the edge to Grant Hill. 

* Player Ratings in Prime*

Grant Hill 9.7
Vince Carter 9.5


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Premier said:


> Hill, in the '99-'00 season, averaged more points than Vince Carter, in the '04-'05 season [with the Nets], after standardising the amount of shot-attempts and possessions used.


You forget to mention that the Nets only scored 91ppg in 2005, while the Pistons in 2000 scored over 100. Which means Carter is doing more heavy lifting in the scoring department than Hill was for his team. VC was clearly the superior scorer at that time, but Hill obviously did more things on the court. They were extremely close statistically if you compare their 2 best seasons EACH.

Standardize Team PPG as well in your equation and I think it gives a better picture of scoring contribution and potentness.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Good posts Nikos, good posts.


----------



## bbasok (Oct 30, 2005)

Grant Hill no doubt....Everybody was comporing him with Jordan in his prime


----------



## ENIGMATIC 1 (Dec 1, 2005)

I think VC is a way better athlete than Grant Hill. He might be one the greatest athlete's to ever hit a court. Grant might of been an overall better player. Vince Carter was also a superior scorer than hiim too. Grant Hill had more of an killer instinct too. That's always been VC 's problem. I always thought VC had more potential.


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

i just have to ask one question - in the last seconds of a game, who wants to take the shot?

vince isn't scared to take it.

hill will pass it off.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

SlamJam said:


> i just have to ask one question - in the last seconds of a game, who wants to take the shot?
> 
> vince isn't scared to take it.
> 
> hill will pass it off or twist his ankle.


Horrible Post, hatred at it's finest.

It wouldn't have anything to do with Hill being a Dukie and Vince being a Tarheel would it?

*Do not attack other posters*


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Why are you still trying to talk to me? I don't know, move on. :wlift:


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Jizzy and Prolific will you two please cut this back and forth rants out. It would be a shame to close yet another thread because of this. Keep it civil, thanks


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

HB said:


> Jizzy and Prolific will you two please cut this back and forth rants out. It would be a shame to close yet another thread because of this. Keep it civil, thanks


No problem HB, you my boi, anything for you lil homie.


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

Prolific Scorer said:


> Horrible Post, hatred at it's finest.
> 
> It wouldn't have anything to do with Hill being a Dukie and Vince being a Tarheel would it?
> 
> *Do not attack other posters*


do u want to prove me wrong or make lame insults? show me all the times that hill has made clutch shots to win games. thanks.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

SlamJam said:


> do u want to prove me wrong or make lame insults? show me all the times that hill has made clutch shots to win games. thanks.


You're obviously biased, but when has a players career been solely based off clutch shots? Grant Hill trumps Carter in every aspect of Basketball except range and Vertical Jumping.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?


----------



## BullsPro27 (Jul 19, 2006)

I would def. take Grant Hill simply because of who he is and I grew up loving Grant Hill. His dominance in detroit was spectacular but when he was traded to orlando thats when things went bad obviously but i would take Grant Hill over VC because he is a more complete player to me.


----------



## crazyfan (Dec 9, 2005)

BullsPro27 said:


> I would def. take Grant Hill simply because of who he is and I grew up loving Grant Hill. His dominance in detroit was spectacular but when he was traded to orlando thats when things went bad obviously but i would take Grant Hill over VC because he is a more complete player to me.




Complete player is the exact word.
His 2nd year in detriot: 20.2ppg, 9.8rpg and 6.9apg! 


Thats quite a stat line.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

crazyfan said:


> Complete player is the exact word.
> His 2nd year in detriot: 20.2ppg, 9.8rpg and 6.9apg!
> 
> 
> Thats quite a stat line.


Pippen / Hardaway / Hill / LeBron are the most complete players i've ever watched next to his Airness.


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

I actually looked through every single page of this and read every post, and still didn't find any solid proof of why Vince is better outside of 'longevity,' which is useless because we're discussing the players at their peak and how good they were, playoff wins, which is a useless argument as well, teams win games, 'Vince was the next MJ,' which also pissed me off; Vince averaged 27/6/4 at the time of MJ comparisons, MJ put up 28/6/6 on 50% shooting in his rookie year, this shouldn't be brought up again, and scoring, which I won't really question. Hill was better in almost every facet of the game than Vince, plus Hill was a leader, while Vince isn't.

_AirFly_ or _HB_, tell me why Vince is better. Not just what he does better, but what makes him the better overall player.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Ras said:


> I actually looked through every single page of this and read every post, and still didn't find any solid proof of why Vince is better outside of 'longevity,' which is useless because we're discussing the players at their peak and how good they were, playoff wins, which is a useless argument as well, teams win games, 'Vince was the next MJ,' which also pissed me off; Vince averaged 27/6/4 at the time of MJ comparisons, MJ put up 28/6/6 on 50% shooting in his rookie year, this shouldn't be brought up again, and scoring, which I won't really question. Hill was better in almost every facet of the game than Vince, plus Hill was a leader, while Vince isn't.
> 
> _AirFly_ or _HB_, tell me why Vince is better. Not just what he does better, but what makes him the better overall player.


I'm confused, how could you prove or show what makes him the better overall player without proving what he does better?


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

ballocks said:


> i never saw him as a 'winner'- whatever that is- at all.


You can say the same thing about the player he is being compared to in this thread as well as players who haven't won anything relevant like TMac.

You're right Hill was one of the greatest winners in college but Duke was and still is a major winning program. Coach K is a genius. But Hill played an important role on Duke's success during his tenure. He was their best defender and most complete player. Remember it was Hill who made that pass to Laettner.

As for being a winner in the pro level. It is true that despite his superstar status Hill never led the Pistons to playoff success but to his credit he did lead the Pistons to a 54-28 record in 97 which is more than Vince has ever done in the regular season. 

Hill is not less a winner than Vince and Vince is not more of a winner than Hill. 

Hill in his prime was as complete a player as I have ever seen. Although there were criticisms of his game notably his shot, the biggest knock against Hill for me was that he just couldn't take over a game. In many ways, it is like KG. As great of a player as he was I saw him as a Pippen (an ultimate 2nd fiddle) of course I also compared him to Pippen a lot during his prime. But a prime Hill was just nasty. He had his killer crossover, unstoppable quickness, and underrated athleticism. Like Vince, Hill could dunk on anybody but Vince does it with much more flair and aggression ala Nique.

As for who I would pick between Vince and Hill?

If I wanted a leader, a player who could run the offense as good as the best PGs out there, and a player who can do much more than just score I pick Hill.

I would only pick Vince if I had a solid PG and rebounder in place to back him up and all I needed left was scoring.

Vince also had something that I never felt Hill had and that was the ability to takeover a game with his scoring even when he was scoring 25-26 ppg. Hill's postseason performances to me are an indication of his inability to dominate when needed. 

If I had to pick between Hill and TMac? I take TMac quite easily and this is coming from a Hill fan and not so much TMac fan. TMac can do many of the things Hill can do but in a more dominant fashion.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Gilgamesh said:


> You can say the same thing about the player he is being compared to in this thread as well as players who haven't won anything relevant like TMac.
> 
> You're right Hill was one of the greatest winners in college but Duke was and still is a major winning program. Coach K is a genius. But Hill played an important role on Duke's success during his tenure. He was their best defender and most complete player. Remember it was Hill who made that pass to Laettner.
> 
> ...


Excellent Post.


----------



## smrtguy (Jun 20, 2006)

HB said:


> Useless lmao. Hill's pistons team won 54 games one year. Thats a pretty good team I'd say. So is it Vince's fault that he actually had some playoff success.



I would have to say if Hill had Kidd and RJ on his team, he could have easily went to the ECF.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

smrtguy said:


> I would have to say if Hill had Kidd and RJ on his team, he could have easily went to the ECF.


I find it hard to believe Carter is that much of a liability for the Nets.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

ralaw said:


> I find it hard to believe Carter is that much of a liability for the Nets.


Yeah, I think he went a little bit overboard.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

HB said:


> Hill was also a better all round player than most of the guys in the league right now, dont think anyone would be starting a team with him though.



Ahhh, and there we have it.

I don't think ANYONE would start a team with Vince Carter either, except Vince Carter fans.


----------



## smrtguy (Jun 20, 2006)

ralaw said:


> I find it hard to believe Carter is that much of a liability for the Nets.



I wouldn't necessarily say liability, but it helps when you have an excellent, underrated star and one of the best triple-double players in the history of the NBA. Yeah, that helps alot.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

smrtguy said:


> I wouldn't necessarily say liability, but it helps when you have an excellent, underrated star and one of the best triple-double players in the history of the NBA. Yeah, that helps alot.


How does it help? Hill and Kidd where both triple-double players, but that doesn't automatically equate to team success. I'm not understanding you logic smrtguy. Kidd and Carter's style of play and mental appoach to the game compliment each other rather well. Hill was a great player, but he and Kidd wouldn't have been able to coexist due to their style of play.


----------



## smrtguy (Jun 20, 2006)

ralaw said:


> How does it help? Hill and Kidd where both triple-double players, but that doesn't automatically equate to team success. I'm not understanding you logic smrtguy. Kidd and Carter's style of play and mental appoach to the game compliment each other rather well. Hill was a great player, but he and Kidd wouldn't have been able to coexist due to their style of play.




How does it help? Seriously, you didn't ask that did you?

We are talking about VC as a liability right? That is what you came back to me about. I say just about any 25 ppg scorer could have gotten to the ECF with Kidd and RJ. T-MAC could have done it, LeBron, KG, on, and on, and on. Especially with how weak the East was when the Nets got there.

I think Hill and Kidd could have meshed pretty good. Both could score and both could pass. So they might both get double double's every night, possibly triple doubles. 

Just because Carter likes to shoot more and Kidd likes to pass more doesn't mean they are a better duo then Hill/Kidd.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

smrtguy said:


> How does it help? Seriously, you didn't ask that did you?
> 
> We are talking about VC as a liability right? That is what you came back to me about. I say just about any 25 ppg scorer could have gotten to the ECF with Kidd and RJ. T-MAC could have done it, LeBron, KG, on, and on, and on. Especially with how weak the East was when the Nets got there.
> 
> ...


Extremely flawed logic and it just shows you really dont know too much about the Nets. Vince Carter is the perfect guy for that team. Hill would just be a slight upgrade over RJ. A do it all type of guy, but thats not exactly what the Nets need. Vince is the go to guy on that team, as good as Hill might have been he was never known as a go to guy. If you have watched Nets games recently, you must have noticed how hard they find it to score in the halfcourt, thats what Vince Carter is for. How many players in the league do you know that you can build your whole offense around, and am very sure Hill isnt one of those players.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Tragedy said:


> Ahhh, and there we have it.
> 
> I don't think ANYONE would start a team with Vince Carter either, except Vince Carter fans.


You would be surprised at how many owners would be thinking of having a marketable player on their team.


----------



## smrtguy (Jun 20, 2006)

HB said:


> Extremely flawed logic and it just shows you really dont know too much about the Nets. Vince Carter is the perfect guy for that team. Hill would just be a slight upgrade over RJ. A do it all type of guy, but thats not exactly what the Nets need. Vince is the go to guy on that team, as good as Hill might have been he was never known as a go to guy. If you have watched Nets games recently, you must have noticed how hard they find it to score in the halfcourt, thats what Vince Carter is for. How many players in the league do you know that you can build your whole offense around, and am very sure Hill isnt one of those players.




Yeah, and T-Mac is the perfect guy for his team, and Wade is the perfect guy for his team. Any guy who is known as a scorer is a "perfect guy" on a team that has a good passer and a second fiddle man.

Hill in his prime is one guy I would love to build my whole team around, not just build my offense around. If you just build your offense around him, you will be like the Suns (lets just score more than the other team, ok?)

More than 20ppg and 9apg is good enough to build an offense around imho.


----------



## BullsPro27 (Jul 19, 2006)

crazyfan said:


> Complete player is the exact word.
> His 2nd year in detriot: 20.2ppg, 9.8rpg and 6.9apg!
> 
> 
> Thats quite a stat line.



Yes im glad someone agrees with me that hill was a great complete player who knew how to pass as well as score and he also wasnt afraid to attack the boards. and to comeback after those ankle surgeries and even be able to help the magic a lil bit that astounds me at the point in his career. VC can be a cry baby at times.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

smrtguy said:


> Yeah, and T-Mac is the perfect guy for his team, and Wade is the perfect guy for his team. Any guy who is known as a scorer is a "perfect guy" on a team that has a good passer and a second fiddle man.
> 
> Hill in his prime is one guy I would love to build my whole team around, not just build my offense around. If you just build your offense around him, you will be like the Suns (lets just score more than the other team, ok?)
> 
> *More than 20ppg and 9apg is good enough to build an offense around imho*.


So you would build your offense around Shawn Marion


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

HB said:


> So you would build your offense around Shawn Marion


That would be 9 apg. Not rpg.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Diophantos said:


> That would be 9 apg. Not rpg.


Oh! and when did Grant Hill ever average such numbers


----------



## notorioustlp (Jun 13, 2006)

HB said:


> Extremely flawed logic and it just shows you really dont know too much about the Nets. Vince Carter is the perfect guy for that team. *Hill would just be a slight upgrade over RJ.* A do it all type of guy, but thats not exactly what the Nets need. Vince is the go to guy on that team, as good as Hill might have been he was never known as a go to guy. If you have watched Nets games recently, you must have noticed how hard they find it to score in the halfcourt, thats what Vince Carter is for. How many players in the league do you know that you can build your whole offense around, and am very sure Hill isnt one of those players.


I find it hard to believe you watched a lot of Hill in his prime. Hill vs. Carter is at least debatable since Vince was the better scorer, though I think most non-biased fans would agree that Hill is probably the choice. Hill vs. RJ is complete insanity. Hill finished third in the MVP voting in '97. RJ's the third best player on his team.


----------



## elsaic15 (May 24, 2006)

lebron on any most complete player list is absurd cuz he dun play D. and is 27 6 4 that far off from 28 6 6 ( to the poster who instantly blew off jordan comparisions from that statline, not that i think vc can compared to jordan, only that he can be jordanesque at times) hill was a better all around player, carter is a better scorer, and much better range, while hill was a smarter more effieicent player. carter is much better at taking over games and completely dominating.


----------



## Netz_love (Nov 10, 2005)

I think elsaic has summarized the whole argument in his post.

Hill better all around player.
Carter better offensive player who can dominate at will.

I personally like all-around players better so I would take the prime Hill before not only Carter but also guys like T-Mac,AI(great scorers) but I could see an argument made from either side because Hill,and its true,wasn't the kind of player who could totally crush the other team and their confidence like these guys can do.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

ralaw said:


> How does it help? Hill and Kidd where both triple-double players, but that doesn't automatically equate to team success. I'm not understanding you logic smrtguy. Kidd and Carter's style of play and mental appoach to the game compliment each other rather well. Hill was a great player, but he and Kidd wouldn't have been able to coexist due to their style of play.


Well, you can't exactly say that either relaw.....because being a complete player IMO means filling up any stat to help your team win, no matter if it's points, rebounding (Which Detroit Seriously lacked), or passing.


----------



## ChiSox (Jun 9, 2004)

Grant Hill has my vote! I disagree with those who say Carter is a better scorer. Carter takes more shots than Hill. Carter is more selfish. Carter isn't a better scorer. Hill had one of the quickest first steps in basketball and love to attack the basket. Hill stayed at the free throw line. He had a great mid range game. Just because he could do other things, don't disrespect his scoring ability. Carter rarely drives and is primarily a jump shooter. He plays no defense and has a suspect handle. 

For my money I take Grant Hill.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Prolific Scorer said:


> Well, you can't exactly say that either relaw.....because being a complete player IMO means filling up any stat to help your team win, no matter if it's points, rebounding (Which Detroit Seriously lacked), or passing.


This is why I don't like dealing in hypothetical arguments like this, because people can easily apply any belief they want to something. There is no guarantee that Hill and Kidd playing on the same team would automatically make NJ a championship calibur team and this is my point. Carter believe it or not is a great player regarldless of how people feel about him and his skills. (ie being able to shoot for example) Carter by his skillset makes him a much more valuable player to a NJ team with Kidd and Richard Jefferson and this is the point. Kidd and Hill are virtually the same player from a skill set standpoint (penetrating and dishing, can't shoot and versaility) You can't simply assume taking two talented players and putting them on the same team automatically creates team success.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

ChiSox said:


> Grant Hill has my vote! I disagree with those who say Carter is a better scorer. Carter takes more shots than Hill. Carter is more selfish. Carter isn't a better scorer. Hill had one of the quickest first steps in basketball and love to attack the basket. Hill stayed at the free throw line. He had a great mid range game. Just because he could do other things, don't disrespect his scoring ability. 1. Carter rarely drives and is primarily a jump shooter. He plays no defense and has a suspect handle.
> 
> 2. For my money I take Grant Hill.



1. simply not true.

2. your money is going to be paying for a lot of ankle surgeries...


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

ralaw said:


> This is why I don't like dealing in hypothetical arguments like this, because people can easily apply any belief they want to something. There is no guarantee that Hill and Kidd playing on the same team would automatically make NJ a championship calibur team and this is my point. Carter believe it or not is a great player regarldless of how people feel about him and his skills. (ie being able to shoot for example) Carter by his skillset makes him a much more valuable player to a NJ team with Kidd and Richard Jefferson and this is the point. Kidd and Hill are virtually the same player from a skill set standpoint (penetrating and dishing, can't shoot and versaility) You can't simply assume taking two talented players and putting them on the same team automatically creates team success.


You're right..

But this topic has gotten off course, it's susposed to be between Hill and Carter, and that's why I say, from a skills standpoint, Hill is lightyears ahead of Carter in a lot of categories (Not all of them , though, don't get it mistaken).

In his prime, of course.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

bootstrenf said:


> 1. simply not true.
> 
> 2. your money is going to be paying for a lot of ankle surgeries...


LOL Boot, but we're talking about primes, remember....So hopefully he's talking from a standpoint of his money is on a Primed Grant Hill, not a August 2000 Grant Hill.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

A never injured Grant Hill is better than Vince hands down, no question.

People talk about Grant Hill's prime like we actually saw it. He never reached his peak. He was just starting to develop into a dominant scorer (to go along with his already fantastic floor game) in his last season in Detroit.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

ChiSox said:


> Grant Hill has my vote! I disagree with those who say Carter is a better scorer. Carter takes more shots than Hill. Carter is more selfish. Carter isn't a better scorer. Hill had one of the quickest first steps in basketball and love to attack the basket. Hill stayed at the free throw line. He had a great mid range game. Just because he could do other things, don't disrespect his scoring ability. Carter rarely drives and is primarily a jump shooter. He plays no defense and has a suspect handle.
> 
> For my money I take Grant Hill.


Carter is a better scorer - fact.
Carter primarly a jump shooter - false, when will people stop ignoring his FTA stats? 
Carter has no defense - false.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

MLKG said:


> A never injured Grant Hill is better than Vince hands down, no question.
> 
> People talk about Grant Hill's prime like we actually saw it. He never reached his peak. He was just starting to develop into a dominant scorer (to go along with his already fantastic floor game) in his last season in Detroit.


That is true, because Hill was working on his 3 Point Range too his last year in Detroit and hit a Career High in 3's Made and Attempted.

His last year in Detroit he averaged damn near 26 PPG.

Him and Stack were the 2nd best Scoring Duo in the NBA behind Shaq/Kobe that year (2000)

Hill was just so damn complete, it's a Shame.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Prolific Scorer said:


> You're right..
> 
> But this topic has gotten off course, it's susposed to be between Hill and Carter, and that's why I say, from a skills standpoint, Hill is lightyears ahead of Carter in a lot of categories (Not all of them , though, don't get it mistaken).
> 
> In his prime, of course.


I agree that Hill was a more versatile player at his peak as opposed to Carter's prime, but the gap between the two is minimal at best from an overall basketball production standpoint. However, they were different types of players who were asked to do different things, so deciding on one or the other is entirely based on team need and preference. In my opinion neither clearly seperated himself to be the better player, as the both of them brought and bring (in Carter's case) something different.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

ralaw said:


> I agree that Hill was a more versatile player at his peak as opposed to Carter's prime, but the gap between the two is minimal at best from an overall basketball production standpoint. However, they were different types of players who were asked to do different things, so deciding on one or the other is entirely based on team need and preference. In my opinion neither clearly seperated himself to be the better player.


That's what i'm trying to say though, that gap isn't that minimal because Hill excelled at so many more things than Carter did offensively and defensively (Not as much), and from a basketball production standpoint, took better shots, ballhandling, and made better basketball decisions because he could run an offense.

I think Hill clearly separated himself in his prime (95-2000) from Carter (2000-2006).

But I love Vince's game, and I think he's a spectacular player.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

HB said:


> You would be surprised at how many owners would be thinking of having a marketable player on their team.


I'm not talking about marketing. The majority of Vince's appeal came from his dunking ability and coming at the end of Jordan's career. His first season was the first season without Jordan, and that played into his marketability as well.

Starting with him would yield high results, but recall what happened when the pressure came down on him in TO


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Prolific Scorer said:


> But I love Vince's game, and I think he's a spectacular player.





Tragedy said:


> Starting with him would yield high results, but recall what happened when the pressure came down on him in TO


I love Carter's game to an extent and he is a great player who any team would be able to market, but I honestly wouldn't want him as my #1 franchise guy, as I don't believe he has the heart or leadership ability to be able to handle the highs and lows of being in that position on a day to day basis. This is why NJ is such a great spot for him to be in, as Kidd takes off a lot of the pressure and leadership that Carter can't handle. 

For this reason alone I would take Hill over Carter.


----------



## Netz_love (Nov 10, 2005)

Hill hasn't displayed the so called "leadership" qualities either so you can't just call him a leader by default.He's always had some preety decent scorers around him every year from houston to stackhouse.Who was Carter supposed to pass to? On a NJ team he manages to get around 5 assists a game where JKidd is the main ballhander.

So if people are gonna say that Carter is not the better scorer and only scores more because he had nobody else with him then Hill is not the better passer either.

Hill Career Stats : 20.6/7.3/5.6
Playoff Stats : 19.6/6.9/5.6

Carter Career Stats: 23.9/5.4/4.0
Playoff Stats: 27.3/6.9/5.2

Notice the pattern here Hill choked in the post-season .Carter takes it to a whole new level.Infact he boards and passes,supposed to be Hill's strengths,as much as Hill while scoring more points.

I do like versatile players(Odom's my favorite non-net player) but this is just to prove that Vince is just as good if not better than Hill when it counts.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

I am not even sure what would constitute the prime of either player. Vince's prime was before the knee problems or now when he's more experienced? And Grant Hill's prime was his early days of 22/9/7 or Grant in 99-00 who finally seemed ready to assert himself as a dominant offensive force?

Grant was probably a more intelligent, complete player while Vince is more dominant athletically speaking, but could either player be described as having "killer instinct" or being a "diehard competitor"? Both nice guys, but I'm left with more questions than answers as neither one of them ever really lived up to their potential (not a knock on either player really).


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

JPSeraph said:


> I am not even sure what would constitute the prime of either player. Vince's prime was before the knee problems or now when he's more experienced? And Grant Hill's prime was his early days of 22/9/7 or Grant in 99-00 who finally seemed ready to assert himself as a dominant offensive force?
> 
> Grant was probably a more intelligent, complete player while Vince is more dominant athletically speaking, but could either player be described as having "killer instinct" or being a "diehard competitor"? Both nice guys, but I'm left with more questions than answers as neither one of them ever really lived up to their potential (not a knock on either player really).


Yes it is hard to gauge when these two players' primes actually took place and for Hill if ever.

Many people say Vince's prime is during his most healthy seasons with the Raps. I would call that his physical peak or physical prime. But in all honesty his game today is much more rounded and he has improved a lot in many aspects of his game today which we labelled his weaknesses earlier in his career. In terms of his game, I actually think Vince is in his prime now rather than earlier.

As for Hill. He was developing into a better scorer but even when he was at 25-26 ppg he just never really dominated and his playoff performances were just poor for a player of superstar status. Think Melo this year who also scored at a 26 ppg clip. Great scorer but not dominant scorer. But I also don't think we saw the best from Hill yet before his injuries.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Air Fly said:


> Carter is a better scorer - fact.


Why? How is it a fact?


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Premier said:


> Why? How is it a fact?


Dude, please look at Carter's scoring average during his whole career and the playoffs. It doesn't take a smart person to know this.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Air Fly said:


> Dude, please look at Carter's scoring average during his whole career and the playoffs. It doesn't take a smart person to know this.


He's probably got more of a scorer's mentality, but I don't think he's better at scoring than Hill.

They're two totally different things.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Grant Hill drinks Sprite and wears Fila. He's obviously better.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

VC was and still would be a more versatile scorer capable of exploding at any moment in a game. VC is a more natural pure scorer and due to his menality and style of play he is better scorer than Hill. I'll give it to people who believe Hill is a better overall player due to his versatility, but he isn't the better scorer. If you believe Hill was the better scorer you are essentially saying he is better than Carter in every facet of the game and I disagree.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">Originally Posted by *Air Fly*

Dude, please look at Carter's scoring average during his whole career and the playoffs. It doesn't take a smart person to know this.</td></tr></tbody></table> 
lol ok

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">[size=-2][size=-2]Originally Posted by *Premier*[/size][/size]

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2">[size=-2]Originally Posted by *HB

* <table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">[size=-2][size=-2]Originally Posted by *Premier

*<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2">[size=-2]Originally Posted by *HB

*<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">[size=-2]Originally Posted by *Premier*
 
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2">[size=-2]Originally Posted by *HB

* <table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">Originally Posted by *Premier

*<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2">Originally Posted by *Air Fly*

So you wanna argue that Hill is a better scorer than Carter? thats laughable, stats don't lie my man. </td> </tr> </tbody></table> 
In Grant Hill's best scoring season ['00, in my opinion] he was just as good of a scorer as Carter in his best season ['01, in my opinion]. Hill was slightly more efficient and scored almost exactly as much as Carter [slightly less, by about .017 points per possession]. It is very arguable. "Stats don't lie." </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
I'd say Vince's best season was two seasons ago when he joined the Nets. 46% from the field and over 40% from 3, and still putting up a respectable 27 points per and the nice touch rules werent in effect either. Of course some would argue that it was over 50 or so games, but seriously the man was in a zone I dont think anything could have stopped him.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Hill, in the '99-'00 season, averaged more points than Vince Carter, in the '04-'05 season [with the Nets], after standardising the amount of shot-attempts and possessions used.[/size]</td></tr></tbody></table>
 Grant Hill 99-00 season 25.8ppg 74 games
Vince Carter 04-05 Season 27.5ppg 57 games (NETS)

Of course maybe thats what you meant by standardizing it, but thats all hypothetical both you and I cant evaluate fully what would happen if Vince played the same amount of games. People arent machines, you cant expect them to do the same thing over and over again.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Hills' points per 40 minutes in '99-'00: 27.5
Carter's points per 40 minutes in '04-'05 with Nets: 28.3

Hill's TS% in '99-'00: 56.5%
Carter's TS% in '04-'05 with Nets: 55.6%

Hills' estimated amount of possessions used per 40 minutes in '99-'00: 28.9
Carter's estimated amount of possessions used pe[/size][size=-2]r 40 minutes in '04-'05 with Nets: 30.2[/size][/size]</td></tr></tbody></table>[/size]
This looks pretty close to me.[/size]</td></tr></tbody></table>[/size]
It's fairly close, with Hill scoring more points. To say that arguing Hill, in his best scoring season, is as good of a scorer, if not better, as Carter, in his best scoring season, is "laughable" is wrong.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> 
[size=-2]  [/size]


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Nikos said:


> You forget to mention that the Nets only scored 91ppg in 2005, while the Pistons in 2000 scored over 100. Which means Carter is doing more heavy lifting in the scoring department than Hill was for his team. VC was clearly the superior scorer at that time, but Hill obviously did more things on the court. They were extremely close statistically if you compare their 2 best seasons EACH.
> 
> Standardize Team PPG as well in your equation and I think it gives a better picture of scoring contribution and potentness.


Nets' '05 pace-factor: 89.1
Pistons' '00 pace-factor: 95.7

Explains scoring increase.

Also, we're talking about individuals. Both Hill and Carter were the primary options on their team and both players 'shouldered' a similar perentage of the offensive 'load.'


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

Premier said:


> <table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">Originally Posted by *Air Fly*
> 
> Dude, please look at Carter's scoring average during his whole career and the playoffs. It doesn't take a smart person to know this.</td></tr></tbody></table>
> lol ok
> ...



that's a lot of quotes...


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Premier said:


> <table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">Originally Posted by *Air Fly*
> 
> Dude, please look at Carter's scoring average during his whole career and the playoffs. It doesn't take a smart person to know this.</td></tr></tbody></table>
> lol ok
> ...


First, your comparing Hill best season with Carter Nets when its supposed to be Carter/2001. Though he still came on top in this comparion you did. So whats your point? Carter is a better scorer, i don't know how is this debatable. Carter can do anything offensively, Hill can't.

How many Carter's 40+ points has he scored in his career compared to Hill? Alot. Carter is a rare type of guards in this league who can score 50 points on any given nights.


----------



## Black Mamba 24 (Jul 20, 2006)

VC isn't a rare guard. If by rare, you mean "rarely" scores 50 points... then yes, he is a rare guard in this league. This year was the first year he has scored 50 in a game, SINCE 2001.


----------



## thacarter (Mar 27, 2006)

Black Mamba 24 said:


> VC isn't a rare guard. If by rare, you mean "rarely" scores 50 points... then yes, he is a rare guard in this league. This year was the first year he has scored 50 in a game, SINCE 2001.


Actually VC is one of those guards who likes to pass the ball unlike your main man KB..his goal is not to score 50 in a loss while taking 42 shots to reach that number like your boy..my point is Carter loves to play in a team setting and with RJ,Kidd and Nenad on a team,theres ABSOLUTELY no need for him to go out and score 50pts for his team to win..u dig?


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Black Mamba 24 said:


> VC isn't a rare guard. If by rare, you mean "rarely" scores 50 points... then yes, he is a rare guard in this league. This year was the first year he has scored 50 in a game, SINCE 2001.


Yeah he isn't by the fact that "he get out of bed with 20 points" You are right about the 50 points though, hes a rare guard that can score 40+ points on any given night.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Premier said:


> Nets' '05 pace-factor: 89.1
> Pistons' '00 pace-factor: 95.7
> 
> Explains scoring increase.
> ...


Carter is a better scorer if you adjust for pace. He shouldered more of the offensive load according to the Pace Factor Stats as well as %PPG/TeamPPG per 40 min. Both are good indicators of scoring load and pure output. 

I don't really see how it is a 'similiar' percentage? If you mean Carter didn't score at a much higher rate and percentage then sure. But Carter was on a much weaker offensive team, where he did more. So I think he had a noticable (not huge) advantage on Hill in the scoring department when comparing Carter 05 to Hill 00.


----------



## Dream Hakeem (Apr 20, 2006)

Tracy McGrady or Grant Hill is a much better subject


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Dream Hakeem said:


> Tracy McGrady or Grant Hill is a much better subject


Still Hill in his prime is much better according to some people here even his biggest fan. Though you can go open up a thread about it.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Nikos said:


> Carter is a better scorer if you adjust for pace. He shouldered more of the offensive load according to the Pace Factor Stats as well as %PPG/TeamPPG per 40 min. Both are good indicators of scoring load and pure output.
> 
> I don't really see how it is a 'similiar' percentage? If you mean Carter didn't score at a much higher rate and percentage then sure. But Carter was on a much weaker offensive team, where he did more. So I think he had a noticable (not huge) advantage on Hill in the scoring department when comparing Carter 05 to Hill 00.


Also, dude doesn't even factor in that Hill is a horrible 3 point shooter compared to Vince. And doesn't take as many threeeeeeees or make. It's not something his game evolve around like Vince who's the complete offensive player.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Air Fly said:


> Also, dude doesn't even factor in that Hill is a horrible 3 point shooter compared to Vince. And doesn't take as many threeeeeeees or make. It's not something his game evolve around like Vince who's the complete offensive player.



So I guess Carter is a more complete offensive player than Jordan was?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

JNice said:


> So I guess Carter is a more complete offensive player than Jordan was?


So I guess Hill was as good as Jordan as then?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Black Mamba 24 said:


> VC isn't a rare guard. If by rare, you mean "rarely" scores 50 points... then yes, he is a rare guard in this league. This year was the first year he has scored 50 in a game, SINCE 2001.


LMAO what great logic


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Air Fly said:


> First, your comparing Hill best season with Carter Nets when its supposed to be Carter/2001.


I did that comparison. It's near even [.17 points per possession difference, I believe with minimal scoring total difference. I also did the '04-'05 Nets comparison, as it was requested by HB.



> Though he still came on top in this comparion you did.


Perhaps to blinded eyes, however, no, he did not.



> Carter is a better scorer, i don't know how is this debatable.


I believe you meant to state that _you _don't know how to debate it. If my inclinationis so outrageous, surely you would be able to prove my opinion to be wrong, correct?



> Carter can do anything offensively, Hill can't.


'lol ok'



> How many Carter's 40+ points has he scored in his career compared to Hill? Alot.


I don't see any relevance. Production, as in production over a long enough sample size, is a much more significant measure than the magnitude of one's scoring output in select games.



> Carter is a rare type of guards in this league who can score 50 points on any givennights.


However, he does not. Production over a season, as per the thread question, is the only relevant aspect.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

HB said:


> So I guess Hill was as good as Jordan as then?



How did you flip what I said into this? Hogwash.

And ... Premier just pwned Air Fly. Sad but true.

Can't we just settle this ...

3 pt shooting - Carter > Hill
Dunking - Carter > Hill
Everything else - Hill > Carter


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Premier said:


> I did that comparison. It's near even [.17 points per possession difference, I believe with minimal scoring total difference. I also did the '04-'05 Nets comparison, as it was requested by HB.
> 
> 
> Perhaps to blinded eyes, however, no, he did not.
> ...



So 1 season determine whos the better scorer or that they're equal? Brilliant.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

JNice said:


> How did you flip what I said into this? Hogwash.
> 
> And ... Premier just pwned Air Fly. Sad but true.
> 
> ...


Carter is better scorer, Hill is more rounded.

Premier pwned who? lol

Also comparing their whole career Carter >>> Hill. How about that? Have a good day.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Air Fly said:


> Carter is better scorer, Hill is more rounded.


Good. So you agree, since there is a lot more to basketball than scoring, Hill was a better player than Carter.



> Premier pwned who? lol


Air Fly



> Also comparing their whole career Carter >>> Hill. How about that? Have a good day.


Only because of bad luck. But I don't really think that was the point ...


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

AirFly stays getting worked...hahaha.

I like how JNice answered that.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

JNice said:


> Air Fly





> Good. So you agree, since there is a lot more to basketball than* scoring*, Hill was a better player than Carter.


And that was my point so how did i get owned again? 



> Only because of bad luck. But I don't really think that was the point ...


Well, bad luck my ***, dont cry me a river now.


----------

