PDA

View Full Version : The Case of The Reluctant Point Guard



BPump33
02-05-2013, 03:33 PM
The Case of The Reluctant Point Guard
by Mark Montieth | askmontieth@gmail.com

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/george-hill-case-reluctant-point-guard

Pretty interesting read on the guard positions in our offense being interchangeable. I figure the site could use the page hits so I won't paste the whole article.

Unclebuck
02-05-2013, 04:27 PM
I am more than satisfied with Hill this season. IMO the only times he's really struggled is when he's been injured and tried to play through it. But then I don't have Chris Paul type expectations for Hill either.

The discription, "He's good in all areas, and great or weak in no areas" is a good way to describe his game. (I do wonder about the grammar Montieth used though). Shouldn't it be, "He's good in all areas, but neither great nor weak in any areas"

Trader Joe
02-05-2013, 04:29 PM
Are we winning more than losing? Yes.

Are we getting consistently torched by opposing points? No.

I am happy with Hill

Randolph_HorseLips
02-05-2013, 04:35 PM
If there is one starting position where upgrade needs to be considered, it is PG.

Unclebuck
02-05-2013, 04:37 PM
If there is one starting position where upgrade needs to be considered, it is PG.

Sure in a perfect world you might have a point. But in the luxury tax era, it is not realistic to get a better option than Hill for the same or less money. Plus with Lance and PG improving so much, I think Hill is good enough.

Ace E.Anderson
02-05-2013, 04:38 PM
George Hill is a pro. 15 and 5 plus a good shooting stroke from 3 doesn't grow on trees ladies and gentlemen.

I (along with Mattie and Vnzla) have explained numerous times--"true" PG's are rare in today's NBA. Most lead guards are looking to score first and foremost. It's just the way of the league.

But when you look at history, plenty of teams were led by an unconventional lead guard, as opposed to the conventional, pass first "true" PG. I believe Hill's game is in the same type of category for the typical lead guard that you would find on a lot of championship teams. Examples: Dennis Johnson, Chauncey Billups, Jason Terry, Derek Fisher, Steve Smith, Ron Harper, etc-- all guys who knew their role, and could knock down big shots when necessary. I see GH in this mold as opposed to the true pg that many clamor for.

Randolph_HorseLips
02-05-2013, 04:42 PM
That's been my problem with Hill for awhile now... people think he's "good enough".

However fanciful it may seem, I have elite ambitions for this team.

vnzla81
02-05-2013, 04:48 PM
I'm happy with Hill(some of you should take notes of this by the way), I think he is the right point guard for this team, no complaints.

Ace E.Anderson
02-05-2013, 04:50 PM
That's been my problem with Hill for awhile now... people think he's "good enough".

However fanciful it may seem, I have elite ambitions for this team.

Can you name 5 elite PG's that have won the championship in the past...20 years?

Unclebuck
02-05-2013, 04:50 PM
That's been my problem with Hill for awhile now... people think he's "good enough".

However fanciful it may seem, I have elite ambitions for this team.


Sure, lets put together a team of
Chris Paul
Paul George
Lebron James
Durant
Dwight Howard

afterall I have even more elite ambitions for this team. I don't just want to win the championship I want to win around 80 games every season. Lets do it. Oh wait, maybe the salary cap isn't $180 m per team.


Obviously I am being absurd, (you are not, just wrong IMO) but if you want a better player than Hill, OK, where do you want to take some salary from in order to obtain such a player.

Sparhawk
02-05-2013, 04:53 PM
I've been happy with Hill. He isn't asked to do much due to the design of the offense. He could probably have more assists in another offensive scheme. His defense isn't quite as good as I was led to believe, but he's still pretty good.

No complaints. Would just like to see a better offense set up.

vnzla81
02-05-2013, 04:56 PM
Sure, lets put together a team of
Chris Paul
Paul George
Lebron James
Durant
Dwight Howard

afterall I have even more elite ambitions for this team. I don't just want to win the championship I want to win around 80 games every season. Lets do it. Oh wait, maybe the salary cap isn't $180 m per team.


Obviously I am being absurd, (you are not, just wrong IMO) but if you want a better player than Hill, OK, where do you want to take some salary from in order to obtain such a player.

Come on UB now you are making it sound like is impossible to upgrade Hill, if that's what he believes why not try to respect that? I feel the same way with other positions on the team.

Trader Joe
02-05-2013, 04:57 PM
Come on UB now you are making it sound like is impossible to upgrade Hill, if that's what he believes why not try to respect that? I feel the same way with other positions on the team.

All UB is saying is how do you do it? How do you get a better PG than Hill without giving up one of the starters you don't want to upgrade?

pacergod2
02-05-2013, 04:58 PM
I am more than satisfied with Hill this season. IMO the only times he's really struggled is when he's been injured and tried to play through it. But then I don't have Chris Paul type expectations for Hill either.

The discription, "He's good in all areas, and great or weak in no areas" is a good way to describe his game. (I do wonder about the grammar Montieth used though). Shouldn't it be, "He's good in all areas, but neither great nor weak in any areas"

Hill struggles most with extremely quick PGs defensively, but recovers very well due to his length. I love Hill's fit on this team.

I actually think it is this:

"He's good in all areas, but neither great or weak in any areas"

vnzla81
02-05-2013, 05:01 PM
All UB is saying is how do you do it? How do you get a better PG than Hill without giving up one of the starters you don't want to upgrade?

I don't know, ask the guy, I could come up with different examples but like I said before I'm happy with Hill.

Trader Joe
02-05-2013, 05:02 PM
I don't know, ask the guy, I could come up with different examples but like I said before I'm happy with Hill.

UB was asking the guy lol

vincognito
02-05-2013, 05:02 PM
I believe Hill's game is in the same type of category for the typical lead guard that you would find on a lot of championship teams. Examples: Dennis Johnson, Chauncey Billups, Jason Terry, Derek Fisher, Steve Smith, Ron Harper, etc-- all guys who knew their role, and could knock down big shots when necessary. I see GH in this mold as opposed to the true pg that many clamor for.

The difference between hill and most of those guys is they at least had the court vision/passing ability to make a pass when they needed to. Hill constantly doesn't see open guys or forces passes that aren't there. A lot more forces recently.

vnzla81
02-05-2013, 05:06 PM
UB was asking the guy lol

By using a "superteam" example? that was not a question, he made it sound like upgrading Hill was as impossible as getting all those superstars together.

Pacer Fan
02-05-2013, 05:08 PM
Good read, thanks!

Trader Joe
02-05-2013, 05:08 PM
By using a "superteam" example? that was not a question, he made it sound like upgrading Hill was as impossible as getting all those superstars together.

Did you read his last line?




Obviously I am being absurd, (you are not, just wrong IMO) but if you want a better player than Hill, OK, where do you want to take some salary from in order to obtain such a player.

PaceBalls
02-05-2013, 05:09 PM
I am more than satisfied with Hill this season. IMO the only times he's really struggled is when he's been injured and tried to play through it. But then I don't have Chris Paul type expectations for Hill either.

The discription, "He's good in all areas, and great or weak in no areas" is a good way to describe his game. (I do wonder about the grammar Montieth used though). Shouldn't it be, "He's good in all areas, but neither great nor weak in any areas"

He is just trying to speak the language of his constituents. :zip:

I think George is great in a few areas and good in a lot. That runner/floater he has is top notch. I think he is a great defender too.

yoadknux
02-05-2013, 05:14 PM
Hill is who he is. An average starting point guard. Good spot up shooter, decent defender, average playmaker/passer. His style of play fits well next to ball-dominant players (Lebron, Kobe, Joe Johnson, Iggy, Wade... guys that help run the offense without being point guards).

Is he the perfect fit for us right now? No, but at least he's not disappointing. Paul is also showing signs that he could develop into the "Give me the ball and I'll do something" type of player which means that if he actually develops that ability then Hill would be great next to him

vnzla81
02-05-2013, 05:16 PM
Did you read his last line?

Yes I did, I'm done with this conversation by the way lets enjoy that we have Hill.

Trader Joe
02-05-2013, 05:16 PM
Hill has been a 15, 5, and 5 guy all season except for the stretch when he was injured. He is a pretty good value at 8 million a year if he keeps doing that and continues to provide good defensive initiation for our system (funneling everyone to our whirling dirvish of death paint defense).

As long as he is doing those things, it's tough to think of very many guys that are clear upgrade from a talent to value stand point, that are also realistically obtainable.

Trader Joe
02-05-2013, 05:17 PM
Yes I did, I'm done with this conversation by the way lets enjoy that we have Hill.

I think you and I agree on Hill, I was just trying to say I thought UB had asked a direct question, not just made a ridiculous comment.

Sookie
02-05-2013, 05:18 PM
My concern with Hill is in the playoffs, last season he struggled to run an offense against greater defensive pressure.

But then again, with Granger returning, Lance and PG improving, and the offense running through West, Hill might be able to just focus more on scoring and defense. IMO..he's bread and butter.

Hill is one of my favorite players on this team, and I think he's done a good job this season. But I do worry about him playing out of position come the playoffs. (Granted, our biggest threat..Miami..doesn't exactly have an top point guard.)

McKeyFan
02-05-2013, 05:18 PM
Shouldn't it be, "He's good in all areas, but neither great nor weak in any areas"

Shouldn't it be "in any area" ?

:banghead:

Derek2k3
02-05-2013, 05:19 PM
That's been my problem with Hill for awhile now... people think he's "good enough".

However fanciful it may seem, I have elite ambitions for this team.

Who do you upgrade George with, and still afford West/George/Hibbert, let alone Granger?

Rondo? He was on the 2008 Finals team/winners...of course, so were Ray Allen, KG, Perk, Pierce, Davis etc. Sure hasn't gotten them there since.

CP3? Nope. Money, and hasn't been to the Finals.

Deron? Nope. Money, and has the same amount of Finals appearances as Hill.

Nash? Nope.

Rose? Nope.

Kidd? Maybe 7 years ago.

Parker? I'd take him, for sure. Money is probably the issue here as well.

Honestly, as far as guys that are obvious upgrades, it seems to be a "grass is greener" situation, as either the money doesn't work, or the player hasn't shown himself to be the difference maker for a championship type team.

It seems to take a couple dominant individual players, and a solid rotation to win a title. Dominant PG play hasn't translated into NBA Finals success.

Trader Joe
02-05-2013, 05:19 PM
My concern with Hill is in the playoffs, last season he struggled to run an offense against greater defensive pressure.

But then again, with Granger returning, Lance and PG improving, and the offense running through West, Hill might be able to just focus more on scoring and defense. IMO..he's bread and butter.

Hill is one of my favorite players on this team, and I think he's done a good job this season. But I do worry about him playing out of position come the playoffs. (Granted, our biggest threat..Miami..doesn't exactly have an top point guard.)

That was also Hill's first time in the playoffs as the lead point guard everyone was game planning for. Look for a better Hill in the playoffs this year too IMO

Ace E.Anderson
02-05-2013, 05:19 PM
The difference between hill and most of those guys is they at least had the court vision/passing ability to make a pass when they needed to. Hill constantly doesn't see open guys or forces passes that aren't there. A lot more forces recently.

I must not see the open guys that he fails to get the ball to. Our offense doesn't really have very much off the ball movement, so it's not like there're a lot of passes to be made where someone isn't stationary.

He is not the best passing guard no, but you can't be a poor passing guard as you suggest and average 5 assists. Especially within this offense.

IMO Hill is no worse of a passer than Jason Terry, Derek Fisher, or even Chauncey Billups

vnzla81
02-05-2013, 05:21 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W-VzItbc0nY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>




<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S0qw8Xa0Iz8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ace E.Anderson
02-05-2013, 05:22 PM
Hill has been a 15, 5, and 5 guy all season except for the stretch when he was injured. He is a pretty good value at 8 million a year if he keeps doing that and continues to provide good defensive initiation for our system (funneling everyone to our whirling dirvish of death paint defense).

As long as he is doing those things, it's tough to think of very many guys that are clear upgrade from a talent to value stand point, that are also realistically obtainable.

This.

I don't think I've ever seen so many people disappointed with solid numbers/solid play on a decent contract

Unclebuck
02-05-2013, 05:24 PM
Shouldn't it be "in any area" ?

:banghead:

Yes, that is it. That is why I always got B's in writing. Not bad, but not quite A level

Trader Joe
02-05-2013, 05:25 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W-VzItbc0nY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>




<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S0qw8Xa0Iz8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

Watching Artest play 1 on 1 D these days is legitimately one of the funniest things in the NBA.

Randolph_HorseLips
02-05-2013, 05:26 PM
UncleBuck,

Among PGs averaging at least 20 minutes, Hill is:

15th in FG%
19th in assist/turnover ratio
30th in assists per 48m
31st in steals per 48m

Again, he's not a championship caliber starter. The great Spurs front office obviously didn't think so, either.

Some will argue defense, and I agree he is a solid defender, but not so great that it trumps the lackluster production in other areas. Besides, our defense seemed to actually be better when he missed several games back in early January.

I'm just expressing an opinion and am not interested in playing armchair GM. I will say this, though... this team seemed to be playing its best back when DJ had a few starts. Remember that's when we actually started beating good teams?

Is Hill "good enough"? Sure, if you're happy with a playoff appearance and MAYBE one series win.

I think this team is closer to elite than people realize, and now is not the time to have a complacent mindset.

pacergod2
02-05-2013, 05:34 PM
IMO, Hill is the best value in the league for a non-rookie contract PG. Sure, CP3 probably brings in endorsement money from outside sources that help the Clippers get value out of him, but strictly speaking for on court production, for $8M per year, Hill gives us everything we need out of a PG. A very good post entry passer, a long defender, one hell of an assist-to-turnover ratio (in an offense not conducive to voluminous individual assists), a deadly shooter from deep, a guy who is capable of creating off the dribble and score in the paint when the defense opens up, a calming and mature influence, and loyalty to our franchise. What else are we looking for out of a PG for another $12M per year (or 250% of his current salary)? That he is a little bit better in the pick and roll offensively or that he was a better speed dribbler? He has greatly improved both of those aspects since he has gotten here. You want him to score more? He facilitates the scoring of the rest of our team and looks for his secondarily, which is the whole point of a traditional PG. Plus, he is our most efficient player, possibly outside of David West. The key to our team is that Hill, West, and Granger become three of the most efficient players in the league. Let Roy, Lance, and Paul give us the dynamic aspect to our team.

Hill is everything we need out of a PG. While his salary remains constant over the next four plus years, his ability as a PG will only get better. You need cost effective players in Indiana, and he exemplifies it.

Randolph_HorseLips
02-05-2013, 05:39 PM
a deadly shooter from deep,

36% from 3 pt range = undeadly.

Ace E.Anderson
02-05-2013, 05:47 PM
36% from 3 pt range = undeadly.

He actually started the year in a slump (30%), and has raised his % to 36 now. He's 37% for his career--which is pretty damn good when you have a higher number of attempts per game.

Randolph_HorseLips
02-05-2013, 05:49 PM
He actually started the year in a slump (30%), and has raised his % to 36 now. He's 37% for his career--which is pretty damn good when you have a higher number of attempts per game.

He's not a deadly shooter from deep. He's just OK.

Cousy47
02-05-2013, 05:52 PM
I don't know if you try to replace George Hill at this stage of the Pacer's growth. Loved the guy's game ever since IUPUI days and think of him as a Guard rather than a 1 or a 2. These labels, in most cases, are silly anyway in the NBA of today. I really thought Magic had done away with these pigeon hole positions in the 1980's.

Goyle
02-05-2013, 05:53 PM
That's been my problem with Hill for awhile now... people think he's "good enough".

However fanciful it may seem, I have elite ambitions for this team.

When I think of Hill being "Good enough" I'm thinking good enough to win it all.

pacergod2
02-05-2013, 05:54 PM
36% from 3 pt range = undeadly.

Unfortunately, you have to put in perspective where he gets that percentage from. Hill, especially early in the season, took a lot of deep, contested threes late in the shot clock that had very little chance of going in. When I watch him shoot, even with a defender closing, his form is aligned and regimented, his shot rotation is constant, and his arc path is almost always perfect. When I watch him shoot, I see a "deadly shooter" in the flow of a game. His percentage might not fit your definition of "deadly shooter from deep", but he's not just pick pocketing wide open shots as a fourth or fifth option like a Korver, Anderson, Redick, or Novak. When that was his role, he shot .399 and .377 for the Spurs from deep as a younger player. Ideally he also wouldn't be shooting 4.6 threes per game as the second or third option either. If he had 4.6 attempts per game as a fourth or fifth option, I would feel much better about what he was doing and I could guarantee his 3P% would be higher as well. His touch is not quite as good as Nash, no, but for a PG, he has a great stroke.

Randolph_HorseLips
02-05-2013, 05:57 PM
When I think of Hill being "Good enough" I'm thinking good enough to win it all.

Nice!^

Randolph_HorseLips
02-05-2013, 06:00 PM
Unfortunately, you have to put in perspective where he gets that percentage from. Hill, especially early in the season, took a lot of deep, contested threes late in the shot clock that had very little chance of going in. When I watch him shoot, even with a defender closing, his form is aligned and regimented, his shot rotation is constant, and his arc path is almost always perfect. When I watch him shoot, I see a "deadly shooter" in the flow of a game. His percentage might not fit your definition of "deadly shooter from deep", but he's not just pick pocketing wide open shots as a fourth or fifth option like a Korver, Anderson, Redick, or Novak. When that was his role, he shot .399 and .377 for the Spurs from deep as a younger player. Ideally he also wouldn't be shooting 4.6 threes per game as the second or third option either. If he had 4.6 attempts per game as a fourth or fifth option, I would feel much better about what he was doing and I could guarantee his 3P% would be higher as well. His touch is not quite as good as Nash, no, but for a PG, he has a great stroke.

You wax poetic over George Hill, but the truth is you're glossing over the fact that he's just ok. He's not a deadly shooter, he doesn't have a "hell of a" assist:turnover ratio, he's just ok.

He's an ok player on a better-than-ok team.

Hopefully that's good enough to help us make the next step this year.

Anthem
02-05-2013, 06:10 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W-VzItbc0nY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Wow, I noticed something I've never noticed before. Danny runs out on the court, and Sam Young helps get him back to the sidelines. You see it at the 39-second mark... after Danny runs out to see George Hill, Sam puts his arms around Danny's waist as they walk off the floor. I'm assuming that's not romantic. You also see it in the bench shot at 1:05... Danny starts walking onto the court, and Sam stands up, watches him, and walks behind him onto the court.

I'd never noticed that before. But I doubt anybody asked Sam to do that... that looks like a decent guy being helpful.

Ace E.Anderson
02-05-2013, 06:10 PM
He's not a deadly shooter from deep. He's just OK.

Okay your mind is made up lol so I won't argue. But consider:

J. Terry: 38% from 3, 45% from the field, 55% TS%
C Billups: 39% from 3, 42% from the field, 58% TS%
G. Hill: 37% from 3, 45% from the field, 56% TS%

So why do I compare him to the likes of Jason Terry and Chauncey Billups? Both were non-traditional lead guards's that were known for hitting big shots in the clutch and being extremely solid if not spectacular--on championship level teams. I believe Hill's game is in this mold. Yes it's easy to say 37% is not a deadly percentage, but you can throw percentages out of the window in the clutch, where Hill has risen to the occasion a number of times.

I had already asked you to name 3-5 elite PG's that had won the championship in the last 20 years that you seemed to blow off; so I won't keep harping on the subject. But I believe history shows that you're more likely to compete for a championship with a lead guard like Hill on your roster as opposed to playing with a ball dominant "star" at the PG position.

Anthem
02-05-2013, 06:12 PM
You wax poetic over George Hill, but the truth is you're glossing over the fact that he's just ok. He's not a deadly shooter, he doesn't have a "hell of a" assist:turnover ratio, he's just ok.

He's an ok player on a better-than-ok team.

Hopefully that's good enough to help us make the next step this year.
Every playoff team has a starting player that's worse than George Hill. If Danny comes back strong and Hibbert can recover just a little bit of his mojo, Hill will be the ideal PG to fill in the first unit.

TinManJoshua
02-05-2013, 06:13 PM
Wow, I noticed something I've never noticed before. Danny runs out on the court, and Sam Young helps get him back to the sidelines. You see it at the 39-second mark... after Danny runs out to see George Hill, Sam puts his arms around Danny's waist as they walk off the floor. I'm assuming that's not romantic. You also see it in the bench shot at 1:05... Danny starts walking onto the court, and Sam stands up, watches him, and walks behind him onto the court.

I'd never noticed that before. But I doubt anybody asked Sam to do that... that looks like a decent guy being helpful.

I also think he was a little concerned about potential ramifications of Danny roaming onto the court in street clothes. You don't see it that often and I assumed there is a rule against it.

Randolph_HorseLips
02-05-2013, 06:18 PM
Every playoff team has a starting player that's worse than George Hill.

That's not a bad point. If you're right, though, my confidence that we'll win it all just doubled.

I've enjoyed this debate but I'm done. Besides, it's starting to hurt my feelings that everyone's ganging up on me.

pacergod2
02-05-2013, 06:24 PM
You wax poetic over George Hill, but the truth is you're glossing over the fact that he's just ok. He's not a deadly shooter, he doesn't have a "hell of a" assist:turnover ratio, he's just ok.

He's an ok player on a better-than-ok team.

Hopefully that's good enough to help us make the next step this year.

My poetic waxing is making you seem stubborn in your opinion. A "deadly shooter from deep" may have been a bit superfluous, but it is about the framework of your opinion. He does have a hell of an assist-to-turnover ratio considering our offense. If you consider the players with the highest assist totals, they are always at the top of the league in Assist Percentage and Turnovers. Those players' total assists numbers water down their assist-to-turnover ratio, which is in direct relation to how much they have the ball in their hands in their offense as evidenced by their high Assist Percentage. This also leads to having a ton of turnovers. George Hill is nowhere in the top 20 of any of those three categories, which to me amplifies the significance of this statistic for him.

I'm glad you are starting to read peotry that is capable of expand your horizons.

-E.A. Poe's Understudy

pacergod2
02-05-2013, 06:28 PM
That's not a bad point. If you're right, though, my confidence that we'll win it all just doubled.

I've enjoyed this debate but I'm done. Besides, it's starting to hurt my feelings that everyone's ganging up on me.

Nobody is jumping all over you. There are just several people making similar points. Your point is what has been driving this good discussion.

Randolph_HorseLips
02-05-2013, 06:30 PM
Nobody is jumping all over you.

Oh, I know.

I'm just sensitive and my feelings get hurt easily.

Mr.Hinds
02-05-2013, 06:33 PM
Hill will never be a traditional PG in any sense, other than being the player who most often brings the ball up the court.

People who think we need to upgrade the "point guard" position needs to look up anything about Franks plan for this offense. He plays basically three fundamentally similar perimeter player. Strong, long defenders that are capable of getting into the paint and finishing, threatening 3 pt shooters, and shoot well from the foul line. Every player is encourage to go for his own shot to some extent and if he draws two defenders make the extra pass.

Honestly to label our back court the generic 1 and 2 guard would be inaccurate. We are the ultimate combo guard community.

If we brought in an elite point guard we would have to change our offense to use them to their fullest ability. Now maybe our offense would be better, but they would be unlikely to bring the tools that GH has.

imawhat
02-05-2013, 06:41 PM
Hill has been better than expected. Transitioning to PG, especially when it's not in your instincts, is extremely difficult to do but he's done a fine job. He drives me crazy with the complete underutilization of his great mid-range game, but that's picking nits. I'm glad he's our PG.

Trader Joe
02-05-2013, 06:41 PM
UncleBuck,

Among PGs averaging at least 20 minutes, Hill is:

15th in FG%
19th in assist/turnover ratio
30th in assists per 48m
31st in steals per 48m

Again, he's not a championship caliber starter. The great Spurs front office obviously didn't think so, either.

Some will argue defense, and I agree he is a solid defender, but not so great that it trumps the lackluster production in other areas. Besides, our defense seemed to actually be better when he missed several games back in early January.

I'm just expressing an opinion and am not interested in playing armchair GM. I will say this, though... this team seemed to be playing its best back when DJ had a few starts. Remember that's when we actually started beating good teams?

Is Hill "good enough"? Sure, if you're happy with a playoff appearance and MAYBE one series win.

I think this team is closer to elite than people realize, and now is not the time to have a complacent mindset.

We've beaten plenty of good teams with Hill starting also....you're getting dangerously close to suggesting you'd prefer to see DJ starting over Hill which I just can't understand. Look if the Clippers called me up tomorrow and said I could have Chris Paul for HIll straight up, yeah I do it. I'm just not seeing a way to upgrade the point guard position that is a smart value/talent move.

kmjohnson
02-05-2013, 06:45 PM
We've beaten plenty of good teams with Hill starting also....you're getting dangerously close to suggesting you'd prefer to see DJ starting over Hill

I think he's already said it, haha.

CableKC
02-05-2013, 07:20 PM
All UB is saying is how do you do it? How do you get a better PG than Hill without giving up one of the starters you don't want to upgrade?
My guess for the answer to that from vnzla81 would be, what could GH and Granger get on the open market :shrug:?

Randolph_HorseLips
02-05-2013, 07:29 PM
you're getting dangerously close to suggesting you'd prefer to see DJ starting over Hill

You know, if we're going to ignore stats based on them being skewed circumstantially, then we need to consider the awful situation DJ has been put in. Our bench is good defensively, but there's very little there for a PG to work with.

DJ was a different guy when he got a chance with the starters. In fact, this team didn't appear to miss Hill at all.

Anthem
02-05-2013, 07:35 PM
That's not a bad point. If you're right, though, my confidence that we'll win it all just doubled.

I've enjoyed this debate but I'm done. Besides, it's starting to hurt my feelings that everyone's ganging up on me.
I figured you'd point out the obvious flaw in my logic by saying "Those are two very big ifs.". Not much I can say to that.

But I appreciate you going easy on me.

Randolph_HorseLips
02-05-2013, 07:41 PM
I figured you'd point out the obvious flaw in my logic by saying "Those are two very big ifs.". Not much I can say to that.

But I appreciate you going easy on me.

I am an optimist regarding the Pacers, just not so much with Hill. I would never rain on the parade of IFs regarding Hibbert or Granger.

;)

Major Cold
02-05-2013, 08:13 PM
The only way we get a player better than Hill at the point is if a great PG becomes malcontent on a team and they will take Granger for him. Hill could be moved to the 2.

If the Pacers are keeping Lance though we don't need a ball dominate point. Cause Hill, Lance, and Paul are capable of seeing the floor good enough to swing it from one side to the other. West is capable of making the opponents pay for cheating or doubling.

What we lack is curls and a player that can be patient while in the lane or close to it and hitting slashers.

Hill will continue to grow in this new role and at his age we have a solid player.

BlueNGold
02-05-2013, 08:17 PM
The only way we get a player better than Hill at the point is if a great PG becomes malcontent on a team and they will take Granger for him. Hill could be moved to the 2.

If the Pacers are keeping Lance though we don't need a ball dominate point. Cause Hill, Lance, and Paul are capable of seeing the floor good enough to swing it from one side to the other. West is capable of making the opponents pay for cheating or doubling.

What we lack is curls and a player that can be patient while in the lane or close to it and hitting slashers.

Hill will continue to grow in this new role and at his age we have a solid player.

No, we don't need a ball dominate PG to dominant the league. Just ask JO. He became a dominate PF for the Pacers and we dominanted the EC for several years. Dominate PG's are simply not needed to dominant.

Graham Mernatsi
02-05-2013, 09:22 PM
No, we don't need a ball dominate PG to dominant the league. Just ask JO. He became a dominate PF for the Pacers and we dominanted the EC for several years. Dominate PG's are simply not needed to dominant.
Great gravy, man. It's like you're TRYING to give me a heart attack.

:arrgh:




EDIT: Look, let me help.


No, we don't need a ball-dominant PG to dominate the league. Just ask JO. He became a dominant PF for the Pacers and we dominated the EC for several years. Dominant PGs are simply not needed to dominate.


This isn't complicated, people. "Dominant" is an adjective. "Dominate" is a verb. I swear you people just do this to troll me at this point.

Wage
02-05-2013, 11:58 PM
Every playoff team has a starting player that's worse than George Hill.

Including the Pacers.

King Tuts Tomb
02-06-2013, 12:06 AM
This isn't complicated, people. "Dominant" is an adjective. "Dominate" is a verb. I swear you people just do this to troll me at this point.

No reason for this, it's annoying. A lot of people post on this board with phones or in a hurry. His point was clear and you understood it just fine.

King Tuts Tomb
02-06-2013, 12:10 AM
As for Hill, I've been really impressed with him this year. The point guard position has a lot of unique responsibilities and it takes time to learn. Moving Hill over to PG like that is like asking a violinist in an orchestra to move over to the cello.

One of the biggest flaws in our offense last year I thought was our inability to get our bigs the ball in deep position. This year Hill, Lance and Paul George are all giving great entry passes and giving the ball to West and Hibbert at comfortable spots on the floor.

15th parallel
02-06-2013, 12:18 AM
The problem I see with some of the arguments here is that a PG is mainly characterized based from stats like assists, TOs, A/T ratio, or skills like court vision, speed, ball handling, etc. But for me, a good PG should mainly has court smarts, leadership, stability, and excellent play making. And I think George Hill has hit most of the points I mentioned, so while he maybe average in terms of PG skills stat-wise, he has done a great job handling the PG position for most of the games he played. Skills-wise, I can say he's not as good as CP3, DWill, Nash, or any elite PG playing right now. But he has learned to play his own style of PG that fits with what the Pacers are doing now. George Hill play the Chaucey Billups style of PG rather than Stephon Marbury style, and we know who did better in their careers.

Bball
02-06-2013, 12:39 AM
Are other teams fans as hard on their teams' PG's as Pacers fans? It seems like as long as I can remember the PG position has gotten the least amount of fan love. I'd say that's maybe because we haven't ever had many really good PGs but we had Mark Jackson and I can remember lots of complaining about Mark..

cgg
02-06-2013, 12:56 AM
Great gravy, man. It's like you're TRYING to give me a heart attack.

:arrgh:




EDIT: Look, let me help.




This isn't complicated, people. "Dominant" is an adjective. "Dominate" is a verb. I swear you people just do this to troll me at this point.

He clearly was trying to get them all wrong, because the guy he quoted got it wrong. lol

Day-V
02-06-2013, 01:21 AM
George Hill. I'd want him on my team.

mattie
02-06-2013, 03:28 AM
People also don't take in account the fact that this is Hill's first time playing point. The way he's playing it is pretty incredible. He actually has a lot of room to grow.

By the end of his career he'll probably be known as Indiana's best point guard ever (not saying a lot), and will definitely be one of our most beloved players.

mattie
02-06-2013, 04:01 AM
Check out this guard's numbers in his second and third seasons when he was learning how to play pointguard. (and if you remember, he was absolutely learning the position)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html

McKeyFan
02-06-2013, 08:47 AM
:arrgh:




EDIT: Look, let me help.




This isn't complicated, people. "Dominant" is an adjective. "Dominate" is a verb. I swear you people just do this to troll me at this point.

I'm pretty sure he was being facetious. I got it right away.

McKeyFan
02-06-2013, 08:51 AM
Great gravy, man.

By the way, can Graham dole out THANKS on this board? If so, I am one to whom the favor would be most appreciated.

Graham Mernatsi
02-06-2013, 09:44 AM
He clearly was trying to get them all wrong, because the guy he quoted got it wrong. lol
I stand corrected. That doesn't happen often.

:arrgh:

Major Cold
02-06-2013, 10:44 AM
No, we don't need a ball dominate PG to dominant the league. Just ask JO. He became a dominate PF for the Pacers and we dominanted the EC for several years. Dominate PG's are simply not needed to dominant.


He clearly was trying to get them all wrong, because the guy he quoted got it wrong. lol


I'm pretty sure he was being facetious. I got it right away.


I stand corrected. That doesn't happen often.

:arrgh:

http://www.michaelhighland.com/gifcrash/screw-you.gif

Randolph_HorseLips
02-09-2013, 04:33 PM
George Hill was an impressive 3-for-8 last night with 5 assists and 2 big missed free throws. And when we were going for the win at the end of OT, he's the only guy that touches the ball and he dribbles the ball out of bounds.

Many of our guards/skill players seem like they've gotten better as the year has gone along. Paul George, Stephenson, Augustin. It's hard to say the same thing about George Hill.

BlueNGold
02-09-2013, 04:46 PM
George Hill was an impressive 3-for-8 last night with 5 assists and 2 big missed free throws. And when we were going for the win at the end of OT, he's the only guy that touches the ball and he dribbles the ball out of bounds.

Many of our guards/skill players seem like they've gotten better as the year has gone along. Paul George, Stephenson, Augustin. It's hard to say the same thing about George Hill.

Hill has been solid all year and has been shooting 50% from the floor the last 5 games. He just put 22 points on Chicago shooting 70% from the floor and 60% from three. Not really sure what he needs to do to get some love...

Augustin has improved from his D league play and our young players also improved. But Hill is still outplaying all but Paul George and DWest on the entire team.

Randolph_HorseLips
02-09-2013, 05:08 PM
Hill has been solid all year and has been shooting 50% from the floor the last 5 games.

Look at his stats since about early January, though. The guy just hasn't been very good.

Ace E.Anderson
02-09-2013, 06:23 PM
Look at his stats since about early January, though. The guy just hasn't been very good.

Stats since January: 13.9 pts, 3.5 Rebs, 4.9 assists....47.8% FG 35.6 3pt%

So essentially 14 and 5 on good shooting % on a team that went 13-7 within that time frame.

Yup, hasn't played well.....

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hillge01/splits/2013/ (http://http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hillge01/splits/2013/)

BlueNGold
02-09-2013, 06:25 PM
Look at his stats since about early January, though. The guy just hasn't been very good.

He was coming off an injury in early January and actually missed the first two games of the year because of it. By his 4th game of the month on Jan 12th he started scoring in double figures...for the rest of the month. He actually had a pretty good January considering the injury.

Randolph_HorseLips
02-09-2013, 06:42 PM
Those January stats don't look special to me. Maybe you can argue average or servicable.

Even his free-throw percentage declined.

January was Hill's weakest month of the season statistically, so I'll again go back to my point... he just doesn't seem to be improving as the year goes along (a case I've heard made by several people both on here and in the real world).

He's a local boy and a fresh face. We're content with him for now. He's "good enough". Mark my words, though... people will see the light within a year or two.

BlueNGold
02-09-2013, 06:58 PM
We're not looking at much of a drop-off. Wait until next month. ...and not every player is going to break-out like Paul and Lance every year. Let's not compare Hill to them.

The fact is, Hill is already very good and playing better than Lance and everyone else on the team than DWest and Paul George. If you want to look for problems, you might look at backup SG...or backup SF. When Granger returns, that problem will be solved too. Really, I know Hill isn't the ideal PG but he's good enough to win a title because he has enough other skills beyond running an offense.

Edit: I suppose I just compared him to Lance...lol.

Randolph_HorseLips
02-09-2013, 07:13 PM
You're right that he's not really a PG. He's be a good 6th man/2 guard, just as the Spurs saw it.

Hicks
02-09-2013, 07:18 PM
Those January stats don't look special to me. Maybe you can argue average or servicable.

Even his free-throw percentage declined.

January was Hill's weakest month of the season statistically, so I'll again go back to my point... he just doesn't seem to be improving as the year goes along (a case I've heard made by several people both on here and in the real world).

He's a local boy and a fresh face. We're content with him for now. He's "good enough". Mark my words, though... people will see the light within a year or two.

If he's good enough, then he's good enough. It's not rocket science. We didn't keep him around to be a star player. He's a respectable, good enough, two way player who can hold down the fort at starting point guard for years to come. He's perfectly fine. You seem like you want him to be something more than he is, but that's your problem, not Hill's. What he actually is or does, it fulfills our needs at that spot.

BlueNGold
02-09-2013, 07:21 PM
If he's good enough, then he's good enough. It's not rocket science. We didn't keep him around to be a star player. He's a respectable, good enough, two way player who can hold down the fort at starting point guard for years to come. He's perfectly fine. You seem like you want him to be something more than he is, but that's your problem, not Hill's. What he actually is or does, it fulfills our needs at that spot.

Agreed. I would say that his ideal role is 6th man since he can play either guard position quite adequately. But no team has an ideal situation. If he's "our problem position"...we don't really have a problem.

mattie
02-09-2013, 07:26 PM
Consider the fact that Hill is probably the best point guard to ever play for Indiana. Ever.

That includes Mark Jackson who was such a liability when it came to scoring the ball that he had to be sit in 4th quarters. Travis Best closed out games for him.

It's not his ideal position? He's playing the position better than the majority of points in the league, and better than nearly every starting point for current playoff teams...

Chris Paul will never play for the Pacers. You get past that fact you'll probably be happy with out starting point guard.

mattie
02-09-2013, 07:27 PM
Oh and Lance is somehow making up for Hill's lack of an ability to distribute some are saying. That's why he's averaging 3.5 assits per 36 minutes...

BlueNGold
02-09-2013, 07:31 PM
Consider the fact that Hill is probably the best point guard to ever play for Indiana. Ever.

That includes Mark Jackson who was such a liability when it came to scoring the ball that he had to be sit in 4th quarters. Travis Best closed out games for him.

It's not his ideal position? He's playing the position better than the majority of points in the league, and better than nearly every starting point for current playoff teams...

Chris Paul will never play for the Pacers. You get past that fact you'll probably be happy with out starting point guard.

I agree with most of your post, but Mark Jackson was a great PG. He made the other 4 guys around him much better. I like George alot, but he doesn't do that...and that's a very important function. It's why Jason Kidd and Steve Nash are so valuable.

Hicks
02-09-2013, 07:31 PM
Agreed. I would say that his ideal role is 6th man since he can play either guard position quite adequately. But no team has an ideal situation. If he's "our problem position"...we don't really have a problem.

Sure. In a better Pacers world we have some superstar point guard and have Hill as our 6th man. Oh well.

Randolph_HorseLips
02-09-2013, 07:44 PM
If he's good enough, then he's good enough. It's not rocket science.

He's not good enough for me. Wasn't good enough for the Spurs either.

Hicks
02-09-2013, 07:53 PM
He's not good enough for me. Wasn't good enough for the Spurs either.

It doesn't matter if he's good enough for you so long as he's good enough for this team, which he is.

Naptown_Seth
02-09-2013, 08:21 PM
That's not a bad point. If you're right, though, my confidence that we'll win it all just doubled.

I've enjoyed this debate but I'm done. Besides, it's starting to hurt my feelings that everyone's ganging up on me.
Bunch of jerks all insisting the sun comes up in the East. ;)

Maybe the overwhelming opinion that Hill is what the team needs and is a fair value should tell you something. When all my friends disagree with me, people I normally trust, I start to reevaluate my opinion.

CJ Jones
02-09-2013, 08:34 PM
Oh and Lance is somehow making up for Hill's lack of an ability to distribute some are saying. That's why he's averaging 3.5 assits per 36 minutes...

3.5 on 14.5% usage rate. I doubt you find another wing player in the league with those numbers. He also leads all SGs in the NBA in ast/to ratio. If you factor in SFs he's 4th. He certainly helps.

I like Hill. He's only going to get better the longer he plays the position. If a trade came along and we could get a better point guard I'd be all for it, but for now he'll do just fine.

BlueNGold
02-09-2013, 10:47 PM
Bunch of jerks all insisting the sun comes up in the East. ;)

Maybe the overwhelming opinion that Hill is what the team needs and is a fair value should tell you something. When all my friends disagree with me, people I normally trust, I start to reevaluate my opinion.

DeJuan Blair?

cgg
02-09-2013, 11:40 PM
He's not good enough for me. Wasn't good enough for the Spurs either.

Now we know he's not better than Tony Parker.

PacersRule
02-09-2013, 11:59 PM
George Hill is probably my favorite pacer player. He didn't play very well against the raptors but I'm happy with what Hill brings to this team. I think Hill is capable of averaging 17 and 6, but that's not what the Pacers need and he's willing to sacrifice his play for the better of his team.

Derek2k3
02-10-2013, 12:09 AM
Hill is playing point guard for a team on an offensive resurgence of late, and people are unhappy with him.

So. What we're saying is nothing will be good enough.

Hill had a rough finish to the game yesterday, sure. But not HALF as bad as West. If you don't think fatigue had a significant role, then we'll just have to disagree. I'm not going to put much stock in how guys played late in an OT game, a 4th game in 5 nights.

Hill has been quite good. Who is playing better for a contender? Chalmers? Kidd/Felton? Hinrich? Nate Robinson? Deron Williams? Kyle Lowrey?

mattie
02-11-2013, 04:24 AM
Hill is playing point guard for a team on an offensive resurgence of late, and people are unhappy with him.

So. What we're saying is nothing will be good enough.

Hill had a rough finish to the game yesterday, sure. But not HALF as bad as West. If you don't think fatigue had a significant role, then we'll just have to disagree. I'm not going to put much stock in how guys played late in an OT game, a 4th game in 5 nights.

Hill has been quite good. Who is playing better for a contender? Chalmers? Kidd/Felton? Hinrich? Nate Robinson? Deron Williams? Kyle Lowrey?

Deron Williams has of late.. but then he damn well better play better. Deron Williams should be the second best point in the league. We all expected an MVP like year from him this year that never really materialized.

mattie
02-11-2013, 04:25 AM
3.5 on 14.5% usage rate. I doubt you find another wing player in the league with those numbers. He also leads all SGs in the NBA in ast/to ratio. If you factor in SFs he's 4th. He certainly helps.

I like Hill. He's only going to get better the longer he plays the position. If a trade came along and we could get a better point guard I'd be all for it, but for now he'll do just fine.

The point is he is not distributing. Hill is handling the ball and distributing more than him. Lance is playing the majority of the time off the ball with a low usage rate.

Nuntius
02-11-2013, 06:35 AM
Remember that's when we actually started beating good teams?


That's only because we started playing this good teams at home for a change.

We were always able to beat good teams. But only at home. When we kept getting good teams on the road it was logical to lose without Danny.