Yea I find it funny how 2K only has him at a 75. He should be a 79 in my opinion. I love when Hill is on the floor.
There are 4 other players on the Pacers that are paid more than Hill. Shouldn't they be the ones that are at fault if this team doesn't win? I mean if those 4 higher players aren't good enough to win with Hill at the point... That's on Paul. That's on Roy. That's on West. That's on Granger. Those are the 4 all-stars on this team that should be good enough to lead this team to a championship even if Derrick Fisher is starting at point. Or Mario Chalmers.
Well said! It's his low-key personality compared to the other starters that maybe keeps the bobblehead sales down. I'd love to see more homegrown players on the roster.
Elite defensive point guard... since when???
There are a number of reasons. The fact he's not an elite defender like Rondo isn't one of them. First he didn't go to IU...or even Purdue...or even the big ten. If he had followed Eric Gorden's path he would be worshipped. IUPUI just doesn't cut it. Second he left town immediately and played a backup role in the western conference. So the masses either never knew him or forgot about him. The articles about him indicating he didn't want to come back to Indy did not help. I don't even want to get into what he said about Indy...and if you know about all this I wonder why it's even a surprise to you.
I don't think that he is the least-loved Pacer.
He's probably 3rd or 4th most-loved, after Roy and Paul, then maybe tied with or just after the BAMF.
He's the 4th most liked starter. I love George Hill and so do the fans.
I am a huge fan of G. Hill and want him to be taking shots at the ends of games because he has shown himself (other than in the Knicks game) to be very clutch. He has already hit a lot of game winners for us and I always love players that do that! That being said of the starters he does fall behind Hibbert, BAMF and PG. If we had to choose him or Lance I would keep him. But if we had to choose between him and the other guys it would be no conversation at all.
He is also not a true pg and our offense suffers sometimes because of it. Our D is great though so it works out.
Because he goes under the screen every single time
There's a difference between being liked as a person and a community member... and liked for the "special" things that one does on the court.
When it comes to "loved as a community member", I would say that Hill is probably in the top 2 or 3.
When it comes to "loved as a basketball player", he clearly is 5 or 6. That's not because he's not a good basketball player. It's because there are other players on the team that are better. :)
That circumstance is a lot different than being unloved.
Dude has ice water in his veins. His buzzer beater against the Lakers last year was one of my favorite moments from last season.
One thing I noticed about Hill, he never screws up. He never does anything too great or flashy to get that on-court recognition (except for his clutch plays), but he also never does anything terribly wrong. Most of our players will do something that gets a "what the hell are you doing??" reaction from me at least once or twice a game. I've noticed I rarely catch myself saying that about Hill.
I didn't know GH was the least loved. But I do know that the ignorant talk endlessly about the "need for a true point guard" on this team. They have a mindset that the "point guard" is the only one who can do a defined set of things for the team. IND doesn't use that formula, neither do quite a few teams. I seriously doubt that Vogel is concerned when he doesn't have a "point guard" on the court at the moment.
Those position designations are not all that important when it comes down to it.
First off, the article says "least popular <i><b>starter</b></i>" (emphasis mine), not "least popular <i><b>Pacer</b></i>". And when you think that two of them are Roy and Paul, do you think he'd rate higher? People seem to love Lance because he has worked hard and come from a negative viewpoint into a very positive one, and they love DWest because - well, because he's the BAMF. I don't think it is a matter of not loving GHill, it is that he has no real unique identity to latch on to.
And, besides, at the games he still gets a pretty big cheer when he is introduced.
I think this is a thread trying to tie people's preferences in who and what they see on the floor into love or hate for a particular player. Can we stop doing that?
After all, when I first read the subject, I thought it was going to be about Damon Bailey.
The major complaint that we've had with previous point guards is that they could not slow down the movement and penetration of the ball. They took away nothing. As a result, Hibbert was a foul machine. Hill, on the other hand, enables Hibbert the time he needs to survey the scene and to best position himself to be prepared for what is about to happen. I'm not taking anything away from Roy, he's worked very hard to elevate his defensive performance. What I am saying is that a point guard like Hill... and a wing like Paul... make his job a whole lot easier than it might have been. Same for West.
We don't give up points in the paint as much as other teams for a lot of reasons. We have good individual defenders and a great rim protector. But we no longer have a turnstile at the opponent's point of attack. That makes a huge difference. I don't think we should nitpick on the use of the term "elite"; I do think we should give Hill his due.
Isn't Stephesnson the least loved Pacer? I mean that guy really gets on everybody's nerves. It's just the way he plays though.
I like GHill a lot. I also can't comprehend why some wanted him to be traded. He has been a part of the system (both on offense and defense). He does what he does best.
Anywho. All I'm saying is we should probably appreciate him a little bit. I think it's a special, unique thing we got in Hill. Doesn't happen every day a hometown kid comes in and plays a huge role.
To answer your question ^ Lance as a Pacer is beloved by all Pacers fans, quite clearly. Outside of Indiana is a different story tho lol I'm sure many outside of Indiana can't stand the guy.
Hill is my fourth favorite Pacer right after Hibbert, Granger, and George.
And when I say least loved Pacer I mean this- If someone had said in 1996 Antonio Davis was the 5th or 6th loved Pacer, that wouldn't be damning. There was a ton of beloved Pacers on that team. Antonio was universally loved by Pacers fans. This was undeniable.
I'm not sure exactly how to say, but I definitely think you cannot say the same with Hill. I don't think he's universally loved. I think some tolerate him. I'm not saying he should necessarily be more loved than PG or Roy (tho he is to me), I'm just suggesting he should be universally loved as a Pacers favorite even if that means he's the 5th favorite starting Pacer on the team now. Does that make sense?
We're sort of arguing over semantics here I guess. Not intentionally tho.
Better than Mark Jackson? That might be a serious stretch. But there's no shame in not being a PG of Mark Jackson's caliber. I agree Hill's defense is better but Mark Jackson was a very fine PG with some serious skill on the offensive end of the court and with some great chemistry with Reggie.
That said, I'm a fan of George Hill.
PG has become a superstar who could very well become the best Pacer ever. It looks like he's going to have a chance at being a top 5 player for the next decade.
Roy has been an all-star and is the big fella who anchors our defense. He is a very unique player who is completely irreplaceable.
David West is a former all who is the wise old vet in this starting unit. His addition two years ago brought in a wave of professionalism and swagger that we desperately needed. No single move changed the attitude of our team more than the addition of this guy. He has shown guys like Hibbert and PG what it means to be the professional.
Lance is the feisty young enigma who grew up on the streets of Brooklyn and was drafted in the second round. He is exciting because he virtually has sky high potential right now, and no one knows exactly how great he can be.
George Hill is the most "average" of the starters from an excitability standpoint, IMHO. I don't mean that in a bad way. He is very good and I've been a huge fan of his ever since we brought him in. He is the best Pacer point guard since Mark Jackson. That being said, he is the least unique of the five starters aside from being from Indianapolis. The other four offer something unique that makes them a bit more popular in the eyes of the fans. Three of them have been all-stars while the other is an exciting young prospect with very high potential. At this point, we know what we have in Hill, which is perfectly fine BTW because he is very very solid.
It is a poorly kept secret that Hill didn't want to come back to Indy. Not that I can really blame him - I am sure he knows a lot of people here that are trying to hound him, ask him constantly for tickets and money. There are a lot of distractions moving back home. Plus if you're 23 or whatever he was when he got traded here and have seen a lot of different things and people, you may not be really excited about moving back home under any circumstances.
I thought Hill would subtly tell us not to re-sign him when he was an FA. However, I think he struck up an unexpectedly (from his perspective) good friendship with Paul George and gelled with the rest of the team. He also bought a place in a gated community in Geist that probably gives him the privacy he wants. So, he has probably warmed on Indy in the last couple of years and is content here. But, Hill doesn't really have the personality of an outgoing guy under any circumstances, so he's not going to put himself out there expressing love for the city just for the sake of it. He's just a quiet guy and flys under the radar a bit. I love his game though and hope he's in blue and gold for a long time.
I don't care where a player is from. If they can play I don't care if they are from the moon