Mario Chalmers vs. George Hill

[SenorSpur]

While suffering from boredom, while watching these NBA Finals and waiting impatiently for the upcoming NBA draft, I wanted to raise a comparison question.

I've been watching Mario Chalmers perform in the NBA Finals. He seems to embrace his role as a backup PG, he seems to run the team effectively, and has shown himself to be a decent defender. He's certainly done a good job in limiting Mavs backup, J.J. Barea.

Coming out of college, Chalmers already carried a reputation for being a clutch performer, that's not afraid of the big stage. After all, he did hit the game-winner in the NCAA Championship game. I don't have any idea as to what he's done during the season for this Heat team, but right now, he is definitely playing very well on the road in these Finals.

All that said, the Spurs had an opportunity to draft Chalmers in the 2008 NBA Draft, after Nic Batum was plucked by the Rockets, on behalf of the Blazers. We all know the story from there. The Spurs, instead, elected to draft the unknown combo guard George Hill, from IUPUI.

Realizing this is all hindsight, we all know Hill has been a good player, but one that certainly has shown some passive limitations - especially on the road. Now that it's 3 years later, I ask would any of you have preferred that the Spurs taken Chalmers over Hill, in that 2008 NBA draft?

Some additional food for thought - knowing that the Spurs (R.C. in particular) have a great relationship with KU coach, Bill Self, one would think that they knew all there was to know about Chalmers. That said, I wonder if there was a reason the Spurs passed over Chalmers?

[boutons_deux]

His 3Gs yesterday were impressive, but his stats for the playoffs are a different story

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/3419/mario-chalmers

[TJastal]

I was thinking the same thing tbh as Chalmers played some great defense on the perimeter, while calmly sinking 3 after 3 last night. I was originially for drafting Chalmers back in 2008 so the spurs wouldn't have to monkey around with a hit or miss project player like Hill, but at least Hill has performed admirably enough in his role on the spurs so as to not make the pick a total bust.

But yes, in hindsight the pick would have probably been better spent on Chalmers, unless Hill somehow lifts his clutchness to a new level and learns how to distribute the ball a bit better.

[cantthinkofanything]

I was thinking the same thing tbh as Chalmers played some great defense on the perimeter, while calmly sinking 3 after 3 last night. I was originially for drafting Chalmers back in 2008 so the spurs wouldn't have to monkey around with a hit or miss transitional period with Hill, but at least Hill has performed admirably enough to not make the pick a total bust.

But yes, in hindsight the pick would have probably been better spent on Chalmers.

How do I cash out my SpursTalk cash? I've won a little over $1,000 at the blackjack table and want to take my profits.

[k_nguyen93]

Chalmers also plays next to BRONBRON & WADE.

[Harry Callahan]

Mario Chalmers could not beat out the rotting corpse of Mike Bibby for the starting PG in Miami, so is he really all that great?

I think Hill has a more well rounded game than Chalmers and has been a better player so far. Chalmers is a nice player, but I like Hill's body of work better so far.

In addition, at the time, Chalmers had baggage that was shown at the 2008 rookie symposium, when he was asked to leave the function for conduct not considered appropriate (he had herbal product). The Kansas forward (D. Arthur) was also asked to leave for the same thing.

[Isitjustme?]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao




































:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[DesignatedT]

George Hill is a better player then Chalmers and would look even better then Chalmers if he played next to Lebron, Wade and Bosh.

Chalmers is definitely more of a PG but George is way more talented IMO.

[Mal]

Still would take Hill over Chalmers. All he does is hitting wide open threes. :lmao , but Miami`s starting PG is still Bibby

[ducks]

chambers is>>>>>>>>>>>>>hill

[Spurs da champs]

Still would take Hill over Chalmers. All he does is hitting wide open threes. :lmao , but Miami`s starting PG is still Bibby

Chalmers isnt having stupid turnovers and isn't nervous on the road. George Hill sucks!

[Bruno]

Hill > Chalmers and Chalmers having a handful of good playoffs games doesn't change that.

An edge that Hill has over Chalmers for Spurs is that he can play some SG. With Parker eating most of the PG minutes, a PG only like Chalmers wouldn't have played a lot for Spurs.

The emergence of Gary Neal raises some questions about Hill playing SG. Do you want Hill playing SG minutes over Neal and Manu? Is Manu playing a lot of minutes at SF a good thing for Spurs? If the answer is no to both questions, should Spurs keep Hill as a backup PG or should they trade him?

[cantthinkofanything]

Hill > Chalmers and Chalmers having a handful of good playoffs games doesn't change that.

An edge that Hill has over Chalmers for Spurs is that he can play some SG. With Parker eating most of the PG minutes, a PG only like Chalmers wouldn't have played a lot for Spurs.

The emergence of Gary Neal raises some questions about Hill playing SG. Do you want Hill playing SG minutes over Neal and Manu? Is Manu playing a lot of minutes at SF a good thing for Spurs? If the answer is no to both questions, should Spurs keep Hill as a backup PG or should they trade him?

They need to trade him for an athletic big man that can both a) be a shot blocking presence in the lane and b) provide around 10 points and 10 boards per game.

[Spurs da champs]

Hill > Chalmers and Chalmers having a handful of good playoffs games doesn't change that.

An edge that Hill has over Chalmers for Spurs is that he can play some SG. With Parker eating most of the PG minutes, a PG only like Chalmers wouldn't have played a lot for Spurs.

The emergence of Gary Neal raises some questions about Hill playing SG. Do you want Hill playing SG minutes over Neal and Manu? Is Manu playing a lot of minutes at SF a good thing for Spurs? If the answer is no to both questions, should Spurs keep Hill as a backup PG or should they trade him?

Hill has shown he can't run the point to answer your question. WE need a legit back up PG.

[Sean Cagney]

Hill did more last year versus Dallas than Chalmers had by far and you are forgetting that? He was the reason we beat them! He is up and down and had a off year yes, but still he is a better player and will be in this league IMO.

[JonNOKC]

George Hill is a better player then Chalmers and would look even better then Chalmers if he played next to Lebron, Wade and Bosh.

Chalmers is definitely more of a PG but George is way more talented IMO.

This

[jimo2305]

i'm just going to assume some of the posts in this thread were done with the user forgetting to put blue font on them.. otherwise they're pretty stupid statements.. in hindsight however, i'd still take hill over chalmers.. i remember raging during the draft as to why we didnt take chalmers over hill who was relatively unknown at the time.. as i was expecting us to do so with that pick.. but hill i believe has a better overall game.. he's a better slasher than chalmers imo and isn't as bad of a shooter..

[Calispursfan11]

chambers is>>>>>>>>>>>>>hill

Yeah, Tom Chambers was great!

[jimo2305]

http://www.gifsoup.com/view/608576/tom-chambers-o.gif

[Calispursfan11]

http://www.gifsoup.com/view/608576/tom-chambers-o.gif

Wow, insane GIF. I forgot how high that guy jumped.

[jimo2305]

yea chambers was black for a split second o.O

[Fireball]

that dunk is nasty ...

[elbamba]

Coming out of college, Chalmers already carried a reputation for being a clutch performer, that's not afraid of the big stage. After all, he did hit the game-winner in the NCAA Championship game. I don't have any idea as to what he's done during the season for this Heat team, but right now, he is definitely playing very well on the road in these Finals.


He actually hit the shot that sent the game into overtime with about two seconds left when he took the shot. Kansas outplayed Memphis and won easily in overtime. I watched the game in Lawrence that night, that is the only reason I remember.

[FkLA]

Are some of yall niggas stupid :lol

Chalmers has had a couple of good games but get back at me when hes ahead of guys like Arroyo or Bibbys corpse in that rotation...Hill is still easily the better player, there isnt a single GM in the league that would choose Chalmers over Hill based on what they have shown in their 3 years in the league.

[cheguevara]

Hill would be a goddam beast next to Wade + Lebron

[urunobili]

Said it then say it now, Chalmers is the better player, the Spurs don't like his off the court demeanor that's why he wasn't drafted.

[florige]

http://www.gifsoup.com/view/608576/tom-chambers-o.gif




lol, He pretty much jumped over Mark Jackson sheeesh.

[BuzzerBeater]

It's not George's team yet. How does he take that ownership. 4 trophies staring him in the face, all world guard ahead of him, shaping his game flow to anticipate how Tony's going to play, second guessing himself in the process. Yet I may come across as an apologist since it's been 3 years. How do you say "f-off Tony, I can't wait for you anymore" George is going to have to learn how to do that.

He rides the gravy train. But he also knows how everyone is pissed waiting for him to notch it up, missing his chance once again in the playoffs.

Can't respect anyone to the point of emasculating your own game. Punch 'em out already, GH3.

[K-State Spur]

Chalmers has been good for Miami in these Finals. You could call it being clutch, but you could also call it a Jaren Jackson type hot streak.

Mario can't create his own shot. He doesn't attack the rim worth a damn. And he's no more a PG than George Hill is.

If you offered Riles a trade of Hill for Chalmers straight up, he'd say: "YES YES! NO TAKE BACKS!"

This is selective viewing by a few Spurs fans that have only caught Chalmers during the past couple of games when he is playing well. That's not to say the George Hill is ever going to be much more than he currently is, but either of his past 2 seasons are probably better than Chalmers will ever be.

This is a rather ridiculous debate.

[FkLA]

just another attempt by the tp homers to throw hill under the bus tbh

whats funny to me is that parker had his troubles early in his career as well, his numbers stagnated for a couple of yrs and he wasnt exactly john stockton when it came to running a team...he had his playoff struggles, etc. yet these same parker homers are ready to give up on and look to trade a 3rd yr player with upside? makes no sense imho.

[cantthinkofanything]

Chalmers has been good for Miami in these Finals. You could call it being clutch, but you could also call it a Jaren Jackson type hot streak.

Mario can't create his own shot. He doesn't attack the rim worth a damn. And he's no more a PG than George Hill is.

If you offered Riles a trade of Hill for Chalmers straight up, he'd say: "YES YES! NO TAKE BACKS!"

This is selective viewing by a few Spurs fans that have only caught Chalmers during the past couple of games when he is playing well. That's not to say the George Hill is ever going to be much more than he currently is, but either of his past 2 seasons are probably better than Chalmers will ever be.

This is a rather ridiculous debate.

It's not so ridiculous by making it a package that includes TP for Bibby. Bibby has hit some bit shots recently. Love to seem him on the Spurs.

[K-State Spur]

It's not so ridiculous by making it a package that includes TP for Bibby. Bibby has hit some bit shots recently. Love to seem him on the Spurs.

What? Most of the debate is simply whether Chalmers is better than Hill (he's not) - not whether we would trade PG situations with them (which would be disastrous).

[eric365]

They need to trade him for an athletic big man that can both a) be a shot blocking presence in the lane and b) provide around 10 points and 10 boards per game.

And you think you can have that with George Hill as your trade asset :rollin

A double double guy with shot blocking is basicaly Joakim Noah or Tyson Chandler and it cost 10M+ per year in the current NBA.

You have to trade TP or Manu to get that. George Hill is not enough

[dallasmaverickslose]

http://media.onsugar.com/files/2011/05/18/1/1621/16210977/07/cool_story_bro_2.jpg

[cantthinkofanything]

And you think you can have that with George Hill as your trade asset :rollin

A double double guy with shot blocking is basicaly Joakim Noah or Tyson Chandler and it cost 10M+ per year in the current NBA.

You have to trade TP or Manu to get that. George Hill is not enough

I'd love to have Noah or Chandler for Hill. I don't know that the Mavericks would go for it but the Bulls are loaded with big men. With Hill they would have a decent third string PG or SG. And we'd have another strong post player to give Bonner some rest.

[jjktkk]

I'd love to have Noah or Chandler for Hill. I don't know that the Mavericks would go for it but the Bulls are loaded with big men. With Hill they would have a decent third string PG or SG. And we'd have another strong post player to give Bonner some rest.

Nice fantasy.

[K-State Spur]

I'd love to have Noah or Chandler for Hill. I don't know that the Mavericks would go for it but the Bulls are loaded with big men. With Hill they would have a decent third string PG or SG. And we'd have another strong post player to give Bonner some rest.

They balked at moving Noah for Melo. If you offered them George Hill for Noah, they'd hang up and add you to call block.

[thekingrobert]

I'm a Spurs fan living in Miami he is a career backup and can't even hold Hill's jockstrap

[underdawg]

I'm a Spurs fan living in Miami he is a career backup and can't even hold Hill's jockstrap

then trade Tony right away because Chalmers looks pretty decent in the Finals. Hill must be outstanding in practice then - we need to unleash him next year.

[SenorSpur]

Hill may be the better overall player, but hasn't matured or developed enough mental toughness needed to succeed on the big stage. He routinely comes up small in road games.

Chalmers, while not quite as talented, is fearless, has a history of hitting big shots (at home or on the road) and does know a thing about running an offense, from the PG position.

[FkLA]

Yall niggas are taking Chalmer's best sample size (this series) and comparing it to Hill's worst sample size (road games/playoff games were he obviously struggled). How about comparing the same Chalmers that was playing behind the likes of Carlos Arroyo or Mike Bibby for the past 2 yrs to Hill's worst? Or comparing the Chalmers that is playing well this Finals to the Hill that was great for us in the 2nd half of the season+playoffs in the 2010 playoffs ?

[underdawg]

Yall niggas are taking Chalmer's best sample size (this series) and comparing it to Hill's worst sample size (road games/playoff games were he obviously struggled). How about comparing the same Chalmers that was playing behind the likes of Carlos Arroyo or Mike Bibby for the past 2 yrs to Hill's worst? Or comparing the Chalmers that is playing well this Finals to the Hill that was great for us in the 2nd half of the season+playoffs in the 2010 playoffs ?

true - performances in the Finals not quite as important as the regular season or the 1st round of the playoffs.

[ducks]

chamber is way better then hill

[timtonymanu]

Chalmers beats Hill in being confident. Everything else, I would rather take Hill.

[ducks]

you would take hills point guard skills over chamber point guard skills

wow

[GSH]

Chalmers is better at the point. I don't see how anybody could argue against that with a straight face.

Chalmers likes to gamble on defense. He gets some steals, and blows some coverages. Pop doesn't like that.
Hill likes to gamble on defense. He gets some steals, and blows some coverages. Pop likes him anyway. (Overall, Hill still a better defender.)

Has everyone forgotten about Chalmers and Darell Arthur getting kicked out of the NBA's rookie transition program? If you aren't familiar, that's a weekend before the season when the rookies are schooled on being solid citizens and not letting themselves get into trouble with all that new money. Chalmers and Arthur skipped a session to stay in their hotel room with some ho's and weed. That kind of shit was never going to play in the Spurs system, no matter how many 3's he could hit.
Hill took a photo of his dong in a mirror, and was stupid enough to let someone else get hold of it. Pop agreed that if his was that big, he would take photos of it too.

Speculating on how Chalmers would have done here is like speculating on how good the Spurs would have been in 97-98 (Tim's first year, and Pop's first as head coach) - if the Spurs had kept Vernon Maxwell. It doesn't matter how good they would have been, because there was no way Mad Max was ever going to play under Pop as a head coach. [In '97, Maxwell had to pay some woman about a half million dollars for intentionally infecting her with herpes.]

Chalmers isn't as crazy as Maxwell, but he was never a threat to get drafted by the Spurs. Darell Arthur was looking pretty damned good with the Griz, but same story.

[ducks]

manu gambles on d all the time

if manu can do it on the spurs team
chambers could to

[ducks]

Chalmers is better at the point. I don't see how anybody could argue against that with a straight face.

Chalmers likes to gamble on defense. He gets some steals, and blows some coverages. Pop doesn't like that.
Hill likes to gamble on defense. He gets some steals, and blows some coverages. Pop likes him anyway. (Overall, Hill still a better defender.)

Has everyone forgotten about Chalmers and Darell Arthur getting kicked out of the NBA's rookie transition program? If you aren't familiar, that's a weekend before the season when the rookies are schooled on being solid citizens and not letting themselves get into trouble with all that new money. Chalmers and Arthur skipped a session to stay in their hotel room with some ho's and weed. That kind of shit was never going to play in the Spurs system, no matter how many 3's he could hit.
Hill took a photo of his dong in a mirror, and was stupid enough to let someone else get hold of it. Pop agreed that if his was that big, he would take photos of it too.

Speculating on how Chalmers would have done here is like speculating on how good the Spurs would have been in 97-98 (Tim's first year, and Pop's first as head coach) - if the Spurs had kept Vernon Maxwell. It doesn't matter how good they would have been, because there was no way Mad Max was ever going to play under Pop as a head coach. [In '97, Maxwell had to pay some woman about a half million dollars for intentionally infecting her with herpes.]

Chalmers isn't as crazy as Maxwell, but he was never a threat to get drafted by the Spurs. Darell Arthur was looking pretty damned good with the Griz, but same story.

sj did not get in trouble in sa

[Vic Petro]

Hill has had bigger games in the playoffs.

2009 Hill: 4 playoffs games, 0 over 10 pts
Chalmers: 7 playoff games, 1 over 10 pts (15 pts)

2010 Hill: 10 playoff games, 5 over 10 pts (29 pts, 21 pts, 17 pts, 17 pts, 14 pts)
Chalmers: 5 playoff games, 1 over 10 pts (20 pts)

2011 Hill: 6 playoff games, 4 over 10 pts (16 pts, 15 pts, 12 pts, 11 pts)
Chalmers: 19 playoff games, 5 over 10 pts (20 pts, 20 pts, 17 pts, 12 pts, 12 pts)

Total: Hill 9/20 playoff games over 10 pts (45%), Chalmers 7/31 playoff games over 10 pts (23%). Overall Chalmers is a 7.6 ppg scorer and 42% fg in his career in the playoffs, while Hill is 11.4 ppg and 42% fg.

Chalmers is on the court to score points. He doesn't run the offense and his impact on the defensive end is minimal. Hill is typically defending the other playoff team's best perimeter player (with varying success), but he still has better offensive outputs than Chalmers over the balance of his playoff career.

He needs to play better on the road.

[GSH]

manu gambles on d all the time

if manu can do it on the spurs team
chambers could to

Ducks - I'm not arguing that. I said, Hill does the same thing. Call that part a tie.

But overall, Hill is a better defender, I think. He moves his feet better on D than Chalmers, and he's longer. When Chalmers isn't gambling for a steal, his best move is to try and get up in someone's jockstrap. That lets too many guys blow around him. (JJ Barea likes it when Chalmers tries to guard him close.) He also gets some untimely fouls with that action.

If Hill were consistent, I'd give him the nod over Chalmers. But he wasn't. As far as playing for the Spurs though, weed and ho's in the hotel room is a definite minus for Super Mario, don't you think?



sj did not get in trouble in sa

I'm sorry... who the hell is sj? Max didn't get in trouble here, that I remember. He was just a head case, everywhere he went. But I think he was playing for the Spurs when he infected that woman with herpes on purpose. Frowned upon in the Spurs system. Frankly, I think Maxwell's extra scoring might have given the Spurs a shot at a title that first season with Timmy.

[ducks]

weed might be a problem
but nice guys do not always get the title

spurs need a player with an attitude
like jr smith or sj

[ducks]

I will also say like a lot of posters here said hills d is overrated and this year it went downhill

[ducks]

sj is stephen jackson
he used to play for the spurs

tell his agent told him he want to start to be built in his contract....

[GSH]

weed might be a problem
but nice guys do not always get the title

spurs need a player with an attitude
like jr smith or sj

I know you didn't see my edit, but I just said I think Maxwell's scoring might have given the Spurs a shot at a title in Timmy's first season.

Hell, I think Ron Artest's game outweighs his crazy-assed behavior. All I said was that it was never going to happen with Chalmers, because the Spurs' FO doesn't roll that way. And if they had any doubts during the draft, they didn't after him and Arthur got kicked out of Boy Scout Camp.

Now I'm not a fan of J.R. Smith, because he loses control on the court. I could give you some fresh examples from this season alone. My favorite was when he was on an uncontested fast break, turned an incredible 360, brought his arms down from the rafters... and missed the dunk. It was a critical point in a game that the Nuggets had fought to come back in, and he totally killed the momentum. They had that game in the bag, if Smith just makes the 2 points. He's a great scorer, but he only thinks about J.R. Smith. We can just agree to disagree about that one. But I'd like to see Chalmers and Arthur both here right about now.



sj is stephen jackson
he used to play for the spurs

tell his agent told him he want to start to be built in his contract....

Sorry, I didn't see it. The worst thing that ever happend to SJax is the Spurs not stepping up on that contract sooner. And one of the worst things that happened to the Spurs dynasty. I think he would have taken a contract without a starter guarantee. He was hurt because the Spurs didn't step up quicker, and his agent threw gas on the fire.

Hell yeah I'd take Jackson back. He wouldn't have gotten into the same kind of trouble if he'd stayed here. He might not have been a choirboy, but I don't think he would have gotten any major suspensions or like that.

[ducks]

I think pop would ran jr in
jr would respect pop he has titles
what has the overrated karl every done?
let melo not play d
wow

[Leetonidas]

He's playing within their system next to the two best players in the league and their butler, of course he's going to look good, all he's doing is shooting wide open 3s and playing defense. Hill is a better defender than Chalmers even though last season he seemed to have slipped on the defensive end, I really hope he concentrates on that because George has the tools to be a great defender especially with his massive arms. Chalmers on the other hand can't beat out Mike Bibby, possibly the worst starting PG in the NBA, for the starting spot. That's really all that needs to be said.

Besides Hill has done a lot more in his career than Chalmers so far. Hill is one of the main reasons we beat Dallas in 2010 and I seriously doubt Chalmers will ever be the reason a team beats another.

[ducks]

chambers right now is better then hill
hill might have been better before
but not now


spurs need an upgrade

someone has to go
sorry spur fans

[GSH]

nice guys do not always get the title




One more thing... you're also right about that part. A lot of people underestimate how important Mario Elie was to that '99 championship. He wasn't getting into trouble off the court, but he was definitely not a nice guy. That bulldog, I've-got-your-back toughness changed the personality of the team. I was at that WC Semifinal game when Elie made the kiss of death shot. Blowing a kiss at the Suns bench was just an asshole thing to do. But Elie was pretty damned good about walking the walk, and nobody ever pushed around a team that he was on.

And you're right, we need some of that here.



I think pop would ran jr in
jr would respect pop he has titles
what has the overrated karl every done?
let melo not play d
wow

Maybe Pop could keep him in line. I think it's in his DNA, but maybe that's too hard. Karl is another coach who's good at winning regular season games, and he does like to let guys do their thing. If I thought the guy could be a team player... I'd be bitching because the Spurs won't sign him. I'm just not a believer. I've watched the guy pretty close. I think he wants to be top dawg so badly he can taste it.

[Leetonidas]

chambers right now is better then hill
hill might have been better before
but not now


spurs need an upgrade

someone has to go
sorry spur fans

You are R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D. I know it's your shtick and all but for fuck's sake c'mon son

[ducks]

spurs can not stand pat

splitter will be better duncan and manu will be worse at the begging of the season or play limited minutes
spurs need a new hungry player that has not won a title

[GSH]

chambers right now is better then hill
hill might have been better before
but not now


spurs need an upgrade

someone has to go
sorry spur fans


Red letter night - I agree with almost everything. If you look at this roster, and these salaries, and the competition, the Spurs have to bring in an upgrade (or two) to contend. And that means someone has to go. Otherwise, we're looking at more early playoff exits. I don't know if the upgrade(s) could really be pulled off, with the cap situation. But that's what needs to happen. It's a business, not a marriage.

I will say that Hill was a hell of a lot better as a starter than Chalmers ever was as a starter. I watched Chalmers pretty closely for a while, and there's no doubt about that. And Hill is without a doubt smarter than Chalmers. If Chalmers had to try and play within the Spurs' (complicated) defensive system, he'd be totally out of his depth. No player has ever benefitted the Spurs from inside Pop's doghouse.



spurs can not stand pat

splitter will be better duncan and manu will be worse at the begging of the season or play limited minutes
spurs need a new hungry player that has not won a title

... and this is your Ducks on truth serum.

[K-State Spur]

Chalmers is better at the point. I don't see how anybody could argue against that with a straight face.

I'll argue it. He's a 40% shooter, 35% 3 PT shooter, 2.5 APG/1.5 TO over the course of a season. He was so good during the season that he sat behind Arroyo and the ghost of Mike Bibby (who can't guard anyone). That's essentially what you get from Hill at PG (although Hill's added ability to attack the rim makes him a much better scoring option overall). It's a silly thing to argue because NEITHER is much of a PG, both are much better suited off the ball. [Hell, even Chalmers college coach tried to make him a PG for 3 years before ditching the experiment altogether.]

Chalmers game is actually really really similar to Hill's (except that Hill can create his own shot). The big difference is that, for the majority of their careers thus far, Hill has been a much superior player.

FWIW, Chalmers' history of hitting clutch shots basically spans the NCAA championship game, took a 3 year hiatus, then returned for June 2011. Now, there's no arguing against his performance in this series, he's been great on the biggest stage possible - but it's clearly leading to some people who never watch him otherwise severely over-rating his overall ability.

I know that GHill's last 2 playoff series have left a bitter taste in everyone's mouth - but do people forget that he put the Spurs on his back against Dallas last year and was the best player in that series? Chalmers is not remotely capable of doing that.

[GSH]

I'll argue it. He's a 40% shooter, 35% 3 PT shooter, 2.5 APG/1.5 TO over the course of a season. He was so good during the season that he sat behind Arroyo and the ghost of Mike Bibby (who can't guard anyone). That's essentially what you get from Hill at PG (although Hill's added ability to attack the rim makes him a much better scoring option overall). It's a silly thing to argue because NEITHER is much of a PG, both are much better suited off the ball. [Hell, even Chalmers college coach tried to make him a PG for 3 years before ditching the experiment altogether.]

I know that GHill's last 2 playoff series have left a bitter taste in everyone's mouth - but do people forget that he put the Spurs on his back against Dallas last year and was the best player in that series? Chalmers is not remotely capable of doing that.

I know you're not just trolling for an argument, so I'll try to make a serious response. First of all, when I think of PG performance, I'm sort of hung up on them delivering some assists, and keeping the offense moving. I say Chalmers is better at that. Second, you know better than to just look at flat numbers like that.

Hill just doesn't dish out a lot of assists, even during the times when he legitimately gets the chance to run the offense. The numbers confirm that, as does the fact that the Spurs' offense often bogs down badly with him at the point. I'm not basing that on any one series, or just a few games. And I'm not a Hill basher because of it. I'm just trying to be honest about what I see. And I think that even the Spurs staff recognizes it. Chalmers is better (not great) about dishing the ball, and he does keep their offense moving better than Hill does. I'm still hopeful Hill will get better at that part.

It's also a little bit misleading to look at just shooting percentage, since Hill takes a much bigger percentage of his shots at or near the rim. When you look at something like Effective FG%, the two are pretty evenly matched. But a PG that is constantly drawing the defense to the paint, like Hill does when he drives, needs to be better at kicking the ball out to (the correct) teammates than Hill is. He's still too one-dimensional, and that's one of the reasons the offense bogs. Again, I'm still hopeful that he will keep improving that part of his game.

Remember, my comment was just about Chalmers being better at the point - nothing else. You probably should have thrown in the Assist numbers. Chalmers' are a lot better. But I also said that Hill was a lot better as a starter, and he was. The big problem comparing the two is that their roles have changed, and sometimes when Hill is on the stat sheet as the PG, Manu is still running the offense. It's a lot of apples and oranges. I thought it was pretty widely accepted that at (just) running the point, Chalmers has the edge. You disagree, and it's hard to prove one way or the other for the reasons above. I don't think that many people would agree with you, though, that Hill is better at keeping an offense moving, which is what a PG is supposed to do.

BTW - I'm not bitter about Hill's playoff performances. He's a young guy, and he's pretty solid, and he's improving. I think that on a lot of other teams he would have more freedom, and he could make those numbers look a lot better, but I'm not sure it would have made him a better player. (It didn't help Chalmers getting dumped into the starting PG spot as a rookie.) He's not someone I would be happy to see the Spurs lose.

[Leetonidas]

George's problem is he is a mental midget. When he makes mistakes he gets way too passive and unaggressive and takes himself completely out of the game. He relies on rhythm more than any player on this team (except Bonner), moreso than Ginobili because he can impact the game in many other ways if his shot is off. If George is being passive and not getting to the rim he's probably not doing anything else either.

[GSH]

One last (I hope) thing about whether Hill or Chalmers is the better overall player. This year, about one third of Hills shots were 3-pointers. About 60% of Chalmers' attempts were from beyond the arc. I'm not crazy about PG's that dish and slip out to the line for 3PA's. Once in a while, maybe. But Chalmers does it a lot when he's at the point. Even in his rookie season, when he was a full-time PG, about half of his shots were 3's.

Some of you know that one of my pet stats is FTA's (or FTA's /36 minutes). I think that guys who can get to the FT line win games. And that ability is priceless in crunch time, when their team is behind and they need to get some points and stop the clock. Chalmers' FTA/36 for his first three seasons were: 2.2, 2.6, and 1.4. Hill's FTA/36, for his first three seasons were: 4.1, 3.7, and 4.5. Yes, Hill gets to the line more because he drives more. But he drives more because he's good at it, and Chalmers isn't. No matter what it seems like, FTA's don't lie. When a player draws that many fouls, he's imposing his will on defenders, and forcing them to foul him. If Chalmers could do it, he would.

If everything else is roughly equal, give me the guy who can get to the FT line every time.

[K-State Spur]

George's problem is he is a mental midget. When he makes mistakes he gets way too passive and unaggressive and takes himself completely out of the game. He relies on rhythm more than any player on this team (except Bonner), moreso than Ginobili because he can impact the game in many other ways if his shot is off. If George is being passive and not getting to the rim he's probably not doing anything else either.

was he a mental midget when he was tearing Dallas (a team that had our number in recent seasons) a new one last year?

still inconsistent would be a better descriptive term for him.

[K-State Spur]

I know you're not just trolling for an argument, so I'll try to make a serious response. First of all, when I think of PG performance, I'm sort of hung up on them delivering some assists, and keeping the offense moving. I say Chalmers is better at that. Second, you know better than to just look at flat numbers like that.

Hill just doesn't dish out a lot of assists, even during the times when he legitimately gets the chance to run the offense. The numbers confirm that, as does the fact that the Spurs' offense often bogs down badly with him at the point. I'm not basing that on any one series, or just a few games. And I'm not a Hill basher because of it. I'm just trying to be honest about what I see. And I think that even the Spurs staff recognizes it. Chalmers is better (not great) about dishing the ball, and he does keep their offense moving better than Hill does. I'm still hopeful Hill will get better at that part.

It's also a little bit misleading to look at just shooting percentage, since Hill takes a much bigger percentage of his shots at or near the rim. When you look at something like Effective FG%, the two are pretty evenly matched. But a PG that is constantly drawing the defense to the paint, like Hill does when he drives, needs to be better at kicking the ball out to (the correct) teammates than Hill is. He's still too one-dimensional, and that's one of the reasons the offense bogs. Again, I'm still hopeful that he will keep improving that part of his game.

Remember, my comment was just about Chalmers being better at the point - nothing else. You probably should have thrown in the Assist numbers. Chalmers' are a lot better. But I also said that Hill was a lot better as a starter, and he was. The big problem comparing the two is that their roles have changed, and sometimes when Hill is on the stat sheet as the PG, Manu is still running the offense. It's a lot of apples and oranges. I thought it was pretty widely accepted that at (just) running the point, Chalmers has the edge. You disagree, and it's hard to prove one way or the other for the reasons above. I don't think that many people would agree with you, though, that Hill is better at keeping an offense moving, which is what a PG is supposed to do.

BTW - I'm not bitter about Hill's playoff performances. He's a young guy, and he's pretty solid, and he's improving. I think that on a lot of other teams he would have more freedom, and he could make those numbers look a lot better, but I'm not sure it would have made him a better player. (It didn't help Chalmers getting dumped into the starting PG spot as a rookie.) He's not someone I would be happy to see the Spurs lose.

Good argument. I do think Hill's assists/36 would be pretty much in line with Chalmers if he played strictly the PG instead spending long stretches on the wing - but that's tough to prove.

[TJastal]

One last (I hope) thing about whether Hill or Chalmers is the better overall player. This year, about one third of Hills shots were 3-pointers. About 60% of Chalmers' attempts were from beyond the arc. I'm not crazy about PG's that dish and slip out to the line for 3PA's. Once in a while, maybe. But Chalmers does it a lot when he's at the point. Even in his rookie season, when he was a full-time PG, about half of his shots were 3's.

Some of you know that one of my pet stats is FTA's (or FTA's /36 minutes). I think that guys who can get to the FT line win games. And that ability is priceless in crunch time, when their team is behind and they need to get some points and stop the clock. Chalmers' FTA/36 for his first three seasons were: 2.2, 2.6, and 1.4. Hill's FTA/36, for his first three seasons were: 4.1, 3.7, and 4.5. Yes, Hill gets to the line more because he drives more. But he drives more because he's good at it, and Chalmers isn't. No matter what it seems like, FTA's don't lie. When a player draws that many fouls, he's imposing his will on defenders, and forcing them to foul him. If Chalmers could do it, he would.

If everything else is roughly equal, give me the guy who can get to the FT line every time.

+1
I agree here. Hill's ability to get to the line and generate points is an underrated ability that not many players possess in the league. The problem with him (as K-state alluded to) is the passive lapses he falls into where not only his offense dissappears but his defense becomes terrible, and he misses clutch 3's that he normally knocks down. But I attribute at least half of this to not being comfortable with his role on the team. He's been shuffled around constantly from starter to bench player due to Parker's frequent nagging injuries and Pop's tinkering with the lineups. Plus he just completed his 3rd year in the league and is probably pining to prove himself in more than just a bench role. Guess we'll see what shakes out this off season (with Parker) which will determine what his role will be next year.

[TJastal]

Good argument. I do think Hill's assists/36 would be pretty much in line with Chalmers if he played strictly the PG instead spending long stretches on the wing - but that's tough to prove.

I seem to recall some pretty good games (assist-wise) in the past few years when Parker was out for stretches.

And if he learns how to run a pick and roll properly that number will defenitely go up.

[ducks]

hill had plenty of chances to run the pick and roll
he does not get it
he is not a backup point guard SORRY

[Maddog]

Well,
Hindsight is 20/20
Chalmers looked like @#$% and Hill netted Kawhi (possibly Bertans)

[spursparker9]

lol Chalmers definitely dodged all the media's bullets after D-Wade played like shit.

He ought to thank Wade for drawing all the media attention to Wade