George Hill is a PG [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

FkLA

06-23-2011, 02:06 AM

Whether yall like it or not. The sooner yall realize that and stop screaming "oh no he's a SG" the easier it will be for yall. The team considers him a PG and has been groomed as one. He has shown that he can and will take over the reins once TP leaves especially if hes playing alongside a guy like Manu that can help him shoulder the load when it comes to distributing. I dont really care if he can do the things Tony can do as long as the team is still winning, which when given the opportunity as a starter has been the case.

Furthermore trading him would be idiotic. He doesnt have enough value to net the Spurs anything that would put them back into contention, TP might. If the Spurs want to shake things up to give it one last shot trading Hill is not the answer. Or if they want to start the rebuilding already, Parker is older and has a bigger contract...he could also net young prospects. None of those things apply to Hill. Regardless of what path the Spurs choose, its time to give that nigga the reins already imho.

http://www.posters555.com/pictures/George-Hill-picture-Z1G313289_b.jpg

Duncan2177

06-23-2011, 02:11 AM

Ditty

06-23-2011, 02:36 AM

There's going to be long and early off seasons, the day George Hill becomes the starting t guard for his team. Unless this team doesn't want to compete,tank, and clear house, and not take on salary, I guess he is the best bet then.

baseline bum

06-23-2011, 02:45 AM

will_spurs

06-23-2011, 02:47 AM

He has shown that he can and will take over the reins once TP leaves especially if hes playing alongside a guy like Manu that can help him shoulder the load when it comes to distributing.

So you mean he's doing fine when there's a guy who actually can play PG next to him? So what will the Spurs do when Manu is on the bench (which is going to be 20+ mpg in the coming years) or injured (which is going to be quite often judging from the past)?

The whole point, that you nicely push under the rug, is that right now Hill is a back-up PG only because he plays alongside Manu. If Parker goes, Hill will not have that luxury any more. Unfortunately he has proven in the past that he has very limited ball-handling skills, barely enough to bring the ball up the court without a TO. He makes stupid decisions as the primary ball-handler at an alarming rate. He has no court vision to speak of. He can barely run the P&R with Duncan (despite Duncan being great and experienced at it). In short, he is not a PG, but you'd have to actually watch games to know that.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 02:48 AM

OK, he's a point guard.

He's just not very good at it.

timtonymanu

06-23-2011, 02:52 AM

Yeah coz having a 34 year old Manu shoulder the load isn't idiotic.

baseline bum

06-23-2011, 02:54 AM

He's a point guard the way Bonner is a bigman.

FkLA

06-23-2011, 03:16 AM

He's the point guard but he needs Manu to shoulder the load distributing? He may be the point in name next year, but only because Holt got cheap and salary dumped the best point guard the team has had since Silas.

No. I didnt say he needs Manu to shoulder the load, I said having a player like Manu who can distribute so well will only help him in his transition.

So you mean he's doing fine when there's a guy who actually can play PG next to him? So what will the Spurs do when Manu is on the bench (which is going to be 20+ mpg in the coming years) or injured (which is going to be quite often judging from the past)?

The whole point, that you nicely push under the rug, is that right now Hill is a back-up PG only because he plays alongside Manu. If Parker goes, Hill will not have that luxury any more. Unfortunately he has proven in the past that he has very limited ball-handling skills, barely enough to bring the ball up the court without a TO. He makes stupid decisions as the primary ball-handler at an alarming rate. He has no court vision to speak of. He can barely run the P&R with Duncan (despite Duncan being great and experienced at it). In short, he is not a PG, but you'd have to actually watch games to know that.

Barely enough ball-handling to bring the ball up the court? Jesus christ. He certainly isnt Tony Parker, but wow the levels SpursTalk goes to to throw this guy under the bus are hilarious. And yeah way to stand up for your boy TP by simply "watching" the games were he got limited minutes as a back-up...did you conveniently not watch the second half+playoffs of the 09-10 season were he was a starter and only shared PG duties with Manu(as opposed to both Tony&Manu), like he would be doing if given the reins?

Didnt he put up something like 15+ ppg and 4+ apg during that stretch?Thats basically what Tony put up his first 5-6 yrs in the league. Its not like hed be replacing a floor general like Nash or Kidd, hed be replacing another scoring PG.

But most importantly the Spurs function just fine with him at the point. At the end of the day I dont care if he can or cant do certain things as well as Tony, what I care about is the Spurs winning. And from the sample size we have thus far theres nothing that indicates the Spurs would drop off dramatically with him in place of Tony. In fact the win percentage is higher with him starting than with him not, and thats without a solid player(s) that Parker would ideally net if traded.

TDMVPDPOY

06-23-2011, 03:55 AM

But most importantly the Spurs function just fine with him at the point. At the end of the day I dont care if he can or cant do certain things as well as Tony, what I care about is the Spurs winning. And from the sample size we have thus far theres nothing that indicates the Spurs would drop off dramatically with him in place of Tony. In fact the win percentage is higher with him starting than with him not, and thats without a solid player(s) that Parker would ideally net if traded.

removing parker, and more of ghill and ginoboli or just ginoboli, you will see the offense open up and players receiving more touches...the offense runs smooth when ginoboli has the ball and setting up the plays besides his stupid passes.

what we need is to get rid of parker, blair, bonner, rj....

im expecting huge things from splitter and neal for the 2nd seasons here, as for james anderson he still has to fight for his spot, as for blair :( if he was same height as big davis, i dont think his good as davis...

will_spurs

06-23-2011, 04:19 AM

Barely enough ball-handling to bring the ball up the court? Jesus christ. He certainly isnt Tony Parker, but wow the levels SpursTalk goes to to throw this guy under the bus are hilarious.

I'm definitely throwing Hill under the bus as a PG, I'm also throwing him under the bus as a center, by the way... because it is not his position. He is a shooting guard and a serviceable one, he has the potential to be a starting SG on a NBA team.

And yeah way to stand up for your boy TP by simply "watching" the games were he got limited minutes as a back-up...did you conveniently not watch the second half+playoffs of the 09-10 season were he was a starter and only shared PG duties with Manu(as opposed to both Tony&Manu), like he would be doing if given the reins?

Didnt he put up something like 15+ ppg and 4+ apg during that stretch?Thats basically what Tony put up his first 5-6 yrs in the league. Its not like hed be replacing a floor general like Nash or Kidd, hed be replacing another scoring PG.

Don't let facts get in the way of your little fantasy.

So let's have a look: do you mean the 09-10 playoffs where he averaged 0.7 assists in 34.4 minutes? Or are you talking about some fantasy playoffs where he actually averaged a decent amount of assists? He had one good series (I'm charitable) against Dallas where he indeed scored 29 and 21, with 4 assists in 6 games... which is consistent with what? With being a shooting guard! Shocking!

I'm going to be really nice and take his best 23-game stretch at the end of the 09-10 regular season, when he played 36.7 minutes per game (which by Spurs standards is a lot of minutes--Parker never averaged that over a whole season), he scored 16.3 ppg and got 4.3 apg. Now I'm not going to be so nice with Parker and will look at his numbers over his whole 2nd season, when he was 3 years younger than Hill: 33.8 mpg, 15.5 ppg, 5.3 apg. Hill during his best stretch wasn't even as good as Parker over a whole regular season...

Back to my point: Hill being a serviceable PG isn't supported by either numbers or watching games. He is a SG, and is never going to run the point for the Spurs. And I believe he's actually being shopped harder than Parker at this point in time. Hill actually regressed during the 10-11 reg season compared to 09-10 (all his numbers are down except FT%), and didi a nice disappearing act of his own in the postseason (all numbers down except rebounding despite averaging 3 more minutes per game).

SpursIndonesia

06-23-2011, 04:46 AM

George Hill is a decent scorer, borderline starter for NBA level, especially for non contending team. But as a PG ?? Totally SUCKS with caps.

He's a guard with above average defense, average offense, and non existant court vision (TP's tunnel vision is still much better), while practically useless in a two man game with bigman that any PG must be capable of in NBA level competition. His passing skills is lacking, while the ballhandling skills is inadequate as the main ballhandler in the team starting line up.

FkLA

06-23-2011, 04:51 AM

I'm definitely throwing Hill under the bus as a PG, I'm also throwing him under the bus as a center, by the way... because it is not his position. He is a shooting guard and a serviceable one, he has the potential to be a starting SG on a NBA team.

He has the potential to be a starting scoring PG.

Don't let facts get in the way of your little fantasy.

So let's have a look: do you mean the 09-10 playoffs where he averaged 0.7 assists in 34.4 minutes? Or are you talking about some fantasy playoffs where he actually averaged a decent amount of assists? He had one good series (I'm charitable) against Dallas where he indeed scored 29 and 21, with 4 assists in 6 games... which is consistent with what? With being a shooting guard! Shocking!

I'm going to be really nice and take his best 23-game stretch at the end of the 09-10 regular season, when he played 36.7 minutes per game (which by Spurs standards is a lot of minutes--Parker never averaged that over a whole season), he scored 16.3 ppg and got 4.3 apg. Now I'm not going to be so nice with Parker and will look at his numbers over his whole 2nd season, when he was 3 years younger than Hill: 33.8 mpg, 15.5 ppg, 5.3 apg. Hill during his best stretch wasn't even as good as Parker over a whole regular season...

Dont play dumb now, I obviously didnt mean to include the 09-10 playoffs. It doesnt take a genius to figure out that when hes getting limited minutes at point because hes sharing that load with both Manu&Tony his assists take a huge dip. I clearly stated that when hes only had to share that load with Manu hes proven to be more than serviceable running the point though, which really cant be disputed. And thats all that matters because Parker wouldnt be on the team any longer if Hill is given the reins.

And noone is saying Hill>Parker. Parker is obviously better, all Im saying is that from the sample size weve seen nothing suggests that the Spurs would be a disaster if Hill ran the point. Its been the complete opposite. This isnt about Hil's numbers/talent vs Parker's numbers/talent....its about how well the Spurs team plays with Hill at the point vs. Tony at the point. Theres no big discrepancy there, and like I said that doesnt even take into account the assets trading Parker would net the team. Ill take a significant upgrade in the frontcourt+Hill running the point over the current frontcourt+Parker running the point.

Back to my point: Hill being a serviceable PG isn't supported by either numbers or watching games. He is a SG, and is never going to run the point for the Spurs. And I believe he's actually being shopped harder than Parker at this point in time. Hill actually regressed during the 10-11 reg season compared to 09-10 (all his numbers are down except FT%), and didi a nice disappearing act of his own in the postseason (all numbers down except rebounding despite averaging 3 more minutes per game).

The Spurs drafted him as a PG. Currently consider him a PG. Have groomed him as a PG. He will run the point for the Spurs sooner than later, book it. Sure, he will be a scoring PG whos biggest strength will always be putting up points (just like Parker)...and not some floor general, but he will be a PG nonetheless.

Also you do know Parker's numbers dropped across the board from his 2nd to 3rd season as well right? And that his inability to adjust to LA clogging up the lane was the biggest reason the Spurs were ousted in the 04' playoffs? I wonder if these same people that are ready to give on up Hill already had those same sentiments about Parker then. Parker homers of all people should know that you shouldnt give up on a player so soon.

TJastal

06-23-2011, 06:19 AM

OK, he's a point guard.

He's just not very good at it.

Isn't a point guard's main job to make others around him better? If so, then Hill is the superior "point guard".

Manu’s numbers almost across the board are superior when playing with Hill instead of Parker. This pattern also holds true with Gary Neal. Neal is a much more efficient player with Hill creating shots for him. His +/- goes from a negative playing with Parker to a +4.5 playing with Hill

http://www.playmakeronline.com/2011/06/04/an-in-depth-look-at-parker-vs-hill/

He also has shown he can distribute the ball as the "point guard" and has much room to improve in that area.

George has a huge positive jump when they play apart rising to +5.5. George also becomes a distributor when they play separately with his assist average jumping to 4.5 from 1.9, when they play together.

When Manu and George play together, George’s stats explode. George’s +/- jumps to a elite point guard level of 8.7. His scoring climbs to 15.1 points per game and his field goal percentage is at 51%

I know you and the other Parker homers must find this data utterly offensive, because you keep either ignoring it or downplaying it but this clearly shows why the spurs winning % has been so high with George Hill running the "point guard" whenever Parker has been out of the lineup.

ElNono

06-23-2011, 10:24 AM

I know you and the other Parker homers must find this data utterly offensive, because you keep either ignoring it or downplaying it but this clearly shows why the spurs winning % has been so high with George Hill running the "point guard" whenever Parker has been out of the lineup.

You mean when he drops the ball to Manu and lets him create for him and others. Fetch me his numbers when he's not playing with Manu or Tony...

And BTW, people are free to convince themselves of anything. This kid is a SG. That's the position he played all his young life before getting to the Spurs.

He could eventually make a transition to PG, but for that he needs to improve in too many areas and drop some bad habits.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 10:42 AM

So Hill plays the point great when someone else is actually playing the point?

Awesome.

The Spurs should make Manu do more in his final years. He has proved his body can take it.

will_spurs

06-23-2011, 10:48 AM

Also you do know Parker's numbers dropped across the board from his 2nd to 3rd season as well right? And that his inability to adjust to LA clogging up the lane was the biggest reason the Spurs were ousted in the 04' playoffs?

All Parker's numbers went down between 2nd and 3rd season, well except assists and rebounds but I guess that's not very important, is it?

And Parker is pretty bad whenever teams clog the lane, he hasn't figured that out yet, as was quite on display this year against Memphis. That's why having a threat in the post, or some guys actually hitting some shots from outside every once in a while is quite important...

But back to Hill, he's always been a SG. Pop deciding he was a PG because he needed one doesn't make Hill a PG, same way it doesn't make Mason Jr a PG. That's just not how it works.

Solid D

06-23-2011, 10:50 AM

Until George learns more of the basics of playing lead guard, he will struggle. Just one look at Hill trying to run the break gives you all you need to see regarding his struggles. It's ugly. When you have the ball in the middle with 2 guys running the wings, you must make a decision when you reach the FT line with the ball: pass, shoot or call it off and run a play. If you don't, you lose your passing angle.

SenorSpur

06-23-2011, 10:52 AM

I admit that in his rookie year, I thought Hill would easily make the transition into full-time backup PG. I haven't forgotten how he filled in admirably for a long stretch of games, when Parker was out with an injury. He wasn't as good of a shooter then, as he is now. However, he was conscious of getting into the paint, setting up his teammates and kicking the ball out to open teammates. While he made his mistakes, he seemed to run the offense rather smoothly.

Then something funny happened to him as he grew as a player. He morphed back into a shoot-first combo guard. One who is aggressive at home, but passive on the road. In my mind, his regression as a backup PG has everything to do with his emergence as a scoring, combo guard. I believe this is as much the fault of Pop, as it is with Hill himself. Pop has encouraged him to be selfish, to look for his own opportunities - much to the dismay of those wanting to see him effectively run a pick-n-roll.

Hill is a PG alright - but only on NBA 2K. You can thank Pop for that.

Cane

06-23-2011, 10:54 AM

will_spurs

06-23-2011, 10:57 AM

Leetonidas

06-23-2011, 10:58 AM

Parker isn't much of a PG either tbh. 31 assists to 20 turnovers is not running the offense and getting the team involved well. Whereas Conley was more PG-like with 37 assists and 13 turnovers.

We're seeing what kind of player Parker really is especially with Duncan playing less minutes and declining himself. Parker's PG skills are overrated on this board and readily replaced in this era of score-first guards.

lol using one series as evidence that Parker isn't a PG. :rolleyes

Anyone with a brain can see that Hill fucking SUCKS at running the offense and has to have Manu set everything up for him and Tony runs that shit like a man. Just because he doesn't average 10+ assists doesn't mean shit because he doesn't dominate the ball the entire game like Paul, Williams, or Rose.

George Hill is not a PG. He is a shooting guard. If George Hill is a PG then so is Monta Ellis. :lmao

Cane

06-23-2011, 10:59 AM

Definitely makes sense to use a 4-game sample to asses the worth of a 10-year multiple All-Star Finals MVP vet. Most definitely.

More like a a 6-game sample in a first round exit where the Spurs were favored to win. Parker's PG skills are overrated imo. His game was based around using his athleticism and Duncan which both are not what they used to be. Numbers don't lie.

Cane

06-23-2011, 11:04 AM

lol using one series as evidence that Parker isn't a PG. :rolleyes

Anyone with a brain can see that Hill fucking SUCKS at running the offense and has to have Manu set everything up for him and Tony runs that shit like a man. Just because he doesn't average 10+ assists doesn't mean shit because he doesn't dominate the ball the entire game like Paul, Williams, or Rose.

George Hill is not a PG. He is a shooting guard. If George Hill is a PG then so is Monta Ellis. :lmao

lol giving Parker a free pass for playing like garbage in the first round

Hill's not much of a PG either.

Parker's negative impact goes beyond his bad assist/turnovers numbers as well. Anyone with a brain can see that Parker was one of the main problems the Spurs had in that series and a lot of it was unforced nonsense.

hater

06-23-2011, 11:12 AM

He's the point guard but he needs Manu to shoulder the load distributing? He may be the point in name next year, but only because Holt got cheap and salary dumped the best point guard the team has had since Silas.

the best point guard the team has had since Silas was run out of the building by a couple of 8th seed scrubs in round 1.

Time to make changes. Time to put Hill in his deserved starting PG role.

Dex

06-23-2011, 11:14 AM

He's a point guard the way Bonner is a bigman.

/thread.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 11:19 AM

lol deserved

FromWayDowntown

06-23-2011, 11:21 AM

You mean when he drops the ball to Manu and lets him create for him and others. Fetch me his numbers when he's not playing with Manu or Tony....

Agreed -- I'd be fascinated to see what those numbers look like when Hill is playing without either Manu or Parker.

Just eyeballing things as the 2010-11 season progressed, when Hill was definitively the offensive initiator (usually in late 3rd quarter/early 4th quarter situations) the Spurs offense seemed to routinely grind to a halt -- they really struggled to get themselves into sets, Hill routinely failed to use screens that were set for him to start the offense, and he looked to me as if he didn't really have much of an idea about where he wanted to send the ball. In fact, in a lot of situations, the Spurs offense (it seemed to me) devolved into a 15-18 second pounded dribble, followed by some pell-mell effort to drive.

Numbers are frequently deceiving, no matter how advanced the metrics might be, particularly in basketball where true measurements tend to defy meaningful quantification.

ohmwrecker

06-23-2011, 11:28 AM

More like a a 6-game sample in a first round exit where the Spurs were favored to win. Parker's PG skills are overrated imo. His game was based around using his athleticism and Duncan which both are not what they used to be. Numbers don't lie.

Parker's only real issue as a PG is giving up the ball on the break. His speed as a ball handler is unmatched on the Spurs roster and he is probably top 3 in the league. For most of his career on the Spurs he has been the first one down the court on a fastbreak by a mile. This has given him a score first mentality in these situations. I believe it has also contributed to his confidence as a penetrating scorer in the paint.
The Spurs change in offensive philosophy has demanded that Parker give up the ball more and it's not something he's used to. He actually has, in Hill and RJ, players who are getting out and running the break, but his mindset is still locked on scoring.
The reason he wasn't effective vs the Grizz is because no one else on the team kept the Grizz's bigs honest by hitting midirange and perimeter shots that would pull a defense out of the lane leaving Parker some room to operate. Compounding the issue was the Spurs bigs being outplayed the Grizz's post players. Even if Parker could penetrate and dish inside, the Spurs bigs couldn't score or pass out because Gasol and Randolph had such good position and the Spurs perimeter players were being covered so well.
Parker's mistake in the series was not going to the midirange jumper enough, but when his game has been built on speed and penetration for his whole career, it's hard to blame him for that. His mid-range confidence is predicated by his ability to penetrate the lane sucessfully. He was completely out of his comfort zone the whole series. Credit Memphis for cutting off "the head of the snake".

will_spurs

06-23-2011, 12:05 PM

Ohmwrecker, it seems you and I agree an awful lot lately :D

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 12:12 PM

Parker's only real issue as a PG is giving up the ball on the break. His speed as a ball handler is unmatched on the Spurs roster and he is probably top 3 in the league. For most of his career on the Spurs he has been the first one down the court on a fastbreak by a mile.That's why I still liked having Elson on the team despite his halfcourt deficiencies.

Leetonidas

06-23-2011, 12:27 PM

lol giving Parker a free pass for playing like garbage in the first round

Hill's not much of a PG either.

Parker's negative impact goes beyond his bad assist/turnovers numbers as well. Anyone with a brain can see that Parker was one of the main problems the Spurs had in that series and a lot of it was unforced nonsense.

Who is giving him a free pass? My point is that Hill is not a PG, Tony is, and runs the offense much better than anyone else we could probably get through a trade/draft/free agency. Parker played like ass, we all know that, but that's not what this topic is about.

Why isolate a single series and try to judge Parker's entire career on it? Like I said, we all know he sucked against the Grizz. LeBron James sucked hard against the Mavericks but he is still the best player in the NBA. Point is one series doesn't make the man. Parker has a Finals MVP over players like Paul, Williams, Rose, and Nash, who have never even sniffed the Finals. Does that make him better? Nah.

FkLA

06-23-2011, 12:51 PM

Isn't a point guard's main job to make others around him better? If so, then Hill is the superior "point guard".

http://www.playmakeronline.com/2011/06/04/an-in-depth-look-at-parker-vs-hill/

He also has shown he can distribute the ball as the "point guard" and has much room to improve in that area.

I know you and the other Parker homers must find this data utterly offensive, because you keep either ignoring it or downplaying it but this clearly shows why the spurs winning % has been so high with George Hill running the "point guard" whenever Parker has been out of the lineup.

But Hill isnt a 3-time NBA champion, multiple time all-star, and Finals MVP! Who cares about the fact that the team plays just as good if not better with him starting.

]Parker's mistake in the series was not going to the midirange jumper enough,[/B] but when his game has been built on speed and penetration for his whole career, it's hard to blame him for that. His mid-range confidence is predicated by his ability to penetrate the lane sucessfully. He was completely out of his comfort zone the whole series. Credit Memphis for cutting off "the head of the snake".

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7407/81147838.png

Parker's midrange shot has been absolute trash for years now, thats from two seasons ago because they stopped doing it this past season. Which is unfortunate because Parker's shot was even worse this year.

will_spurs

06-23-2011, 01:01 PM

Parker's midrange shot has been absolute trash for years now, thats from two seasons ago because they stopped doing it this past season. Which is unfortunate because Parker's shot was even worse this year.

Too bad your pic shows his outside shooting from the right side is actually quite good.

But but but... anyway I thought this wasn't about Parker? :lol

FkLA

06-23-2011, 01:02 PM

Parker homers, one simple question:

From were do yall niggas get this myth that the Spurs would be a disaster with Hill running the point along with Manu? Hill's play during stretches were Tony was out clearly suggests otherwise. Yall niggas are focusing too much on Parker vs. Hill, this isnt an individual matchup between the two. Its how the Spurs function as a team when one is in the starting line-up vs. the other. I care about the Spurs winning and nothing else, not about my PG putting up monster numbers or playing like your prototypical PG. And in a world of hype George Hill just wins. The team has performed just fine with him starting.

FkLA

06-23-2011, 01:06 PM

Too bad your pic shows his outside shooting from the right side is actually quite good.

But but but... anyway I thought this wasn't about Parker? :lol

43-44% is good? :lol

And what about the other 4 midrange hotspots were his combined shooting percentage is in the mid 30s? :lol

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 01:08 PM

How many games did Hill start at the point last season?

Agloco

06-23-2011, 01:08 PM

will_spurs

06-23-2011, 01:13 PM

43-44% is good? :lol

43-44% is more than enough to keep the defense honest. It's better than the overall shooting average of many guards.

Oh, and about your "if Hill plays with Manu" crap, are you being intentionally dense, or don't you just understand that with Parker gone, the Spurs will not be in position of playing Hill and Manu together... or there's no PG on the floor for 20 minutes per game. What part of that isn't clear to you?

FkLA

06-23-2011, 01:15 PM

How many games did Hill start at the point last season?

Like 2-3. Whats your point?

How about when Manu wasn't out there with him?

The Spurs and Hill are better with Manu out on the court? Shocking.

Is Tony a 3-time NBA Champion and Finals MVP if Timmy isnt out there with him?

TDMVPDPOY

06-23-2011, 01:16 PM

quin looms

FkLA

06-23-2011, 01:20 PM

43-44% is more than enough to keep the defense honest. It's better than the overall shooting average of many guards.

Oh, and about your "if Hill plays with Manu" crap, are you being intentionally dense, or don't you just understand that with Parker gone, the Spurs will not be in position of playing Hill and Manu together... or there's no PG on the floor for 20 minutes per game. What part of that isn't clear to you?

Of many guards, like who? And thats one spot, why conveniently ignore the other spots were his shooting is atrocious. Stop being a Parker homer. Thats from two seasons ago too btw, Im pretty sure his shot was even worse this past season.

And really?They seemed to play together just fine in the second half of 09-10 or whenever Tony has been injured. Also you need to understand that if Parker goes he isnt going to go for a bag of peanuts. There will be players coming back, one of which could easily be a back-up point that could fill in for a couple of minutes a game. If not theres FAs out there.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 01:24 PM

Like 2-3. Whats your point?
Hill's play during stretches were Tony was out clearly suggests otherwise.OK, I guess you just meant out of the game.

I agree Manu is a good point guard, but he doesn't make Hill a good point guard.

FkLA

06-23-2011, 01:24 PM

Another simple question for the Parker homers:

Parker at the point+current frontcourt or Hill at the point+an upgrade in the frontcourt that a Parker trade would ideally net?

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 01:25 PM

Another simple question for the Parker homers:

Parker at the point+current frontcourt or Hill at the point+an upgrade in the frontcourt that a Parker trade would ideally net?Who are these ideally netted players?

And you still have Manu playing the point.

will_spurs

06-23-2011, 01:26 PM

Of many guards, like who?

You saying 43-44% shooting from half of midrange isn't good just shows you don't know what you're talking about. Kobe has a 45.4% FG shooting for his career.

And thats one spot, why conveniently ignore the other spots were his shooting is atrocious.

Because not being as dumb as you are, NBA players know how to pick their spots?

And really?They seemed to play together just fine in the second half of 09-10 or whenever Tony has been injured. Also you need to understand that if Parker goes he isnt going to go for a bag of peanuts. There will be players coming back, one of which could easily be a back-up point that could fill in for a couple of minutes a game. If not theres FAs out there.

A couple of minutes? You suck at maths.

Manu has basically never averaged more than 30 mpg in his career, so even in the optimistic scenario that he isn't going to get fewer and fewer minutes, and that he also isn't going to miss any games due to injury (fat chance), that leaves at least 18 mpg where Hill (or a backup) will be running the point alone. That's one and a half quarters. This is going to be fun... for the other team at least.

ElNono

06-23-2011, 01:27 PM

Agreed -- I'd be fascinated to see what those numbers look like when Hill is playing without either Manu or Parker.

Just eyeballing things as the 2010-11 season progressed, when Hill was definitively the offensive initiator (usually in late 3rd quarter/early 4th quarter situations) the Spurs offense seemed to routinely grind to a halt -- they really struggled to get themselves into sets, Hill routinely failed to use screens that were set for him to start the offense, and he looked to me as if he didn't really have much of an idea about where he wanted to send the ball. In fact, in a lot of situations, the Spurs offense (it seemed to me) devolved into a 15-18 second pounded dribble, followed by some pell-mell effort to drive.

Numbers are frequently deceiving, no matter how advanced the metrics might be, particularly in basketball where true measurements tend to defy meaningful quantification.

I watched every game too and concur with this assessment. Painful to watch dribbling down the clock for 20 seconds without ball movement, and then some rushed attempt at penetrating and either finishing or passing to a teammate to rush the shot. If you actually remember, this was an improvement over the pre-season and very early in the season where he simply called iso after iso for himself.

Leetonidas

06-23-2011, 01:37 PM

This guy is fucking ridiculous. What a joke. :lmao

If you have eyes and watched Spurs games last season you'd know the offense suffers tremendously when Hill is running it. You want him in the starting lineup but fail to realize we have absolutely no backup PG and Hill can only somewhat run the offense when Manu is out there to pretty much initiate everything for him. All Hill does really is walk the ball up the court and pass it to Manu. He can't run a pick and roll to save his life and he is pretty bad at getting into the lane and finding the open man.

If Hill is starting at PG next season then it will become apparently obvious how one dimensional he is.

FkLA

06-23-2011, 01:37 PM

You saying 43-44% shooting from half of midrange isn't good just shows you don't know what you're talking about. Kobe has a 45.4% FG shooting for his career.

Kobe Bryant is a great player but an efficient shooter he is not. 43-44% will never be considered good.

Because not being as dumb as you are, NBA players know how to pick their spots?

Oh you mean how he picked his spots and chose to shoot almost twice as much from the left side as he did from the right?A spot were he shot 29% from. Yea, Tony sure does know how to pick his spots :lol

A couple of minutes? You suck at maths.

Manu has basically never averaged more than 30 mpg in his career, so even in the optimistic scenario that he isn't going to get fewer and fewer minutes, and that he also isn't going to miss any games due to injury (fat chance), that leaves at least 18 mpg where Hill (or a backup) will be running the point alone. That's one and a half quarters. This is going to be fun... for the other team at least.

About 10-12 minutes seems right. I consider that a couple.

People act like Manu is made out of glass, yet another SpursTalk misconception right up there with Hill simply being a SG. Yall niggas realize Tony has missed more time than Manu the past two seasons?Yall niggas realize Manu has played in atleast 75 games in 6 out of his 9 seasons as a pro?

Leetonidas

06-23-2011, 01:38 PM

10-12 minutes does =/= "a couple" :lmao

Leetonidas

06-23-2011, 01:39 PM

And quit saying "yall niggas" you stupid illiterate fuck

FkLA

06-23-2011, 01:41 PM

Who are these ideally netted players?

And you still have Manu playing the point.

Thats not up to me to decide. But obviously I dont want to just dump Parker, we need to get some value for him.

Both of them will run the point, sure. Similar to how Manu runs the offense at times even with Parker out there.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 01:45 PM

Thats not up to me to decide. But obviously I dont want to just dump Parker, we need to get some value for him.These are your trade scenarios. Show me a trade that actually works and I'll tell you if it's worth starting Hill at the "point."

Both of them will run the point, sure. Similar to how Manu runs the offense at times even with Parker out there.If they don't want to suck, Manu will run the point.

nkdlunch

06-23-2011, 01:51 PM

I don't know if it helps any cause buy these are Hills numbers when he started since 2010:
16 and 4. not great but the spurs were 26-19 in those games.

He is not as bad as ppl say but also not brilliant.

FkLA

06-23-2011, 01:53 PM

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 01:53 PM

nkdlunch

06-23-2011, 01:58 PM

I'd have to see the splits for starting at the point.

I think most he did. this is including when parker was out that long stretch I think.

what ppl are not really realizing is that the FO is not pretending Hill will replace Parker's productivity. I think what they are trying to do is balance the team better and get "decent" young guys at all positions. Rather than 3 great players and a bunch of trash.

or maybe they are just thinking save money and rebuild :(

jjktkk

06-23-2011, 02:08 PM

Another simple question for the Parker homers:

How awful for Spur's fans to be Parker homers. Horrible, just horrible. :lol

FkLA

06-23-2011, 02:37 PM

These are your trade scenarios. Show me a trade that actually works and I'll tell you if it's worth starting Hill at the "point."

Thats not up to me. All I know is that regardless of whether the Spurs want to give it one last shot by shaking things up (since its apparent this core can no longer get it done) or start the rebuilding...Hill needs to stay and moving Parker is the smart move.

If they don't want to suck, Manu will run the point.

If they dont want to suck Manu needs to shoulder some of the load, sure.

what ppl are not really realizing is that the FO is not pretending Hill will replace Parker's productivity. I think what they are trying to do is balance the team better and get "decent" young guys at all positions. Rather than 3 great players and a bunch of trash.

Parker homers wont even consider that though, its all about Parker>Hill for them. Who cares if the team might improve with Hill at the point+players that would come in return for Parker and would balance out the team. Hill isnt a 3-time NBA Champion, multiple time All-Star, and Finals MVP. Thats all that matters.

How awful for Spur's fans to be Parker homers. Horrible, just horrible. :lol

Its horrible when the player comes before the team.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 02:38 PM

Thats not up to me. All I know is that regardless of whether the Spurs want to give it one last shot by shaking things up (since its apparent this core can no longer get it done) or start the rebuilding...Hill needs to stay and moving Parker is the smart move.Weak. You can't even show one fucking trade.

and lol none of this is up to you

nkdlunch

06-23-2011, 02:46 PM

Weak. You can't even show one fucking trade.

what's your trade proposal Chump?

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 02:46 PM

what's your trade proposal Chump?I'm not the one pushing a trade, genius.

nkdlunch

06-23-2011, 02:49 PM

I'm not the one pushing a trade, genius.

so you have no solutions or even suggestions. thanks.

baseline bum

06-23-2011, 02:50 PM

Parker homers wont even consider that though, its all about Parker>Hill for them. Who cares if the team might improve with Hill at the point+players that would come in return for Parker and would balance out the team. Hill isnt a 3-time NBA Champion, multiple time All-Star, and Finals MVP. Thats all that matters.

Because all the deals out there boil down to Parker for shit. Quit being in such a fucking rush. Trade Parker next summer when it can net you a guy like Anthony Davis, Harrison Barnes, James McAdoo, Perry Jones, Quincy Miller, Jared Sullinger, Michael Gilchrist, Marquis Teague, Austin Rivers, etc. Someone who has a high ceiling. Parker is the only thing the Spurs have to make that kind of trade, and prospects like that aren't available in this draft after Irving and Williams.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 02:50 PM

so you have no solutions or even suggestions. thanks.What difference would it make if I did?
Because all the deals out there boil down to Parker for shit.This.

Show me something good. I'll get onboard.

Agloco

06-23-2011, 03:02 PM

The Spurs and Hill are better with Manu out on the court? Shocking.

Is Tony a 3-time NBA Champion and Finals MVP if Timmy isnt out there with him?

Put the strawman back in the closet.

There are times when Tony is out there without Manu right? So compare the two situations.

Tony without Manu vs Hill without Manu.

FkLA

06-23-2011, 03:10 PM

Because all the deals out there boil down to Parker for shit. Quit being in such a fucking rush. Trade Parker next summer when it can net you a guy like Anthony Davis, Harrison Barnes, James McAdoo, Perry Jones, Quincy Miller, Jared Sullinger, Michael Gilchrist, Marquis Teague, Austin Rivers, etc. Someone who has a high ceiling. Parker is the only thing the Spurs have to make that kind of trade, and prospects like that aren't available in this draft after Irving and Williams.

The Spurs chances at sniffing a title are on life support right now. Personally I'd like to see them give it one last shot by shaking things up, and Parker is the only player with enough value (other than Tim/Manu who arent going anywhere) to possibly improve the Spurs enough to make that happen. So time isnt really on the Spurs side in that scenario. If the Spurs are still looking to contend then Parker needs to go this off-season, its not a necessity for him to go before the draft though. Especially when you consider how bad some of the trades being thrown out there are.

If theyre ready to rebuild, then I wouldnt be against waiting until next year's off-season for the right trade.

Put the strawman back in the closet.

There are times when Tony is out there without Manu right? So compare the two situations.

Tony without Manu vs Hill without Manu.

This isnt about Parker vs. Hill you Parker fanboy. I care about my Spurs winning not about which PG puts up better numbers. The Spurs still win when Hill has started due to Parker's injuries, and theres no reason to believe that would dramatically change and the Spurs would be a disaster if Parker were to be traded.

baseline bum

06-23-2011, 03:13 PM

One last shot by trading a dollar for 3 quarters? Pure delusion.

FkLA

06-23-2011, 03:29 PM

One last shot by trading a dollar for 3 quarters? Pure delusion.

The numbers show that the teams performance doesnt really change much when Tony is injured and Hill starts. We dont necessarily need to trade a dollar for a dollar to improve imo, patching up the glaring weaknesses in the frontcourt might do the trick. Quarters in place of nickels.

Do you think this core is done?Are you ready to rebuild?Not a diss, just wondering cause that probably has alot to do with your stance.

Agloco

06-23-2011, 04:38 PM

This isnt about Parker vs. Hill

:lol

The Spurs still win when Hill has started due to Parker's injuries, and theres no reason to believe that would dramatically change and the Spurs would be a disaster if Parker were to be traded.

Not at all, especially since Hill is tested when it counts in the Playoffs right?

ShoogarBear

06-23-2011, 04:45 PM

I see this place hasn't gotten any smarter about some things.

crc21209

06-23-2011, 04:51 PM

He's a point guard the way Bonner is a bigman.

Exxxxxactly.

TJastal

06-23-2011, 05:36 PM

[Manu’s numbers almost across the board are superior when playing with Hill instead of Parker. This pattern also holds true with Gary Neal. Neal is a much more efficient player with Hill creating shots for him. His +/- goes from a negative playing with Parker to a +4.5 playing with Hill.

You can say the same about Tim Duncan, McDyess and Matt Bonner with the +/- disparities. The only wing player who seems to benefit from Tony Parker on the floor is Richard Jefferson and that is because Tony will take the offensive responsibility off his shoulders.

This is all that really matters. Call Hill whatever you like... a point guard, a combo guard, a shooting guard.. but he accomplishes the most important task a point guard has ... which is to make the other guys around him better basketball players. Parker not so much.

/thread

ulosturedge

06-23-2011, 05:44 PM

Hill is still young and has more upside. You may be losing some solid veteran experience, but this all depends on what we are focusing on. Are we continuing the youth movement or are we still trying to compete for a championship? I personally think we should stick with this youth movement over hanging on this glimmering hope of getting another championship. We are stuck with RJ for the next few years because of the denial.

But in the end its all about value. All depends on what we would get in return with either player. Even though Parker is proven; I don't think we have seen the best of Hill yet. I wouldn't mind seeing the Spurs really change up the look of our Spurs.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 05:51 PM

This is all that really matters. Call Hill whatever you like... a point guard, a combo guard, a shooting guard.. but he accomplishes the most important task a point guard has ... which is to make the other guys around him better basketball players. Parker not so much.

/thread:lol

Kori Ellis

06-23-2011, 08:26 PM

Moot point, I guess. Unless you are a Pacers fan.

NASpurs

06-23-2011, 08:35 PM

Moot point, I guess. Unless you are a Pacers fan.

:lmao Kori with the burn

FkLA

06-23-2011, 09:23 PM

:pctoss

I love how the Parker homers are ecstatic about this deal too, theyre too blinded by their TP blinds to realize that unless this rook turns out to be a complete stud his first yr...the Spurs have just pulled the plug on making one last run next yr. But as long as Parker is safe and sound who cares right.

Obstructed_View

06-23-2011, 09:56 PM

FkLA

06-23-2011, 10:10 PM

The problem is that the run seems to end before the playoffs start if Hill's involved.

Are you implying Hill doesnt perform in the playoffs?

If so how did Parker do tbh? :lol

baseline bum

06-23-2011, 10:31 PM

LOL @ Hill nutriders calling Spurs fans Parker homers.

DMC

06-23-2011, 10:50 PM

Tim Duncan would be a PG if the team allowed it. That wouldn't make Timmy a real PG though.

GH isn't a PG. He's a 2 guard. He has said as much. He absolutely does not see the floor when he's at point. He goes shoulder first down the court with that afflicted dribble and ends up in corner where he's out of options. Tony uses dribble penetration to find weaknesses and pull the front court out of the painted area. He gets them spread out trying to recover on defense and he can score or pass. George does none of the above. He's the guy the PG dumps off to on full court presses, not the recipient of the initial inbounds pass however.

Sorry, there's just no way GH will ever be a good PG and it's a huge waste to put him in that role.

DMC

06-23-2011, 10:51 PM

Are you implying Hill doesnt perform in the playoffs?

If so how did Parker do tbh? :lol

The Spurs ring chances do not rest on George Hill. If they did we were fucked from the get go. Hill is good, but he's not the lever for the Spurs' success or failure.

You can shitcan the hyperbole now.

Also, however Parker played in the playoffs, Parker has a Finals MVP and 3 rings because he's a solid player. Hill hasn't done shit but has shown promise. Parker's performance in the playoffs has nothing to do with whether or not Hill performs. Hill is nowhere near TP's level, not even close. TP is an elite player. Hill is a bench player, not even top 10 bench player at that. Parker eats defenses alive and has for years. He's a one man fast break. Hill is good on the break, but come on, he's no Parker.

Spurtacus

06-23-2011, 10:55 PM

We will never hear George Thrill Hill ever again.

:depressed

Obstructed_View

06-24-2011, 03:36 AM

Are you implying Hill doesnt perform in the playoffs?

If so how did Parker do tbh? :lol

I'm outright saying that Hill sucked in the playoffs. That whole "finals MVP" thing buys you a bit of a pass.

sehui

06-24-2011, 03:44 AM

Hill is a shooting guard in NBA 2k11.

I trust a video game more than your opinion, so, hes a SG to me :P

TDMVPDPOY

06-24-2011, 04:11 AM

ChumpDumper

06-24-2011, 04:14 AM

lol finals mvp is such a huge accomplishment parker fans need to remind the haters, gtfo man.

parker living on pass accomplishments, what has he done for the last 4 seasons, actually what has he done since ghill arrived on the team?:lol

jesterbobman

06-24-2011, 05:01 AM

He's a combo guard. He can play both, but his natural position is more of a two. Indiana got him to play both, provide scoring punch from 2 and backing up Collison for 10-15 minutes a game or so. In our system, you don't have to be a pure PG, but he was essentially a 2 playing 1.

TJastal

06-24-2011, 06:17 AM

The Spurs ring chances do not rest on George Hill. If they did we were fucked from the get go. Hill is good, but he's not the lever for the Spurs' success or failure.

You can shitcan the hyperbole now.

Also, however Parker played in the playoffs, Parker has a Finals MVP and 3 rings because he's a solid player. Hill hasn't done shit but has shown promise. Parker's performance in the playoffs has nothing to do with whether or not Hill performs. Hill is nowhere near TP's level, not even close. TP is an elite player. Hill is a bench player, not even top 10 bench player at that. Parker eats defenses alive and has for years. He's a one man fast break. Hill is good on the break, but come on, he's no Parker.

Hill is closer than you might think. And your facts are a bit off, I believe Hill finished tied for 2nd with 3 other players in the 6th man of the year voting last year.

And if Parker is such an awesome great player then why were Holt/FO trying to use him as a lure to salary dump Jefferson? What if they'd succeeded? I guess they figured George Hill was more than capable as his replacement, huh scrah?

Anyway, I'm glad for George, he'll get a much better opportunity over in pacer-land, in SA his role was of limited sort, which many took to believe that he couldn't pass, couldn't run an offense, couldn't create his own shot, etc etc etc.

polandprzem

06-24-2011, 11:14 AM

Hill was a ultimate combo guy for the spurs.
he filled so many holes on this team. It was like Pop put too much obligations for this guy.

I hate to say this but I don't know how new guys can provide an impact this season when they are new to a team.

TDMVPDPOY

06-24-2011, 11:24 AM

ghill gettin the beno treatment, just cause of one series defines what they think of him...

fck this shit

Obstructed_View

06-24-2011, 02:43 PM

ghill gettin the beno treatment, just cause of one series defines what they think of him...

fck this shit

Hill was on a Spurs team loaded with offguards and is about to demand way more money than the Spurs want to invest in a guy who hasn't improved at the point in three years. Beno was a starting caliber point guard playing backup and got shit on by ST because Lindsay Hunter stole the ball from him once in a regular season game.

baseline bum

06-24-2011, 03:16 PM

Beno got shit on because he became a whining bitch to the press.

Obstructed_View

06-24-2011, 03:21 PM

Beno got shit on because he became a whining bitch to the press.

Nope, he got shipped the fuck out of town the moment he became a whining bitch to the press, which was probably a year after the Hunter turnover.

ace3g

06-24-2011, 04:46 PM

JMcDonald_SAEN Jeff McDonald
G. Hill: “I’m always going to be a Spur for life. They gave me every opportunity possible to be here, and you have to be grateful for that.”

JMcDonald_SAEN Jeff McDonald
Hill said first player he heard from post-trade was DeJuan Blair. "He was kind of upset." Eventually heard from most of the roster as well.

dgranger33 Danny Granger
by JMcDonald_SAEN
So glad we got @George_Hill3! Should help us a lot this year!

ElNono

06-24-2011, 05:01 PM

Hill is closer than you might think. And your facts are a bit off, I believe Hill finished tied for 2nd with 3 other players in the 6th man of the year voting last year.

He finished 8th with 10 votes (http://www.nba.com/2011/news/04/19/kia-sixth-man-of-year/index.html).

Obstructed_View

06-24-2011, 05:03 PM

Second, eighth. Six of one...

baseline bum

06-24-2011, 06:18 PM

LOL, this is the kind of delusion we're arguing with... someone who thinks George Hill is another Thaddeus Young, Jason Terry, or Lamar Odom. :lol

ShoogarBear

06-24-2011, 07:29 PM

Didn't check to see if this was posted elsewhere, but Zach Lowe got it exactly right:

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/06/24/spurs-take-needed-risk-pacers-score-with-hill/

There’s also this: I’d bet that if you got Spurs general manager R.C. Buford and Popovich in a candid moment, they’d say they’re comfortable wagering that Hill has just about hit his ceiling. Hill just turned 25, and he did not evolve all that much between his second and third seasons in the league. It’s fashionable to refer to Hill as something of an heir apparent to Parker, but he has never really shown that he’s going to be a dynamic NBA point guard capable of running an offense. His assist rate — the percentage of baskets Hill assisted on while on the court — was about the same as those of Ray Allen and Kevin Martin. Hill also depended on teammate assists for slightly more than half of his baskets, an average mark for a guard. Some of this is due to playing alongside Ginobili so much, but the numbers peg Hill more as a shooting guard with nice ball-handling skills than someone ready to run a team full time.

anakha

06-24-2011, 08:38 PM

And your facts are a bit off

I believe Hill finished tied for 2nd with 3 other players in the 6th man of the year voting last year.

Delicious, delicious irony here.

rascal

06-24-2011, 08:39 PM

Spurtacus

06-25-2011, 05:43 PM

Rotoworld

Pacers guard George Hill's could potentially start at SG or backup both guard positions next season, enabling him to coexist with starting PG Darren Collison.

Larry Bird said the Pacers have been trying to acquire Hill "the last couple of years," and felt he was better than any player available with the No. 15 pick. Indiana doesn't have a head coach yet, and roles are purely speculative (he could even fight for the starting PG job), but Hill's combo-guard versatility bodes well for his value.

Obstructed_View

06-25-2011, 06:12 PM

Hill is an undersized sg forced to play in the Spurs system too much at pg.
Indiana will use him more as a sg and watch him become a much better player.
Also not playing in the shadows of parker and manu as a backup will help his confidence.

Hill will have a better year in Indiana then he would have on the Spurs and have a better year than Leonard.

I agree with most of this, which is why this looks like a really good trade for both teams. If the post above is accurate and the Pacers try to make him a combo guard then George will be about as good as he was as a Spur for the rest of his career.

As for having a better year than Leonard, that's not really a bold take considering he'll be starting in his fourth year. If he DOESN'T have a better year than Leonard then the Pacers got screwed.

rascal

06-25-2011, 06:24 PM

I agree with most of this, which is why this looks like a really good trade for both teams. If the post above is accurate and the Pacers try to make him a combo guard then George will be about as good as he was as a Spur for the rest of his career.

As for having a better year than Leonard, that's not really a bold take considering he'll be starting in his fourth year. If he DOESN'T have a better year than Leonard then the Pacers got screwed.

This is why I thought trading manu for a big made the most sense and then moving Hill to starting sg.

Hill, Neal and Anderson could cover the sg slot with Manu landing the Spurs a better big (borderline star or good young player with good upside)than they would have been able to get otherwise. The frontline is the Spurs biggest weakness.

Now it's most likely the spurs get a low end backup or over the hill type of player on the frontline and still end up not being good enough overall on the frontline.

Obstructed_View

06-25-2011, 06:31 PM

Yeah, but you aren't getting a borderline star big for Manu. That's where the argument falls apart, because bigs are hugely overpaid and have more value as an asset.

I'm overstating the folowing a bit, but let's look at it from the Spurs' needs standpoint: For a good player, Hill wasn't a great individual defender, was a terrible team defender, didn't always show up, and was the worst shooter of all the swings on the team. Add to the fact that he failed at backup point and he was the obvious one to go.

Rearrange the names in your statement:

Manu, Neal and Anderson could cover the sg slot with Hill landing the Spurs a better small forward (borderline star or good young player with good upside) than they would have been able to get otherwise. The frontline then becomes the Spurs' biggest weakness.

They still have Dice's contract and pieces with some value. Unfortunately the weak pieces of the front line (Bonner and RJ) are the ones that are going to be the hardest to trade, and Manu wouldn't have fixed that for what you lose when he leaves town.

You're overvaluing Manu as a trade chip because you're a fan, and you're undervaluing his actual value to the Spurs because you have your GM hat on. :)

SenorSpur

06-25-2011, 06:38 PM

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011...ore-with-hill/

There’s also this: I’d bet that if you got Spurs general manager R.C. Buford and Popovich in a candid moment, they’d say they’re comfortable wagering that Hill has just about hit his ceiling. Hill just turned 25, and he did not evolve all that much between his second and third seasons in the league. It’s fashionable to refer to Hill as something of an heir apparent to Parker, but he has never really shown that he’s going to be a dynamic NBA point guard capable of running an offense. His assist rate — the percentage of baskets Hill assisted on while on the court — was about the same as those of Ray Allen and Kevin Martin. Hill also depended on teammate assists for slightly more than half of his baskets, an average mark for a guard. Some of this is due to playing alongside Ginobili so much, but the numbers peg Hill more as a shooting guard with nice ball-handling skills than someone ready to run a team full time.

This guy got it EXACTLY right. No offense to Hill. He was an awfully good player, but I believe he was overrated somewhat by Pop, many fans and NBA analysts. I've said many times that it was inexcusable that he was never able to master running a simple pick-n-roll. I also believe Pop hindered his development by commanding that he play more "selfishly" and seek his own offense first, rather than learning how to run the team and involving his teammates.

There was no doubt that he was a good defender, but he was far from being a great one nor was he a lockdown perimeter defender. However, he looked much better defensively because he was on a team of very poor-to-average perimeter defenders. This is sort of like being the "smartest dumb kid in a class of dummies". Furthermore, as an undersized SG, Hill should never have been saddled with the challenge of trying to slow down the likes of LeBron James, Kobe Bryant and Rudy Gay.

Pop did the kid a disservice by not always putting him in situations where he could succeed. Instead, Pop often put the kid in situations where expectations were too great. Perhaps that may have contributed to why he seemingly "hit his ceiling".

He will be missed, but I agree that his contributions can be replicated.

Amuseddaysleeper

06-25-2011, 07:52 PM

Spurtacus

06-25-2011, 07:55 PM

benefactor

06-25-2011, 07:58 PM

After all these years people are still arguing with rascal?

Mel_13

06-25-2011, 08:05 PM

When will Pop stop forcing players to play out of position? Same shit with Roger Mason, who also wasn't a PG. I really hope Leonard doesn't try to get utilized more as a 4 as oppose to a 3 which is his true position.

He has the potential to be useful against teams in our conference when they use players like Odom, Marion, Arthur, and Durant at the 4. Those matchups have caused great problems for the Spurs. Leonard may very well be our best bet to deal with those lineups.

Amuseddaysleeper

06-25-2011, 10:32 PM

He has the potential to be useful against teams in our conference when they use players like Odom, Marion, Arthur, and Durant at the 4. Those matchups have caused great problems for the Spurs. Leonard may very well be our best bet to deal with those lineups.

That's a very fair point, and I understand if we play small ball Leonard can have some potential. I just don't want to see a stat this season where he's played more minutes at the 4 than the 3. Situational minutes as a PF is OK, but I don't want Pop to go overboard with playing players out of position.

Tyrone Jenkins

06-25-2011, 11:24 PM

The combo guard debate is a whole lot different than the combo forward debate, obviously, but so many of us try to treat it the same.

Combo forwards bring a different dynamic to an offense where in a tweener 3 playing the 4 spot often requires the opponent to guard the perimeter. Having a guy who's 6'9" or taller who can shoot from 3 pt range AND be able to defend opposing PFs is something few teams possess (Channing Frye is a good example). Leonard won't be a tweener as he doesn't have the range nor do he possess the post moves. But, his defensive ability and rebounding desire make him a GREAT candidate for defending smaller PFs. I think Pop and the FO will combine him w/ Bonner and have Bonner run the pick and pop.

The difference between a SG and a PG are NIGHT and DAY. Many teams make the mistake of trying to combine the two but very few players can actually do both really well. Stephen Curry (GS Warriors) is a SG that is being made to play the point because of Monta Ellis. He did it some in college so you would think he'd have the skills - he doesn't. The Warriors drafted Charles Jenkins in the 2nd round.

Same w/ Ben Gordon - that's why the Pistons drafted Brandon Knight. Same with Russell Westbrook.

There are a LOT of teams coming to the realization that there is just no substitute for a true PG - someone who can run the floor, recognize even the smallest of nuances in the defensive schemes they see, can drive/penetrate to the basket and most important, can make the RIGHT decisions. PGs are usually the smartest players on the team.

SGs often are relied upon to score - not think. They rely on instinct and shooting talent. Completely different skillsets...

FkLA

06-26-2011, 02:36 AM

As for having a better year than Leonard, that's not really a bold take considering he'll be starting in his fourth year. If he DOESN'T have a better year than Leonard then the Pacers got screwed.

So you agree with the fact that Leonard likely wont have the same impact Hill couldve had next yr? The same year that will likely be the Spurs last stand?? So why trade your best young asset for a player that wont contribute much next season, isnt that the opposite of the norm?? That's like if the Mavs traded Harris for a lottery pick instead of for Kidd, it makes no sense if youre in win-now mode.

This is why I thought trading manu for a big made the most sense and then moving Hill to starting sg.

No, trading Parker wouldve made more sense. We've seen that the team does just fine with Hill-Manu starting in the backcourt. A Parker-Hill lineup hasnt shown the same success. Parker just like Manu couldve netted us a solid player in the frontcourt.

FkLA

06-26-2011, 03:10 AM

He will be missed, but I agree that his contributions can be replicated.

All yall niggas saying his contributions will easily be replicated are completely retarded. His outside shooting can be replicated by Neal and Anderson but thats where it ends. George Hill was 3rd in the team when it came to FTAs, Neal and Anderson have shown nothing to suggest they are anywhere near the slashers Hill is. They also cant play back-up point, even if you thought Hill was a disaster running the point (which I dont agree with) both Neal and Anderson would be ten times worse. Defensively, even if Hill wasnt a lockdown defender he was still the best perimeter defender on the team. Neal and Anderson are mediocre are at best. Even combined, Anderson and Neal dont bring to the table what Hill was able to bring. Their skillsets are a bit redundant if you ask me tbh, theyre both shooters.

SenorSpur

06-26-2011, 07:26 AM

All yall niggas saying his contributions will easily be replicated are completely retarded. His outside shooting can be replicated by Neal and Anderson but thats where it ends. George Hill was 3rd in the team when it came to FTAs, Neal and Anderson have shown nothing to suggest they are anywhere near the slashers Hill is. They also cant play back-up point, even if you thought Hill was a disaster running the point (which I dont agree with) both Neal and Anderson would be ten times worse. Defensively, even if Hill wasnt a lockdown defender he was still the best perimeter defender on the team. Neal and Anderson are mediocre are at best. Even combined, Anderson and Neal dont bring to the table what Hill was able to bring. Their skillsets are a bit redundant if you ask me tbh, theyre both shooters.

And if you thought Hill was a functional backup point guard, then you clearly were not watching closely enough.

FkLA

06-27-2011, 01:55 AM

And if you thought Hill was a functional backup point guard, then you clearly were not watching closely enough.

I watched closely enough to notice that Hill was a functional enough PG for the Spurs to not miss a beat when Parker was injured and Hill was the starting PG. Look up their record and his numbers when he started in place of Tony then comeback and tell me he wasnt a functional PG.

TJastal

06-27-2011, 02:04 AM

I watched closely enough to notice that Hill was a functional enough PG for the Spurs to not miss a beat when Parker was injured and Hill was the starting PG. Look up their record and his numbers when he started in place of Tony then comeback and tell me he wasnt a functional PG.

I think 99% of spurstalk was on vacation during all those stretches when Parker was hampered with various nagging injuries and Hill started cuz it seems we're the only ones who remember. :toast

DesignatedT

06-27-2011, 02:11 AM

FkLA

06-27-2011, 02:17 AM

Not dogging on Hill but during that same stretch Manu was playing some of the best basketball of his entire career. He was simply amazing during that run of games and was the primary ball handler most of the time as well. I hate to see George go but he is definitely not a starting PG and nowhere near the caliber player of Tony Parker.

That wasnt by coincedence. Manu even this past season raised his play and numbers when he played alongside Hill. Its pretty obvious that Hill complimented Manu's game better than Tony. Noone has ever said Hill>Parker or even Hill=Parker btw, simply that the Spurs as a team really dont miss a beat when Hill starts in place of Parker.

will_spurs

06-27-2011, 02:17 AM

I think 99% of spurstalk was on vacation during all those stretches when Parker was hampered with various nagging injuries and Hill started cuz it seems we're the only ones who remember. :toast

Hypothesis #1: 99% of Spurstalk was on vacation
Hypothesis #2: TJLastal and FKLA are blind

Occam's razor says you should consult an ophthalmologist asap.

DesignatedT

06-27-2011, 02:24 AM

That wasnt by coincedence. Manu even this past season raised his play and numbers when he played alongside Hill. Its pretty obvious that Hill complimented Manu's game better than Tony. Noone has ever said Hill>Parker or even Hill=Parker btw, simply that the Spurs as a team really dont miss a beat when Hill starts in place of Parker.

No question that Manu plays his best basketball when he is the primary ball handler, which he is when Hill is on the court alongside him. Fact is Manu can't hold up for a whole season as it is and would without a doubt wear down a hell of a lot quicker if he was asked to take on those responsibilities and play like that game in and game out during the regular season.

On the other hand, Parker has the ability to win this team games virtually by himself even if Manu is having an off night or missing time due to injuries (which seem pretty likely from here on out) Something George doesn't have the ability to do because he is a far inferior player at the end of the day.

George was a fine backup PG to Tony, sure, because he really wasn't even running point when Manu was in the game alongside him but he is definitely not a starting PG in this league and turning over the reigns and making him play a position he doesn't even play would have been a disaster here. Especially with a team like the Spurs who rely so much on point guard play.

TJastal

06-27-2011, 02:39 AM

TJastal

06-27-2011, 02:42 AM

Hypothesis #1: 99% of Spurstalk was on vacation
Hypothesis #2: TJLastal and FKLA are blind

Occam's razor says you should consult an ophthalmologist asap.

Occam's razor supports our theory not you & DesignatedT

TJastal

06-27-2011, 02:50 AM

No question that Manu plays his best basketball when he is the primary ball handler, which he is when Hill is on the court alongside him. Fact is Manu can't hold up for a whole season as it is and would without a doubt wear down a hell of a lot quicker if he was asked to take on those responsibilities and play like that game in and game out during the regular season.

On the other hand, Parker has the ability to win this team games virtually by himself even if Manu is having an off night or missing time due to injuries (which seem pretty likely from here on out) Something George doesn't have the ability to do because he is a far inferior player at the end of the day.

George was a fine backup PG to Tony, sure, because he really wasn't even running point when Manu was in the game alongside him but he is definitely not a starting PG in this league and turning over the reigns and making him play a position he doesn't even play would have been a disaster here. Especially with a team like the Spurs who rely so much on point guard play.

Spurs would have been fine with signing a vet pg like Earl Watson to come in and help with the ball handling/point guard duties.

And with all the depth behind Manu (Neal, Green, Anderson) minutes would not have been a problem for Manu.

Try actually thinking for a change.

baseline bum

06-27-2011, 02:53 AM

After all these years people are still arguing with rascal?

LOL... back when the Spurs were winning titles with the strongest frontcourt in the league rascal bitched about the team not running and not being fun to watch like the Spurs of the 80s. Now that they run and put up points he complains about not having bigs. I would say he's not a Spurs fan, but then again there are plenty of fans like him who think the team is a failure for only having 4 rings instead of 7 or 8.

FkLA

06-27-2011, 02:55 AM

No question that Manu plays his best basketball when he is the primary ball handler, which he is when Hill is on the court alongside him. Fact is Manu can't hold up for a whole season as it is and would without a doubt wear down a hell of a lot quicker if he was asked to take on those responsibilities and play like that game in and game out during the regular season.

On the other hand, Parker has the ability to win this team games virtually by himself even if Manu is having an off night or missing time due to injuries (which seem pretty likely from here on out) Something George doesn't have the ability to do because he is a far inferior player at the end of the day.

George was a fine backup PG to Tony, sure, because he really wasn't even running point when Manu was in the game alongside him but he is definitely not a starting PG in this league and turning over the reigns and making him play a position he doesn't even play would have been a disaster here. Especially with a team like the Spurs who rely so much on point guard play.

You know what lets play along and say Hill is a SG not a PG, and can only be respectable as PG when playing alongside Manu...

Make your last stand these last two years by pairing a Hill-Manu backcourt that has shown that the team doesnt miss a beat when compared to a Parker-Manu backcourt. Add in to the equation the frontline help trading Parker couldve provided. Then once those two years are up and Manu retires move Hill to his "natural" position.

Youre telling me you wouldnt have taken that over having a Parker-Manu backcourt and the current weak frontcourt+giving away your 4th best player in Hill for a 19 yr old rookie who will likely need time to develope and have a real impact?? Any Spurs fan without homer blinds can see which is the better option. Unless youre ready for rebuilding the former is by far the better choice.

DesignatedT

06-27-2011, 02:58 AM

:lol Earl Watson.

1. I wasn't implying that Manu would play more minutes although that would more then likely happen as well if the Spurs wanted to keep winning games.

2. Manu would absolutely wear down having to handle all the offensive responsibilities with virtually no time allowed playing off the ball. Getting rid of Parker would pretty much be putting pressure on Manu to win us every game. For example if Manu had a bad game = loss since the only other star power that we had would be gone. If Manu were to go down with an injury as well (very unlikely he plays 80 games ever again) that would spell big trouble for the Spurs.

I would love to see how effective the Hill/Neal 1-2 combo was together this season on the court actually. Just to see. My guess would be not very impressive

baseline bum

06-27-2011, 03:00 AM

You know what lets play along and say Hill is a SG not a PG, and can only be respectable as PG when playing alongside Manu...

Make your last stand these last two years by pairing a Hill-Manu backcourt that has shown that the team doesnt miss a beat when compared to a Parker-Manu backcourt. Add in to the equation the frontline help trading Parker couldve provided. Then once those two years are up and Manu retires move Hill to his "natural" position.

Youre telling me you wouldnt take that over having a Parker-Manu backcourt and the current weak frontcourt+giving away your 4th best player in Hill for a 19 yr old rookie who will likely need time to develope and have a real impact?? Any Spurs fan without homer blinds can see which is the better option.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

LOL, get the fuck out of here... the frontline help you wanted to trade for was Omri Casspi, a complete bust in Jason Thompson, and Klay Thompson. :rollin

DesignatedT

06-27-2011, 03:07 AM

Add in to the equation the frontline help trading Parker couldve provided. Then once those two years are up and Manu retires move Hill to his "natural" position.

Youre telling me you wouldnt have taken that over having a Parker-Manu backcourt and the current weak frontcourt+giving away your 4th best player in Hill for a 19 yr old rookie who will likely need time to develope and have a real impact?? Any Spurs fan without homer blinds can see which is the better option. Unless youre ready for rebuilding the former is by far the better choice.

1. What frontline help could we have got for Parker?

2. I highly doubt the Spurs start the season with the same frontline rotation/players as last season. Free Agency has yet to begin and RC definitely didn't seem like they were done making moves.

3. Yes, That is exactly what I am telling you, I would not trade away an All-Star/Former finals MVP to start George Hill who isn't even a true PG and 10x less the player as Tony.

How some forget how good Tony really is. If you think George Hill is the player Tony is or will ever be then you are delusional.

Do I think the Hill for Leonard swap was a good deal? I'm not sure, that is yet to be determined but I definitely understand the reasoning behind it and definitely don't think getting rid of Tony would have been a better deal.

TJastal

06-27-2011, 03:09 AM

You know what lets play along and say Hill is a SG not a PG, and can only be respectable as PG when playing alongside Manu...

Make your last stand these last two years by pairing a Hill-Manu backcourt that has shown that the team doesnt miss a beat when compared to a Parker-Manu backcourt. Add in to the equation the frontline help trading Parker couldve provided. Then once those two years are up and Manu retires move Hill to his "natural" position.

Youre telling me you wouldnt have taken that over having a Parker-Manu backcourt and the current weak frontcourt+giving away your 4th best player in Hill for a 19 yr old rookie who will likely need time to develope and have a real impact?? Any Spurs fan without homer blinds can see which is the better option. Unless youre ready for rebuilding the former is by far the better choice.

+1

Spurs could have had this as a starting lineup this year but they blew it already. :depressed

Hill
Manu
Singleton (pick acquired via Parker trade)
Splitter (or trade acquisition big)
Duncan

As a spurs fan watching Popovich year after year make blunder after blunder it really starts to get old. :depressed

DesignatedT

06-27-2011, 03:11 AM

+1

Spurs could have had this as a starting lineup this year but they blew it already. :depressed:

Hill
Manu
Singleton
FA acquisition big (for Parker)
Duncan

As a spurs fan watching Popovich year after year make blunder after blunder it really starts to get old.

God you're a dipshit.

TJastal

06-27-2011, 03:15 AM

God you're a dipshit.

Maybe if you took Parker's nuts off your chin and actually did some thinking, you might see how its actually possible for the spurs to survive without him.

FkLA

06-27-2011, 03:36 AM

:lmao :lmao :lmao

LOL, get the fuck out of here... the frontline help you wanted to trade for was Omri Casspi, a complete bust in Jason Thompson, and Klay Thompson. :rollin

Link?

I said trading Parker before the draft was not necessary, especially considering how horrible this class was and how horrible some of the proposed trades were.

Its probably not very realistic anymore considering what he showed this season and how in love Buss' son is with him, but Ive wanted Bynum since early 2010 and everyone here laughed at the suggestion. His length and size couldve helped out greatly. That's the type of player I wanted for Parker, an established player that couldve helped out right now.

FkLA

06-27-2011, 03:44 AM

1. What frontline help could we have got for Parker?

2. I highly doubt the Spurs start the season with the same frontline rotation/players as last season. Free Agency has yet to begin and RC definitely didn't seem like they were done making moves.

3. Yes, That is exactly what I am telling you, I would not trade away an All-Star/Former finals MVP to start George Hill who isn't even a true PG and 10x less the player as Tony.

How some forget how good Tony really is. If you think George Hill is the player Tony is or will ever be then you are delusional.

Do I think the Hill for Leonard swap was a good deal? I'm not sure, that is yet to be determined but I definitely understand the reasoning behind it and definitely don't think getting rid of Tony would have been a better deal.

Why do yall niggas alway go back to Parker being better individually than Hill? I dont think me or TJ have ever said Hill is better. All we've been saying, which is clearly supported by facts, is that the Spurs as team do just fine with a Hill-Manu backcourt. There is no significant dropoff in the team's play compared to a Parker-Manu backcourt, even if Parker is the better player.

And I cant see into the future so I dont know what kind of frontcourt help the Spurs couldve gotten for Parker. All I know is that its very likely they couldve gotten a more established player, as opposed to a 19 yr old rookie that needs time to develope and be a significant part of this team. Time this aging Spurs core does not have.

TJastal

06-27-2011, 03:56 AM

Why do yall niggas alway go back to Parker being better individually than Hill? I dont think me or TJ have ever said Hill is better. All we've been saying, which is clearly supported by facts, is that the Spurs as team do just fine with a Hill-Manu backcourt. There is no significant dropoff in the team's play compared to a Parker-Manu backcourt, even if Parker is the better player.

And I cant see into the future so I dont know what kind of frontcourt help the Spurs couldve gotten for Parker. All I know is that its very likely they couldve gotten a more established player, as opposed to a 19 yr old rookie that needs time to develope and be a significant part of this team. Time this aging Spurs core does not have.

+1

I can vouch here that I never said Hill is the more talented player of the two. But the talent gap is close (Parker is not 10X better as some TP nutsuckers claim) and its a VERIFIABLE FACT that the spurs as a team have played better basketball with Hill in the starting lineup. Plus Hill has been far more durable than Parker since he's been on the team and also doesn't have a myriad of personal issues casting dark shadows over his life. He also doesn't have commitments to other countries to play summer baskeball.

Combine all of that with the fact Hill will be making peanuts compared to Parker for the next two years and I thought it would be a no-brainer for Pop to take a flyer on Hill for the last couple seasons in Duncan & Ginobili's careers. Apparently not, however.

FkLA

06-27-2011, 03:59 AM

Youre like the 20th person Ive had to repeat that to tbh...

Every single one of you always goes back to Parker being better than Hill individually, when that is clearly not my/TJ's/Hill advocate's point.

ChumpDumper

06-27-2011, 04:15 AM

Amazing coincidence how that happened when Hill was running point, huh?lol running point

ChumpDumper

06-27-2011, 04:17 AM

Maybe if you took Parker's nuts off your chin and actually did some thinking, you might see how its actually possible for the spurs to survive without him.Will the Spurs survive without Hill?

Yes or no.

baseline bum

06-27-2011, 04:24 AM

Link?

I said trading Parker before the draft was not necessary, especially considering how horrible this class was and how horrible some of the proposed trades were.

Its probably not very realistic anymore considering what he showed this season and how in love Buss' son is with him, but Ive wanted Bynum since early 2010 and everyone here laughed at the suggestion. His length and size couldve helped out greatly. That's the type of player I wanted for Parker, an established player that couldve helped out right now.

I dont think it'd be just a draft pick, I doubt those teams have the cap space to absorb TP's contract like that. There would have to be other players included...I would take Casspi, Thompson, and their pick tbh. Would prefer Bynum though.

I take back saying you wanted Klay Thompson, though that was who all the rumors at the time said the Spurs were trading up to draft. Biyombo and Motiejunas are very long term prospects and the Morris twins aren't very good, so where is this big frontcourt help you wanted to land with that trade?

TJastal

06-27-2011, 04:26 AM

With the way the hawks are fielding offers for Josh Smith combined with their search for a point guard, Parker would have been the perfect fit over there. Parker for Smith works straight up and I bet you Sund would have been all over it. Then assuming the spurs could also use one of their extra SG's to trade up in the draft (Neal or Anderson) and BANG, there's Singleton. Lineup:

Hill / FA / Joseph
Manu / Green
Singleton / Jefferson
Smith / Blair
Duncan / Splitter

That's a lineup with enough firepower and defense to get past the mavs and to the nba finals next year.

ChumpDumper

06-27-2011, 04:29 AM

Hill isn't on the team anymore.

You never saw Singleton play.

BANG.

TJastal

06-27-2011, 04:32 AM

Hill isn't on the team anymore.

You never saw Singleton play.

BANG.

I know it bugs you to no end that I point out all the FO fuck ups.

ChumpDumper

06-27-2011, 04:34 AM

I know it bugs you to no end that I point out all the FO fuck ups.On the contrary, I rather enjoy seeing you rant about players you have never seen play basketball.

baseline bum

06-27-2011, 04:42 AM

TJastal

06-27-2011, 04:45 AM

They wanted to salary dump Smith; not trade him for someone owed even more money.

They're also shopping for a starting point guard. Not too difficult to connect the dots here.

baseline bum

06-27-2011, 04:49 AM

They're also shopping for a starting point guard. Not too difficult to connect the dots here.

They're paying $8 million to Hinrich and then adding $13.5 million for Parker? You can't be serious. All they wanted to do was dump Smith's contract to give them some breathing room after signing Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, and Zaza Pachulia to ridiculous deals.

ChumpDumper

06-27-2011, 04:53 AM

They're paying $8 million to Hinrich and then adding $13.5 million for Parker? You can't be serious.Oh, he's very serious.

But more stupid.

FkLA

06-27-2011, 04:56 AM

I take back saying you wanted Klay Thompson, though that was who all the rumors at the time said the Spurs were trading up to draft. Biyombo and Motiejunas are very long term prospects and the Morris twins aren't very good, so where is this big frontcourt help you wanted to land with that trade?

Jason Thompson is better than both Bonner & Blair. A Duncan-Thompson frontline with Splitter backing up both had the potential to be significantly better imho, although that wouldve also been dependent on Pop finally burying Bonner at the end of the bench. Casspi is a better shooter than RJ, he would be a better fit since thats basically what RJ's role has been reduced to. The 7th pick couldve been shopped around. There was no all-star per se but the frontline was still getting an upgrade. That was my thought process at the time.

I wouldve preferred an established player like Bynum though, as I stated in that same post. And later stated in that same thread that trading Parker before the draft was not completely necessary. I was not against waiting for the right deal.

lol running point

Playing as a PG, masquerading as PG, call it what you want...but whats the Spurs record been with Hill starting?

ChumpDumper

06-27-2011, 04:58 AM

Playing as a PG, masquerading as PG, call it what you want...but whats the Spurs record been with Hill starting?I don't know, but doesn't matter.

Hill isn't on the team anymore.

FkLA

06-27-2011, 05:10 AM

I don't know, but doesn't matter.

Hill isn't on the team anymore.

Thank you. I had no idea.

ChumpDumper

06-27-2011, 05:11 AM

Thank you. I had no idea.That would explain a lot tbh.

TJastal

06-27-2011, 05:13 AM

They're paying $8 million to Hinrich and then adding $13.5 million for Parker? You can't be serious. All they wanted to do was dump Smith's contract to give them some breathing room after signing Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, and Zaza Pachulia to ridiculous deals.

Heinrich can backup and play any position 1-3.

They have Teague currently playing point guard. I don't know if they believe he's the long term answer or not, but I do know they have been looking for a high profile point guard for years, and I believe with enough prodding and maybe a 1st round pick they would have taken the bait.

ChumpDumper

06-27-2011, 05:16 AM

Heinrich can backup and play any position 1-3. What position does he actually play for Atlanta?

Is it starting point guard?

Mel_13

06-27-2011, 06:45 AM

its a VERIFIABLE FACT that the spurs as a team have played better basketball with Hill in the starting lineup.

:lol

Using all caps doesn't make an assertion into a fact. Much like two-man +/- numbers don't prove the relative impact of one player over the other.

Now for some actual facts.

Spurs Winning Percentage during George's tenure:

Overall: .671

w/Hill as starter: .582

w/Hill as reserve: .705

w/o Hill: .600

So much for your VERIFIABLE FACTS.

They have Teague currently playing point guard.

Yes they do, as Hinrich's backup. The notion that ATL would trade Smith for a 13M PG is just silly, even for you.

TJastal

06-27-2011, 06:46 AM

They wanted to salary dump Smith; not trade him for someone owed even more money.

http://blogs.ajc.com/hawks/2011/06/23/atlanta-hawks-josh-smith-says-hes-not-eager-for-trade/

Trading Smith as a salary dump makes little sense (and is complicated by the $4 million trade kicker his new team would have to pay). Smith is still only 25. He’s productive, versatile, and valuable. The two years and $26 million left on his contract runs neck-and-neck with Al Horford’s new deal as the best bargain on the team.

benefactor

06-27-2011, 07:08 AM

ohmwrecker

06-27-2011, 07:49 AM

Mel just "shut down the Forum!"

FkLA

06-27-2011, 02:33 PM

:lol

Using all caps doesn't make an assertion into a fact. Much like two-man +/- numbers don't prove the relative impact of one player over the other.

Now for some actual facts.

Spurs Winning Percentage during George's tenure:

Overall: .671

w/Hill as starter: .582

w/Hill as reserve: .705

w/o Hill: .600

So much for your VERIFIABLE FACTS.

2009-2010

Regular Season
19-12 (Hill at PG) .613 win pct
31-19 (Parker at PG) .620 win pct
7-5(Parker-Hill together) .583 win pct

Playoffs
4-4 (Hill at PG) .500 win pct
0-2 (Parker at PG) .000 win pct

That regular season record for when Hill started includes that stretch early in November where not only Parker, but also Duncan and Manu had some minor injuries. Most of the games he started that month where without atleast 2 of the big 3, theres also the tanked season finale against Dallas...even with that though he's right up there with Parker, the difference is less than .01. When given a healthy Duncan&Manu Hill's win pct was higher than Parker's as a starter though.

His sample size his 1st and 3rd season were too small so I didnt really take the time to look through the 10-15 games combined he started those two seasons. Im sure it looks pretty similar and that the Spurs dont miss a beat when Hill started over Parker (not with Parker) though. How do any of these numbers suggest the Spurs wouldve been a disaster if they had opted to keep Hill and start him at PG alongside Manu??

ChumpDumper

06-27-2011, 02:38 PM

I didnt really take the time to look :lmao

FkLA

06-27-2011, 02:39 PM

:lmao

selective quoting :lol

completely ignoring the rest of the post :lol:lol

Mel_13

06-27-2011, 02:40 PM

How do any of these numbers suggest the Spurs wouldve been a disaster if they had opted to keep Hill and start him at PG alongside Manu??

Who suggested that? Certainly not me.

Read the post I quoted and was replying to.

ChumpDumper

06-27-2011, 02:43 PM

selective quoting :lollol selective data

Thanks for admitting you cherry picked to confirm your bias though. :toast

FkLA

06-27-2011, 02:44 PM

Who suggested that? Certainly not me.

Read the post I quoted and was replying to.

Fair enough.

It certainly could be argued that the team played better with Hill though, when you factor in the injuries and the last game that was tanked. Pretty sure the team had a higher winning pct with Hill starting when the team was completely healthy than they did with Parker starting.

Mel_13

06-27-2011, 02:52 PM

Fair enough.

It certainly could be argued that the team played better with Hill though, when you factor in the injuries and the last game that was tanked. Pretty sure the team had a higher winning pct with Hill starting when the team was completely healthy than they did with Parker starting.

The team was 49-22 with Roger Mason as a starter in 08-09 and they were 32-17 with Keith Bogans as a starter in 09-10. The team with Tim Duncan on it wins a high percentage of their games.

The point of my post was to point out the absurdity of asserting that it was a VERIFIABLE FACT that the Spurs were a better team with George as a starter. It's not.

FkLA

06-27-2011, 03:19 PM

The point of my post was to point out the absurdity of asserting that it was a VERIFIABLE FACT that the Spurs were a better team with George as a starter. It's not.

When the Spurs were completely healthy (not including Hill and Parker themselves):

Their win pct with Hill starting was higher than their win pct with Parker starting. Thats a verifiable fact tbh. If the team wins more I dont see why its absurd to say they are a better team.

Mel_13

06-27-2011, 03:41 PM

When the Spurs were completely healthy (not including Hill and Parker themselves):

Their win pct with Hill starting was higher than their win pct with Parker starting. Thats a verifiable fact tbh. If the team wins more I dont see why its absurd to say they are a better team.

I'm not interested enough to check your numbers, I'll assume that they're true.

Even in that case, you're dealing with very small sample sizes and not controlling for any other factors. A few obvious factors that would affect the numbers:

1. Opponents quality.

2. Opponents injuries.

3. For the 2009-10 season, the portion of the season is critical. RJ, Dice, Blair, and Bogans were new to the team. Manu was coming off a long layoff and took about half the season to round into form. Then he was super-Manu for about 25 games. Are you really going to attribute the team's success to the fact that George happened to start a good number of those games?

To just look at the Tony/George winning percentages without controlling for numerous other factors really doesn't tell you very much. See above for the team's success with Mason and Bogans.

You can argue that there wouldn't be much of a fall-off with George, but you can't establish that the team was better as a verifiable fact.

will_spurs

06-27-2011, 03:55 PM

+1

Spurs could have had this as a starting lineup this year but they blew it already. :depressed

Hill
Manu
Singleton (pick acquired via Parker trade)
Splitter (or trade acquisition big)
Duncan

As a spurs fan watching Popovich year after year make blunder after blunder it really starts to get old. :depressed

So you mean we should have traded Parker instead of Hill to get... Singleton... the player the Spurs could have drafted instead of Leonard if they had wanted to, with the pick they got from trading Hill.

So all in all the Spurs would have the exact same team as now, except Hill instead of Parker, and you somehow think that's an improvement? You're a funny guy.

Oh, and please look up the definition of Occam's razor. You seem as clueless about that (and logic in general) as you are about basketball.

TJastal

06-27-2011, 07:03 PM

So you mean we should have traded Parker instead of Hill to get... Singleton... the player the Spurs could have drafted instead of Leonard if they had wanted to, with the pick they got from trading Hill.

So all in all the Spurs would have the exact same team as now, except Hill instead of Parker, and you somehow think that's an improvement? You're a funny guy.

Oh, and please look up the definition of Occam's razor. You seem as clueless about that (and logic in general) as you are about basketball.

Do you have reading / comprehension problems?

I said the spurs should have used Parker to trade up in the draft to one of the several lottery teams who were willing to give up their 1st rounder + a decent player in return for Parker. Until the spurs floated Richard Jefferson into the equation of course, which quickly ended all talks.

Then easily selected Singleton (who dropped to #17 or 18 I believe), a guy who will be a better player than Leonard and a player the spurs would have been able to plug into the starting lineup quickly in Jefferson's place.

Spurs would have had a revamped starting lineup, depending on what PF/C they could have landed for Parker. No doubt they could have landed PF Jason Thompson, who is/was being shopped around the league by the kings, and fits the mold of a quality young athletic player who could have been plugged in next to Tim Duncan in the starting lineup.

These moves would have given the spurs a tremendous boost of youth and athleticism to their starting lineup IMO.

Hill
Manu
Singleton
Thompson
Duncan

Instead, now they are stuck with the french poodle, a lottery bust in Leonard, and no quality PF to help Tim Duncan.

Bill_Brasky

06-27-2011, 07:09 PM

Do you have reading / comprehension problems?

I said the spurs should have used Parker to trade up in the draft to one of the several lottery teams who were willing to give up their 1st rounder + a decent player in return for Parker. Until the spurs floated Richard Jefferson into the equation of course, which quickly ended all talks.

Then easily selected Singleton (who dropped to #17 or 18 I believe), a guy who will be a better player than Leonard and a player the spurs would have been able to plug into the starting lineup quickly in Jefferson's place.

Spurs would have had a revamped starting lineup, depending on what PF/C they could have landed for Parker. No doubt they could have landed PF Jason Thompson, who is/was being shopped around the league by the kings, and fits the mold of a quality young athletic player who could have been plugged in next to Tim Duncan in the starting lineup.

These moves would have given the spurs a tremendous boost of youth and athleticism to their starting lineup IMO.

Hill
Manu
Singleton
Thompson
Duncan

Instead, now they are stuck with the french poodle, a lottery bust in Leonard, and no quality PF to help Tim Duncan.
Fuck.

TJastal

06-27-2011, 07:22 PM

I'm not the only one who thinks the spurs messed up.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2011-03/2011-nba-draft/story/breaking-down-the-winners-and-losing-of-the-2011-nba-draft

LOSERS

Spurs. It doesn’t help that so many Tony Parker-Richard Jefferson rumors swirled in the days before the draft, because now San Antonio is in an awkward position. They will go into the season with two starters who know they were being shopped, and instead of moving Parker and Jefferson, relieving some potential salary cap logjam, San Antonio dealt away cap-friendly George Hill to Indiana for their draft pick, Kawhi Leonard. But the Spurs had hoped to change the makeup of their team, and though Leonard is a promising player who was considered a potential top seven pick, the Spurs weren’t able to pull off the big deal they’d hoped.

Mel_13

06-27-2011, 07:30 PM

Bruno

06-27-2011, 07:39 PM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IzX8S_QWTpU/Tcc9mvuzDTI/AAAAAAAAHzc/ay9qWqdb0nc/s1600/Mel-gibson.jpg
http://huntingtonsdiseasesupport.wikispaces.com/file/view/300px-House-Thirteen.jpg/66753145/300px-House-Thirteen.jpg

:lol

Bill_Brasky

06-27-2011, 07:54 PM

ChumpDumper

06-28-2011, 02:50 AM

TJ is still bleeding?

Damn.

He'll never be able to wear white again.

will_spurs

06-28-2011, 03:01 AM

Spurs would have had a revamped starting lineup, depending on what PF/C they could have landed for Parker. No doubt they could have landed PF Jason Thompson, who is/was being shopped around the league by the kings, and fits the mold of a quality young athletic player who could have been plugged in next to Tim Duncan in the starting lineup.

So what you're saying is that the Spurs would have lost Parker for Thompson + Hill (since Hill wouldn't have been traded). Sounds like such a great trade!

It's pretty obvious you either hate Parker or have no basketball knowledge, or likely boh.

TJastal

06-28-2011, 06:31 AM

So what you're saying is that the Spurs would have lost Parker for Thompson + Hill (since Hill wouldn't have been traded). Sounds like such a great trade!

It's pretty obvious you either hate Parker or have no basketball knowledge, or likely boh.

Essentially, yes. Two starters. Throw in a sizeable trade exception that I forgot to mention in there as well.

Sure they could have dicked around for part or even most of the year and see if they can possibly land something better than that for TP (if there is a even a season) but they would have missed out on the draft pick, which is key because that is what nets them their Shawn Marion clone, Chris Singleton. For this reason, the spurs' FO should have just grew a pair and got it done.

And I know being a Parker homer has its perks around here (like feeling you're part of the "cool" crowd and all) but the team was fine with Hill taking the reigns last season & would have been fine heading into the future without the french poodle. Like I said before, using #29 on Joseph and signing a vet backup would have been more than adequate as Hill's backups. And they have both Manu & Neal who can handle the ball for short stretches. Honestly, the spurs would have been just fine.

ChumpDumper

06-28-2011, 01:59 PM

lol cool crowd

You're a dipshit.

FkLA

06-28-2011, 03:30 PM

I'm not interested enough to check your numbers, I'll assume that they're true.

Even in that case, you're dealing with very small sample sizes and not controlling for any other factors. A few obvious factors that would affect the numbers:

1. Opponents quality.

2. Opponents injuries.

3. For the 2009-10 season, the portion of the season is critical. RJ, Dice, Blair, and Bogans were new to the team. Manu was coming off a long layoff and took about half the season to round into form. Then he was super-Manu for about 25 games. Are you really going to attribute the team's success to the fact that George happened to start a good number of those games?

To just look at the Tony/George winning percentages without controlling for numerous other factors really doesn't tell you very much. See above for the team's success with Mason and Bogans.

You can argue that there wouldn't be much of a fall-off with George, but you can't establish that the team was better as a verifiable fact.

Then nothing would be a verifiable fact, because those same things could apply for anyone that says the team was better with Parker starting. But I guess we can leave it as...the team had a higher win pct with a Hill-Manu backcourt than with a Parker-Manu backcourt.

As far as the Mason and Bogans comparisons go, they are extremely flawed...Bogans averaged like 20 mpg even while starting and was a very limited player. Mason never put up the numbers Hill did and brought very little else other than shooting to the table. Hill is a far better player than either of them, theres a dropoff from Parker to Hill in terms of talent but nothing astronomical imho.

Also Manu turning into Super Manu and being arguably the best player in the league those last 2-3 months while playing alongside Hill wasnt coincedence. Even this past season, Manu's numbers had a significant spike while being on the floor with Hill instead of Parker. Hill compliments Manu better, thats fairly obvious.

Mel_13

06-28-2011, 03:36 PM

Then nothing would be a verifiable fact

Which was my point. Your dealing with small sample sizes and only looking at two of the ten players on the court. Amusing that you dismiss any connection between Bogans/Mason and team success, but are so ready to accept a smaller sample as proof of Hill's impact.

Hill compliments Manu better, thats fairly obvious.

Perhaps to you.

Mel_13

06-28-2011, 03:46 PM

the team had a higher win pct with a Hill-Manu backcourt than with a Parker-Manu backcourt.

Actually the numbers you cited didn't say that. It was only after you selectively removed some of the 31 games (out of 55 total Hill starts) that you arrived at that.

So you found some number of games (less than 31, which was already selected from his 55 career starts) where the Spurs had a higher winning percentage than some other group of games (which you also selected).

You have established exactly nothing as a verifiable fact. At best, you have shown some correlation, but have done nothing to prove any causation.

FkLA

06-28-2011, 03:53 PM

Which was my point. Your dealing with small sample sizes and only looking at two of the ten players on the court. Amusing that you dismiss any connection between Bogans/Mason and team success, but are so ready to accept a smaller sample as proof of Hill's impact.

Its easy to dismiss the comparison when you consider the quality of players, the minutes they played and the role they played in the team. George Hill didnt just happen to be there like Bogans or to a lesser extent Mason...he was playing big minutes and was the 2nd-3rd best player on the team during that stretch. He put up 16 ppg and 4.5 apg, not far off from Parker's averages.

Perhaps to you.

Its obvious to anyone without a Parker-bias. Again, even this past season Manu's number had a significant spike when sharing the court with Hill. Hill doesnt need the ball in his hands at all times like Parker to be effective, that gives Manu more opportunities to handle the ball. Its not a coincidence.

FkLA

06-28-2011, 04:00 PM

Actually the numbers you cited didn't say that. It was only after you selectively removed some of the 31 games (out of 55 total Hill starts) that you arrived at that.

So you found some number of games (less than 31, which was already selected from his 55 career starts) where the Spurs had a higher winning percentage than some other group of games (which you also selected).

You have established exactly nothing as a verifiable fact. At best, you have shown some correlation, but have done nothing to prove any causation.

I only cited 31 games, because 12 other games that season were a Tony-Hill backcourt. Those 12 games are irrelevant when discussing if the Spurs are better with Hill starting in place of Tony.

The other 12 games he started in his 1st and 3rd seasons combined I didnt include, which I mentioned. And to be honest the 7 he started his rookie season arent even that relevant, he made big strides his 2nd season and maintained that level this past season. He's a significantly better player than he was as a rookie. As far as this past season goes, if I remember correctly theres like 2 games were he started in place of Manu so it was a Tony-Hill backcourt. Then theres the tanked Lakers game thats another one of his starts. That leaves like 2 games that arent being taken into account, the numbers shouldnt change much.

Mel_13

06-28-2011, 04:07 PM

Its obvious to anyone without a Parker-bias.
:lol

This is where you really fail. You have nothing left and resort to "well you're biased in favor of Parker". I've dealt with nothing but facts and haven't said a word about the Hill's worth as a player in a vacuum or compared to Parker

Again, even this past season Manu's number had a significant spike when sharing the court with Hill. Hill doesnt need the ball in his hands at all times like Parker to be effective, that gives Manu more opportunities to handle the ball. Its not a coincidence.

Here is a perfect example of what I tried to explain to you above. First off, I'm not aware of a source to get Manu's stats when paired with Hill as opposed to when he's paired with Parker, but that's really irrelevant.

Let's assume that Manu's individual stats are better with Hill than with Parker. You have concluded that Hill makes Manu better. An equally plausible conclusion, and one well supported by watching the games, is that Manu dominates the offense more with Hill and thus increases his personal stats.

Once again, correlation is not causation. Do you even understand that basic concept?

Mel_13

06-28-2011, 04:12 PM

I only cited 31 games, because 12 other games that season were a Tony-Hill backcourt. Those 12 games are irrelevant when discussing if the Spurs are better with Hill starting in place of Tony.

The other 12 games he started in his 1st and 3rd seasons combined I didnt include, which I mentioned. And to be honest the 7 he started his rookie season arent even that relevant, he made big strides his 2nd season and maintained that level this past season. He's a significantly better player than he was as a rookie.

Exactly, thus leaving you with an incredibly small sample. Then you adjusted that small sample even more by eliminating some games where the team wasn't fully healthy.

You're left with something less than 31 games and you've done nothing to control for any number of other factors that influence whether the team wins or loses a game.

My point, one more time, is that you can draw no meaningful conclusions from such a small, uncontrolled, sample.

FkLA

06-28-2011, 04:19 PM

:lol

This is where you really fail. You have nothing left and resort to "well you're biased in favor of Parker". I've dealt with nothing but facts and haven't said a word about the Hill's worth as a player in a vacuum or compared to Parker

tbh I was going to be a smartass and write "Perhaps just not to you." after the Parker bias sentence, because I would agree that you havent come off as a Parker fanboy. I forgot to write it though apparently.

Here is a perfect example of what I tried to explain to you above. First off, I'm not aware of a source to get Manu's stats when paired with Hill as opposed to when he's paired with Parker, but that's really irrelevant.

Let's assume that Manu's individual stats are better with Hill than with Parker. You have concluded that Hill makes Manu better. An equally plausible conclusion, and one well supported by watching the games, is that Manu dominates the offense more with Hill and thus increases his personal stats.

Once again, correlation is not causation. Do you even understand that basic concept?

It was in another thread, dont really feel like looking for it but that stat is legit tbh. TJastal probably has the link and quotes saved though, post them when you log on nigga.

Never said Hill made Manu better btw. I said he compliments Manu better, as in his game compliments Manu's game better. Which is obvious from watching the games and is supported by the numbers as well.

DesignatedT

06-28-2011, 04:25 PM

FkLA

06-28-2011, 04:30 PM

Exactly, thus leaving you with an incredibly small sample. Then you adjusted that small sample even more by eliminating some games where the team wasn't fully healthy.

You're left with something less than 31 games and you've done nothing to control for any number of other factors that influence whether the team wins or loses a game.

My point, one more time, is that you can draw no meaningful conclusions from such a small, uncontrolled, sample.

He showed he compliments Manu's game better the past two seasons. He showed that the Spurs dont miss a beat when hes inserted into the starting line-up in place of Tony. On top of that the individual numbers hes put up when inserted have not been far from what Tony has. If you should be scoffing anyone and asking them to verify their comments, its the Parker fanboys that claim the Spurs wouldve been a disaster if Hill had been handed the reins. There is absolutely nothing that supports that.

Mel_13

06-28-2011, 04:34 PM

tbh I was going to be a smartass and write "Perhaps just not to you." after the Parker bias sentence, because I would agree that you havent come off as a Parker fanboy. I forgot to write it though apparently.

Fair enough

It was in another thread, dont really feel like looking for it but that stat is legit tbh. TJastal probably has the link and quotes saved though, post them when you log on nigga.

Never said Hill made Manu better btw. I said he compliments Manu better, as in his game compliments Manu's game better. Which is obvious from watching the games and is supported by the numbers as well.

You could just as easily say that playing next to Hill places greater demands on Manu than playing next to Parker.

I see that DesignatedT basically said everything I was going to say. No need to duplicate.

Mel_13

06-28-2011, 04:35 PM

He showed he compliments Manu's game better the past two seasons.

No, he hasn't.

FkLA

06-28-2011, 04:40 PM

You're right. Manu's #s are better when Hill was on the court compared to Tony, and that's what you keep going back to. What about this upcoming season when Manu's #s are higher with, lets say Neal on the court compared to with Tony. Does that mean the Spurs are a better team with Neal in the SL then Tony? By all means No.

Forget stats for a second... Do you honestly think that Manu. who has already been hurt 4 straight seasons can stay healthy and maintain playing at a high level when taking on significantly more responsibilities offensively? It's a simple answer really... No, he can't. and Hill is not a good enough player to carry this Spurs squad if Manu is having an "off" night, is on the bench, or is missing the game completely due to injury or rest.

I agree that Hill complimented Manu's game better and I'm sure you will see a jump in Manus stats when he is on the court with Neal or Anderson or whoever not named Parker. So why don't we bring Manu off the bench again.... Lets him handle the ball more and play with guys who compliment him better then Tony and it also lets Tony do his thing in the Starting Lineup. That would be my preference and something not possible if only Hill was here. He isn't good enough to carry a team on his own without Manu on the court with him. You're putting all your eggs in 1 basket with Ginobili under that scenario, and at 33 years old isn't really a wise move.

Parker wasnt going to be traded for a bag of chips, ideally a solid frontline player wouldve comeback to help Manu, Tim, and George with the offensive load. So yes honestly I wouldve rather put my eggs in that basket instead of the one the Spurs chose. And we have one year left to make a last stand, preserving Manu isnt really as important as it was in the past. He did just fine this past season playing career high minutes btw, best player for the Spurs in the playoffs despite the freak injury (which had nothing to do with fatigue). Breaking your nose also has nothing to do with fatigue or your body breaking down.

DesignatedT

06-28-2011, 04:48 PM

Would love to hear who the solid front line player would be that you keep taking about.....? All reports I saw had no mention of a "solid" front court player. If there was a trade that brought back a 18ppg 10rpg bigman then I'm sure the Spurs might have pulled the trigger on a deal like that. So what bigman are you talking about?

Sure it was a kind of freak accident, but he still got hurt and fatigue definitely takes a factor in recovery time of the injury and how fast it heals.

FkLA

06-28-2011, 04:51 PM

You could just as easily say that playing next to Hill places greater demands on Manu than playing next to Parker.

I see that DesignatedT basically said everything I was going to say. No need to duplicate.

No, not when Hill is putting up individual production thats not far off from Parker's. He just happens to be able to get his offense in ways Parker cant, Parker needs the ball in his hands at all times or he becomes useless. Hill's game gives Manu more touches and allows him to turn into Super Manu as you labeled him...and since when is that a bad thing?

Would love to hear who the solid front line player would be that you keep taking about.....? All reports I saw had no mention of a "solid" front court player. If there was a trade that brought back a 18ppg 10rpg bigman then I'm sure the Spurs might have pulled the trigger on a deal like that. So what bigman are you talking about?

Sure it was a kind of freak accident, but he still got hurt and fatigue definitely takes a factor in recovery time of the injury and how fast it heals.

Someone that couldve had a more significant impact than a 19 yr old rookie will probably have, as we prepare for a last stand. Thats for sure. Those were not the only deals that were going to be offered btw, it wasnt a necessity to trade Parker before the draft. I wouldve been ok with waiting for the right trade.

And no, fatigue had nothing to do with the healing. He fractured his hand, it doesnt matter if its the first or last game your going to miss some time with that injury. A broken nose has nothing to do with fatigue either.

Mel_13

06-28-2011, 04:52 PM

FkLA,

Two different discussions are getting mixed together here.

1. Your position (as best I can summarize) that the Spurs would have been just fine with Hill at PG and the assets they would have received from trading Parker. I've got no issue with that. It's all speculation and opinion and you're entitled to yours.

2. TJastals claim that it was a verifiable fact that the Spurs played better with Hill than with Parker. This is where I joined the discussion. You can point to trends and correlations all you like, but it is absolutely NOT a verifiable fact. There's not nearly enough data and the data that does exist is subject to various interpretations.

Enjoy debating point #1 with anyone interested enough to discuss that issue.

:toast

DesignatedT

06-28-2011, 04:53 PM

DesignatedT

06-28-2011, 04:55 PM

FkLA is fine. Seems like he knows what he is talking about and has his opinion. TJastal is a dipshit who doesn't merit a response.

Mel_13

06-28-2011, 05:01 PM

No, not when Hill is putting up individual production thats not far off from Parker's. He just happens to be able to get his offense in ways Parker cant, Parker needs the ball in his hands at all times or he becomes useless. Hill's game gives Manu more touches and allows him to turn into Super Manu as you labeled him...and since when is that a bad thing?

It's not, it's just not sustainable for 82 games and a postseason. What I saw this year, with Manu starting next to Tony, is that Manu was able to "rest" during the game (Tim's been doing that for years). He was never able to do that coming off the bench and he can't really do that next to George. Manu/George on a regular basis will cause more wear and tear on Manu than Manu/Tony on a regular basis.

Anyway, I have no interest in the George/Tony debate. I like both players and the point is really moot now anyway.

Mel_13

06-28-2011, 05:02 PM

fkla is fine. Seems like he knows what he is talking about and has his opinion.

+1

FkLA

06-28-2011, 05:30 PM

Manu has been "Super-Manu" before with Tony on the court as well. It's not like that stretch of games when Hill was in the starting lineup was the only time Manu was extremely effective.

Manu's game has evolved imo, he doesnt have the same athleticism or quickness that he had in 05'. He's become the best distributing SG in the league. Him being effective is more dependent on having the ball in his hands alot more now.

It's not, it's just not sustainable for 82 games and a postseason. What I saw this year, with Manu starting next to Tony, is that Manu was able to "rest" during the game (Tim's been doing that for years). He was never able to do that coming off the bench and he can't really do that next to George. Manu/George on a regular basis will cause more wear and tear on Manu than Manu/Tony on a regular basis.

Anyway, I have no interest in the George/Tony debate. I like both players and the point is really moot now anyway.

He's been fine the past two seasons tbh. Placing the blame on fatigue for a broken nose and a broken arm during a freak play is stretching it imo. And its only for one more season, let Manu go all out for a last stand. Theres no reason to preserve him.

FkLA

06-28-2011, 05:31 PM

Yall niggas are allright too btw, definitely not Parker fanboys. Its been a good discussion. :toast

ohmwrecker

06-28-2011, 05:43 PM

DesignatedT

06-28-2011, 05:47 PM

In the sample size that TJ and FkLA are referring to where TP was injured and and Hill was starting . . . If I rightfully recall, that stretch of games happened to coincide with Manu playing out of his freaking skull. Does anyone else remember that? Am I wrong?

I think that is the most likely explanation for the increase in win %.

I love Hill (and I'm no "Parker fanboy"), but he is nowhere near Tony Parker's level as a player. I'm surprised this debate is still raging, tbh.

Yes, that is the fact, but there rebuttal is that it was no coincidence that Manu was playing that well.

Here is tmvps write up of Manu during that stretch if you're interested.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150366

EricD

06-28-2011, 08:45 PM

Who cares anymore?

Fkla and TJ are obviously terrible posters and need to get a clue already. Hill is no longer a Spur, he is a Pacer.

I find it hilarious how TJ and Fkla think the Spurs are better off with Hill opposed to Parker.

They really know how to make a greyman (like myself) look bad.

TJastal

06-28-2011, 10:28 PM

Yes, that is the fact, but there rebuttal is that it was no coincidence that Manu was playing that well.

Here is tmvps write up of Manu during that stretch if you're interested.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150366

Maybe its a coincidence that Manu was playing extremely well with Hill in the starting lineup, but it defenitely was no coincidence that he was playing superb basketball the second Parker stepped out of the lineup.

All this proves is that Hill (in the starting lineup) is a better fit for Manu's game than Parker. So the question really becomes, who is more important to the team, Parker or Ginobili? Which of these two players should the team focus building around? And IMO it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Manu is the straw that stirs the spurs' drink.

And according to the research done by Michael De Leon, Hill is better fit for several players on the team, including Tim Duncan.

http://www.playmakeronline.com/2011/06/04/an-in-depth-look-at-parker-vs-hill/

This pattern also holds true with Gary Neal. Neal is a much more efficient player with Hill creating shots for him. His +/- goes from a negative playing with Parker to a +4.5 playing with Hill.

You can say the same about Tim Duncan, McDyess and Matt Bonner with the +/- disparities. The only wing player who seems to benefit from Tony Parker on the floor is Richard Jefferson and that is because Tony will take the offensive responsibility off his shoulders.

mathbzh

06-29-2011, 02:14 AM

I agree that Hill complimented Manu's game better and I'm sure you will see a jump in Manus stats when he is on the court with Neal or Anderson or whoever not named Parker. So why don't we bring Manu off the bench again.... Lets him handle the ball more and play with guys who compliment him better then Tony and it also lets Tony do his thing in the Starting Lineup. That would be my preference and something not possible if only Hill was here. He isn't good enough to carry a team on his own without Manu on the court with him. You're putting all your eggs in 1 basket with Ginobili under that scenario, and at 33 years old isn't really a wise move.
+1
I would just add that Manu can't play consistently over 30 mpg.
This can make the guard rotation really complicated if Hill can't be efficient without Manu.
With TP and Manu we can have at any time an elite guard on the court. If one of them goes down for a couple of games the other one can still play 40 mpg. Personally I would not be comfortable with the Spurs playing 18 mpg with neither Manu nor Tony for a full season.
Considering we have the same issue with our big men (Duncan can't play over 30 mpg)... I believe this team would be in trouble very soon.

mathbzh

06-29-2011, 02:40 AM

Maybe its a coincidence that Manu was playing extremely well with Hill in the starting lineup, but it defenitely was no coincidence that he was playing superb basketball the second Parker stepped out of the lineup.

All this proves is that Hill (in the starting lineup) is a better fit for Manu's game than Parker.

This is what Manu was supposed to do without Paker.
In 2009 when Manu was down Parker played at a near MVP level for a couple of weeks.
All this proves is that both player have (or had?) the talent to carry the team when the other goes down.

Pippen had his best season in 93-94 (PER 22.8) and Jordan his career high in point in 86-87 (37.1 to be fair he had is best PER later). You would not
argue their game did not fit together, would you?

DesignatedT

06-29-2011, 06:30 AM

TJastal

06-29-2011, 07:19 AM

This is what Manu was supposed to do without Paker.
In 2009 when Manu was down Parker played at a near MVP level for a couple of weeks.
All this proves is that both player have (or had?) the talent to carry the team when the other goes down.

Pippen had his best season in 93-94 (PER 22.8) and Jordan his career high in point in 86-87 (37.1 to be fair he had is best PER later). You would not
argue their game did not fit together, would you?

The French Poodle has carried the team in year's past (when he wasn't injured or rehabbing), no question.

The difference is even when Manu's not scoring at a high clip and carrying the offense, he's always affecting a game in many different ways, including making the other guys around him better. This has alot to do with his leadership qualities which IMO is what sets him apart from Parker. He is the straw that stirs the spurs' drink.

So now that we've established who the alpha dog is, you put the guys around the alpha dog that prop up his game and bring the best fit. And one of those guys was George Hill. And since Manu is now a starter it follows that Hill should have been retained instead of Parker.

There was another option available, which was actually tried before, which was to have TP become the spurs' 6th man. I've maintained for years that Parker would be great in a 6th man role off the bench (ala Jason Terry) because he is a brilliant scorer. Only problem was his inflated ego wouldn't allow it. He eventually started bitching and moaning (like the bitch that he is) about losing his starting role when the spurs played without him for an extended period and he was rehabbing (with much success I might add). I thought he was great in that role. He could have been a candidate for 6th man award. Only he was too much of a bitch to accept the role, even though it was clearly for the better for the team.

Which really made me dislike the little french bastard from that point on. Manu never had a problem sacrificing his stats for the betterment of the team for all those years in the 6th man role, and was essentially the pioneer that first brought major attention to how valuable that role can be. And to underscore this point, look at how valuable Jason Terry was in that capacity in the finals, he was very close to being the MVP of the series. Look at guys like the hawks' jamal crawford.. guys who for some reason or another just don't play as well as starters. I believe Parker could have flourished just as these guys have (albeit a bit higher paid) if he would have shed the pride and embraced it. But of course, being the little bitch that he is, he did not, and now Hill is a goner.

ChumpDumper

06-29-2011, 11:57 AM

What a pathetic hater.

will_spurs

06-29-2011, 12:14 PM

what a pathetic hater.

+1

TJastal

06-29-2011, 12:14 PM

+1

-2

ChumpDumper

06-29-2011, 12:29 PM

-2Thin-skinned as well.

TJastal

06-29-2011, 01:05 PM

Thin-skinned as well.

I'm thin-skinned?

I would have sucked it up and taken the 6th man role/job to help the team win games.

I'm guessing you would have bitched and moaned just like TP did.

ChumpDumper

06-29-2011, 01:10 PM

I'm thin-skinned?

I would have sucked it up and taken the 6th man role/job to help the team win games.

I'm guessing you would have bitched and moaned just like TP did.Yes, you are thin-skinned.

Tony Parker is better than you in every way.

TJastal

06-29-2011, 01:11 PM

Yes, you are thin-skinned.

Tony Parker is better than you in every way.

Better at bitching and moaning for sure.

ChumpDumper

06-29-2011, 01:12 PM

Better at bitching and moaning for sure.Better means he doesn't bitch and moan as much. The proof is right here on this board.

You do nothing but bitch and moan.

TJastal

06-29-2011, 01:21 PM

Better means he doesn't bitch and moan as much. The proof is right here on this board.

You do nothing but bitch and moan.

Fact is, I really don't care that my name isn't lit up in bold, or whether or not I have a snazzy all-star label. I'm just a grey ST poster that posts his opinions and expects no accolades to be thrown my way. I have no sense of entitlement here, unlike TP & his arrogant little band of followers/homers here on spurstalk.

ChumpDumper

06-29-2011, 01:29 PM

Fact is, I really don't care that my name isn't lit up in bold, or whether or not I have a snazzy all-star label.Then why do you keep bringing it up?

Seriously. Why are you the only person who whines about this?

I'm just a grey ST poster that posts his opinions and expects no accolades to be thrown my way. I have no sense of entitlement here, unlike TP & his arrogant little band of followers/homers here on spurstalk.Actually, you expect everyone to agree with everything you say or else you throw tantrum after tantrum, repeating the same "argument" over and over and over again.

You have had nothing new to say since draft night when your dreams of Hill at starting point guard crashed against the rocks of reality. That sent you off the deep end and your vagina has not stopped bleeding since. I expect it never will.

Bill_Brasky

06-29-2011, 01:40 PM

Fact is, I really don't care that my name isn't lit up in bold, or whether or not I have a snazzy all-star label. I'm just a grey ST poster that posts his opinions and expects no accolades to be thrown my way. I have no sense of entitlement here, unlike TP & his arrogant little band of followers/homers here on spurstalk.

spursfan1000

TJastal

06-29-2011, 01:53 PM

Then why do you keep bringing it up?

Seriously. Why are you the only person who whines about this?

Actually, you expect everyone to agree with everything you say or else you throw tantrum after tantrum, repeating the same "argument" over and over and over again.

You have had nothing new to say since draft night when your dreams of Hill at starting point guard crashed against the rocks of reality. That sent you off the deep end and your vagina has not stopped bleeding since. I expect it never will.

I bring up your "award" because I know it chaps your ass when I do. You know you just have that award for being a Pop/TP homer, which gets you into all the exclusive ST cliques, not for any insightful comments you've ever made in your posting career.

And as far as having nothing new to say, I think I've talked quite extensively about many things; most recently in this thread about TP and his refusal to be a 6th man and how it led to Hill's departure from the team. You're welcome to comment on it and we can debate the topic, unless your butt is too chapped already.

Bill_Brasky

06-29-2011, 02:05 PM

I bring up your "award" because I know it chaps your ass when I do. You know you just have that award for being a Pop/TP homer, which gets you into all the exclusive ST cliques, not for any insightful comments you've ever made in your posting career.

And as far as having nothing new to say, I think I've talked quite extensively about many things; most recently in this thread about TP and his refusal to be a 6th man and how it led to Hill's departure from the team. You're welcome to comment on it and we can debate the topic, unless your butt is too chapped already.

TP as 6th man? :lol

As long as he is on this team he is gonna start.....don't think anyone has ever or will ever ask him to do otherwise.

TJastal

06-29-2011, 02:17 PM

TP as 6th man? :lol

As long as he is on this team he is gonna start.....don't think anyone has ever or will ever ask him to do otherwise.

And here we have an actual volunteer showing us an example of what I was just talking about, in fact giving us a demonstration of the typical bullshit we have all come to expect from these arrogant assholes.

Thanks for the demonstration, Bill_Brasky.

Bill_Brasky

06-29-2011, 02:24 PM

And here we have an actual volunteer showing us an example of what I was just talking about, in fact giving us a demonstration of the typical bullshit we have all come to expect from these arrogant assholes.

Thanks for the demonstration, Bill_Brasky.

You sound like such an angsty douche.

TJastal

06-29-2011, 02:26 PM

You sound like such an angsty douche.

It's "bitter, unfunny douche". Please get it right.

Bill_Brasky

06-29-2011, 02:29 PM

It's "bitter, unfunny douche". Please get it right.

Nope. I sense teenager in you. Therefore, angst.

TJastal

06-29-2011, 02:39 PM

Nope. I sense teenager in you. Therefore, angst.

You were a great johnny on the spot example to my theory, and again you have my thanks. But please leave the deranged psychobabble for another thread.

Bill_Brasky

06-29-2011, 02:51 PM

You were a great johnny on the spot example to my theory, and again you have my thanks. But please leave the deranged psychobabble for another thread.

lol proving my point, angsty teenage douche

will_spurs

06-29-2011, 07:37 PM

I'm just a grey ST poster that posts his opinions and expects no accolades to be thrown my way.

Good for you, because low expectations is definitely your only way to happiness.

ChumpDumper

06-29-2011, 09:01 PM

I bring up your "award" because I know it chaps your ass when I do. You know you just have that award for being a Pop/TP homer, which gets you into all the exclusive ST cliques, not for any insightful comments you've ever made in your posting career.It doesn't chap my ass at all. On the contrary, your envy over such a dubious title is priceless to see. You really wanted this award, didn't you?

Please bring it up again and again and again.

And as far as having nothing new to say, I think I've talked quite extensively about many things; most recently in this thread about TP and his refusal to be a 6th man and how it led to Hill's departure from the team. You're welcome to comment on it and we can debate the topic, unless your butt is too chapped already.Yeah, about that -- it's complete bullshit, just like everything else you have posted since draft night.

I know what I'm talking about. After all, I won an award.

ChumpDumper

06-29-2011, 09:02 PM

It's "bitter, unfunny douche". Please get it right.Angsty, envious douche.

Mel_13

06-30-2011, 09:27 AM

Angsty, envious douche.

That's better.

After all, it's a VERIFIABLE FACT that TJ is not unfunny. His posts are the source of endless amusement for the rest of ST.

ChumpDumper

06-30-2011, 12:01 PM

Angsty, bitter, envious, unintentionally hilarious douche.

benefactor

05-31-2013, 11:46 AM

manufan10

05-31-2013, 11:52 AM

:lol Solid bump

Obstructed_View

05-31-2013, 12:05 PM

So you agree with the fact that Leonard likely wont have the same impact Hill couldve had next yr? The same year that will likely be the Spurs last stand?? So why trade your best young asset for a player that wont contribute much next season, isnt that the opposite of the norm?? That's like if the Mavs traded Harris for a lottery pick instead of for Kidd, it makes no sense if youre in win-now mode.

Hill winshare first year with Indiana: .152
Leonard winshare rookie season with SA: .171

Bill_Brasky

05-31-2013, 12:09 PM

:lmao TJastal
:lmao FkLA

apalisoc_9

05-31-2013, 12:10 PM

LMAOL Fkla.

benefactor

05-31-2013, 12:12 PM

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/66864948/Tree+Of+Woe+treeofwoe.jpg

jeebus

05-31-2013, 12:13 PM

Wow. After reading this thread, those two brought the terrible terrible bads.

J_Paco

05-31-2013, 12:18 PM

Wow. After reading this thread, those two brought the terrible terrible bads.

They both are Parker haters, so it isn't surprising that they hated that trade. I'm just happy the Spurs stuck with Parker and traded for Kawhi. Any other move would have been a huge setback for the Spurs, IMO.

Brazil

05-31-2013, 12:28 PM

:lmao

The George Hill is a PG take is pretty bad.
Hill is a SG he has no clue on how to run a team from PG spot. His ball handling and his passing abilities or better lack of are just to much to overcome at this level.

Brazil

05-31-2013, 12:33 PM

:lol I had forgotten this Cane dude ....

portnoy1
tjastal
fkla
cane
duncan2117

that's a gang tbh :lol

apalisoc_9

05-31-2013, 12:45 PM

to be fair, tony's got a lot of flaws in his character that makes him second to Chris Paul such as his inability to form chemsitry with guys. This year obviously he's doing a great job. His Chemistry with Kahwi is piss poor and goes as far as refusing to recognize match-up to just not wanting to pass. Manu's always been the better Quarter back, the better teamate, the better passer... but it's crazy to think that these two guys actually wanted a 35 year manu to shoulder the load.

TP is a top 2 guard and have always been a top 5 guard. George hill is also a borderline statrter..too much irrational hate fkla tjastal

spurraider21

05-31-2013, 01:24 PM

:lmao

i so regret not being on this forum when that trade went down :lol

Chinook

05-31-2013, 01:48 PM

Larry Bird said the Pacers have been trying to acquire Hill "the last couple of years," and felt he was better than any player available with the No. 15 pick. Indiana doesn't have a head coach yet, and roles are purely speculative (he could even fight for the starting PG job), but Hill's combo-guard versatility bodes well for his value.

Turns out there were about three or four players better that Hill that were available, and we have to see how Joseph develops.

tesseractive

05-31-2013, 04:02 PM

Turns out there were about three or four players better that Hill that were available, and we have to see how Joseph develops.
They've been playing deep in the playoffs for the last couple of years. I love Cory, but he would have been a terrible move for a team who needed someone who could crack the rotation in a hurry.

And really, if he'd fallen just a little further to the second round, a lot of teams might have cut him already and he might be playing in Europe. Access to the Spurs player-development pipeline has been a huge asset to him after not getting any useful coaching in college and coming out too soon. Even Kawhi could have easily turned out worse on another team -- he fell because he didn't have an NBA-ready jumper.

Chinook

05-31-2013, 04:22 PM

They've been playing deep in the playoffs for the last couple of years. I love Cory, but he would have been a terrible move for a team who needed someone who could crack the rotation in a hurry.

Sure, but that doesn't make him a better player. Leonard, Parsons and Faried have all been starting for about as long as Hill has. Joseph is just a little behind Hill in his second year. He's just asked to do a lot less.

And really, if he'd fallen just a little further to the second round, a lot of teams might have cut him already and he might be playing in Europe. Access to the Spurs player-development pipeline has been a huge asset to him after not getting any useful coaching in college and coming out too soon. Even Kawhi could have easily turned out worse on another team -- he fell because he didn't have an NBA-ready jumper.

And Hill wasn't on the program's list of draftable players. Save perhaps the Celtics, Hill would have been a late-second-rounder had the Spurs not taken him at 28.

sook

05-31-2013, 05:00 PM

Hill CAN'T play PG. I saw him game 1 of the ECF for the first pacers game I saw and I was just telling myself he was so out of position. The guy is a subpar ball handler that doesn't make good decisions period.

FkLA

05-31-2013, 05:01 PM

Right.

Typical. Why not quote DPGs posts for example, since he shared basically the same opinion regarding the trade ?

Hill winshare first year with Indiana: .152
Leonard winshare rookie season with SA: .171

Let me guess, you knew this is exactly what would happen? From day one you though Leonard would blossom this much this soon ?

In hindsight it looks really good for the Spurs, but at the time with an aging core adding a rookie for their 4th best player didnt seem like the ideal route back to the Finals. Glad to have been wrong though tbh.

tesseractive

05-31-2013, 05:11 PM

Sure, but that doesn't make him a better player. Leonard, Parsons and Faried have all been starting for about as long as Hill has. Joseph is just a little behind Hill in his second year. He's just asked to do a lot less.

True enough. Though as far as Joseph goes, I certainly think it's fair to say that he would have helped a lot less with Indiana's 2012 playoff run than Hill did.

Whenever I encounter something like "Larry Bird... felt he was better than any player available with the No. 15 pick," I mentally substitute something like "for what we're looking for." A project (even one who's developed remarkably quickly, as projects go) misses on that count. But yeah, that doesn't say anything about Leonard and the other players the Pacers (and many other teams) passed on.

And Hill wasn't on the program's list of draftable players. Save perhaps the Celtics, Hill would have been a late-second-rounder had the Spurs not taken him at 28.

Very true. Joseph was far from the first time that the Spurs hit on a player that other teams had rated very differently. That's most of the post-2000 history of the Spurs' successful player development. :lol