Dwyer Knows Best?

Recently, the higher-ups implored the "raising of the bar" and asked for help from the masses. Well, I did the polite thing and offered to lend a hand, but it was really a token gesture; no good deed goes unpunished, huh? :smokin So from here on out, SpursTalk's got their own columnist (a very poor-man's version; it's free, deal with it) covering random topics/threads that pique his interest.

Without further adieu:

Dwyer Knows Best?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/wri...eorge-hill.jpg

Is George Hill overrated?

It would seem it depends on whom you ask.

On a national level, it'd be hard to make an argument for it. Sure, he's become the knowing-man's player: "That guy's Pop's favorite, I bet you didn't know that". But there's no one out there clamoring for his services or calling him the next big thing. He's simply someone people "in the know" are staying somewhat cognizant of; should he become a quasi-star down the line, they allow themselves the latitude of saying they knew then.

On a Spurs fan level, sure, there's always a contingent that tends to overrate the backup; it's a practice not limited to the NBA (see: NFL quarterback). When the starter isn't quite getting it done, or at least not to their most desired result, the backup's potential to do so allows the mind to run wild with possibility; optimism is high as they've yet to be let down.

So we get the arguments that the Spurs would be better off without Parker, or that he should be coming off the bench. But is it really about their belief in Hill, or is it their disdain and-or disappointment with the man in front of him?

I contend it's the latter (even if subconscious).

See, growing accustomed to a certain level of success, results in a certain level of expectation. The level of play needed for a 50-plus win season or a decent playoff-run, individually and collectively, is taken for granted and a fan base becomes transfixed upon the final result; 80-percent of what's gone before is forgotten.

That last 20-percent never is.

It's the fat kid in the kiddie pool effect: alone he's fine, the water only nears the brim. But add another kid or two, and the brim's breached; you need the fatboy to find yourself at a certain level.

Tim Duncan has been the "fatboy" for the Spurs' foundation ever since he was drafted in '97 (a notion that surely warms his heart). But the analogy holds water applied to the point guard, as well: Tony Parker puts the Spurs' water at a level that allows one to credit overflow to the last one in.

There are arguments to be made for trading Parker, but no logical one would consist of Hill being a better player: Perhaps you can promote Hill to starting role, as he's shown the type of growth that could have him thriving in a Triangle-like backcourt or with a facilitating-pivotman, and the net gains of Hill and the acquired player(s) outweigh the loss of Parker?

It's plausible in theory, but pulling the trigger on such a move wouldn't be for the faint of heart; finding the right player(s) to do so is another matter.

As for Hill and his prospects moving forward?

I think you've got to be pretty high on the kid; after seeing Memphis and Conley a few days ago, you can't say the Spurs didn't get value with the 26th pick.

The tools are all there and the head on his shoulders seems to be one capable of utilizing them to the best of his ability. He's coachable, hard-working, intelligent and a fearless competitor.

What's not to like?

At best, he's a star the likes of Barbosa and Ellis (at least as it pertains to their standing in the league). The chances of him enjoying Parker-like status or having a comparable career are slim, but a contributing, winning player seems all but certain.

Conclusions are bound to come prematurely, as is always the case when dealing with developing players. But caution should be taken when determining what a young player can and can't do.

Summer League '08 need only be a reminder.

i feel i should mention pop said hill is his fav player coz he laughs at all his jokes, all the others are too old.

But good article overall .. and u shoudl put it on yahoo next to dwyer ... :-)

Very nice stuff :tu

I agree with pretty much everything. The only thing that gives me pause is GH3's ceiling. I cannot quite get a grasp on it, so I will refrain from making a comparison.

Good writeup. :tu
Looking forward to more :D

big :tu

Hill won't be an all-star somewhere down the line, even if Parker is gone, but if he develops good habits he could easily be an all-league defender.

We'll call this, The Double-Down: :smokin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zOsa

Hill won't be an all-star somewhere down the line, even if Parker is gone, but if he develops good habits he could easily be an all-league defender.

---

That's the thing, though, he could be; his ceiling is actually quite high.

When I mention the likes of Ellis and Barbosa, it's in the way most viewed them coming into this season: stars, not All-Stars. But, at the same time, you wouldn't rule out a career year giving them an opportunity to make an appearance at some point.

Now you shouldn't expect Hill to be an All-Star, and you probably shouldn't even expect him to be a starting point guard. But when you do your best to read the tealeaves, you should feel pretty good about the eventual finished product.

Physically, he's got a body built to reek havoc. Long arms, huge, strong hands and enough athleticism to hinder or take advantage of the opponent. He's still growing into the body and learning how to use it at the NBA level, but the dexterity and coordination has come a long way in his short time with the Spurs (and it only promises to improve); his confidence and knowledge steadily building, it only helps to slow a player down and allow a player's athleticism to excel in all aspects. You see it in the way Hill finishes at the rim, attacks off the dribble or conducts himself with and without the ball.

He's learning still, but there's no doubt he belongs.

The biggest knock on him is his play-making, at least that's what seems to be the biggest concern, and there's no doubt he's got a ways to go in that respect.

But, I've got to tell you, the progress is noticeable.

The thing I've come to realize about Hill is, he's meticulous and a thinker. Ordinarily those would be pluses, but at the early stages of a career when a player's trying to process the amount of information needed (and with the Spurs, it's more than most), it's very easy to get a watered-down player: Who gets the ball; where's the help coming from; where's my rotation; what set am I supposed to be in? And on and on. It's not until you see a player conquer the verbage or get comfortable in his NBA team's skin, that the true, instinctual player emerges; a point made clear by his '08 Summer League.

Even in the recent defeat to Denver, up until that fateful stretch before halftime, you saw a player hitting teammates (notably, his front court) in the pocket off high screen-and-roll/pick-and-pops and doing a pretty competent job of orchestrating an offense; the progress has been noticeable in making the right play and creating the less-than-imaginative, but it's just not where it needs to be for a bonafide point guard (and that's okay; because where he was a year ago in that aspect, is a far cry from where he is now).

A long way to go still, but a comparable and continued progression from what we've witnessed thus far, and it's hard to believe he won't get there.

Some have been underwhelmed with his defense as well. I can't help but think it has more to do with expectation than anything.

Sure, he's put together some less-than-stellar performances on that end, but he's had some really outstanding ones as well; not too surprising that he'd be a little up and down at this stage.

As mentioned before, he's growing into his body still. He's learning what kind of spacial relationship he's got to have when guarding opponents, as he's more in the mold of a Prince than that of a Bowen; his length and, good enough, side-to-side athleticism dictates that he defend a certain way. Where as Bowen could lock players down with his lateral quickness and preparation, Hill, like Prince, has to combined that preparation with a little more cushion and a strong contest or close-out to get the same effect.

I also can't help but wonder if Pop has been directing Hill to play a certain way. There's probably not a player on the team whom noticeably forces a player one way or another and looks to be sending his assignment to help. And if that's the case, Pop maybe looking to find ways to manufacture or disrupt offense with Hill's God-given gifts, there's a possibility that some of the defensive lapses attributed to Hill are in fact on the help (that's not to let Hill off the hook completely, there's just been a consistency in his approach that gives the impression of a game plan).

So could he be an All-Star?

Possible; doubtful, but possible.

But would a team be all that disappointed if the 26th pick in the '08 Draft was only one of their 6 to 8 best players on a championship-caliber team (whether that team's the Spurs or not)?

George Hill's got a long and productive career ahead of him barring injuries; the extent of which is the only question.

The question will be is what happens when Hill's contract is up? Would Hill's demands be so high that the Spurs might have to trade Parker,or will they trade Hill? Watching Hill continue to improve, this question will continue to pop up in the future. Can the Spurs keep both? IMO I think that Hill has already proved he can be a starting NBA point guard, so when the time comes Pop and RC will have a very interesting dilemma on their hands.

I kinda say he has the potential to be in the mold of a Hersey Hawkins; but likely with a lower offensive ceiling.

Good work, blackjack. :tu

Nice work Blackjack. I missed this yesterday as I was trying to hammer out my own stuff.

Hill will never be a star, but he is the type of role player that championship teams need to be complete.

Nice Job !

George Hill could be a perfect piece for a certain 'good' teams. It depends on each team and its situation/personell. Mainly, a team which has an elite wing as its primary creator. Only a few guys in the league fit that bill.

LeBron James
Kobe Bryant
Dwyane Wade
Brandon Roy
Joe Johnson
Paul Pierce
Vince Carter
Manu Ginobili
Andre Iguodala

I include Vince Carter, Paul Pierce and Manu Ginobili, but i dont think any of these guys have the ability to be the primary playmakers on playoff teams over the course of 82 games at their ages. Also, i included Iguadala, but i dont really rate him with the other guys on the list in terms of playmaking.

Anyway, my point is when you have a wing who can create and shoulder the burden in terms of offense, i look for three key things in a PG for that set-up.

1. Ability to shoot the 3 and play off the ball (Hill is at 37% this season)
2. Defense (Hill has the tools to become a very good defender, and is already 'good')
3. Ability to handle the ball and initiate offense (This is the one Hill needs to work on the most if he ever wants to be a starting PG on a contender/playoff team)

I think the Spurs may have a problem down the line with Tony and George. You have an All-World PG in Parker (when healthy) who needs 30+ minutes and your paying him $12M+ a year, then you also have a blossoming young PG who you need to eventually find minutes for, and salary. Im not a fan of undersized backcourts, so i dont think you go into a season planning to have two guys 6'2" and under as your primary backcourt, despite all the talk about Hill's length he is still undersized even for a 2-guard.

To further complicate the problem, Manu has shown he is no longer that elite wing who you can consistently rely on to create alot of your team's offense, meaning George's flaws (playmaking) get exposed more when he is forced to create offense.

After all that babble, my point is i think the Spurs will have to choose a direction with regards to Tony and George when the time comes to it. When that is, im not sure, but if George develops and reaches his ceiling, then having two very good plays who play the same position is overkill - both in salary and skills on the court. If they can get an elite wing creator through a trade or more likely FA, then you probably have to look at moving Tony for a bigger need. A guy like Joe Johnson would be perfect next to George Hill, and he's available this summer for what its worth.. Im not advocating a trade for Tony, i love him and IMO he's better than any PG in the league outside of Paul and Deron when healthy - im just putting myself in the position of the Spurs FO. I think its something they will have to seriously consider.

Having said all that, it all obviously depends on how George Hill develops from now on. If his ability is only that of a 20 minute backup PG with the ability to play some 2 guard in certain situations - then there's no need to change the direction of the entire franchise.

God damn that came out longer than i thought. Wont be surprised if no body reads it.

I see George Hill as a catalyst type player much in the likes of Ginobili. Just not as polished yet.

Is it any wonder that Manu has been seen riding Hill so hard at times? Taking him under his wing? Praising as well as nurturing.

The problem with comparing Hill and Parker is apples and oranges. The only thing close to the same with Tony and George is their physical makeup. Other than that...their talents in the realm of basketball are different. I would compare Hill more to Ginobili in that regard.

If some day...After a couple of years...George Hill starts looking more like Ginobili in his prime...all this "overrated" talk will have been a thing of the past and those that remember the "overrated" talk will realize they were comparing apples and oranges.

Good job son.

And fuck Dwyer with this BS about George Hill being overrated... if anything the dude is massively underrated (didnt even make the rook-soph game) and its stupid to think otherwise!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystargtr34

God damn that came out longer than i thought. Wont be surprised if no body reads it.

---

I read all of it and thought it was well done.

The only issue I have with it is that I just don't believe that George Hill will ever develop into a "real" point guard, even to the extent that Tony Parker is a "real point guard. The best we can dream for him is that he develops into a Joe Dumars type player who can run the point in a pinch, but is going to be a scorer/defender with some ability to bring the ball up. In short, a guy that you like to have giving you minutes but for whom you are not so anxious to hand him the reins of your offense that you will sacrifice your starting point guard. Joe D ran the offense at the end of his career but he shared the back court with Grant Hill, who was probably the ultimate elite wing/creator of the last 20 years.

Blackjack has definitively stepped up and raised the bar! he deserves a Spur for that :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackJack

That's the thing, though, he could be; his ceiling is actually quite high.

---

Anything could theoretically happen, but I'd give George <1% chance of being an All-star at any point in his career. Conversely, I'd just about bet money right now that he'll be on an all-defensive team at some point.

Why won't he be an all-star? Mainly because he's neither a PG or an SG, and won't be forced into either role on any future spurs team as far as I can tell. Fans will never vote him in as a starting PG or wing, and coaches are much more inclined to pick true PGs or wings for the bench. Tis the nature of the beast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

I read all of it and thought it was well done.

The only issue I have with it is that I just don't believe that George Hill will ever develop into a "real" point guard, even to the extent that Tony Parker is a "real point guard.

---

I actually see him more like a Michael Cooper with better offensive skills. That is where I see him now. I do think if he can play exclusive at the shooting guard that he could develop into an allstar level player. He would be unusual as I could see him actually being a 20 ppg SG that plays defense. He's got the outside shot. He's got the drive to the hoop. He's got the fast break. Actually, the only thing left is the build up of more confidence and perhaps learn a little junk from Manu. I am of the clan that thinks his potential is underrated.

I like this. Is there a "raising the bar" helmet sticker, or jersey patch we can give this guy? Go Spurs Go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystargtr34

George Hill could be a perfect piece for a certain 'good' teams. It depends on each team and its situation/personell. Mainly, a team which has an elite wing as its primary creator. Only a few guys in the league fit that bill...

---

And that's why the Lakers' interest was warranted; he's made for the Triangle or a variation of a comparable backcourt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystargtr34

After all that babble, my point is i think the Spurs will have to choose a direction with regards to Tony and George when the time comes to it. When that is, im not sure, but if George develops and reaches his ceiling, then having two very good plays who play the same position is overkill - both in salary and skills on the court. If they can get an elite wing creator through a trade or more likely FA, then you probably have to look at moving Tony for a bigger need. A guy like Joe Johnson would be perfect next to George Hill, and he's available this summer for what its worth.. Im not advocating a trade for Tony, i love him and IMO he's better than any PG in the league outside of Paul and Deron when healthy - im just putting myself in the position of the Spurs FO. I think its something they will have to seriously consider.

---

Agree; we definitely have a lot of common ground in our outlook. But there's one thing we all have to consider when discussing a potential logjam between Tony and George a few years from now (assuming Parker re-ups): mileage.

In a recent discussion I had with a friend here, he pointed something out that, even if not a revelation, is something that opens your eyes when you actually see it written of hear the words come out of your mouth: at 27 years of age, there has never been a player to play more games than Tony Parker in the NBA (to say nothing of his French NT). The talk of he's only 27 and should have 5 years of a star level is at best premature and worst foolish; when that foot speed diminishes and he's unable to excel at what's made him his name, I'm afraid we're going to see a shell of the player we've come to know and appreciate.

So if the Spurs are forced to make a tough decision regarding the direction of Tony and Hill, it'll be a pleasant surprise. It will have meant Tony's game has withstood the unprecedented pounding and that Hill has blossomed into a player worthy of a starting role; those are the tough choices a franchise should be lucky enough to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystargtr34

God damn that came out longer than i thought. Wont be surprised if no body reads it.

---

It was read and appreciated. :tu (props from one windbag to another:hat)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

The only issue I have with it is that I just don't believe that George Hill will ever develop into a "real" point guard, even to the extent that Tony Parker is a "real point guard.

---

I'm glad someone decided to point that out. And I actually don't think George is incapable of playing a similar, yet lesser point guard role down the line.

As I've mentioned, he makes a better fit for a team using a Triangle-like backcourt or with a dominant post-presence capable of facilitating a good amount of offense (shared play-making and defensive responsibilities in the former and he's allowed to initiate the offense and spread the floor with the 3-point shot in the latter).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

Anything could theoretically happen, but I'd give George <1% chance of being an All-star at any point in his career. Conversely, I'd just about bet money right now that he'll be on an all-defensive team at some point.

Why won't he be an all-star? Mainly because he's neither a PG or an SG, and won't be forced into either role on any future spurs team as far as I can tell. Fans will never vote him in as a starting PG or wing, and coaches are much more inclined to pick true PGs or wings for the bench. Tis the nature of the beast.

---

I wasn't insinuating you or anyone else is wrong in believing he won't be an All-Star (the probability is no doubt with you). But if you look at the type of star-status afforded to the likes of Barbosa and Ellis, there's definitely an argument to be made for that.

All that was meant to say is, there's plenty of pages left to unfold before this book's been read. When you have a player that combines the type of tools, work-ethic, desire, grit and overall want-to Hill's displayed in his short time with the Spurs, there's a good chance a team nets a pretty decent player; a winning player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbestpro

I actually see him more like a Michael Cooper with better offensive skills. That is where I see him now. I do think if he can play exclusive at the shooting guard that he could develop into an allstar level player. He would be unusual as I could see him actually being a 20 ppg SG that plays defense. He's got the outside shot. He's got the drive to the hoop. He's got the fast break. Actually, the only thing left is the build up of more confidence and perhaps learn a little junk from Manu. I am of the clan that thinks his potential is underrated.

---

If only he could be Coop, who was the Lakers' version of Bruce Bowen. I don't think George has the length for that. In addition, I'm not sure Coop > Dumars anyway. :)

Very nice job :tu

I don't think Hill has an All-Star future. I see his ceiling more along the lines of a solid starter. Something around Ariza last year on the Lakers.

But the one aspect that makes me think I could be underselling Hill's ceiling is that he played at such a small school. The jump is so big that he's still trying to adjust. Players that come from bigger schools adjust quicker because they are used to high level competition. On top of that, we saw a HUGE improvement from his first summer league to his second summer league. If he has a second gargantuan improvement, he'd jump right into being a star-level player. I think it's doubtful but his circumstances allow for some hope.

Two players whose career arc should be noted with regards to Hill are Kevin Martin and Joe Dumars. Both players played at small schools. Both players struggled as rookies, got better their second year and then became quality players their third year. We'll know by this time next season if Hill has any star potential or if his career arc is flattening out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

I don't think Hill has an All-Star future. I see his ceiling more along the lines of a solid starter. Something around Ariza last year on the Lakers.

---

I'd say someone who has the impact of Ariza is about right. A key, integral piece to a winning team that stars in the right environment, but not an All-Star.

I don't think that's his ceiling, but I think it's a pretty safe bet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

But the one aspect that makes me think I could be underselling Hill's ceiling is that he played at such a small school. The jump is so big that he's still trying to adjust. Players that come from bigger schools adjust quicker because they are used to high level competition. On top of that, we saw a HUGE improvement from his first summer league to his second summer league. If he has a second gargantuan improvement, he'd jump right into being a star-level player. I think it's doubtful but his circumstances allow for some hope.

---

This is something I wanted to touch on but failed to really address. This is along the same lines with growing into his body: his physical attributes, athleticism, and ability to read-and-react are going to take a certain amount of time to find their appropriate, desired levels; he's adjusting to big-league pitching, so to speak. So when you throw a guy into the fire and tell him to take the reins of an offense (something he's never done before) and have him do so while playing in a NBA setting against a level of speed and competition he's none to familiar, a watered-down player is all but expected.

There's no guarantee that the mental and physical adjustments allow him to keep making the type of strides he's made thus far, but I'd be lying if I told you I didn't see some really strong progress in the future; the tools and makeup of the guy are just too promising.

Nice job, Black..

From looking at some stats and just remembering their games, Hill comes off to me as a cross between Leandro Barbosa and Lindsey Hunter..looking at those 2 guys' seasons 3rd seasons in the NBA(they both didn't get enough PT in their 2nd seasons for various reasons..I didn't want to use their rookie seasons for obvious reasons), if you adjust for pace, they have pretty similar numbers to Hill..

All 3 of them have almost identical rebound%s, assist%s, turnover%s(Barbosa has the most, but he also had almost 3% more of his team's individual possessions, so he gets a pass for extra turnovers over them)..

Hunter is clearly the best defender and more of a PG than both, but he was also significantly less efficient from a scoring standpoint..

Hill and Barbosa got to the FT line at the same rate, have very similar assist/turnover numbers once adjusted for pace..Hill is obviously the better defender and Barbosa was the better shooter though, so that's accounted for..

I think that's a fairly accurate comparison..Hill has more upside than that though IMO, he has better physical tools than those guys, but I think a hybrid of that is the least I would expect out of him..

Nice write up.

In general, Hill is still a mystery. I think people here are putting his ceiling too high. I don't think he has a great basketball mind, but with his work ethic he could excel in a few areas.

This year his offense has improved but his defense and rebounding are perhaps worse, and because of that, he might need one more year to fully write a verdict on him.

Floor, ceiling, whatever - he has the work ethic that would allow him to be a useful player on a good team. One thing to keep in mind is that playing on the Spurs often makes players play worse, so if he was on an average team he might be able to play more freely and not fret over decisions in the same way.

Not saying the Spurs are holding him back, but his learning curve might be longer while on the Spurs, but the payoff down the road could be bigger.

Hill's stats while Parker out injured?
23 pts (7-16), including clutch free throws
9 ast, 3 TO
41:35 mins

Hill certainly seemed like he had all-star potential tonight. We needed him to step up and he made big plays all the way.

Watching Hill improve is fun. He and Blair make for some interesting storylines.

Granted, you've got to consider the competition, but good players look good against bad teams; George looked like a good young point guard tonight.

You've really got to be impressed with the way both he and Blair have been able to excel amongst the amount of inconsistency surrounding them. They're two special young players. :tu

i would take on Lakers be great in triangle if 3 balll continues to improve ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackjack

Granted, you've got to consider the competition, but good players look good against bad teams; George looked like a good young point guard tonight.

---

I think this is a good game for gauging Hill. He defended bigger players all night, like Evans, except for a little against Sergio Rodriguez. He had a big load to carry on that end yet torched them on offense for an efficient near double double. He provided leadership and scoring in Parker's absence and just had an all around great game.

Tomorrow will be an even bigger test.

Quote:

---

You've really got to be impressed with the way both he and Blair have been able to excel amongst the amount of inconsistency surrounding them. They're two special young players. :tu

---

AND they've been doing it under Pop's rule, a rare feat for young players, and he's had almost nothing but good things to say about both of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackjack

Recently, the higher-ups implored the "raising of the bar" and asked for help from the masses. Well, I did the polite thing and offered to lend a hand, but it was really a token gesture; no good deed goes unpunished, huh? :smokin So from here on out, SpursTalk's got their own columnist (a very poor-man's version; it's free, deal with it) covering random topics/threads that pique his interest.

Without further adieu:

Dwyer Knows Best?

.

---

guys, Ima little confused, would you please help? I read another thread parently by Dwyer about George Hill being ovarated. ...Blackjack, which are your articles besides this one? You're not Dwyer, right? Or Are You?This wuz a good article tho.

Not sure why so many are so defensive about George Hill. It's mad cool to back up yo playa. Props fo dat. Specially since so many Spurm fanz love to trash talk they own playas n coach. George is a solid playa, I conseed dat he ruffed up Masta KB24...course he had a bad back but I wuz embarased da way Hill took over. But what about the ovarated stuff? Nobody in the league hypes Hill. People like me or other teams respect him after he plays like he did on Kobe but I think whoever said 'ovarated' about Hill meant to tell the fans who think he's better than Tony Parker that he ain't no Tony Parker yet.

right? Spurm fanz tend to ovapraise they young stud playa just as much as they ovacritisize and put them ol dogz in da doghouse.

Now don't get all pissed, I ain't trippin'. Like I said, Hill is a nice dude. Parker is if anything undarated. I just don't understand why so many people got so offended and all. Me n my boyz don't start telling us self dat Shannon Brown is a better krunch time playa than Derick Fisher. Even tho Shano would run em off da court.

anyways, peace, y'all. Hill's solid, it's all good. But I'll take Parker if you don't want him. How about A-Mor and Vooyachick's expire fo Parker? word, get yo cap space! But seriously, please explain what Blackjack's post is about. Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Nice job, Black..

From looking at some stats and just remembering their games, Hill comes off to me as a cross between Leandro Barbosa and Lindsey Hunter..looking at those 2 guys' seasons 3rd seasons in the NBA(they both didn't get enough PT in their 2nd seasons for various reasons..I didn't want to use their rookie seasons for obvious reasons), if you adjust for pace, they have pretty similar numbers to Hill..

All 3 of them have almost identical rebound%s, assist%s, turnover%s(Barbosa has the most, but he also had almost 3% more of his team's individual possessions, so he gets a pass for extra turnovers over them)..

Hunter is clearly the best defender and more of a PG than both, but he was also significantly less efficient from a scoring standpoint..

Hill and Barbosa got to the FT line at the same rate, have very similar assist/turnover numbers once adjusted for pace..Hill is obviously the better defender and Barbosa was the better shooter though, so that's accounted for..

I think that's a fairly accurate comparison..Hill has more upside than that though IMO, he has better physical tools than those guys, but I think a hybrid of that is the least I would expect out of him..

---

Nice stat-work and post.:tu

George isn't like one player, but he's got pieces and attributes of many. Barbosa is the easy, natural comparison, so it's not surprising the numbers would see some correlation. Hunter, I don't see quite as much, but the defensive disposition in an undersized body lends a decent comparison.

He's actually built a lot like Rondo and gives me a little bit of a Bobby Jackson vibe, in that he's got intangibles and a physical skill set that allows him to be a real X-factor; how many guys his size come out of a scrum with the ball or rip it away from the likes of Artest? (There's definitely some Manu is his game, as well.)

I talk of it often, but there's just something special about this kid and his makeup. The tools would be enough to secure him a spot in the league but the type of heart and character he has, that's what really makes you believe he could be something special.

George Hill will never be accused of being a player you can't win with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpurmzKilla

guys, Ima little confused, would you please help? I read another thread parently by Dwyer about George Hill being ovarated. ...Blackjack, which are your articles besides this one? You're not Dwyer, right? Or Are You?This wuz a good article tho.

---

No, I'm not Dwyer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpurmzKilla

anyways, peace, y'all. Hill's solid, it's all good. But I'll take Parker if you don't want him. How about A-Mor and Vooyachick's expire fo Parker? word, get yo cap space! But seriously, please explain what Blackjack's post is about. Thanks

---

It's about this guy named Hill and the discussion that ensued after a piece by Dwyer (brilliant troll, by the way;)).

On Hill post game tonight.

Pop.

Quote:

---

George is probably the most improved player in the whole league. From his rookie year last year to this year he’s starting to get confident and played well at both ends of the floor. He’s going to be a really fine player for us.

---

Duncan.

Quote:

---

He has really developed this year and come on so quickly. He’s a real threat for us and is one of our best perimeter defenders. We expect a lot from him now.

---

Unless he falls on his face at some point, Hill should start the rest of the season. If Pop puts Bogans back in the starting lineup alongside Parker, I'd go AHF.

It's really sad that during what's supposed to be this pivotal road-trip, the only ones to initially show up against a bad team after two days of rest are your backup point guard and your rookie power forward.

Hill's improvement on his midrange jumper has been staggering this year. On shots between 15 and 23 feet, Hill was only 33-for-112 (29%) last season. This season, he's now 42-for-95 (44.2%). In other words, he went from being one of the worst midrange shooters in the league to being borderline elite.

'09 draft picks rule the day
By Mark Billingsley/Special to The Democrat

SACRAMENTO -- The San Antonio Spurs have a young player trying to make a name for himself too. For the record, second-year point guard George Hill has arrived.

Hill was picked late in the first round of the 2008 NBA Draft out of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and has filled in admirably for the banged up and aging Tony Parker. Hill scored a career- and team-high 23 points and hit four crucial free throws in the final six seconds to hold off the Sacramento Kings 115-113.

Since losing 112-103 to the Los Angeles Lakers at home in double overtime on Dec. 26, the Kings have dropped 17 of 20 games and are still one game away from tying the team's win total from last year.

The fourth-consecutive loss overshadowed a nice effort from Tyreke Evans. The Kings rookie of the year candidate scored a game-high 32 points, a team-high seven rebounds, eight assists, two steals and one blocked shot. But it was the other young gun, Hill, whose game mattered the most Wednesday night.

"I'm just starting to get more comfortable out there," said Hill, who added a career- and game-high nine assists. "I'm more confident this season and not deferring to the others. Last year I felt I had to defer to the Big 3 (Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobli). But they've been telling me to shoot or drive the ball, whatever, don't defer anymore."

Hill said he worked out three times a day over the summer and reunited with his team during the Las Vegas Summer League where he showed off his new skills including a much-improved jump shot and ability to finish around the basket. He averaged 15.8 points and four assists in the summer.

"George is the most improved player in the league, he's going to be a special player," Spurs head coach Greg Popovich said. "His jump shot has improved, his confidence, his knowledge of the pick and roll and his court awareness have all improved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Hill's improvement on his midrange jumper has been staggering this year. On shots between 15 and 23 feet, Hill was only 33-for-112 (29%) last season. This season, he's now 42-for-95 (44.2%). In other words, he went from being one of the worst midrange shooters in the league to being borderline elite.

---

Thanks for the segue.:toast


I wasn't able to observe or really scout Hill for myself before he joined the Spurs, but I've always felt the concerns about his shot were a bit unwarranted.

Some people can shoot. They know they can shoot. And when they're asked about their struggles because of a lack of success, for however long a stretch of time, they express it will eventually come around; they look to find and even refine their shot by hitting the gym, but there's no doubt in their mind it's there.

That was George last year.

When the talk of his shot came about, or lack thereof, he simply stated he wasn't worried; the shot was there. It would come around eventually.

But since no one had any real kind of knowledge or background on him, and maybe the presence of a guy like Parker, who came into the league barren of a jumpshot, folks just assumed they had another young guy who was in need of a jumper overhaul.

Upon learning of the Spurs' 26th pick in the '08 Draft (before I dropped the reins to the Chalmers bandwagon and after a not-so-subtle WTF) I went and looked up the newly acquired Spurs' stats from his time at IUPUI.

What I found, at least as it pertains to his shooting, was a guard that shot with a good amount of efficiency.

For his career, he connected at a 53-percent from the field overall and at 40-percent clip from the three; not bad. And the only time he shot below 51-percent from the field (50.9, to be exact) was a year in which he played only five games due to a broken foot.

In his first two years at IUPUI, he averaged just about 50 three-point attempts a year and shot them at 41-percent (freshman year) and 32-percent (sophomore year) respectively.

A 9-percent fall-off; could it be the proverbial sophomore slump?

Seeing as next year would essentially be lost to injury, we'd have to wait to find out.

In Hill's final year at IUPUI, the Jaguar had his best and most efficient shooting year.

He shot the ball at a blistering 54-percent from the field and at 45-percent from three; that's 45-percent after taking two-times the amount of threes he averaged in his first two years.

So what does that tell me?

The guy can shoot; the transition, jump in competition and sporadic playing time just didn't allow for most to see it.

Now that those long arms and slower delivery have a better idea of where the shots are coming from and there's an element that allows for premeditation when setting up for the pull-up, we're starting to see what Hill knew all along.

When it comes to his shot, it's only a matter of time.

^ ^ Only a matter of time...:smokin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackjack

^ ^ Only a matter of time...:smokin

---

Nice call. Hill's time is here.

Post game.

Quote:

---

“George Hill’s just a fantastic basketball player,” coach Gregg Popovich said. “I think he’s the most improved young man in the league from last year to this year. We’re really thrilled with his progress in his shooting and his approach to the game—being aggressive, believing in himself and thinking that he’s a darn good player.”

---

Quote:

---

“I wouldn’t say I owned the first quarter,” Hill said. “My teammates just got me the ball in the right spots and I had confidence in my shooting. I’ve always been a scorer, but I think the summer really gave me the confidence I needed to be successful. I worked hard on a lot of things that carried over into the season, and it’s starting to pay off.”

---

If he keeps this up, it's going to be hard to keep this man crush under wraps...