Reply With Quote
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 ... :-)
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?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?
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 la ude 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 compe or.
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
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.
Looking forward to more
big
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:
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.
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.
Last edited by mystargtr34; 02-03-2010 at 08:08 AM.
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 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!
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
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 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.
And that's why the Lakers' interest was warranted; he's made for the Triangle or a variation of a comparable backcourt.
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 s 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.
It was read and appreciated.)
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).
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.
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
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 compe ion. 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 cir stances 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.
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.
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 compe ion 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
