Reply With Quote
grant hill
Before injuries destroyed their career, who do you think was the better player, Penny Hardaway or Grant Hill???
grant hill
Penny Hardaway.
Better shooter, better ball-handler, quicker, more dynamic.
Close in terms of athleticism. Grant might have been slightly more explosive, and Grant was a better rebounder.
But, overall, Penny was a badass baller when he was right and healthy. Plus, he had a higher ceiling of potential.
Penny was better. He was way quicker, better court vision. He was the next Magic Johnson before he got hurt.
Grant Hill
Made the all NBA teams from 1996-2000 untill he got injured, also had countless triple doubles and was a great all around player
Penny with Shaq or Penny without Shaq? He was good with Shaq, but without him his career
I think that had more to do with the fact he was injured..
Grant Hill
I liked Penny....but Grant was overall better...even after his injuries he was still an effective player. Penny on the other hand, not so much. It's too bad though...
I never saw Penny play. G-Hill was truly spectacular.
Same difference... Jamstone's answer about sums it up.
Neither were great from range, nor good defenders. It basically comes down to a bit better scorer and rebounder or better passer and better shooter.
With Penny's size and that he played PG, I would take Penny over Hill. Hill was a special player and I love the fight the guy has shown while injured, but what Hill was was a great all-around SF (I liken his career to Pippens, if his career would have last).
Penny on the other hand had the size advantage over all other PG's plus he had all the skills. The only player that he could have been compaired to was Magic with a slighter build (I don't think that he could have gotten to that level)
Penny had to be guarded by a SF (Anything else and he would post them up in the blocks), that was how tall he was. He was far faster then any SF in the game and was a very good ball handler even by PG standards.
Hill was another very good SF, Penny was a PG in a much taller body (Now-a-days, Lebron is the closest to what Penny was).
Penny's upside was far greater the Hills.
Any logical NBA fan would say Hill. Penny was good but Hill as far as talent goes had more. Ask David Robinson or Karl Malone or members of the 1996 Olympic Team that Penny had 'problems' on.
In the late 90s, Grant Hill was the definition of versatility. A 6 ft 8 in point forward with ability to blow by you with his quick first step and then finish or make the nifty assist. His game wasn't all about athletic ability (although most of his highlight reels were). His high basketball IQ led him to making the right decision a lot of time and allowed him to play team basketball very well. He was a very good rebounder and a decent defensive player. I remember him averaging just under 2 steals a game for a few seasons. His weakness was probably his jumpshots.
Penny Hardaway 6 ft 7 in, a big point guard with very good playmaking abilities. His game was about passing but he could score, especially on drives. I can't remember much about his 3 point shots but as a rookie, he didn't really have one. He did have a decent midrange jumper but I guess that was because he played his first few seasons with Shaq. He was a very good defensive player especially when it came to man-on-man defense. A pretty decent rebounder for his height but no where as good as Hill.
In my opinion, Hill > Penny, simply because of his superior versatility.
both would be HOF
Penny was no Magic. He's not anywhere close to a great playmaker. Hill was as good or better at setting up his teamates, especially on drives and kicks. Penny had a bit more range, but Hill was good inside and cleaning up the glass. Hill had great explosive speed, as did Penny. I would take Hill over Penny any day, in their first two seasons.
Penny...at one point (IN THE MJ DAYS) Penny was considered the best player in the game with his late game heroics and his leadership with a young Shaq on the team. The guy was simply unstoppable...Grant Hill was a of a player but more of a facilitator in the mold of a Lebron. I make the modern-day comparison to James and Hill (corrected)**
Last edited by MrChug; 09-05-2007 at 05:44 PM.
Hill, no doubt. He averaged 22 points 8 boards 7 assists 2 steals and a block a game in his 1st 5 years in Detroit (the teal years). That is some a production. He still has a 20+ ppg average for a career. Penny was never really close to any of those stats. He has only 3 years average ppg 20+ (highest was 21.7) highest ever rpg was 5.8 and did have a year at 7.2 assists. I think people look upon Penny's years fondly because he was a likable guy, had his own funny commercials and played with Shaq in the Finals. However, Penny never came close to the production Hill had in his prime. As far as people saying he was a great shooter... Hill averaged more points with a better FG%.
Not even really close.
Great question.
Hill.
Penny all day. The guy was amazing and was picked by many to be the next Magic Johnson.
after some great takes, i'd still go with Hill every day of the week. agree with RC's Boss that both would be hall of fame if they coulda stayed healthy.
Hill not even close.
ppl select penny cause he likes to catch lobs
Hill was the better scorer, passer, rebounder and defender. Not sure exactly what Penny did better than Hill ... other than maybe handle the ball but Hill could handle as well. Penny was a little bit of a better shooter but neither were very good three-point shooters.
Perhaps Penny had more potential but he never realized it. Of what was actually accomplished on the court, Hill >>>>>>> Penny.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
