Post by Rog on Jun 12, 2017 18:06:51 GMT
The 83rd nominee of the NBN Hall of Fame, George Hill, was one of those guys that I like to say "if you don't have a star PG hes perfect". Is that a ringing endorsement for a Hall of Famer or am I just wrong about who he was? Lets take a look at the numbers and see how he shakes out.
Career Stats
35.3 MPG, 21.3 PPG, 8.1 APG, 4.3 RPG, 1.6 SPG, 0.1 BPG, 2.3 TOPG on 45.4% from the field, 80.2% from the line, and 40.8% from three
Best Season
Magic(2013) - 24.9 PPG, 9.2 APG, 5.2 RPG, 1.7 SPG, 0.2 BPG, 2.5 TOPG on 46.2% from the field, 80% from the line, and 45.4% from three
Career Highs
Points: 50
Rebounds: 13
Assists: 20
Steals: 10
Blocks: 3
Achievements
Championships: 1
Player of the Game: 181
Player of the Week: 2
Player of the Month: 0
Double Doubles: 364
Triple Doubles: 14
Accolades
None
Arguments For Induction
- George Hill may not have had any awards, but he has a title, two player of the weeks, and an overall good career line that should garner solid consideration for the Hall of Fame.
- Hill was a pretty good scorer, especially for a guy you would consider a role player on a lot of the teams he was on. He averaged 21 points per game for his career, but that includes some of his lesser seasons towards the end as well. In his prime you could nearly always count on him going over 23 a game.
- He also shot the bell really well, so he wasn't just a volume shooter who got points because he took a lot of shots. His 45.4/80.2/40.8 line is really solid, and then you look at his best years and you find he was consistently over 46% from the field, had seasons where he was an 83% or better free throw shooter, and a couple seasons over 43% from three. Solid numbers once again.
- While never a great passer, Hill did his job as a distributor. He averaged 8.1 a game, but had six seasons at or over 9 a game. He also wasn't a turnover machine, making those numbers all the more impressive, averaging only 2.3 turnovers a game for his career.
- Overall, there is a case here to be made for Hill, despite his lack of awards. He competed in the toughest position to grab awards and All-Star appearances. And while he was never a superstar, there were a few seasons there where you could call him a star, and he was the absolute best role player(see 3rd best player on contenders) you could ask for from a point guard. His shooting and scoring stats are really good. He was never a high steal guy and always carried an A- rating, indicating he was a better on ball defender than given credit for. He also had 14 career triple doubles and hovered around 5 rebounds a game for his career, indicating he did more than just score and pass. You can't deny his case, even if you think he falls short.
Arguments Against Induction
- You keep having to say things like "3rd best player on a contender" and "best role player you could ask for from a point guard" to justify his lack of awards, and that is an issue. Yes he competed against the hardest position to grab awards in, but that also makes the bar that much higher for being a Hall of Famer at the position. Hill didn't meet that bar. Not once.
- While a good, to really good scorer, if that is what he hangs his hat on, then to be a Hall of Famer you need to be a great, or even elite, scorer. And he never averaged over 25 points a game, which he probably needed to do a few times to hang his hat on his scoring and truly be considered here. Its just not enough, even with admittedly solid percentages.
- As with his scoring, his passing just wasn't good enough to even be considered a plus on his Hall of Fame resume. His career average of 8.1 assists is absolutely abysmal even if his assist to turnover ratio is pretty decent. There isn't enough volume in anything he did to really be considered a solid case for his induction.
- Again, not to tear apart his case entirely, but he was neither a good defender nor a good rebounder for his position. He literally has nothing for a voter to grab onto and vote for him. Nothing.
- Overall, its literally an impossible case to make for Hill. He was a solid player who you could put at the point guard spot and not have to worry about him losing you games, but he also wasn't responsible for winning you games. He wasn't elite in anything and doesn't have any awards. And his career didn't last long enough for him to rack up any long term, high level counting stats either. And his title? Yeah he won that as a member of the Nets, playing exactly no minutes the entire year. Ouch.
Vote carefully, and remember to throw out arguments regardless of which side you're on. This should be a discussion that eventually gets the league to the proper decision on him. Your vote can also be retracted after it's been cast if you feel like switching to the other side based on the arguments that have been made. To be inducted, a player needs 70% and to be considered in a later class they need 50%. Vote carefully.
***BONUS - Don't forget that everyone who votes gets $25 and the person that makes the best argument or contributes to the discussion the best will be awarded an extra $25***
*
