PDA

View Full Version : Who is a better pg/player... Kyrie Irving or George Hill



Vee-Rex
09-05-2014, 08:48 AM
We got like 3 different guys saying Hill is better in that other thread. Spursfan1 and WadeKobe and jamiebcallerblahblah are saying Hill is better.

Ariza's Better
09-05-2014, 08:57 AM
Ladies and gentleman, I present to you, the bottom of the barrel.

Jamiecballer
09-05-2014, 08:58 AM
Better at fulfilling the role of point guard? Hill. Future star? Possibly Irving.

FraziersKnicks
09-05-2014, 09:44 AM
Kyrie, not close.

/thread

2-ONE-5
09-05-2014, 09:47 AM
Hill isnt good at anytghing anymore, not even filling his role.

jaydubb
09-05-2014, 10:45 AM
Wow.. What was their argument for that..?

xxplayerxx23
09-05-2014, 10:52 AM
Hill :laugh2:

Sadds The Gr8
09-05-2014, 11:25 AM
What? George hill is barely a starter at his position

Crackadalic
09-05-2014, 11:38 AM
Hill? Seriously that **** I've seen the last couple days.

sixers247
09-05-2014, 11:40 AM
Hill is awful.

Ebbs
09-05-2014, 11:47 AM
Lol kill this person

bucketss
09-05-2014, 11:48 AM
george hill is trash

slaker619
09-05-2014, 11:51 AM
Irving by far this shouldn't be a discussion

IKnowHoops
09-05-2014, 11:51 AM
There is nothing in this realm that can effectively show Hill being better than Kyrie. Its either a joke or ignorance.

HandsOnTheWheel
09-05-2014, 12:12 PM
Smh.

Bostonjorge
09-05-2014, 12:14 PM
Maybe they were considereing the drop off in production the James effect will have on Irving.

Vee-Rex
09-05-2014, 12:56 PM
Wow.. What was their argument for that..?

Win shares... lolol.

Wade Kobe went ham with a long post about why George Hill is better than Irving in that top 10 pg thread.

Then spursfan1 said he'd rather have Hill on the Spurs than Irving.

Only on PSD, man. :laugh:

akesh99
09-05-2014, 01:08 PM
Better at fulfilling the role of point guard? Hill. Future star? Possibly Irving.

Cmon....

phantasyyy
09-05-2014, 01:21 PM
Win shares... lolol.

Wade Kobe went ham with a long post about why George Hill is better than Irving in that top 10 pg thread.

Then spursfan1 said he'd rather have Hill on the Spurs than Irving.

Only on PSD, man. :laugh:

even the spurs version of hill <<<<<<<Kyrie

lmao, he isnt even a real pg.. thats why hes been exposed, is going to get killed this upcomnig year with no stephenson and george on the team.

benzni
09-05-2014, 02:02 PM
Kyrie

prodigy
09-05-2014, 02:27 PM
Wow.. What was their argument for that..?

Just that hill was on better teams and won more. Lol its crazy what some people will say. I'm gonna say they were just trying to troll cavs fans. At least I hope so...

72 Wins
09-05-2014, 02:33 PM
Ban the OP

ryder78c
09-05-2014, 02:54 PM
Kyrie Irving = can take a game over!,Passes to his favorite teammates that he can "TRUST" thats also not the best player to make the shot

George Hill = Better Defense,Team Player,Good Court Vision not as big of a name but also cant take over a game on command.

Better Player/PG Kyrie Irving
Better Team Player George Hill

so my choice is easy.....Damian Lillard!

flea
09-05-2014, 02:57 PM
Hill is like Derek Fisher. Tough and bigger PG defender, decent outside shooter, and not much else. Those are valuable, but not more than one who can create and shoot.

Jamiecballer
09-05-2014, 03:05 PM
Cmon....

c'mon what? you'll get no argument from me about who has more talent. Irving by a mile. but if you are asking who i trust more right now to do the things i consider critical from my point guard i'm comfortable in saying George Hill.

that's not to say i wouldn't trade Hill for Irving because i absolutely would. age and potential makes that a rather easy choice.

MrfadeawayJB
09-05-2014, 03:16 PM
Irving quite easily

Corey
09-05-2014, 03:17 PM
The **** you read on PSD

Corey
09-05-2014, 03:20 PM
c'mon what? you'll get no argument from me about who has more talent. Irving by a mile. but if you are asking who i trust more right now to do the things i consider critical from my point guard i'm comfortable in saying George Hill.

that's not to say i wouldn't trade Hill for Irving because i absolutely would. age and potential makes that a rather easy choice.

Give me a break. If you could have either on a one year deal knowing they would be gone at the end of the year, who would you take? I dont care what the rest of the cast is, no one would say Hill.

In no situation would I take Hill over Irving.

flea
09-05-2014, 03:21 PM
George Hill is probably a better PG for the 2014 Cavs because he's a 3 and d guy like what LeBron had in Miami. Maybe Irving steps up his d though, but right now it looks like a Parker or CP3 would shred that guard d.

lamzoka
09-05-2014, 03:23 PM
Saying Hill > Kyrie, is like saying P.G > LeBron

ghettosean
09-05-2014, 03:29 PM
Mario Chalmers

FlashBolt
09-05-2014, 04:51 PM
WadeKobe seems to think Hill is better than Irving because Hill has a higher WS... and he forgets Hill played with two elite teams and never had to be the 1st option for a broken down roster.

Jamiecballer
09-05-2014, 05:27 PM
Give me a break. If you could have either on a one year deal knowing they would be gone at the end of the year, who would you take? I dont care what the rest of the cast is, no one would say Hill.

In no situation would I take Hill over Irving.
And that's fine. Perhaps you want different things from your PG. Nothing wrong with that.

If I'm a contender already there is absolutely no question that I would want George Hill over Kyrie Irving. I want a low usage intelligent player who can defend.

If I'm a bottom feeder in need of a major talent infusion I would take Irving hands down.

It absolutely matters.

FlashBolt
09-05-2014, 07:56 PM
And that's fine. Perhaps you want different things from your PG. Nothing wrong with that.

If I'm a contender already there is absolutely no question that I would want George Hill over Kyrie Irving. I want a low usage intelligent player who can defend.

If I'm a bottom feeder in need of a major talent infusion I would take Irving hands down.

It absolutely matters.

So you're saying leBron would rather have Hill than Irving? LOL.. Pacers were TRYING to trade Hill for some time now..

prodigy
09-05-2014, 08:26 PM
And that's fine. Perhaps you want different things from your PG. Nothing wrong with that.

If I'm a contender already there is absolutely no question that I would want George Hill over Kyrie Irving. I want a low usage intelligent player who can defend.

If I'm a bottom feeder in need of a major talent infusion I would take Irving hands down.

It absolutely matters.

So you're saying leBron would rather have Hill than Irving? LOL.. Pacers were TRYING to trade Hill for some time now..

If George was on the cavs and Irving wasn't, lebron would not have came back period. Even if love were here.

If I have a really good team and I have a choice between George and Irving. No question I'm taking Irving.

Why would hill be a better fit with this cavs team? I've seen a couple people say this. Irving is a much better shooter. Irving is also a better passer. Hill is a better defender but Irving is a great fit next to lebron and he's gonna run this offense well.

Jamiecballer
09-05-2014, 08:39 PM
So you're saying leBron would rather have Hill than Irving? LOL.. Pacers were TRYING to trade Hill for some time now..
I'm saying a team like Lebron's Heat would have been better served with Hill than Irving.

Look, nobody should care what the players want anyways. They would build teams like they did as 10 year olds - picking friends, the popular guys and the kids with the flashiest talents.

But since you mention it, I do believe Lebron is astute enough to understand that if you've got several top notch offensive players on your team already that you are better served by having a lower usage guy who doesn't over-dribble and gets the best players the ball in the right place at the right time than a scorer at the PG position.

Vee-Rex
09-05-2014, 09:34 PM
I'm saying a team like Lebron's Heat would have been better served with Hill than Irving.

Look, nobody should care what the players want anyways. They would build teams like they did as 10 year olds - picking friends, the popular guys and the kids with the flashiest talents.

But since you mention it, I do believe Lebron is astute enough to understand that if you've got several top notch offensive players on your team already that you are better served by having a lower usage guy who doesn't over-dribble and gets the best players the ball in the right place at the right time than a scorer at the PG position.

And when Kyrie doesn't over-dribble this year because he has actual talent on his team and gets the ball in the right place at the right time, your argument will be laughable (it actually already is).

If George Hill had anywhere near the talent Kyrie has and played for the Cavs he'd try to do the same thing. If you put Kyrie on the Spurs or Pacers you'd see he wouldn't dribble nearly as much.

Your entire argument is pointless and is just an attempt to backpedal from the silly notion that George Hill is preferable in any given situation over Kyrie Irving. He isn't. I'm sure all 30 NBA GMs + head coaches would take Irving in a heartbeat if given the choice, championship level team or not.

You're better off hiding from this thread like WadeKobe and Spursfan1 tbh.

Yanks All Day
09-05-2014, 09:36 PM
George Hill is 28. He's the better defender of the 2.
Kyrie Irving is 22. He's the better offensive player and clearly has more talent/higher upside.

That's not a difficult choice.

I'd imagine if you swapped the 2 on their respective teams then Indiana would be much better while Cleveland is somehow even worse. Kyrie is a special offensive player who won some games almost all by himself. Can't say even close to a similar statement about George Hill. Give me the guy who's not even close to his prime, is only 22, and is at least elite at something every single time.

SPURSFAN1
09-05-2014, 09:44 PM
And when Kyrie doesn't over-dribble this year because he has actual talent on his team and gets the ball in the right place at the right time, your argument will be laughable (it actually already is).

If George Hill had anywhere near the talent Kyrie has and played for the Cavs he'd try to do the same thing. If you put Kyrie on the Spurs or Pacers you'd see he wouldn't dribble nearly as much.

Your entire argument is pointless and is just an attempt to backpedal from the silly notion that George Hill is preferable in any given situation over Kyrie Irving. He isn't. I'm sure all 30 NBA GMs + head coaches would take Irving in a heartbeat if given the choice, championship level team or not.

You're better off hiding from this thread like WadeKobe and Spursfan1 tbh.

I need a citation bro.
I wasn't on this thread because its a fail my friend. I might get called out for hating or something. Seems to be going around.
Are we going to discuss stats or just watch more "uncle drew" videos?
Hill is a vet and a playoff vet. He brings more to the table than kyrie.
Lets pretend he is better than Hill for a second. 10th best point guard in the league. hahaahah laughable. :laugh2: but he's younger...yeah but he is injury prone. lol no playoff experience and he gets paid "max". lol. I'll pay that for another player.

Jamiecballer
09-05-2014, 10:09 PM
And when Kyrie doesn't over-dribble this year because he has actual talent on his team and gets the ball in the right place at the right time, your argument will be laughable (it actually already is).

If George Hill had anywhere near the talent Kyrie has and played for the Cavs he'd try to do the same thing. If you put Kyrie on the Spurs or Pacers you'd see he wouldn't dribble nearly as much.

Your entire argument is pointless and is just an attempt to backpedal from the silly notion that George Hill is preferable in any given situation over Kyrie Irving. He isn't. I'm sure all 30 NBA GMs + head coaches would take Irving in a heartbeat if given the choice, championship level team or not.

You're better off hiding from this thread like WadeKobe and Spursfan1 tbh.
It's not an argument. Its an opinion. I believe a clear offensive hierarchy and heady play from the point guard are a must for a championship team. The scoring PGs of the league often undermine both of these things IMO.

Again, I have never suggested that Irving is not the more talented player. But there is zero doubt in my mind that if you've got championship caliber talent at positions 2 through 5 you've got a better chance of winning with a George Hill than a Kyrie Irving. And you need look no further than past champions for evidence of that.

IndyRealist
09-05-2014, 10:13 PM
Have we not covered how popular opinion means absolutely nothing, because the average person does not understand what he's watching? Hill has value-for-the-dollar going for him, and he plays defense. Irving has scoring ability and attendance draw, but that contract....

JEDean89
09-05-2014, 10:23 PM
It's impossible to properly gauge Kyrie as a player because he has never played on a real team. To judge him based off stats like win shares when his teams have been god awful is crazy. I for one am not in love with Kyrie and would take a number of PG's over him. George Hill's 10 pts and 3.5 assists on only 44% shooting is not making me take him over pretty much any PG in the league. Yes his defense is good but he played 32 mins a game next to legit scoring options in West, Hibbs, George and Stephenson and to only average 3.5 assists is embarassing. Even Felton averaged way more than that on a way less talented team.

His 13.4 PER is really awful too, that is below the league average and at his age he is doing better. I like George Hill off the bench as your 6th or 7th guy but to think he has even near the capability of leading a Franchise is absolutely crazy. The Pacers should be as bad as the cavs were last year and the Cavs should be as good as the Pacers were last year. Lets compare the stats then and we can rip the minority idiots to shreds.

Jamiecballer
09-05-2014, 10:27 PM
It's impossible to properly gauge Kyrie as a player because he has never played on a real team. To judge him based off stats like win shares when his teams have been god awful is crazy. I for one am not in love with Kyrie and would take a number of PG's over him. George Hill's 10 pts and 3.5 assists on only 44% shooting is not making me take him over pretty much any PG in the league. Yes his defense is good but he played 32 mins a game next to legit scoring options in West, Hibbs, George and Stephenson and to only average 3.5 assists is embarassing. Even Felton averaged way more than that on a way less talented team.

His 13.4 PER is really awful too, that is below the league average and at his age he is doing better. I like George Hill off the bench as your 6th or 7th guy but to think he has even near the capability of leading a Franchise is absolutely crazy. The Pacers should be as bad as the cavs were last year and the Cavs should be as good as the Pacers were last year. Lets compare the stats then and we can rip the minority idiots to shreds.
There are a number of strawmen in here. I haven't heard anyone use win shares as their reason for Hill and I sure haven't heard anyone call him a potential franchise player.

JLeBeau76
09-05-2014, 10:49 PM
There are a number of strawmen in here. I haven't heard anyone use win shares as their reason for Hill and I sure haven't heard anyone call him a potential franchise player.

Win shares were brought up in the original thread.

JLeBeau76
09-05-2014, 10:59 PM
It's not an argument. Its an opinion. I believe a clear offensive hierarchy and heady play from the point guard are a must for a championship team. The scoring PGs of the league often undermine both of these things IMO.

Again, I have never suggested that Irving is not the more talented player. But there is zero doubt in my mind that if you've got championship caliber talent at positions 2 through 5 you've got a better chance of winning with a George Hill than a Kyrie Irving. And you need look no further than past champions for evidence of that.

But wouldn't you want championship caliber players from 1 to 5 if you could? Also, Irving is a better fit for the Cavs, imo, because having him gives you more roster flexibility. With Irving, James, Waiters and Love being so dangerous offensive wise, you can stagger them throughout the game, cutting the minutes of each while not losing much scoring. Keeping minutes manageable this way will keep them all fresher for the playoffs.

You can't do that with Hill.

Also, the Cavs have a Hill type in Dellavadova. Tough defender, good distributor who can hit the three.

In a side note, kudos to you for continuing to present your side without devolving into anger and name calling.

prodigy
09-05-2014, 11:30 PM
And when Kyrie doesn't over-dribble this year because he has actual talent on his team and gets the ball in the right place at the right time, your argument will be laughable (it actually already is).

If George Hill had anywhere near the talent Kyrie has and played for the Cavs he'd try to do the same thing. If you put Kyrie on the Spurs or Pacers you'd see he wouldn't dribble nearly as much.

Your entire argument is pointless and is just an attempt to backpedal from the silly notion that George Hill is preferable in any given situation over Kyrie Irving. He isn't. I'm sure all 30 NBA GMs + head coaches would take Irving in a heartbeat if given the choice, championship level team or not.

You're better off hiding from this thread like WadeKobe and Spursfan1 tbh.

I need a citation bro.
I wasn't on this thread because its a fail my friend. I might get called out for hating or something. Seems to be going around.
Are we going to discuss stats or just watch more "uncle drew" videos?
Hill is a vet and a playoff vet. He brings more to the table than kyrie.
Lets pretend he is better than Hill for a second. 10th best point guard in the league. hahaahah laughable. :laugh2: but he's younger...yeah but he is injury prone. lol no playoff experience and he gets paid "max". lol. I'll pay that for another player.

So u would also take matt Bonner over Kevin love right? Playoff vet with more experience.

Jamiecballer
09-05-2014, 11:31 PM
But wouldn't you want championship caliber players from 1 to 5 if you could? Also, Irving is a better fit for the Cavs, imo, because having him gives you more roster flexibility. With Irving, James, Waiters and Love being so dangerous offensive wise, you can stagger them throughout the game, cutting the minutes of each while not losing much scoring. Keeping minutes manageable this way will keep them all fresher for the playoffs.

You can't do that with Hill.

Also, the Cavs have a Hill type in Dellavadova. Tough defender, good distributor who can hit the three.

In a side note, kudos to you for continuing to present your side without devolving into anger and name calling.
You do raise a number of good points and I appreciate that. I don't mean to suggest that the goal is to have as little talent as possible at the point guard position. Just different ones.

To me the ideal point guard is a game manager, pass first player who can defend. In other words Jason Kidd I suppose. Less activity on the offensive end is more IMO.

prodigy
09-05-2014, 11:36 PM
It's impossible to properly gauge Kyrie as a player because he has never played on a real team. To judge him based off stats like win shares when his teams have been god awful is crazy. I for one am not in love with Kyrie and would take a number of PG's over him. George Hill's 10 pts and 3.5 assists on only 44% shooting is not making me take him over pretty much any PG in the league. Yes his defense is good but he played 32 mins a game next to legit scoring options in West, Hibbs, George and Stephenson and to only average 3.5 assists is embarassing. Even Felton averaged way more than that on a way less talented team.

His 13.4 PER is really awful too, that is below the league average and at his age he is doing better. I like George Hill off the bench as your 6th or 7th guy but to think he has even near the capability of leading a Franchise is absolutely crazy. The Pacers should be as bad as the cavs were last year and the Cavs should be as good as the Pacers were last year. Lets compare the stats then and we can rip the minority idiots to shreds.

This! People saying Irving dribbles to much, takes bad shots etc... are all horrible examples because he's now on a team where he won't and can't do any of that.

SPURSFAN1
09-05-2014, 11:36 PM
So u would also take matt Bonner over Kevin love right? Playoff vet with more experience.

Drawing at straws now. :clap:

SPURSFAN1
09-05-2014, 11:38 PM
This! People saying Irving dribbles to much, takes bad shots etc... are all horrible examples because he's now on a team where he won't and can't do any of that.

So he'll be a role player now? :laugh2:

Jamiecballer
09-05-2014, 11:45 PM
This! People saying Irving dribbles to much, takes bad shots etc... are all horrible examples because he's now on a team where he won't and can't do any of that.
Maybe... But you certainly don't know that. We've all seen guys, dozens of them that took more shots than they should no matter who their teammates are. That's not a criticism of Irving BTW but a disagreement with your point.

JLeBeau76
09-05-2014, 11:46 PM
You do raise a number of good points and I appreciate that. I don't mean to suggest that the goal is to have as little talent as possible at the point guard position. Just different ones.

To me the ideal point guard is a game manager, pass first player who can defend. In other words Jason Kidd I suppose. Less activity on the offensive end is more IMO.

I know the sample isn't really great but how he's been playing for team USA is exactly that. Coach K as well as other observers has said that Irving has been the most consistent player they have had on both sides of the ball since the start of camp.

Playing with better players (FIBA and all-star games...weak examples I know) seems to allow him to focus more on being more of a traditional pg. Those growing traditional skills combined with his ability to take over games offensively is just scary considering he's just 22.

Juat needs to keep working on D and quit with the circus shots that lands him on his backside.

AIRMAR72
09-05-2014, 11:58 PM
We got like 3 different guys saying Hill is better in that other thread. Spursfan1 and WadeKobe and jamiebcallerblahblah are saying Hill is better....it's NOT a fair comparison but Irving is superior to George Hill

JLynn943
09-06-2014, 12:26 AM
Irving vs Isaiah Thomas is a better comparison than this since they had such similar stats. This isn't even close imo. Give me Irving over Hill any day.

Crackadalic
09-06-2014, 01:31 AM
George Hill is a better mario chalmers. Come on

He is no where near the talent of Kyrie

prodigy
09-06-2014, 09:39 AM
This! People saying Irving dribbles to much, takes bad shots etc... are all horrible examples because he's now on a team where he won't and can't do any of that.

So he'll be a role player now? :laugh2:

Hmmm, I'm looking over my comment and don't see me saying that anywhere. Irving will have much better players and shooters around him so no reason to hold the ball to long. Also with lebron and love on the court you would figure Irving will have more open shots then any point in his young career, so the bad shots will by default go down.

RLundi
09-06-2014, 10:12 AM
I need a citation bro.
I wasn't on this thread because its a fail my friend. I might get called out for hating or something. Seems to be going around.
Are we going to discuss stats or just watch more "uncle drew" videos?
Hill is a vet and a playoff vet. He brings more to the table than kyrie.
Lets pretend he is better than Hill for a second. 10th best point guard in the league. hahaahah laughable. :laugh2: but he's younger...yeah but he is injury prone. lol no playoff experience and he gets paid "max". lol. I'll pay that for another player.

Bad. Very bad.

Nearly every single statistic disagrees with you. Watching their play should solidify which player is better. You're basing Hill being better on the fact that he's older and playoff tested? That doesn't mean as much as you think. Just because Kyrie hasn't gotten the opportunity doesn't mean it's his fault. He is CLEARLY better and your assertion truthfully doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response.

I've thumbed through the other thread and honestly, I'm just simply baffled anyone could be so egregiously wrong and have nothing as a basis for their opinion.

IndyRealist
09-06-2014, 10:15 AM
But wouldn't you want championship caliber players from 1 to 5 if you could? Also, Irving is a better fit for the Cavs, imo, because having him gives you more roster flexibility. With Irving, James, Waiters and Love being so dangerous offensive wise, you can stagger them throughout the game, cutting the minutes of each while not losing much scoring. Keeping minutes manageable this way will keep them all fresher for the playoffs.

You can't do that with Hill.

Also, the Cavs have a Hill type in Dellavadova. Tough defender, good distributor who can hit the three.

In a side note, kudos to you for continuing to present your side without devolving into anger and name calling.

In an ideal world? Absolutely, if you could pay them all. But when you're dealing with a salary cap, you NEED guys like George Hill. The Cavs may or may not have a championship team. You know what that hinges on? Whether Anderson Varejao stays healthy or not. Andy anchors the D and scores easy points. He plays his role. He makes only slightly more than Hill and has not put up huge numbers outside of one year. 1 through 5 matters (really 1-6, but that's another thread). And you can't pay 5 guys max.

IndyRealist
09-06-2014, 10:34 AM
It's impossible to properly gauge Kyrie as a player because he has never played on a real team. To judge him based off stats like win shares when his teams have been god awful is crazy. I for one am not in love with Kyrie and would take a number of PG's over him. George Hill's 10 pts and 3.5 assists on only 44% shooting is not making me take him over pretty much any PG in the league. Yes his defense is good but he played 32 mins a game next to legit scoring options in West, Hibbs, George and Stephenson and to only average 3.5 assists is embarassing. Even Felton averaged way more than that on a way less talented team.

His 13.4 PER is really awful too, that is below the league average and at his age he is doing better. I like George Hill off the bench as your 6th or 7th guy but to think he has even near the capability of leading a Franchise is absolutely crazy. The Pacers should be as bad as the cavs were last year and the Cavs should be as good as the Pacers were last year. Lets compare the stats then and we can rip the minority idiots to shreds.

Have you watched the Pacers play? George Hill's job is the bring the ball up the court, pass to a wing player, and then spot up in the corner. His job is not to pass the ball to players in scoring position. By comparison, Kyrie Irving brings the ball up, runs a pick n' roll, attempts to penetrate and beat his man, pulls the ball back out and resets, attempts to beat his man again, and if the defense collapses he passes to the open shooter otherwise he takes the shot. Obviously I'm exaggerating, but it should be painfully obvious to anyone with an ounce of basketball knowledge that they play two very different roles.

You are also using archaic stats, PER and FG% have not mattered in half a decade. Hill is 49.7% from 2pt range, 36.5% from 3, and 56.3% TS. Kyrie by contrast is 45.8% from 2, 35.8% from 3, and 53.3% TS. Again, they play very different roles. Hill has an extremely low usage rate, which CAN inflate shooting percentages. EXCEPT, prior years, Hill shot substantially more and had roughly the same or better TS% (-0.6% to +2.5%). This year alone George Hill took 4 less shots a game than the year prior, and Lance Stephenson took 4 more. Hill has shown throughout his career that he can sustain an elevated TS% at higher usage.

Notice, not once have I said Hill is a better player. He plays a role, just like Kyrie plays a role. The problem with this whole thread is that people seem to think one role is more important than another. Sure, Kyrie scores points at twice the rate Hill does, but he also turns over the ball at twice the rate. If you go back and look at any thread I talked about Irving in, I stated emphatically that the Cavs should trade him. Not because he's not talented, because he is. But because he's not worth the money. And he still isn't. George Hill is worth the money he's getting.

ThuglifeJ
09-06-2014, 11:03 AM
I wish there was a basketball enlightenment class everyone could take here. Its funny the herd you will get of followers of popular opinion in avoidance of embarrassment all the time.

The discussion was who would fit better on the SPURS. A team based entirely off team play. Hill isn't that good but he wouldn't demand usage or stop ball movement ..he also plays better defense and fits in as a role player just fine.

Kyrie is the better standalone player..but hill would fit in better. Just look at patty mills (who sucks on his own).


I wouldn't say I'd take hill over kyrie on spurs by a land slide, but its not some joke to consider it with that teams circumstances.


Team as whole > player. Did 2014 teach you nothing..

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 11:12 AM
Have you watched the Pacers play? George Hill's job is the bring the ball up the court, pass to a wing player, and then spot up in the corner. His job is not to pass the ball to players in scoring position. By comparison, Kyrie Irving brings the ball up, runs a pick n' roll, attempts to penetrate and beat his man, pulls the ball back out and resets, attempts to beat his man again, and if the defense collapses he passes to the open shooter otherwise he takes the shot. Obviously I'm exaggerating, but it should be painfully obvious to anyone with an ounce of basketball knowledge that they play two very different roles.

You are also using archaic stats, PER and FG% have not mattered in half a decade. Hill is 49.7% from 2pt range, 36.5% from 3, and 56.3% TS. Kyrie by contrast is 45.8% from 2, 35.8% from 3, and 53.3% TS. Again, they play very different roles. Hill has an extremely low usage rate, which CAN inflate shooting percentages. EXCEPT, prior years, Hill shot substantially more and had roughly the same or better TS% (-0.6% to +2.5%). This year alone George Hill took 4 less shots a game than the year prior, and Lance Stephenson took 4 more. Hill has shown throughout his career that he can sustain an elevated TS% at higher usage.

Notice, not once have I said Hill is a better player. He plays a role, just like Kyrie plays a role. The problem with this whole thread is that people seem to think one role is more important than another. Sure, Kyrie scores points at twice the rate Hill does, but he also turns over the ball at twice the rate. If you go back and look at any thread I talked about Irving in, I stated emphatically that the Cavs should trade him. Not because he's not talented, because he is. But because he's not worth the money. And he still isn't. George Hill is worth the money he's getting.
You make a great point about roles and its a great post. There is only one thing missing and that is the players willingness to play a certain role.

People say anyone can fill the role guys like Hill play, they cannot. I am not so gullible as to believe that everything that happens on the court is a reflection of the coaches desires. Much of it is not.

Does these high powered offensively gifted players reign it in and become smarter player just because they get better teammates? Some do - I would argue that most do not.

prodigy
09-06-2014, 11:16 AM
It's impossible to properly gauge Kyrie as a player because he has never played on a real team. To judge him based off stats like win shares when his teams have been god awful is crazy. I for one am not in love with Kyrie and would take a number of PG's over him. George Hill's 10 pts and 3.5 assists on only 44% shooting is not making me take him over pretty much any PG in the league. Yes his defense is good but he played 32 mins a game next to legit scoring options in West, Hibbs, George and Stephenson and to only average 3.5 assists is embarassing. Even Felton averaged way more than that on a way less talented team.

His 13.4 PER is really awful too, that is below the league average and at his age he is doing better. I like George Hill off the bench as your 6th or 7th guy but to think he has even near the capability of leading a Franchise is absolutely crazy. The Pacers should be as bad as the cavs were last year and the Cavs should be as good as the Pacers were last year. Lets compare the stats then and we can rip the minority idiots to shreds.

Have you watched the Pacers play? George Hill's job is the bring the ball up the court, pass to a wing player, and then spot up in the corner. His job is not to pass the ball to players in scoring position. By comparison, Kyrie Irving brings the ball up, runs a pick n' roll, attempts to penetrate and beat his man, pulls the ball back out and resets, attempts to beat his man again, and if the defense collapses he passes to the open shooter otherwise he takes the shot. Obviously I'm exaggerating, but it should be painfully obvious to anyone with an ounce of basketball knowledge that they play two very different roles.

You are also using archaic stats, PER and FG% have not mattered in half a decade. Hill is 49.7% from 2pt range, 36.5% from 3, and 56.3% TS. Kyrie by contrast is 45.8% from 2, 35.8% from 3, and 53.3% TS. Again, they play very different roles. Hill has an extremely low usage rate, which CAN inflate shooting percentages. EXCEPT, prior years, Hill shot substantially more and had roughly the same or better TS% (-0.6% to +2.5%). This year alone George Hill took 4 less shots a game than the year prior, and Lance Stephenson took 4 more. Hill has shown throughout his career that he can sustain an elevated TS% at higher usage.

Notice, not once have I said Hill is a better player. He plays a role, just like Kyrie plays a role. The problem with this whole thread is that people seem to think one role is more important than another. Sure, Kyrie scores points at twice the rate Hill does, but he also turns over the ball at twice the rate. If you go back and look at any thread I talked about Irving in, I stated emphatically that the Cavs should trade him. Not because he's not talented, because he is. But because he's not worth the money. And he still isn't. George Hill is worth the money he's getting.


Well as horrible of a passer/floor general you think Irving is he had almost double the number of assists as hill. Hill is just a better defender. That's the only thing he does better.

Arch Stanton
09-06-2014, 11:34 AM
Hill isn't even that great of a defender, he's just average.

IKnowHoops
09-06-2014, 11:34 AM
If George was on the cavs and Irving wasn't, lebron would not have came back period. Even if love were here.

If I have a really good team and I have a choice between George and Irving. No question I'm taking Irving.

Why would hill be a better fit with this cavs team? I've seen a couple people say this. Irving is a much better shooter. Irving is also a better passer. Hill is a better defender but Irving is a great fit next to lebron and he's gonna run this offense well.

This word is so played out. I'm tired of people claiming better fit all the time. As if a super skilled player who scores a lot can't change his game into a lesser more efficient role on offense. Guys just wanting to sound smart.

prodigy
09-06-2014, 11:37 AM
I wish there was a basketball enlightenment class everyone could take here. Its funny the herd you will get of followers of popular opinion in avoidance of embarrassment all the time.

The discussion was who would fit better on the SPURS. A team based entirely off team play. Hill isn't that good but he wouldn't demand usage or stop ball movement ..he also plays better defense and fits in as a role player just fine.

Kyrie is the better standalone player..but hill would fit in better. Just look at patty mills (who sucks on his own).


I wouldn't say I'd take hill over kyrie on spurs by a land slide, but its not some joke to consider it with that teams circumstances.


Team as whole > player. Did 2014 teach you nothing..

Make sure you sign up for that class real fast.

We were talking about the spurs? Lol I think parker fits better there then hill.

So what you are saying is that Irving cannot play with others? On a team. He's only good by himself? Well to be honest this is what we all need to see. He's already making max money, and a chance to add rings to his resume is to much to pass up. I have a hard time believing he's not gonna agree to pass more and be a team player. I'd be shocked really.

You know darn well if you were the gm of the spurs and you had a choice between irving and hill you would take irving before they even said hills name.

prodigy
09-06-2014, 11:38 AM
Hill isn't even that great of a defender, he's just average.

I know right! They act like he shuts every single pg out on a nightly basis.

Cal827
09-06-2014, 12:03 PM
:laugh:

Hills is a very adequate PG and has done exactly what has been needed of him in SA/IND, and I think that Irving is highly overrated by most of the people in the NBA..., but I still think Irving is the better of the two.

E.g. If you switched the guys, you don't think that Indiana would be better last year with Irving-Stepenson-George-West-Hibbert?

I would think that Irving would force opposing teams to alter their defensive schemes, which may lead to more open buckets for the other 4 at a higher rate than what Hill did.

Also think that it would put them over Miami (but that's more of a match-up difference over anything).

But I guess we will see this season, now that Irving has a lot of help, there's not really much excuse. His numbers should shoot straight up; if they don't, then I'll question if he's basically the newer version of Mo Williams on Lebron's Cavs.

chi-townlove1
09-06-2014, 12:07 PM
I didn't think this was a serious thread until I came in and read some posts. I'm not going to even get involved. But bottom line is how do you not choose Kyrie? My goodness.

IndyRealist
09-06-2014, 12:16 PM
Well as horrible of a passer/floor general you think Irving is he had almost double the number of assists as hill. Hill is just a better defender. That's the only thing he does better.

You didn't read anything I wrote, did you? THEY PLAY DIFFERENT ROLES. George Hill almost never has the ball in his hands, by design, so how exactly is he supposed to rack up assists?

Cal827
09-06-2014, 12:21 PM
^ Side note, how do you people think Irving is gonna do in Cleveland, now that he's in a Hill type of Roll in Cleveland (as Lebron usually is the ball dominant guy lol)

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 12:33 PM
What disturbs me as a fan of the game is that I haven't seen ONE person ask who the other 4 players are before answering.

JLynn943
09-06-2014, 01:20 PM
What disturbs me as a fan of the game is that I haven't seen ONE person ask who the other 4 players are before answering.

That's because I'm more than confident that Irving could handle Hill's role if need be. However, Kyrie has always been needed to score, so we have not seen that from him. Nor do I think we will to the same degree as Hill because Kyrie has more talent that will always result in him being asked to do more than Hill is. This topic is a joke.

edit: And I don't even particularly care for Kyrie. I think he's overrated by the common fan. But come on - George Hill? The guy the Pacers have supposedly been trying to replace?

prodigy
09-06-2014, 01:20 PM
Well as horrible of a passer/floor general you think Irving is he had almost double the number of assists as hill. Hill is just a better defender. That's the only thing he does better.

You didn't read anything I wrote, did you? THEY PLAY DIFFERENT ROLES. George Hill almost never has the ball in his hands, by design, so how exactly is he supposed to rack up assists?

So by design they don't want hill to touch the ball as the pg? Hmmm, ya I'll take that over Irving smdh.... idk man I guess we can just agree to disagree. I just don't get it.

JLynn943
09-06-2014, 01:23 PM
So by design they don't want hill to touch the ball as the pg? Hmmm, ya I'll take that over Irving smdh.... idk man I guess we can just agree to disagree. I just don't get it.

That's probably a good thing.

prodigy
09-06-2014, 01:27 PM
^ Side note, how do you people think Irving is gonna do in Cleveland, now that he's in a Hill type of Roll in Cleveland (as Lebron usually is the ball dominant guy lol)

Well like others said Irving has far more talent then hill. Lebron and Irving are both good with and without the ball. Irving and Bron will both handle the rock along with waiters and Della pending who's out there. Irving can break down an offense and drive to score or dish out to Kevin love and Bron. Or he can spot up and nail 3pointers from when lebron has the rock.

They have so many weapons and options. Hard to see them fail.

IndyRealist
09-06-2014, 02:02 PM
So by design they don't want hill to touch the ball as the pg? Hmmm, ya I'll take that over Irving smdh.... idk man I guess we can just agree to disagree. I just don't get it.

George Hill is slotted as the point guard and brings the ball up the court, he then passes the ball to the wing players (Lance and PG last year) to initiate the play. George Hill plays SG on offense, PG on defense.

And once again, you didn't read ANYTHING I wrote before responding. I specifically said, "Notice, not once have I said Hill is a better player." I said given their salaries, Hill is the better value. Irving is overpaid compared to his production, Hill is not.

ThuglifeJ
09-06-2014, 02:12 PM
If George was on the cavs and Irving wasn't, lebron would not have came back period. Even if love were here.

If I have a really good team and I have a choice between George and Irving. No question I'm taking Irving.

Why would hill be a better fit with this cavs team? I've seen a couple people say this. Irving is a much better shooter. Irving is also a better passer. Hill is a better defender but Irving is a great fit next to lebron and he's gonna run this offense well.

This word is so played out. I'm tired of people claiming better fit all the time. As if a super skilled player who scores a lot can't change his game into a lesser more efficient role on offense. Guys just wanting to sound smart.


.......Allen Iverson? Deron Williams? Steve Nash? 100 more instances?

prodigy
09-06-2014, 02:30 PM
If George was on the cavs and Irving wasn't, lebron would not have came back period. Even if love were here.

If I have a really good team and I have a choice between George and Irving. No question I'm taking Irving.

Why would hill be a better fit with this cavs team? I've seen a couple people say this. Irving is a much better shooter. Irving is also a better passer. Hill is a better defender but Irving is a great fit next to lebron and he's gonna run this offense well.

This word is so played out. I'm tired of people claiming better fit all the time. As if a super skilled player who scores a lot can't change his game into a lesser more efficient role on offense. Guys just wanting to sound smart.


.......Allen Iverson? Deron Williams? Steve Nash? 100 more instances?

Iverson is a horrible example because he is well iverson lol. I'm assuming you mean Nash going to then Lakers? Which I mean the guy is 50 years old and hurt. Williams is a solid example but injuries have killed him too.

Wade bosh and lebron all saw their numbers drop because they had to work together. Won 2 ships. Depends on the player.

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 02:42 PM
That's because I'm more than confident that Irving could handle Hill's role if need be. However, Kyrie has always been needed to score, so we have not seen that from him. Nor do I think we will to the same degree as Hill because Kyrie has more talent that will always result in him being asked to do more than Hill is. This topic is a joke.

edit: And I don't even particularly care for Kyrie. I think he's overrated by the common fan. But come on - George Hill? The guy the Pacers have supposedly been trying to replace?
Its a joke because everyone is treating it as though the question was "you're an expansion team, who are you taking with your first pick, George Hill or Kyrie Irving?"

That's a very different question.

I take the question to be who is a better point guard right this minute. No talk of age, potential or teammates.

I personally believe initiating the teams offense is vitally important, and that means not centering it on yourself. I believe shot selection from your point guard is also incredibly important.

Now maybe one day Kyrie Irving gets so good at what he does that it won't matter to me that he plays his position in a way that I think isn't best for his team. That's very possible.

But for today, right now, I would prefer George Hill and I'd want him doing EXACTLY what IndyRealist described. Smart play is better play IMO.

Clippersfan86
09-06-2014, 02:50 PM
LMAO. Just stop Jamie.

JLynn943
09-06-2014, 02:55 PM
Its a joke because everyone is treating it as though the question was "you're an expansion team, who are you taking with your first pick, George Hill or Kyrie Irving?"

That's a very different question.

I take the question to be who is a better point guard right this minute. No talk of age, potential or teammates.

I personally believe initiating the teams offense is vitally important, and that means not centering it on yourself. I believe shot selection from your point guard is also incredibly important.

Now maybe one day Kyrie Irving gets so good at what he does that it won't matter to me that he plays his position in a way that I think isn't best for his team. That's very possible.

But for today, right now, I would prefer George Hill and I'd want him doing EXACTLY what IndyRealist described. Smart play is better play IMO.

No, it's a joke because you and others are seriously overstating how important Hill is to that team and the difficulty of what he does. There is no doubt in my mind that Kyrie could dribble up the court, pass it to someone else and then let other people do most of the work. This is not a great playmaker that we're talking about. This is someone who plays okay defense, is decent at shooting, and is pretty good at not turning it over. That's about it. He's a role player who isn't even especially notable at that role. If that was all Kyrie was supposed to be doing, he'd be at least as good as Hill doing so. He's talented enough to bring the ball up the court, pass, and shoot sometimes if need be. However, he's capable of doing more than just that - which is why this is a ridiculous question. I'd put Hill closer to Jameer Nelson than Kyrie.

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 02:56 PM
LMAO. Just stop Jamie.
Because you asked? And put so much effort into your post? Not likely.

Clippersfan86
09-06-2014, 02:57 PM
Because you asked? And put so much effort into your post? Not likely.

:laugh:

JLynn943
09-06-2014, 03:00 PM
Underlying this whole argument for Hill is the outdated, traditional notion of what a point guard "should" be. People still grasp onto the idea of point guard as a more background, playmaker position when it has evolved beyond that. The best point guards in the league look a lot more like Kyrie than they do Hill.

Clippersfan86
09-06-2014, 03:03 PM
Underlying this whole argument for Hill is the outdated, traditional notion of what a point guard "should" be. People still grasp onto the idea of point guard as a more background, playmaker position when it has evolved beyond that. The best point guards in the league look a lot more like Kyrie than they do Hill.

Bingo. I'm one who favors the more pass first PG's myself and even I can see the stupidity of this comparison as well as the evolution of the position as you said. Not to mention that Hill isn't even an elite playmaker or defender! It's not like we are talking about Ricky Rubio vs Irving here (where that criteria would exist). We are talking about mother fu**ing George Hill who's been shopped hard the last two years and put up 10/3 or something off the bench last year. Next up let's compare Jordan Farmar with Kyrie SMH.

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 03:05 PM
No, it's a joke because you and others are seriously overstating how important Hill is to that team and the difficulty of what he does. There is no doubt in my mind that Kyrie could dribble up the court, pass it to someone else and then let other people do most of the work. This is not a great playmaker that we're talking about. This is someone who plays okay defense, is decent at shooting, and is pretty good at not turning it over. That's about it. He's a role player who isn't even especially notable at that role. If that was all Kyrie was supposed to be doing, he'd be at least as good as Hill doing so. He's talented enough to bring the ball up the court, pass, and shoot sometimes if need be. However, he's capable of doing more than just that - which is why this is a ridiculous question. I'd put Hill closer to Jameer Nelson than Kyrie.
With all due respect I never said Hill was all that important to his team OR that it was all that difficult.

I only said that George Hill plays the game in a way that I believe benefits his team more.

Nothing kills ball movement like a high scoring PG and there is nothing more maddening and selfish as a fan than an offensive possession that begins and ends with only one person touching the ball - the PG.

Think of it more like a philosophical debate if you like. You could replace George Hill with Kyle Lowry and Kyrie Irving with Russell Westbrook and my answer would be the same for the exact same reasons.

Don't agree with me? That's fine. But I've given pretty fair reasons behind my opinion.

JLynn943
09-06-2014, 03:07 PM
Bingo. I'm one who favors the more pass first PG's myself and even I can see the stupidity of this comparison as well as the evolution of the position as you said. Not to mention that Hill isn't even an elite playmaker or defender! It's not like we are talking about Ricky Rubio vs Irving here (where that criteria would exist). We are talking about mother fu**ing George Hill who's been shopped hard the last two years and put up 10/3 or something off the bench last year. Next up let's compare Jordan Farmar with Kyrie SMH.

Seriously. The Pacers have been trying to replace him and yet he's somehow a better pg/player :laugh2:

Rubio is a much more interesting comparison.

Clippersfan86
09-06-2014, 03:10 PM
With all due respect I never said Hill was all that important to his team OR that it was all that difficult.

I only said that George Hill plays the game in a way that I believe benefits his team more.

Nothing kills ball movement like a high scoring PG and there is nothing more maddening and selfish as a fan than an offensive possession that begins and ends with only one person touching the ball - the PG.

Think of it more like a philosophical debate if you like. You could replace George Hill with Kyle Lowry and Kyrie Irving with Russell Westbrook and my answer would be the same for the exact same reasons.

Don't agree with me? That's fine. But I've given pretty fair reasons behind my opinion.

Steph Curry had no trouble being the top scoring PG in the league while being 2nd in assists per game. How's that for nothing kills ball movement like a high scoring PG? No you have not given fair reasons. Bottom line is Hill is two tiers behind Irving as a player and you're reaching.

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 03:12 PM
Underlying this whole argument for Hill is the outdated, traditional notion of what a point guard "should" be. People still grasp onto the idea of point guard as a more background, playmaker position when it has evolved beyond that. The best point guards in the league look a lot more like Kyrie than they do Hill.
The only argument I need to make to that is this. You believe the position evolved to where it is today because somebody consciously decided that it was better basketball?

I disagree. I believe it evolved to where it is because of an explosion of popularity for the game of basketball over the past 3 decades which resulted in a massive influx of athletes who have tremendous talents but only are tall enough to play PG (which makes sense because it is the lowest bar for entry into the pros).

JLynn943
09-06-2014, 03:12 PM
With all due respect I never said Hill was all that important to his team OR that it was all that difficult.

I only said that George Hill plays the game in a way that I believe benefits his team more.

Nothing kills ball movement like a high scoring PG and there is nothing more maddening and selfish as a fan than an offensive possession that begins and ends with only one person touching the ball - the PG.

Think of it more like a philosophical debate if you like. You could replace George Hill with Kyle Lowry and Kyrie Irving with Russell Westbrook and my answer would be the same for the exact same reasons.

Don't agree with me? That's fine. But I've given pretty fair reasons behind my opinion.

Yeah, hence my subsequent post. This is a philosophical argument that I just do not agree with whatsoever. It's crazy, imo, to even expect Kyrie to be filling the traditional role of the pass-first point guard on that team. It's the exact same issue I have with so many anti-Iverson arguments. He's the best scoring option for sure (though not as big as a drop off as with Iverson's teams), so it's in the team's best interest for him to look to score more than a traditional point guard would. Like I've said before, I don't particularly like Irving's game so far. I think he looks to score more than he should and has so far been disinterested in playing defense at best, but he cannot and should not be judged based on the same criteria as Hill.

Clippersfan86
09-06-2014, 03:13 PM
The poll speaks for itself. 87+ percent win is pretty convincing. Gap will likely grow.

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 03:16 PM
Steph Curry had no trouble being the top scoring PG in the league while being 2nd in assists per game. How's that for nothing kills ball movement like a high scoring PG? No you have not given fair reasons. Bottom line is Hill is two tiers behind Irving as a player and you're reaching.
Really? You consider assists the shining example of ball movement? Take a look at the assists leaderboard my friend. Each and every one of them is a ball dominant PG.

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 03:19 PM
The poll speaks for itself. 87+ percent win is pretty convincing. Gap will likely grow.
Hey that's a win by itself. I expected popular opinion to be closer to 100. And I didn't even vote!

Clippersfan86
09-06-2014, 03:19 PM
Really? You consider assists the shining example of ball movement? Take a look at the assists leaderboard my friend. Each and every one of them is a ball dominant PG.

I'm not proving that assists are the shining or only example, so much as I'm proving that they don't KILL ball movement as you implied. Any eye test proves that it's a bogus claim. John Wall for example is one of the most gifted passers in the game and he's a scoring PG as well. Your POV is archaic.

JLynn943
09-06-2014, 03:20 PM
The only argument I need to make to that is this. You believe the position evolved to where it is today because somebody consciously decided that it was better basketball?

I disagree. I believe it evolved to where it is because of an explosion of popularity for the game of basketball which resulted in a massive influx of athletes who have tremendous talents but only are tall enough to play PG (which makes sense because it is the lowest bar for entry into the pros).

I think that is part of it. But, it evolved not only because we have super athletic point guards, but because we have athletes that can do more at several positions and because many successful teams do not rely on one player to create and make plays for others (Spurs, Heat, Clippers, Thunder for example). Why limit what your point guard does when he can do more? This frees up point guards to play a more full offensive game. Meanwhile, on other teams, the point guard is one of the best scorers on the team (as with Kyrie and Isaiah Thomas last year) and is therefore put into the position where he needs to score more than normal.

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 03:22 PM
I'm not proving that assists are the shining or only example, so much as I'm proving that they don't KILL ball movement as you implied. Any eye test proves that it's a bogus claim. John Wall for example is one of the most gifted passers in the game and he's a scoring PG as well. Your POV is archaic.
Hey man I'm not suggesting that scoring PGs don't EVER pass the ball. But way to slay that dragon.

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 03:25 PM
I'm not proving that assists are the shining or only example, so much as I'm proving that they don't KILL ball movement as you implied. Any eye test proves that it's a bogus claim. John Wall for example is one of the most gifted passers in the game and he's a scoring PG as well. Your POV is archaic.
Wall is also a dreadfully inefficient offensive player as well. Maybe he will improve as his career goes on but that does remind me of a time I opined to someone that just because ones teammates improve it does not guarantee that the player will all of a sudden reign it in and make better decisions on that end...

Clippersfan86
09-06-2014, 03:26 PM
Hey man I'm not suggesting that scoring PGs don't EVER pass the ball. But way to slay that dragon.

I'm not strawmanning you here. Your exact words were "Nothing kills ball movement like a high scoring PG". That's a pretty bold claim. Any position of player can be a ball movement killer. For example on the Clippers a couple guys that stand out since I've been a fan have been Chris Kaman, Corey Maggette, Zbo were the biggest possession killers or ball stoppers. Once they got the ball I knew with almost 100 percent certainty that a shot was going up. You can't say that for most of the "high scoring PG's".

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 03:38 PM
I'm not strawmanning you here. Your exact words were "Nothing kills ball movement like a high scoring PG". That's a pretty bold claim. Any position of player can be a ball movement killer. For example on the Clippers a couple guys that stand out since I've been a fan have been Chris Kaman, Corey Maggette, Zbo were the biggest possession killers or ball stoppers. Once they got the ball I knew with almost 100 percent certainty that a shot was going up. You can't say that for most of the "high scoring PG's".
Well that's a good point. No doubt about it anybody is capable of being a black hole. What I mean to say is this. Lets take Randolph for example. The ball does not magically end up in his hands in the post. Somebody, whether as part of a play being run, or simply reading and reacting to what is happening on the floor has placed it there. The ball "has moved".

Contrast that with a possession where the point guard has brought the ball over half court, spent ten seconds looking for his shot before finally shooting. It's really no wonder ball movement and players moving without the ball seems to be at an all-time low.

IndyRealist
09-06-2014, 03:46 PM
Seriously. The Pacers have been trying to replace him and yet he's somehow a better pg/player :laugh2:

Rubio is a much more interesting comparison.

Source? Because I follow the Pacers daily, and no where has any source said the Pacers are trying to trade him that I have seen. That sounds suspiciously made up.

JLynn943
09-06-2014, 03:49 PM
Source? Because I follow the Pacers daily, and no where has any source said the Pacers are trying to trade him that I have seen. That sounds suspiciously made up.
I've seen quite a few articles and people saying in articles about the Pacers having had interest in Goran Dragic for a while now. I figured that was to play point considering they've had Stephenson?

Clippersfan86
09-06-2014, 03:49 PM
Source? Because I follow the Pacers daily, and no where has any source said the Pacers are trying to trade him that I have seen. That sounds suspiciously made up.

I recall some mentions in the rumor mill. Although even if that happened to be a false rumor/source.. it won't alter the premises for this argument one way or another. Bottom line is Hill is a solid player, but Kyrie is an all star caliber player. It's an unfair comparison to Hill TBH. As Lynn put it... Jameer Nelson vs George Hill or something like that would be more fair.

JLeBeau76
09-06-2014, 04:00 PM
With all due respect I never said Hill was all that important to his team OR that it was all that difficult.

I only said that George Hill plays the game in a way that I believe benefits his team more.

Nothing kills ball movement like a high scoring PG and there is nothing more maddening and selfish as a fan than an offensive possession that begins and ends with only one person touching the ball - the PG.

Think of it more like a philosophical debate if you like. You could replace George Hill with Kyle Lowry and Kyrie Irving with Russell Westbrook and my answer would be the same for the exact same reasons.

Don't agree with me? That's fine. But I've given pretty fair reasons behind my opinion.

I get what your saying and I get where your coming from but I think your missing one important thing. Irving has been a score first point guard because that's the role he was placed in.

No Cavs team he has been on yet has allowed him the luxury of being a pass first distributer and game manager like Hill. Like I previously stated, in every instance where he was afforded the opportunity to play with good, established players (team usa, all-star games) he has stepped back from being score first and has showed he can be a floor manager.

Also, even in a vacuum (especially in avacuum) not counting teammates or age and potential, Irving is the choice, no question. Hills role on a team is the basis for your argument. Take that away and just make it Irving vs Hill as of 2013-14 and its non comparable imo.

IndyRealist
09-06-2014, 04:09 PM
I've seen quite a few articles and people saying in articles about the Pacers having had interest in Goran Dragic for a while now. I figured that was to play point considering they've had Stephenson?

The trades for Dragic revolved around Roy Hibbert, as did the rumors for Rondo. George Hill was never included in any rumors, except maybe by fans.

IndyRealist
09-06-2014, 04:14 PM
I recall some mentions in the rumor mill. Although even if that happened to be a false rumor/source.. it won't alter the premises for this argument one way or another. Bottom line is Hill is a solid player, but Kyrie is an all star caliber player. It's an unfair comparison to Hill TBH. As Lynn put it... Jameer Nelson vs George Hill or something like that would be more fair.

It's different roles and vastly different costs to their teams. Could Irving play the same role as Hill? Probably. Could you have a smashmouth offense centered around David West, with Paul George handling initiating the offense, and have the #1 defense in the league if Irving were on board? Maybe. But would you pay Irving max money to do it?

WadeKobe
09-06-2014, 04:15 PM
The trades for Dragic revolved around Roy Hibbert, as did the rumors for Rondo. George Hill was never included in any rumors, except maybe by fans.

And even still, that doesn't prove they're trying to replace Hill. It means they had a chance to upgrade. Rondo and Dragic are both far superior to Hill or Irving, regardless of anyone's opinions about this comparison.

JLynn943
09-06-2014, 04:17 PM
The trades for Dragic revolved around Roy Hibbert, as did the rumors for Rondo. George Hill was never included in any rumors, except maybe by fans.
Yeah, but wouldn't he be starting over Hill? I didn't say they were trying to trade Hill (at least I don't think I did), just replace him.

IndyRealist
09-06-2014, 04:18 PM
And even still, that doesn't prove they're trying to replace Hill. It means they had a chance to upgrade. Rondo and Dragic are both far superior to Hill or Irving, regardless of anyone's opinions about this comparison.

It's not even an issue of upgrading, it's that we have a gaping hole at SG and Hill can play there. The Pacers really thought that had the market for Lance Stephenson cornered.

RLundi
09-06-2014, 04:19 PM
George Hill is slotted as the point guard and brings the ball up the court, he then passes the ball to the wing players (Lance and PG last year) to initiate the play. George Hill plays SG on offense, PG on defense.

And once again, you didn't read ANYTHING I wrote before responding. I specifically said, "Notice, not once have I said Hill is a better player." I said given their salaries, Hill is the better value. Irving is overpaid compared to his production, Hill is not.

You're totally wrong here. Hill gets paid far less because Kyrie is a far better player, simple as that. In no way is Hill a better option than Irving, it doesn't matter what the system is. Kyrie is pretty overrated but Hill is completely substandard. I'm very sorry, but even with your concessions you still sound a bit like a homer.

IndyRealist
09-06-2014, 04:22 PM
You're totally wrong here. Hill gets paid far less because Kyrie is a far better player, simple as that. In no way is Hill a better option than Irving, it doesn't matter what the system is. Kyrie is pretty overrated but Hill is completely substandard. I'm very sorry, but even with your concessions you still sound a bit like a homer.
This is why you can't have civil conversations on PSD.

WadeKobe
09-06-2014, 04:24 PM
It's not even an issue of upgrading, it's that we have a gaping hole at SG and Hill can play there. The Pacers really thought that had the market for Lance Stephenson cornered.

Agreed, and I understand. I was making the argument of concession. Even IF they were trying to get them to replace Hill, it doesn't prove that they want to get rid of Hill. It proves they want to get Dragic or Rondo.

RLundi
09-06-2014, 04:31 PM
This is why you can't have civil conversations on PSD.

I agree wholeheartedly. And I apologize for seeming hostile.

But thumbing through the posts, all of your arguments center on Hill somehow being a better fit in a system that literally disallows him from doing anything besides bringing the ball up the court and letting someone else do the playmaking, as he's incapable. Why wouldn't you want a player that could do the same thing AND be capable of more if need be?

Hill does nothing better than Kyrie save for playing defense. I'm curious as to what your thoughts would be if the Cavs approached the Pacers about a straight swap of Irving for Hill.

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 04:33 PM
I get what your saying and I get where your coming from but I think your missing one important thing. Irving has been a score first point guard because that's the role he was placed in.

No Cavs team he has been on yet has allowed him the luxury of being a pass first distributer and game manager like Hill. Like I previously stated, in every instance where he was afforded the opportunity to play with good, established players (team usa, all-star games) he has stepped back from being score first and has showed he can be a floor manager.

Also, even in a vacuum (especially in avacuum) not counting teammates or age and potential, Irving is the choice, no question. Hills role on a team is the basis for your argument. Take that away and just make it Irving vs Hill as of 2013-14 and its non comparable imo.
Hmm a lot of good points but its not about Hill's role to me, as you put it. Its about the role of the PG and my belief that the high usage, high scoring lead guard is generally speaking not conducive to a high level of basketball.

As I've said previous there is a tipping point where its undeniably to the teams benefit. We just probably disagree on where that tipping point is exactly. To me it would be an extremely efficient scoring PG of which there are very few indeed.

This criticism doesn't apply exclusively to PGs. The way MJ and Kobe played isn't conducive to winning either IMO, unless you are MJ or Kobe!

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 04:40 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. And I apologize for seeming hostile.

But thumbing through the posts, all of your arguments center on Hill somehow being a better fit in a system that literally disallows him from doing anything besides bringing the ball up the court and letting someone else do the playmaking, as he's incapable. Why wouldn't you want a player that could do the same thing AND be capable of more if need be?

Hill does nothing better than Kyrie save for playing defense. I'm curious as to what your thoughts would be if the Cavs approached the Pacers about a straight swap of Irving for Hill.
Have you considered that it might be as much about putting the ball into the hands of your best players quickly and more often than it is about Hill's weakness??

RLundi
09-06-2014, 04:51 PM
Have you considered that it might be as much about putting the ball into the hands of your best players quickly and more often than it is about Hill's weakness??

Even if that were true, it doesn't negate the lack of impact Hill seems to have on the floor. That would be like Pippen continuously deferring to Jordan every single possession. But they were both playmakers and complemented each other. Hill isn't the type of PG to have the ball in his hands or be a playmaker; it isn't who he is, never has been. While he deserves credit for not trying to play above his strengths, I can't see how that makes him a better fit than Irving who has the strengths Hill is lacking.

WadeKobe
09-06-2014, 04:52 PM
Here is what I find humorous. There was a thread about whether Kyrie was a top10 PG. He hasn't been this far

I chose to name any and all PGs I might place over him. I put Hill ok that list. The point wasn't to say Hill was better. It was to illustrate that Irving has not at this point in his career been a top10 PG. If you took Hill off the list, my point remained true -- there were more than 9 PGs in the league better than Irving.

Then, when called to task on what I had said, I didn't defend it as absolutely true. I made a comparison showing that, whether Hill was better or not, he was not "substandard", "barely a starter", "awful", or outside the top20 of PG.

Then it turned into a discussion of whether Hill was better than Irving, which was never my point.

But it evolved further, to where it is clear that 80% of posters think that Hill is a bad player, who is at best below average. THAT is the absurd opinion. It just so happens that Hill is average or better in every composite statistic, from every line of analysis theory, except points and PER.... And PSD feels he is bad... Coincidence? I think not.

The media has sold wing position players as more valuable than Bigs.
The media has sold scoring as the most important aspect of basketball.

Conversations on PSD revolve around points, points, scoring, skills, and rings. Every once in a while, PER gets peppered in, even though 90% of posters know nothing about how it is calculated, what it actually measures, and how it relates to winning basketball games.

Whether Irving or Hill are better really are irrelevant to the issue at hand -- the majority of PSD posters really lack much critical knowledge about basketball and the way that player performance on the court affects a team's ability to win games. It is highly unfortunate.

All you need to know is the insistence that a player "can score x amount of points". Which is of course meaningless. Anyone can score x number of points if they shoot enough. Those points simply don't mean much of anything.

Arch Stanton
09-06-2014, 04:56 PM
And even still, that doesn't prove they're trying to replace Hill. It means they had a chance to upgrade. Rondo and Dragic are both far superior to Hill or Irving, regardless of anyone's opinions about this comparison.

Rondo is overrated and very little offensive game. Dragic took several years to get where he is. I'd take Irving any day over either of those guys.

prodigy
09-06-2014, 05:01 PM
Irving still has a lot to learn about the game of basketball. But watching him and cavs I never considered Irving a ball hog. He had over 6 assits last season with 1 guy that could consistently score in waiters. Thompson is more of a rebounder low post guy with a developing shot. Della played well but when he's in Irving is not. Loul Deng played like complete garbage for us because he didn't wanna be there.

IndyRealist
09-06-2014, 05:01 PM
Here is what I find humorous. There was a thread about whether Kyrie was a top10 PG. He hasn't been this far

I chose to name any and all PGs I might place over him. I put Hill ok that list. The point wasn't to say Hill was better. It was to illustrate that Irving has not at this point in his career been a top10 PG. If you took Hill off the list, my point remained true -- there were more than 9 PGs in the league better than Irving.

Then, when called to task on what I had said, I didn't defend it as absolutely true. I made a comparison showing that, whether Hill was better or not, he was not "substandard", "barely a starter", "awful", or outside the top20 of PG.

Then it turned into a discussion of whether Hill was better than Irving, which was never my point.

But it evolved further, to where it is clear that 80% of posters think that Hill is a bad player, who is at best below average. THAT is the absurd opinion. It just so happens that Hill is average or better in every composite statistic, from every line of analysis theory, except points and PER.... And PSD feels he is bad... Coincidence? I think not.

The media has sold wing position players as more valuable than Bigs.
The media has sold scoring as the most important aspect of basketball.

Conversations on PSD revolve around points, points, scoring, skills, and rings. Every once in a while, PER gets peppered in, even though 90% of posters know nothing about how it is calculated, what it actually measures, and how it relates to winning basketball games.

Whether Irving or Hill are better really are irrelevant to the issue at hand -- the majority of PSD posters really lack much critical knowledge about basketball and the way that player performance on the court affects a team's ability to win games. It is highly unfortunate.

All you need to know is the insistence that a player "can score x amount of points". Which is of course meaningless. Anyone can score x number of points if they shoot enough. Those points simply don't mean much of anything.

+1. Coming full circle, from my first post in this thread way back on page 3: "Have we not covered how popular opinion means absolutely nothing, because the average person does not understand what he's watching?"

prodigy
09-06-2014, 05:05 PM
I've seen quite a few articles and people saying in articles about the Pacers having had interest in Goran Dragic for a while now. I figured that was to play point considering they've had Stephenson?

The trades for Dragic revolved around Roy Hibbert, as did the rumors for Rondo. George Hill was never included in any rumors, except maybe by fans.

You have no way of knowing who was discussed in trades. Everything is tech rumors unless you were I the front office.

prodigy
09-06-2014, 05:09 PM
The trades for Dragic revolved around Roy Hibbert, as did the rumors for Rondo. George Hill was never included in any rumors, except maybe by fans.

And even still, that doesn't prove they're trying to replace Hill. It means they had a chance to upgrade. Rondo and Dragic are both far superior to Hill or Irving, regardless of anyone's opinions about this comparison.

Rondo is complete booty on offense though. So I wouldn't say far superior then Irving. Depends what u need.

prodigy
09-06-2014, 05:17 PM
I give you guys credit for sticking with it. But if you were the gm of a great team or a bad team. All of us would take Irving over hill plain and simple. This is where I leave. Have a great day everyone!

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 05:18 PM
Here is what I find humorous. There was a thread about whether Kyrie was a top10 PG. He hasn't been this far

I chose to name any and all PGs I might place over him. I put Hill ok that list. The point wasn't to say Hill was better. It was to illustrate that Irving has not at this point in his career been a top10 PG. If you took Hill off the list, my point remained true -- there were more than 9 PGs in the league better than Irving.

Then, when called to task on what I had said, I didn't defend it as absolutely true. I made a comparison showing that, whether Hill was better or not, he was not "substandard", "barely a starter", "awful", or outside the top20 of PG.

Then it turned into a discussion of whether Hill was better than Irving, which was never my point.

But it evolved further, to where it is clear that 80% of posters think that Hill is a bad player, who is at best below average. THAT is the absurd opinion. It just so happens that Hill is average or better in every composite statistic, from every line of analysis theory, except points and PER.... And PSD feels he is bad... Coincidence? I think not.

The media has sold wing position players as more valuable than Bigs.
The media has sold scoring as the most important aspect of basketball.

Conversations on PSD revolve around points, points, scoring, skills, and rings. Every once in a while, PER gets peppered in, even though 90% of posters know nothing about how it is calculated, what it actually measures, and how it relates to winning basketball games.

Whether Irving or Hill are better really are irrelevant to the issue at hand -- the majority of PSD posters really lack much critical knowledge about basketball and the way that player performance on the court affects a team's ability to win games. It is highly unfortunate.

All you need to know is the insistence that a player "can score x amount of points". Which is of course meaningless. Anyone can score x number of points if they shoot enough. Those points simply don't mean much of anything.
Amen. I agree with every last word.

There is no more overvalued attribute in any sport than the "scorer" in basketball. Simply accumulating points tells you absolutely nothing about the quality of a player and yet people are consumed by it.

smith&wesson
09-06-2014, 05:39 PM
lol i think this is more of a thread trying to single out certain posters. obviously its irving.

JLeBeau76
09-06-2014, 06:01 PM
I found this thread interesting at first but when people are throwing statements like "Whether Hill or Irving is better is irrelevant " in a thread titled Who is a better pg/player between them and people start agreeing then this is my jumping off point.

It appears that, like everything, people have different definitions of what they want out of a pg and I respect that. In my opinion, Irving can bring everything to the table that Hill can plus the ability to take over games and be a primary option.

The reason that Hill is a distributor first guy and not a higher scorer is simple, his abilities doesn't allow him to be. he's not a bum or a scrub but he is an average role player who has found his ceiling in the league.

No disrespect intended but it is what it is.

Every coach in the league, even Pop, would take Irving over Hill. Your kidding yourself if you say otherwise.

Irving is paid what he's paid because he is worth it. He's a multiple All-star point guard at age 22...of course he's going to get paid. Hill isn't and shouldn't and because his ability isn't to the level of Irving he is paid less and thus is in position to be on a team.at a better value, cap wise.

This thread has devolved considerably and should really be changed to what type of pg would you want on your team because that's what it boils down to.

Anyway, good luck with the debate good people.

Jamiecballer
09-06-2014, 06:36 PM
I found this thread interesting at first but when people are throwing statements like "Whether Hill or Irving is better is irrelevant " in a thread titled Who is a better pg/player between them and people start agreeing then this is my jumping off point.

It appears that, like everything, people have different definitions of what they want out of a pg and I respect that. In my opinion, Irving can bring everything to the table that Hill can plus the ability to take over games and be a primary option.

The reason that Hill is a distributor first guy and not a higher scorer is simple, his abilities doesn't allow him to be. he's not a bum or a scrub but he is an average role player who has found his ceiling in the league.

No disrespect intended but it is what it is.

Every coach in the league, even Pop, would take Irving over Hill. Your kidding yourself if you say otherwise.

Irving is paid what he's paid because he is worth it. He's a multiple All-star point guard at age 22...of course he's going to get paid. Hill isn't and shouldn't and because his ability isn't to the level of Irving he is paid less and thus is in position to be on a team.at a better value, cap wise.

This thread has devolved considerably and should really be changed to what type of pg would you want on your team because that's what it boils down to.

Anyway, good luck with the debate good people.
I agree the topic of who is better has run its course but I think it was on the verge of evolving into something much more meaningful. Pity you are done with it. Good talking you.

Munkeysuit
09-06-2014, 06:55 PM
Who gets paid more? and don't tell me that has nothing to do with it! because thats like insinuating you know more than NBA execs and personnel that work hard to figure out what to pay each player. Get Real! you know nothing if you think GHill is a better player or Point Guard.

DemarDerozan
09-06-2014, 09:44 PM
Kyrie Irving 2013-14 stats among PGs

MPG- 35.2 (1st)
PPG- 20.2 (2nd)
FG%- .430 (18th)
3pt%- .358 (25th)
FT%- .861 (6th)
SPG- 1.52 (9th)
TOPG- 2.7 (34th)
Ast/TO- 2.28 (31st)

Based on stats and compared to other PGs he is an inefficient chucker with a terrible asst/TO ratio. He is only really good at getting minutes and stealing the ball every once in a while.

You give Ramon Sessions, Darren Collison or DJ Augustin 35 minutes per night as the #1 option and they'll give you 20/6/3.

For you new CLE fans who are going to say stats aren't that important. Well he hasn't proven that he can win on any competitive platform. Besides exhibition games.

And for those who claim to have watched every CLE game last year and that 80% were close... Well the Cavs were 23rd in point differential.
3 of their 49 losses were by 3 points or less.

Please stop lying to yourselves in believing that Kyrie is a good PG and that the Cavs actually had chemistry last year or began playing better after Bynum was traded. This is just silly now.

DemarDerozan
09-06-2014, 09:54 PM
Is Kyrie better than George Hill. Overall with athleticism and scoring he is. By a lot overall?... I wouldn't say so.

prodigy
09-06-2014, 10:04 PM
Kyrie Irving 2013-14 stats among PGs

MPG- 35.2 (1st)
PPG- 20.2 (2nd)
FG%- .430 (18th)
3pt%- .358 (25th)
FT%- .861 (6th)
SPG- 1.52 (9th)
TOPG- 2.7 (34th)
Ast/TO- 2.28 (31st)

Based on stats and compared to other PGs he is an inefficient chucker with a terrible asst/TO ratio. He is only really good at getting minutes and stealing the ball every on e in a while.

You give Ramon Sessions, Darren Collison or DJ Augustin 35 minutes per night as the #1 option and they'll give you 20/6/3.

For you new CLE fans who are going to say stats aren't that important. Well he hasn't proven that he can win on any competitive platform. Besides exhibition games.

And for those who claim to have watched every CLE game last year and that 80% were close... Well the Cavs were 23rd in point differential.
3 of their 49 losses were by 3 points or less.

Please stop lying to yourselves in believing that Kyrie is a good PG and that the Cavs actually had chemistry last year or began playing better after Bynum was traded. This is just silly now.

Can you go and do those same stats for his 2012-2013 season? Because I'm sure you think its a lame excuse but mike brown was a complete joke when it came to anything thats not bout defense.

BTW cavs were 17-16 once David griffin took over as gm and sat down with Irving and waiters. So they def started playing more as a team.

prodigy
09-06-2014, 10:08 PM
Kyrie Irving 2013-14 stats among PGs

MPG- 35.2 (1st)
PPG- 20.2 (2nd)
FG%- .430 (18th)
3pt%- .358 (25th)
FT%- .861 (6th)
SPG- 1.52 (9th)
TOPG- 2.7 (34th)
Ast/TO- 2.28 (31st)

Based on stats and compared to other PGs he is an inefficient chucker with a terrible asst/TO ratio. He is only really good at getting minutes and stealing the ball every once in a while.

You give Ramon Sessions, Darren Collison or DJ Augustin 35 minutes per night as the #1 option and they'll give you 20/6/3.

For you new CLE fans who are going to say stats aren't that important. Well he hasn't proven that he can win on any competitive platform. Besides exhibition games.

And for those who claim to have watched every CLE game last year and that 80% were close... Well the Cavs were 23rd in point differential.
3 of their 49 losses were by 3 points or less.

Please stop lying to yourselves in believing that Kyrie is a good PG and that the Cavs actually had chemistry last year or began playing better after Bynum was traded. This is just silly now.


Also, if collision, sessions and DJ were doubled and triple teamed because he's only 1 of two guys on the team that could score they would def not avg 20-6-3. Ur not taking everything into consideration.

JLynn943
09-06-2014, 11:29 PM
I agree the topic of who is better has run its course but I think it was on the verge of evolving into something much more meaningful. Pity you are done with it. Good talking you.

Is that why you ignored my post about the evolution of point guards? Just wondering.

FlashBolt
09-06-2014, 11:40 PM
Kyrie Irving 2013-14 stats among PGs

MPG- 35.2 (1st)
PPG- 20.2 (2nd)
FG%- .430 (18th)
3pt%- .358 (25th)
FT%- .861 (6th)
SPG- 1.52 (9th)
TOPG- 2.7 (34th)
Ast/TO- 2.28 (31st)

Based on stats and compared to other PGs he is an inefficient chucker with a terrible asst/TO ratio. He is only really good at getting minutes and stealing the ball every once in a while.

You give Ramon Sessions, Darren Collison or DJ Augustin 35 minutes per night as the #1 option and they'll give you 20/6/3.

For you new CLE fans who are going to say stats aren't that important. Well he hasn't proven that he can win on any competitive platform. Besides exhibition games.

And for those who claim to have watched every CLE game last year and that 80% were close... Well the Cavs were 23rd in point differential.
3 of their 49 losses were by 3 points or less.

Please stop lying to yourselves in believing that Kyrie is a good PG and that the Cavs actually had chemistry last year or began playing better after Bynum was traded. This is just silly now.

None of those guys you mentioned were first option players who had to carry a franchise on their back. Nice try, though. Let's see how good Ramon Sessions/DJ/DC are when the opposing team's game plan is "Stop Ramon/DJ/DC and leave everyone else."

prodigy
09-07-2014, 12:21 AM
Kyrie Irving 2013-14 stats among PGs

MPG- 35.2 (1st)
PPG- 20.2 (2nd)
FG%- .430 (18th)
3pt%- .358 (25th)
FT%- .861 (6th)
SPG- 1.52 (9th)
TOPG- 2.7 (34th)
Ast/TO- 2.28 (31st)

Based on stats and compared to other PGs he is an inefficient chucker with a terrible asst/TO ratio. He is only really good at getting minutes and stealing the ball every once in a while.

You give Ramon Sessions, Darren Collison or DJ Augustin 35 minutes per night as the #1 option and they'll give you 20/6/3.

For you new CLE fans who are going to say stats aren't that important. Well he hasn't proven that he can win on any competitive platform. Besides exhibition games.

And for those who claim to have watched every CLE game last year and that 80% were close... Well the Cavs were 23rd in point differential.
3 of their 49 losses were by 3 points or less.

Please stop lying to yourselves in believing that Kyrie is a good PG and that the Cavs actually had chemistry last year or began playing better after Bynum was traded. This is just silly now.

None of those guys you mentioned were first option players who had to carry a franchise on their back. Nice try, though. Let's see how good Ramon Sessions/DJ/DC are when the opposing team's game plan is "Stop Ramon/DJ/DC and leave everyone else."

In those rankings the guy listed Irving is still top 10 in 4 of the 8 listed lol. And that was his worse season as a pro lol.

Captain Moroni
09-07-2014, 01:41 AM
Both Irving and Hill are better than Rose right now. The quality of NBA point guards is amazing

Crackadalic
09-07-2014, 01:46 AM
Kyrie Irving 2013-14 stats among PGs

MPG- 35.2 (1st)
PPG- 20.2 (2nd)
FG%- .430 (18th)
3pt%- .358 (25th)
FT%- .861 (6th)
SPG- 1.52 (9th)
TOPG- 2.7 (34th)
Ast/TO- 2.28 (31st)

Based on stats and compared to other PGs he is an inefficient chucker with a terrible asst/TO ratio. He is only really good at getting minutes and stealing the ball every once in a while.

You give Ramon Sessions, Darren Collison or DJ Augustin 35 minutes per night as the #1 option and they'll give you 20/6/3.

For you new CLE fans who are going to say stats aren't that important. Well he hasn't proven that he can win on any competitive platform. Besides exhibition games.

And for those who claim to have watched every CLE game last year and that 80% were close... Well the Cavs were 23rd in point differential.
3 of their 49 losses were by 3 points or less.

Please stop lying to yourselves in believing that Kyrie is a good PG and that the Cavs actually had chemistry last year or began playing better after Bynum was traded. This is just silly now.

The Bolded is BS

Go by Per 36 and even per 48 Kyrie beats them all with assist and only is slightly more TO prone but thats it.

None of them even with minutes being projected can score the way Kyrie can score. The only person on that list who is more efficient is Collision but what the hell has he done since he came into the league?

Until I see any of them become the number one scoring option on there team then you can say they are better but until that happens then everything you said is just nonsense like this BS thread on Hill being better then Irving

DemarDerozan
09-07-2014, 02:43 AM
The Bolded is BS

Go by Per 36 and even per 48 Kyrie beats them all with assist and only is slightly more TO prone but thats it.

None of them even with minutes being projected can score the way Kyrie can score. The only person on that list who is more efficient is Collision but what the hell has he done since he came into the league?

Until I see any of them become the number one scoring option on there team then you can say they are better but until that happens then everything you said is just nonsense like this BS thread on Hill being better then Irving

So Kyrie's FG%, 3pt% and terrible asst/TO ratio didn't happen last year? I guess that's BS. Along with CLE having a horrible record and being blown out in the majority of their losses? I guess that's all BS.

DemarDerozan
09-07-2014, 02:45 AM
In those rankings the guy listed Irving is still top 10 in 4 of the 8 listed lol. And that was his worse season as a pro lol.

PPG and SPG are inflated due to MPG.

FlashBolt
09-07-2014, 02:57 AM
So Kyrie's FG%, 3pt% and terrible asst/TO ratio didn't happen last year? I guess that's BS. Along with CLE having a horrible record and being blown out in the majority of their losses? I guess that's all BS.

Again, which top 10 PG had a better cast than Irving? Shut the hell up about this and that. Does Kyrie have Klay Thompson, Iggy, David Lee or Blake, DeAndre, one of the top coaches, a top 3 NBA bench or does he have Duncan, the best coach, Leonard, Manu, and the best bench in NBA? I think not. Even Lowry has a better team than Irving..

DemarDerozan
09-07-2014, 03:34 AM
Again, which top 10 PG had a better cast than Irving? Shut the hell up about this and that. Does Kyrie have Klay Thompson, Iggy, David Lee or Blake, DeAndre, one of the top coaches, a top 3 NBA bench or does he have Duncan, the best coach, Leonard, Manu, and the best bench in NBA? I think not. Even Lowry has a better team than Irving..

Since when are winning games and turnover ratios and subpar shooting percentages considered this and that?

If Kyrie was truly a great PG or even good PG he would have played better and won more games. CP3 literally carried those early Hornets teams to the playoffs year after year. Wall, Dragic and Lowry had comparable teams... When they faced adversity they won games and made the teams better, they didn't pout and contribute to a toxic locker room. You can blame this all on Mike Brown... Who is one of the more passive coaches in the league.

The only fault he had was being offense crazy and letting these immature punks drive the team into the ground.

DemarDerozan
09-07-2014, 03:39 AM
Six months ago the majority of these posters would be complaining about Kyrie making the ASG over more deserving players and talking about his decline.

Just admit that you have changed your thoughts about him because all of the sudden he has LeRingchaser and KLove.

Too many NBA fans care about hype and are willing to jump onto the next big thing/team.

JLeBeau76
09-07-2014, 04:14 AM
Six months ago the majority of these posters would be complaining about Kyrie making the ASG over more deserving players and talking about his decline.

Just admit that you have changed your thoughts about him because all of the sudden he has LeRingchaser and KLove.

Too many NBA fans care about hype and are willing to jump onto the next big thing/team.

(I just can't stay away from this thread..its like typed crack)

I believe that KI is arguably a top ten pg. I will also admit my thoughts have changed on him after this summer.

I'm actually really looking forward to seeing how his game evolves (or devolves....don't think it will but its a possibility) when he doesn't have to be the main focus of opposing teams.

Which raises the question, how many other of the top 10-15 pgs last season were their teams primary offensive option? Due to time constraints I only watched Cavs games last season so I honestly have no firsthand knowledge of the team dynamic of all these other pgs (outside of the obvious of course.).

I say this because it makes a huge difference when you are factoring all the tangible and intangible data into this discussion.

I've never seen KI as a franchise savior and the teams record and problems last season attests to that but I still consider him a top pg and a max guy. I think this wont even be debatable after next season because I think he will finally be in the role that best suits him.

Ok, enough rambling, back to work I go.

DemarDerozan
09-07-2014, 04:24 AM
(I just can't stay away from this thread..its like typed crack)

I believe that KI is arguably a top ten pg. I will also admit my thoughts have changed on him after this summer.

I'm actually really looking forward to seeing how his game evolves (or devolves....don't think it will but its a possibility) when he doesn't have to be the main focus of opposing teams.

Which raises the question, how many other of the top 10-15 pgs last season were their teams primary offensive option? Due to time constraints I only watched Cavs games last season so I honestly have no firsthand knowledge of the team dynamic of all these other pgs (outside of the obvious of course.).

I say this because it makes a huge difference when you are factoring all the tangible and intangible data into this discussion.

I've never seen KI as a franchise savior and the teams record and problems last season attests to that but I still consider him a top pg and a max guy. I think this wont even be debatable after next season because I think he will finally be in the role that best suits him.

Ok, enough rambling, back to work I go.

Thanks for your honest insight Bro. Good luck to your team.

Vee-Rex
09-07-2014, 10:44 PM
Well this thread accomplished what I thought all along. You have people that understand basketball and then you have people who are hating on Kyrie/Cavs. The latter group would take BS to their graves it seems, rather than admit they're goofy/wrong for saying Hill is better.

My grandma could discern the better player between both, regardless of system. Definitely sig worthy... cheers.

WadeKobe
09-07-2014, 10:47 PM
Well this thread accomplished what I thought all along. You have people that understand basketball and then you have people who are hating on Kyrie/Cavs. The latter group would take BS to their graves it seems, rather than admit they're goofy/wrong for saying Hill is better.

My grandma could discern the better player between both, regardless of system. Definitely sig worthy... cheers.

Of course. People are hating on your team. :rolleyes:

IKnowHoops
09-08-2014, 01:22 PM
Since when are winning games and turnover ratios and subpar shooting percentages considered this and that?

If Kyrie was truly a great PG or even good PG he would have played better and won more games. CP3 literally carried those early Hornets teams to the playoffs year after year. Wall, Dragic and Lowry had comparable teams... When they faced adversity they won games and made the teams better, they didn't pout and contribute to a toxic locker room. You can blame this all on Mike Brown... Who is one of the more passive coaches in the league.

The only fault he had was being offense crazy and letting these immature punks drive the team into the ground.

No

IKnowHoops
09-08-2014, 01:25 PM
Six months ago the majority of these posters would be complaining about Kyrie making the ASG over more deserving players and talking about his decline.

Just admit that you have changed your thoughts about him because all of the sudden he has LeRingchaser and KLove.

Too many NBA fans care about hype and are willing to jump onto the next big thing/team.

Seeing as he was the All-Star MVP...No.

Jamiecballer
09-08-2014, 04:31 PM
Is that why you ignored my post about the evolution of point guards? Just wondering.

i did not mean to ignore anything. how far back is it?

Jamiecballer
09-08-2014, 04:35 PM
Well this thread accomplished what I thought all along. You have people that understand basketball and then you have people who are hating on Kyrie/Cavs. The latter group would take BS to their graves it seems, rather than admit they're goofy/wrong for saying Hill is better.

My grandma could discern the better player between both, regardless of system. Definitely sig worthy... cheers.

don't you think if you were going to quote someone in your sig you could at least spell the username properly?

ps i admit only to saying he was a better PG. not player.

Jamiecballer
09-08-2014, 04:36 PM
Seeing as he was the All-Star MVP...No.

you've got a short memory because a lot of people did in fact complain that he was on the team despite not having a season worthy of it...

JLynn943
09-08-2014, 04:37 PM
i did not mean to ignore anything. how far back is it?
It's just a couple of pages. We were talking and then you just stopped lol

Jamiecballer
09-08-2014, 04:40 PM
It's just a couple of pages. We were talking and then you just stopped lol

dude half the time i am posting on my phone with my wife giving me the stink eye. let me have a look see.

JEDean89
09-08-2014, 07:21 PM
Have you watched the Pacers play? George Hill's job is the bring the ball up the court, pass to a wing player, and then spot up in the corner. His job is not to pass the ball to players in scoring position. By comparison, Kyrie Irving brings the ball up, runs a pick n' roll, attempts to penetrate and beat his man, pulls the ball back out and resets, attempts to beat his man again, and if the defense collapses he passes to the open shooter otherwise he takes the shot. Obviously I'm exaggerating, but it should be painfully obvious to anyone with an ounce of basketball knowledge that they play two very different roles.

You are also using archaic stats, PER and FG% have not mattered in half a decade. Hill is 49.7% from 2pt range, 36.5% from 3, and 56.3% TS. Kyrie by contrast is 45.8% from 2, 35.8% from 3, and 53.3% TS. Again, they play very different roles. Hill has an extremely low usage rate, which CAN inflate shooting percentages. EXCEPT, prior years, Hill shot substantially more and had roughly the same or better TS% (-0.6% to +2.5%). This year alone George Hill took 4 less shots a game than the year prior, and Lance Stephenson took 4 more. Hill has shown throughout his career that he can sustain an elevated TS% at higher usage.

Notice, not once have I said Hill is a better player. He plays a role, just like Kyrie plays a role. The problem with this whole thread is that people seem to think one role is more important than another. Sure, Kyrie scores points at twice the rate Hill does, but he also turns over the ball at twice the rate. If you go back and look at any thread I talked about Irving in, I stated emphatically that the Cavs should trade him. Not because he's not talented, because he is. But because he's not worth the money. And he still isn't. George Hill is worth the money he's getting.

the fact that his job on offense is to pass the ball once and then spot up tells me everything i need to know about how good of a player he is.

SPURSFAN1
09-08-2014, 07:33 PM
Kyrie is going on my overrated list. 9th-12th best point guard in the league gets the max lol.

Jamiecballer
09-08-2014, 07:55 PM
Kyrie is going on my overrated list. 9th-12th best point guard in the league gets the max lol.
Definitely tells you how desperate Cleveland was to keep him.

SPURSFAN1
09-08-2014, 08:08 PM
Definitely tells you how desperate Cleveland was to keep him.

Well they had chit players and were desperate to keep kyrie. You need to pay players way more to keep them on a chit team.

Arch Stanton
09-08-2014, 08:45 PM
Well they had chit players and were desperate to keep kyrie. You need to pay players way more to keep them on a chit team.

Well he's 22 years old and Sheridan Hoops disagrees with your ranking - @******: ****** Radio: @DannyLeroux hosts @NateDuncanNBA & @PistonPowered to disuss the Central Division -- http://t.co/5FJqPyiX0b

I noticed no mention of George Hill or Rubio, probably because they aren't very good.

Arch Stanton
09-08-2014, 08:48 PM
^^^ edit wrong link here you go - @sheridanhoops: Top 10 #NBA point guards: Russell Westbrook 3rd, Kyrie Irving 7th, Deron Williams not ranked. From @ChrisBernucca http://t.co/kcdreKMIez

Jamiecballer
09-08-2014, 08:48 PM
Well he's 22 years old and Sheridan Hoops disagrees with your ranking - @******: ****** Radio: @DannyLeroux hosts @NateDuncanNBA & @PistonPowered to disuss the Central Division -- http://t.co/5FJqPyiX0b

I noticed no mention of George Hill or Rubio, probably because they aren't very good.
Easy big guy. Everyone agrees he can become a very good player.

Arch Stanton
09-08-2014, 09:18 PM
Easy big guy. Everyone agrees he can become a very good player.

We'll I wouldn't say everyone.

JLeBeau76
09-08-2014, 09:26 PM
Definitely tells you how desperate Cleveland was to keep him.

'Ello again...

22 years old. Former rookie of the year. 2 time all-star. Locked up for the next six years at under 20 mil a year. Cap is expected to take big leap in two years so this salary wont be so big then.

KI not a franchise savior but he is a max guy based on proven production, fit and potential.

Now bring up lack of playoffs everyone. Best get all that out of your systems while you can.

Jamiecballer
09-08-2014, 09:57 PM
'Ello again...

22 years old. Former rookie of the year. 2 time all-star. Locked up for the next six years at under 20 mil a year. Cap is expected to take big leap in two years so this salary wont be so big then.

KI not a franchise savior but he is a max guy based on proven production, fit and potential.

Now bring up lack of playoffs everyone. Best get all that out of your systems while you can.
I'll agree about the potential bit. Can't agree on proven performance. And fit, what does that have to do with it? Isn't every good player pretty much a fit when the team is terrible? LOL

Based on what he's done its a pretty huge overpayment. He's still sort of riding the wave of hype and potential that followed him into the league. I do think he will make good on it though.

Good point about the cap though. Even if he caps at pretty good it will probably not be a huge problem for them.

I don't attribute playoff success to any one player

JLeBeau76
09-08-2014, 11:44 PM
I'll agree about the potential bit. Can't agree on proven performance. And fit, what does that have to do with it? Isn't every good player pretty much a fit when the team is terrible? LOL

Based on what he's done its a pretty huge overpayment. He's still sort of riding the wave of hype and potential that followed him into the league. I do think he will make good on it though.

Good point about the cap though. Even if he caps at pretty good it will probably not be a huge problem for them.

I don't attribute playoff success to any one player

I said proven production. His overall performance has been lacking mainly, imo, because he isn't a chris paul in the leader department. Production-wise, he can fill a stat sheet pretty well (which if it was easy to do, everyone would be doing it).

I meant fit as in moving forward. An all-star pg to go with an all-star sf and pf. I think his "true" game (how he plays not as the main focus as opposed to previous years in Cleveland) will mesh quite well with Love and LBJ.

I'm not sure about that riding the wave of hype part though. Obviously he was well thought of to be taken first but it wasn't like anyone got to see a big sample size of his ability.

Many players come into the league with huge expectations placed on them, few actually live up to or exceed them. I wouldn't put Irving at exceeding them but considering the state of the franchise the past four years, I would say that he has at least met them in terms of skills and production (not team results of course).

Crackadalic
09-09-2014, 01:19 AM
So Kyrie's FG%, 3pt% and terrible asst/TO ratio didn't happen last year? I guess that's BS. Along with CLE having a horrible record and being blown out in the majority of their losses? I guess that's all BS.

When you have Mike Brown, who has no clue how to run a nba offense, I'm surprise he even had a borderline all star season.

Also you listed B plus point guards on how they can have comparable or better numbers if given the same amount of minutes and just showed how outside a stat or two that none of them could produce the all around stats Kyrie puts up even under per 36 or even per 100 possessions.

SO again until any of them become the number one scoring option and not some 7th/8th man off the bench then I still call BS

2-ONE-5
09-09-2014, 10:14 AM
cant beleive there is 11 pages on this, unreal.

Jamiecballer
09-09-2014, 12:56 PM
I think that is part of it. But, it evolved not only because we have super athletic point guards, but because we have athletes that can do more at several positions and because many successful teams do not rely on one player to create and make plays for others (Spurs, Heat, Clippers, Thunder for example).
i agree. hence why i do not advocate the use of ball dominant point guards. i prefer them to give the ball up easily and often. if you think i am suggesting that the point guard should be the dribbling the air out of the ball looking for someone to pass to then i think you have misunderstood my position.


Why limit what your point guard does when he can do more? This frees up point guards to play a more full offensive game. Meanwhile, on other teams, the point guard is one of the best scorers on the team (as with Kyrie and Isaiah Thomas last year) and is therefore put into the position where he needs to score more than normal.
i am not saying that they should necessarily be limited to passing the ball and waiting on the perimeter for a potential jump shot ala George Hill. attacking the basket is great basketball - staying in front of an uber athletic point guard is hard, hard, hard for any defensive player. what i am saying is that they should be able to use this incredible advantage to draw defenders and create open looks for their teammates much more than they do.

IndyRealist
09-09-2014, 12:58 PM
Edit: nevermind. What's the point?

Vee-Rex
09-09-2014, 06:26 PM
cant beleive there is 11 pages on this, unreal.

It's truly insane, I know.

All I can say is judging by these George Hill pro dudes posts they haven't watched the Cavs play much and thus, they don't understand Kyrie's failings. They didn't see why Kyrie hadn't been efficient last year and refuse to just be a man and admit when wrong. Pretty idiotic and pathetic at the same time.

I think I like the spelling in my sig, so I'll just leave it that way. Cheers dude.

SPURSFAN1
09-09-2014, 09:02 PM
It's truly insane, I know.

All I can say is judging by these George Hill pro dudes posts they haven't watched the Cavs play much and thus, they don't understand Kyrie's failings. They didn't see why Kyrie hadn't been efficient last year and refuse to just be a man and admit when wrong. Pretty idiotic and pathetic at the same time.

I think I like the spelling in my sig, so I'll just leave it that way. Cheers dude.

Rent free hahahahah :laugh2:

SPURSFAN1
09-09-2014, 09:25 PM
Look at my new sig. :laugh: :worthy:

prodigy
09-09-2014, 11:44 PM
Look at my new sig. :laugh: :worthy:

I def do thank them. Because now cavs will most likely be champs. Thanks Duncan!

SPURSFAN1
09-10-2014, 12:00 AM
I def do thank them. Because now cavs will most likely be champs. Thanks Duncan!

Everyone bow down to duncan. :worthy:

IKnowHoops
09-10-2014, 04:25 AM
It's truly insane, I know.

All I can say is judging by these George Hill pro dudes posts they haven't watched the Cavs play much and thus, they don't understand Kyrie's failings. They didn't see why Kyrie hadn't been efficient last year and refuse to just be a man and admit when wrong. Pretty idiotic and pathetic at the same time.

I think I like the spelling in my sig, so I'll just leave it that way. Cheers dude.

And the fact that even with Kyrie's failings, he still outplayed George Hill by a landslide and If the Pacers had Kyrie instead of Hill they would be a better team. This is one of the worst cases Ive seen on PSD. I don't think anyone is really that stupid...but I know that there are plenty of people on PSD that are that biased. So I'm not surprised by this, but this year, I've noticed that Bias/Homerism is through the roof this offseason.

Vee-Rex
09-10-2014, 08:53 AM
Rent free hahahahah :laugh2:

If this the kind of rent you want you can have it for a loooong time lol.

Also, I do thank Duncan and the Spurs. Without 'em we wouldn't have Lebron, I've said it countless times myself. Wonderful franchise despite having a mentally challenged fan here and there lol.

prodigy
09-10-2014, 10:33 AM
I def do thank them. Because now cavs will most likely be champs. Thanks Duncan!

Everyone bow down to duncan. :worthy:

Sounds like you do more then bow down to him...

Quinnsanity
09-10-2014, 01:03 PM
I'm disappointed in you PSD. We could've had so much fun turning George Hill over Kyrie Irving into a thing.

IKnowHoops
09-14-2014, 10:16 PM
:laugh:

D-Leethal
09-15-2014, 12:07 PM
Sometimes that spreadsheet gets shoved a little too far up ones rectum, and when that happens one says idiotic things like "I'd take George Hill over Kyrie Irving".

BoSox47
09-15-2014, 12:44 PM
George Hill WS/48 .080 .142 .136 .152 .177 .154 Career TS% .563 eFG% .511

Kyrie Irving WS/48 .125 .125 .128 Career TS% .548 eFG% .497

2-ONE-5
09-15-2014, 02:19 PM
It's truly insane, I know.

All I can say is judging by these George Hill pro dudes posts they haven't watched the Cavs play much and thus, they don't understand Kyrie's failings. They didn't see why Kyrie hadn't been efficient last year and refuse to just be a man and admit when wrong. Pretty idiotic and pathetic at the same time.

I think I like the spelling in my sig, so I'll just leave it that way. Cheers dude.

dont get me wrong i do think Irving is a tad overrated and im well aware of this **** situation hes been in with the Cavs but to say Geroge Hill is better then Irving is just insainty when Hill is a bottom tier PG whose asked to do nothing

koreancabbage
09-15-2014, 02:24 PM
dont get me wrong i do think Irving is a tad overrated and im well aware of this **** situation hes been in with the Cavs but to say Geroge Hill is better then Irving is just insainty when Hill is a bottom tier PG whose asked to do nothing

or a bottom tier PG, regardless of being asked or not asked to do anything

2-ONE-5
09-15-2014, 02:42 PM
well yea i thought that was implied.

Jamiecballer
09-15-2014, 05:21 PM
Sometimes that spreadsheet gets shoved a little too far up ones rectum, and when that happens one says idiotic things like "I'd take George Hill over Kyrie Irving".
For the sake of argument quote a single poster in this thread that has made such a blanket statement.

Or perhaps it is you with the talking rectum.

bbcmillionaire
09-15-2014, 05:35 PM
Lol threads like this are just.... Sigh I wouldn't pick George hill over grant hill let alone kyrie Irving

prodigy
09-15-2014, 10:22 PM
Sometimes that spreadsheet gets shoved a little too far up ones rectum, and when that happens one says idiotic things like "I'd take George Hill over Kyrie Irving".
For the sake of argument quote a single poster in this thread that has made such a blanket statement.

Or perhaps it is you with the talking rectum.

Ummm that's the reason this whole thread was even made lol.

Jamiecballer
09-15-2014, 11:00 PM
Ummm that's the reason this whole thread was even made lol.
I could be wrong but I haven't seen anybody state it in those black and white terms.

Crackadalic
09-16-2014, 12:28 AM
George Hill WS/48 .080 .142 .136 .152 .177 .154 Career TS% .563 eFG% .511

Kyrie Irving WS/48 .125 .125 .128 Career TS% .548 eFG% .497

This is an example of using advance metrics the wrong way if you don't add context to what your bringing

When George hill is the number one option on a team then We can use those numbers

IKnowHoops
09-16-2014, 01:18 AM
I could be wrong but I haven't seen anybody state it in those black and white terms.

Well the poll at the top asks "who is better Kyrie or Hill" there are 7 saying Hill. Its a black and white question with 7 people going with George.

IndyRealist
09-16-2014, 08:59 AM
This thread devolved into trolling about 5 pages ago. Nobody is convincing anyone at this point, it's a bunch of cavs fans patting eachother on the back.

mightybosstone
09-16-2014, 09:20 AM
Why is this thread still going? Any competent NBA fan would take one look at that poll and immediately select Irving without a second glance. I like Hill, don't get me wrong. He's a very good role player who is productive across the board for the minutes/looks he gets, plays solid defense and is extremely efficient. But productivity and efficiency are relative. George Hill could never be a No. 1, No. 2 or a good No. 3 on a championship caliber basketball team.

Meanwhile, Irving's nowhere near as efficient as Hill, but Hill is not remotely the offensive player Irving is. They're not even in the same stratosphere. We're talking about a guy whose USG% (28.2 to 14.7), PPG (20.8 to 10.3), APG (6.1 to 3.5) and AST% (31.6 to 17.2) are all nearly twice as high as Hill's last season. And Hill's advantage in TS% (56.3 to 53.3) isn't even that high when you consider that Irving took more than twice as many FGA per game last year.

You could play the defense card all you like in this argument, too, but if defense was at a higher premium than offense then Tony Allen would make more money than James Harden. Offense is far more valuable than defense, especially at the guard positions.

I honestly don't know how any competent person could make an argument of Hill over Irving. That's just asinine.

IndyRealist
09-16-2014, 09:47 AM
Simple. I would never pay Irving $15.7m for what he brings. I would pay Hill $8m.

As far as the value of defense, that's an argument from authority. Just because GMs are in charge does not automatically make them right. Defense is an exploitable market inefficiency.

mightybosstone
09-16-2014, 09:59 AM
Simple. I would never pay Irving $15.7m for what he brings. I would pay Hill $8m.
But this isn't a question of value. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it. OP didn't ask "Who is the better value?" He asked "Who is the better player?" And there's absolutely no way you could make a legitimate argument that Hill is the better basketball player.


As far as the value of defense, that's an argument from authority. Just because GMs are in charge does not automatically make them right. Defense is an exploitable market inefficiency.
So answer me this question, then. Assuming both men made the same amount of money and age and rosters are not factors, would you rather have a relatively efficient 20/6/4/2 PG who plays no defense or a relatively efficient 10/4/4/1 PG who is an above average defender, but certainly not elite? If you're saying you'd rather have the second guy, I'd love to understand the reasoning behind it.

Basically, I think you're biased because you're a Pacers fan and clearly don't like Irving. I'm a Rockets fan, and I love Patrick Beverley. There's a lot of guys I wouldn't trade Pat for, like Rondo for example. But I would trade Beverley in a heartbeat for Irving and wouldn't think twice about it, and I would argue that Beverley is a better defender than Hill.

Vee-Rex
09-16-2014, 10:05 AM
I could be wrong but I haven't seen anybody state it in those black and white terms.

Saying stuff like

'I would take George Hill over Kyrie Irving because of win shares'

'I would take George Hill over Kyrie Irving because he's good at bringing the ball up the court and passing it'

'I would take George Hill over Kyrie Irving because Irving makes more and you get better value for Hill'

'I would take George Hill over Kyrie Irving because he fits better with the Spurs' -Spursfan1

does not make it any better. All are ridiculous excuses for anyone trying to justify the silly notion that Hill would be better than Irving in any given circumstance.

Irving makes twice as much because he's twice as better. IndyRealist brings money into the equation... if you're going to bring contracts into the equation then you need to bring youth and potential into it as well, since that heavily factors into why one person may get paid more than another.

Paul Pierce and Ray Allen were never known as decent defenders until their team became championship level in Boston. That example fits with many others. I have no doubt Kyrie will improve defensively this year. As is, given Kyrie's all-star level play and superstar potential, I'd take Irving and his contract 10/10 over Hill and his, whether I'm the owner of the Spurs, Bulls, 76ers, or Kings.

This thread is this long because people on PSD can't man up and just admit when their arguments are failing.

prodigy
09-16-2014, 01:23 PM
George hill makes 8mill? Wow

king4day
09-16-2014, 02:29 PM
Had I seen this on day one it would have been closed.
Better late then never.