George Hill

[Shaquille O'Neal]

current rating : 77

suggested rating :80

He is the one orchestrating the no.1 seed on the east right now.

[Walt Frazier]

Gimme more. His stats are not impressive, and he's arguably gotten worse since last season. Just b/c he plays PG for them doesn't mean he's orchestrating them, with his 3.5 assists per game.

What does he do that makes him an 80? "Orchestrating" just doesn't justify anything to me.

[Jeremiah Hill]

That team wins based on grit and defense, there offense is about the same as the mike brown coached Cavs.

[Charles Barkley]

6'3 PG, 10-3-3 in PPG, APG, and RPG. Gets about a steal a game, doesn't turn it over a whole lot. 44/36/80 % slash line this season. I'd say he is deserving of an 80

[Walt Frazier]

Meh. Charles just laid out his stats. Personally I'd much rather have Rubio's elite assists and better rebounds, and he scores about the same per game. Maybe I'm alone there, and I don't think George Hill is really a PG, what kind of PG gets 3 assists per game? I think he's solid but none of those %'s are all that great, they're just average, and he doesn't score well or rebound well or rack up assists.

There are other players at an 80 that I like a lot more like IT2 and Rubio, so I'm going to say leave George at a 77.

[Brian Scalabrine]

77 seems good

[Brian Scalabrine]

He's honestly pretty average

[Jeremiah Hill]

Give him a boost in strength maybe but to be honest, we are living in the golden age of PGs and George Hill during any other time would have been considered a good point guard, but in all reality compared to "average" point guards like Kemba Walker or Ricky Rubio he's pretty much just Meh. He is a jack of all trades and a master of none, and a great example of what a PG that can shoot the 3 can do for a team. Ricky Rubio is so bad at shooting that team's opposing guards will sit practically on the freethrow line while guarding him. (over-exaggeration). I'd say he's probably a 78 but that's not really reason enough to change him. There are higher priority guys.

[Larry Bird]

Three player comparison:

Player A - .460 FG% - .343 3P% - 15.9 PPG - 2.5 RPG - 7 APG - 20.64 PER - 86 Rating

Player B - .446 FG% - .386 3P% - 15.8 PPG - 3 RPG - 5.4 APG - 18.61 PER - 86 Rating

Player C - .477 FG% - .358 3P% - 16.1 PPG - 4.2 RPG - 5.1 APG - 21.52 PER - 77 Rating

Taking out the players names.
Each of these players are relatively equal.
Player A has better assist numbers.
Player B is a better 3 point shooter.
Player C has better rebounding numbers but worse assist numbers than player A.
Player C has better rebounding, but worse assist than Player B.
Player B has better FG%, but worse 3P%.

These three players are all relatively equal except for one thing.
Player A and Player B are rated at an 86. Player C is rated at 77.

[Walt Frazier]

Apr 20, 2015 19:24:40 GMT Larry Bird said:

Three player comparison:

Player A - .460 FG% - .343 3P% - 15.9 PPG - 2.5 RPG - 7 APG - 20.64 PER - 86 Rating

Player B - .446 FG% - .386 3P% - 15.8 PPG - 3 RPG - 5.4 APG - 18.61 PER - 86 Rating

Player C - .477 FG% - .358 3P% - 16.1 PPG - 4.2 RPG - 5.1 APG - 21.52 PER - 77 Rating

Taking out the players names.
Each of these players are relatively equal.
Player A has better assist numbers.
Player B is a better 3 point shooter.
Player C has better rebounding numbers but worse assist numbers than player A.
Player C has better rebounding, but worse assist than Player B.
Player B has better FG%, but worse 3P%.

These three players are all relatively equal except for one thing.
Player A and Player B are rated at an 86. Player C is rated at 77.

Why leave out FT%, Steals, and Blocks? Plus you can get to similar stats in different ways, how are they athletically?

[Larry Bird]

Player A - 1.7 SPG - 0.4 BPG - .862 FT%
Quick and bouncy point guard. Excellent with the dribble penetration. Can finish at the basket or dish it out.

Player B - 1.3 SPG - 0.2 BPG - .859 FT%
Very quick and smart. Can get to the basket. Great ballhandler. A true point guard.

Player C - 1.0 SPG - 0.3 BPG - .790 FT%
Pretty quick, with long arms. Good at getting to the basket. Good ballhandler.

[Larry Bird]

Upon this comparison:
Player A is better at steals, assists, and FT%, Player C has better FG% ,3P% and rebounds.
Player B is better at 3P% and FT%, Player C has better FG% and better rebounds.
Player A is better FG%, assists, and steals, Player B is better a better 3 point shooter and rebounder.

[Deleted]

Silly Larry performance doesn't matter in stock watch threads

[Larry Bird]

So what does matter, personal preference and the real life team they play for.

I believe I have more than proven that Player A, Player B, and Player C should each be rated evenly.

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2015 14:53:46 GMT Larry Bird said:

So what does matter, personal preference and the real life team they play for.

I believe I have more than proven that Player A, Player B, and Player C should each be rated evenly.

I'm not sure what most of the ratings are based on

[Deleted]

Anyway, 82 for mr. hill

[Larry Bird]

86, same as the other two in the comparison.

[Kevin Hollis]

78

[Brian Scalabrine]

Apr 21, 2015 15:17:11 GMT Larry Bird said:

86, same as the other two in the comparison.

Who are the other two?

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2015 16:05:48 GMT Brian Scalabrine said:

Apr 21, 2015 15:17:11 GMT Larry Bird said:

86, same as the other two in the comparison.

Who are the other two?

Mike Conley and Jeff Teague

[Alex English]

79. George Hill is not on the level of Teague and Conley. His stats are inflated because he was the primary beneficiary from Paul George being out. Lets do Larry Bird's comparison with last year's stats:

Player A - .438 FG% - .329 3P% - 16.5 PPG - 2.6 RPG - 6.7 APG - 17.1 PER - 86 Rating

Player B - .450 FG% - .361 3P% - 17.2 PPG - 2.9 RPG - 6.0 APG - 20.0 PER - 86 Rating

Player C - .442 FG% - .365 3P% - 10.3 PPG - 3.7 RPG - 3.5 APG - 13.4 PER - 77 Rating

It's pretty obvious now which one is George Hill. Conley and Teague were part of the huge group of point guards that got boosted in the last year, they may be a little higher than they deserve, but they're record over their whole career is significantly better than Hill. Conley and Teague also post their numbers for very good teams while Hill doesn't. But he did have a very good year, and I consider him a low end starter, so I'll vote 79.

[Larry Bird]

Alex, you're saying that a player can't improve.
If he is the primary benefactor, why is he playing less minutes per game than he did when George was healthy?
Also, if he is their main guy, with George out, you would think the opposing team's defense would pay more attention to him. Why did his FG% increase while taking more shots if the opposing teams are guarding him more?

[Alex English]

Apr 21, 2015 16:57:53 GMT Larry Bird said:

Alex, you're saying that a player can't improve.
If he is the primary benefactor, why is he playing less minutes per game than he did when George was healthy?
Also, if he is their main guy, with George out, you would think the opposing team's defense would pay more attention to him. Why did his FG% increase while taking more shots if the opposing teams are guarding him more?

I'm not saying a player can't improve. I'm saying I don't believe George Hill really did improve. I also don't mean he benefited in terms of playing more, I mean he had a much larger role in the offense. Last year he averaged 8.1 attempts per game, which went up to a career high 12.4 this year.

He also only played in 43 games this year, and you want that to be held up with equal value to what Conley and Teague have been doing for years, while we're supposed to ignore Hill's awful season last year and average ones for years before that?

Improvement is a long term thing. Ratings shouldn't reflect how a player is playing this month, they should represent the player's real overall talent level. NBA Live will sim game by game fluctuations. If Hill plays at this level or better next year then he'll earn an 80+ rating.

This is kind of similar to, dare I say it, Hassan Whiteside. Who funnily enough played in more games this year than George Hill. Career stats of what Whiteside put up as a starter this year would be worth a rating in the mid 80s. But he only did it for half a season, as did George Hill.

[Brian Scalabrine]

79 agree with alex

[Larry Bird]

When you say that you are not going to count what he did this year and only base your rating upon what he did in the past is saying that he cant improve. The numbers are there to prove that he did. And now, because he is the better player on his team, he is discounted because the players around him were injured?

[Larry Bird]

"Improvement is a long term thing. Ratings shouldn't reflect how a player is playing this month, they should represent the player's real overall talent level. NBA Live will sim game by game fluctuations. If Hill plays at this level or better next year then he'll earn an 80+ rating."

Then why the heck are we doing this rating thing anyway?
All we're really doing is changing the players' ratings based upon how they are doing this season.

NBA Live will sim game by game fluctuations. So, let's let the professionals do their jobs and when the new game with ratings done by people who are paid to actually look at stats comes out, then we should make a wholesale change.

[Alex English]

I am taking what he did this year as part of my rating. 10, 3 and 3 for a starting point guard is not worthy of a 79 rating. What I'm not doing is basing everything on this season. The only way there is any kind of argument to say Hill, Teague and Conley are all equal is to ignore everything but this year.

I feel like you are taking the most extreme interpretations of my arguments. Players shouldn't be rated based on weekly performances. But waiting for new ratings from NBA Live or whoever can also be too long. There is a balance in between those two choices. Also, maybe a side point, but I don't think EA or 2K are very good at doing ratings. It seems like they just sort players based on mentions by ESPN and rate them that way. I think we do a much better job.

My vote is for a 79. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[James Kay]

80

[Walt Frazier]

79 for me

[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]

80 ^^