Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Knicks411, post: 3370905, member: 767"]
I can see it either way.

Let me defend Hill on that point a little on the all NBA issue.  I think the league was stronger at  than G in that period; Hill made second team in 96, 98, 99, and 00, and first team in 97.  in 96, the first team all league  were Scottie Pippen and Karl Malone.  League may have been down, but those are 2 legit HOF guys.  In 97, he actually beat out Scottie Pippen for first team.  In 98-00, the first team  were Duncan/Malone, Duncan/Malone, Duncan/Garnett.  That's a hell of a  tandem.

Penny made first team in 95 and 96.  In 95, the second team, the guys he effectively beat out, were Gary Payton and Mitch Richmond.  Payton was great, not at the level of the  mentioned above, but great.  Richmond?  Meh
96, it was Payton and Stockton, a pretty strong pairing.  In 97, he was third team, beaten out by Tim Hardaway and Jordan for first team, and Richmond and Payton for second.  It's a minor point, but I would say Hill had tougher competition at the  spot than Penny at G.

Anyway, even though one was nominally a  and the other a PG, they are really two pretty similar players.  Both were essentially PG for their teams.  Penny listed at 6-7, Hill 6-8.  Neither guy really a threat from 3.

I think the pro Penny argument is probably that Hill was probably more fully formed as a player, he came into the league at an older age, he maybe wasn't as hyper athletic as Penny; basically, the (very high) level he was at was basically the level he would peak at?  Whereas Penny maybe had some more room to develop as a player?  Flipside to that is, Hill's last healthy season, he averaged 26-6-5 on 49% shooting.  That is a pretty monster player.  And i wonder what his career looks like if spends some time with early Shaq.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?