Grant Hill’s rookie year isn’t far off of Pippen’s line and if you look at each year of Grant Hill, I like all of his year’s better.  His rebounding and assists take their biggest dip in the 6th year but he averaged his most points.

But since you say all of years 2-6 were better, let’s look at it year-by-year:

Year 2: half an assist more for Hill, much lower points, blocks, steals, FG% (advantage Pippen–easily)
Year 3: one assist more for Hill, somewhat lower points, rebounds, blocks, much lower steals (advantage Pippen–but not by so much)
Year 4: was Hill significantly better in any way? better stats across the board for Pippen except .4 lower apg (big advantage for Pippen again)
Year 5: comparable stats to Pippen’s but significantly higher assists with significantly lower rebounds and steals (small advantage Pippen)
Year 6: Hill has higher scoring than Pippen but significantly lower rebounds and steals (advantage Pippen)

Which of these years was better than Pippen’s 93-94 season? And more importantly, how was it better? Hill got more assists but tended to be beaten in most other categories. Now, I recognize that it is unfair to compare all his seasons to Pippen’s best season ever, but you were the one who claimed Hill had 5 seasons better than it. I just don’t see how. Hill’s best year statistically was his third season.

Hill 96-97 vs Pippen 93-94:
points: Pippen by 2.4
rebounds: Pippen by 0.5
assists: Hill by 1.1
steals: Pippen by 1.3
blocks: Pippen by 0.3
FG%: Hill by 0.5%

I could see claiming Hill wins this matchup, but only by the slimmest of margins. And this was the single best season for Hill.

As I said, his best statistical year was 93-94. Both players obviously contributed way more than just what their stats say. But it is worth bearing in mind that stats are primarily about offense. Hill was no slouch on defense, but anyone would have said his offensive value outweighed his defensive value. The opposite would be said of Pippen.

My point was never that Pippen would wipe the floor with Hill. Merely that you are wrong when you say he came into the league a better player than Pippen ever was.

Also, I hardly remember the stats off the top of my head, so I looked them up. And I did screw up in that regard as I accidentally looked at Hill’s dreb column instead of treb column. So that probably makes enough of a difference to shift over the best statistical season of each into Hill’s favor. But again, not by a landslide or anything.

How was Hill a much better scorer? He had one season over 22 ppg. Most of his prime, he was around 21 ppg. Most of Pippen’s prime, he was around 19 ppg. Playing next to Jordan is more than enough to explain that 2 point discrepancy. Hill was not a better rebounder. he rebounded at a better rate for two seasons. So his rebounding peak was higher, but his average rebounding through his prime seasons was lower.

Like I said, I don’t know if I agree, but I certainly can’t make a strong case against the idea that at their primes, Hill was the better player of the two. That’s a totally reasonable statement. But he did not best Pippen’s near MVP season numbers for 5 years. Each of those 5 years, he bested Pippen’s numbers in at least one category, often two. But look at whatever stats you want (simple or advanced) as long as you look at the whole set and not just one thing. Their numbers were comparable throughout their primes. Pippen has the edge overall because his prime lasted longer, he got championships, and he was the better defender which doesn’t show up much in stats (but what stats it does show itself in, blocks and steals, he killed Hill on).

If you were a Pistons fan during the 90s it would have been obvious to you that Hill was better than Pippen right away and definitely throughout his 2nd to 6th seasons.
As for better small forwards than Pippen?  Here goes.
Bird, James, Dr. J, Baylor, Havlicek, Barry were all much better.  Hill and King were better when healthy and Wilkins, Cunningham and Worthy were probably better too but are more comparable.

I have no problem conceding that Hill’s peak was higher than Pippen’s, though I think they were close. But as I said earlier, Pippen clearly belongs higher on any all-time rankings just because he maintained a high level of play much longer.

Durant is similar. He may be better now than Pippen ever was, but he has a ways to go to catch Pippen on any all-time list because he just doesn’t yet have the longevity on his resume. This is similar to how LeBron is undoubtedly the superior player to Kobe. But Kobe remains, for now, ahead of him on any reasonable all-time ranking.

And it seems we mostly agree on the who was better list. I’d have to disagree about Havlicek and Barry but whatever. So I could put him 5th all-time among SFs and you might put him as low as 10th. Still an all-time great.

Also, Cunningham was a PF. Worthy was significantly worse than Pippen. Offensively comparable, but not nearly the defender. Wilkins, Havlicek, Barry, and Pippen would all be in the same tier, but Pippen gets a bump for being the second best player in the second greatest dynasty in NBA history. Fair or not, Championships count toward a player’s reputation for greatness (if not, the Russel/Wilt debate wouldn’t even be close–and not favoring Russel either).

You’re right, I forgot to mention that for Hondo. That was my bad. I often make mistakes, but the message remains the same. There have only been a handful of better SFs ever than Pippen.