1. Every coach would have a multi-year plan. e.g., for the Hawks, it would be planning for a future after Campbell and Saville (Coenraad and naturalising Gruber to potentially bring through a SF import maybe). They've got a good mix during these years though, so not many complain. The Kings would have aimed to blood Cooper and Madgen while Ryan shouldered the scoring load, though that didn't really work out and Madgen has outperformed Ryan easily. The first year of the 36ers plan hasn't been much of a success though.

2. It would be very difficult to clean out a team given that not every player is available in an off-season (and certainly not most of the good ones) and that coaxing a player across means spending up and coming up against the cap. I don't think a team could spend up to coax more than a few strong players in a given season. Multi-year deals will almost certainly grow year-on-year which can limit recruiting too. Rest have to be brought across because of their potential or they are perceived as under-appreciated in their current team. Not saying that the 36ers couldn't have recruited better this off-season because they definitely could have.

3. When Hill has been on court over the course of the season and thus on average in those games, the 36ers have outscored the other team. This is fact, and it doesn't hold true for pretty much the rest of the team (I think save for Harris who's barely played and Daly who's played limited minutes).

Hill starts and has played third-most minutes for a team with a losing record. Roughly speaking, when Hill's been on court, the 36ers have built up a net lead of around 30-35 points. Over the course of the season, the net result for the 36ers has been about -80ish points. So, when Hill's been on the bench over the games to date this season, the 36ers have fallen behind by around 110 points in total. Nice work singling him out as a 'lost cause'.

If the Sixers cut Brad Hill you could almost guarantee that he would come back to Adelaide on another team and kill you every game and then maybe you would realize that life after Brad Hill isn't what all the whingers and complainers made it out to be ;)

I just can't believe how many 6er fans hate on Brad Hill.

The facts are that Hill has been one of the shining lights on what has been an otherwise disappointing season. He has improved his decision making under Clarke and therefore increased his effectiveness when on court.

Isaac has run a heap of numbers from this season that support Hill's importance and positive contribution to the team.

I'm not suggesting that others cannot have an opinion otherwise, however put up some compelling facts to support your claims against Hill.

Isaac, I think this needs to be banded into all the other threads to make the "Ultimate Sixers whinge thread".

I was a Hill hater for the previous 2 seasons because he wasn't do anything useful with the time on court he was given. With the extra minutes this season, even I have to say he's improved. Better scorer, finishes the majority of his layups now; good rebounder if he's in a position to.

From a direct look, Ng and Hill have been the most improved players on the team this year; even I notice an improvement on Balls Post defence. It's still not the best, but he's getting better.

Hill and Ng's +/- numbers over the course of last season weren't horrible either. Both played reasonable minutes and Ng started for a few games I think. Remember, for the +/- doubters, this is over the course of a full season, not just a single game.

I too don't understand the Hill hate the last home game he started the first 4 minutes and was almost our best player then didn't get on court until the start of the second half played the first 4 minutes and again was very good and didn't get on until the final seconds. But saying if people just don't like a player unless the score 20+ points they are always going to bag them.

If we are better with Hill on the court why isnt he getting more minutes??

Isaac, sorry; but I'm not a believer in the efficiency system for Basketball. Just doesn't set right that someone can be brought on for 30 seconds during a 10-0 run and walk of with -10 for the night just because of the timing of the sub. It doesn't reflect the talent level properly nor how they play.

Big Sexy, the hate wasn't that he wasn't scoring so much; for me it was alot of the little things. He'd have an open layup and he'd put too much effort on it and miss. Something you'd expect him to make 10/10. He also took alot of shots from the arc he just didn't get near on (lots of airballs). And he had quite a number of situations where he would bring the ball up the court and make a poor decision and cause a turnover.

Since last year, he's making more shots; contested shots at that; he's a better perimeter shooter than last season and he's either up the far end of the court when posession starts or he plays smarter when bringing it up the court.

While the Efficency stat says he's been consistent; the play and stats say otherwise. That's why I say he's probably the most improved.

Not a lotta difference between Bruce and Howard
Carter and Shannon.
Carter/Bruce not at their peak with time outta the game n injuries.

I used to say, on here , a few seasons ago , that fans don't see the best of Hill.
Played better away, than home, and we had Schenscher,Hodge etc. for 11 and 3 at home and 3 and 11 away.

Hill has improved greatly this year no doubt,
people need to forget his dads a owner and judge him on whats hes doing on the court,

only thing i would like to see with him is his turnovers drop, apart from that i think hes been doing great this year

Thomo he is averaging 1 turnover a game. Not much room for improvement there.
He is also ranked 3rd in the league for steals and is one steal off of being 2nd to Damo

your mumma
He is not ranked 3rd in steals.

Hill is a good player and deserves to be in the team.
The 36ers are a poorly coached team and need 2 new point guards.
Carter and Bruce are not smart enough and make really poor decisions and have no idea how to run a team. They are back up 2s at best.
Daly is a long way off and too small for the NBLs bigger guards.
Get Shensch back or a smarter center than Johnstone?

these stats say he is, had no reason to doubt them.

http://nbl.pro-stats.com.au/proball/web/player_rankings?yr=2011&rt=LT&fc=M5

Your mumma, that stat may well be right. But when checking the league leaders in turnovers I noted that Will Blalock apparently plays for Adelaide, which makes me somewhat concerned about the accuracy of the rest.

XY i think you have uncovered THE reason for the sixers success

Sixers have been there abouts in most games, a bit of luck with injuries and they would be in playoffs.

Not bad when you consider the lack of great inside play, imports who lack major impact and aussie content is made up of average players in their position, not great, not bad just average.

Imagine if both imports and one aussie player on the roster were impact players? The the average guys would be able to do their thing and support the studs...

Marty, that floats in one game, but over the course of 20 or more? And when a player is third in total minutes and the only starter contributing positively? You have to start to wonder.

The game is about outscoring the other team and when he's on court, they have a tendency to do that. Last year, he wasn't far off the same.

True Isaac, but you can still be the only contributing factor to a team on the court and get a negative simply because of the efforts the rest of the team put in.

While I agree in a normal situation over 20+ games you could take into account the +/-, at the rate Marty subs players in game, I tend to lean towards my way of thinking.

But still, I don't really believe the Eff. stat tells you everything about how a player is really going, just as there isn't a stat for hustle and effort and being a defensive lockdown on a player.

Back to the +/-, if you had to blame anything on Balls' large sinkhole on the stat, I'd blame the lack of any 2nd offensive threat on the team to that. We've seen in enough games when someone like Howard, Shannon or Ng go off, that Ballinger usually equals or beats their score due to the lapse in defence.

If he was to get another offensive threat, like a 2008 Bruce or Schensher (or dare I say.... Hodge) then that stat would be alot lower, if not a low positive.

The season we had Schenscher Bruce Hodge , we won about 9 straight at home and lost about 9 straight on the road. A Championship team at home that couldn't win away. That was frustrating.

While Cornesy said , last nite, on radio that probably part of the lack of success for basketball
netball and perhaps soccer , - is the lack of player loyality.. - where it's hard to follow with the players moving on , every year.

Marty, you can, but remember that over the course of 20ish games, that will even out and apply to everyone. The subs, the dodgy runs you happen to be part of - do you really think those are going to randomly hit or miss just one player?

And then home/away disparities? +/- will help capture (to some extent) hustle. If your hustle is directly contributing to a lead, it'll show up.

On Balls, say he's on with Hill and (as you suggest) has no second-in-charge. What happens to Hill's numbers when Balls goes off? Now Hill has no top dog out there.

Last year we had Gilchrist who averaged 16.9 PPG in 31 MPG before getting injured. That 16.9 PPG would be good for #1 in the 36ers this year and 6th in the NBL. Ballinger was -100.

Now, there is a tendency for major MPG players to suffer heavily on losing teams so I am not talking about Ballinger here, but Hill whose +/- this year and last must be suggesting something, and I don't think it's "lost cause."

And I agree Isaac. As I said earlier, I was on the Hill-bashing band wagon for the last two seasons.

However, he's improved significantly since last year in alot of areas I used to complain about. Even though his listed +/- has been steady, it doesn't truly represent his improvement.

Guess to summarise, +/- is a good calculation of their affect on the team as a whole, but mis-represents their individual efforts.

My comments were more towards the Black Hole that Balls has against him rather than Hill.

I still dont agree with all this + -s stiff.
One can see who plays well and when
the team is doing better when a player enters the court.
The + -s stuff is not accurate of all impact? that being negative or
positive?
Marty earlier in the year on TV referred to the NBL being a bush league!
He is struggling as coach in this so called Bush league.
Maybe its not all the players fault or their lack of point guards>

Let's face it, good teams win on the road. Looking at the last few seasons, teams in the top 4 have won 84% at home and 55% on the road. For those outside top 4, it is 55% and 24%.

Not including this season, I have the Sixers at 67% and 27% over the last 7 seasons. We have always been woeful on the road (25%, 31%, 31%, 24%, 33%, 20%, 21%) and 9% this year. Our weakness has been hidden by great home performances, but it about time to talk about the elephant in the room.

The Sixers need to win 30% more games to see any finals action, and the away games are where we need to start. At this level, basketball is 90% mental and if they haven't already, I believe they need to get the sports pysch in to get them out of the rut.

I'm another one who really thinks the crap Brad Hill cops on this forum has no grounds other than certain people just not liking the guy. I was there last game against Cairns and when Hill spent most of his time on court (1st & 3rd periods) the 36ers were winning rather easily. Hill scored 9 of our first 11 points of the game and was almost single handed in keeping the team in front of the Taipans at that point. In the 3rd he combined very well with Shannon & Johnson and we actually built up to an 18 point lead at one stage before going into the last break up by 15. Suddenly the 6 or 7 players mostly used be Clarke in the 3rd, including Hill, who got us that lead were sitting on the bench in the last period and by the time Hill, Johnson, Ballinger etc got back into the game for some quality minutes, the horse had bolted and the Taipans confidence was soaring and Adelaide just didn't have the defensive players to stop them scoring. It also helped the Taipans cause that the 36ers have this great inability to penetrate a zone defense to save themselves, hence we only scored 7 lousy points and the snakes scored 27.

But seriously, give the guy a break. Brad Hill may not be our best player week in, week out, but he's far from out worst performer.

When you look at the teams/individuals state there is one glaring stat that clearly shows why this team finds it hard to win. We have only 1 current player on the roster scoring at over 10 points a game (Ballinger @ 15.8ppg. Next best is Eddie Shannon on 9.7). If the team is not scoring points, it will have a hard time winning anything.