Q. Great article on George Hill. Thanks for the praise that he deserved. One of the best for the Pacers. I do wonder how Billy Keller stacked up against those you listed in the article? Or is that classified as the old ABA game as well.

— Rex

A. I started to write that I didn't include Keller in the conversation of previous point guards because I consider him a shooting guard. A 5-10 shooting guard, but a shooting guard just the same. Then I got to thinking about it and wondered what he considered himself to be. So I called him.

Here's what he said:

"I was more of a point-shooting guard. I was both positions. But really back then, we didn't call it point guard or shooting guard. I was a point guard but also a shooting guard."

Confusing, right? Keller is remembered primarily as a 3-point shooter. He was the best the Pacers had in the ABA era, hitting 34 percent for his seven-year career. That might not sound like much by today's standards, but it was better than Rick Mount (31 percent) or Roger Brown (32 percent) shot it.

You have to keep in mind, players of that era didn't grow up practicing a 3-point shot, so when they reached the ABA it was a new, exotic weapon. As the years passed they grew more familiar with it.

Keller – who started about one-fourth of the games in which he played – averaged 3.6 assists and 1.7 turnovers. Freddie Lewis, who I think of more as a point guard, averaged 4 assists and 2.3 turnovers. So you can call them what you want. In that era, they were just called guards, and didn't have specific roles.

Q. Good piece on George Hill. Frank Vogel didn't use him right. It was the Pacers' loss. I hope he really shines in Utah.

— Hilliard

A. Thanks, but I'm not sure Vogel didn't use him correctly.

Hill was versatile and willing to play different roles, so it made sense to move him around within the offense. Hill had to sacrifice so others could get more shots on the teams that reached the Eastern Conference Finals, and he did it again last season when Monta Ellis was given the reins of the offense. I can understand Vogel's thinking. Keep in mind, Hill refused to consider himself a point guard, which might have affected how he was used and how he played.

Q. I loved your column on George Hill. Fantastic piece and right on! As someone who understands basketball - and I say that because I correctly answer the simple question that separates the confused from those who understand basic basketball: "Who is better, GH3 or Lance Stephenson?" - it has been frustrating watching all of the constant criticism over Hill the last few years.

...Had the Pacers simply given GH3 the ball, settled with a shooter at the two position, even if the offense didn't reach Spurs levels, all it needed to do was dip down to 8th or 9th - something it only did in one short period - the 43 games George Hill ran the offense in 2014-15.

So while things move on, and Hill will finally once and for all prove he is quite competent, I cannot help but be dismayed by all of the writings that have come out of the woodwork to point out "George Hill is really underrated" (Zach Lowe), and Hill is under-appreciated, and so forth. Where were these writings three years ago? There was a mountain of evidence that suggested that George Hill, the 6-1 guard with freakish long arms, shooting, defense and efficiency, was a much better player than the role he was given - yet the media both local and nationally sat silently.

In fact, I'd argue the media personnel made it worse - there was nothing more infuriating than every year - while Lance averaged 9 points, or Roy lacked consistency, or West was on and off defensively, or PG lacked efficiency, the bench and the starting lineup severely lacked shooting, but what was the question: "Are you going after a real point guard?" Almost confirming and reiterating the argument that, since George Hill clearly wasn't John Wall, the prototype point guard, then he must be the Pacers' problem, not the myriad of other issues that plagued the Pacers. (Not to mention the irony that George Hill destroyed John Wall on defense in the playoffs).

I can't help but point out how complicit the media was in all of this - the dumbest are the loudest. When these absurd ideas about George Hill were allowed to permeate, it became a reality that the Pacers accepted, even if it was on a subconscious level.

The problem continues - and will continue for the foreseeable future until Indiana's uneducated media finally says something. Not once did the media make it quite clear that Hill was plenty aggressive - he was moved to the corner! Not once did the media make it quite clear you cannot criticize Hill for his lack of ability to play "point" when he was moved over as an off ball guard before he had an opportunity to prove himself!

Anywho - I appreciate the column because it is about time someone showed some appreciation for someone who probably could have been an All-Star in a weak conference (yes 19 and 6 would have gotten him an All-Star bid, and yes, people who flat out destroy All-Stars John Wall and Kyle Lowry one on one over an entire series are good enough to be an All-Star).

If Larry Bird is criticized nonstop for his teams' lack of shooting, he might actually stop signing combo guards who can't shoot, and bring some shooters in who will help this team compete. As it stands, the Pacers, although it has been an exciting offseason, they'll have an offense ranked 20th or worse this season, and that doesn't translate to wins. If Turner turns into a serious deep threat, he may overcome the flawed philosophy though that would mean an offense ranked roughly 10-15th, which still isn't good enough.

Thanks and sorry for the endless rambling!

— Matthew

A. There's no question here, but I found your comments interesting. I don't go to some of the extremes you do, but believe you make some good points.

The teams that reached the conference finals in 2013 and '14 were decent 3-point shooting teams, hovering around 35 percent. They were outstanding defensive teams, though, with really good balance, and that's what propelled them. You could have brought in better shooters, but likely would have given up something in other areas. Stephenson, by the way, averaged 13.8 points his final season, and hit 35 percent of his 3-point shots, so he worked out pretty well as the "shooting" guard.

I agree with your point about the media, though. It was weird to me how so many people were hung up on Hill's aggressiveness. As I wrote and said many times, it's difficult to be aggressive when you're told to go stand in the corner, or are expected to defer to other scorers. That didn't seem so difficult to comprehend, but it certainly went over the head of some. I didn't hear that complaint two seasons ago, when injuries forced Hill into a more traditional point guard role, and allowed him to score more.

But, again, Hill, invited the criticism to a degree with his low-key demeanor and refusal to embrace being a point guard. It will be interesting to see how he plays in Utah, in a different system with different teammates, and in a contract year.

Also, I don't believe criticism will impact how Bird and his staff put together the roster. He sees every game and every homecourt practice, and obviously believes he knows more about the team's needs than anyone else. He should feel that way. He also knows he can't get every player he might want to add to the roster. But I do agree the team needs another serious 3-point threat.

Q. OK, sorry, but I have another mailbag question. Has there been any talk of Joe Young being more of a shooting guard? His scoring ability is obviously well known and documented, but he can't take care of the ball very well. I keep reading the Pacers need more spacing and shooting ability. Is Joe Young considered for that role?

— Landon

A. I haven't heard talk of that role for Young. He was a very good 3-point shooter in college (39 percent), but at 6-foot-2 he would struggle to defend shooting guards in the NBA. Then again, Monta Ellis might have that role next season, and he's 6-3.

Young has the quickness to play point guard, and his scoring can be an asset there. He needs to continue working on his quarterbacking skills and see where it takes him. I believe whatever future he has in the NBA is at point guard because of his size, mindset and skill set.

Q. This is the first time I write for you, my name is Luciano Soares de Amorim. I'm from from Rio de Janeiro / Brazil, a real basketball appreciator and a Pacers apaixonante.

First of all I would like to congrats you for the "good bye" article you wrote for George Hill, I've always been a fan of his since he got in our squad and see him as a player that was always doing the things better for the team then for himself and that kind of player I think could keep in our rotation, a player that cares for the organization and for the team's achievements. What is your opinion about that, did we made a good trade, trading a real team player for a player that isn't quite a "team worker"?

And another one, do you think with this actual squad we can run for the top spots or even get to a conference final again? And if not, what we are lack of, talent or willingness?

— Luciano

A. Appreciate the note, Luciano, it's always interesting to hear from fans in other countries.

(By the way, for the English-speaking readers among us, apaixonante has something to do with being passionate about or captivated by the Pacers.)

As for the Hill trade, as much as I have defended Hill against critics who in my opinion just don't get it, I can understand it. Jeff Teague has a specific skill that's superior to Hill's: penetrating a defense and creating shots for teammates. He is indeed more of a "real" point guard than Hill. That doesn't mean he's a better all-around player. I don't believe he is. But he could fit the Pacers' intended style of play better. He's also two years younger than Hill (28 vs. 30), and that could be significant in the long run.

Both Teague and Hill are free agents after next season, though, unless they are signed to contract extensions, so at this point we don't know where they'll be playing. Larry Bird has made it clear he sees Teague as a long-term solution at point guard, so you have to believe something will be worked out to keep him with the Pacers after the upcoming season, if not earlier.

Perhaps something was lost in the translation, but I don't believe Teague is not a "team worker." He's not as versatile as Hill, but he certainly isn't a selfish player. It will be interesting to see what kind of leadership he shows, and what kind of defender he can become in the Pacers' system.

Q. Should Indiana keep or get rid of Rodney Stuckey in a trade for someone better or at least someone of equal value?

— Rasheed

A. As with any player, if you can make a trade for someone better, you'll do it. But it likely would be a matter of opinion whether the new player is an improvement.

Stuckey's shooting dropped off last season as he battled ankle injuries throughout much of the season. He's a tweener between point guard and shooting guard, so without knowing the final roster for the season, it's difficult to know where he'll fit in. If he can hit 39 percent of his 3-pointers, as he did two seasons ago, he could be very valuable. Last season, however, he hit 24 percent in more limited action.

Q. Reading the latest articles on the Pacers, I find myself wondering why there is virtually no discussion or comments on Paul George.

Long-time Pacers fan here. I will miss George Hill, but like most am happy to see Teague (on the Pacers). Along with Young, Teague's addition looks to bring the playmaking and attacking complement that PG has needed to take the Pacers deep again.

And PG of course is gearing up for an Olympic run, and all signs point to him being even better next season, likely raising his defensive game back to competing with Kawhi for best two-way player in the league (OK, throw LeBron in there, too).

So why are the Pacers being quiet about Paul? Not a single pic or story on him on the website's front page?? With guys like Durant and Wade moving teams (I know, as free agents), and early summer rumors of Celtics interest in PG, would be nice to see the Pacers talking about PG more this summer.

— Rupert

A. Paul George met with the media during the moratorium to talk about his selection to the Olympic team. It was a fairly brief session, but was certainly covered on the website. I believe you can still find a video of the entire conversation here.

Beyond that, what is there to say? He isn't relevant to the Summer League or free agency conversation and has been out of town most of the time. There will be plenty of time to write about him during the Olympics.

I don't know where you heard the Celtics were interested in him; that's news to me. And, the current lack of focus on him won't have any impact on his future with the team. He's under contract for two more seasons, and has an option on a third. He'll re-evaluate everything then.

Q. How do you think the minutes will be for Ellis since Jeff Teague has arrived as point guard for the Pacers? Decrease?

— Larry

A. I think it's likely Ellis will play less than the 34 minutes he averaged last season. His role will be different with the coaching and roster changes, and he probably won't play point guard as often. He'll still have the ball in his hands frequently and have a chance to create offense, but all the changes seem likely to bring a reduced role.

He's also not getting younger, as most of us aren't. He'll be 31 when the season begins. His reputation is that of a durable player who plays hard and plays hurt, but doesn't work on his game or body much in the offseason. I've heard from a reliable source he's putting in more time this summer. That would be a great idea as he tries to beat Father Time off the dribble.

Q. Bird seems confident Pacers will be OK defensively. Faith in the Dan Burke defensive system? Does he go back to Dick Harter?

— Scott (via Twitter)

A. Yes, Bird has great confidence in Burke's defensive coaching. Bird knows from his coaching experience that a team of players who aren't great individual defenders can come together and play good team defense. In fact, he knows that from his playing experience, too.

Mark Jackson, Reggie Miller, Rik Smits and Chris Mullin/Jalen Rose were not particularly strong defenders when Bird coached, although Dale Davis was strong. Still, that unit defended well enough as a group to win at a high level. Dick Harter was the defensive coordinator of that group. Burke, meanwhile, was a video coordinator learning the ropes. Burke has worked with every Pacers head coach since then, and appears to have established himself as one of the best defensive coaches in the league. He'll have a great challenge this season, making the Pacers a strong enough defensive team to allow the offense to win games.

Have a question for Mark? Want it to be on Pacers.com? Email him at askmontieth@gmail.com and you could be featured in his next mailbag.

Note: The contents of this page have not been reviewed or endorsed by the Indiana Pacers. All opinions expressed by Mark Montieth are solely his own and do not reflect the opinions of the Indiana Pacers, their partners, or sponsors.