Switching to Hg was a bit of work, but I've actually learned to like it more than Git. Really though, it's the same kind of thing and I just use both. So I ended up at bitbucket for the same reasons OP built a new site.
My way was quicker though.
I understand that bzr and hg are almost identical, command-wise, but hg is about as fast as git, is that correct? What my workflow consists of is diffs/statuses/commits/pushes/pulls in projects with working trees of a few MB at most.
Git is a great tool for what it was built for and the group of users it was intended for--that is, rapid, tons-of-merges-and-pulls development on a gigantic codebase, for users for whom it is acceptable for man pages to serve as reminders rather than instructions. However, I appreciate the additional attention paid to tooling and user-friendliness in Mercurial-land that make it more pleasant for me to use.
Hg is slower overall, but scales just as well as git. A huge repo will still be just slightly slower in hg than in git.
I use bitbucket, too, because of the unlimited private repositories.
[1]: http://hg-git.github.com/ [2]: http://traviscline.com/blog/2010/04/27/using-hg-git-to-work-...