A Sea Of Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: SB Nation NFL Power Rankings for Week 11

Tyler Hansbrough vs. Pat Patterson: Whom would you select?

Editor's note -- The author here raises a good question, and has defended his position well in this post.  Therefore, it gets elevated to the front page.  Never let it be said that we shy away from debate here at A Sea of Blue.

 

Patrick Patterson and Tyler Hansbrough are generally expected to be among the top performing “big men” in this season’s class, and for good reason.  I’m interested in hearing folks’ arguments as to which of them is actually the better player.  Putting aside your bias in favor of our guy, which would you rather have playing on your college team, and why?  Would your answer change if you were picking for your NBA squad?

 

I am particularly interested in hearing answers from readers of this site, because Hansbrough – the reigning Naismith Award winner as the best player in all of college basketball -- seems to have a number of detractors here, which I do not understand.  Is it because Tubby was unable to land him, and we wound up being his second choice?  Do we hate him because of what might have been?  Or is it because he is 3-0 against us, winning by an average margin of better than 12 points? 

 

If that is the reason, shame on us.

 

Help me out on this one, because it would appear to me that by the most meaningful, objective criteria, Tyler is at least as solid a basketball player as Patrick, and in terms of his productivity he is a significantly superior basketball player – at least at this point in his college game, and I see no reason to assume that his excellent play will not carry over into a very successful professional career.  Apparently the pro scouts agree with me, as Tyler is ranked as the top senior NBA prospect by every mock draft site I have seen (although Pat is given tremendous respect and high placement by them as well).  Yet if I believed what I read on this site, I would think Tyler is doomed to a short career as an NBA journeyman twelfth man.

 

Here’s what I see.  Hansbrough is taller, heavier, and stronger, and nearly impossible to bully out of his post defense.  With that size comes the fact that he is not quite as quick as Pat, nor do I think he passes quite as well.  I would say that the physical comparison is a wash, or at worst a slight edge to Patrick, with a nod toward his superior athleticism.

 

Usually the man with the higher “game IQ” averages more steals, and the better overall athlete averages more blocks.  In our comparison, Hansbrough averages twice as many steals per 40 minutes, whereas Pat averages significantly more blocked shots – in both cases, exactly what one would expect (although, curiously, neither is a naturally gifted shot blocker).  Again, it would appear that this is an area that is also a wash.

 

Both players have a great “motor,” as they say (the will power, discipline, and stamina to stay constantly in motion in game situations, instantly moving on to the next phase), and on that score I would salute both equally.

 

Pat is slightly more accurate from the field, whereas Hansbrough is slightly more accurate from the free throw line – and much better at getting there.  Tyler was actually Number 1 in the country last year at getting to the line, and was Number 5 the year before.  This is a skill that does NOT diminish in importance at the next level.  Again, this area is at worst a wash with respect to the head to head comparison.

 

One could continue to banty the clichés back and forth and make all kinds of subjective and unprovable claims (Tyler is “smarter” and a “better leader,” Pat has “better hands,” etc.), but at the end of the day when you put all of that aside and look at their productivity in the good, old fashioned categories of points and rebounds, the empirical evidence would indicate that quite frankly, Pat is not even in the same league as Hansbrough.

 

The bottom line is that in both “Points Per 40 Minutes” and “Rebounds Per 40 Minutes,” Tyler’s production is almost a full 50% better than Pat’s.  As my Butler County grandfather would have said, “he’s half-again as good as the other guy.”  Hansbrough’s PP40 is an extraordinary 27.7, whereas Pat’s is 18.4.  In fact, Hansbrough’s per game scoring average of 22.8 is not all that far below Pat’s career best 24 (against a thoroughly out-classed Tennessee Tech).  It’s the same story with rebounds: Hansbrough’s RP40 is 12.5, whereas Pat’s is 8.6.

 

Bottom line?  Say what you want about their respective abilities, but over the same amount of playing time, Hansbrough will get you 50% more points and 50% more rebounds than Patrick Patterson will.  Hmmmmmm.

 

Could this be attributable to a difference in the quality of the opposition?  Well, last year UNC played the 8th toughest schedule in the country, whereas our SOS ranking was 59th.  That would not seem to augur in Pat’s favor.  Hmmmmmm.

 

Comparing their respective performances against the same competition also strongly favors Hansbrough.  When we played Louisville, Pat had 6 points and 7 rebounds.  When Hansbrough played the Cards, he had 28 points and 13 rebounds.  Hmmmmm.

 

I have repeatedly seen on the pages of this blog the assertion that we “have Tyler’s number when he plays us,” and that he never does well against us.  To that I would say first that Hansbrough has played us three times and has never lost, so the question of who has whose number would appear to be an open one.  I would also point out that while Randolph Morris tended to do a solid job keeping Tyler’s numbers down, last year Hansbrough came in to Rupp Arena against Patrick Patterson’s squad and promptly scored a double-double (Pat did not).  Tyler also had three steals and a block; Patrick had zero of either.  Hmmmmmm.

 

I would rather beat the Tarheels than anyone, including Duke, Indiana, Louisville, and Tennessee, but if I am going to think that their national player of the year is over-rated, I will need someone to show me why.  Will anyone help me out?

 

Ken Pomeroy

 

1 recs  |  Comment 68 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

December 1, 2007

Freshman Patrick Patterson goes up against reigning all-American and soon to be player of the year Tyler Hansbrough…

Psycho T: 32 mins, 14pts, 11 rebounds, 25% FG, 10/12 FT

PPat: 33 mins, 19 pts, 9 rebounds, 50% FG, 7/9 FT

Tyler only made 2 shots from the field in this game against a presumably weak UK front line.

My beef with Hansbrough has nothing to do with him choosing UNC over UK, since I didn’t follow UK recruiting much at the time. My beef has to do with the inordinate hype he gets from the media, his incessant traveling, jumping up to fight his attacker after he’s been ejected, scoring over half of his career points from the free throw line, and his overall goofy looks.

It is a little absurd to compare the players since PPat was only a freshman last season, but it is apparent our guy is the much more athletic of the two. I would not be at all suprised to see Pat go higher than Hansbrough in the NBA draft even after this season.

In the words of Pavement, “It’s not their (basketball), it’s personal.”

Still not a crook!

by TrickyD26 on Sep 26, 2008 4:26 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Hansbrough missed those shots because we hacked him and sent him to the line...

Where he promptly made the shots.

Don’t forget his three steals and the blocked shot, whereas Pat had no steals and no blocks in the game.

And by the way, Hansbrough did that ON THE ROAD IN RUPP ARENA, whereas Pat was playing at home.

The point that Pat was a freshman is well taken, and I actually expect that Patrick will go higher than Hansbrough if Pat leaves after the coming year.

by Ken Pomeroy on Sep 27, 2008 4:34 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is Hansbrough's game so dominant...

that he was immediately being hacked as soon as he entered college basketball? He attempted over 250 FT as a freshman. Were coaches so afraid of this guy when he arrived, or could it be something else?

His offensive repitoire is getting in position to get fouled, do you think that will work in the leauge? Tyler, prepare to be the Ryan Leaf of the NBA.

Still not a crook!

by TrickyD26 on Sep 28, 2008 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Scrappy

When I watch Hansborough play, “scrappy” is the word that comes to mind. Not pretty, or fluid, or gifted, just scrappy. This is not necessarily a knock on Mr. H. However, his impressive productivity as a college player reminds me, in many respects, of a former college player of the year named Reddick. Although Reddick also excelled statistically at the college level (as a heady, scrappy shooting guard surrounded by tons of talent), he has proven (at least so far) to be completely overmatched at the professional level. Therefore, in response to your question, I would rather have a scrappy, heady, and more experienced Hansborough on my COLLEGE team this year, whereas I would much prefer to have a more physical (and physically gifted) P Pat on my PRO team.

by tooblue on Sep 26, 2008 4:42 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

"Hansbrough tries harder than anyone else on the court."

If I hear one more announcer tell me how much harder Hansbrough is playing than everyone else my head will explode! “Will over skill!” I think I’m going to vomit. Yeah, Psycho T is the only one out there trying right? What a load of garbage.

I’m not disagreeing with you tooblue, he is a scrappy player, but to say he is the only player to every gut it out ( like ESPN announcers do) is ridiculous.

Still not a crook!

by TrickyD26 on Sep 26, 2008 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, that bugs me too

A friend of mine has noted, and I agree with him, that when basketball analysts call Hansbrough the “hardest working player in college” or some such, it’s incredibly insulting to everyone else who plays or has ever played college ball. Set aside for the moment that there is no way to possible know who is working “the hardest” to be able to make the comparison in the first place, but nobody sees every single player in Div I, II, III, NAIA, etc. So even if it was possible to make a comparison, you would never be able to see everybody who plays the game in order to make it. It’s insulting to anyone who puts in the time and effort to play college ball to say they aren’t putting in the same kind of effort when you don’t even watch them practice or play.

</ soapbox >

"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball

by JLeverenz on Sep 26, 2008 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Scrappy

is a catchphrase for “gritty” white guys.

Anyway. Here’s why I dont like Hanbrough let me count the ways.

His bangs and haircut annoy the crap out of me.
He receives an inordinate amount of hype as a player.
The love Dickie V shows him (anyone called a diaper dandy deserves derision)
He has been outplayed in every game versus UK. (its the guards we need to shut down)
He has gotten better each season but his game hasnt really grown if you know what I mean.

Hansbrough’s a good player and I dont begrudge him his success but he will at most be a mid to late first round pick this season. It’s too early to look at mock drafts but even though he may be the highest rated senior in an envrionmhere where half of the top ten picks are liable to be freshman thats not saying much. I think Hansbrough is going to have more success at the next level than Reddick but dont look for him to be more than a high energy quality bench player. I think PPAT goes in the lottery this year and may have a better NBA career but that is really too hard to predict at this point. I think Pat has more upside the Tyler but whether that is realized or not you cant tell until it happens.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Sep 26, 2008 5:36 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

As a college basketball player ...

… Tyler has been special.

But are you really comparing apples to apples here? Shouldn’t we be comparing freshman year to freshman year?

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Sep 26, 2008 6:27 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I agree with Tru. . .

A fair comparison is only fair when the parameters for both players compared are equal. I also feel that PPat has a higher “ceiling” as far as skill set, and overall game goes.

by bigbluestu on Sep 26, 2008 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Freshman season

(I learned from the best FortyYear)

7.7 rb/g PPat
7.8 rb/g Tyler

16.4 pts/g; 57.4 FG% PPat (UK 68.5 ppg)
18.9 pts/g; 57.0 FG% Tyler (UNC 79.9 ppg)

87FTA/119FTM PPat (3.48 ppg from FT line)
187FTA/253FTM Tyler (6.03 ppg from FT line)

1.2 blocks PPat
0.7 blocks Tyler

1.7 apg PPat
1.3 apg Tyler

I’d say we’ve got a pretty good one here ladies and gentlemen.

Still not a crook!

by TrickyD26 on Sep 26, 2008 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I love Hansbrough as a college player ...

… but I agree with Tru; comparing Hansbrough to Patterson is a bit unfair to Patterson since he has played only one year on a team where he was, for all intents and purposes, “unprotected”. That is, he was far and away the best player on a depleted roster, which greatly impacts ones performance, along with the fact that early in the year UK struggled ( that’s being kind ) with their entry passes to Patterson being catchable and on-time. Hansbrough has experienced no such problems.

With that being said; I think Hansbrough, regardless of hype and exposure, is the type of player UK fans usually embrace because of his hustle, desire and obvious talent. He could play on my team any time.

by Ken Howlett on Sep 28, 2008 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with you on fans' perception of TH

I think if Hansbrough was playing for UK, he’d be lauded as Chuck Hayes’ long lost brother. From most of what I’ve read here however, you’d think he’s just some stiff who is no more talented than some random guy off the street, but has miraculously been in the right place at the right time every time he’s scored a bucket or grabbed a rebound.

Not that I expected much different ;-)

"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball

by JLeverenz on Sep 29, 2008 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

LOL

That was pretty funny.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Sep 29, 2008 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Tru has it.

You are comparing a junior player to a freshman. Should Pat honor is word that he is staying four years then the comparison’s can be made. Otherwise it is moot comparing each other from last season alone.

I have read that Hansborough isn’t going to go that high in the draft. He will surely get picked up because of his college exploits, but he will be more of a glue guy like Chuck Hayes than a star player. He is undersized to stay in the post and I haven’t seen much of a slashing/ outside game from him. He tends to run the floor well and finish in the post against guys he size or smaller. Put him against a Garnett and he won’t even see the basket, not even from the free throw line.

I like the fact that he hustles during a game but I don’t see him making an impact in the NBA’s. Pat will make an impact when he is drafted. I believe his impact will be more significant with another two years at UK. At the completion of his junior year I can see him being drafted in the lottery. Maybe we’ll get lucky and he’ll stick around for a repeat championship season his senior year.

Finally, if Tyler were so good he would not be returning to UNC for his final year. Say what you will about his family’s finances, etc. but I believe that he would have bolted for the pros already if he were such a high pick. He’s already got an NCAA Championship ring, so it’s not like he’s sticking around to win one. He knows that he’s going to ride the pine a lot once he gets to the pros. Sure they’ll chuck him in for some garbage minutes and maybe for a few fouls in late game situations but Pat will be playing significantly more minutes once he enters the league than Tyler, even if Tyler is still in the NBA when Pat goes in after his junior season.

No grudges against ol boy, he just doesn’t strike me as an impact NBA prospect. Whereas Pat will be should he stick around for some more development by Gilispie.

The points made about his inordinate media hype are funny. I too feel that he gets too much attention based on ESPN bias, but they gotta have someone to talk about and since he is on a high profile team who just happen to be having some pretty good seasons lately, it’s easy work for them. Not much research and work has to be done as it would be if they were trying to hype some white boy from Vandy….now who could that be? Or say even another white boy that is playing just as good at Notre Dame…..now who could that be? Not as many ND or Vandy fans as UNC, so therefore not as much interest nationally so therefore not as much excitement for advertisers. Them pesky advertisers!!! All they want is someone to selll their stuff and it better be a name and face that can be recognized by the majority of viewers.

If you don’t believe that these college players are selling spots then you haven’t been watching much college ball. Sure their names and faces may not be in the advertising but all the glorifying self-promotion by ESPN, CBS, etc is directly affected by the faces that they use to hype the games. Budweiser could give two rat’s ass’s about the tradition and history of X program. All they want to hear is who are the matchups and what share points they can expect for their investment (commercial spots). These college kids are being whored by the NCAA and the networks and all the while they get the benefits of a free ride to college.

Pat is the “better” player but Tyler has had a few more years to work on his game and give him better stats so to speak. Plus Tyler has had the benefit of a better group of players around him than Pat has. That is gonna change beginning this year. UK beats UNC by 8 this year. Tyler gets ejected and Pat fouls out with 2 minutes left. Perry kills the boards while white boy hits 5 treys for a career high and is responsible for the dagger in the heart!!!

Enjoy.

GO BIG BLUE!!!!!!!!!!

by bluecrip on Sep 26, 2008 9:38 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Hansbrough

does not have a national championship ring. Psycho T has been apart of one choke job after another when it comes to NCAA tournament resume’.

Living in Raleigh, I see more than I ever care to of the Tarholes. Tyler is far from being a clutch player and tends to shrink at the end of tight games.

Still not a crook!

by TrickyD26 on Sep 26, 2008 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry

You are correct. He came in the year after they won the national championship. For some reason I thought he was a freshman on the NC team.

by bluecrip on Sep 26, 2008 10:53 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Hansbrough is definitely a good player

First of all, let’s dispense of the notion that Hansbrough has achieved what he has solely through hustle and scrappy play. He is not the David Eckstein of the NCAA. Hansbrough does play hard, but he is also a good athlete with a lot of natural ability in addition to being rather tall – that’s a good combination for a successful college career.

As far as his production as compared to Patterson, Tyler has had the benefit of playing with some very talented teams the last two seasons – teams that were more talented than last year’s UK squad that Patterson played for. It’s very difficult to measure precisely or even generally what kind of benefit he gained by virtue of the players around him, but I think it is safe to say that if you exchanged the two players, the numbers would look a bit different for each – all the more reason to only compare their freshman seasons. I think UNC’s talent level in 05-06 was quite comparable to UK’s talent level last year which makes it appropriate to do a direct comparison of the two players. (here’s a link to UNC’s roster along with basic stat information for that season)

As TrickyD has noted above, the freshman stats between the two players are actually quite similar. The difference in scoring is not significant in my mind, particularly in light of how many more points UNC scored as a team. Put another way:

Patterson: 16.4/68.5*100 = 23.94% of team scoring
Hansbrough: 18.9/79.9*100 = 23.65% of team scoring

Each was about equally important to their respective teams’ offenses. Looking at just their freshman seasons, it would be hard to argue that one player is conclusively better than the other, or that one would make a better NBA player than the other. We do know what Hansbrough has done each of his next two years, which is to basically do what he did his freshman year, only better.

It looks like I’m in the minority on this, but I think Hansbrough can have a good NBA career and be a valuable part of a successful team. I think Patterson can do the same, and if I were an NBA exec and both had been in the draft last year (we’ll pretend Patterson was healthy while we’re at it) I would have been happy with either one.

"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball

by JLeverenz on Sep 27, 2008 12:16 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Tyler hansbrough...

Let me explain something about Tyler hansbrough. The kid is a joke…a flat out joke.
He goes out on the court and can miss every shot and you know what is said?
nothing. the annoucners will start talking about how good he is at setting screens or something rediculous. He gets so many calls his way cause the kid is an actor. So many of his points come from the free thrwo line it makes me sick. Does he ever even finish an and1? Of course not. He isn;t strong enough. He’ll go to the pros next year where there is allowed to be a little pushing and shoving and he’ll get the stuuffing knocked out of him and suck like reddick or joakim noah.

by BleedinUKBlue on Sep 27, 2008 2:10 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Nearly Impossible to Answer this Question

If anyone could actually correctly answer this question they should automatically be promoted to an NBA GM. If the history of the draft is any measure, trying to guess how college big men will handle the transition to the NBA is nearly impossible. Think about guys like Joe Smith (#1 overall 1995), Glenn Robinson (#1 overall 1994) (ok not exactly an NBA “big man”), Bryant Reeves (#6 1995), Samaki Walker (#9 1995), Lorenzen Wright (#7 1995), Marcus Fizer (#4 2000), Robert Traylor (#6 1998), Marvin Williams (#2 2005) to name a few. All had great or very promising college careers, but none had great or even very good pro careers. However, in hindsight all these guys had major obstacles to a good NBA career, not big enough, not hard working enough, too slow, too much attitude, poor range, etc. These were things overlooked by the GMs who drafted them, relying on college numbers, overall athleticism, and/or perceived skills instead.

Looking at Hansbrough and Patterson, I can’t tell you which will have good pro careers, but I can tell you which one has more of the negatives than the other. Both PP and Hansbrough are not very tall for NBA PFs. However, Hansbrough is also fairly slow (great for picking up fouls in college, and great for getting put on the floor in the NBA). Hansbrough also has a major attitude. Great for firing up the guys at UNC, great for getting elbowed in the ribs in the NBA. Patterson on the other hand is quick (i.e. dexterous), has a good (deferential to his elders) attitude and has a surprising range. Although in the end it is really anyone’s guess, my money would be on PP to have a better NBA career than Hansbrough.

Del Tha Funky Homosapien
formerly known as senowen

by Mr. Bob Dobalina on Sep 27, 2008 2:23 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Amen

Preach on brotha

by BleedinUKBlue on Sep 27, 2008 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

PPat my pick

Every day of the week. Id pick him college, pros. Id pick him to hang out with, go out to eat with, go to movies with,play x-box with..why?…because from what i see/read/hear…he’s just the cooler dude!

" I believe in pipedreams"

by Magnoliacat on Sep 27, 2008 7:31 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Eyes vs. Stats

Like many people here, I’ve mainly based my opinion of TH on his performances in games against Kentucky. In those games, although UK lost, I’ve been underwhelmed with the supposed ‘best player in college basketball’. There were many other reasons the Cats lost those games, other than Hansbrough.

I don’t want to completely dismiss his stats, career achievements, etc. I’m sure TH has dominated many games. He looked darn good against Louisville in the tournament last year. I’m not going to argue that he doesn’t deserve a lot of hype. However, back to my eyes. From what I’ve seen, TH usually piles up his stats through a caveman style of play that I don’t especially appreciate. While he is big, strong and energetic, he isn’t really ‘athletic’ in the sense that the word means a transcendent combination of size, speed, quickness, coordination and motor. This very lack of athleticism is probably why people are always saying how ‘hard’ he works. Don’t we always say of the truly talented that they ‘make it look easy’? Well, he makes it look hard, and gets a lot of credit for it.

Including from the referees. Were he not so hyped…were he not playing half his games in the Dean Dome…had he not joined up with a UNC program that is peaking…I doubt that he would roll up the numbers he has. He gets to the line more often than he should, because he puts himself in bad positions from which the refs often bail him out. He gets more rebounds than he should, because he pushes people out of the way and doesn’t get called.

All things being equal (especially the state of their respective programs when they come in), I would have no trouble picking PP over TH again, and again, and again. While I don’t care all that much about the NBA, I’d wager that they’ll feel the same way.

by Mahatma on Sep 27, 2008 8:17 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Awesome analysis, I also agree that he makes everything look hard. Hansboro is a good college player and the type of guy most college teams need. He has a good basketball IQ which serves him well at the college level. At the next level most guys have a decent bball IQ and unathletic guys like hansboro get passed over. I don’t think that Hansboro is even in the same class as patterson as far as overall ability. Patterson played against 2 or 3 defenders all season long as a freshman. Patterson also had the responsibility to not foul out because he was our only inside option. Hansboro played with a team full of all americans and other teams couldn’t focus soley on him. Patrick will make a very good pro player. He has the motor and the ability but he hasn’t learned how to work effeciently. Hansboro will always make it look hard.

by Blue in the Vein on Sep 27, 2008 6:54 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Patterson

Not even that close IMO.

Tyler H is a good player. But I’d want Patterson on my team.

by FortyYearCatFan on Sep 28, 2008 9:35 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

40 year going with the gut feeling over stats?????

I never thought I’d see the day!

;-)

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Sep 30, 2008 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not Even

Patterson’s stats (as frosh) are > Hansbrough’s numbers back then.

by FortyYearCatFan on Sep 30, 2008 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not really.

See below.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 1, 2008 8:01 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Young vs Old: the great scouting debate

It’s funny, but the discussion here of Patterson vs Hanbrough in the NBA has sounded a lot like the general debate that surrounds high school players vs college players in MLB.

For those not familiar with scouting and drafting for baseball, the arguments concerning the differences between high school players and college players generally follow as such: “High school players haven’t developed (as players) yet, therefore they can become anything” and “College players have developed quite a bit, therefore they can only become what they have shown so far”. That’s an oversimplification, but it’s enough to give you the general idea.

I see a lot of the same mindset in much of what’s been said here about Hansbrough and Patterson:

- Patterson, as a college player with only 1 season under him (and an injury shortened season at that), is envisioned as being able to become an incredibly dominant player, capable of adding or developing whatever skills he needs to succeed at the next level.

- Hansbrough, as a seasoned college vet, is seen to have already developed all the parts of his game that he is going to develop and thus whatever he lacks now he will lack forever.

I’ll say it again, but Hansbrough is far more athletic than most people give him credit for. Maybe not as athletic as Patterson, but last I checked athleticism isn’t the only requirement for succeeding in the NBA. Just as in baseball, to play in the NBA you need more than just raw physical talent. Hansbrough is big and strong, and he has the desire to get better. These are valuable skills too, and I think they’re enough so that Hansbrough can in fact learn to add parts to his game that he currently lacks if he needs to. This, along with what he has already proven that he can accomplish in college, makes him an excellent NBA prospect at least the equal of Patterson.

Of course, Patterson is pretty darn good too.

"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball

by JLeverenz on Sep 29, 2008 1:11 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Not buying it

Theoretically what you say makes perfect sense except that Patterson already possesses the skills he needs to play at the next level he just needs to improve them. He could be a servicable power forward in the NBA if he has a jump shot out to about 19 feet. He has a descent shot and I can see him improving his high post game for this reason. Tyler has been in school for three more years than Patterson and while he has improved his numbers every season I havent seen him add anything to his game that he didnt really have when he got here. I know he may want to improve but Im not buying it that he has the skills to be a big time NBA power forward if he doesnt have the range. I dont think anyone has insinuated Tyler is going to be trash and Patterson a star. At this point you just cant tell but I think Pat has the better pro career.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Sep 29, 2008 9:39 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Well, those are two different things

Being a serviceable NBA PF and being a big time NBA PF are two different things (at least to me, maybe you didn’t intend it that way). Hansbrough has a pretty decent mid range shot, he just doesn’t use it much because he doesn’t need to. Combine that with his physical strength, decent athleticism, and the much bally-hooed focus/willpower/determination and you’ve got a guy who can be a serviceable NBA PF too.

"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball

by JLeverenz on Sep 29, 2008 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Big time/Servicable

I did intend that way. There’s no way to know whether either of these kids is going to be a big time power forward and I dont think anyone is making that argument in this thread.

The argument is who would you rather have and which will have the better pro carreer not which is going to be an all star and which an NBA bench player. I think pat has the greater chance to have a good nba carreer but its still too early to tell for either one. The jump to the NBA is larger than most think and I dont think that college career is that great of an indicator how a player is going to fare as a preofessional.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Sep 29, 2008 1:15 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

College and Pro

While it’s true that there are plenty of examples of excellent college players who did little to nothing in the pros, rarely will you see a good or even serviceable NBA player who didn’t have an excellent college career, whether he was there for one year or four. Patterson had an outstanding freshman year, but I would like to see him do it again before making a strong argument for his success in the NBA. Meanwhile, Hansbrough has put up strong seasons in each of his three years, and while that doesn’t guarantee success at the next level it certainly doesn’t hurt either.

Clearly there is no way to know who will be better in the NBA, but that’s why the discussion is fun – no one is going to hold our prognostications against us (I hope!). An excellent case can be made for either guy and I think that most teams would be perfectly happy with either one. I think there’s a perception that Hansbrough is somehow the college basketball equivalent of a system quarterback. I disagree with that perception and although I don’t actually like the him all that much, I do acknowledge that he is a great player.

Besides, there’s no fun in these posts if we all agree with each other ;-)

"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball

by JLeverenz on Sep 29, 2008 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

System QB

Thats the best analogy of tyler i’ve heard yet.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Sep 29, 2008 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Spelling

We all know I can spell.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Sep 29, 2008 1:16 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Oh don't worry, it gets all of us

If you’re really concerned about it, I would recommend using a browser like Firefox 3 which has a built in spellchecker. The number of times it has saved me from bad spelling are innumerable.

"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball

by JLeverenz on Sep 29, 2008 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ken Pomeroy ignoring pace! Say it ain't so!
"The bottom line is that in both "Points Per 40 Minutes" and "Rebounds Per 40 Minutes," Tyler’s production is almost a full 50% better than Pat’s. "

Kentucky was under 64 possessions per game last season (adjusted). UNC is at 74 possessions. Maybe Hansbrough still grades out as better, but I think that “per 40 minute” stats are weakened substantially when Hansbrough’s running a track meet and Patterson’s team walks it up the court.

by bigtengeek on Sep 29, 2008 1:35 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

That's ...

… a very interesting point. Perhaps the “points per possession” statistic would be more useful.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Sep 29, 2008 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Does anyone track that?

I don’t think Pomeroy keeps individual player stats and I can’t think of anyone else who does so either. It would be a logical next step to start tracking the same kinds of information for individual players that Pomeroy does for teams.

Heck, it might not even be too hard for someone who has some script writing experience (that’s not me) to get PBP data for teams broken down by players on the floor for each possession. It would then be possible to use many of the same formulas to get values for players. It would also open up a new line of research into finding the best way to appropriately measure the value of a player to his team beyond the standard rate stats.

"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball

by JLeverenz on Sep 29, 2008 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well ...

… we can get total points scored easily enough, and Pomeroy does possession-based stats, so it should be trivial to figure out how many points each player scored per possession on average.

It works out like this: Hansbrough scored 587 points in 31 games his freshman year @ 74 possessions/game average, which works out to .26 points/possession.

Patterson scored 411 points in 31 games @ 64 possessions/game average, which works out to .21 points/possession.

Question answered.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Sep 29, 2008 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well...not quite

because that analysis does not count for minutes played.

Figure out Min%, multiply by team possessions per game, and that should give you individual possessions per game. Then divide PPG by that, and you should get PPP, I think.

by bigtengeek on Sep 29, 2008 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

OK ...

Well, that would place it as follows:

Patterson = .21 * .89 = .187
Hansbrough = .26 * .76= .198

Good enough?

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Sep 29, 2008 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, with the caveat

that it ignores the fact that “team possessions” includes time when these guys were on the bench, as JLeverenz notes below. That said, I’m relatively confident your calculation is a very good approximation.

0.198 – 0.187 = 0.011.
0.011/0.187 = 0.0588
0.0588 * 100 = 5.8%

Now we’re talking about a 6% difference, instead of a 50% difference. Pace is important.

by bigtengeek on Sep 30, 2008 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes...

… it is. :-)

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Sep 30, 2008 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, sort of

First of all, are we looking at the same numbers? From what I can see UNC averaged 72.2 possessions per game in Hansbrough’s freshman year and UK averaged 65.5 last year. A slight difference, but enough that I want to be sure we’re looking at the same thing.

That said, those possession numbers are for the respective teams collectively and include possessions when the players were on the bench which depresses their production a bit. bigtengeek has a good rule-of-thumb way to approximate the number of possessions for each player and since we lack exact data that will probably suffice for the purposes of this discussion, but I don’t see any reason why we can’t know the exact number of possessions for each player.

"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball

by JLeverenz on Sep 29, 2008 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I used ...

… Pomeroy’s adjusted pace numbers.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Sep 29, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes. Go to "DraftExpress.Com"

The site keeps individual stats for the better college players, and includes pace-adjusted metrics and fairly complicated efficiency ratings that purport to determine the relative value of a player on a given college squad based on the style of play of his team.

The level of detail is mind-boggling, and in truth, progresses beyond that which could possibly be useful for anything but blog fodder. It is interesting nontheless.

At the moment the site’s commentary is outdated, but the stats are current through the end of last season. Hansbrough’s can be found here:

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Tyler-Hansbrough-288/stats/

by Ken Pomeroy on Oct 2, 2008 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

See my comment below about the stats available on "DraftExpress.com"

My comment got buried in the thread, but the site keeps great individual stats, including pace adjusted metrics.

Pace adjustment is indeed a legitimate issue, particularly where you are talking about a run and gun team like UNC-Chapel Hill.

The pace adjustment is actually not all that complicated for the limited statistical comparisons we’re talking about here. You use the PP40 (or RP40, or Steals Per 40) and adjust Patterson’s up by the 15% difference in the two teams’ possession experiences (UNC’s 74 possessions being 15% greater than our 64 possessions per game). You must assume, of course, that the pace remains constant without regard to whether the player in question in is the game, but with that (reasonable) assumption, you simply extrapolate that if Pat’s team had 15% more possessions in every game, his stats per 40 Minutes would increase across the board by 15%.

That adjustment would account for less than a third of the difference in Hansbrough’s statistical superiority last year in points and rebounds, and a mere 15% of his superiority in Steals Per 40. It does confirm that Pat is a better shot blocker (although, again, both have medicocre stats in that category). Pat averages more assists Per 40, but inasmuch as both players usually are looking to score (and do) when they get the ball, that statistic is not terribly meaningful with respect to either player.

Draft Express implies that Hansbrough’s age is a factor in his collegiate dominance (he is a year older than most of the guys in his class).

I do not see any discussion on how far down we should adjust Pat’s numbers to account for the substantially easier level of competition UK played last year versus Chapel Hill.

by Ken Pomeroy on Oct 2, 2008 1:31 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, I did not succeed in trying to get the post to appear higher in the thread.

Thus, the reference to “below” should now read “above”. Sorry…

by Ken Pomeroy on Oct 2, 2008 1:34 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The way ...

… you adjust for competition, or rather one way, is to do what I did — use kenpom.com’s adjusted pace figures. The adjustment he uses is for the level of competition, or rather, how a team would perform against an average team at a neutral site.

Realistically, figuring statistics per 40 minutes is trivial, a simple matter of dividing total points scored in a year by minutes played, then multiplying it by 40. For these two players, that works out to:

Hansbrough — (587 pts/983 min) * 40 = 23.9 [Freshman]
Patterson — (411 pts/893 min) *40 = 18.4 [Freshman]

Adjust for pace and competition (73.7 for UNC and 63.7 for UK in the respective freshmen years of the player) using the faster team as 100% pace means:

Hansbrough — 28.9 * 1=23.9
Patterson — 18.4 * 1.157 = 21.3

So Hansbrough averaged 2.6 points more, or 10.9%. Comparing freshmen years only. For rebounds, it works out like this:

Hansbrough — (243/983)*40 = 9.89
Patterson — (192/893)*40 = 8.6

Adjust for pace and competition:

Hansbrough — 9.89*1 = 9.89
Patterson — 8.6*1.157 = 9.95

So Patterson averaged .06 more rebounds, or 0.6%, again, comparing freshman year only.

So your premise that Hansbrough gets you 50% more, adjusted for pace of play and academic year, seems flawed to me. As to your question, it remains fair — Hansbrough, by these two measures at least and discounting such factors as points distribution, has the better statistics for his freshman year, although only marginally so. Patterson looks like the better defensive player, although not by much.

I think I could argue persuasively that it is a wash.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 2, 2008 5:51 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You guys are really kicking on this

possession and points discussion. I am not a big stats guy, too lazy, but I like the direction of your thinking. It would be quite interesting to add another dimension to the tracking of a game and/or season for a player. I’m sure really detailed coaches (BG) might find it usefull.

Someone better give BG a call and let him know ya’ll got some hot sh$t going on here. He might want in. :)

by bluecrip on Sep 29, 2008 10:52 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Does anyone think

that Tyler would have gotten player of the year if he had been playing for UAB or Western Kentucky?

Would we even be having this discussion?

by bluecrip on Sep 30, 2008 2:02 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Well, both players play for high profile teams

it’s not like Patterson is under the radar.

by bigtengeek on Sep 30, 2008 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know that there is a team bias surrounding the Naismith Award.

The fact that the bigger programs dominate the award is simply a function of the fact that the better players (those at the very top of each recruitment class) usually choose to go to the better programs with the better facilities, the richer tradition, and the greater exposure. That more Naismith Award winners have come from Duke (7) and UNC (3) should surprise no one. Other recipients have attended Kansas, Texas (2), UNLV, Virginia, Indiana(2), UCLA (3), Cinncinati, Maryland, and Georgetown.

But in those rare instances when the lesser programs land the big fish, they do tend to get the Naismith. I know that UMass, Wake Forest, Navy, DePaul, Marquette, St. Joseph’s, Utah, Purdue, and LaSalle have all had players win it over the last thirty years or so.

And Bluecrip, Austin Carr did win it when he was at Notre Dame, by the way…

On the other hand, it does stink that over the last thirty years, 30% of the recipients have gone to either UNC or Duke, while we have NEVER had a player win the award.

by Ken Pomeroy on Oct 2, 2008 1:49 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Would you say that academics is the

reason we never had a Naismith winner? UK is obviously in the category as a bigger program, so what is the reason (speculation) that we haven’t had one? We have had the “better” players and are long on tradition and our facilities are second to none. I realize that we just got the new practice facility and that could’ve caused a dip in talent at times but everywhere else we have excelled. So what’s the beef?

BTW it’s comforting to know that a player from ND won it once. :) Maybe Harongody can do the same, once Pat has won it of course.

I still don’t think that if Tyler had played for IUPUI or Sisters of the Poor he would be getting as much attention from the media or us (even if we had recruited him). Even with his hype during recruiting it wouldn’t have made a difference on his national exposure. A number of kids this year have committed to lesser profile teams, we’ll see how that pans out for them. I believe racercat made my point succinctly.

by bluecrip on Oct 3, 2008 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Alex Groza, Ralph Beard, Cliff Hagan, Bill Spivey

All would have been strong candidates for Naismith Award back in the day.

Since the 1950’s, UK has only rarely had national POY contenders. Mashburn, Kenny Walker, Issel, Cotton Nash – that’s about it.

by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 4, 2008 8:17 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

True but my point is

would Tyler get the recognition if he were putting up the same numbers and putting forth the same intensity on another team, let’s use ohhhhh, say, Notre Dame? That’s a pretty high profile team.

Would we even be having this discussion?

I reference this article http://www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/10978940.

Not about who you would rather have but about recognition. In my mind the PERCEPTION that someone is better and the hype that follows counts a lot toward player recognition. Therefore Tyler is a solid athlete with a huge hype machine that overshadows the accomplishments of others.

Why didn’t Ken use Harmody isntead of Hansborough for the comparison? He is just as worthy as a candidate. No, we didn’t recruit Harmody so maybe it’s a litmus test by Ken to see what personal reaction we gave instead of really wanting anything objective. Had it been Carmody most of us would be running around going “WHO?” right? Plus, Notre Dame doesn’t get the blood a boilin like the Tar Baby’s do. BUT, Carmody and Hansborough are both about equal in numbers and should represent the same case. I believe that Carmody even tries hard too. :)~

by bluecrip on Sep 30, 2008 1:42 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Hansbrough is the more logical candidate for comparison

For one thing, Harangody hasn’t played against UK 3 times like Hansbrough has so most UK fans haven’t had a chance to see him play in person. Also, as you mentioned, Hansbrough was recruited by UK so it’s more likely that UK fans have had a peripheral interest in his career even if only a little bit. Hansbrough also is the top player on the best team entering this season and has a had a distinguished college career. Hype or not, he’s accomplished quite a bit and if you want to compare Patterson to someone, why not pick the best?

As for hype, Harangody has only played one year and wasn’t a highly touted freshman so there wasn’t as much media attention about him at the beginning of last season. By the end though there was certainly a lot more, and there will be a lot more attention at the beginning of this season. If he has a sophomore season similar or better than his freshman year he’ll get plenty of hype.

"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball

by JLeverenz on Sep 30, 2008 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Harangody has finished his sophomore season

It was a substantial improvement on an impressive freshman campaign.

Harangody is entering his Jr season. :)

by bigtengeek on Sep 30, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Doh! Darn you CBS!

I checked CBS for his class, saw “So” and assumed that was current for this season. Guess not. I guess nobody feels the need to update their information until the season actually begins.

I think my original points still stand, if not more so. His freshman year, while solid was not anything to get greatly excited about unless you were a ND fan, certainly not on the same level as Patterson or Hansbrough.

"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball

by JLeverenz on Sep 30, 2008 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree

Michael Beasley put up similar numbers to Hansbrough at K St., which hadn’t been relevant in 20 years in the college hoops world, and he couldn’t get much more than casual interest in POY.

by racercat98 on Sep 30, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Insert "Harongody"

for Carmody, Harmody and everywhere else in my last post where I butchered his name. See what hype will do for a player. You even learn to get their name right. :) ha haha ahahahaha The bit about “running around going WHO” made me laugh just looking at it again.

by bluecrip on Sep 30, 2008 1:46 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Who is more overhyped?

Tyler H. or Tebow? Chew on that one for a while… .

by tooblue on Oct 1, 2008 8:43 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

That one seems easy.

Hansbrough. Tebow will be a star at the next level. I don’t believe Tyler will.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 1, 2008 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hrmmm...

Perhaps another debate is necessary. I don’t forsee Tebow’s “Rhino with a football” brand of QBing translating well to the next level. Your mileage may vary.

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Oct 1, 2008 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well thought out and very objective, but.....

One unavoidable fact is that PP is projected to go above his very proficient and skilled counterpart as a sophomore vs a senior. That is one fact that will show his superiority as expected to develop as a sophomore.
Beyond that, I just get the impression that PP is a superior player in that he gets all of those things done without the pulling on jerseys and “cheap” play that I see when I watch Hansborough. Let me say that he’s not the worst one out there on the floor, nor would I say that there aren’t players for the Big Blue that couldn’t also be put in that category. However, I will say that PP is not one of those players from what I saw last year.
       So I will say that I would much rather have PP on my team than Mr Hansborough, but not necessarily because of superior athleticism or basketball “IQ”, but because of the character differences in the two.

GO BIG BLUE!! Long Live Coach G (so long as he wears KY blue)!!!

by bluebloodtoo on Oct 2, 2008 12:30 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

To be fair ...

… I don’t think there is a significant difference between these two players, adjusted for academic year and style of play, in the college game.

Because athleticism is so much more important in the NBA, you would expect Patterson to have an advantage there.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 2, 2008 5:53 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Tyler will be a sixth man

at best. Maybe if he lands with the Clippers or Bobcats he could be a starter, otherwise he’ll be warming the bench at tipoff.

by bluecrip on Oct 3, 2008 11:36 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

An exciting community-driven SBNation blog, by and for fans of the Kentucky Wildcats.

Community Guidelines
[UPDATED 3/31/2009]
Start posting about the Wildcats »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Guess The Outcome Game 2009 #00

Recent FanPosts

Small
Milestones
Home_view_small
For Those That Complain
Small
GOG 2009 #04
Small
another Big Blue basketball news site.
128_small
The SEC In Bowls
Small
Small Rotation...
Small
GOG 2009 #03
Miners__2__small
UK football notes, 11/18
Uk_logo_blue_small
The Tournament Lasts All Year This Year
500642986_l_small
Would Wall's shot merit a "Golden Spike?"

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Twitter Widget -- Follow me!


Managing Editor

Tru_small Truzenzuzex

Editor

Small Ken Howlett

Author

Diane-black_heels_small BigSkyCat

Official Partner of CBS Sports