PDA

View Full Version : Hansbrough and the scoring record



UrinalCake
03-11-2009, 06:49 AM
So Tyler Hansbrough is 62 points away from tying JJ Redick's career ACC scoring record. What are the chances that he DOESN'T break this record? I think it's almost certain that he will, but here are my thoughts on what it would take:

- I expect his minutes to be down in the ACC tournament. In the early rounds you need to keep your players rested, and this tournament means almost nothing to UNC in the big picture. The earliest I could see them losing would be the semi-finals. Let's say the worst-case scenario (realistically speaking) happens for him and he scores 25 points in two games.

- In the NCAA tournament, I cannot fathom them losing before the Sweet 16, even if Lawson is playing hurt as recently reported. Let's say they run into UCLA in their third game (as ESPN's bracketology currently has listed) and lay an egg in a major upset. Again, I know this is really wishful thinking from the standpoint of a Duke fan. Hansborough would probably play limited minutes again during the first game or two, but would only have to average about 13 points in each game to break the record.

- So it looks like pretty much a foregone conclusion. Averaging 12-13 points across 5 games shouldn't pose a challenge for him; heck he probably scores that just at the line 8-). An interesting thing to watch will be how much Roy Williams plays him during some of these less-important games, especially if Carolina has a big lead. Will he keep him in in order to pad the record?

Bob Green
03-11-2009, 07:55 AM
What are the chances that he DOESN'T break this record?

Slim to none with none having one foot already out the door. Nothing short of a season ending injury during one of the the next two games will prevent Hansbrough from breaking the record. Personally, I do not believe it is a big deal as records are meant to be broken.

When Hansbrough breaks the record it is my sincere hope that all Duke fans show their class by standing up and clapping. It will be an awesome accomplishment for TH.

bjornolf
03-11-2009, 08:06 AM
Yeah, barring injury, he's there. It would basically take a first game exit in both the ACCT and NCAAT to keep him from breaking it.

TillyGalore
03-11-2009, 08:45 AM
Yeah, barring injury, he's there. It would basically take a first game exit in both the ACCT and NCAAT to keep him from breaking it.

It could happen. The Holes could be gone in the first round of both tourney's. Here's hoping it does. :D

allenmurray
03-11-2009, 08:53 AM
Hemric did it in three years - in my mind that somewhat diminishes both J. J.'s and Hanbrough's accomplishments.

DukePA
03-11-2009, 08:55 AM
Hemric did it in three years - in my mind that somewhat diminishes both J. J.'s and Hanbrough's accomplishments.

Especially when you consider that the 3 point shot didn't exist then.

Duvall
03-11-2009, 09:19 AM
Hemric did it in three years - in my mind that somewhat diminishes both J. J.'s and Hanbrough's accomplishments.

Dickie Hemric played four years, from 1952-1955. Shorter seasons, though.

yancem
03-11-2009, 09:21 AM
My guess is that they really try to feed him the ball during the first two games of the acc so that he has a good chance for breaking the record during the acc tournament. At least that is what I would do. How cool would it be to go on a scoring binge, setting the all time scoring record and winning the tournament mvp, all during your final acc tournament.

Sure would take some of the sting out of not winning the ncaa tournament!

CDu
03-11-2009, 09:28 AM
So Tyler Hansbrough is 62 points away from tying JJ Redick's career ACC scoring record. What are the chances that he DOESN'T break this record? I think it's almost certain that he will, but here are my thoughts on what it would take:

- I expect his minutes to be down in the ACC tournament. In the early rounds you need to keep your players rested, and this tournament means almost nothing to UNC in the big picture. The earliest I could see them losing would be the semi-finals. Let's say the worst-case scenario (realistically speaking) happens for him and he scores 25 points in two games.

- In the NCAA tournament, I cannot fathom them losing before the Sweet 16, even if Lawson is playing hurt as recently reported. Let's say they run into UCLA in their third game (as ESPN's bracketology currently has listed) and lay an egg in a major upset. Again, I know this is really wishful thinking from the standpoint of a Duke fan. Hansborough would probably play limited minutes again during the first game or two, but would only have to average about 13 points in each game to break the record.

- So it looks like pretty much a foregone conclusion. Averaging 12-13 points across 5 games shouldn't pose a challenge for him; heck he probably scores that just at the line 8-). An interesting thing to watch will be how much Roy Williams plays him during some of these less-important games, especially if Carolina has a big lead. Will he keep him in in order to pad the record?

I believe he's actually 52 points away from the record. He has 2717, and Redick had 2769. So it's even less likely that he doesn't break it. Given that he's essentially guaranteed three more games, I think there's no way (barring injury) that he doesn't break it. If he gets 4 more games, he needs just 13 points per game. Five more games, and he doesn't even have to average 11.

allenmurray
03-11-2009, 09:32 AM
Dickie Hemric played four years, from 1952-1955. Shorter seasons, though.

I stand corrected - I assumed that when Hemric played freshmen were not elibible. However, Hemric played 104 games, Redick 139, and Hansbrogh 134 (so far). Hemric's numbers are still farm more impressive when you condsider that he played far less games.

CDu
03-11-2009, 09:52 AM
I stand corrected - I assumed that when Hemric played freshmen were not elibible. However, Hemric played 104 games, Redick 139, and Hansbrogh 134 (so far). Hemric's numbers are still farm more impressive when you condsider that he played far less games.

Apples to oranges. The game was much different then, so I think it's really hard to compare the impressiveness of those stats. He certainly had a higher per game scoring average, but I'm guessing that post-play was a much different animal in the early-50s than it is today.

Highlander
03-11-2009, 10:03 AM
I stand corrected - I assumed that when Hemric played freshmen were not elibible. However, Hemric played 104 games, Redick 139, and Hansbrogh 134 (so far). Hemric's numbers are still farm more impressive when you condsider that he played far less games.

I am pretty sure that ACC freshman weren't eligible for varsity play until at least the 70's, as my Dad watched the Freshman game at Duke during the late 60's, well after Hemric's time. According to Wikipedia, Hemric played his first two years as part of the Southern Conference, and his last two as part of the ACC. My guess is that the Southern Conference had a different rule regarding Freshman playing varsity, and by the time the ACC was formed he was already a Junior, so the rule didn't apply.

Taking some leaps of faith based on wikipedia, so someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

EDIT: Good article here (http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/020409aae.html)on Mr. Hemric. He was only 6'6", yet had over 400 MORE rebounds than Duncan in his career.

bjornolf
03-11-2009, 10:11 AM
6'6" was pretty tall for a college player in the 50's, wasn't it? Maybe not the tallest on the court, but it probably compares to more like 6'9" or 6'10" now.

CDu
03-11-2009, 10:24 AM
EDIT: Good article here (http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/020409aae.html)on Mr. Hemric. He was only 6'6", yet had over 400 MORE rebounds than Duncan in his career.

Again, apples to oranges. I suspect that individual rebounding numbers where higher for post players back in the 50's and 60's. The game was just played differently. Fewer little guys rebounded. It's just hard to compare across. For example, while Hemric has the ACC rebounding record, Tom Gola (a contemporary) has the NCAA record with 2201 rebounds!


6'6" was pretty tall for a college player in the 50's, wasn't it? Maybe not the tallest on the court, but it probably compares to more like 6'9" or 6'10" now.

I don't believe that the difference is quite that drastic. Certainly the average height hasn't changed that much. Remember, plenty of 6'6"/6'7" guys can be dominant post players today. But certainly the depth in quality of guys that size has increased over the years, though.

Devil's Advocate
03-11-2009, 10:29 AM
From the article that Highlander cited:

"Hemric arrived in Wake Forest (the school had not yet moved to Winston-Salem) in the autumn of 1951. Because of the Korean War, freshmen were eligible for varsity competition and it didnít take long for Hemric to make an impact.

bjornolf
03-11-2009, 11:51 AM
I don't believe that the difference is quite that drastic. Certainly the average height hasn't changed that much. Remember, plenty of 6'6"/6'7" guys can be dominant post players today. But certainly the depth in quality of guys that size has increased over the years, though.

Definitely. I wasn't around back then. I didn't think your average shooting guard was 6'4" and your average Power Forward 6'8" in the 50's. I thought there was a bigger difference between the centers and everybody else back then. You say that average height hasn't changed much, but whose average height are we talking? The average height of males, of American males, of basketball players? According to a 2004 Washington Post article, the average American adult male height in 1960 was 5'8". In 2002, it was 5'9.5". That's actually a HUGE difference, especially when you take immigration into account. According to a height chart I found at www.halls.md, the height of 95% of American white and black adult males falls between 66-75" at age 25, with a median a little over 70". Hispanics fall between 63-71.5" with a median at 67", and "others" are basically the same as Hispanics at 63-72" with a 68" median. So, with the population explosion of hispanics and other minority groups we've seen over the past 20 years, I'd be willing to bet that the "average" height of whites and blacks, the predominant ethnicities on college and NBA basketball teams, has risen by more than that.

Also, according to NBA.com, the average height of an NBA player was just over 6'7" in 2004-2005. Was it 6'7" in the 50s? I can't find data on that, but I'd bet not. I'm not saying that exactly correlates to college player heights, but I'd be willing to bet that 6'6" was well above average for the overall college basketball player population in the 1950s.

No, he probably wasn't the tallest guy on the court back then, but I'd be willing to bet he was taller than MOST of the guys on the court, whereas today, 6'6" AIN'T close to the tallest guy on the court.

CDu
03-11-2009, 12:00 PM
No, he probably wasn't the tallest guy on the court back then, but I'd be willing to bet he was taller than MOST of the guys on the court, whereas today, 6'6" AIN'T close to the tallest guy on the court.

Well, 6'6" is still taller than most guys on the college court today though. Plenty of major college programs enlist 6'6"-6'7" post players these days. It's not the TALLEST guy on the court, but I'd bet it wasn't the tallest guy on the court back then either. I'd guess it's more like 6'8" is now.

I agree that there were probably fewer really tall guys. With the general increase in height in the population and the addition of foreign big men, there are certainly more big guys throughout college basketball today. But I suspect there were still plenty of 6'8" guys in major college basketball in the 50s. The biggest difference I'd suspect, though, is that the average 6'8" guy back then is a lot less gifted than the average 6'8" guy is today.