Basketball Prospectus blasts Hansbrough's NPOYs

[Troublemaker]

Maybe, but "the numbers" alone do not tell the whole story. Hansbrough has demonstrated leadership and clutchiness (my word) all year when it counts (see Clemson games).

The guy is the face of UNC basketball and UNC is #1 in the country. He's their undisputed leader, their go-to guy. I don't see how anyone else could come close to challenging him for this award this year.

Even if his eyes do bug out of his head.

-EarlJam

P.S. Sorry, Just can't let a Pro-Hansbrough post go without a jab.

I don't follow UCLA as closely as ClipsFan but I'm sure he could point out examples this season of Love showing leadership and clutchiness as well. Heck, I can think of an example off the top of my head. His 3-pter against Cal which cut the lead to 1. That was very clutch and could end up being the difference between a 1 seed and 2 seed for UCLA. The other stuff ("face of UNC", UNC #1 in the country) I don't see as too relevant to the discussion. Don't worry -- Hansbrough will, in all likelihood, sweep the NPOY awards, so for all practical purposes, no competitor WILL come close to challenging him for those awards.

But a case can be made for Kevin Love to win NPOY and one variation of that case was aptly presented by that author Gasaway from Basketball Prospectus (he's also known as the "Big Ten Wonk"). The article was fine. But it's okay to disagree with it and it's okay to agree with it as well.

[SilkyJ]

Also, the award is not a lifetime achievement award, so the fact that Hansbrough has done it for a long time should be irrelevant. It is the 2007-2008 player of the year award.

Perhaps it should be irrelevant as you say, but I don't think it is. Voters take that stuff into consideration. Last year Durant was a runaway but you still had people talking about what it would mean to give the wooden/naismith award to a freshman and all that. (same deal in football, even moreso, actually. voters hate to give the heisman to an underclassman)

Oh, and I think the numbers overlook how Hansbrough stepped up his play while Lawson was injured.

His overall #'s do overlook that, but if you look at his numbers over that stretch and its pretty indicative of how he stepped up his play. I don't know if people have/would really take the time to do that, though its not difficult...

Doesn't seem like a silly argument to me. 18 and 10 for Love is a lot more impressive when you consider that UCLA plays at a much slower (11 possessions a game) pace than UNC. I think the rebounding
(especially the defensive ones) and assist stats are not a wash. Love is a better rebounder and passer than Hansbrough. That is pretty obvious when watching him play.

Love also carried his team when Collison was out or not 100% early in the season. UCLA is a top team in a top conference just like UNC. If you look at the stats that Gasaway shows (and throw in assists and blocks as well) Love is better than Hans in everything but FT rate this year.

I'm not sure that I would vote for Love over Hans, but he makes a good argument about the effects of media and perception.

All that stuff is great and I may even agree, but what counts the most for winning POY are the "Big 3" stats: Pts, asts, rebs. When you are guard its Pts and asts, and when you are a big man its pts and rebs. Tyler scores more points, by a significant amount. Voters don't really consider pace of play (if at all) or stuff like stls/blocks unless you are SUCH a good defender that you are getting upwards of 3 stls or blcks per game. And even then, that takes a serious backseat to the Big 3.

I guess I should rephrase my original comment that the argument was "silly." His breakdown of the #'s is well and good, but if we are considering who should win POY I have to go off of what I "know" to be the criteria that voters use, and it basically goes like this: "who's putting up the best numbers and how is their team doing." Then add-in extra stuff like special circumstances (i.e. carrying your team while a player is injured or perhaps are you playing on a top team like memphis playing in C-USA or are you a top team like UCLA/UNC playing in a top conference)

[CDu]

Maybe, but "the numbers" alone do not tell the whole story. Hansbrough has demonstrated leadership and clutchiness (my word) all year when it counts (see Clemson games).

The guy is the face of UNC basketball and UNC is #1 in the country. He's their undisputed leader, their go-to guy. I don't see how anyone else could come close to challenging him for this award this year.

Even if his eyes do bug out of his head.

-EarlJam

P.S. Sorry, Just can't let a Pro-Hansbrough post go without a jab.

Hey, I think the arguments for Hansbrough are quite strong, and they are the reason he's going to win. The point of the article is simply to suggest that, based purely on performance on the floor, there's a pretty strong argument that Love had the better year performance-wise. But the award isn't based on pure performance. Other factors are considered. These other factors (including publicity, preseason hype, etc) have swayed toward Hansbrough.

[ugadevil]

POY should go to a complete player



Hansborough is not that. he has never truly impressed me becasue of this.

Welcome back Bluedawg! Where ya' been!?!

[Troublemaker]

Perhaps it should be irrelevant as you say, but I don't think it is. Voters take that stuff into consideration. Last year Durant was a runaway but you still had people talking about what it would mean to give the wooden/naismith award to a freshman and all that. (same deal in football, even moreso, actually. voters hate to give the heisman to an underclassman)

His overall #'s do overlook that, but if you look at his numbers over that stretch and its pretty indicative of how he stepped up his play. I don't know if people have/would really take the time to do that, though its not difficult...

All that stuff is great and I may even agree, but what counts the most for winning POY are the "Big 3" stats: Pts, asts, rebs. When you are guard its Pts and asts, and when you are a big man its pts and rebs. Tyler scores more points, by a significant amount. Voters don't really consider pace of play (if at all) or stuff like stls/blocks unless you are SUCH a good defender that you are getting upwards of 3 stls or blcks per game. And even then, that takes a serious backseat to the Big 3.

I guess I should rephrase my original comment that the argument was "silly." His breakdown of the #'s is well and good, but if we are considering who should win POY I have to go off of what I "know" to be the criteria that voters use, and it basically goes like this: "who's putting up the best numbers and how is their team doing." Then add-in extra stuff like special circumstances (i.e. carrying your team while a player is injured or perhaps are you playing on a top team like memphis playing in C-USA or are you a top team like UCLA/UNC playing in a top conference)

So, are you critical of the article or not?
Because you seem to be confusing/conflating two separate opinions:
(a) that of which player the voters will pick to win
(b) that of which player deserves to win

Your criticism of the article seemingly deals with (a) but the article itself deals with (b).

[Bluedawg]

Welcome back Bluedawg! Where ya' been!?!

Health issues and work has kept me rather busy...I've been checking in although not posting a lot.

[wumhenry]

UCLA plays games that average 65.1 possessions per game (according to Pomeroy). UNC plays games that average 76.1 possessions per game. While Hansbrough does average 23.1 and 10.5 a game, Kevin Love would be averaging 20.4 and 12.8 playing at that pace.

ASSUMING he could play at that elevated pace with the same efficiency.

[dukemomLA]

Being in L.A., I've had the opportunity to see Kevin Love in person (6+times at Pauley), and with televised games on the road. A fabulous player -- a given. A thug -- absolutely. The amount of hard fouls he commits, while being a wiley, smart player to do such under the radar of the refs, is amazing.

Looking forward to his "advance" to the NBA. CBB is better than this.

Although not a fan of TH, even Duke fans have to admit he plays hard every day, every play...... even though he travels almost every play, and almost never gets called for fouls as he should.

[phillyheel]

ASSUMING he could play at that elevated pace with the same efficiency.

Good point. Also why weren't steals mentioned and blocks were? How about the number of minutes opposing play didn't play due to foul trouble guarding Hans? How about getting your team in the bonus early due to fouls drawn, etc.

[AtlDuke72]

But a case can be made for Kevin Love to win NPOY and one variation of that case was aptly presented by that author Gasaway from Basketball Prospectus (he's also known as the "Big Ten Wonk"). The article was fine. But it's okay to disagree with it and it's okay to agree with it as well.

It doesn't even seem like a close question to me. Hansborough has dominated virtually every game he has played in this year and obviously is a real leader on his team. Love has great games and tons of potential, but there has been a debate all year about his actions and whether you would even want him in the locker room. Earlier in the year his own coach said he was not in shape. Hansborough scores 5 points more a game. I suppose it is good to have debates but the answer is clear cut in my mind. If the Devils had TH playing next to Singler can you imagine how badly we would beat everybody else?

By the way, where are all those posts from two years ago saying how much better McRoberts was than Hansborough?

[Chitowndevil]

The article is interesting. I disagree with the conclusion, but it is striking that Hansbrough's game is so one-dimensional.

Really the debate boils down to one I've had many, many times over baseball. When determining MVPs, do you look at 'old school' triple crown stats (AVG, HR, RBI), which are essentially season totals, or 'sabermetric' stats (OPS, ISO) designed to measure production per at-bat. The answer is you look at both, and also a bunch of subjective criteria involving how a player performed in certain situations and what kind of role he played on his team.

Regardless of sport, if you're clearly the best player on what most people agree is the best team, you're the favorite for PoY/MVP unless somebody else's stats clearly dominate yours. Hansbrough fits the former criterion and his 'old school' stats are better than Love's. For most reasonable people, that's enough to end the argument.

[SilkyJ]

So, are you critical of the article or not?
Because you seem to be confusing/conflating two separate opinions:
(a) that of which player the voters will pick to win
(b) that of which player deserves to win

Your criticism of the article seemingly deals with (a) but the article itself deals with (b).

I am critical of the argument that Kevin Love should be NPOY.

Should is the key word b/c different people have different views of what should count in the voting, but I think that's another argument for another time.

What does count is all the stuff I mentioned earlier and so based on that, Hansbrough should or as you say, "deserves" to be NPOY.

I am not trying to comment as much on whether his argument in favor of love is good or bad b/c he is arguing points that seem moot to me. This efficiency and pace of play stuff is meaningless to me b/c its meaningless to the voters.

I do understand why you think I am confusing the two opinions, but I'm trying to say that most people who are arguing about B (which player deserves to win) are arguing about what criteria should count and how to weight the different factors. I am saying thats a separate argument. I am using the aforementioned criteria that the voters will use to say 1) who deserves to win (based on that criteria) as well as 2) who the voters will pick. #1 is my personal analytical viewpoint based on an assessment of criteria (again, the same one the voters use..or at least I think they use) whereas #2 is trying to read the mind of voters.

How about getting your team in the bonus early due to fouls drawn, etc.

Hate to break it to ya, but the average elapsed time before you enter the bonus isn't a stat that is kept officially and more importantly it isn't a metric most people use (and it would be ridiculous to expect people to monitor that individually)

[CDu]

I am critical of the argument that Kevin Love should be NPOY.

Should is the key word b/c different people have different views of what should count in the voting, but I think that's another argument for another time.

What does count is all the stuff I mentioned earlier and so based on that, Hansbrough should or as you say, "deserves" to be NPOY.

I am not trying to comment as much on whether his argument in favor of love is good or bad b/c he is arguing points that seem moot to me. This efficiency and pace of play stuff is meaningless to me b/c its meaningless to the voters.

I do understand why you think I am confusing the two opinions, but I'm trying to say that most people who are arguing about B (which player deserves to win) are arguing about what criteria should count and how to weight the different factors. I am saying thats a separate argument. I am using the aforementioned criteria that the voters will use to say 1) who deserves to win (based on that criteria) as well as 2) who the voters will pick. #1 is my personal analytical viewpoint based on an assessment of criteria (again, the same one the voters use..or at least I think they use) whereas #2 is trying to read the mind of voters.



Hate to break it to ya, but the average elapsed time before you enter the bonus isn't a stat that is kept officially and more importantly it isn't a metric most people use (and it would be ridiculous to expect people to monitor that individually)

That's the POINT of his article. He's trying to educate the voters. The voters vote on things based on antiquated notions of performance. As such, he's writing this article to try to move things toward a more educated approach.

Voters are going to vote for Hansbrough. That's obvious. But his point is that, if voters voted based on performance (not hype and outside factors), the award should go to Love.

[SilkyJ]

That's the POINT of his article.

Fair enough. As I said, I even agree with some of the things he said.

But his point is that, if voters voted based on performance (not hype and outside factors), the award should go to Love.

Again, this all depends on your definition of "performance" and what variables factor into your evaluation. In the writer's definition he factors in efficiency/pace of play/etc. but not everyone factors those things into their evaluation of "performance" and thats part of MY point. Just b/c you call it antiquated doesn't make it right or wrong. What it is is "simple." The Big 3 stats (pts, rebs, asts) have always been the big stats and they are easy to monitor.

And at the end of the day guys, tyler scores 24ppg to Love's 18ppg (and I already mentioned that the other significant factors are pretty much a wash, imo). Thats a significant difference and PPG is obviously the most looked at and heavily weighted stat for basketball players. Shelden averaged 18/game. JJ averaged 24. Think about that. If thats an antiquated viewpoint, then fine, but basketball is still about outscoring your opponent so PPG is kinda important.

[wumhenry]

Hate to break it to ya, but the average elapsed time before you enter the bonus isn't a stat that is kept officially and more importantly it isn't a metric most people use (and it would be ridiculous to expect people to monitor that individually)

Number of foul shots taken IS tracked, however, and is a pretty good gauge of the extent to which a player gets opponents into foul trouble.

[Wander]

What agenda would that be? They posted those stats to support this line in the article: "It's taken Hansbrough three seasons to become the weapon on offense that Love already is."

But what does it matter? The award is about this season - I don't think it should be relevant what these guys did in the past or how long it took them to get there. And the agenda that I refer to is that they want to promote their rating systems. That's nothing awful.

Note that Love played the early part of this season without HIS point guard, Darren Collison, too.

Yeah, I know. And Love played well in that stretch. But he had a much better backup than Quentin Thomas and played much worse competition.

The article is a good article for what it is -- a statistical comparison between Love and Hansbrough.

Oh, I don't think it's a bad article, and I don't think that Hansbrough is so far above Love, Beasley, Lopez, and whoever that he's the only reasonable choice to vote for an NPOY award. I just don't agree with their conclusion.

[Troublemaker]

I am critical of the argument that Kevin Love should be NPOY.

Should is the key word b/c different people have different views of what should count in the voting, but I think that's another argument for another time.

What does count is all the stuff I mentioned earlier and so based on that, Hansbrough should or as you say, "deserves" to be NPOY.

I am not trying to comment as much on whether his argument in favor of love is good or bad b/c he is arguing points that seem moot to me. This efficiency and pace of play stuff is meaningless to me b/c its meaningless to the voters.

I do understand why you think I am confusing the two opinions, but I'm trying to say that most people who are arguing about B (which player deserves to win) are arguing about what criteria should count and how to weight the different factors. I am saying thats a separate argument. I am using the aforementioned criteria that the voters will use to say 1) who deserves to win (based on that criteria) as well as 2) who the voters will pick. #1 is my personal analytical viewpoint based on an assessment of criteria (again, the same one the voters use..or at least I think they use) whereas #2 is trying to read the mind of voters.

But the author already acknowledged up front that his methods of evaluation will not be used by voters. You re-pointing that out seems redundant, and you being critical of the article on that basis seems irrelevant to the article.

[Wander]

POY should go to a complete player

Hansborough is not that. he has never truly impressed me becasue of this.

Was JJ a complete player? No, but he was the best at what he did and he did exactly what his team needed to do, and I think definitely deserved his POY awards. You can be the best player in the country without being an elite defender.

[Troublemaker]

But what does it matter? The award is about this season - I don't think it should be relevant what these guys did in the past or how long it took them to get there. And the agenda that I refer to is that they want to promote their rating systems. That's nothing awful.

I don't think the author ever claimed that line was relevant to his conclusion. I interpreted the line as an "fyi" or side-note kind of thing, something writers are prone to include when writing long articles. Ultimately, his argument for Love for NPOY was based solely on this season's stats, and it's a valid argument.

I agree that Basketball Prospectus tries to promote efficiency stats. But that doesn't predispose them to a bias against Hansbrough; it just so happens that in this discussion, Love has the advantage over Hansbrough in those efficiency stats. But if Hansbrough had the advantage, I would expect the Prospectus to promote HIM as NPOY. So I agree that the agenda is not bad and irrelevant with regard to bias towards one player or another.

Oh, I don't think it's a bad article, and I don't think that Hansbrough is so far above Love, Beasley, Lopez, and whoever that he's the only reasonable choice to vote for an NPOY award. I just don't agree with their conclusion.

And that's fair. And I happen to agree, as Hansbrough would get my vote for NPOY as well. My only objection was to your previous characterization of the author.

[socaldukie]

Save for the fact it would be in the final four I would love to see these 2 guys and teams go head to head. Talk about an intense matchup.