So Wait, Why Can't Tyler Hansbrough Be A Lottery Pick?

I have the NBA League Pass. This might come as a shock to some people, seeing as how college basketball fans are supposed to despise the evil, emotionless, robot-ball of the NBA. What with all that talent and, you know, ability to make shots. Cheerleaders, stoned students and white guys. Now that is basketball. But I'm not going to digress on whether college is, in fact, a better basketball product as nearly every casual basketball fan and diehard college fan purports it to be. That is perhaps another column for another day.

No, the reason I bring up the League Pass is that I watch a lot of basketball (if you are looking to stay up until 1:30 every night before work -- and alcohol/a woman is not an option that particular evening -- the League Pass is a great alternative to accomplishing this goal) and I watch a lot of different players. Therefore, I have gained a knowledge that I am quite proud of and one that is very rare, likely because it is completely useless. I am familiar with every player that steps onto the floor of an NBA game. I have seen them all play before, I know their games, I know their roles on their given team and, most importantly, I know just how ridiculous it is for them to be in the NBA. There are some truly awful, truly lucky and truly inexplicable players seeing major minutes in the NBA. Chicago and New Orleans are on right now actually and Ryan Bowen, Rasual Butler, Aaron Gray, Hilton Armstrong and Jannero Pargo have all had an impact on this game one way or another (four of those five players are on New Orleans; if Byron Scott isn't Coach of the Year, Ralph Nader needs to get involved). And this is happening everywhere.

So, why in the name of Mark Blount can't Tyler Hansbrough make it in the NBA? Everyone even remotely involved in evaluating/analyzing college basketball absolutely loves Hansbrough and yet not one of those people give him any chance to be more than a fringe pro. He is a "great, college player" or "shows grit and determination" or "is relentless around the basket;" but at the same time he manages to be "undersized," "unathletic" and, worst of all, "a four-year player." He is listed as the No. 29 pick in the 2009 Draft (behind guys like Curtis Jerrels and Joe Alexander) on NBADraft.net and, more reasonably, No. 19 in this year's draft on Draft Express (behind DeVon Hardin). Now, I'm not going to suggest Tyler Hansbrough, as a result of his dominance of the college ranks, should be the No. 1 pick or something. But I do think he will be a very valuable NBA player.

And that depends on how you define success I suppose. I linked to this last week, but there was a nice piece on FreeDarko about how NBA GMs have been suckered into an era where they expect their draft picks to be franchise saviors -- rather than (gasp) effective contributors -- because they now get a chance to see the untapped talent of former high school-to-pro dudes at a college level. Conversely, those that show limitations to their talent at that level are penalized like they haven't been before (how else does Brandan Wright go ahead of Joakim Noah last year?). And this is what has happened to Tyler Hansbrough. He is a really fucking good player. He averages 2.5 points and 1.5 rebounds less than Michael Beasley and shoots roughly the same percentages all against similar, but probably better competition. On the other hand, he doesn't hit threes, blocks way less shots and is over three years older than Beasley. Me being a rational person, looking at only those facts, I would say Beasley is a much better prospect than Hansbrough. And that is true. But the question is how much? No matter what your limitations, putting up those numbers for a top team in a top conference with opposing defenses doing everything to stop you, is fairly impressive. And yet those numbers, except when considering the POY race, have somehow been rendered irrelevant. If you just look at the players and listen to the pundits, the difference is obvious, right? (Note: Wrong).

Well, since no one else wants to say it, here's what Tyler Hansbrough does well that will translate to the NBA. He has incredible touch around the basket. He somehow manages to get the weirdest shots from the weirdest angles to go in, and frequently does so while being fouled. The utter ugliness in aesthetic that these shots often display, is probably the reason people scoff at his game. He doesn't make it look very easy and for some reason we equate making the game look natural with having natural talent. For some, like Beasley and Durant, this is absolutely true, but it's certainly not the rule (JR Smith has a smoothness that makes the game look easy and he can barely read). Hansbrough is also outstanding with his body positioning. Kevin Love, another guy whose NBA stock is being persecuted, is also outstanding at this. When you are undersized, you have to compensate by being able to position your body at the right angles and seal off defenders in the post (just ask Charles Barkley). This is why Hansbrough gets rebounds, gets to the line like he does and manages to get shots off against bigger and more athletic opponents. This is something few NBA players can perform at Hansbrough's level because it's not something you have to teach athletic players as they grow up. But in the NBA, everyone is athletic, so positioning and footwork ends up being an important differentiator from defenders.

This season he has also shown a bit of a face-up game and a mid-range jumper. Now he hasn't done it at a level that will turn him into some unstoppable force, but it does dispel the myth that he has "peaked" in development. He is adding facets to a game that was already good enough to dominate on the college level and has shown signs of turning the J he's shown this year into a consistent 16-foot jumper in the League (the 16-foot jumper is the NBA big man's free meal ticket to offensive longevity, just ask Marcus Camby, Mark Blount, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Kurt Thomas and Udonis Haslem... do not ask Ben Wallace).

OK, you say, "But he's still a barely 6-8 power forward, which position in the NBA can he guard?" If you haven't seen the NBA lately, there are tons of 6-8 players that are frequently slotted as a power forward. There are very few teams that play the majority of their games with a classic PG, 6-5 SG, 6-8 SF, 6-10 PF and 7-0 C anymore. I watched Cleveland play Atlanta the other day and LeBron James and Marvin Williams were the tallest players on the court down the stretch in the fourth. This league wants guys to get up and down the court, be able to run an effective screen and roll or screen and pop, and do the little things that help the stars stay stars. That sounds like a fine roll for Psycho T. He has great conditioning, is pretty fast end-to-end, should be able to set good screens, can knock down open, mid-range jumpers and rebounds like Satan is telling him to do so. By doing those things alone, coupled with his touch in the paint, toughness and basketball IQ, he will be a great secondary NBA player. And not some bench guy to steal minutes. He can be a starter on a contending NBA team. I mean, Fabricio Oberto is, Erick Dampier is, Joel Przybilla is, Kendrick Perkins is, Rasual Butler is. And while those guys aren't great players, I'd still rather use a late lottery pick on them than I would a guy with "untapped talent." Because there's no guarantee that guy is ever to going to tap himself (that didn't come out right, but you get the point).

ACC vs. Big Ten! For All the Marbles! (Well, Not Really, But Still)

I'll admit it, when the Big Ten/ACC Challenge was originally announced I thought it would be pretty awesome. UNC vs. Indiana! Duke vs. Michigan State! Dickie V trying to decide between Tom Izzo and Coach K's nuts!

But then when they actually started playing the games, I quickly realized, it was the entire Big Ten against the entire ACC. More like, Virginia Tech vs. Northwestern. Miami vs. Minnesota. Fran Frischilla flirting with Doris Burke (chills). The only game of any real interest to me is UNC at Ohio State and that's only to see Hansbrough v. Koufos in the white guy post battle to end all white guy post battles.

It became clear that the real winner wasn't being decided on the court because the best of the best weren't playing each other (my idea is that the teams play each other based on the previous year's finish in the conference standings i.e. ACC champ vs. Big Ten champ, ACC runner-up vs. Big Ten runner-up, etc., but it'll never happen). So in order to decide who is really the better conference, we examine some other factors using an old blogger stand-by, the always-reliable Tale of the Tape. Here are this year's match-ups, for referential purposes.

Monday, Nov. 26
7:00 p.m. ESPN2 Wake Forest at Iowa

Tuesday, Nov. 27
7:00 p.m. ESPN Georgia Tech at Indiana
7:30 p.m. ESPN2 Minnesota at Florida State
7:00 p.m. ESPNU Northwestern at Virginia
9:00 p.m. ESPN Wisconsin at Duke
9:30 p.m. ESPN2 Purdue at Clemson

Wednesday, Nov. 28
7:00 p.m. ESPN N.C. State at Michigan State
7:30 p.m. ESPN2 Illinois at Maryland
7:00 p.m. ESPNU Boston College at Michigan
9:00 p.m. ESPN North Carolina at Ohio State
9:30 p.m. ESPN2 Virginia Tech at Penn State

The tale, after the jump.

Continue...
Women
This category needs a disclaimer. The logical way to do this would be to compare the ever-popular Girls of the ____ Playboy issues for the respective conferences but I found this would be inaccurate. Those issues depict a very small demographic of a conference, the "Above Average Looking Complete Skank" bracket. If you saw most of these girls on campus you would have no interest in seeing them naked but if they so happen to appear naked in front of you, it is much obliged. They have enough girl next door appeal to make this issue seem cool enough ("Hey, she's in my econ class! And she's got weird nipples!") but the fact that they pose nude in Playboy for a free sweatshirt at the book store makes them too skanky to pursue. It's a tiresome conundrum. I'm looking for the common Big Ten or ACC woman.

Big Ten- The only Big Ten school I've ever been to is Penn State. But I've been there a lot and hear it is at least in the top three in the conference in poon. Color me unimpressed. By sheer volume, it should be teeming with acceptable trim. But hot girls hate cold weather because it's not too attractive to wear booty shorts on top of long johns. Plus the 8 days of sunlight State College receives per year does little for springtime tanning. I've been to Michigan State once and it's the same way. And if you've never been to Western PA, or Michigan, finding a girl who doesn't hunt wild game, hasn't had sex on a tractor or isn't addicted to oxycontin is like finding a needle in a haystack (which those girls are surprisingly good at doing). I'll assume the others are just as dismal.

ACC- My experience includes UNC, Virginia and Maryland. Virginia is outstanding. Southern accents, dresses, actual sunlight and a tuition just high enough to ensure both a full collection of teeth and the absence of inbreeding. Maryland, not so much. Just north enough to attract New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians and, gasp, people from Jersey. UNC, somewhere in the middle. For location, it's right in the wheelhouse of East Coast choiceness and the girls are rich enough to utilize some elite DNA (and if that fails, plastic surgery) but the academic standards are too high to weed out the nerds. Not only do they ruin the curve in class but bring down the collective bootyliciousness of the whole campus.

Advantage: ACC. The Florida schools outweigh the fugliness of BC and I don't even want to see what type of beasts they have at Minnesota.


Tradition
Big Ten- Lots of it. Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State form a tripod of dense frat boy sexual frustration manifested in epithets, bar fights, immature pranks and prosecutable assault. That's mostly in sports besides basketball though. But, Indiana carries the load for the hardcourt. On the downside, schools like Minnesota and Northwestern have never been good at anything that matters ever.

ACC- UNC-Duke is great and all but it's become as bastardized as Yanks-Sox. The media attention and mainstream appeal has stripped the regional feel and shifted the focus toward factors that North Carolinians don't even care about (namely Coach K and Roy Williams). If Dane Cook ever gets on board, we are finished. Plus the Big East defectors have changed the landscape a bit. I still forget BC is in the ACC sometimes.

Advantage- Big Ten. Duke lacrosse's tradition of rape doesn't help either.



People to Love
Big Ten- The Fab Five, Kosta Koufos, Eric Gordon (I'm not an Illinois fan), Mateen Cleaves, Gene Keady's hair, Greg Oden, Dee Brown/Deron Williams/Nick Smith.

ACC- Michael Jordan, Wes Miller, Jim Valvano.... (crickets)

Advantage- Big Ten


People to Hate
Big Ten- Bob Knight, Kelvin Sampson, Clem Haskins, Tom Izzo, Drew Neitzel, Keith Smart.

ACC- Coach K, Roy Williams, Dick Vitale, Mike Patrick, Jared Dudley, Sean Marshall, JJ Redick, Greg Paulus, Jon Scheyer, Wojo, Collins, Shane Battier, Dahntay Jones, Josh McRoberts, Zoubek (what the hell), Taylor King, Nic Caner-Medley, Steve Francis, Stephon Marbury, Stephon Marbury's weird hair part (passes out).

Advantage- Big Ten


Weather
Big Ten- Snow, clouds, rain and the occasional frat house piss shower.

ACC- Sunshine, maybe even a beach and the sweet touch of Redick tears.

Advantage- ACC (just don't ever go to Boston College).


Fans
Big Ten- Schools like Penn State and Iowa, with no basketball fans, at least get rabid football support. They are in the middle of nowhere, it's sports, cowtipping or drowning loneliness in a bottle of cheap whiskey... and Scrabble, you could always play Scrabble. Indiana, Michigan State and usually Illinois are the only basketball fans I would call "great."

ACC- I hate Duke, but if I went to Duke, I probably wouldn't. There, that's all I'm gonna say. I've seen a game at the Dean Dome and it's fantastic, even if it's a bit too huge for my liking. Maryland fans are the best. Their treatment of Redick should have won a Noble prize, if they gave Nobel Prizes in Heartless, Yet Completely Deserving Douchebaggery. Miami is awful and Wake and G Tech have been listless lately, but NC State, BC, Va Tech (when they play someone good) and even Clemson are above average.

Advantage- ACC. Do not get between the South and their basketball.


Actual Basketball
The least relevant category turns out to be the clincher. Let's go through each game and pick a winner.

Wake Forest at Iowa- Iowa
Georgia Tech at Indiana- Indiana
Minnesota at FSU- FSU
Northwestern at Virginia- Virginia
Wisconsin at Duke- Duke
Purdue at Clemson- Clemson
NC State at Michigan State- NC State
Illinois at Maryland- Illinois
Boston College at Michigan- Michigan
North Carolina at Ohio State- UNC
Virginia Tech at Penn State- Virginia Tech

Advantage- ACC. 7-4.



The ACC is your winner!
I mean, they deserve it for having hotter chicks, but I hate siding with anything involving Duke. There, now you don't have to actually watch any of the games. But do pick up those Playboy issues.