"Mark Madsen" seems to be viewed as an insult. Madsen was a very good college player, and he's had a relatively good number of years in the NBA, during which he was a fairly well-known role-player for a championship-level team. Saying Hansbrough is similar to Madsen isn't akin to saying he can't play. I don't think Hansbrough has much NBA star potential, but he could definitely be a useful role-player/back-up for a good team.
My low risk high reward statement, I meant that most of the guys he picks have pretty high worst case scenarios, compared to other players available. But also have higher upsides. Not to say it's always just the safest sort of pick, but what they brought to the league, LaMarcus Aldridge was highly less likely to be a bust than Tyrus Thomas was. However, high reward on his ceiling is probably ultimately higher than Thomas' is as well, IMO. Same with Roy and Gay. Gay seemed more likely to be a bust, and by more likely, I just mean more likely than Roy, not likely in general, but out of the two, ROy was the more likely to at a minimum have a Ron Mercer sort of career. Contributor, nothing great, but could start for you, whereas Gay was the more likely to flame out. But with upside, I think KP saw the upside we are now seeing of Roy, which few others did, and thought the upside was higher than Gay's potential upside. And, the same thing with Oden over Durant, IMO. Safer, in that his floor(outside of injury plagued career) was a Dikmbe Mutombo type, it seemed, but also higher reward, in that at their respective ceilings, I would take Oden's over Durant's as well.
Maybe, I just looked at Madsen's stats, and never put up anything resembling impressive numbers, even considering for limited playing time. He never averaged more than half a block or half a steal a game. Never averaged an assist (a single 1). Never got more than 3.6 pts or 3.8 rebs. He was a big body though. I think Hansbrough has a superior motor though, which will help him be more successful in the pros. I don't think he'll be a star either, but there's no reason to think he won't be better than Channing Frye. I remember watching Channing Frye in college and thought it was ridiculous that he was drafted so high...I thought he was so awkward running down the court. But he had a decent rookie year in NY. Hansbrough will be okay, but I'm sure there will be a better prospect to steal at that point in the draft. Who knows. We might make a lopsided draft using our capspace and bring back a backup PF in the process as well.
I find it odd that you would be a champion for Hansbrough, a guy who is perhaps the least versatile college player of the year that I can recall. Based on some of the threads you've posted, it appears as though you like to have more well-rounded players. I mean, you even criticize players who play more than one position off of the bench; what good does having a guy who is limited to one position and plays a very "stiff" game?
His "stiff, one-dimensional" game has been good enough for a CPOY-candidate. Though I dn't watch as much college BB as I used to, I can't think of a time when a bonehead move by Psycho T took his team out of the game. In fact, I've seen him keep his team in the game much more than he should be able to with a stiff game. Should he be our starting PF? Nope, I expect our team to have a PF that plays above-average defensively for his 35-40 mpg. Should he get 30mpg? Nope, he probably doesn't have the athleticism to not be exploited in that amount of time. the players I criticize most on this board are for their lack of effort and boneheaded plays that lose games as veterans, not for any one-dimensional-ness or versatility. I'll take it a step further...the people I'd posted most about having a significantly reduced role on this team were Travis for much of the first half and Blake almost all year, but especially when he came back from injury. Travis was for reasons I've posted significantly about, and posted significantly recently about him rectifying a lot of those. It wasn't for his playing of multiple positions off the bench, it was for his poor defense and lack of effort crashing the boards, especially from the SF position early in the year. I cannot possibly fathom making criticisms about effort or BBIQ against Hansbrough, especially since he'll get at most 12-15 mpg. As I've posted elsewhere on this thread, I think the stiff things he does bring (specifically effort, hustle, motor, whatever you want to call it) are in short supply for the most part on our team.
I was just wondering how long it would be before posters started ripping apart Hansbrough's limited game. That seems to be a favorite subject for some posters.
Wouldn't you say, though, that it would be a significantly higher number if he was getting 30mpg rather than 12-15? Honestly, I'd think he could live up to a ceiling of Najera/Turiaf/something like that. Yea or nay?
You keep talking about minutes. Who's fault is that, so that the criticism can be correctly targeted? Outlaw's? (Case for: He could turn down minutes above 12-15, but chooses not to) McMillan's? (Case for: He could play Batum more minutes but, since Outlaw is getting a lot of minutes at power forward now, he'd need to play Frye/Ruffin/Randolph more to cut Outlaw's minutes significantly) Pritchard's? (Case for: He could have more talented players) Webster's? (Case for: Had he not been hurt, he'd cut into Outlaw's minutes [but mostly Batum's] to some extent) Frye's? (Case for: If he'd stop sucking, he'd cut into Outlaw's power forward minutes quite a bit) Which case do you consider most substantial? Or is there a target I'm overlooking? Since most of your criticism is aimed at Outlaw, what is it he should be doing?
What's the site that shows a breakdown of players' minutes at each position? I.E. comparing Travis' production from SF and PF. Back on topic...I don't think Psycho-T would be a bad pick. We need someone that can bring energy like a Turiaff. Hansbrough isn't the defensive player that Turiaff is obviously, but I think he'd work his butt off and be more effective than any of our current backup PFs (except for maybe Outlaw for a while).
I'm a bit confused. Fault over minutes played? I'd say that continuing to play Travis at SF early this year when he was consistently leaving open shooting SFs like Miller, McGrady, Hurkoglu, etc was probably Nate's fault for putting Travis in a bad position, knowing his tendency to not be good in that situation. I'm saying not attacking the rim, settling for contested 22-foot 2-pointers and not putting forth effort to rebound was Travis's fault. (Again, see the Quick article about not taking the ball to the hole, even when Nate and his brother tell him he should) But of course he'll play when Coach says to, so his lack of effort and court awareness was more a "personal development and effort" flaw than anything else. (And as I've said repeatedly, and that seems to be glossed over a bunch, I have been a big Travis fan since he started playing the right way ) If Hansbrough choked one away today, he deserves criticism, does he not? He's the stud veteran player on an elite team who lost his team a game. But when we apply that to our two veterans (Blake and Outlaw, since I haven't seen Przy choke away a game), people here are up in arms. Or when we criticize our coach for his players either a) not following his game plan or b) not having a good game plan, people are also up in arms. My contention with this whole thread is that I think Tyler Hansbrough would be an intriguing choice with the 20-30th pick, after seeing him play much of the last two games against people taller and more athletic than he. His perceived flaws (as posted by many of you on here) have been relatively nonexistent in what I've seen of those games, and that surprised me. He brings effort and court awareness, two things that are sorely lacking in our young, stacked team. Somehow it became a session against my hate of Travis and Blake. I'll say it again: if Blake was getting Sergio minutes and was playing the way he has, he'd get much less criticism, though he'd still get some. When Travis was hosing up early this year, if he was getting 15 minutes instead of 30 he'd have much less opportunity to mess up and be put in roles he wasn't equipped for. If TH is given 30 minutes a game, I'm sure I'll be on here criticizing how he was exposed. But I don't think that'll happen.
I think Hansbrough is willing to hustle and fight for 10 minutes a game. He's got the motor, which is why I think he'll hack it. If anyone is content with Shavlik Randolph on the team, why wouldn't they be okay with Hansbrough ;-)
Well, I still don't see the point of being critical of Outlaw based on minutes played. He plays that number of minutes because the team doesn't feel they have anyone better for those minutes. That's based in part on Webster not being available, Batum still being raw and having no credible backup power forward. Outlaw is what he is. An okay player with some strengths and some weaknesses. He's a good value for the money he's paid, he's definitely good enough to deserve a roster spot and he plays the minutes he does because the team needs him to. I'm not sure why you keep saying you only criticize him because he plays "30 minutes instead of 12-15." What should he do about that, refuse to play more than 12-15?
I see. Nope, the minutes issue isn't his fault. Early in the year, his shortcomings were exposed (to the detriment of a couple of games) with Nate's insistence on playing him more minutes than his play warranted (imho). Giving effort and growing a bit more into the role he's been able to carve out has made him one of my fun-to-watch players. I selfishly tend to think that I was right all along: all it took was a little more effort (in rebounding and attacking the rim) and a little more attention paid (on D) to get to him to be a smaller liability and greater asset.
