There Will Be More Of These

First we had people whining about Tyler Hansbrough’s media exposure. And now the first of the “Tyler Hansbrough is not NPOY” articles have started. ericomac at ACC Country gave the spot on response to Dan Shanoff at The Sporting Blog who favors Kevin Love over Hansbrough for reasons that cannot be tied down with any rules of logic I am aware of. However John Gasaway at Basketball Prospectus has lined up a stat based argument for Love over Hansbrough. My response will be below the jump but let me just say that I agree with Joe Ovies at 850 when he says we should get used to this, there will be more. In light of this, I intend to make this the last such anti-Hansbrough article I respond to because if I get into responding to them all I will have little time for other things.

From BP:

Hansbrough and Love, on the other hand, are blessed with the supporting casts that Beasley lacks. Hansbrough is a savvy, indefatigable and, not least, lethally efficient scoring specialist who both earns and makes free throws with machine-like regularity. Past that? He’s an adequate defensive rebounder, he never blocks shots (ten the entire year) and rarely records assists (28).

As for Love, by way of introduction let us note that it’s taken Hansbrough three seasons to become the weapon on offense that Love already is:

Hansbrough and Love

                     Off.                          Def.        Off.
                     Rtng.    FTRate   eFG pct.  Reb. Pct.   Reb. Pct.    %Poss.
Hansbrough 06        118.7     72.5      57.3      14.9        13.9        26.6
Hansbrough 07        119.8     72.6      52.6      16.9        11.9        26.2
Hansbrough 08        127.8     80.9      55.2      20.5        12.8        26.9

Kevin Love 08        126.5     72.5      60.3      30.6        17.0        27.9

While playing as large a role within his own offense as Hansbrough does in his, Love is the better shooter from the field. He doesn’t get to the line quite as often, but he’s a better offensive rebounder. The largest difference between the two players, however, is that Love’s defensive rebounding is simply on another planet. In addition, he blocks a few shots and records a modest number of assists.

It’s beyond odd to be speaking of a UCLA player in revelatory tones more appropriate for an affronted underdog from the mid-major side of the tracks. Keep in mind this is no Nick Fazekas I’m introducing here. This is no boutique efficiency marvel teleported in from a below-radar league. This is Kevin Love. His mug graced magazine covers in November. He plays a featured role in the offense for a Final Four contender in the Pac-10.

True, on Hansbrough’s behalf it is said that he carried his team while Ty Lawson was hurt. Darn right he did. Is that admirable? Of course it is. By all means, give Hansbrough an admirable behavior award. Call it the Gutsy, call it the Irving Thalberg Award, call it anything you want. Only please don’t call it the Player of the Year award.

The Player of the Year award rightly belongs to the player who’s as good as Hansbrough on offense, but vastly superior to Hansbrough on defense. It rightly belongs to Kevin Love.

He won’t get it, of course, but that’s OK. Love will cry all the way to a handshake with David Stern in June. Hansbrough is a solid number two. Besides, he’s used to the exposure.

First let’s start with the main premise and that is Tyler Hansbrough benefits from greater exposure in the media and that exposure serves to trump any statistical advantages enjoyed by Kevin Love or any other player. Basically Gasaway envisions a world where NPOY candidates can be compared based on the numbers and an clear cut winner determined with statistical performance as the greatest measure and not other factors, many of them intangible. And honestly I could stop right here because that is never going to happen nor is a world I want to live in. As much as I love looking at the numbers and proving things by them, they are only part of the equation. There is no way around the idea that the intangibles are a factor in the debate and in this case Hansbrough has a leg up. That being said, I would agree that if you could make a clear cut statistical case for one player over another then you can effectively negate the intangibles argument. The question is did Gasaway do that? The answer is, I don’t think so.

Let’s take a look at the stats Gasaway presented. He discusses offensive efficiency, FT rate, effective FG%, offense and defensive rebound rebounding percentage and possession percentage. Of the five stats Love is a better rebounder, especially on the defensive end and shoots the ball better while touching the ball a bit more. Hansbrough shoots more FTs and is more efficient on the offensive end. So yes there is an advantage for Love here and Gasaway places a great deal of importance on the fact Love outrebounds Hansbrough by tons on the defensive end. Gasaway also mentions assists and blocks which Loves also does better than Hansbrough. So in all these ways Love enjoys some advantages but only in terms of defensive rebounding does he really outpace Hansbrough in a profound way.

In terms of the defensive stats Hansbrough might not block as many shots as Love but he steals the ball more. In fact when Gasaway asserts Love blocks more shots he is talking about half a block more per game(1.1 to 0.6) In terms of steals Hansbrough averages 1.5 per game whereas Love averages 0.6. Now the one huge difference between steals and blocks is a steal in an automatic turnover for the opposition whereas a block is not. I also know that Hansbrough draws plenty of charges and leads the Tar Heel team in charges taken which also causes a turnover. I have no idea where Love stands in this area but things like steals and charges point to Hansbrough’s tenacity which brings us to an interesting subjective statement Gasaway makes amid making a statistical argument.

Gasaway asserts that Love is “vastly superior to Hansbrough on defense.” which is the final point in his argument since he asserts Love is “just as good” as Hansbrough on offense. The problem is this is not true even regarding the stats unless the defensive rebounding stat is the be all end all of defensive ratings. The blocks Love gets are not as much as the steals Hansbrough causes and if we take the Duke game as an example, Hansbrough proved he can guard almost anyone, anywhere on the floor and be effective. So I am not certain why he believes Love is “vastly superior” on defense when it appears to be more of a wash.

As for the rest of it. The fact it took three years for Hansbrough to get to the point Love is at in his first is immaterial to the discussion. I mean if you are willing to toss out the fact Hansbrough carried UNC with Lawson out then I think we can safely toss out the idea that Love playing at this level as a freshman somehow qualifies him more for the award than Hansbrough taking three years. The ultimate conclusion I draw here is that these two players are about the same according to the numbers and even if the advantages Love has are not enough to toss the intangibles out as part of the equation. If that is the case then Hansbrough is still the best player this season not just because his number are great but because the way he plays is pretty darn impressive as well.


11 Responses to There Will Be More Of These

  1. ericomac says:

    I am baffled as to why people are using class as a standard as to who is POY.

  2. Tar Heel Fan says:

    Grasping at straws man.

  3. Allenbird says:

    For Hansbrough to put up the numbers he does with a supporting cast that he has (if you want to call it that…I would rather call it a team because they all support eachother), and for him to increase his numbers with the injury to Lawson ( one of the best players and most critical of the team), It really makes me wonder what kind of numbers Hansbrough would put up if he were in a “Beasley” type situation( though I know that’s not being argued here). I mean so much also wants to be compared to beasley being the main supporter..but you can’t really compare the hypothetical…Hansborugh puts up the numbers he does…AND still has other’s on his team that scores and rebounds alot….Beasley get’s it all..and judging by Kansas St’s record..I am glad.

  4. Will says:

    THF. If you are looking for an article topic, I have seen a few articles basically saying that Hansbrough is only getting as much coverage/attention as he is because he is white.

    We all know that he is getting the attention because he is top player on the top team in the country (both in the rankings and in terms of general reputation).

    In 2001, it seems to me that Shane Battier got the exact same treatment, and deservedly so. I hated Battier and Duke, but he played hard and one player of the year, even though he was never going to be a great NBA player.

    To me, this is the counterpoint to these ridiculous articles.

  5. DG4Heels says:

    I agree with you, THF, that this type of bickering gets a bit old after a while. This award is a lot like the Heisman in football, in that it generates a lot of hype and analysis, and the winners are typically chosen from the “power schools” unless there is a Marshall Faulk type of player that simply destroys everyone else statistically (Jameer Nelson fits that mold in hoops). The argument for this is that “power” teams are playing at a higher level than other schools, and against a higher level of competition night in and night out. It isn’t always fair, but it is what it is.

    That said, Hansbrough and Love will get more consideration than Beasley because they provide similar numbers on better teams while playing against better opponents. They also play within their respective systems rather than becoming 100% of their team’s offense as Beasley has done. In fact, Beasley reminds me of another incredibly talented player to not win the POY award – Allen Iverson. Iverson was a tremendous talent, and did some rediculous things on the court, but everybody knew that his numbers were inflated because he took the majority of his team’s shots. The same can be said for Beasley – he scores some more points than Hansbrough and Love, and rebounds better, but he is the focal point of the KSU offense. Hansbrough and Love are doing theirs without the benefit of extra touches.

    Where Tyler will best Love is in the intangibles. With no disrespect towards Love, who I enjoy watching play, I think that Hansbrough means more to his team. Watching the two teams play, you can just sense the energy and will that Hansbrough brings to each game, often lifting the play of everyone else on the court. That cannot be seen in the stat sheet.

    The great thing about awards such as this one is that they rely on human insight as well as the stat sheet. The POY does more than just produce the best numbers, he is the best player in the game. That is why Hansbrough should win the award – he does what he needs to do to make his team win – whether it is guarding a point guard, taking a charge, rebounding or scoring. He does it all. He’s the man.

  6. jackiemanuel says:

    I don’t think it is clear that any of those three stand clearly above the other. I wish he had said that, rather than Kevin Love is the most deserving.

  7. Tar Heel Fan says:

    ^That I would agree with, especially from a numbers perspective. I think the intangibles give TH the edge.

  8. MinnyTarHeelFan says:

    I agree with jackiemanuel. All three are very strong candidates and it just depends on the voter and system. Beasley has the numbers, Tyler and Love are very similar but Tyler, IMO, has carried his team more. UCLA has had more than its share of injuries as well, and the Bruins did win a deeper Pac-10 and Love was a major key to that. I think, though, Tyler is the NPOY because I think the team aspect between UCLA and UNC is fairly even, and Tyler helped Carolina play much bigger down the stretch than Love. Again, just my opinion.

    BTW, though I hate to admit it, Battier is a major reason the Rockets have won 20 straight games. I think Tyler will bring similar attributes to whatever NBA team he joins in 2009-10!;) Consistent play, team focused, steady performer, not flashy, but someone you can count on over 82 games.

  9. Josh Bowling says:

    Battie, but not by himself. Battie is playing better alon with Raefer Alson, Dikembe Mutombo (which deserves all the credit, not Battie in my opinion)Luther Head, Bobby Jackson, Carl Landry, and Luis Scola. Battie seems to be the least productive when matched up against these others. I say the team still has a winning streak regardless of wether Battie plays or not. No one knew that Mutombo would fill in so nicely. Carl Landy has picked up the slack in the middle, and is a slasher like Amare Stoudemire is, whereas Ming couldn’t do that. Raefer Alson is playing great defense (along with Battie) and T-Mac & Luther Head make a decent amount of their shots. Great team.

  10. 52BigGameJames says:

    Josh: Battie is on IR for the Magic 🙂

  11. A.E.M. says:

    Great work, just wanted to say that I mentioned your blog on mine about this story.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: