Blog Entry

My rebuttal to Doyel (and some other stuff)

Posted on: March 10, 2009 4:11 pm

Obviously, I disagree with Gregg Doyel's column .

I love Gregg.

I wish I was as muscular as him.

But I disagree with the idea that Tyler Hansbrough has to be a first-team All-American. That's why I made him a second-team All-American. And if you understand my criteria -- which Gregg does, and I appreciated him acknowledging it -- then you know that this decision came down to me selecting DeJuan Blair or Tyler Hansbrough, because I'll put no more than two bigs on any All-America team, and I wasn't leaving off Blake Griffin.

So really, that's the debate: Hansbrough or Blair.

Gregg thinks it should be Hansbrough.

That's a reasonable opinion.

But to me, Hansbrough has not had a better season this season than Blair has had this season.


Sure, Hansbrough is averaging more points per game (21.1 to 15.6). But Blair is averaging more rebounds (12.4 to 8.1), and he's doing it while playing 3.3 fewer minutes per game than Hansbrough (30.0 to 26.7). Also worth noting is that Blair simply doesn't get the opportunities Hansbrough gets on the offensive end, which is why his points aren't comparable despite the fact that Blair actually has a higher field goal percentage (59.6 to 52.5).

Understand, Hansbrough takes 12.96 shots per game and shoots 8.42 free throws to get his 21.1 points. Blair takes 10.90 shots per game and shoots 4.23 free throws to get his 15.6 points, which means Blair takes roughly two fewer shots and four fewer free throws than Hansbrough per game, and if you consider Blair's percentages from both the field (59.6) and free throw line (69.2) it's clear he'd average more points than Hansbrough if he had the same opportunities.

(Please, just stay with me; this is going to be good.)

If Blair took the same number of shots (12.96) and free throws (8.42) per game as Hansbrough, and if Blair made those attempts at the same rate he currently makes his attempts, then Blair would make 7.72 field goals and 5.83 free throws per game. Multiply the 7.72 field goals by two (for two-point baskets) and the 5.83 free throws by one (for one-point baskets), and what you'll find is that if Blair took as many shots and free throws as Hansbrough he'd average 21.27 points per game, which is slightly better than the 21.12 points Hansbrough is averaging.

(Jesus, my head is hurting.)

So that's that.

I think Blair has been just as dominant as Hansbrough, but he's done it more efficiently and for a team that has accomplished just as much. Basically, that's why I went with Blair, but I did feel sick about it, because I love Hansbrough and think all the anti-Hansbrough talk is insane. If you hate Tyler Hansbrough, something is wrong with you, not him. But for these purposes, I had to look for the two bigs who are having the best seasons in this particular season, and in my opinion -- with apologies to Gregg Doyel -- that's Blake Griffin and DeJuan Blair.

As for some other controversial decisions, I'll address them quickly.

Right now.

Where's Jodie Meeks?

If you look at my All-America teams you'll see that every guy I have listed is projected by Jerry Palm to play in the NCAA tournament, except for Davidson's Stephen Curry. That should show you how much emphasis I put on winning, and how much I disregard players posting big numbers for bad teams. I mean, lots of guys post big numbers on bad teams (UCF's Jermaine Taylor comes to mind). So while I do think Meeks is great and one of the most fun guys to watch in college, the reality is that he's posting big numbers for a bad team, one that is especially bad by Kentucky standards.

For that same reason, I left off Notre Dame's Luke Harangody, too.

Simply put, I like impact players on successful teams.

Let the world be warned.

So how do you justify Stephen Curry?

I don't think Curry was on a bad team. I think he was on a conference champion that got caught in the semifinals of the Southern Conference tournament, and now he'll pay the price for that. Is Davidson as good as a good Big East or ACC team? Of course not. But relative to Southern Conference teams, the Wildcats are very good, which means Curry was succesful by any reasonable measuring stick, just not when you have to be in a one-bid league, unfortunately.

And why can't you have three bigs on the same team again?

Think of an All-Pro football team.

They don't just take eight quarterbacks when they do those.

They take a quarterback, a few receivers, a kicker, a couple of safeties, so on and so forth. I like that because it better resembles an actual team , and that's my thought process on not having three traditional bigs (like Griffin, Blair and Hansbrough) on the same team, because there's no way those three would ever actually get on the court together at the same time, I don't think.

If you want to know the truth, I believe there are eight players worthy of first-team All-America status.

They are ...

  • Ty Lawson
  • Stephen Curry
  • James Harden
  • Blake Griffin
  • DeJuan Blair
  • Tyler Hansbrough
  • Hasheem Thabeet
  • Sherron Collins

That's my top eight, regardless of position. So what I did was take a point guard (Lawson), a shooting guard (Curry), a wing (Harden) and two bigs (Griffin and Blair) from that list, and I called it a day. It really was that simple. And I hope that makes some sense, though I'm sure it won't to some.


Since: Feb 21, 2008
Posted on: March 12, 2009 10:03 pm

My rebuttal to Doyel (and some other stuff)


 I completely disagree with this rebuttal to Doyel. Blair hasn't averaged 21.27 per game, those are projections. If all the fouls that were committed against Hansbrough, he'd be averaging more free throws than last year, which he increased each season until this year. With more free throw attempts and at a higher free throw percentage, Hansbrough would be averaging more than 21.1. And if the Heels weren't beating the crap out of most everybody they play, he'd be playing more minutes, like Harangody, and if he wasn't surrounded by the ACC POY, a Third Teamer ALL ACCer in Green and Honorable Mention in Ellington, Hansbrough would be called on more than he is. And I suspect if the Heels had managed to give him the ball more often, he'd score more. But for some reason they have failed to get him the ball in several games, most notably against Wake Forest (2 shots in the 2nd half), Maryland, and the recent Duke game (where again he got 2 shots in the second half). Also, Pitt has not accomplished just as much as UNC, because, correct me if I'm wrong, only one of them won their conference. And UNC won the toughest conference in the country. Blair and Griffin's losses today don't exactly help their arguments. And besides, shouldn't these awards be issued at the Final Four, when we've had a chance to truly assess the impact of the best players against the best competition? The Robertson Trophy and Wooden and Naismith Awards will be given out then, and I suspect if Griffin can't get his team out of the Sweet 16, and Hansbrough goes back to Detroit, Tyler may pick up at least one NPOY award. Already The Sporting News put him on their First Team for the fourth straight year, the first ACC player to ever do that.

Since: Sep 25, 2008
Posted on: March 12, 2009 9:07 am

My rebuttal to Doyel (and some other stuff)


Obviously statistics are going to be manipulated by just about anyone who can so your rebuttal only gave the UNC fans the roadmap to counter your argument with a high level of tenacity.  Would it not have been easier to just ask one question: "Who would you or anyone else rather play against for 40 mintues?"  The answer in my mind is Tyler Hansbrough.  DeJuan Blair is a better rebounder, has quicker hands, longer arms, more athletic, better screener, better post defender, better shot blocker, is a better teammate, does not kick himself in the butt when he shoots, does not participate in a gimick offense that preys on less athletic teams, does not rely on referees to put him on the line all day to pad his stats, and most importantly DeJuan Blair plays at a higher physical level which wears down the opponent over the course of a game...just ask Thabeet.  In conclusion, I would not want to play against Blair for 40 minutes.  I only can hope that they can square off during the Big Dance to silence the Tar Heel fans once and for all.

Case closed, end of story.

You made a nice selection and I applaud you sticking to your guns.

Since: Mar 11, 2009
Posted on: March 11, 2009 9:54 pm

My rebuttal to Doyel (and some other stuff)

Even though you make an argument for Blair, Hansbrough's numbers are still better. It is important to stick to the facts, such as free shot attempts and makes, points per game and minutes played; if that is how you would like to compare these players. I do not feel it is fair to try and punish Hansbrough based on statistics that Blair never achieved. Therefor,your argument for Blair is not valid; plain and simple.


Since: Sep 7, 2006
Posted on: March 11, 2009 6:17 pm

My rebuttal to Doyel (and some other stuff)

 All this Hansbrough nonsense reminds me of Dave Stewart, who had three pretty decent seasons pitching between 1988 and 1990. He won 20 games each season, and wasn't named the Cy Young in any of them. He even whined to everyone who would listen about the matter.

The reason he didn't win the Cy Young is because of Frank Viola, Bret Saberhagen and his own teammate in 1990, Bob Welch. They all had better seasons than he did in their respective winning years.

Now if the Cy Young had been based on that three year stretch, he would have won hands down.

The same with Hansbrough...1st Team All American should not be a career award...and it definitely should not be based on how well he might have done in previous years when he was named to the 1st Team...none of it has anything to with THIS SEASON!!!

Saying he deserves to be on the first team this season based on anything but his comparison to others who played this season is wrong, and just plain stupid.

'Nuff said...


Since: Aug 15, 2007
Posted on: March 11, 2009 2:40 pm

My rebuttal to Doyel (and some other stuff)

 Why don't you read the whole story before you start making comments on it. 

Why don't you read the very next post before you look like a complete idiot. Pot calling the Kettle black.  And it was a joke dumba$$

Since: Apr 1, 2008
Posted on: March 11, 2009 2:34 pm

My rebuttal to Doyel (and some other stuff)

I don't have a problem with your logic except you broke one of your own rules.  You say you like good players on winning teams, then why leave Hansbrough off?  All he did was help his team win the ACC regular season title.  If you take him off the team Carolina doesn't win the regular season title.  As for Blair, I guess it doesn't matter if you take him off Pitt's team or not since they didn't win the conference regular season with him.  All I'm saying is why use hypothetical numbers to raise Blair's scoring average and not look at the conference title?  Maybe Pitt didn't go to Blair as much because they didn't need to.  Hansbrough got his points because the team needed him to score.  Not to mention he is set to break or broke several NCAA and ACC records and he sat out 4 games. He would already be the ACC scoring leader if it weren't for those four games.  I hope UNC gets to play Pitt and Oklahoma in the tourney.  Then we'll see who is the best. 

Since: Oct 15, 2007
Posted on: March 11, 2009 2:28 pm

My rebuttal to Doyel (and some other stuff)

 What about Gerald Henderson as first team all american? You have to think where would Duke be without him? He has carried Duke sinse they lost 4/6 starting with that beatdown Clemson gave them. Just a thought..

Since: Mar 11, 2009
Posted on: March 11, 2009 1:27 pm

My rebuttal to Doyel (and some other stuff)


Since: Oct 6, 2008
Posted on: March 11, 2009 12:33 pm

My rebuttal to Doyel (and some other stuff)

Dude your a dumb a$$. The Davidson Wildcats play in the Southern Confrence, hence the fact they lost in the Sourhtern Conference Turnament Simifinals. Why don't you read the whole story before you start making comments on it. 

Since: Nov 2, 2006
Posted on: March 11, 2009 10:21 am

Speculative vs. Proven


I think Parrish makes a fairly reasonable argument for his choices.  I am a UNC grad/fan and appreciative of Hansbrough's efforts over the past four years.  The flaw in Parrish's argument is that he is working with speculative numbers versus confirmed stats.  He's argument proposes that Blair would average Hansbrough's shots per game and FTs per game if he played an additional 3.3 minutes per game.

Actually, here is how it breaks down.  Given Blair's current percentages and average shots/FTs a game it would equate to this:

Adjusted shots per 30 minutes (Hansbrough average minutes per game):  26.7/10.9= 1 shot attempt every 2.45 minutes:  30/2.45 = 12.25 shots:  12.25 x .596= 7.3 conversions per game:  7.3 x 2= 14.6 ppg from the floor.

Adjusted FTs per 30 minutes: 26.7/4.23= 1 FTA every 6.31 minutes:  30/6.31= 4.75 FTA:  4.75 x .692= 3.3 ppg from the FT line.

So the actual comparison given equal minutes would be Hansbrough (proven):  21.1 ppg  Blair:  17.9 ppg.

To not recognize this fact is to discount Hansbrough's higher FT percentage and work in the lane.  Some (ABC'ers would say preferrential ref treatment) but that is another topic. 

My point being, if the ppg was the "stat" that swung Parrish's vote in favor of Blair - his information was flawed.



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or