It a tie...they both lose.....I would trade em both for Cousins or Favors(Favors gonna be a beast in 2 years)...I like Pat because he plays calmly and not all goofy like Hill....But Pat is kinda Othella Harringtonish...He's gonna go all out but wont be a diffence maker anywhere....Hill was drafted by the Knicks so he is subject to bust material by default...
Read your comment, I replied to that. You reiterated what you've said, I'm happy that you did, but I can't reply anything new until you come up with a proper reasoning. Hill is a better athlete, has a lot of room to grow. IF he improves, he has a high upside. Amare like. He has to do a lot of work. Patterson is slightly smaller, slightly worse athlete and is more refined. That comes from him having learnt basketball for more than 10 year to Hill's 7. If you ask me that's a lot. You can't become a better athlete at this age. But you can mature, you can develop skills and you can learn the game better. Hill needs exactly that to be better. Hill has a bit more upside, but it's less likely that he will fulfill his potential. PP on the other hand is more likely to do it. This has nothing to do with what they are right now or what they were when they were 21. None of them is really a non-tradeable player if we think they will remain the same.
I know. Mind = blown. It is the first step towards enlightenment. Let this moment sink in for a second, as it is the beginning of your journey towards a better life. You're very welcome.
You can't become a better athlete at that age, despite the fact that Carl Landry did. Gotcha. You just compared Jordan Hill to Amare. Again. A 23 year old, second-year PF/C who had three years in college to an 18 year old coming out of high school that was already better than what Jordan Hill is in his second year. You flat out don't know basketball. Jordan Hill being a marginally better athlete does NOT mean he has more upside. I don't know why that's such a hard concept to grasp. Upside entails basketball skills, basketball IQ, work ethic, and finally physical attributes. Jordan Hill has proven to be slightly better than Patterson in only one of those areas (physical attributes) and it is arguably the least important area. I don't know why you keep bringing up trading either one of them. This thread is about which has more upside, not which would you keep.
On the surface, this is a classic physical capacity versus mental capacity debate. Hill seems to be a better physical specimen, longer, more athletic. Patterson is clearly more skilled and has better understanding of the game. 1. Those who think "potential" only in terms of physical attributes (i.e. the "you can't teach height" crowd) clearly underestimate the importance of the mental aspects of being a good basketball player. Do you know that things like intelligence, court awareness, motivation, focus, competitive drive are "talents" too? They are not physical. But like physical abilities, they cannot be taught either. If you give a professional craftsman's tools to a mentally challenged kid, you can't say that he has high potential because once he has learned to use those tools, he will be a great craftsman. Well, does he have the mental capacity to ever learn it? If he does not, then all those tools are worthless and he doesn't have potential to be a great craftsman. 2. The mental part of Hill is still hard to gauge because he started playing organized basketball late. So I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that he might still develop some basketball smart even though he is already past the mental age of development. Perhaps he is somewhat similar to Olajuwon's case. (Disclaimer: I am NOT saying that Hill is anywhere as talented as Hakeem. They are somewhat similar in that they both started learning basketball late in their life.) 3. To say that Patterson is less physically gifted is actually misleading. He may be shorter. But he has long arms. And he is clearly wider and stronger. Hill's body type probably will never fill out like Patterson. So it is actually debatable who has the better physical tools.
Heres a better question for you: Why is it anyone can't have a different opinion/interpretation than you?
They can -- you've proven that by being wrong about Lowry v. Brooks and I've let you run around trying to explain your failing argument.
A+ post worth quoting and /threading. The only difference for me is I am not giving him the benefit of the doubt since the history of the NBA has been littered with the corpses of the "mentally challenged kid"s as you put it . To me the onus is on him to prove to be anything other than just that. Until then I would advocate like I have been advocating cashing in while to going is still good.
Of course. Upside is part of a player's value. You invest more on someone you believe has more upside, just like you invest in stocks you believe will give you good return in the future.
Brilliant analysis. You would trade the 14th pick in the draft for #3 or #5? I would too. If only Morey knew that higher picks tend to have more potential. I wonder why he didn't bother getting Cousins or Favors? People say that Morey drafts well, but these people just don't understand upside. I mean, compare Brooks or Landry with Durant. Obviously Durant had much higher upside than Brooks, but Morey got Brooks. It's so sad...
Has it been 2 years yet? 2 months? It is funny reading this thread again. It seems like the SAME people are always on the right/wrong side of every argument. Great analysis per usual by LongTimeFan and Easy. Oh, um.. and hi there larsv. Is this even still a question anymore?
I really dont understand why everyone, even analysts, say that Patterson will be solid, but not an all-star caliber player... Why not??... He's a rookie who has had 3 straight double/double's off of scrappy hussle plays. The guy has yet to really develop a true offensive and post game. If he was playing consistent starter minutes right now I would have no doubt stating he should be averaging about 14pts/10reb/ 1.5 blocks a game..... Thats solid starters numbers already as a rookie and he could improve alot more with two more offseasons working on an offensive post game, and ball handling skills. Not to mention his mental aspect with the game. He already has a great aspect for the game that some players will never develop. With a jump shot like he has, I have no doubt that he could have games where he scores 30+ and has some monster dunks for show. He's going to get notoriety and respect around the league. Now I dont know what constitutes as "upside" and potential all-star caliber prospects on this board, but to me I would be shocked if he isn't the starting PF for the Rockets at some point after the all-star break next season averaging 17pt/10reb/1.5 blocks a game after that point. There is no reason why he couldn't improve in his third season and move into the All-star conversation. He is good, and could be really good with two more offseasons. Jordan Hill was just drafted to high with too much expectations. He should be solid as a big off the bench, but the chances are that he will not be anywhere near as good as Patterson. Patricks strength, skill, mentality, and consistency outweight the extra two inches Jordan has in height. Jordan just looks a little more like Amare with dreds, and thats where the comparisons come from.
I knew Patterson would be special. But I wouldn't write off Hill just yet. I'd give him one more year. I still think he has some potential to grow. Actually, Hill is better than Swift and Patterson is better than Landry already. So if v.2.0 means a significant upgrade like in computer programs, yeah.
