Who has greater upside - PatPat or Hill

Hill better entrench himself as a center in the next two weeks if he wants PT after Chuck is back. Despite all the whining (I'm not exempt) about the Rockets playing young players earlier, I believe the Rockets are great at developing young players willing to learn their system. It is about the time Landry got PT his rookie year.

 

It's pretty clear Patterson is going to be a solid player. However, Hill has the chance to become the better player. Just needs to bulk up and be more consistent with his game.

 

So why is Robin Lopez only averaging near 7-4? Why is Hakim Warrick only averaging 11-4 when he was averaging 10-4 for Milwaukee last year? What makes Jordan Hill so different from those guys that he can go from 7-4 on the Rockets to 20-10 on the Suns?

 

Word, I hope people don't think any big man can come in and average 20/10 just because he plays with Nash.

 

Just so you guys don't forget...

Hill: 6'10" with wingspan 7' 1.5" and 35" vert

PPat: 6'9" with wingspan 7' 1.25" and 33.5" vert

Patterson was also faster, quicker and stronger in the predraft sprint, agility, and bench tests.

Also, imo Patterson's build is a much better rebounding build.

All I'm saying is that I think the idea of Patterson having a lower "upside" because of his athleticism and build is silly, because I think the 2 are pretty comparable.

 

Umm...Robin Lopez never came into the NBA with a face up game. He was more of a energy type big man. Hakim Warrick was a 19th overall pick, Hill was a top 10 pick.

Hill has a jumper that he has got better at, Hill also can roll to the basket and finish strong. That's all Amare needed. Also it's not just going from 7-4 to 20 and 10.

It's also about minutes. Hill gets 17 ppg, you aren't averaging 20-10 with those minutes no matter who you play with.

 

I have to answer this question with another question.

Is a pencil better as something to scratch your ear with than carrots are as a dessert?

What we know about PPatt is close to zero. As far as that goes, what we know about Hill is also a bit hazy.

I'm a Hill fan, but if we traded both of them for a decent defensive center and some draft picks, as long as we got value, I'd be happy. We have too much talent spread over too many bodies in the 4/5 positions. I take no pride in how much potential we have sitting for too many minutes on the bench.

 

Here, I have to disagree, unless we got a better young athletic big in return with what looks to be a higher ceiling, not simply a young 4/5 and some future draft picks. I'd like to keep one of the two guys to develop. We need to grow some of our own talent, IMO. Move one of them if needed, but not both, unless it's a killer deal. They are essentially draft picks that we know something about. That counts for a lot from where I sit.

 

Damn, after watching Patterson play, I have some remorse for including him as a "throw in" in my trade scenarios.

We need to keep this guy at all costs!

 

So Nash can only improve guys with 'face up games' and top 10 picks? He can't improve anyone else?

Are you aware that Amare averaged 21-9 before playing with Nash?

 

You know, I'm just not sold on Hill as an offensive player as many here do. I don't see how he'll ever develop into a Jermaine O'Neal type.

Hill is kind of a rare case. In terms of age, he should be much more developed. In terms of experience, he's really raw(started BBall at an older age). So the question becomes, does development correlates more with age or BBall development? I think age plays a big part, so I'm hesitant to believe that a great offense is potentially in Hill's future.

So I'm going with Patterson for now, but I really hope Hill proves me wrong.

 

I was one of the biggest fans of Amare on these forums telling people Nash didn't make him. So you are preaching to the choir about that.

But you are comparing Robin Lopez's skillset to that of Hills. If you give Nash a PnR player he can do a ton with that. Especially one who can pull up and drain a mid range J and is also quick enough to roll to the basket and finish. It's that simple really.

Warrick's mid range jumper isn't really all that threathning either.

 

I said, "As long as we get value."

I hate to be too specific, because it changes the argument. I could say, "both of them for Javale McGee and the #10 pick in next year's draft," for instance, and half the board would disagree because they don't like McGee, or value our PPatt higher than next year's #10 pick, for example.

I think such a deal would benefit us (except for McGee's knucklehead factor, which also distorts the argument), because we need a decent defensive center, and it would give us less concentration in the 4/5.

As long as we get value, I think accumulating picks is a good strategy, to give us trading chips, but moreso because some of them will be pleasant surprises. Maybe very pleasant surprises.

 

Hill has better tools. So... Hill. But yes, like everyone else has said, Patterson is a safer bet.

 

PatPat by Pharr!

 

I'm surprised by the measurements. Hill looked to me to be taller and lengthier than Patterson, but the numbers don't reflect that at all.

 

Pat Pat is just bigger in the chest making him look shorter.

 

When he was interviewed by Matt Bullard, he was noticeably much shorter. Maybe 2 inches shorter. I think the shape of his body might make him seem taller than he really is.

 

What tools are better?