Round 1 Game 3: Sean Miller Fan vs. Joe the Panther Fan

SMF vs. Joe the Panther Fan

  • Sean Miller Fan

    Votes: 28 39.4%
  • Joe the Panther Fan

    Votes: 43 60.6%

  • Total voters
    71
  • Poll closed .

Ski11585

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Oct 25, 2008
18,872
10,220
113
Reminder:

Please evaluate the teams based on each players best single season AT PITT ONLY. Professional basketball or transfer seasons elsewhere do not count towards evaluating the teams.

@Sean Miller Fan
PG - Sean Miller 10.6 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 6.6apg
SG - Keith Benjamin 9.1 ppg, 3 rpg, 2.1 apg
SF - Sam Young 19.2 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 1.1 apg
PF - Mark Blount 9.1 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 1 apg
C - Steven Adams 7.2 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 0.6apg
6th man: Chad Johnson 4.2 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 1.3 apg

VS.

@Joe the Panther Fan
PG - James Robinson 10.2 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 5.0 apg
SG - Garrick Thomas 8.2 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 44.7% 3%
SF - Clyde Vaughan 21.9 ppg, 9.2 rpg
PF - Chris Gant 10.0 ppg, 7.4 rpg
C - Jaime Peterson 13.9 ppg, 9.4 rpg
Extra Dude - Billy Culbertson 6.8 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 5.4 apg
 

TheSpecialSauce

Heisman Winner
Nov 15, 2019
8,055
7,109
113
Does SMF have bots voting for him? Here is where I’m calling a foul. Jaime and Aldridge (my guy) each had 1 standout season at Pitt. If you base it solely off that, then those guys deserve more credit than they are getting. Jaime’s one season blows away Adams based on the criteria. Blount wasn’t even a PF. Gant wins that matchup as well in this game.
 
Last edited:

gary2

Head Coach
Jul 21, 2001
13,861
5,438
113
Voting for Joe primarily because of the Blount controversy.
 

Sean Miller Fan

Lair Hall of Famer
Oct 30, 2001
44,025
12,613
113
Voting for Joe primarily because of the Blount controversy.

I don't understand the problem here. Even if I started Johnson at the 3 and Young at the 4, its not like they are required to play 40 minutes then I am required to have Adams and Blount split 20 at the 5. Its my team and if I cant start Blount, Im bringing him off the bench the first dead ball and playing 2 bigs. Young, Benjamin, and Johnson would spliy time at the 2 and 3.

My lineup would be:

PG - Miller 35 Benjamin 5
SG - Benjamin 30 Young 10
SF - Johnson 23 Young 17
PF - Young 10 Blount 30
C - Adams 35 Blount 5

That is a stacked lineup.

Floor general at PG
Defensive stopper who started on one of the best Pitt teams ever at the 2
One of the best ever at the 3
Then 2 bigs who weren't great at Pitt but have great size and who would defend and rebound at elite levels
 

gary2

Head Coach
Jul 21, 2001
13,861
5,438
113
I don't understand the problem here. Even if I started Johnson at the 3 and Young at the 4, its not like they are required to play 40 minutes then I am required to have Adams and Blount split 20 at the 5. Its my team and if I cant start Blount, Im bringing him off the bench the first dead ball and playing 2 bigs. Young, Benjamin, and Johnson would spliy time at the 2 and 3.

My lineup would be:

PG - Miller 35 Benjamin 5
SG - Benjamin 30 Young 10
SF - Johnson 23 Young 17
PF - Young 10 Blount 30
C - Adams 35 Blount 5

That is a stacked lineup.

Floor general at PG
Defensive stopper who started on one of the best Pitt teams ever at the 2
One of the best ever at the 3
Then 2 bigs who weren't great at Pitt but have great size and who would defend and rebound at elite levels
Your selections made as they were, was borderline cheating
 
Last edited:

DT_PITT

Lair Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Jul 17, 2001
38,434
17,678
113
I don't understand the problem here. Even if I started Johnson at the 3 and Young at the 4, its not like they are required to play 40 minutes then I am required to have Adams and Blount split 20 at the 5. Its my team and if I cant start Blount, Im bringing him off the bench the first dead ball and playing 2 bigs. Young, Benjamin, and Johnson would spliy time at the 2 and 3.

My lineup would be:

PG - Miller 35 Benjamin 5
SG - Benjamin 30 Young 10
SF - Johnson 23 Young 17
PF - Young 10 Blount 30
C - Adams 35 Blount 5

That is a stacked lineup.

Floor general at PG
Defensive stopper who started on one of the best Pitt teams ever at the 2
One of the best ever at the 3
Then 2 bigs who weren't great at Pitt but have great size and who would defend and rebound at elite levels

Your team is fine but it is nowhere nearly as superlative to the other teams as you think it is. The closeness of the vote is very accurately reflective of how close the two teams in this contest are.
 

Sean Miller Fan

Lair Hall of Famer
Oct 30, 2001
44,025
12,613
113
Wasn’t borderline
He wasn’t paying attention enough to cheat.
Just too embarrassed to admit the mistake

The game is played 5 on 5. So what does your 6th man do? Play 5 minutes at his assigned position? Even if my 6th man is Blount, I am playing him at PF most of the game. I don't know how that is "cheating." I took the best players I could.
 

SoufOaklin4Life

Lair Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2004
75,715
14,114
113
Another State of Mind
The game is played 5 on 5. So what does your 6th man do? Play 5 minutes at his assigned position? Even if my 6th man is Blount, I am playing him at PF most of the game. I don't know how that is "cheating." I took the best players I could.
Simple
The rules were posted and established before the draft

you simply made a mistake -
But as noted are too silly to just admit and play by the rules
You can only play folks at their listed position
You’re in the wrong
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bethlehemjohn

Fk_Pitt

Lair Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 3, 2007
36,274
24,440
113
I don't understand the problem here. Even if I started Johnson at the 3 and Young at the 4, its not like they are required to play 40 minutes then I am required to have Adams and Blount split 20 at the 5. Its my team and if I cant start Blount, Im bringing him off the bench the first dead ball and playing 2 bigs. Young, Benjamin, and Johnson would spliy time at the 2 and 3.

My lineup would be:

PG - Miller 35 Benjamin 5
SG - Benjamin 30 Young 10
SF - Johnson 23 Young 17
PF - Young 10 Blount 30
C - Adams 35 Blount 5

That is a stacked lineup.

Floor general at PG
Defensive stopper who started on one of the best Pitt teams ever at the 2
One of the best ever at the 3
Then 2 bigs who weren't great at Pitt but have great size and who would defend and rebound at elite levels
I actually don’t have a problem because you can sub in at the first whistle. Problem solved.
But you’re getting caught up on the good pitt team/bad Pitt team thing. If Benjamin were on a Willard team or Sean Miller on a stallings team, it shouldn’t matter. Their production and skill set is their production and skill set. And I’d argue Miller’s wouldn’t be any different if he were switched with James Robinson.
 

thirteenNINE

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Dec 20, 2007
8,018
5,220
113
Pretty interesting matchup here in that you have two Pitt greats paired up with two inconsistent wings and two pro centers who saw better days once they left campus versus a legit star and three very good college players. I personally gotta go with the better top to bottom squad in this one.
 
Oct 23, 2017
4,454
2,561
113
It's hard to remember the lower level of play from Adams and Blount at the college level as a big pro fan, but I'm taking the team with athletic 7 footers who could guard the rim. Close one as well.

Miller vs Robinson very similar sort of players, classic point guards. Vaughn over Young but Young over Gant depending on match-ups.

EDIT - just noticed the controversy. Seems unfair to expect voters to enforce draft rules!
 

Joe the Panther Fan

All P I T T !
Jul 6, 2001
32,011
13,071
113
Those of us who had to work are late to the party, but let's have at it.

Based on the criteria of the game I am better at the three, four and five, we are pretty equal at the two (two completely different kinds of players) and he's better at the one. This ought to be an easy win for me.

Miller is a little better, but certainly not a lot better, than Robinson. In fact if you switched which teams they played on Robinson would likely have the better numbers.

Benjamin is a better defender than Thomas, but Thomas was a 45% three point shooter that season. I guess it depends on what you are looking for in your team, but with Clyde Vaughan playing the three Thomas is going to get a ton of open looks from three, and he's going to make a lot of them.

Assuming SMF gets to use Young at the three, he's in the unenviable position of having his best player not be the best player in the matchup. Vaughan was simply better. Vaughan was a better shooter from distance, he was a better scorer in the paint, and he was a vastly superior rebounder (even though Young spent a lot of time at the four and Vaughan was almost always a three). Young was a better transition scorer and he had that sweet pump fake, and that's about it.

If we are allowing him to play Blount at the four, well, remember, one season Pitt career only, Gant was a better scorer and a better rebounder. Blount was a better defender. But he's also not going to be able to just stand under the basket and defend like he mostly did when he was at Pitt, he's going to have to defend out off the blocks. So he wouldn't be nearly as good a defender in this game as he really was at Pitt.

And Peterson was a better college basketball player than Adams, and frankly it isn't even close. Peterson was the better scorer by far, Peterson was the better rebounder by far, and Peterson was also a good defender. SMF talked in one of his posts about his guys dominating the paint, so quick question, how many more shots did Adams block in his season than Peterson did in his? OK, I admit, it's a trick question. Senior Peterson actually blocked more shots than freshman Adams did. While Adams would become a much better player, by the rules of the game my center is vastly superior to his.

The backups are an odd matchup seeing as to how one was mainly a point guard and the other was a wing, but at least my guard was a good passer and could run an offense, as evidenced by his 5.4 assists per game. His wing didn't really score, but he made up for that by not really rebounding either (Culbertson averaged almost as many rebounds per game as Johnson did).

SMF bases his whole team on their dominance on the inside. My team is better than his at all three front court positions. His dominant inside players averaged 16.7 rebounds per game. My inside players averaged 26.0 rebounds per game. Like I said, it's not even close.
 

CougarClaws

Head Coach
Gold Member
Mar 12, 2005
12,462
9,341
113
Those of us who had to work are late to the party, but let's have at it.

Based on the criteria of the game I am better at the three, four and five, we are pretty equal at the two (two completely different kinds of players) and he's better at the one. This ought to be an easy win for me.

Miller is a little better, but certainly not a lot better, than Robinson. In fact if you switched which teams they played on Robinson would likely have the better numbers.

Benjamin is a better defender than Thomas, but Thomas was a 45% three point shooter that season. I guess it depends on what you are looking for in your team, but with Clyde Vaughan playing the three Thomas is going to get a ton of open looks from three, and he's going to make a lot of them.

Assuming SMF gets to use Young at the three, he's in the unenviable position of having his best player not be the best player in the matchup. Vaughan was simply better. Vaughan was a better shooter from distance, he was a better scorer in the paint, and he was a vastly superior rebounder (even though Young spent a lot of time at the four and Vaughan was almost always a three). Young was a better transition scorer and he had that sweet pump fake, and that's about it.

If we are allowing him to play Blount at the four, well, remember, one season Pitt career only, Gant was a better scorer and a better rebounder. Blount was a better defender. But he's also not going to be able to just stand under the basket and defend like he mostly did when he was at Pitt, he's going to have to defend out off the blocks. So he wouldn't be nearly as good a defender in this game as he really was at Pitt.

And Peterson was a better college basketball player than Adams, and frankly it isn't even close. Peterson was the better scorer by far, Peterson was the better rebounder by far, and Peterson was also a good defender. SMF talked in one of his posts about his guys dominating the paint, so quick question, how many more shots did Adams block in his season than Peterson did in his? OK, I admit, it's a trick question. Senior Peterson actually blocked more shots than freshman Adams did. While Adams would become a much better player, by the rules of the game my center is vastly superior to his.

The backups are an odd matchup seeing as to how one was mainly a point guard and the other was a wing, but at least my guard was a good passer and could run an offense, as evidenced by his 5.4 assists per game. His wing didn't really score, but he made up for that by not really rebounding either (Culbertson averaged almost as many rebounds per game as Johnson did).

SMF bases his whole team on their dominance on the inside. My team is better than his at all three front court positions. His dominant inside players averaged 16.7 rebounds per game. My inside players averaged 26.0 rebounds per game. Like I said, it's not even close.

As fine an example of eviscerating ones opponent as I have seen today. I have absolutely no doubt you have the better team, and why.

Hopefully it's not too late.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe the Panther Fan

Sean Miller Fan

Lair Hall of Famer
Oct 30, 2001
44,025
12,613
113
Those of us who had to work are late to the party, but let's have at it.

Based on the criteria of the game I am better at the three, four and five, we are pretty equal at the two (two completely different kinds of players) and he's better at the one. This ought to be an easy win for me.

Miller is a little better, but certainly not a lot better, than Robinson. In fact if you switched which teams they played on Robinson would likely have the better numbers.

Benjamin is a better defender than Thomas, but Thomas was a 45% three point shooter that season. I guess it depends on what you are looking for in your team, but with Clyde Vaughan playing the three Thomas is going to get a ton of open looks from three, and he's going to make a lot of them.

Assuming SMF gets to use Young at the three, he's in the unenviable position of having his best player not be the best player in the matchup. Vaughan was simply better. Vaughan was a better shooter from distance, he was a better scorer in the paint, and he was a vastly superior rebounder (even though Young spent a lot of time at the four and Vaughan was almost always a three). Young was a better transition scorer and he had that sweet pump fake, and that's about it.

If we are allowing him to play Blount at the four, well, remember, one season Pitt career only, Gant was a better scorer and a better rebounder. Blount was a better defender. But he's also not going to be able to just stand under the basket and defend like he mostly did when he was at Pitt, he's going to have to defend out off the blocks. So he wouldn't be nearly as good a defender in this game as he really was at Pitt.

And Peterson was a better college basketball player than Adams, and frankly it isn't even close. Peterson was the better scorer by far, Peterson was the better rebounder by far, and Peterson was also a good defender. SMF talked in one of his posts about his guys dominating the paint, so quick question, how many more shots did Adams block in his season than Peterson did in his? OK, I admit, it's a trick question. Senior Peterson actually blocked more shots than freshman Adams did. While Adams would become a much better player, by the rules of the game my center is vastly superior to his.

The backups are an odd matchup seeing as to how one was mainly a point guard and the other was a wing, but at least my guard was a good passer and could run an offense, as evidenced by his 5.4 assists per game. His wing didn't really score, but he made up for that by not really rebounding either (Culbertson averaged almost as many rebounds per game as Johnson did).

SMF bases his whole team on their dominance on the inside. My team is better than his at all three front court positions. His dominant inside players averaged 16.7 rebounds per game. My inside players averaged 26.0 rebounds per game. Like I said, it's not even close.

This is how I look at it:

You get the choice of Steven Adams, Mark Blount, Jaime Peterson, and Chris Gant at the end of their best season at Pitt to play a season, a tournament, whatever. Who you taking?

That would be:

1. Adams
2. Blount
3. Peterson
4. Gant

There is no denying Peterson had a really good senior year but literally nobody would have agreed he was a better basketball player than Freshman Adams. Not talking about potential. Right then and there.
 

DT_PITT

Lair Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Jul 17, 2001
38,434
17,678
113
This is how I look at it:

You get the choice of Steven Adams, Mark Blount, Jaime Peterson, and Chris Gant at the end of their best season at Pitt to play a season, a tournament, whatever. Who you taking?

That would be:

1. Adams
2. Blount
3. Peterson
4. Gant

There is no denying Peterson had a really good senior year but literally nobody would have agreed he was a better basketball player than Freshman Adams. Not talking about potential. Right then and there.

Peterson
Adams
Gant
Blount

There was a very good reason season Peterson was 2nd Team All-Big East when the Panthers finished 2nd to last in the conference.
 

Joe the Panther Fan

All P I T T !
Jul 6, 2001
32,011
13,071
113
This is how I look at it:

You get the choice of Steven Adams, Mark Blount, Jaime Peterson, and Chris Gant at the end of their best season at Pitt to play a season, a tournament, whatever. Who you taking?

That would be:

1. Adams
2. Blount
3. Peterson
4. Gant

There is no denying Peterson had a really good senior year but literally nobody would have agreed he was a better basketball player than Freshman Adams. Not talking about potential. Right then and there.


You list is completely wrong. Peterson was absolutely clearly the best of the four in the seasons in question. It's not even close. Gant was the second best, and again, I'm not sure it's even close. You simply cannot separate the players they were at Pitt with the players that they would become. As they were at Pitt Adams might be the worst of the four, and yet somehow you think he's the best. Although to be honest I think that Adams was better than Blount, so there is that.

1) Peterson
Big gap
2) Gant
Gap
3) Adams
4) Blount

Your two guys averaged 16.3 and 10.4. My two averaged 23.9 and 16.8. Think about that. My guys average more REBOUNDS per game than your guys did points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CougarClaws

Sean Miller Fan

Lair Hall of Famer
Oct 30, 2001
44,025
12,613
113
Peterson
Adams
Gant
Blount.

If you had to play a season or tournament, you take Peterson and Gant over Adams and Blount. The NBA would laugh in your face as both were drafted and Peterson and Gant weren't even thought of. I realize that that potential had a lot to do with that but still. Peterson was really good as a senior but was also on a bad team. Gant, I never thought was any good.
 

DT_PITT

Lair Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Jul 17, 2001
38,434
17,678
113
If you had to play a season or tournament, you take Peterson and Gant over Adams and Blount. The NBA would laugh in your face as both were drafted and Peterson and Gant weren't even thought of. I realize that that potential had a lot to do with that but still. Peterson was really good as a senior but was also on a bad team. Gant, I never thought was any good.

I would take Gant over Blount, but not over Adams. I'm not sure what you are looking at.
 

DT_PITT

Lair Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Jul 17, 2001
38,434
17,678
113
If you had to play a season or tournament, you take Peterson and Gant over Adams and Blount. The NBA would laugh in your face as both were drafted and Peterson and Gant weren't even thought of. I realize that that potential had a lot to do with that but still. Peterson was really good as a senior but was also on a bad team. Gant, I never thought was any good.

But this isn't about the NBA either. Not sure why this isn't sinking in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski11585

DT_PITT

Lair Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Jul 17, 2001
38,434
17,678
113
Those of us who had to work are late to the party, but let's have at it.

Based on the criteria of the game I am better at the three, four and five, we are pretty equal at the two (two completely different kinds of players) and he's better at the one. This ought to be an easy win for me.

Miller is a little better, but certainly not a lot better, than Robinson. In fact if you switched which teams they played on Robinson would likely have the better numbers.

Benjamin is a better defender than Thomas, but Thomas was a 45% three point shooter that season. I guess it depends on what you are looking for in your team, but with Clyde Vaughan playing the three Thomas is going to get a ton of open looks from three, and he's going to make a lot of them.

Assuming SMF gets to use Young at the three, he's in the unenviable position of having his best player not be the best player in the matchup. Vaughan was simply better. Vaughan was a better shooter from distance, he was a better scorer in the paint, and he was a vastly superior rebounder (even though Young spent a lot of time at the four and Vaughan was almost always a three). Young was a better transition scorer and he had that sweet pump fake, and that's about it.

If we are allowing him to play Blount at the four, well, remember, one season Pitt career only, Gant was a better scorer and a better rebounder. Blount was a better defender. But he's also not going to be able to just stand under the basket and defend like he mostly did when he was at Pitt, he's going to have to defend out off the blocks. So he wouldn't be nearly as good a defender in this game as he really was at Pitt.

And Peterson was a better college basketball player than Adams, and frankly it isn't even close. Peterson was the better scorer by far, Peterson was the better rebounder by far, and Peterson was also a good defender. SMF talked in one of his posts about his guys dominating the paint, so quick question, how many more shots did Adams block in his season than Peterson did in his? OK, I admit, it's a trick question. Senior Peterson actually blocked more shots than freshman Adams did. While Adams would become a much better player, by the rules of the game my center is vastly superior to his.

The backups are an odd matchup seeing as to how one was mainly a point guard and the other was a wing, but at least my guard was a good passer and could run an offense, as evidenced by his 5.4 assists per game. His wing didn't really score, but he made up for that by not really rebounding either (Culbertson averaged almost as many rebounds per game as Johnson did).

SMF bases his whole team on their dominance on the inside. My team is better than his at all three front court positions. His dominant inside players averaged 16.7 rebounds per game. My inside players averaged 26.0 rebounds per game. Like I said, it's not even close.

I don't disagree with most of what you said here but you are really underselling Sam.
 

Joe the Panther Fan

All P I T T !
Jul 6, 2001
32,011
13,071
113
The NBA would laugh in your face as both were drafted and Peterson and Gant weren't even thought of. I realize that that potential had a lot to do with that but still.


I couldn't have summed up your position better. If we ignore the rules of the game and look at what they did after they left Pitt then you are the winner. That isn't the rules of the game.

The fact of the matter is the only way you can win this matchup is by the voters either not knowing or having seen all these guys play, or they can ignore the rules. Kind of like you did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski11585

Joe the Panther Fan

All P I T T !
Jul 6, 2001
32,011
13,071
113
I don't disagree with most of what you said here but you are really underselling Sam.


I don't think so. He happens to be the second best three of the Big East era and he's probably also the second best pure scorer of that era as well. Unfortunately for SMF, I have the guy who is the best three and the best pure scorer. If there was a three point line when Vaughan played he averages 24 or 25 points a game.

Sam Young was a very, very good college basketball player. There's no shame in not being quite as good as what Clyde Vaughan was.
 

DT_PITT

Lair Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Jul 17, 2001
38,434
17,678
113
I don't think so. He happens to be the second best three of the Big East era and he's probably also the second best pure scorer of that era as well. Unfortunately for SMF, I have the guy who is the best three and the best pure scorer. If there was a three point line when Vaughan played he averages 24 or 25 points a game.

Sam Young was a very, very good college basketball player. There's no shame in not being quite as good as what Clyde Vaughan was.

I think that Sam was a bit better. So did the people who named him an All-American. We can agree to disagree on that one.

I also think your team beats SMF's team. We can agree to agree on that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe the Panther Fan

Joe the Panther Fan

All P I T T !
Jul 6, 2001
32,011
13,071
113
So did the people who named him an All-American.


But of course that's also based on the teams as well as the individuals. A guy on a top level team is going to get a lot more consideration than a guy on a team that had just moved up from the Eastern Eight to the big time.

Also, even with that Vaughan actually was an honorable mention all American his senior season.