You said he was the best PG to play in the ACC. I wasn’t sure what you meant by that, so all I did was list PGs in the ACC who had better pro basketball careers and also better ACC careers.
Having a better career doesn't mean you were better if it is entirely based on being there 4 years compared to 2. Kenny was better than Hurley. Huryley stayed 4 years to Kenny's two. Kenny went pro early because he was good enough to and Hurley wasn't. And it isn't based on just the eye test. Go compare the numbers.
Kenny averaged 20.6 ppg, 8.1 apg, 5.5 rpg, 2.3 spg, shot 41% from 3 and 52% from the floor. As a freshman.
Look at Hurley as a senior (his best year).
17 ppg, 8.2 apg, 2.6 rpg, 1.5 spg, shot 42% from 3 and 42% from the floor.
Anderson had a better rookie year, in terms of production, than Hurley had as a senior. Anderson was averaging those same numbers against NBA competition that year. But Hurley was better because he stayed 4 years? Come on.
Kenny scored more on better shooting, got more steals, and more rebounds, and was near identical in terms of assists.
Jay Williams JR year
21.3 ppg, 5.3 apg, 3.5 rpg, 2.2 spg, shot 38% from 3 and 46% from the floor.
Extremely good. But also just clearly worse than Kenny as a freshman.
Phil Ford Sr year.
20.8 ppg, 5.7 apg, 2.1 rebounds, 1.8 steals.
Chris Paul's sophomore year
15.3 ppg, 6.6 apg, 4.5 rpg, 2.4 spg, on 47% from 3 and 45% from the floor.
The eye test favors Kenny. But it isn't the only thing that favors him. The biggest reason Hurley especially is lauded is because he played for Duke. Otherwise why is he always mentioned in terms of assists when Corchiani had just 38 fewer assists in 16 fewer games?
My point about the ACC PoY is that, in my opinion, you have to have some kind of hardware/longevity to be considered the best ACC PG of all time.
Except Acc PoY is entirely dependent on who else is playing. Here are some PGs that won ACC PoY. Tre Jones, Shane Larkin, Greivis Vasquez. and a several others that were clearly behind Anderson.
Is consensus all american not good enough? Two first team all conferences in two years (when Hurley was also in the legue mind you). ACC RoY. What longevity are you talking about? This isn't the nba. Anderson had less longevity because he was good enough to leave early. It's silly to turn around and say that proves others were better.
So what is the argument for literally anyone else that isn't just volume stats advantage compiled because Anderson was good enough to go pro early and others weren't, or team based accomplishments?
