The CBI finished Friday night with a Pitt win. The officiating met the standards of the previous games, but Pitt won anyways.

Lamar Patterson was named CBI MVP. Patterson stepped up to a more central role on the team.

“Lamar was tremendous this tournament,” Pitt coach Jamie Dixon said.

“He’s been real confident,” point guard Tray Woodall said. “He’s a Brad Wanamaker-type player. He instills confidence in the rest of his teammates. Guys are confident he’ll make the right plays. Coach Dixon calls sets for him knowing he’ll make the right play all the time.”

Patterson earned a starting position as a sophomore, but he did not assert himself the way he did in this tournament. He was often in the background as Ashton Gibbs and Woodall dominated the offensive touches.

But in this tournament, Patterson was the focal point of the offense, and it provided a glimpse of what the Panthers will look like next season.

“I feel like coach trusted me a lot more, depended on me a lot more,” Patterson said. “It feels good going into next year.”

I’ve made the Wanamaker comparisons as well, because that is the closest analog. Both are extremely versatile players. Willing and able to play multiple positions on the team. There are some differences between the two at this point in the development. Not where Wanamaker was as a senior, but comparing to their sophomore seasons and heading into the junior year.

Wanamaker was a stronger defender and a better penetrator — and able to finish at the basket. Patterson hesitates too much when he goes into the paint — for good and bad. While Wanamaker would seemingly bull his way to the basket at times and pick up dumb charges, Patterson tended be overly cautious going inside. Too willing to stop or hesitate if he thinks the defender might beat him to position.

Patterson is definitely a better shooter and at the free throw line. Wanamaker could knock down some 3s, especially in some clutch situations. But no one wanted him taking them too often.

They are about equal as a ball handler. I would give Patterson a slight edge in court vision, but Wanamaker had better velocity and touch on his passes. Patterson’s passes almost look lazy at times because they aren’t strong enough. It isn’t easy to compare them at exactly the same point. Wanamaker was a true sophomore coming off the bench playing on a team that included Young, Blair and Fields — playing 19 minutes/game. Patterson just completed his redshirt sophomore season, starting and playing over 28 minutes a game.

The biggest difference between the two: decisiveness. Wanamaker did not hesitate. Early in his career, it was a hindrence as he acted seemingly without thinking. Arguably overconfident. As he got more experienced, he made less mistakes and his decisiveness was a big boost in Pitt’s motion offense. Making that sharp pass to the cutting player or immediately getting the ball to Gibbs when he came off a curl or screen.

Patterson is the opposite. He tends to be deliberate and cautious. Waiting too long to make the pass or move, because he wanted to be absolutely sure. It keeps his turnovers low, but it could contribute to stagnating the offense — especially when Woodall was injured or getting a breather. In the CBI, Patterson looked more decisive in his actions. The experience appears to have helped him be more confident in his own decisionmaking, abilities to make the play, and his teammates.

Zanna was also the player to really make a statement in the CBI. Fittipaldo correctly observes in his final grades (which I’ll get to in a later post) that Zanna was hardly consistent during the season. His struggles versus Big East competition are a proper caution against declaring that he made huge progress. He needs more strength. But his confidence was much higher by the end of the CBI. He was asserting himself on the court, and almost abruptly became a reliable free throw shooter — which was key in winning the CBI. He showed a lot of drive and desire out on the court during the CBI.

The final game of the CBI was one of Pitt’s best efforts in the tournament. They took care of the ball. They scored very efficiently. Defensively, they still struggled. Especially if you look at the over 50 FG% for WSU and the volume of FTs the Cougars got to shot. (29). But three things to consider on the plus for the defense.

The 3-point shooting for WSU was shut down for a second straight game — which admittedly opened up the rest of the floor for the Cougars, but it was a worthwhile trade. Pitt also made sure WSU had to work for every shot, and there were a lot more contested shots as compared to the first game of the best-of-three. To some degree, you have to credit WSU for knocking down the shots they hit. As for the fouling, mixed feelings. No question Reggie Moore often got around the guards to penetrate, but even when the guards did succeed in cutting him off, Moore got the whistle.

The only thing more absurd than the actual officiating, is reading Washington State bias complain that the officiating hurt them:

But his injury, along with some old-fashioned home cooking the last two games in Pittsburgh, did in WSU. (As an aside, after another of a series of, well let’s just call them “odd” calls by the officiating crew, the S-R’s John Blanchette sent out this tweet: “To help determine the 101st best college team in America, the CBI apparently found the 101st best officiating crew.” John is always way too positive. Watching that effort last night, 201st or 202nd would be a better rating for the crew.)

Yes, “home cooking” calls were a factor. Like an intentional foul?

Actually the passage before is almost as silly:

Is there anyone reading this that doesn’t think WSU is better than Pittsburgh, despite the outcome of the three-game CBI championship series? (If you didn’t know, the Panthers won 71-65 last night to clinch the title.) By that, I mean the Washington State team that features Brock Motum in the post. That Cougar team is much, much better than the one that competed in the CBI final series without Motum, sidelined with an ankle sprain suffered in its semifinal win at Oregon State. Motum was the revelation this season, the biggest change from the Cougar team that was expected and the one that actually showed up. The junior from Australia led the Pac-12 in scoring and was named not only to the conference’s first team, was the Pac-12’s most improved player as well. If only he could have been on the court the past week to help the Cougars prove the Pac-12’s eighth-best team was better than the Big East’s 13th.

Motum would have helped WSU, without a doubt. But they also would have been a much different team — arguably one Pitt could defend better. Without Motum, WSU spread the floor and had Reggie Moore taking over for large stretches. When Motum was in the line-up this was Moore’s output over the last 10 games: 10, 12, 21, 6, 4, 5, 6, 10, 18 and 5.

Motum went down 2 minutes into the Oregon State game. This is what Moore did in that and the Pitt games: 22, 14, 18, 18. Slight difference. That kind of logic works both ways, considering Ashton Gibbs wasn’t on the floor for Pitt in those last two games. The games would have been different with a healthy Motum and Gibbs. But that doesn’t mean the outcome would have been.

I’m glad Pitt finished with some wins. I’m glad there are players returning for next year that may have some more confidence for next year. Now, let us try to not mention the CBI again.