Quote from: hopefan on January 23, 2012, 01:16:20 PM
I have been made aware that the call was made strictly by the officials... they never consulted the table, who had the authority to provide input to the call.  When they approached the table after talking only amongst themselves, the three officials had reached their decision.  No video was available for viewing.  Wash U officials at the table were given no opportunity to help....

Take my word for it, this is how it went down...... ... so my discouragement now vents directly to the 3 offficials on the court.....

Unfortunately, at the D3 level, most games actually only have 3 referees except for the playoffs.  At regular season games the table referee wears a striped shirt, but is not a sanctioned official.  From what I could see of the video, the women in the striped shirt at the table was not consulted, did not offer any information, and the referees did not look like they expected her input.   

Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on March 07, 2011, 11:17:04 AM

Quote from: OldSchoolHoopsFan on March 07, 2011, 10:22:33 AM

Quote from: WUH on March 04, 2011, 09:42:37 PM
Illinois Wesleyan needs to invest in a video feed system.

I called the SID earlier in the season and was told that the IT department budget was cut and that IWU's broadband network was no longer robust enough to broadcast the games on the internet. 

YOU WOULD THINK SO.

Even via UStream? Its lower quality, but can still get the job done with a lower broadband network.

Quote from: WUH on March 04, 2011, 09:42:37 PM
Illinois Wesleyan needs to invest in a video feed system.

I called the SID earlier in the season and was told that the IT department budget was cut and that IWU's broadband network was no longer robust enough to broadcast the games on the internet. 

Unbelievably unbalanced brackets if the national rankings are in any way accurate.  The left side of the bracket has 22 of the top 35 teams with an average ranking of 18 and the right side has 13 with an average ranking of 18.3.  Throw in an average ranking of 40 for all unranked teams and the left side has an average ranking overall of 25 while the right has an overall average ranking of 31. That is a 25% difference.  

Quote from: Hoosier Titan on February 10, 2011, 06:28:43 PMOSHF,
This is interesting, and I'm sure that much discussion will ensue.  I haven't taken part in any previous discussion involving stats, so I feel that I'm coming in late here.  I see from your Word document that the "GS" referred to above must be the Gross Score near the right hand column.  But what does that mean?  It doesn't seem to be a total of all the standings. What am I missing?

HT, You are not missing anything.  You just caught me revealing one of my favorite stats - Assist to Turnover Ratio.  I accidently posted it on the Word table instead of TO/M ranking.  Attached is a corrected Word Table.  Now the totals should match.  Thanks for catching that.



[attachment deleted by admin]

Quote from: RogK on February 08, 2011, 11:46:36 AM
Aren't we supposed to be debating CCIW MOP.

I ran some statistics and the results were interesting.  First of all, I do not want to imply that stats are a complete measure of the contribution on the basketball court.  They are just a starting point for discussions.  That being said, here is what I did.

I took all the conference players stats as of 2/9 and broke them down on a per minute basis.  Than I took the 40 players with the most total minutes and ranked them on Minutes Played, 2 Point Shooting %, 3 Point Shooting %, Free Throw %, Orff. Rebs., Def. Rebs., Fouls, Assists, Turnovers, Blocks, Steals and Points. After adding those rankings together I ranked the players by their totals.  Here are the top 10:

   Player    GS
Whe    Karsten, Laura   137
Mil   Wildman, Elise     180
IWU   Lett, Olivia     182
NC    Errico, Jackie   183
IWU   Preston, Nikki     184
Elm    Monroe, Kelsey   189
Elm    Merklein, Meghan   191
Whe    Brenneman, Lindsey   197
Car    Jacklin, Diana   198
Aug   Fox, Kristen   201

After seeing all of these players play I am not surprised that they appear on the list, but I was surprised that Laura Karsten has such an overwhelming edge.  Then I noticed that she was in the top 10 in all three shooting Pcts., Def. Reb., Assists, Turnovers, Steals and Points and in the top 15 in every catagory except Blocks and Minutes Played (missing 4 games).

For the offensive only stats the top ten lines up this way:

   Player    Offense Only
Whe    Karsten, Laura   40
IWU   Preston, Nikki     85
NC    Errico, Jackie   94
Elm    Monroe, Kelsey   96
IWU   Lett, Olivia     100
Whe    Brenneman, Lindsey   101
Car    Ripkey, Dani   101
Mil   Zeigler, Crystal     102
Whe    Potts, Elisabeth   115
Elm    Merklein, Meghan   117

And the meager defensive stats available total up like this:

   Player    Defense Only
IWU   Schulte, Hope     44
Mil   Wildman, Elise     48
Car    Jacklin, Diana   48
NP   Peterson, Sarah   54
NC    Karl, Christine   59
IWU   Lett, Olivia     60
Whe    Karsten, Laura   63
Elm    Ney, Megan   63
Elm    Joiner, Rashida   63
Car    Gilmore, Heather   65

I have atached a Word file with the full rankings and anyone who wants the stats to play with on their own can email  me and I will sent them the Excel file. 

[attachment deleted by admin]

[As long as I'm on mea culpae (did I get that plural right? ), I also erred on the primary criterion.  Only in-region wins over regionally-ranked teams are primary; wins over regionally-ranked teams in other regions are a secondary criterion.  So with the corrections, IWU is 4-1 on the primary; 1-0 (1-1 if DePauw makes it into the rankings) on the secondary.]
[/quote]

Baruch is ranked in the Atlantic Region.  That makes IWU 2-0 against other region raked teams. 

Wow!  Congratulations to all.  Amazing at the DIII level that there are 11 out of 15 underclasswomen. 

A Holy Grail.

Quote from: Moser on February 24, 2010, 03:31:26 PM
It would be great to see three teams make it, though I suspect IWU and Carthage are not so willing to let that happen.

I have to agree. 

RogK thanks for taking such an interest in my TA number.  I should have explained that is not meant to be an all purpose evaluator, but rather just an adjustment to the P/M stat to include other measurable aspects of play. 

Specifically regarding fouls my computations for this level of play indicate that, on the average, each foul is worth .513 of a point to the other team.  This is just a measure of Free Throws as a result of fouls and does not take into consideration anything like extended time of posession or defensive effectiveness

Similarly, regarding rebounds, offensive rebounds lead to a basket just over 50% of the time, hence they are the same value as a point.  Defensive rebounds lead to a basket only 36% of the time - hence the multiplier.

Missed field goals result in an opponent basket 27% of the time, but missed free throws result in actually less opponents points than made free throws because after a made free throw the opponent always gets the ball, but after a missed free throw there is an opportunity for an offensive rebound. 

Assists always result in a basket, thus they are multiplied by two.  Turnovers result in a basket about half the time so they are worth the same a a point. 

Blocks result in no basket and loss of posession about 90% of the time. That is why they have a multiplier.  Certainly, not all blocks wipe out shots that would be going in, so the multiplier is reduced to take into considerration shots that would have missed anyway.  Steals only lead to baskets about 50% of the time so they are wortha about as much as a point. 

The Total Average is Total in name only.  I have yet to find a way to use statistics to measure everything.  However, I am constantly tinkering with the formula.  It varies for every level of play and I also adjust it based on a team's total offensive effectiveness if I am complaring players from the same team.  With that in mind I would certainly entertain any suggestions that you still have in light of my explanations. 

With those rankings, if someone other than IWU or Carthage wins the conference tourney, would the CCIW have three teams in the NCAA's?

In my opinion the MOP discussion has no relation to hypotheticals or supporting players.  The decision comes down to "What player performed at the most outstanding level over the course of the season?"  Both LL and CS performed admirably, as did many others.  They each maintained this level of play game in and game out while providing leadership and character to their teams. 

LL is a prolific scorer, by far the best in the conference.  Additionally she is an outstanding rebounder for her position (ranks 10th in the CCIW in R/M among players of over 500 min.)  Her assist to turnover ratio and steals per min. are above average (21st and 26th).   Additionally, she performed game after game with a bullseye on her chest. 

CS is a fine offensive player who's presence in the post requires that every opponent either play a sagging zone or constantly double down in the paint.  She ranks 4th in CCIW in P/M and 1st in A/M and her A/T margin is outstanding for a post player (6th).Additionally, she is 1st in the CCIW in R/M and is an extremely close 2nd to teammate HS in steals per min. 

From a scoring standpoint LL is certainly the MOP, but CS has demonstrated a peerless all around game that makes her just as deserving.  My numbers, for what they are worth, have them within 5% of each other in total production so the descision would have to come down to intangibles.  I really wish I had seen both players much more so that I could make a clear choice.  As it is I do not have enough evidence to give either one the award over the other. 

The coaches have  planned their gameplans around negating these LL and CS, and then watched each overcome those obstacles to lead her team to victory time and again.  It will be extremely interesting to see how they vote. 

Quote from: bflong on February 24, 2010, 09:43:07 AM
Agreed... However, all of that is hypothetical... the reality is she didn't play those minutes, they didn't need her too, and LL did and proved to sustain those numbers game in and game out... the question as mentioned before is: would Solari maintain those numbers had she played 33 minutes per game?  IDK...

I see your point and it is a good one.  Sustained brilliance has value.  Statistically LL delivered 71% of the per minute production of CS, but did it over 35% more playing time. As a result LL has 4% more output than CS.  I know that numbers don't tell the whole story, but it is interesting how these numbers reflect both sides of this debate. 

Quote from: RogK on February 23, 2010, 06:06:57 PM
OldSchoolHoopsFan, we need you to make a correction to the stats in Reply 1507. They show Lyndsie Long with a .403 2Pt FG pct, but it should be .532.
In 25 games, she made 159 of 299 2FG att. Your computation went wrong because you had too high of a 2FG att/min.
In her 14 CCIW games, she looks even better : .434 on 3FGs and .570 on 2FGs (86/151).

RogK you are absolutely correct.  I accidently subtracted the "made 3's" rather than the "attempted 3's" from the total FG attemps.  Here is the correction:

Quote from: OldSchoolHoopsFan on February 22, 2010, 11:05:25 AM

           Solari            Long          Jacklin      Wildman
Min           624         841              694              867
MPG            25         33.6             27.8             34.7
FG/M       0.184         0.270           0.229          0.198
FGA/M     0.332          0..551          0.416          0.364
FG%        0.556          0..490          0.550          0.544
2PtB/M     0.184          0.189          0.228          0.197
2PtA/M     0.332          0.356          0.415          0.363
2Pt%        0.556          0.543          0.549          0.543
3/M          0.000          0.081          0.001          0.001
3A/M        0.000          0.195          0.010          0.003
3%              0            0.415           0.143          0.333
FT/M         0.160          0.111          0.076          0.112
FTA/M       0.213          0.124          0.138          0.158
FT%          0.752          0.894          0.552          0.708
PPM          0.529          0.731          0.536          0.510
OR/M         0.136          0.059          0.084          0.076
DR/M         0.205          0.157          0.187          0.195
TR/M         0.341          0.216          0.271          0.271
F/M           0.091          0.082          0.099          0.062
A/M           0.178          0.061          0.050          0.069
TO/M          0.138          0.086          0.088          0.131
A/T            1.291          0.708          0.574          0.526
B/M            0.014          0.010          0.058          0.062
St/M           0.115          0.037          0.063          0.030
TA/M          1.054          0.814          0.780          0.748

TA = Total Average (Points Scored - (.5 x Missed FG)  + OR + (.75 x DR) - (.5 x F) +(2 x A) - TO + (1.5 x B) + St.

While LL had an outstanding season there is strong statistical evidence that CS was the more dominant player on a per minute basis.  CS's Total Average is 29% higher than LL's and that is a huge margin  I have been using this statistic as a measuring tool on the teams that I coach for over 10 years and that large a margin is an extremely strong indicator that CS was a more outstanding performer than LL.