[/quote]Wasn't able to attend the game last night, but if this is the case that Calvin put it in "cruise control" for the second half, Vandestreek needs to go.
[/quote]

Fire Tom Izzo while we are at it...his guys definitely played on cruise control Wednesday. Completely unacceptable...Tom needs to go.

I was there last night and Calvin did play hard all night...they just didn't execute well in the 2nd half and compounded some errors...especially in a two minute stretch when the lead went from 1 to 10...after that they had to grit it out and battle back.

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2013, 01:15:19 PM

Quote from: bojack on February 27, 2013, 01:12:39 PM
Ohhhh...sounds alot like the Cabrera/Trout MVP race and the WAR statistics...sheds light on individual talent or lack their of by the back-up.

WAR takes no position on a team's actual depth chart or back up options.

Correct...WAR looks at wins above the "average major league equivalent" or whatever, not necessarily what is on your team...WAR would not shed light on the current back-up, where this analysis just done could shed that light. A poor comparison to WAR on my part...should have know better than through out statistical lingo and have it get past KS   

Quote from: DMJSports on February 27, 2013, 12:57:27 PM
Here is an interesting look at how individuals impact a team's performance.  The following analysis is not based on individual stats, but compares team performance with individual players in and out of the lineup.  This is an objective analysis using actual data from every game played by Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association teams this season.  Based on this comprehensive analysis, the following players are making the most positive impact on their respective team:

Adrian: ERIC LEWIS on the floor correlates to improving Adrian scoring rate by 14.3ppg and increasing opponents scoring rate by 1.9ppg - a net gain of 12.4ppg compared to when LEWIS is out of the lineup.  ADAM MEIER (7.2ppg) and SEAN GALLANT (6.6ppg) also make a strong positive impact.

Albion: MIKE SMITH court presence correlates to improving Albion scoring rate by 1.1ppg and decreasing opponents scoring rate by 6.5ppg - a net gain of 7.6ppg compared to when SMITH is off the court.  ZACH HURTH (5.8ppg) also makes a strong positive impact.

Alma: GREG SILVERTHORN in the lineup correlates to improving Alma scoring rate by 11.4ppg but also increasing opponents scoring rate by 5.7ppg - a net gain of 5.7ppg compared to when SILVERTHORN is on the bench.

Calvin: JORDAN BRINK in the lineup correlates to increasing Calvin scoring rate by 3.3ppg and decreasing opponents scoring rate by 4.4ppg - a net gain of 7.7ppg compared to when BRINK is off the floor.  TYLER KRUIS (6.2ppg), MICKEY DEVRIES (5.1ppg) and TOM SNIKKERS (4.1ppg) also make a positive impact.

Hope: NATE SNUGGERUD on the court correlates to increasing Hope scoring rate by 13.4ppg and decreasing opponents scoring rate by 0.3ppg - a net gain of 13.8ppg compared to when SNUGGERUD is off the court.  ALEX EIDSON (9.1ppg) and BEN GARDNER (4.2ppg) also make a positive impact.

Kalamazoo: MARK GHAFARI in the game correlates to improving Kalamazoo scoring rate by 17.2ppg and reducing opponents scoring rate by 11.0ppg - a net gain of 28.2ppg compared to when GHAFARI is on the bench.  MIKE ORAVETZ (9.7ppg) and ADAM PETERS (5.1ppg) also make a strong positive impact.

Olivet: GARNER SMALL on the floor correlates to improving Olivet scoring rate by 8.5ppg and decreasing opponents scoring rate by 3.4ppg - a net gain of 11.9ppg compared to when SMALL is out of the lineup.  DAUNTRELL HILL (9.4ppg), MATT EL (6.7ppg), JEFF CAIN (5.1ppg) and BLAKE KRUM (2.7ppg) also make a positive impact.

Trine: JARED HOLMQUIST on the floor correlates to increasing Trine scoring rate by 3.5ppg and decreasing opponents scoring rate by 8.5ppg - a net gain of 12.0ppg compared to when HOLMQUIST is out of the lineup.  IAN JACKSON (11.2ppg), NICK TATU (7.4ppg) and SCOTT ROGERS (7.0ppg) also make a strong positive impact.


On the lighter side, focusing on secondary goals (team stats other than the primary objective - outscoring opponents).  Following are players making the most positive impact in these areas:

Team scoring: having MARK GHAFARI on the floor correlates to Kalamazoo increasing its scoring rate by 17.2 ppg compared to when GHAFARI is on the bench.

Opponent scoring: having MARK GHAFARI on the floor correlates to Kalamazoo decreasing opposition scoring rate by 11.0 ppg compared to when GHAFARI is on the bench.

Team field goal percentage: having MARK GHAFARI on the floor correlates to Kalamazoo increasing its field goal percentage rate by 9.9 percentage points compared to when GHAFARI is on the bench.  TYLER KRUIS-Calvin (9.0) also makes a strong positive impact.

Opponent field goal percentage: having MICKEY DEVRIES on the floor correlates to Calvin decreasing opposition field goal percentage rate by 5.8 percentage points compared to when DEVRIES is on the bench.  MATT EL-Olivet (5.6) also makes a strong positive impact.

Team made field goals: having ERIC LEWIS on the floor correlates to Adrian increasing its made field goals rate by 7.1 per game compared to when LEWIS is on the bench.

Opponent made field goals: having MATT EL on the floor correlates to Olivet decreasing opposition made field goals rate by 4.5 per game compared to when EL is on the bench.  MICKEY DEVRIES-Calvin (4.3) also makes a strong positive impact.

Team offensive rebounds: having MATT EL on the floor correlates to Olivet increasing its offensive rebounds rate by 3.4 per game compared to when EL is on the bench.  GARNER SMALL-Olivet (3.2) also makes a strong positive impact.

Opponent offensive rebounds: having MARK GHAFARI on the floor correlates to Kalamazoo decreasing opposition offensive rebounds rate by 5.2 per game compared to when GHAFARI is on the bench.

Team turnovers: having DAUNTRELL HILL on the floor correlates to Olivet decreasing its turnovers rate by 4.1 per game compared to when HILL is on the bench.

Opponent turnovers: having ERIC LEWIS on the floor correlates to Adrian increasing opposition turnovers rate by 4.3 per game compared to when LEWIS is on the bench.

Team steals: having SCOTT ROGERS on the floor correlates to Trine increasing its steals rate by 2.4 per game compared to when ROGERS is on the bench.

Team assists: having TYLER KRUIS on the floor correlates to Calvin increasing its assists rate by 4.5 per game compared to when KRUIS is on the bench.  MARK GHAFARI-Kalamazoo (4.2) also makes a strong positive impact.

Team defensive rebounds: having SCOTT ROGERS on the floor correlates to Trine increasing its defensive rebounds rate by 5.9 per game compared to when ROGERS is on the bench.  DAUNTRELL HILL-Olivet (5.5) also makes a strong positive impact.

Impressive analysis. There are some eye opening stats that appear through this.  It's intriguing to me that Calvin and Albion post the smallest individual differences between on and off the floor. Can't help but surmise that this may speak to depth of talent on Calvin? Lack of talent on Albion? Ohhhh...sounds alot like the Cabrera/Trout MVP race and the WAR statistics...sheds light on individual talent or lack their of by the back-up.

Quote from: Erm Schmigget on February 21, 2013, 11:51:59 AM
OK and HC-  I agree with most of what you're saying in regards to this MVP discussion/debate.  It seems there's no clear-cut candidate like in years past.  Without that clear leader in bare stats--without regard for minutes played--it might therefore be helpful this year to look at a player's contribution in terms of efficiency.  Just for fun, I looked at someone from Hope's roster in that light.  Here's what I found for Nate Snuggerud:

Nate finished the regular season in the top ten in scoring (10th), field goals per game (10th), FT/game (6th), and FG% (2nd), all while playing only 19.4 min/game (42nd).  As for rebounding, he finished tied for 15th in rebounds/game, with 4.9.  He played 117 fewer minutes than Snikkers, almost 3 full games, and 233 fewer than Ian Jackson, almost 6 full games.  If you adjust for efficiency, He leads the league in points per 40min (26.5), FG/40min (10.3 made/19.3 attempts) and is 2nd in FT/40min (6.3/9.4).  Obviously, the FG% doesn't change, but the leader was Adam Peters from Kalamazoo, and truthfully no one is considering him in this discussion.  If you look at rebounding efficiency, Snuggs is 6th, ahead of Snikkers (9th), and Krius (13th)...Jackson didn't make the top 50.

Alot has been said about Nate this season, and alot was expected of him before the season started.  We didn't see what we thought we might from him, so it's natural to sub-consciously eliminate him from our consideration for MVP.  I'm not going to argue that he should be in the running for the distinction, but if we're going to look at a player's efficiency as a benchmark for MVP consideration, we could put together a pretty strong case for Nate Snuggerud.

Yes you could make a case. This is all assuming Nate was in the physical/mental condition to handle more than an average 19.4 min/g he was given...

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 04:21:49 PM
Well they put that in because teams were getting punished in the final regional rankings when a team that was ranked the whole time dropped out... which then hurt other teams in the region. It was really bad the first year when the rankings went through a gut check after conference tournaments.

Which makes sense. I know you are just reporting the process and thank you for that. It just seems like a lot of bandaids on a pretty brutal process. If they did regional ranking throughout the year Calvin would have benefitted quite highly for wins vs Adrian who may be have been pretty high in early january when they boasted an undefeated record and a win vs #1 wooster...at wooster.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 03:53:57 PM
Per Hope... I know the message was relayed... and I was told it would be adjusted... I am not sure why it wasn't.

Two key things Calvin has going against them: an SOS of .431 which is roughly in the bottom 1/4 of the country... and no results versus regionally ranked opponents. We have seen over the last two years that these two keys will hurt a team if they have a low SOS and if they didn't play a lot of teams that ended up being regionally ranked. Franciscan and Pitt-Greensburg are the only other two teams in the Great Lakes region with no opponents that have been ranked regionally.

Who's fault is it that Calvin has not played regionally ranked opponents? This process is an abomination. No worries NCAA, only 4 years of extremely hard work and dedication by your student/athletes at stake...thanks for punching the numbers into a spreadsheet.

You are right, a games final stat line does not adequately represent a head-to head match-up...I agree. Don't forget to include the two NVA fouls was 4 points for Tyler Kruis because he made all 4 FT's. I would think that part of a big man's job is to keep themselves on the floor to keep that void filled, NVA has work yet to do in that department, I think everyone would agree. His back-up, Holwerda, has improved greatly and helps cover his fouls up more than adequately. But, NVA inability to stay out of foul trouble is all part of what results in a nice stat-line for Kruis....

It is what is it is, an opinion. Hope has a better team and better pieces...as for me, I prefer Tyler Kruis to NVA right now and I don't expect everyone to agree. He seems substantially more polish offensive with a great nose for the ORB, block, shot, and has the length to guard guys with the size of NVA. Just my opinion...

Sac...
I think you need to take a look more closely at the match-up you speak of between Kruis and NVA.  In 3 games head-to-head Kruis has 46 points, 22 rebounds, and 7 blocks for an average of 15.3ppg and 7.3rpg. His counterpart, NVA has 20 points, 7 rebounds, 2 blocks for an average 6.6ppg and 2.3rpg. Those numbers are not close. NVA averages 7.6ppg and 4.7rpg per game on the year while Tyler Kruis averaged 10.9ppg and 6.8rpg on the year...so at a closer look Tyler Kruis is actually performing better against NVA than his other oppponents while NVA is performing below his average against TK...so who is getting the better of this match-up?

It can seem helpful to try and breakdown which player plays when during the game, but the simple fact remains that they went head to head 3 times this year for long stretches of the game and TK got the best of all three match-ups. Whether or not the coaches from Hope choose to play him during stretchs of the 2nd half should say something about the match-up itself. The truth of the matter is that these two players are the same age with the same amount of time spent in college basketball...one got more tick his FR year while the other had a chance to hone his talents against better competition, where they stand today is clearly evident...Kruis is the better player...

Good luck to hope the rest of the way, they clearly have the better team and a great chance to make some noise in the NCAA...

I have no doubt that Hope leads the nation in attendance...I'm always impressed with the loyalty and turnout of both students and community alike.  Whatever the numbers are for Hope, I would be proud the atmosphere and turnout they have on a consistent basis.

I wasn't trying to imply the Devos is littered with attendance banners but I did notice the one.  It doesn't need to hang attendance banners as there are many other more impressive accomplishments...When I attended games and went back to check the stats online, I was always miffed with the attendance as it seemed to be reported more than what I actually saw and compared to the capacity...but again, you are right...who cares.  It is not a big deal.  I was just wondering if there was something I was missing.  The product on the court and support off the court is impressive.

BTW...I have been over to the VanNoord arena as well...not too shabby knight fans 

[/quote]

I don't belive there is an attendance banner in DeVos Fieldhouse...........and everyone inside the doors is counted. 3,665 seemed a bit much to everyone who would have a better idea than the rest of us.

[/quote]

This is the banner I am referring to...I believe it still hangs in the rafters: I don't know how to import the picture so here is the link (about the 3rd picture down): Middle banner: "Inaugural Season  32-0 NCAA DIII Attendance Leaders 2005-2006"

http://www.hope.edu/pr/athletics/photo0506.html

Thanks...I get the attendance figures have more variables than what simply comes through the gate.  If it is ticket holders and paid tickets, I'm not sure how they get #'s above 3009: their own stated capacity.   It's not a big deal...but I thought I was missing something.

I am a first time poster, but have been keeping up with your forum for about a year now.  I enjoy reading and share your enjoyment of small college basketball.  I am privileged to attend about 4-5 Hope games a year.  I am not a graduate of any MIAA school but simply enjoy watching good local basketball. 

With attending the DeVos since it's opening, I have a question about the attendance reporting that I see on the stats every game.  Every year Hope reports a fieldhouse record for the attendance for the Hope-Calvin game.  This year reporting 3665 in attendance.  When I took the tour of Devos when it opened, our tour guide told us the hope was to have 3000 seats but the reality would be around 2800 after media rows etc. Well, I am uncertain where the difference is from.  I know there was not 600-800 people standing up top while the game saturday was going on.  Everyone was in their seats.

Here is the seating guide for the Devos: 3009 total seats available: according to Hopes website.

http://www.hope.edu/ticketoffice/diagrams.htm

Now understand my point of view...I am an admirer er of Hope College basketball and enjoy watching their games.  Other games I attended this year were Wheaton and Alma.  Wheaton reported 3033 and that place was no more than 2/3 full at best.  Then against Alma they reported 3230 and the endline bleachers were scattered at best...I just don't get it.  If anyone knows something I don't I would appreciate the info.

I understand that there is media, workers, etc... but I don't think employees go on the attendance report but media does.  Again, I love attending games and always will.  I think the Dew Crew and the Hope fans are the most loyal in the MIAA for sure.  I would not worry about such #'s, but when you hang banners in your gym about attendance I would want to make sure #'s aren't embellished.  Sorry if this hits people the wrong way with my 1st post, but I guess I'm wondering if someone knows something I dont.