MBB: USA South Conference

[mattgrubb]

Well, narch, let's just state the obvious, Who would WANT to be a Piedmont right now.  Coach Glenn was not a bad coach.  The GSAC did not have a lot going for it.  The USASC does.  It would be tough to recruit ATL kids to Piedmont but it can be done.  SEE Lagrange.  D3 is a tough job and even tougher now that state schools have picked up their academic requirements.  I would think there are good reasons to get out of coaching at a GSAC school and the first reason is money.  But between the 2 GA schools in the USASC, i would pick piedmont for better facilities and a better basketball tradition.

That is sad about CJ.  We at Maryville have always looked at Randy Lambert in a similar light as CJ, we are hoping Randy lives and coaches forever.

[Ben Stein Fan]

I am looking forward to this weekend's games.  LaGrange has a chance to move into 4 or 5 in the conference if they win both games.  That is a far cry from where they were at the end of January. 

I have seen every team in conference this year and I can honestly say that anyone could win this tournament.  Every team is flawed and every team is capable of beating anyone else.

CNU has depth and credibility...officials pay attention to national rankings and reputation which could help them in the tournament
Maryville has arguably the best coach in the conference
NC Wesleyan has the best offensive player
Greensboro is the most physical team
LC has IMHO the best guard in Kyron Anderson...the guy wills his team to win.
Ferrum is tough just like Greensboro and maybe better coached
Averett and Methodist are capable teams and the tournament is in Methodist's back yard which should help them.

Should be a fun tournament.

[bballlover]

Is there any way that if CNU doesn't win the tourney that USA South gets 2 bids?

[scottiedoug]

Unless CNU loses before late in the tournament, I cannot imagine CNU not getting a bid.

[CNU85]

I've been off the boards for a while. I spend most of my spare time on campus, attending one meeting or another, or one event or another. I too was present at the memorial service for CJ Woollum. It was a very special tribute to a great man! I echo the thoughts of others who have posted here...CNU athletics, not just basketball, owes a lot to this man. Without his dedication and passion for CNU sports, none of us....athletes, students, fans, alum, would enjoy the successes evidenced at CNU. While many of my friends complain about not bringing home a National Championship other than track, and one individual golfer back in the day, I suggest the following outlook:

CNU, and CJ, have not focused on one sport over another. All sports, men and women, get a fair shake at developing a program. And we are almost there as far as national championships, and the day will soon come when it happens.

Over the past 10 years, and most of what I am about to mention are even sooner than that:

Baseball - #2 in country in D3 CWS. Also #3. back to back years. Currently #8 and watch out for this year's team!! Oh my is it stacked!!
Football has been ranked numerous times..never had a losing season.
Mens basketball....was ranked even this year, until the last poll
Womens basketball....currently #22. Had d3 women's national poty in Chelsea Schweers just a few years ago. Final 4 appearance as well.
Men's soccer - ranked as high as #1 last season
Softball....nationally ranked.....in 2011 played in National Championship game
Womens Volleyball....nationally ranked....consistently playing for national championship
Mens tennis....past 2 years a player is All-American.

All of the team successes and the numerous All-Americans in all sports.....and recently almost 300 student athletes were recognized for achieving a 3.0 GPA in the fall semester - from a University with incoming Freshmen achieving an average high school GPA of 3.8 and average SAT of 1207.

CJ built the foundation for a true D3 Student-Athlete institution that will ultimately give rise to a program that rarely exists. CNU will be a power in numerous sports and with athletes that are successful in the classroom as well!

ok - I'm off my soapbox. I just wanted to share with everyone that CJ may no longer roam CNU, but his legacy will surely be felt for decades to come!

[Goose13]

CNU85,
   I saw you hob-knobbing with the higher ups at last week's final home (men's anyway) games! Movin on up (or in this case, down the chairbacks)!! Your sentiments were spot on my friend. I expect nothing less from you.

[Dixie Fan]

In case you have not seen All Conference:

First Team

Tra Benefield - Christopher Newport
Brandon Givens - N.C. Wesleyan
Lamont King - Ferrum
Justin Pierce - Averett
Luqman Tijani - Greensboro

Second Team   

Nik Biberaj - Christopher Newport
Mike Cherry - Christopher Newport
Damian Dixon - Greensboro
Patrick Dugger - LaGrange
Jamal Pullen - Ferrum
   
Honorable Mention

Christian Ford - Maryville
Bryan Hockaday - Methodist
Josh Morrison - N.C. Wesleyan
Chakiris Moss - Greensboro
Marquis Scott - Averett

POY - Brandon Givens - NCWC
ROY - JD Wallace - Ferrum
COY - Bill Tharp - Ferrum

[scottiedoug]

Looks about right to me. 

[scottiedoug]

Silly me.  I thought that when Maryville joined a "real" conference that its tournament would be in video on the internet.

The Scots almost grew up and smacked Ferrum, without one of the better (and bigger) players.  Maryville has gotten better, even if more slowly than some of us had hoped.  I bet the young'uns will be more trouble for the conference next year.

[narch]

congrats to the captains and good luck in the tournament...

[DMJSports]

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 USA South Athletic Conference teams this season.  Based on this comprehensive analysis, the following players are making the most positive impact on their respective team:

Averett: JUSTIN PIERCE improves Averett's scoring rate by 18.4ppg but also allows opponent scoring rate to increase by 0.1ppg - a net gain of 18.3ppg. 

Christopher Newport: MIKE CHERRY does a nice job of not only improving Christopher Newport's scoring rate by a whopping 21.4ppg but also reducing opponent scoring rate by 7.8ppg - a net gain of 29.2ppg.    NIK BIBERAJ (16.7ppg), TRA BENEFIELD (16.7ppg), CONNOR LAFRAMBOISE (5.9ppg) and JON SNEAD (5.7ppg) also make a strong positive impact.

Ferrum: LAMONT KING does a nice job of not only improving Ferrum's scoring rate by 11.3ppg but also reducing opponent scoring rate by 3.2ppg - a net gain of 14.5ppg.    JD WALLACE (10.7ppg), MARSHALL HAMILTON (6.9ppg) and ALEK AYER (5.3ppg) also make a strong positive impact.

Greensboro: DEVONTA DAVIS does a nice job of not only improving Greensboro's scoring rate by 14.4ppg but also reducing opponent scoring rate by 4.3ppg - a net gain of 18.7ppg.    DONALD ANDERSON (13.5ppg) and RAHEEM MARTIN (6.9ppg) also make a strong positive impact.

LaGrange: DUSTIN BAXTER does a nice job of not only improving LaGrange's scoring rate by 5.1ppg but also reducing opponent scoring rate by 6.0ppg - a net gain of 11.1ppg. 

Maryville (Tenn.): SPENCER PEAKE does a nice job of not only improving Maryville (Tenn.)'s scoring rate by 4.2ppg but also reducing opponent scoring rate by 9.9ppg - a net gain of 14.1ppg.    SPENCER SHOFFNER (6.0ppg) also makes a strong positive impact.

Methodist: TABIAS HILLIARD does a nice job of not only improving Methodist's scoring rate by 6.0ppg but also reducing opponent scoring rate by 12.9ppg - a net gain of 18.9ppg.    BRYAN HOCKADAY (17.4ppg), KEEMON INGRAM (11.3ppg) and CHRISTIAN MCRAE (5.9ppg) also make a strong positive impact.

North Carolina Wesleyan: DEVONTAE WILLIAMS does a nice job of not only improving North Carolina Wesleyan's scoring rate by 4.2ppg but also reducing opponent scoring rate by 0.5ppg - a net gain of 4.7ppg. 

Piedmont:  incomplete data.


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 MIKE CHERRY on the floor correlates to Christopher Newport increasing its scoring rate by 21.4 ppg compared to when CHERRY is on the bench.

Opponent scoring: having RAHEEM MARTIN on the floor correlates to Greensboro decreasing opposition scoring rate by 13.1 ppg compared to when MARTIN is on the bench.

Team field goal percentage: having TRA BENEFIELD on the floor correlates to Christopher Newport increasing its field goal percentage rate by 9.9 percentage points compared to when BENEFIELD is on the bench.  JUSTIN PIERCE-Averett (8.9) also makes a strong positive impact.

Opponent field goal percentage: having BRYAN HOCKADAY on the floor correlates to Methodist decreasing opposition field goal percentage rate by 6.0 percentage points compared to when HOCKADAY is on the bench.  JOEY BODEWIG-Maryville (Tenn.) (5.8) and RAHEEM MARTIN-Greensboro (5.7) also make a strong positive impact.

Team made field goals: having MIKE CHERRY on the floor correlates to Christopher Newport increasing its made field goals rate by 8.6 per game compared to when CHERRY is on the bench.  TRA BENEFIELD-Christopher Newport (8.3) also makes a strong positive impact.

Opponent made field goals: having MARTIN RAHEEM on the floor correlates to Greensboro decreasing opposition made field goals rate by 5.9 per game compared to when RAHEEM is on the bench.

Team offensive rebounds: having DEVONTAE WILLIAMS on the floor correlates to North Carolina Wesleyan increasing its offensive rebounds rate by 7.4 per game compared to when WILLIAMS is on the bench.  MARQUIS SCOTT-Averett (7.0) also makes a strong positive impact.

Opponent offensive rebounds: having JETHRO GRIFFIN on the floor correlates to Maryville (Tenn.) decreasing opposition offensive rebounds rate by 3.3 per game compared to when GRIFFIN is on the bench.

Team turnovers: having TRA BENEFIELD on the floor correlates to Christopher Newport decreasing its turnovers rate by 5.5 per game compared to when BENEFIELD is on the bench.

Opponent turnovers: having ALEK AYER on the floor correlates to Ferrum increasing opposition turnovers rate by 4.5 per game compared to when AYER is on the bench.

Team steals: having NICK MITCHELL on the floor correlates to LaGrange increasing its steals rate by 3.4 per game compared to when MITCHELL is on the bench.

Team assists: having MIKE CHERRY on the floor correlates to Christopher Newport increasing its assists rate by 5.6 per game compared to when CHERRY is on the bench.  CONNOR LAFRAMBOISE-Christopher Newport (5.5) also makes a strong positive impact.

Team defensive rebounds: having BRYAN HOCKADAY on the floor correlates to Methodist increasing its defensive rebounds rate by 6.9 per game compared to when HOCKADAY is on the bench.

[narch]

DMJSports - these seem to be great statistics - long-time members of this board will probably recall that in the past i've advocated some type of +/- statistic - there was one particular former monarch player who used to score pretty liberally...and then turn around and give up easy points in the paint pretty regularly...i always thought he might actually be more of a liability because of his inability to defend - i believe captj has echoed the desire for a +/- statistic, as well - the last few years i've noticed many of the "live stats" applications have some type of statistical rating or evaluation, but i'm not sure what exactly this is measuring, and haven't cared enough to research it

it appears that you are using (or have developed) some pretty high level metrics, but i'm curious about how some of the numbers are even possible - take these cnu players, for example...

Christopher Newport: MIKE CHERRY does a nice job of not only improving Christopher Newport's scoring rate by a whopping 21.4ppg but also reducing opponent scoring rate by 7.8ppg - a net gain of 29.2ppg.    NIK BIBERAJ (16.7ppg), TRA BENEFIELD (16.7ppg)

looking at cherry, biberaj and benefield, specifically...all three average between 30 and 34 minutes per game - among this group, cherry scores the fewest points per minute at .444 (ppm) and has the second highest assists per minute .077 (apm), while biberaj is second in ppm at .509 and first in apm at .092 and benefield averages .526 ppm and .012 apm...these metrics are commonly associated with point production, and all three have numbers that are pretty similar when you look at them in combination

i'm assuming that probably 75 to 80% (or more) of the time, all three are on the floor together as starters and part of a regular rotation (perhaps some of the cnu supporters can verify this for me, but there has to be some statistical validity to this statement simply by viewing the minutes played)...for there to be such a huge discrepancy between cherry and biberaj/benefield (29.2 ppg vs. 16.7 ppg impact), there has to be a significant difference in their ability to stop opponents from scoring on an individual basis (not simply as observed by team score, since we've already established they are all on the floor together the vast majority of the time, negating the statistical impact of team score) - biberaj, in particular, has some metrics that commonly indicate holding the opponent score down...defensive rebounds (170 vs. 84) and blocks (31 vs. 5), in particular...which are off-the-charts compared to cherry - cherry also has nearly 35% more turnovers than biberaj, and i would assume that SOME of those to's turned into opponent points...

it seems statisically impossible to me that the player with the lowest point production (measured by ppm), lowest shooting percentage (by far), lowest rebounding output (offensive and defensive...by a large margin), and highest turnover rate would have an "impact rating" that is 75% higher than the other two guys he's being compared to on his own team, especially when team performance is the measurement tool and they are on the floor together for the vast majority of the time...can you explain this apparent anomaly?

[DMJSports]

Hello narch,

Thanks for the question.  The statement you highlighted doesn't only take into account scoring, but, more importantly, point differential.  In addition, it takes into account the difference between team performance while the player is in vs out of the lineup.  So, in the cases where players have similar stats, play the majority of the game and are in the same rotation, the big difference is typically the few minutes they are out and how the team performs during those times.  If they are out at the same time, their numbers will look the same, but with players that are only out 4-8 minutes a game, the team performance during those few minutes (keep in mind it is looking at the whole season, not just a few games), could have a significant impact on these numbers. 

So, if we look at your specific question: As you correctly point out, Cherry, Biberjak and Benefield score at similar clips (0.46ppm, 0.5ppm and 0.54ppm, respectively).  Now, when you look at point differential when these players are in, you get the following: 0.44ppm, 0.40ppm, and 0.385ppm, respectively.  Notice how when Cherry is in the game, CNU actually has the best point differential per minute at 0.44ppm.  Now, just looking at those numbers, it still doesn't explain why Cherry's impact is at 29.2ppg and the other 2 are at 16.7ppg.  The big difference comes from the time Cherry is out.  During that time, CNU is actually a negative in the point differential (plus/minus) at -0.29ppm.  Biberjak is about even (when he is out) and when Benefield is out, CNU is still about even (-0.08ppm).  So, the significant discrepancy between Cherry out at -0.29ppm and even for Benefield and Biberjak is the determining factor that gives Cherry an impact of 29.2ppg.  I hope my explanation makes sense.

[narch]

I hope my explanation makes sense.

still trying to wrap my head around this...

to help me understand, i want to simplify this a bit...maybe the formula is so complex that simplifying it won't work, but i'd like to try

let's use biberaj and cherry to reduce the third variable of benefield - biberaj played 780 minutes in 26 games (30.0 min/game) and cherry played 862 minutes in 26 games (33.2 min/game) - let's ASSUME that 70% of the time cherry played, he was on the court with biberaj (seems like a reasonable assumption, but you may have the actual statistic)...in a 40 minute game, this means that they were on the floor together for 23.2 minutes, leaving 10 minutes that cherry was on the floor without biberaj (and 6.8 minutes that biberaj was on the floor w/o cherry)

time together:
cherry: 23.2 minutes * .44 ppm differential = 10.2 ppg impact
biberaj: 23.2 minutes * .40 ppm differential = 9.3 ppg impact

time alone:
cherry: 10 minutes * .44 ppm differential = 4.4 ppg impact
biberaj: 6.8 minutes * .40 ppm differential = 2.7 ppg impact

(i realize the first two could be simplified to simply say "time on the court" vs. "time on the bench")

time on the bench:
cherry: 6.8 minutes * .29 ppm differential = 2.0 ppg impact
biberaj: 10 minutes * 0 ppm differential = 0 ppg impact

why wouldn't their ratings look more like this?
cherry: 16.6 ppg impact [(33.2 mpg * .44 ppm differential) + (6.8 mpg * .29 ppm differential)]
biberaj: 12 ppg impact [(30.0 mpg * .40 ppm differential) + (10 mpg * .0 ppm differential)]

there is still a significant differential between the two players (cherry's impact is around 38% higher than biberaj's in these calculations), but it's a far cry from the 75% differential between 29.2 ppg and 16.7 ppg - this seems more realistic given the conventional metrics, which all tilt toward biberaj being a more impactful player

[DMJSports]

Hello narch,

If you are going to put this much effort into this the least I can do is the same. 

The analysis is seeking the difference a player makes on the team (impact).  So, it evaluates the team's performance with the player and then does the same thing without the player.  The numbers it provides is the magnitude of the difference based on a 40 minute game (hence, it is a rate difference but instead of using the measure per minute, it is using per 40 minutes).  So, looking at this particular example, with Cherry in the lineup the point differential is .44ppm (17.6pp40).  With Cherry out of the lineup it is -0.29ppm (-11.6pp40).   The difference in these rates is 0.73ppm (29.2pp40).  The difference of the point differential rates with Biberaj in and out of the lineup is 0.4175ppm (16.7pp40). 

Your analysis is measuring the impact of these players on a game based on their average playing time... absolutely nothing wrong with that, but my analysis focuses on highlighting the difference in team performance with a player on and off the floor (not biased by current playing time).  A small tweak could certainly change the algorithm to the "narch system."