MBB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[WoostAr]

Cabrini's talent level is insane...Wooster's jump shot contests didn't bother their shooters.  Pull up jump shots...moving either direction...hard to tell on screen who was who, but the whole team seemed like they shot lights out.

Wooster didn't help itself ... wide open shots that didn't go in...28.6% from 3...that won't win too many games.

[fantastic50]

Hard-fought physical contest, played in front of an unusually vocal black-and-gold crowd. Cabrini stayed composed when they fell behind early, and Aaron Walton-Moss is a great player, possibly an All American candidate. However, I wasn't impressed when he appeared to skip out on the post-game handshakes. 

This was another fine season for Wooster, and the Scots graduate only the two big men, Claytor and Mays. If someone steps up (perhaps Josh Kipfer or an incoming freshman) in the post, Wooster should be even better next season.

[drt]

Very sorry to see the Scots go down and the NCAC out of the hunt.
I bet the refs sabotaged the feed........

[seinfeld]

Officiating wasn't great, but didn't really have an impact on the outcome. Maybe others see this differently, but I've never seen a player talk to the officials as much as Walton-Moss. Without exaggeration, he probably had at least 10 conversations with the referees, including during game action. He even walked across the court before the start of the second half to talk with the refs. One time the ref held up the start of play as Walton-Moss talked with the ref instead of taking the ball for an inbounds play. To me, I don't care if Walton-Moss was telling the refs how great they looked for their age. At a certain point, at least to me, the refs need to tell the player in question to either be quiet, or get a technical. Otherwise, you get what you had tonight -- a player who appeared to be "special," and by special I mean he seemed to be in charge of what was happening, and I'm not talking about play on the floor. It's obvious that not every player could be allowed to do this, as the game would be chaos. So why special treatment for one player?

As for the game itself, broadly speaking, Cabrini worked hard to take Wooster out of its comfort zone, while frankly, the Scots didn't really try that hard to do the same. By that, I mean they willingly let Walton-Moss isolate his defender (usually DeBoer) and just break him down off the dribble. Wooster also let Walton-Moss set up shot at the top of the circle and just go to work. No effort to deny him the ball. No effort to ever double him to make him get rid of it. I realize there were other guys on the floor that can beat you, but at some point, don't you want to make some effort to take away the other team's strength and see if other guys can beat you? That's what Cabrini did. After a slow start defensively, Cabrini figured out that they needed to pinch Wooster's guards, especially Thorpe. They came way out on him, forcing him to have to give up the ball. The result was other guys had to shoot the ball, and that produced 8-for-35 shooting from everyone other than Thorpe and Brown.

During the crucial part of the game, which was after Wooster took an early 5-point lead in the second half, the vast majority of Wooster's shots came from guys outside of Thorpe and Brown -- in fact, 11 of the next 15 shots from the field came from other players -- until there was less than a minute left. Brown made the first two shots of the second half that Wooster took, then only shot the ball three more times the rest of the game.

Of course, other factors that you simply can't overcome is shooting only 6-for-11 from the foul line, most of which came from Claytor. Then you have Mays more or less going awol, not collecting a single rebound in 12 minutes and absolutely fumbling an easy pass that would have led to a layup that helped end Wooster's early second-half run. Then you had your wing players, who if you want to win at an elite level, need to make shots, particularly from three-point range. Pannell seemed afraid to shoot the ball, and then when he did finally take a three-pointer, he shot an air ball. And LaLonde, who made his mark in high school as a shooter, went 0-for-5 and finished the year shooting 32% from the field and 24% from three-point range.

In terms of physical talent, Wooster had a ton this year. But a failure for the two senior post players to elevate their game, and inconsistent outside shooting, the Scots went about as far as their regular-season play merited. There is a lot of talent coming back, and they should be in the mix again. It's a matter of whether they can develop a modest inside threat, and someone can step up from the wing position. Pannell, Wingard and LaLonde are elite physical talents, but one of them, or a freshman, need to pose some sort of consistent threat of the outside for them to be a top-10 team.

[sac]

Larry Martin, Mike Brya, Kendal Smith  -- MIAA guys, as were 2 of the 3 last weekend.

[woosterbooster]

First things first.  The video streaming provided by The College of Wooster and MCTV is pathetic.  Even were it ten years ago, it would be a joke.  Tonight I maybe saw 25 of the 40 minutes of action.  The rest was buffering or blank dark screen.  Then the game would start up and I'd have missed several minutes of play.  Even during the stretches when it was working correctly, the image was very poor.  And, tonight wasn't unusual, it's pretty much the norm, both before and after they went to Stretch Internet.  That doesn't seem to have made a lick of difference. 

I can't think of another school that streams that isn't much, much better at this now.  And almost all of the small schools stream.  I've been paying these guys a lot of money for a lot of years, and I don't feel that I'm getting much value in return.  On Monday I begin seriously looking at new options.

On to the game.  Most of the Scots gave it their all.  There were one or two exceptions.  Obviously Cabrini was fast and physical.  I think Wooster did a very good job of keeping them in a half-court offense.  Unfortunately, they had a good night making mid-range jumpers and with their quickness, those are awfully hard to defend.

I agree that Wooster will have a very good nucleus coming back in the fall.  They'll probably be better at the guard positions than they've ever been.  Thorpe and XB are terrific on both ends of the court.  Jalen Goodwin makes a very nice third guard, and there are others.

The three position is solid with Pannell.  His defense is very good, he can get down the floor, makes few mistakes, and occasionally he'll hit a three or find a lane to the hoop.  A very nice role player.

DeBoer has been a terrific surprise this season; so much development so quickly was unexpected.  He's kind of become a Tom Port-like player, who can shift between the 3 & 4 spots, while giving you the option of having a "semi-big" bring the ball up court, something the Scots haven't had since Marty Bidwell and Port before him.  DeBoer can shoot it, get it to the hoop, set picks, rebound, and play D.  I didn't see all of these skills coming last season, but they're here now, after just two seasons.

That's four starters for next season.

There are other guys that can contribute next season if they some things happen.  Alex LaLonde needs two things: strength and a new-found shot.  Three pizzas a day, with pepperoni and sausage, combined with many hours in the weight room might just do it.  Ten pounds of muscle would help.  Twenty would be better.  As for the shot, it's not like he never had one; he did.  Maybe it's still sitting in a dorm room in Colorado; I don't know.  But he needs to get it back.

DeVaughn Wingard, in the last several games, has shown that he can do more than put up quick ill-advised threes.  He's calmed down on the floor, done some rebounding, and worked within the offense.  There's room for him out there as a two or three if he continues to develop.

The big guys are gone, and the cupboard may be bare next season.  But there were many times these last few weeks that it already seemed that way.  Hopefully Wooster can somehow find a post player that can compliment the level of talent that the rest of the team has.     

[fantastic50]

Interesting comments from Cabrini's head coach regarding their star guard...
http://www.the-daily-record.com/local%20sports/2013/03/17/cabrini-gets-best-of-great-guard-matchup.modal

I did a bit of reading on Walton-Moss's background, and here's what I found:
- He was a high school star in Camden, NJ, and received interest from some Philly-area mid-major Division I programs
- Academic and personal issues kept him from being able to play at the D-I level
- His daughter was born in summer 2010
- He was discovered at an open gym session held by Cabrini, and joined the team in January 2012
- Making an immediate impact on Cabrini's squad, he was the D3 national freshman of the year last spring, at the age of 21
- After being academically ineligible at the start of this season, he rejoined the team in January, and was named first-team all-region

Also notable is that Cabrini's other guard who put up a pile of points last night spent this fall at a local community college.

[woosterbooster]

I'm mum on the officiating since I missed 3/8 of the game completely and only saw the rest on 1990's-level video.  But there was one call that was totally ridiculous, when Walton-Moss bowled over DeBoer who was called for a block.

What I'd really like to know is what happened to DeBoer earlier, at the other end, when he was suddenly in real pain and half ran off the court behind the bleachers.  Couldn't have been his knee, because he wouldn't have been moving at that speed.  Did anybody at the game see the play?  He was around the baseline in a crowd; maybe a collision or took a hard shot.

[mailsy]

Wooster Booster from what I think I saw on the video is maybe he got hit in the "family jewels" area. But not sure considering the game kept buffering.

[woosterbooster]

Wooster Booster from what I think I saw on the video is maybe he got hit in the "family jewels" area. But not sure considering the game kept buffering.

That was my first thought, but most people can barely stand-up when that happens, let alone jog.  But it did seem like that kind of thing; he was gone for some time, but then came back seemingly unhurt.

[sigma one]

Congratulations to Wooster on another fine season and solid representation in the tournament.  I am impressed at the way the Fighting Scots reload every year behind a hall-of-fame coach.
     Years ago I did some officiating, and little bothered me more that a player who wanted to carry on a conversation or talk about this and that, thinking that the he might gain some advantage (or just being extroverted).  I sometimes told that player to let his coach speak for his team.  I did not mind an occasional question, comment, or remark in the heat of competition, but it was easy to tell when a player was looking for more than a friendly hello.  I may have been blind, but I wasn't stupid.  On the observation about the Cabrini player talking up the ref at every opportunity:  I'm guessing based on the description, but I've seen and been around players who do those kinds of things to remind everyone how good and special they are:  "See me, I can  . . ."  If this was the case, that's too bad, particularly in a situation where a young man has the chance to change his life, support his child, etc.
     On a not unrelated topic,  I attend quite a few college games and about 20 high school games a year in Indiana, where, well, you know--it's Indiana.  And in recent years both college and high school coaches have driven me nuts.  The gesticulating, cajoling, pacing, yelling, and (in my view) overcoaching (particularly in h.s.) has filtered down from the NBA, where the coach is part of the entertainment.  For all the skill and dedication of athletes in college and high school,  coaches contesting almost every call, barking at the refs about every foul, slowing the pace and scripting every pass and shot does the game and the players no service. I've seen too many games in the 30s (h.s) and 40s (h.s. and college) where a cloying coach has taken the fun and a lot of the competitiveness away in a effort, to maintain his idea of control.
     I suppose that for the coach, and increasingly for many of the players in his "system," this is offset by the big number in the left-hand column.  But it's hard to watch.
     Lastly, on Cabrini:  it does appear that this year's team is built on the foundation of several excellent players with unusual resumes.  On the one hand, good for those young men being in college; on the other, I understand why the success of such a team  troubles supporters of teams who lose to them.  In the wake of the Cabrini win, good for the Wooster fans who got past those players as an excuse for losing to a team whose players I'm sure look at themselves as worthy college students.   
             

[woosterbooster]

Proof regarding what I've been saying for over a decade, that Wooster gets screwed at home because A) they aren't a hack and shove team, and B) they're usually in the lead at home.

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/12590.html

[sigma one]

I don't even know why I'm jumping  in here.  Wooster Booster, you see many (if not all) of the Wooster home games, I'm sure.  You are a "Wooster Booster."  I see Wooster once a year when they come to Wabash (and a few years once at Wooster)..  I don't really have a dog in this hunt.
     The Wooster statistics for this year show that Wooster averaged 17.3 fouls per game; their opponents averaged 17.5.  How's that for the refs making the number of fouls close?  You can say that becasue Wooster was usually in the lead and the opponents having to be aggressive, particularly late in some games, that Wooster was not getting enough calls.  Or that the refs consistently allowed opponents to manhandle Wooster players (the Wooster Booster theory, I think).  This based on the assumption that the losing team has to foul if the game is close in order to play the odd or that the only way to stay close v. Wooster's superior talent is to clutch and grab.  But Wooster didn't play a lot of close games, either at home or on the road.  Where does that leave us?  Are they even that much better than the teams they play? 
     When Wooster was at home, opponents were called for more fouls than they in 10 regular-season games.  But only once did that number really become skewed:  Kenyon 26 fouls; Wooster 13 fouls.  You could say that opponents were not called for ENOUGH fouls, that they fouled and the refs let them go.  I don't know.  As an observer, Wooster Booster, you
  think so.      Interestingly, in playoff games the fouls were Penn St 13, Wooster 18; Dickinson 15, Wooster 16; Cabrini 17, Wooster 16.  kDid the officials let the other team foul because they were behind and on the road and, they actually would have had fewer fouls if this did  not occur?  Pretty far fetched 
     On the road, opponents were called for more fouls in 5 games.  Two games both teams had an equal number.  At Kenyon, the Lords were called for 18 fouls, the Fighting Scots for 25.  At Transy, it was 15 to 26.   (I'm leaving out Wyoming and Sheridan.)  For the year, only Claytor averaged more than two fouls per game, at 2.6.   
     Here are the foul counts for Wooster home games with the visitors number first:  23/16, 21/18, 20/20, 18/21, 21/19, 21/16, 6/4 (Allegheny, wow), 26/13, 19/14, 13/13, 14/10, 16/21, 18/17, 18/17, 13/19.  And the playofs:  13/18, 15/16, 17/16. 
     On the road (home team 1st):  22/21, 16/16, 26/20, 12/15, 18/25, 15/26, 17/15, 13/11, 27/27 (OWU), 17/21, 12/16, 18/16 (DPU, a loss). Sorry if I missed a few, but the point is that in most games, home and away, the calls were remarkably even.
     I don't know what all this means.  Basketball fans have thought forever that home teams get calls because of the fans, etc. and that "their" team was getting hosed.  I'm not surprised in the Wooster numbers to see how closely are the foul counts in most games, even when Wooster was winning by a bunch. 
I remember back in the day watching the Hoyas and Razorbacks (40 minutes of hell) hack and grab on the theory that the refs won't call them all or even very many of them. (As a thought-provoking look at the topic of refs, look up the chapter entitled "So, What Is Driving the Home Field Advantage" in SCORECASTING:  THE HIDDEN INFLUENCES BEHIND HOW SPOTS ARE PLAYED AND GAMES ARE WON BY Moskowitz and Wertheim, where they try to measure "ref bias.")
        From my side, I've thought that in Wooster games in Chadwick Court v. the Little Giants the refs didn't make enough calls on Wooster.  It's never seemed to me that Wabash was more physical v. Wooster than v. othr teams, and we've occasionally lamented the Little Giants not being more physical. Some fans even believe Wabash doesn't get enough calls because so many of the officials travel from Ohio.  Hogwash (I think).   Some Wabash fans thought, and think even now, that the Fighting Scots get special treatment, unconsciously (benefit of doubt) because of their consistent excellence.  Maybe so.  maybe not.  Probably not. I still think the pitch my kid threw in a championship game was clearly a strike, but the umpire said otherwise, walking in the winning run in the state semi-finals.

[woosterbooster]

I don't even know why I'm jumping  in here.  Wooster Booster, you see many (if not all) of the Wooster home games, I'm sure.  You are a "Wooster Booster."  I see Wooster once a year when they come to Wabash (and a few years once at Wooster)..  I don't really have a dog in this hunt.
     The Wooster statistics for this year show that Wooster averaged 17.3 fouls per game; their opponents averaged 17.5.  How's that for the refs making the number of fouls close?  You can say that becasue Wooster was usually in the lead and the opponents having to be aggressive, particularly late in some games, that Wooster was not getting enough calls.  Or that the refs consistently allowed opponents to manhandle Wooster players (the Wooster Booster theory, I think).  This based on the assumption that the losing team has to foul if the game is close in order to play the odd or that the only way to stay close v. Wooster's superior talent is to clutch and grab.  But Wooster didn't play a lot of close games, either at home or on the road.  Where does that leave us?  Are they even that much better than the teams they play? 
     When Wooster was at home, opponents were called for more fouls than they in 10 regular-season games.  But only once did that number really become skewed:  Kenyon 26 fouls; Wooster 13 fouls.  You could say that opponents were not called for ENOUGH fouls, that they fouled and the refs let them go.  I don't know.  As an observer, Wooster Booster, you
  think so.      Interestingly, in playoff games the fouls were Penn St 13, Wooster 18; Dickinson 15, Wooster 16; Cabrini 17, Wooster 16.  kDid the officials let the other team foul because they were behind and on the road and, they actually would have had fewer fouls if this did  not occur?  Pretty far fetched 
     On the road, opponents were called for more fouls in 5 games.  Two games both teams had an equal number.  At Kenyon, the Lords were called for 18 fouls, the Fighting Scots for 25.  At Transy, it was 15 to 26.   (I'm leaving out Wyoming and Sheridan.)  For the year, only Claytor averaged more than two fouls per game, at 2.6.   
     Here are the foul counts for Wooster home games with the visitors number first:  23/16, 21/18, 20/20, 18/21, 21/19, 21/16, 6/4 (Allegheny, wow), 26/13, 19/14, 13/13, 14/10, 16/21, 18/17, 18/17, 13/19.  And the playofs:  13/18, 15/16, 17/16. 
     On the road (home team 1st):  22/21, 16/16, 26/20, 12/15, 18/25, 15/26, 17/15, 13/11, 27/27 (OWU), 17/21, 12/16, 18/16 (DPU, a loss). Sorry if I missed a few, but the point is that in most games, home and away, the calls were remarkably even.
     I don't know what all this means.  Basketball fans have thought forever that home teams get calls because of the fans, etc. and that "their" team was getting hosed.  I'm not surprised in the Wooster numbers to see how closely are the foul counts in most games, even when Wooster was winning by a bunch. 
I remember back in the day watching the Hoyas and Razorbacks (40 minutes of hell) hack and grab on the theory that the refs won't call them all or even very many of them. (As a thought-provoking look at the topic of refs, look up the chapter entitled "So, What Is Driving the Home Field Advantage" in SCORECASTING:  THE HIDDEN INFLUENCES BEHIND HOW SPOTS ARE PLAYED AND GAMES ARE WON BY Moskowitz and Wertheim, where they try to measure "ref bias.")
        From my side, I've thought that in Wooster games in Chadwick Court v. the Little Giants the refs didn't make enough calls on Wooster.  It's never seemed to me that Wabash was more physical v. Wooster than v. othr teams, and we've occasionally lamented the Little Giants not being more physical. Some fans even believe Wabash doesn't get enough calls because so many of the officials travel from Ohio.  Hogwash (I think).   Some Wabash fans thought, and think even now, that the Fighting Scots get special treatment, unconsciously (benefit of doubt) because of their consistent excellence.  Maybe so.  maybe not.  Probably not. I still think the pitch my kid threw in a championship game was clearly a strike, but the umpire said otherwise, walking in the winning run in the state semi-finals.

Sigma, even after reading the article, you're still standing by the old party line that if the number of fouls called on the two teams was close that the game must have been called fairly.  One of the major conclusions of the article was that this is not so.  And why should it be?  Is it not possible that some teams commit more fouls than others?  I'm not talking about fouls called, but actually committed on the court.

Two things that I've been saying for many years:

1. There are teams out there that are overly physical.  Their style of play is to push, and in most cases to exceed, the parameters of the rules.  They overload the officials with fouls that should be called.  The officials are left with choices.  Call all the fouls as they see them, or don't.  Option one is only very rarely taken, because the refs are not wont to slow the game down to a crawl.  So they opt for option two, allowing this overly-physical team that is consistently breaking the rules to dictate how the game is played.  The other team is then victimized, in one of two ways.  They can also play physical, leveling the playing field, but this style of play is usually detrimental to them because it's often they who have the more skilled players who are being hampered by the uncalled holding and shoving.  Or, two, they can continue to play a normal, not-overly-physical game, but in that case, according to the study in the article, they're going to get called for ticky-tack fouls anyway, as the refs try to "even things out".  It's a no-win situation.

2.  When one team acquires a decent-sized lead, maybe 12-15 points or more, the officials seem to lean towards aiding the losing team with their calls.  I don't think this is done on purpose; I think it's a natural reflex.  But it can have a dramatic effect.  The team that is down, seeing that they're not getting called for fouls as much as they were, will begin to up their aggressiveness, putting the game back into situation 1 above.  The game is kept closer than it should be, and once in a while the team that's down, due to this "score bias" in the officiating, will creep back into the game.  Plus, when you get a team playing ultra-physical because they're getting away with it, injuries can and do occur. 

[sigma one]

Woster Booster:  not at all.  I don't mean to give the impression that if the number of fouls is about equal, the the refs must think that they are calling games fairly.  I hope I understand your point:  putting it in the context of Wooster, I believe you are saying that opponents commit far more fouls in an attempt to stop the Fighting Scots than the officials are willing to call.  And for unknown reasons, human nature--whatever--they feel that they should keep the number of fouls about equal.  As a result, Wooster is penalized for its excellence and style of play v. teams of lesser ability (or sometimes of equal ability) that like to bang and hope that by being physical they can compete. 
     I agree that officials call about the same number of fouls on both teams in most games.  Just see the Wooster numbers this year.  Where you and I respectfullly disagree, I think, is that I am not convinced that officials discriminate against Wooster, that there is a bias (likely, probably, almost certainly) that leads to a lot of fouls not being called, thus penalizing the Fighting Scots.  I actually think this might happen to a lot of good teams, not just to Wooster (and this is unfortunate if it is so)--see the end of my discussion below.
    I know you have been arguing for a long time that Wooster just is, what, picked on, unfortunate, victimized--it's hard for me to find the correct word.  Your observations are the observations of a rabid fan:  Jeez, he's getting mugged; how could the ref let that happen---not "miss that;" they are two different things. Many fans, really strong ones, think the way you do. I watch Wabash games, most of them at Wabash, and almost always see the opposing team commit more fouls that are not called than Wabash commits that are not called.  Or so I am certain.  I am biased in favor of Wabash, although I don't want to easily admit that bias.  I would rather think I am objective, and everyone else can't see what I see.
     I  think that officials do what the article says.  The statistics are there.  So, they even out the calls most of the time. This hurts the stronger team and rewards the weaker.  That's the way it is, and Wooster likely suffers from being the stronger team most of the time. I'm willing to accept that just might be the cost of being so good, perhaps a mark of respect even though better teams "suffer."  If what you believe is true, Wooster, being the better team most of the time, adapts to the situation.  That's what good teams do.  Is it right?  Is it fair?  Well, . . .It just is.
      Now for the part that's interesting to me as a matter of how games are officiated.  On another day, I might want to argue that the better team is the one that often gets the breaks because (unbiased but human) officials know they are good and think they can't possibly be commiting fouls because they are so skilled.  So, the fans of weaker team point out that player X seldom gets called for a foul even though he is undressing an opponent, or never shoves to get a rebound, or (in a non-foul situation) never travels.  Maybe, then, that's the reward for being good--getting fewer foul calls, more consideration.  At the same time, the opponents who barely breath on the good guys get called--let's say it's the Michael Jordan syndrome.  "How can you let him get away with that?"  'My guy didn't lay a finger on him."  "How can you not see the obvious when I can?" 
     Anyway, interesting debate. I refer you againto the chapter in SCORECASTING for a more sophisticated of what those authors try to explain, with some conviction, as the reasons for officials' bias.  By the way, they think there is officials', umpires', judges', bias in all sports hooked to a number of factors.