MBB: NEWMAC

[toooldtoplay]

Anyone looking for anything on MIT basketball can go to this GREAT spot.

http://mitbasketball.blogspot.com/

It doesn't get much better than that!

[BBallers]

Congrats NERD!

Hoops Fan - now might be the time to stay a little quiet.  Literally my 3rd grade neice on Friday night said that MIT looked so much better than any of the teams we were watching (we watched both games from F&M).

Not even saying MIT is better than Amherst.  What I am saying is that NOBODY (from coach K to my 3rd grade niece) would say Amherst looked better on that night!

Makes the rest of your paragraph (which was well written) hard to even get through.

I'm not sure how I'm becoming the bad guy here?  I'm rooting for MIT - I've been more and more impressed every game.  I posted a longer reply on the "Ranking" board so I'll keep it short here:

Something I didn't factor in from Friday, which became amazingly apparent Saturday was the respective team's ability to adjust.  Amherst showed none and MIT has been amazing at it.  When watching the teams play Friday I had no real basis of comparison - and when you put together physical attributes, talent, depth, etc, Amherst still comes out on top for me, talent wise they are a better team.  MIT has talented guys, but less of them; what they do possess is incredible intelligence (I hate how cliched that sounds, but it's true) and ability to control the floor.

As I said before, in one pressure game, I'll pick MIT; over the course of 100, I think Amherst's depth and talent have more impact and makes the decision more difficult.  At this point, they're 1 and 1a and I wouldn't argue with anyone over the order.

You are definitely not a "bad guy", are entitled to your opinion, and I enjoy your posts.  I have not watched Amherst play earlier, but you must believe that they had an "off" game against F&M.  F&M certainly gave Amherst plenty of opportunities to come back with all of their missed free throws.  This was the worst free throw shooting I've seen in the tournament.  Could Amherst's off-game be because F&M has the #1 rated defense in D3 basketball?  Any part of it?  I would be interested in your opinion on each player by player comparison between Amherst and MIT.  If by depth, you mean bench, I would agree that Amherst's bench is more productive because they play more.  MIT has some talented players on their bench, but most are freshman and this might not be shown until the year after next.  3 of MIT's starters were voted as the part of the best 5 in the NEWMAC conference and arguments could be made for the other 2 starters.  I respectively disagree with the "talent" portion of your argument.  As posted earlier, I also disagree with MIT adjustments, i.e., they did not need to make any adjustments.  MIT was obviously the better team and F&M failed to make the proper adjustments IMHO.  Please keep posting including a player by player analysis.  Thanks.

I don't have a lot of earlier viewing to compare, but at this level, when your big guys are missing layups with the frequency Amherst's bigs did in the first half, that contributes to an off night.

Honestly, I think F&M's offense and Amherst's inability to adjust to it was the real difference maker.  It really boggled my mind that they couldn't at least shut down one simple play, which F&M used over and over again.  Amherst should have had an advantage in the post, but they lost the game because of post play (as good as Milligan was and as successfully as they frustrated Toomey).

As I said, the perspective of the Saturday game helped me understand just how much the adjustments matter.  MIT absolutely scouted Friday and they didn't let F&M pull off some of those simple post plays that killed Amherst.

When I say talented, I'm thinking more about overall talent.  Amherst's athleticism is definitely better and they've got better players deeper down the bench.  Individually, MIT's top three are better than Amherst's top three, but overall, I think Amherst is the more talented team.

MIT has overcome that disadvantage because all of their guys know how to stay on the floor.  Bench doesn't matter if you don't need it.  They've actually gotten over the hump as far as that's concerned.  The only team left with a real deep bench is Cabrini - but without a lot of big guys that won't matter as much to MIT.

I can totally see them winning the whole thing.  Obviously, if they do there's no question they're #1.  If they lose to Whitewater, I still have some thinking to do about them verses Amherst.  It's close, and as I said, one game I'll take MIT - long haul, I'm still thinking it over.

"I don't have a lot of earlier viewing to compare, but at this level, when your big guys are missing layups with the frequency Amherst's bigs did in the first half, that contributes to an off night."
That's a good point.  I do recall some of that, but I was not watching as intensely as the MIT games.  Were the layups open looks or were they contested?  Good defense often causes players to have what us fans may call off-games.  I'm not sure this was the case, but just making a point that F&M had good interior defense.  I noticed in the MIT game that F&M missed what appeared to be some easy layups that worked to MIT's favor.

"Honestly, I think F&M's offense and Amherst's inability to adjust to it was the real difference maker.  It really boggled my mind that they couldn't at least shut down one simple play, which F&M used over and over again.  Amherst should have had an advantage in the post, but they lost the game because of post play (as good as Milligan was and as successfully as they frustrated Toomey)."
Another good point.  So you believed that F&M was out-coached, at least with this particular play.  You could be correct, but I believe that is F&M's bread and butter play that they have used successfully all season.  Maybe the Amherst coach would play it differently if given another opportunity.

"As I said, the perspective of the Saturday game helped me understand just how much the adjustments matter.  MIT absolutely scouted Friday and they didn't let F&M pull off some of those simple post plays that killed Amherst."
I have not looked at F&M before the Amherst game, but do you believe F&M did anything differently than what they did in their earlier games?  F&M executed that play well.  MIT has game films of all 4 of the teams and reviewed it prior to that weekend.  I'm assuming that Amherst did the same and that their coaching staff prepared for their competition.  MIT had a game plan against F&M prior to watching your game.  MIT left prior to then end of your game.  I didn't notice a lot of MIT adjustments that you alluded to.  My personal opinion is that F&M's post game faltered against the larger post players at MIT.  Size matters underneath.  MIT's post defense was best illustrated in Tashman's dismanteling of Farmingdale's dominate 7-foot center.  This post defense is often overlooked and not depicted in statistics, but is extremely important to a team's success.

"When I say talented, I'm thinking more about overall talent.  Amherst's athleticism is definitely better and they've got better players deeper down the bench.  Individually, MIT's top three are better than Amherst's top three, but overall, I think Amherst is the more talented team."
I will concede to the athleticism argument of Amherst over MIT for some players, but it should be the case when there is so much negative height differential.  Again, I am not as familiar with Amherst, but your bench argument also has merit as the majority of MIT bench (except a couple) are freshman.  I assume MIT's top 3 that you referred to are Hollingsworth, Tashman and Kates.  I believe Jamie being the all-time leading 3 point shooter in MIT history and his multiple dominating performances in the NCAA tournament speaks for itself.  You have never seen Bender play, but he is rated in the top 10 in more categories than any player in the NEWMAC.  There is a reason the MIT bench doesn't play as much as other teams.  IMHO, if Amherst's bench replaced MIT's bench, they would not get many minutes either.  That is typically the way MIT plays and (as HN pointed out) MIT's deliberate style allows for longer minutes for their starters.  I disagree that Amherst is a more talented team, unless you are comparing only the non-starters.

"MIT has overcome that disadvantage because all of their guys know how to stay on the floor."
I assume knowing "how to stay on the floor" is a comment about conditioning and moving your feet on defense without fouling.  Aren't these integral basketball talent skill-sets on which to compare against other players?  The youth of the MIT bench may be a disadvantage when compared to the experienced Amherst bench, but I do not believe that is the case with many of the other teams.

"Bench doesn't matter if you don't need it.  They've actually gotten over the hump as far as that's concerned.  The only team left with a real deep bench is Cabrini - but without a lot of big guys that won't matter as much to MIT."
Good point.  As discussed, MIT typically has a short (primarily 6-player) rotation, expecially with their the quality of their starters.  Again, if MIT's bench was replaced by what is perceived as a deeper bench, the bench would still get limited minutes.

"I can totally see them winning the whole thing.  Obviously, if they do there's no question they're #1.  If they lose to Whitewater, I still have some thinking to do about them verses Amherst.  It's close, and as I said, one game I'll take MIT - long haul, I'm still thinking it over."
I certainly hope you are correct and I appreciate your support.  I share your concerns about Whitewater as they are athletic and could cause some matchup problems, especially if they penatrate and MIT gets in foul trouble.  I wish MIT was in Amherst's conference that I believe is the strongest conference in the nation.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Congrats NERD!

Hoops Fan - now might be the time to stay a little quiet.  Literally my 3rd grade neice on Friday night said that MIT looked so much better than any of the teams we were watching (we watched both games from F&M).

Not even saying MIT is better than Amherst.  What I am saying is that NOBODY (from coach K to my 3rd grade niece) would say Amherst looked better on that night!

Makes the rest of your paragraph (which was well written) hard to even get through.

I'm not sure how I'm becoming the bad guy here?  I'm rooting for MIT - I've been more and more impressed every game.  I posted a longer reply on the "Ranking" board so I'll keep it short here:

Something I didn't factor in from Friday, which became amazingly apparent Saturday was the respective team's ability to adjust.  Amherst showed none and MIT has been amazing at it.  When watching the teams play Friday I had no real basis of comparison - and when you put together physical attributes, talent, depth, etc, Amherst still comes out on top for me, talent wise they are a better team.  MIT has talented guys, but less of them; what they do possess is incredible intelligence (I hate how cliched that sounds, but it's true) and ability to control the floor.

As I said before, in one pressure game, I'll pick MIT; over the course of 100, I think Amherst's depth and talent have more impact and makes the decision more difficult.  At this point, they're 1 and 1a and I wouldn't argue with anyone over the order.

You are definitely not a "bad guy", are entitled to your opinion, and I enjoy your posts.  I have not watched Amherst play earlier, but you must believe that they had an "off" game against F&M.  F&M certainly gave Amherst plenty of opportunities to come back with all of their missed free throws.  This was the worst free throw shooting I've seen in the tournament.  Could Amherst's off-game be because F&M has the #1 rated defense in D3 basketball?  Any part of it?  I would be interested in your opinion on each player by player comparison between Amherst and MIT.  If by depth, you mean bench, I would agree that Amherst's bench is more productive because they play more.  MIT has some talented players on their bench, but most are freshman and this might not be shown until the year after next.  3 of MIT's starters were voted as the part of the best 5 in the NEWMAC conference and arguments could be made for the other 2 starters.  I respectively disagree with the "talent" portion of your argument.  As posted earlier, I also disagree with MIT adjustments, i.e., they did not need to make any adjustments.  MIT was obviously the better team and F&M failed to make the proper adjustments IMHO.  Please keep posting including a player by player analysis.  Thanks.

I don't have a lot of earlier viewing to compare, but at this level, when your big guys are missing layups with the frequency Amherst's bigs did in the first half, that contributes to an off night.

Honestly, I think F&M's offense and Amherst's inability to adjust to it was the real difference maker.  It really boggled my mind that they couldn't at least shut down one simple play, which F&M used over and over again.  Amherst should have had an advantage in the post, but they lost the game because of post play (as good as Milligan was and as successfully as they frustrated Toomey).

As I said, the perspective of the Saturday game helped me understand just how much the adjustments matter.  MIT absolutely scouted Friday and they didn't let F&M pull off some of those simple post plays that killed Amherst.

When I say talented, I'm thinking more about overall talent.  Amherst's athleticism is definitely better and they've got better players deeper down the bench.  Individually, MIT's top three are better than Amherst's top three, but overall, I think Amherst is the more talented team.

MIT has overcome that disadvantage because all of their guys know how to stay on the floor.  Bench doesn't matter if you don't need it.  They've actually gotten over the hump as far as that's concerned.  The only team left with a real deep bench is Cabrini - but without a lot of big guys that won't matter as much to MIT.

I can totally see them winning the whole thing.  Obviously, if they do there's no question they're #1.  If they lose to Whitewater, I still have some thinking to do about them verses Amherst.  It's close, and as I said, one game I'll take MIT - long haul, I'm still thinking it over.

"I don't have a lot of earlier viewing to compare, but at this level, when your big guys are missing layups with the frequency Amherst's bigs did in the first half, that contributes to an off night."
That's a good point.  I do recall some of that, but I was not watching as intensely as the MIT games.  Were the layups open looks or were they contested?  Good defense often causes players to have what us fans may call off-games.  I'm not sure this was the case, but just making a point that F&M had good interior defense.  I noticed in the MIT game that F&M missed what appeared to be some easy layups that worked to MIT's favor.

"Honestly, I think F&M's offense and Amherst's inability to adjust to it was the real difference maker.  It really boggled my mind that they couldn't at least shut down one simple play, which F&M used over and over again.  Amherst should have had an advantage in the post, but they lost the game because of post play (as good as Milligan was and as successfully as they frustrated Toomey)."
Another good point.  So you believed that F&M was out-coached, at least with this particular play.  You could be correct, but I believe that is F&M's bread and butter play that they have used successfully all season.  Maybe the Amherst coach would play it differently if given another opportunity.

"As I said, the perspective of the Saturday game helped me understand just how much the adjustments matter.  MIT absolutely scouted Friday and they didn't let F&M pull off some of those simple post plays that killed Amherst."
I have not looked at F&M before the Amherst game, but do you believe F&M did anything differently than what they did in their earlier games?  F&M executed that play well.  MIT has game films of all 4 of the teams and reviewed it prior to that weekend.  I'm assuming that Amherst did the same and that their coaching staff prepared for their competition.  MIT had a game plan against F&M prior to watching your game.  MIT left prior to then end of your game.  I didn't notice a lot of MIT adjustments that you alluded to.  My personal opinion is that F&M's post game faltered against the larger post players at MIT.  Size matters underneath.  MIT's post defense was best illustrated in Tashman's dismanteling of Farmingdale's dominate 7-foot center.  This post defense is often overlooked and not depicted in statistics, but is extremely important to a team's success.

"When I say talented, I'm thinking more about overall talent.  Amherst's athleticism is definitely better and they've got better players deeper down the bench.  Individually, MIT's top three are better than Amherst's top three, but overall, I think Amherst is the more talented team."
I will concede to the athleticism argument of Amherst over MIT for some players, but it should be the case when there is so much negative height differential.  Again, I am not as familiar with Amherst, but your bench argument also has merit as the majority of MIT bench (except a couple) are freshman.  I assume MIT's top 3 that you referred to are Hollingsworth, Tashman and Kates.  I believe Jamie being the all-time leading 3 point shooter in MIT history and his multiple dominating performances in the NCAA tournament speaks for itself.  You have never seen Bender play, but he is rated in the top 10 in more categories than any player in the NEWMAC.  There is a reason the MIT bench doesn't play as much as other teams.  IMHO, if Amherst's bench replaced MIT's bench, they would not get many minutes either.  That is typically the way MIT plays and (as HN pointed out) MIT's deliberate style allows for longer minutes for their starters.  I disagree that Amherst is a more talented team, unless you are comparing only the non-starters.

"MIT has overcome that disadvantage because all of their guys know how to stay on the floor."
I assume knowing "how to stay on the floor" is a comment about conditioning and moving your feet on defense without fouling.  Aren't these integral basketball talent skill-sets on which to compare against other players?  The youth of the MIT bench may be a disadvantage when compared to the experienced Amherst bench, but I do not believe that is the case with many of the other teams.

"Bench doesn't matter if you don't need it.  They've actually gotten over the hump as far as that's concerned.  The only team left with a real deep bench is Cabrini - but without a lot of big guys that won't matter as much to MIT."
Good point.  As discussed, MIT typically has a short (primarily 6-player) rotation, expecially with their the quality of their starters.  Again, if MIT's bench was replaced by what is perceived as a deeper bench, the bench would still get limited minutes.

"I can totally see them winning the whole thing.  Obviously, if they do there's no question they're #1.  If they lose to Whitewater, I still have some thinking to do about them verses Amherst.  It's close, and as I said, one game I'll take MIT - long haul, I'm still thinking it over."
I certainly hope you are correct and I appreciate your support.  I share your concerns about Whitewater as they are athletic and could cause some matchup problems, especially if they penatrate and MIT gets in foul trouble.  I wish MIT was in Amherst's conference that I believe is the strongest conference in the nation.

Just a couple of quick responses.  I saw Tashman, especially, but also Hollingsworth (although he's always incredibly nimble, despite how awkward he looks when he runs) make footwork adjustments against F&M to prevent that cut play down low.  F&M might have pulled it off a few times, but MIT was prepared for it.  On Friday, sitting behind the bench, I saw Hixon giving defensive instructions to the big guys about how to play down low.  I think the starters sat more in the second half than usual because they just weren't implementing what he was telling them.

As for staying on the floor.  At this level, it's tough for guys to play good ball and stay on the floor when you get two quick fouls, as both Kates and Tashman did Friday night.  Yeah, it is basic basketball, but it just doesn't happen much at this level.  The MIT guys are skilled, talented players, who also think a lot, on the floor.  Usually at this level you have talent and instinct or you have hard work and smarts - it's rare to see both.

[mass_d3fan]

HN,

There will be no MIT all-Americans from the NABC!

Only Berthiaume from the NEWMAC has a shot


*Denotes District Player of the Year
2012 NABC ALL-DISTRICT TEAMS AND COACHES – DIVISION III

SOUTH
First Team
Matt Addison, Hardin Simmons
Chris Barnes, UT–Dallas
Greg Ross, Centre
Milton Stanley, Maryville
Conley Taylor, Christopher Newport
*DJ Woodmore, Virginia Wesleyan

Second Team
Austin Claunch, Emory
Colton Hunt, Randolph
Marlon Miller, Mary Hardin-Baylor
Zac Richards, Birmingham Southern
Donald Vaughn, Virginia Wesleyan

Coach of the Year: Dave Macedo, Virginia Wesleyan
 
NORTHEAST
First Team
Ray Askew, Albertus Magnus
Alex Berthiaume, Springfield
*DaQuan Brooks, Western Connecticut
Brian Clark, Salem State
Ryan Sharry, Middlebury
Aaron Toomey, Amherst

NORTHEAST
Second Team
Shasha Brown, Wesleyan
Terrance Favors, Becker
Will Hanley, Bowdoin
Noel Hollingsworth, MIT
Nick Nedwick, Eastern Connecticut

Coach of the Year: Bill Geitner, Eastern Connecticut State University

Very interesting selections - I would not have CLark on 1st team  and Favors with no Kates?

[Pat Coleman]

Another outgrowth of the NEWMAC's player of the year choice. I've found as a result of the D-III all-star game the past couple of years that the NABC is even more focused on conference players of the year than we are.

[BBallers]

Congrats NERD!

Hoops Fan - now might be the time to stay a little quiet.  Literally my 3rd grade neice on Friday night said that MIT looked so much better than any of the teams we were watching (we watched both games from F&M).

Not even saying MIT is better than Amherst.  What I am saying is that NOBODY (from coach K to my 3rd grade niece) would say Amherst looked better on that night!

Makes the rest of your paragraph (which was well written) hard to even get through.

I'm not sure how I'm becoming the bad guy here?  I'm rooting for MIT - I've been more and more impressed every game.  I posted a longer reply on the "Ranking" board so I'll keep it short here:

Something I didn't factor in from Friday, which became amazingly apparent Saturday was the respective team's ability to adjust.  Amherst showed none and MIT has been amazing at it.  When watching the teams play Friday I had no real basis of comparison - and when you put together physical attributes, talent, depth, etc, Amherst still comes out on top for me, talent wise they are a better team.  MIT has talented guys, but less of them; what they do possess is incredible intelligence (I hate how cliched that sounds, but it's true) and ability to control the floor.

As I said before, in one pressure game, I'll pick MIT; over the course of 100, I think Amherst's depth and talent have more impact and makes the decision more difficult.  At this point, they're 1 and 1a and I wouldn't argue with anyone over the order.

You are definitely not a "bad guy", are entitled to your opinion, and I enjoy your posts.  I have not watched Amherst play earlier, but you must believe that they had an "off" game against F&M.  F&M certainly gave Amherst plenty of opportunities to come back with all of their missed free throws.  This was the worst free throw shooting I've seen in the tournament.  Could Amherst's off-game be because F&M has the #1 rated defense in D3 basketball?  Any part of it?  I would be interested in your opinion on each player by player comparison between Amherst and MIT.  If by depth, you mean bench, I would agree that Amherst's bench is more productive because they play more.  MIT has some talented players on their bench, but most are freshman and this might not be shown until the year after next.  3 of MIT's starters were voted as the part of the best 5 in the NEWMAC conference and arguments could be made for the other 2 starters.  I respectively disagree with the "talent" portion of your argument.  As posted earlier, I also disagree with MIT adjustments, i.e., they did not need to make any adjustments.  MIT was obviously the better team and F&M failed to make the proper adjustments IMHO.  Please keep posting including a player by player analysis.  Thanks.

I don't have a lot of earlier viewing to compare, but at this level, when your big guys are missing layups with the frequency Amherst's bigs did in the first half, that contributes to an off night.

Honestly, I think F&M's offense and Amherst's inability to adjust to it was the real difference maker.  It really boggled my mind that they couldn't at least shut down one simple play, which F&M used over and over again.  Amherst should have had an advantage in the post, but they lost the game because of post play (as good as Milligan was and as successfully as they frustrated Toomey).

As I said, the perspective of the Saturday game helped me understand just how much the adjustments matter.  MIT absolutely scouted Friday and they didn't let F&M pull off some of those simple post plays that killed Amherst.

When I say talented, I'm thinking more about overall talent.  Amherst's athleticism is definitely better and they've got better players deeper down the bench.  Individually, MIT's top three are better than Amherst's top three, but overall, I think Amherst is the more talented team.

MIT has overcome that disadvantage because all of their guys know how to stay on the floor.  Bench doesn't matter if you don't need it.  They've actually gotten over the hump as far as that's concerned.  The only team left with a real deep bench is Cabrini - but without a lot of big guys that won't matter as much to MIT.

I can totally see them winning the whole thing.  Obviously, if they do there's no question they're #1.  If they lose to Whitewater, I still have some thinking to do about them verses Amherst.  It's close, and as I said, one game I'll take MIT - long haul, I'm still thinking it over.

"I don't have a lot of earlier viewing to compare, but at this level, when your big guys are missing layups with the frequency Amherst's bigs did in the first half, that contributes to an off night."
That's a good point.  I do recall some of that, but I was not watching as intensely as the MIT games.  Were the layups open looks or were they contested?  Good defense often causes players to have what us fans may call off-games.  I'm not sure this was the case, but just making a point that F&M had good interior defense.  I noticed in the MIT game that F&M missed what appeared to be some easy layups that worked to MIT's favor.

"Honestly, I think F&M's offense and Amherst's inability to adjust to it was the real difference maker.  It really boggled my mind that they couldn't at least shut down one simple play, which F&M used over and over again.  Amherst should have had an advantage in the post, but they lost the game because of post play (as good as Milligan was and as successfully as they frustrated Toomey)."
Another good point.  So you believed that F&M was out-coached, at least with this particular play.  You could be correct, but I believe that is F&M's bread and butter play that they have used successfully all season.  Maybe the Amherst coach would play it differently if given another opportunity.

"As I said, the perspective of the Saturday game helped me understand just how much the adjustments matter.  MIT absolutely scouted Friday and they didn't let F&M pull off some of those simple post plays that killed Amherst."
I have not looked at F&M before the Amherst game, but do you believe F&M did anything differently than what they did in their earlier games?  F&M executed that play well.  MIT has game films of all 4 of the teams and reviewed it prior to that weekend.  I'm assuming that Amherst did the same and that their coaching staff prepared for their competition.  MIT had a game plan against F&M prior to watching your game.  MIT left prior to then end of your game.  I didn't notice a lot of MIT adjustments that you alluded to.  My personal opinion is that F&M's post game faltered against the larger post players at MIT.  Size matters underneath.  MIT's post defense was best illustrated in Tashman's dismanteling of Farmingdale's dominate 7-foot center.  This post defense is often overlooked and not depicted in statistics, but is extremely important to a team's success.

"When I say talented, I'm thinking more about overall talent.  Amherst's athleticism is definitely better and they've got better players deeper down the bench.  Individually, MIT's top three are better than Amherst's top three, but overall, I think Amherst is the more talented team."
I will concede to the athleticism argument of Amherst over MIT for some players, but it should be the case when there is so much negative height differential.  Again, I am not as familiar with Amherst, but your bench argument also has merit as the majority of MIT bench (except a couple) are freshman.  I assume MIT's top 3 that you referred to are Hollingsworth, Tashman and Kates.  I believe Jamie being the all-time leading 3 point shooter in MIT history and his multiple dominating performances in the NCAA tournament speaks for itself.  You have never seen Bender play, but he is rated in the top 10 in more categories than any player in the NEWMAC.  There is a reason the MIT bench doesn't play as much as other teams.  IMHO, if Amherst's bench replaced MIT's bench, they would not get many minutes either.  That is typically the way MIT plays and (as HN pointed out) MIT's deliberate style allows for longer minutes for their starters.  I disagree that Amherst is a more talented team, unless you are comparing only the non-starters.

"MIT has overcome that disadvantage because all of their guys know how to stay on the floor."
I assume knowing "how to stay on the floor" is a comment about conditioning and moving your feet on defense without fouling.  Aren't these integral basketball talent skill-sets on which to compare against other players?  The youth of the MIT bench may be a disadvantage when compared to the experienced Amherst bench, but I do not believe that is the case with many of the other teams.

"Bench doesn't matter if you don't need it.  They've actually gotten over the hump as far as that's concerned.  The only team left with a real deep bench is Cabrini - but without a lot of big guys that won't matter as much to MIT."
Good point.  As discussed, MIT typically has a short (primarily 6-player) rotation, expecially with their the quality of their starters.  Again, if MIT's bench was replaced by what is perceived as a deeper bench, the bench would still get limited minutes.

"I can totally see them winning the whole thing.  Obviously, if they do there's no question they're #1.  If they lose to Whitewater, I still have some thinking to do about them verses Amherst.  It's close, and as I said, one game I'll take MIT - long haul, I'm still thinking it over."
I certainly hope you are correct and I appreciate your support.  I share your concerns about Whitewater as they are athletic and could cause some matchup problems, especially if they penatrate and MIT gets in foul trouble.  I wish MIT was in Amherst's conference that I believe is the strongest conference in the nation.

Just a couple of quick responses.  I saw Tashman, especially, but also Hollingsworth (although he's always incredibly nimble, despite how awkward he looks when he runs) make footwork adjustments against F&M to prevent that cut play down low.  F&M might have pulled it off a few times, but MIT was prepared for it.  On Friday, sitting behind the bench, I saw Hixon giving defensive instructions to the big guys about how to play down low.  I think the starters sat more in the second half than usual because they just weren't implementing what he was telling them.

As for staying on the floor.  At this level, it's tough for guys to play good ball and stay on the floor when you get two quick fouls, as both Kates and Tashman did Friday night.  Yeah, it is basic basketball, but it just doesn't happen much at this level.  The MIT guys are skilled, talented players, who also think a lot, on the floor.  Usually at this level you have talent and instinct or you have hard work and smarts - it's rare to see both.

Good observation regarding Hollingsworth looking awkward some of the time, but he definitely has a good feel for the game.  He is not as quick laterally, but he always appears to be in the right place.  I'm sure that is frustrating to his opponents who underestimate him.  He is old school with his post moves that I enjoy watching.  I understand what you are saying about staying on the floor after getting 2 quick fouls.  I was thinking they should get rested at that point, so it's good that I'm not the coach.   

Please post your thoughts on the upcoming matchups.  Thanks.

[BBallers]

Another outgrowth of the NEWMAC's player of the year choice. I've found as a result of the D-III all-star game the past couple of years that the NABC is even more focused on conference players of the year than we are.

Remsleep's quote from the other thread seems appropriate:

I know that Kates did not get POY in the NEWMAC...on the other hand, in general we are not talking about a bunch of Einsteins who are doing the selecting either.

[Hugenerd]

Another outgrowth of the NEWMAC's player of the year choice. I've found as a result of the D-III all-star game the past couple of years that the NABC is even more focused on conference players of the year than we are.

I agree, NABC typically only looks at stats and maybe conference POY awards, I dont think they do any homework beyond that.

I was a bit surprised that Tashman was left off D3hoops all-region teams completely.  He was 4th team last year, and most of his stats (higher rebounds, much higher FG%, etc.), except ppg (which fell a couple points with the return of Hollingsworth), were improved from a season ago.  I guess there is some psychology at play that tells voters they cant vote for 3 players from the same team.  Also weird to see two players off the All-NESCAC 2nd team make all-region, and Kizel off the first team get snubbed.

Also with respect to Kates vs. Toomey, just to see how both performed against the same team, on back-to-back nights should tell you a lot about how they matchup against one another.  Would have been great to see them go head-to-head, but Amherst couldn't get it done.  Maybe Toomey has a higher ceiling in some peoples opinion (obviously not mine), but Kates clearly showed he is a much better leader and PG in his performances over the past month.  His best attribute is likely his unselfish play, he always defers to the player with the matchup advantage without regard for his own scoring, and can sense when the team needs his scoring and is more than capable.  When he does shoot, he shoots a tremendously high percentage (51.5 FG% for the season, for comparison, Toomey shot just 42.9% for the year) and also averages more assists, steals, and has a higher A/TO ratio than Toomey.  You also can't make the argument that Kates has the benefit of a better team, because both squads had essentially the same ranking all season (Amherst was even higher most of the 2nd half of the season).  So again it just comes down to points, Toomey is average 3.5 more ppg (17.9 vs. 14.3) so apparently that makes up for shooting 8.5% worse from the field, and having all the other point guard metrics being lower also.  I am sure if Kates wanted to take more shots, he could average close to 20 ppg, but that wouldnt make his team better.  I just don't get how, even looking at the numbers, 3 ppg makes up for everything else (FG%, assists, steals, A/TO), in addition to the performance of their respective teams on the court in the NCAA tourney.   Are we weighting individual stats by a teams SOS now also?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

As Walzy made abundantly clear at the game the other night, if you haven't seen Kizel play, you don't understand how good he is.  He made a convincing enough case, that I believe him.

Likely a number of the voters haven't seen him play.

Coaches generally trust coaches, so if a guy wins POY over someone with better stats, etc - they likely believe he's really a better player.  Again, you've got people voting who don't necessarily get to see these players play.

[Pat Coleman]

There has to be at least some of that, doesn't there? Otherwise the kid from Green Mountain a few years ago would have to have been a first-team All-American. But I don't usually make SOS an issue in my head unless the SOS is truly poor. In my mind, the question is, did the kid play a representative D-III schedule? MIT certainly did.

I noted the Hamilton kid was second team All-NESCAC but wondered if perhaps that was an outgrowth of Hamilton being new to the league. He was all-region last year out of the Liberty League (offensive MVP) and the East.

[Hugenerd]

There has to be at least some of that, doesn't there? Otherwise the kid from Green Mountain a few years ago would have to have been a first-team All-American. But I don't usually make SOS an issue in my head unless the SOS is truly poor. In my mind, the question is, did the kid play a representative D-III schedule? MIT certainly did.

I noted the Hamilton kid was second team All-NESCAC but wondered if perhaps that was an outgrowth of Hamilton being new to the league. He was all-region last year out of the Liberty League (offensive MVP) and the East.

I agree with you regarding extreme cases, like Green Mountain, but as you said, MIT doesn't fall into that category.

[Hugenerd]

Comparison of NE All-Region Guards (Players names not listed, but you can easily figure it out), and one that I have thrown in who is not all region:

Player	Team W-L	Team SOS	-FG%-	-3FG%-	-RPG-	-APG-	-A/TO-	-SPG-	-PPG-
1	17-10	0.561	0.432	0.325	3.7	3.4	1.18	1.6	19.2
2	26-3	0.580	0.429	0.342	2.9	4.8	1.57	1.8	17.9
3	21-7	0.568	0.423	0.344	3.5	6.1	1.44	1.8	29.1
4	21-10	0.458	0.419	0.259	6.7	5.4	1.61	2.3	17.5
5	12-14	0.515	0.485	0.376	5.8	4.7	0.93	1.2	34.1
6	29-1	0.509	0.514	0.316	4.0	5.4	1.88	2.3	14.3
7	24-6	0.536	0.435	0.304	3.9	3.5	1.35	1.8	17.3
8	20-6	0.513	0.505	0.277	2.5	4.3	1.50	1.5	17.1
9	9-17	0.478	0.392	0.403	4.5	2.7	0.97	1.1	17.3
10	26-4	0.588	0.537	0.506	3.1	3.9	2.27	0.7	14.0

So this is just a comparison based on stats, not even considering any head-to-head matches.  How would you rate them?  Can you guess which player is not all region?

One thing that jumped out at me, FG%.  When was the last time you looked at a boxscore and saw someone shoot 43% and say, 'Wow, they really shot the lights out tonight'?  I'm guessing never (unless they were all 3 pt attempts)...so why are 6 of our 9 NE All-region guards shooting that for the season (including 4 guards on the 1st and 2nd team)?  Is scoring 17 ppg shooting 42% really more impressive than scoring 14 ppg and shooting 52%?

Im guessing most of you would rate Player 10 over Player 9, but that would be the incorrect answer according to the voters.

[Pat Coleman]

Aside from a couple of players, these are not the stats that were considered, just as a reminder. It stopped on Selection Sunday.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I wouldn't put Andre Shaw on the all-region team, but it should be noted that he was the only offensive threat on a terrible team all year.  He is better than his numbers indicate.  I imagine the low FG% comes partly because he had to put up shots no matter who was guarding him.

Again, I don't think he deserves to be there.  Heck, Ryan Birrell is only there because of the numbers (which are impressive).  Talent wise, he doesn't deserve to be ahead of Kates.

It is a shame Kizel didn't get on the list.

[mass_d3fan]

I saw Biirrell play against WPI in the ECAC title game.  They held him to 2 for 10 and 8pts.  This from the team that could not handle the Wheaton guards, Kates, & Berthiaume, Brooks...etc.  I realize it was one game, but it is a fair assesment as far as common opponents go when looking at how he stacks up vs other guys.