MBB: NEWMAC

[scout]

Big game tonight for first place in the NEWMAC.  I think it could go either way.

At halftime, MIT leads Springfield 37-33. I'm unable to find live stats, but it appears that this will be another defensive, and close, game.

[Hugenerd]

MIT was able to pull out a tough one, 67-56.  The bigs for MIT really showed up.  Noel Hollingsworth had 25 points (8-12 FG), 10 rebounds, and 3 blocks.  Will Tashmen had 12 points (5-6 FG) and 9 rebounds.  In addition to Springfield's D, what hurt MIT was their outside shooting (7-31, 22.5%), turnovers and sluggishness of their guards in general.  I am not sure what it was, but the team just didnt play as hard as against WPI a week ago (except for Hollingsworth and Tashmen).  Either way, they got the job done and are now in sole posession of first in the conference and improve to 16-1 overall (15-0 vs. d3).  Every team will have their off nights, but I am glad they were able to recover enough to win comfortably at the end of the game.

[toooldtoplay]

Poor game all around by MIT. With virtually no pressure compared to the previous few games they had 19 turnovers - many unforced and just lazy. The guards were sleep walking the entire game. No first half foul shots, Bender fouls out after waking up for about 20 seconds and hitting 2 threes, Jimmy Burke got hot for about 2 minutes hitting 3 3's and then went 0 for the rest of the game. Kates had a bandage on his wrist but knocked down 2 early shots so not sure about that issue. He did have uncharacteristic trouble handling the ball tonight and rarely went to the glass.

I am very concerned with the execution and aggression. It seems like they are slumping and believing that they can just show up. This is not the case for league games. The energy and urgency from the guards is not there. After going up 10-2 the  2-3 zone put them to sleep and they never really woke up.

Still, overcoming that and winning by 11 shows the talent is there. Killer instinct is missing - maybe lack of leadership???  Next 2 should be winnable home against Wheaton and at Coast Guard.

[toooldtoplay]

Coast guards builds a 20 point lead on Wheaton, gives it up and hangs on by 4. CGA a aurprising 3-2 in the NEWMAC

[BBallers]

I agree that MIT did not play their best game.  They appeared like they were a little tired and dragging somewhat.  This could be because a lot of the players are not used to playing this many games/minutes or their practices are too hard on the day before a game.  I also agree that MIT had way too many turnovers, many of which were unforced.  However, I don't believe everything should be blamed on MIT guards.  Looking briefly at the box scores at points showed MIT's 3 starting forwards scoring 12+0+25 = 37 points in 38+14+40 = 92 combined minutes compared to Springfield's 14+17+6 = 37 same points in 36+36+24 = 96 combined minutes.  MIT's 2 starting guards scored 10+10 = 20 points in 33+25 = 58 minutes compared to Springfield's 2+7 = 9 points in 33+31 = 64 minutes.  Scoring isn't everything and I agree that MIT's bigs outplayed Springfield's bigs.

What disappointed me the most during the game was just how many calls Pat Crean gets during a game.  I agree that he is the most aggressive player and aggressive players get rewarded with drawing contact and going to the foul line, but 13 free throws?  He is a really good player, but the refs gave him calls as if he were Michael Jordan.  It appeared that Pat initiated contact and sometimes fouled and the refs called it the opposite way.  The same thing happened in one of the two games last year.  Oh well, that happens in some games...

Bottom line is that MIT did not play its best game and still won by 11.  Don't forget that nationally ranked MIT is going to get every opponent's best game in an underdog role.  Wheaton next...  Anyone know if their 3 best players are going to play?

[toooldtoplay]

I think they played against Coast Guard today and still lost. May not be 100%.

Crean is a strong player and has a smooth pull up jumper. He is aggressive and get rewarded.

The foul issues in the first half were partly due to the zone vs. man aspects as well as lack of initiation by the MIT players.

Finesse vs. power.

[Hugenerd]

I would definitely say that MITs two starting post players had much better performances than the guards and carried the team tonight.  They shot a combined 13-18 from the floor, scoring 37 points. They additinally had 19 rebounds between the two of them.  Billy Johnson may be a forward, but he is a perimeter player and nearly all his shots are on the perimeter.  If you compare the actual post players of MIT to those of Springfield, MITs guys were dominant.  Springfield's starting 6'7" center, Coburn, was held to 6 points, 1 rebound, and 1 block, all well below season averages.  Even if you look at Springfield's other two "slasher" type forwards, Creen and Cavalieri, they may have scored 31 points between them, but they shot a combined 8-22 from the field (15 of their points were from the FT line).  The post players more than did your job.  Hollingsworth playerd really well, as he usually does.  I was really happy to see Tashmen step up and assert himself on the offensive end a bit a the end of the game. If not for those two guys showing up, MIT would have been in trouble tonight. 

The 3 MIT guards that play significant minutes in the rotation (Kates, Bender, and Burke) were a combined 9 -30 from the floor (Johnson, the other perimeter player in the rotation, was 0-5).  That is way too low, considering most of those shots were wide open 3s.  They looked off the whole night and that happens sometimes.  Luckily, MIT has enough talent this year so that they can win some tough conference games without everyone playing their best.  Every player in the rotation has made significant contributions throughout the year, I just felt tonight, for whatever reason, the guards werent as steady as we have come to expect.  They did a good job to fight through it, though, and pull out the win.

[Hugenerd]

I think they played against Coast Guard today and still lost. May not be 100%.

Crean is a strong player and has a smooth pull up jumper. He is aggressive and get rewarded.

The foul issues in the first half were partly due to the zone vs. man aspects as well as lack of initiation by the MIT players.

Finesse vs. power.

On most nights, MIT would kill a zone with their outside shooting.  Springfield was fortunate that MIT was shooting terribly and they got a lot of stops on posessions where MIT had wide open shots.

In terms of leadership, MIT has only played one upper-classmen in recent games (Eric Zuk, a junior who started the first 11 games of the season, has been hurt for several games now).  Their 8 man rotation (with Zuk out)  consists of 5 new faces and 6-7 underclassmen in all.  Leadership will come with time and this team is still learning to play with eachother.  I dont think they have peaked yet by any means.

[tball]

I thought the three point attempts were significantly longer against Springfield adding to the degree of difficulty.  Not many easy baskets in the game, I not sure Hollingsworth should lead the team in assists.

[toooldtoplay]

Hollingsworth is always the first option on O and the fact that he did lead in assists this game is huge which means when the double and triple teams are coming he is recognizing and kicking. If the shots go down last night it could have been a 30 point game - and they will. I agree that the 3's were long but not out of range for those type shooters. 

I have a big concern with zero fast break points. Somewhere you need to get an easy one now and then.

[Hugenerd]

I have a big concern with zero fast break points. Somewhere you need to get an easy one now and then.

I think that gets back to the sluggishness of the guards, they are the ones that need to push it if they are going to get fastbreak points.  MIT isnt really a fastbreak team this year, though, so they can still win games without getting these types of points, although it is always a plus to get some easy points here and there.

I agree with your comments about Hollingsworth.  He is a smart player and when he sees/feels doubls coming, he is quick to pass out to shooters or to drop the ball to Tashmen.  If teams continue to double him (and MIT can knock down some shots), his assists totals could go up the second half of the season.

[BBallers]

Just to clarify my earlier points in the MIT/Springfield game, I agree that the MIT bigs played better overall than the MIT guards, but not by as large of margin as many have opined.  I also thought Kates and the MIT guards got too much credit in the previous game compared to the bigs.  I do not like arguing statistics, but I saw too many layups/putbacks by Springfield against the MIT bigs.  My initial comments were based on the 3 forward (depicted by "f" in the box scores) starters along with 2 guards ("g" in box scores).  Looking at the scoring of MIT's 4's & 5's, Hollingsworth, Tashman & Montgomery versus Springfield's Cavalieri, Crean and Christner shows MIT bigs with 37 points (12+25+0) in 85 minutes (38+40+7) and Springfield bigs with 41 points (14+17+10) in 89 minutes (36+34+19).  The rest of Springfield's team scored only 15 points (6+2+7+many 0's) compared to MIT's starting 2 guards with 20 points (10+10).  Other indicators are points in the paint where Springfield had 24 compared to 20 for MIT along with points off turnovers where MIT had 20 compared to 15 for Springfield.

The MIT guards defense has definitely improved since earlier this year along with cutting down turnovers, but the unforced needless turnovers by Kates was disappointing (but I still believe it was a fluke).  The Johnson (whether guard or forward) and Burke combined 3-18 shooting was not typical of an Anderson coached team (with good shot selection) and hope it is not repeated.  I'm confident that both of these players (who are excellent shooters, probably the best in MIT's rotation) will have big games to offset this game.

I don't believe MIT thinks it is overconfident to a large extent and agreed they looked slow and sluggish.  My opinion is this was caused by the previous day's hard practice along with this being a long season that some players have to get used to playing.  Also, MIT is a ranked team that is getting the best games from their opponents.

At the beginning of the season, I thought Johnson was the best player in the conference, but now believe Hollingsworth is the best player in the conference (of course MIT biased).  My opinion has not changed regarding Johnson playing better as a 4 instead of a 3, but I am still confident he has some great games in him.  Zuk (hamstring) could have helped the team in this game, especially after Johnson and Bender fouled out.  Lehto is strong and hustled during his increased role this game and actually drew a (makeup) foul call on Crean.

I must have missed Crean's pull up jumpers because I always saw him attacking the basket.  Despite being a physical player, I still believe Crean gets way too many phantom foul calls by the refs.  Sometimes I wish the refs would be required to watch their foul calls after the game to encourage them to call what they see rather than what they anticipate.  Of course, I also think that Hollingsworth gets away with too many traveling violations, but let's keep it our secret.  I just think it is fantastic that MIT fans can have different opinions (positive and negative) on games MIT doesn't play well, but MIT still continues to win.

[Hugenerd]

Just to clarify my earlier points in the MIT/Springfield game, I agree that the MIT bigs played better overall than the MIT guards, but not by as large of margin as many have opined.  I also thought Kates and the MIT guards got too much credit in the previous game compared to the bigs.  I do not like arguing statistics, but I saw too many layups/putbacks by Springfield against the MIT bigs.  My initial comments were based on the 3 forward (depicted by "f" in the box scores) starters along with 2 guards ("g" in box scores).  Looking at the scoring of MIT's 4's & 5's, Hollingsworth, Tashman & Montgomery versus Springfield's Cavalieri, Crean and Christner shows MIT bigs with 37 points (12+25+0) in 85 minutes (38+40+7) and Springfield bigs with 41 points (14+17+10) in 89 minutes (36+34+19).  The rest of Springfield's team scored only 15 points (6+2+7+many 0's) compared to MIT's starting 2 guards with 20 points (10+10).  Other indicators are points in the paint where Springfield had 24 compared to 20 for MIT along with points off turnovers where MIT had 20 compared to 15 for Springfield.

I dont care what letters there are next to their names in the boxscore, your argument does not make sense because Bender guarded Crean for most of the game.  Johnson guarded Springfield's 2 man most of the game when he was in there (#24 starting the game). Also, scoring 10 points is not difficult in a game if you take enough shots.  Kates, Bender, and Burke shot a combined 9-30 and scored 29 points (each of them making 3 field goals).  The two post men took 12 fewer shots (13-18), but scored 37 points.  The bottom line is Kates is a lot better than the guy he was matched up against but it didnt look that disparate in the game.

I don't believe MIT thinks it is overconfident to a large extent and agreed they looked slow and sluggish.  My opinion is this was caused by the previous day's hard practice along with this being a long season that some players have to get used to playing.  Also, MIT is a ranked team that is getting the best games from their opponents.

I think you are making too big an issue with these "hard practices".  Coach Anderson is not going to try to run his team into the ground.  He is not going to give his team a day off because they have a game the next day.  The goal is to improve consistently throughout the season.  If you are taking days off you are not getting better and I guarantee you every other team works hard in practice the day before a game.  This is not MIT unique.  I dont know why this keeps being brought up.

I agree with you about MIT getting everyones best shot.  They are going to have to learn that every player must bring their "A" game every night, or they could get beat in any game here on out.

At the beginning of the season, I thought Johnson was the best player in the conference, but now believe Hollingsworth is the best player in the conference (of course MIT biased).  My opinion has not changed regarding Johnson playing better as a 4 instead of a 3, but I am still confident he has some great games in him.  Zuk (hamstring) could have helped the team in this game, especially after Johnson and Bender fouled out.  Lehto is strong and hustled during his increased role this game and actually drew a (makeup) foul call on Crean.

Johnson is still just as good as he was last year, if not better.  His role on the team has just changed.  Last year he was asked to do a lot of things he doesnt have to do this year.  Obviously, if you are playing in the post, you are going to get more rebounds and put-backs for easy baskets.  However, you just cant play someone in the 4 because he put up better numbers there last year.  MIT now has two better post options than Johnson.  If you put Johnson at the 4, what are you going to do with the other guys?  Play Hollingsworth or Tashmen on the wing?  Play 3 post players at the same time?  Johnson is doing what he does best this year.  He is no longer the second scoring option, because MIT is so balanced, but he stretches the court and provides matchup nightmares against most teams they play.  With him in there, they are able to go 6'5", 6'8", 6'8", 6'9" in the starting lineup 2-4.  That is really unique for a d3 team.  I would not worry about Johnson, he may have missed a few shots last game, but he makes the team better when he is on the court, whether he is making his shots or not.  Teams have to respect his shooting because he can make 5 in a row at any given time, and has in the past.  It is a credit to him to make decisions to make his team better.  He could throw up double-digit shots every game, but he does what is best for the team and he knows the team is more balanced this year so there are better shots out there.

I agree that it will help the team when Zuk comes back.  He provides some added depth and size on the wings, as well as a lot of experience playing in big games (he has started ~40 games in his career).  I guess it is better to be safe at this point, he came back for one game after the injury originally happened (the one game he did not start this year) and he re-aggravated it.  He was in uniform against Springfield, however, even though he did not play (he may be close to coming back).

I must have missed Crean's pull up jumpers because I always saw him attacking the basket.  Despite being a physical player, I still believe Crean gets way too many phantom foul calls by the refs.  Sometimes I wish the refs would be required to watch their foul calls after the game to encourage them to call what they see rather than what they anticipate.  Of course, I also think that Hollingsworth gets away with too many traveling violations, but let's keep it our secret.  I just think it is fantastic that MIT fans can have different opinions (positive and negative) on games MIT doesn't play well, but MIT still continues to win.

I agree with you about Creen, most of the foul calls he gets are on contact he initiates.  He is very good at hurling himself at defenders and bringing the ball and his arms through the defenders arms, even if the defender is stationary and straight-up.  But hey, if he is getting those calls, that is a skill also.  I dont blame him, it is on the refs to get the right call.  

Hollingsworth does get called for the occasional travel, but the kid has great footwork.  He uses his body for positioning better than any player I have seen in D3 this year.  Some of those moves that may look like travels are not, but I know what you are saying.

Anyway, keep up the posting, I guess we can agree to disagree on a few points about last game, but the important thing is that MIT got it done again.

[BBallers]

Great points, Hugenerd.  I agree that the boxscore labeling of positions is not always accurate, I was merely stating the basis for my boxscore comparison.  You are right about the big's shooting percentage being much better than the guards.  As previously stated, I do not like debating statistics, but the most frequent statistic I look at is the one your mentioned - total points compared to shots taken.  I agree that Kates is a lot better than the Springfield guard and didn't always show it and made some unforced turnovers.  I also agree that MIT's bigs are a lot better and they should not allow inferior Springfield bigs to score more points in the paint.  Again, I agree with you that the MIT bigs played better overall than the MIT guards.  I just thought both could have played better (especially the guards), but I'm really happy with an 11-point MIT win without a good game and with 2 players fouling out.

I may be making too big of an issue on hard practices and I apologize if I stated it too frequently, but I will keep the opinion.  Of course I do not believe Coach Anderson would intentionally run his team into the ground, but I am convinced that the Harvard game performance was influenced by the 4 or 5 hours of hard conditioning practice the previous day.  In his defense, it is a difficult choice because the players just returned from their Christmas week break and could easily have been out of shape.  Either way I am very happy that they got an opportunity to play a D1 school.  My apologies again if it was insinuated that the players be given a day off before a game.  That would not be smart.  IMHO, he should just have easier practices going through the plays and shoot-arounds without hard conditioning similar to their practice the day before the WPI game.  WPI tried to wear out MIT with almost every player on their roster and MIT had energy throughout the game (especially Kates).  I maintain that the MIT players' dead legs may have made the guards more careless/sluggish, their shooting percentages go down, the bigs not box out as they normally do, etc.  I don't want this to sound like an excuse, but I believe it is just one of the factors in their game performance.  I agree that the intensity of practice before an upcoming game is not unique to MIT.  I also agree with you that the goal is to improve throughout the year and I think Coach Anderson and MIT are improving every game and will continue to do so.  I only bring it up if I become aware that there were conditioning work in practices the night before a game (i.e., hard practices) and if I believe the team does not play up to its potential.  I also know that there weren't as much conditioning practices early in the season because of all of the player injuries, so maybe the team still needs it.  I am a huge proponent of conditioning in every practice except the night before a game and would never want players to be given a day off before a game.  Sorry to keep rambling, but I don't remember hearing about any conditioning practices before games last year.  Just an opinion...  You are so correct that MIT better get used to bringing their "A" game every night because their opponents will.

As stated, I am a big fan of Johnson and believe he is one of the best (if not the best) shooter on the team.  That is a very valuable asset, especially for a 6'8" player playing D3.  Earlier in the season, I was concerned about his skillsets at the 3 position, but your point is well taken.  He is definitely a matchup nightmare and always hope he keeps shooting 3-pointers because he is such an excellent shooter.

I agree with you about Crean and his skills and refs interpretations.  He is a player I dislike on their team, but would love him if he played for MIT.  Hollingsworth does have great footwork as you have stated.  I really enjoy watching his post moves and am so happy he transferred to MIT.  It doesn't matter what I think about traveling, bottom line is whether the ref calls it and he didn't call it.  Appreciate your feedback.   

[Hugenerd]

Good post, the only thing I would say is that MIT was in a completely different situation last year.  They had very limited depth and didnt even have enough players to practice 5 v 5 (most of the time they would go 3 v 3 or 4 v 4 or walk through plays, and often some of the younger assistants had to participate).  This year they have some depth and I am sure Coach Anderson is doing what he thinks is best for the team.  The more competitive your practices, the better your team will be in the long run.  Last year they were so thin that they were just trying to make it from game to game, this year they are pretty deep and they play more guys.

Also, I think the Harvard game was the least important game of the year for MIT. I dont know anything about any specific practices and I know they only had one practice before the Harvard game after the layoff, but if everyone came back out of shape and Coach Anderson felt he needed to work them harder than he wanted to, then I dont blame him.  Some time you need to do something to get players attention and it may not seem like the right decision in the short run, but it can be the right decision for the team in the long run.