MBB: NEWMAC

[Hugenerd]

New poll out, MIT drops completely out of voting, WPI up to # 13.

[jabnike23]

toooldtoplay,

I agree with you POY has come down to a 2 horse race... But its Cavalieri and Robinson, not Robinson and Kates.  It would be difficult for Kates to win POY when he isn't even the best PG in the NEWMAC

[Hugenerd]

No way Harkins makes even 1st team all-conference over Kates.  Harkins may be averaging .47 more assists and .9 more steals per game, but Kates is killing him in all the other important categories.  Kates is averaging 7 more ppg (16.1 ppg to Harkins 9.3 ppg, 5th in conference, 17.9 ppg in conference games alone, 3rd), shooting 50.2% from the field (5th in conference), and also ranked top 10 in 3FG% abd 3FGM.  Also, in conference only, Kates is ranked top 20 in rebounds and 1st in assists (ahead of Harkins), as well as top 10 in essentially every other category and ranked ahead of Harkins in A/TO.  Harkins is a good player, but when you take into account Kates' offensive skills, doesn't compare.  With respect to Cavalieri, his numbers have dipped significantly in conference games.  Springfield also probably has the hardest schedule of anyone in the conference remaining, with games at CGA, Babson, and MIT, in addition to WPI at home.   Lets see where they are at the end of the season, but if Cavalieri wants to be a POY candidate, they need to win 4 of their last 5 games to finish #2.  I dont see it happening. 

[jabnike23]

I'm not sure where you are getting your facts...

A/TO - AKA the most important PG stat
Harkins - 1.74 - NEWMAC LEADER
Kates - 1.67

Steals
Harkins - 3.05 s/g - NEWMAC LEADER
Kates - 2.15 s/g

Assists
Harkins 5.32 p/g - 101 on the year - NEWMAC LEADER
Kates 4.85 p/g - 97 on the year

Rebounds
Kates 3.3 p/g
Harkins 2.8 p/g

FG %
Harkins - 54%
Kates - 50%

FT%
Harkins 78%
Kates 76%

3 point %
Kates 38%
Harkins 30%

Meanwhile when they met head to head, Harkins locked down Kates.  Kates looked lost on the court going 1-9 from the field and 2-4 from the line for a total of 4 points.  In addition, MIT REQUIRES Kates to be the main scorer where Springfield does not need Harkins as a main scorer in their system.  Also, since conference play has started Harkins has been dominating every PG in the NEWMAC.  Harkins is averaging 13.7 ppg in the NEWMAC.  Does it occur to you that MIT plays the worst out of conference schedule in the league, while Springfield has a difficult out of conference schedule filled with NESCAC's.  When it comes down to it, yes Kates is a better scorer, however he is not a better and more complete point guard than Harkins.

[Hugenerd]

I get my stats from the same place you do, but they dont take into account all games when voting for conference awards, therefore conference only stats are relevent to this discussion.  I referred to both stats in my previous posts, so do your due diligence before questioning my analysis.

Also, Harkins numbers are generally down in conference. Conference awards are typically based on conference only numbers.  In conference stats for Kates vs. Harkins:

Conference rank in parentheses

Stat	Kates	Harkins
Points	17.9 (3rd)	13.7 (7th)
Rebounds	3.7 (19th)	2.8 (NR)
FG%	51.9% (7th)	59.5% (2nd)
Assists	4.71 (1st)	4.57 (2nd)
FT%	80% (8th)	80% (8th)
Steals	1.15 (NR)	3.57 (1st)
3FG%	48.1% (4th)	30.8% (NR)
3FGM	1.86 (5th)	0.28 (NR)
A/TO	1.65 (3rd)	1.28 (6th)
Minutes	33.43 (5th)	32.29 (9th)

There is really no point in arguing, numbers speak for themselves.

[mass_d3fan]

jabnike23

There is another aspect you are not taking into account that is not based on Harkin's or Kate's numbers.  When you construct a defense against Springfield, Harkins is your 3rd or sometimes 4th concern, not your first.  With Hollinsworth out, Kates is your primary concern when defending against MIT.  The numbers do tell a big part of the story, but not all of it.  Harkins has done a good job elevating his game, but would he have these numbers if say Matt Cavalieri was out for the year?

I saw him play in Worcester Vs. WPI.  He played very well, but the focus of the defense was to limit Cavalieri & Coburn.  Now I did not see the game with MIT, but even with a horrible shooting performance Kates still handed out 5 assists with only 2 turnovers.  In the same number of minutes Harkins had 2 assists and 5 turnovers and his team lost the game.  If you are going to claim he is the best PG, he has to raise his team up to win that game.  If your a Springfield supporter you know you need to win the MIT & WPI games (especially on your own floor) to get on top in the conference.

[lefrakenstein]

I get my stats from the same place you do, but they dont take into account all games when voting for conference awards, therefore conference only stats are relevent to this discussion.  I referred to both stats in my previous posts, so do your due diligence before questioning my analysis.

Also, Harkins numbers are generally down in conference. Conference awards are typically based on conference only numbers.  In conference stats for Kates vs. Harkins:

Conference rank in parentheses

Stat	Kates	Harkins
Points	17.9 (3rd)	13.7 (7th)
Rebounds	3.7 (19th)	2.8 (NR)
FG%	51.9% (7th)	59.5% (2nd)
Assists	4.71 (1st)	4.57 (2nd)
FT%	80% (8th)	80% (8th)
Steals	1.15 (NR)	3.57 (1st)
3FG%	48.1% (4th)	30.8% (NR)
3FGM	1.86 (5th)	0.28 (NR)
A/TO	1.65 (3rd)	1.28 (6th)
Minutes	33.43 (5th)	32.29 (9th)

There is really no point in arguing, numbers speak for themselves.

Hugenerd,

1) Let me just say that i'm impressed that you figured out how to use the table tool in your posts. That has always confounded me.

2) I think this comes down to the age-old "better stats" vs "the better team" argument. I pretty much never post on this board, but on the NESCAC board that argument seems to come up all the time.

There are two basic points, both valid. The first, made in favor of the player on the better team, is that he doesn't need to put up monster stats for his team to win. His team's record, in short, should indicate the effectiveness of his play and make up for the statistical shortfall.

The second, made in favor of the player with the better stats, is that he manages to get his superior numbers despite often being the lone offensive threat on his squad. Surely, producing superior numbers while having an opposing coach specifically focus on stopping him should carry the day,

Personally, I think a balance has to be struck. Certainly the better player isn't necessarily the one on the better team, but putting up great stats shouldn't really mean much if it doesn't seem to be helping your team win. MIT certainly isn't a bottom of the barrel team though, and Kates definitely has the better stats as you pointed out in your last post. Sounds like a pretty close debate.

[Hugenerd]

I get my stats from the same place you do, but they dont take into account all games when voting for conference awards, therefore conference only stats are relevent to this discussion.  I referred to both stats in my previous posts, so do your due diligence before questioning my analysis.

Also, Harkins numbers are generally down in conference. Conference awards are typically based on conference only numbers.  In conference stats for Kates vs. Harkins:

Conference rank in parentheses

Stat	Kates	Harkins
Points	17.9 (3rd)	13.7 (7th)
Rebounds	3.7 (19th)	2.8 (NR)
FG%	51.9% (7th)	59.5% (2nd)
Assists	4.71 (1st)	4.57 (2nd)
FT%	80% (8th)	80% (8th)
Steals	1.15 (NR)	3.57 (1st)
3FG%	48.1% (4th)	30.8% (NR)
3FGM	1.86 (5th)	0.28 (NR)
A/TO	1.65 (3rd)	1.28 (6th)
Minutes	33.43 (5th)	32.29 (9th)

There is really no point in arguing, numbers speak for themselves.

Hugenerd,

1) Let me just say that i'm impressed that you figured out how to use the table tool in your posts. That has always confounded me.

2) I think this comes down to the age-old "better stats" vs "the better team" argument. I pretty much never post on this board, but on the NESCAC board that argument seems to come up all the time.

There are two basic points, both valid. The first, made in favor of the player on the better team, is that he doesn't need to put up monster stats for his team to win. His team's record, in short, should indicate the effectiveness of his play and make up for the statistical shortfall.

The second, made in favor of the player with the better stats, is that he manages to get his superior numbers despite often being the lone offensive threat on his squad. Surely, producing superior numbers while having an opposing coach specifically focus on stopping him should carry the day,

Personally, I think a balance has to be struck. Certainly the better player isn't necessarily the one on the better team, but putting up great stats shouldn't really mean much if it doesn't seem to be helping your team win. MIT certainly isn't a bottom of the barrel team though, and Kates definitely has the better stats as you pointed out in your last post. Sounds like a pretty close debate.

L-
Just wanted to point out that Harkins is on Springfield, so Kates is on the better team also in this comparison. Your points are all valid, though, if I was comparing Kates and Robinson. The comparison between Kates and Robinson would be pretty different, however. Robinson has more ppg, but Kates probably has him in every other category. Ill post these numbers later when I get to a computer. TheHarkins vs. Kates debate was sparked when jabnike contended that Kates was not the best pg in the conference, which is completely false.

[jabnike23]

Massd3,

When you said do I think Harkins numbers would be like this if Cavalieri was out?  I actually think they would be higher.  Harkins knows he doesn't have to be a main scorer so he focuses on finding Coburn, Cavalieri, Rankins.  If Cavalieri was out he would know he would have to be a main scorer.  He can score.... clearly you saw that 2nd half of the WPI game if you were there.  I was there.  Springfield couldn't get a call to save their lives.  So second half Springfield didn't even run offense.  Harkins took over.  Also the MIT game, it wasn't like Kates was penetrating the defense and making great assists, he was swinging the ball to Karraker who was on fire, that how he had 5 assists.  His 1-9 shooting came because he couldn't get by or get space from Harkins.

Hugenerd,
Your acting like I don't think Kates is a good player.  Of course he is a good player but you give him too much credit sometimes.  IMO the players the best three players in this league are Robinson, Cavalieri, and Vayda.  Obviously Clarks record diminishes Vayda's chances of winning POY, but I still think he is an excellent player, and top 3 in the league no matter what team he is on.  In your first argument for Kates you were bouncing around between conf. stats and non-conf. stats so it was a bit confusing.  It comes down to this Harkins is a better passer, ball-handler, and defensive player,  Kates is a better scorer and shooter... IMO Harkins is a better point guard.  Everyones got there opinion.. Feb 19th we'll see how it plays out.

[lefrakenstein]

L-
Just wanted to point out that Harkins is on Springfield, so Kates is on the better team also in this comparison.

Whoops, thought Harkins was on WPI. As I said, I'm really not very familiar with the NEWMAC. Had actually stopped by the NEWMAC board to see if anyone had a take on the the legitimacy of WPI as a regional contender. Some posters seem dubious in the NE regional rankings thread. Seems to me though that the NEWMAC teams are getting better every year. Between the NEWMAC and the LEC, the NE seems to have a gotten a ton deeper in the last few years. I'm sure there will be some non-NESCAC teams in the final four very soon.

Anyway, jabnike23, I would say that in all-conference voting, performance in major statistical categories like the ones hugenerd laid out, especially ppg, seem to pretty much always determine the winner, especially between players from teams with relatively similar records. I'm not saying that your observations of Harkins outplaying Kates aren't valid, or that they shouldn't be important in determining awards, i'm just saying that's the way it typically goes. 

[Hugenerd]

Massd3,

When you said do I think Harkins numbers would be like this if Cavalieri was out?  I actually think they would be higher.  Harkins knows he doesn't have to be a main scorer so he focuses on finding Coburn, Cavalieri, Rankins.  If Cavalieri was out he would know he would have to be a main scorer.  He can score.... clearly you saw that 2nd half of the WPI game if you were there.  I was there.  Springfield couldn't get a call to save their lives.  So second half Springfield didn't even run offense.  Harkins took over.  Also the MIT game, it wasn't like Kates was penetrating the defense and making great assists, he was swinging the ball to Karraker who was on fire, that how he had 5 assists.  His 1-9 shooting came because he couldn't get by or get space from Harkins.

Hugenerd,
Your acting like I don't think Kates is a good player.  Of course he is a good player but you give him too much credit sometimes.  IMO the players the best three players in this league are Robinson, Cavalieri, and Vayda.  Obviously Clarks record diminishes Vayda's chances of winning POY, but I still think he is an excellent player, and top 3 in the league no matter what team he is on.  In your first argument for Kates you were bouncing around between conf. stats and non-conf. stats so it was a bit confusing.  It comes down to this Harkins is a better passer, ball-handler, and defensive player,  Kates is a better scorer and shooter... IMO Harkins is a better point guard.  Everyones got there opinion.. Feb 19th we'll see how it plays out.

Against similar opponents (conference games), the numbers do not agree with the statement that Harkins is a better passer or ball-handler, Kates has a much higher A/TO ratio in conference than Harkins (ball-handling) and Kates also has more assists per game (passing), despite losing his main target for the season (Hollingsworth).  Harkins clearly has more steals, so I'll give him defense, but I dont think that makes him a better PG.

Also, how do you put Vayda in the top 3 conversation?  Tashman is a better player than Vayda.  When they played eachother, Tashman completely shut down Vayda to the tune of 3-10 shooting, 8 points, and 5 rebounds. Tashman had 15 and 15 in that game. In my opinion, Vayda only makes second team all-conference this year.  First team will likely be: Robinson, Kates, Cavalieri, Tashman, Carr.  Coppola may have a fight for a guard spot, but as with Vayda, team success will hurt him.  Second team likely will be: Harkins, Coppola, Rudolph (Babson), James (CGA), with that last spot up for grabs between Karraker, Sowers, Degnan, Nadeau, and Coburn.

Kates and Robinson are definitely the two best guards in the league, with Cavilieri the best wing, and Carr and Tashman the best post players.

[jabnike23]

I'm sorry I do not agree with you that Tashman is a better player than Vayda.  Harkins shut down Kates when they met up the first time.. so do you agree with me that Harkins is a better PG than Kates?  Granted Tashman had a fantastic game 15 and 15 against Vayda.  I've seen Vayda over the course of the year.. he is a near-complete player.. He can shoot the 3, muscle you in the post, a fantastic rebounder, great from the FT line.  Tashman is strictly a post player who also is a very good rebounder, however he lacks the shooting abilities of Vayda.  Cavalieri and Vayda have had trouble scoring in the NEWMAC because they are seeing double teams against every opponent.  Springfield and Clark rely on Cavalieri and Vayda to score and teams know that so pretty much every game i've seen of each player some sort of double team scheme has been in effect for a duration during the game.  That is why their out of conf. scoring is much higher because if you play them single coverage, they will torch you.  I do think Kates will make first team over Harkins because the voters look so heavily on scoring, however i still disagree that he is a better PG.

IMO
First team - Kates, Robinson, Cavalieri POY, Vayda, Carr
Second - Harkins, Coppola, Tashman, Coburn... (James, Sowers, Nadeau last spot) 

[Hugenerd]

I'm sorry I do not agree with you that Tashman is a better player than Vayda.  Harkins shut down Kates when they met up the first time.. so do you agree with me that Harkins is a better PG than Kates?  Granted Tashman had a fantastic game 15 and 15 against Vayda.  I've seen Vayda over the course of the year.. he is a near-complete player.. He can shoot the 3, muscle you in the post, a fantastic rebounder, great from the FT line.  Tashman is strictly a post player who also is a very good rebounder, however he lacks the shooting abilities of Vayda.  Cavalieri and Vayda have had trouble scoring in the NEWMAC because they are seeing double teams against every opponent.  Springfield and Clark rely on Cavalieri and Vayda to score and teams know that so pretty much every game i've seen of each player some sort of double team scheme has been in effect for a duration during the game.  That is why their out of conf. scoring is much higher because if you play them single coverage, they will torch you.  I do think Kates will make first team over Harkins because the voters look so heavily on scoring, however i still disagree that he is a better PG.

IMO
First team - Kates, Robinson, Cavalieri POY, Vayda, Carr
Second - Harkins, Coppola, Tashman, Coburn... (James, Sowers, Nadeau last spot) 

Tashman and Vayda have similar numbers overall, thats why I brought in the head-to-head comparison.  Obviously you cant use one game to judge everything, but I think it is very pretinent. In terms of the comparison between Kates and Harkins from the first meeting, Harkins did score 6 more points than Kates, but that is Kates only poor offensive performance in conference.  Even counting that game he is averaging 17.9 ppg in conference (in the other 6 conference games to-date he is averaging over 20 per game). Also, if you go by the "point guard stats" for the head-to-head between Harkins and Kates, Harkins only had 2 assists and 5 turnovers (0.4 A/TO), while Kates had 5 assists and 2 turnovers (2.5 A/TO), and each had 2 steals.  Therefore, while Harkins may have slowed Kates offensively, Kates may have forced Harkins to be a scorer rather than the distributor you say he wants to be.  Therefore, it could be argued that Kates shut him out of what he wanted to do (create for other players, not commit turnovers), which probably had a lot to do with MIT's win.  Therefore, I would not say that head-to-head is conclusively in favor of either player, because although Kates did score less than usual, he played well as a facilitator and seems to have given Harkins problems in doing the same. Additionally, Kates' team won.  This is in stark contrast to the Tashman/Vayda matchup, where Tashman dominated Vayda statistically in every category except steals and Tashman's team won the game in a blowout.

[Pat Coleman]

I get my stats from the same place you do, but they dont take into account all games when voting for conference awards, therefore conference only stats are relevent to this discussion. 

Actually, I'm not sure too many coaches rely so much on "conference-only stats" vs. "overall stats" when voting for All-Conference anyway. I'm sure they rely on "what I've seen" because "I've seen them play at least once in person and a lot on tape."

[Hugenerd]

I get my stats from the same place you do, but they dont take into account all games when voting for conference awards, therefore conference only stats are relevent to this discussion.

Actually, I'm not sure too many coaches rely so much on "conference-only stats" vs. "overall stats" when voting for All-Conference anyway. I'm sure they rely on "what I've seen" because "I've seen them play at least once in person and a lot on tape."

I think conference stats give a good sample set of data against similar opponents.  Otherwise its sometimes like comparing bananas and oranges, with respect to the statistics.  Harkins had 7 steals in a game against Johnson State.  Does that really tell you how he stacks up against other NEWMAC guards? Yes, if someone plays really well against other good competition, thats one thing, but I think performance in conference is more important than out-of-conference, for conference awards.  There is obviously a subjective element, but I am sure everyone knows Kates and Harkins, at this point, in the NEWMAC.  

With respect to Kates, he has established himself even beyond the conference.  He was NE Rookie of the year last year (in addition to NEWMAC ROY), so its pretty well established he is a top-level guard in more than just this conference.  Harkins, on the other hand, may have more to prove in terms of individual recognition, as he is often overshadowed by the better players on his own team, despite being a more seasoned player.