All Americans

[CCIWchamps]

Probably foolishly, I will add a third CCIW-partisan voice to the discussion!

CCIWchamps, I've got no qualms about Jimmy Bartolotta winning the POY - his numbers are just unbelievable.  I thought Kent would win it (his numbers are pretty unbelievable too!), partly because of Troy Ruths.  To explain: in 2007, Ben Strong was national POY (Ruths was HM AA)); in 2008, Troy's team won it all, while Ben's team flamed out in the first round  - IMO Ben was the better player, but Troy took POY.  I concluded that, although an individual award, team success had a great component.

Hugenerd, CCIWchamps does have some valid arguments.  Without Jimmy, MIT would not have even made the tourney, but the same can be said about Kent.  When he got injured, Wheaton was undefeated and #1.  While he was out (plus his first, clearly subpar, game back), they were 1-3.  Without Batolotta, MIT was perhaps not even a top 100 team, but even with him they were not top 25.  With Raymond, Wheaton was a definite title contender, without him they were not top 25, perhaps not even top 40.

Actually, with the team success criterion, I though Aaron Thompson might slip by both of them!

I appreciate your input, and I take nothing away from the winner.  It's just that I can't find a strength of schedule measure for MIT to compare to Wheaton's.  Both put up good numbers and are important to their team's success.  But Wheaton's opposition is so much higher than MIT's that I can't understand how that isn't an automatic discussion ender.  He's the best player in one of the toughest conferences in the country vs. the best player in a conference in the country.  What exactly do the D3 voters look at?  IMO Bartolatta's stats are not different enough from Raymond's to consider that an argument for his POY status.  I'd like to hear what is.

[nescac1]

Two pro-Bartolotta points.  First, Raymond, while clearly the focus of his team's offense, played on a deep team and was helped by several other all-conference caliber players.  By the end of the year MIT played essentially a six man rotation.  He played without anyone else who has ever made an all-region team.  All but one of MIT's starters this year other than Bartolotta would have had a hard time cracking Wheaton's rotation.  So while he faced worse competition, he also put up better stats despite a heck of a lot less help -- if teams focused too heavily on Raymond, other guys on Wheaton were capable of killing them.   Also, I feel fairly confident that Yale would have performed reasonably well in the CCIW this year .  Check out Bartolotta's stats vs. Yale:

http://www.yalebulldogs.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2008-2009/yalemit.html

[Hugenerd]

Two pro-Bartolotta points.  First, Raymond, while clearly the focus of his team's offense, played on a deep team and was helped by several other all-conference caliber players.  By the end of the year MIT played essentially a six man rotation.  He played without anyone else who has ever made an all-region team.  All but one of MIT's starters this year other than Bartolotta would have had a hard time cracking Wheaton's rotation.  So while he faced worse competition, he also put up better stats despite a heck of a lot less help -- if teams focused too heavily on Raymond, other guys on Wheaton were capable of killing them.   Also, I feel fairly confident that Yale would have performed reasonably well in the CCIW this year .  Check out Bartolotta's stats vs. Yale:

http://www.yalebulldogs.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2008-2009/yalemit.html

Nescac1, thanks for bring up this point, I was going to bring it up but now I see you have.  In fact, Bartolotta played exactly 2 games this year where teams played him straight up man, one was the Yale game and the other was a scrimmage in the preseason against Harvard.  In those games Bartolotta put up 32 against Yale and 34 against Harvard (He was guarded by Jeremy Lin, who was first team all-ivy this year and 2nd team last year,  he was the one who lit up BC when they upset them earlier in the year).  Pretty much in every other game they threw 2 and 3 men at him everytime he touched the ball.  He still put up incredible numbers.

Say what you will, but he deserves every award he gets.  He had to play 40 minutes of essentially every single game this year (unless it was a blowout), injured or not, to give MIT a chance to win games.  I am not in any way trying to take away from Raymond, he is an exceptional player, but I dont know how you can make any claims without seeing someone play.

[Hugenerd]

Probably foolishly, I will add a third CCIW-partisan voice to the discussion!

CCIWchamps, I've got no qualms about Jimmy Bartolotta winning the POY - his numbers are just unbelievable.  I thought Kent would win it (his numbers are pretty unbelievable too!), partly because of Troy Ruths.  To explain: in 2007, Ben Strong was national POY (Ruths was HM AA)); in 2008, Troy's team won it all, while Ben's team flamed out in the first round  - IMO Ben was the better player, but Troy took POY.  I concluded that, although an individual award, team success had a great component.

Hugenerd, CCIWchamps does have some valid arguments.  Without Jimmy, MIT would not have even made the tourney, but the same can be said about Kent.  When he got injured, Wheaton was undefeated and #1.  While he was out (plus his first, clearly subpar, game back), they were 1-3.  Without Batolotta, MIT was perhaps not even a top 100 team, but even with him they were not top 25.  With Raymond, Wheaton was a definite title contender, without him they were not top 25, perhaps not even top 40.

Actually, with the team success criterion, I though Aaron Thompson might slip by both of them!

Mr. Ypsi, I agree with your points.  I am not sure when the voting was done for POY, but I think it may have helped Bartolotta's case that Raymond's team lost only one round ahead of Bartolotta's team (dont start with the bracket of death, I know they played mcu harder teams, but I am just saying in terms of teams success, one team made the 2nd round, the other made the 3rd round). 

Also, when you talk about team success, you have to take into account the baseline for that team (in my opinion).  Wheaton always seems to be pretty good, they have 20 win seasons, they win CCIW championships, etc.  MIT, on the other hand, only had 7 players on their team this year for the last 80% of the season, they won they NEWMAC tourney for the first time ever (by the way, 2 of their conference losses were when Bartolotta was hurt or did not play, he got hurt at the end of the second Babson game and didnt play the following game vs. WPI), they won the most games in school history, and they made NCAAs for the first time ever.  Regardless, I think he deserved the award and there will be some that dont agree, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[CCIWchamps]

Two pro-Bartolotta points.  First, Raymond, while clearly the focus of his team's offense, played on a deep team and was helped by several other all-conference caliber players.  By the end of the year MIT played essentially a six man rotation.  He played without anyone else who has ever made an all-region team.  All but one of MIT's starters this year other than Bartolotta would have had a hard time cracking Wheaton's rotation.  So while he faced worse competition, he also put up better stats despite a heck of a lot less help -- if teams focused too heavily on Raymond, other guys on Wheaton were capable of killing them.   Also, I feel fairly confident that Yale would have performed reasonably well in the CCIW this year .  Check out Bartolotta's stats vs. Yale:

http://www.yalebulldogs.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2008-2009/yalemit.html

"he also put up better stats despite a heck of a lot less help"  What stats specifically?

Also, I've never seen Yale play either, so here are #'s Raymond had versus All-Americans this year:
HOPE COLLEGE           12/6/08   *   34    9-14   .643   5-7    .714  11-11 1.000   0   1    1  2.7   3  0   1   1   1   0   34
at Elmhurst            2/11/09   *   35   12-21   .571   2-4    .500   3-5   .600   0   1    1  2.8   2  0   3   4   0   1   29
ELMHURST               2/28/09   *   36    6-18   .333   3-8    .375   9-10  .900   0   1    1  3.2   0  0   3   0   1   1   24
UW-PLATTEVILLE         3/7/09    *   45    8-21   .381   1-4    .250   7-8   .875   3   1    4  3.2   3  0   2   2   0   0   24
WASHINGTON UNIV. (MO   3/13/09   *   38    8-19   .421   1-5    .200   5-7   .714   0   3    3  3.1   1  0   2   3   0   0   22

Overall:
Games played: 27
Minutes/game: 30.9
Points/game: 23.9
FG Pct: 49.9
3FG Pct: 37.2
FT Pct: 88.3
Rebounds/game: 3.1
Assists/game: 3.3
Turnovers/game: 1.8
Assist/turnover ratio: 1.8
Steals/game: 0.9
Blocks/game: 0.7

[CCIWchamps]

Two pro-Bartolotta points.  First, Raymond, while clearly the focus of his team's offense, played on a deep team and was helped by several other all-conference caliber players.  By the end of the year MIT played essentially a six man rotation.  He played without anyone else who has ever made an all-region team.  All but one of MIT's starters this year other than Bartolotta would have had a hard time cracking Wheaton's rotation.  So while he faced worse competition, he also put up better stats despite a heck of a lot less help -- if teams focused too heavily on Raymond, other guys on Wheaton were capable of killing them.   Also, I feel fairly confident that Yale would have performed reasonably well in the CCIW this year .  Check out Bartolotta's stats vs. Yale:

http://www.yalebulldogs.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2008-2009/yalemit.html

Nescac1, thanks for bring up this point, I was going to bring it up but now I see you have.  In fact, Bartolotta played exactly 2 games this year where teams played him straight up man, one was the Yale game and the other was a scrimmage in the preseason against Harvard.  In those games Bartolotta put up 32 against Yale and 34 against Harvard (He was guarded by Jeremy Lin, who was first team all-ivy this year and 2nd team last year,  he was the one who lit up BC when they upset them earlier in the year).  Pretty much in every other game they threw 2 and 3 men at him everytime he touched the ball.  He still put up incredible numbers.

Say what you will, but he deserves every award he gets.  He had to play 40 minutes of essentially every single game this year (unless it was a blowout), injured or not, to give MIT a chance to win games.  I am not in any way trying to take away from Raymond, he is an exceptional player, but I dont know how you can make any claims without seeing someone play.

1- Is there an online reference of video highlights for Bartolotta?  I'd love to see some tapes.  2- Since you've seen Raymond play, how do you think he'd do if he was swapped for Bartolotta?  How would Bartolotta do in Raymond's place? 

[CCIWchamps]

Mr. Ypsi, I agree with your points.  I am not sure when the voting was done for POY, but I think it may have helped Bartolotta's case that Raymond's team lost only one round ahead of Bartolotta's team (dont start with the bracket of death, I know they played mcu harder teams, but I am just saying in terms of teams success, one team made the 2nd round, the other made the 3rd round). 

Also, when you talk about team success, you have to take into account the baseline for that team (in my opinion).  Wheaton always seems to be pretty good, they have 20 win seasons, they win CCIW championships, etc.  MIT, on the other hand, only had 7 players on their team this year for the last 80% of the season, they won they NEWMAC tourney for the first time ever (by the way, 2 of their conference losses were when Bartolotta was hurt or did not play, he got hurt at the end of the second Babson game and didnt play the following game vs. WPI), they won the most games in school history, and they made NCAAs for the first time ever.  Regardless, I think he deserved the award and there will be some that dont agree, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

So we can't mention that Wheaton lost a round later to the eventual National Champions?  That's somehow stricken from the argument?
I agree it probably helped Bartolotta's case.

Do you have a link to the RPI for MIT?  Or at least the strength of schedule?  I see Wheaton played the 5th hardest schedule but can't find MIT listed.  Wheaton did not win the most games in its history, though they were ranked #1 in the country by D3hoops for the first time.  They finished as the 3rd ranked team.
And yes, Wheaton has/had a great coach who has had plenty of 20 win seasons (7), and coached 10 All-Americans in 18 years.  They have won their conference 3 times under Harris and the tournament 6 times.  That they perennially do well should be no knock against Raymond's case.  In fact, look at these numbers of Wheaton's last 5 years:
2009 26-4 (11-3)
2008 22-8 (9-5)
2007 17-9 (9-5)
2006 11-14 (7-7)
2005 20-6 (10-4)
Raymond sat out one year.  Guess which one it was.  Does that count as Wheaton's baseline?

[nescac1]

What stats?  Bartolotta averaged nearly four more points more per game, shot slightly better from the field and from 3 (slightly worse from the free throw line), was about the same in assists, but averaged TWICE as many rebounds, blocks, and steals.  Now, Raymond played better competition, no one is doubting that, but those are also without a doubt materially better stats.   Not the end all and be all of the debate, but certainly worth considering. 

[Ralph Turner]

Two pro-Bartolotta points.  First, Raymond, while clearly the focus of his team's offense, played on a deep team and was helped by several other all-conference caliber players.  By the end of the year MIT played essentially a six man rotation.  He played without anyone else who has ever made an all-region team.  All but one of MIT's starters this year other than Bartolotta would have had a hard time cracking Wheaton's rotation.  So while he faced worse competition, he also put up better stats despite a heck of a lot less help -- if teams focused too heavily on Raymond, other guys on Wheaton were capable of killing them.   Also, I feel fairly confident that Yale would have performed reasonably well in the CCIW this year .  Check out Bartolotta's stats vs. Yale:

http://www.yalebulldogs.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2008-2009/yalemit.html

Good point,  nescac11  +1!   

Massey Ratings for Wheaton IL = #295
Massey Ratings for Yale = #300  (Massey doesn't use Margin of Victory in his D-1 ratings)
Massey Ratings for UW-SP = #304

http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb

[CCIWchamps]

Nescac1, thanks for bring up this point, I was going to bring it up but now I see you have.  In fact, Bartolotta played exactly 2 games this year where teams played him straight up man, one was the Yale game and the other was a scrimmage in the preseason against Harvard.  In those games Bartolotta put up 32 against Yale...

I looked that up, the game vs. Yale.  They lost by 23.

[CCIWchamps]

Two pro-Bartolotta points.  First, Raymond, while clearly the focus of his team's offense, played on a deep team and was helped by several other all-conference caliber players.  By the end of the year MIT played essentially a six man rotation.  He played without anyone else who has ever made an all-region team.  All but one of MIT's starters this year other than Bartolotta would have had a hard time cracking Wheaton's rotation.  So while he faced worse competition, he also put up better stats despite a heck of a lot less help -- if teams focused too heavily on Raymond, other guys on Wheaton were capable of killing them.   Also, I feel fairly confident that Yale would have performed reasonably well in the CCIW this year .  Check out Bartolotta's stats vs. Yale:

http://www.yalebulldogs.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2008-2009/yalemit.html

I'm looking at this rebuttle more, and I'm not sure if there's evidence there that you want to rely on.
First of all, 3 other players on MIT average double figures in points.  Wheaton has 2 other than Raymond.  So when you say "Wheaton has other players capable of killing you..." isn't that even more true of MIT on a regular basis?  Are Johnson, Soumare, and Karraker a bunch of shlubs or what?

Secondly, Bartolotta put up 32 points, 3 blocks, and 3 steals in 35 minutes against a team in a 23 point loss.  How many of those stats came against Yale's bench?  I see their starters played a max of 25 minutes.  I guess he played fantastically enough to keep it within 25?

Third, based on the Massey Ratings provided below, Yale isn't even as high as Wheaton.  They might've played well in the CCIW, but Wheaton would've beaten them... meaning Wheaton would likely have beaten MIT by even more than the 23 point spread Yale put on them.  Granted this is all theoretically and based on stats, but look at the D3 ratings:  Wheaton #3, MIT #94.  CCIW #1, NEWMAC #17.  Wheaton's Schedule Played #7, MIT #177.

See my next post for more...

[CCIWchamps]

What stats?  Bartolotta averaged nearly four more points more per game, shot slightly better from the field and from 3 (slightly worse from the free throw line), was about the same in assists, but averaged TWICE as many rebounds, blocks, and steals.  Now, Raymond played better competition, no one is doubting that, but those are also without a doubt materially better stats.   Not the end all and be all of the debate, but certainly worth considering. 

Here's argument addressing your points (noted above):
1- PPG: You left out the extra 6 minutes a game Bartolotta played (I won't even mention that those are 6 minutes more vs. NEWMAC).  In fact, this changes the stats across the board, though most dramatically in PPG.  Long story short is with an extra 6 minutes, Raymond would've found at least 2 more made baskets.  Here are Raymond's numbers and Bartolotta at 36.7 min/game (Raymond played 27 games, Bartolotta 29):
PPG: KR = 28.4  JB = 27.6     RB/G: KR = 3.7 JB = 6.2     ASST/G: KR = 3.9 JB = 2.9     STL/G: KR = 1.1 JB = 2.0     BLK/G: KR = 0.8  JB = 1.4
TO/G: KR = 2.1 JB = 2.4     PF/G: KR = 2.1 JB = 2.5 

1b- "but [JB] averaged TWICE as many rebounds, blocks, and steals" 
Look at those in a per game breakdown.  And consider another stat you left off, the ASST:TO ratio- KR= 1.95  JB = 1.22

2- FG%: KR = 49.9% JB = 50.2% Seriously?

3- 3PT%: KR = 37.2% JB = 43.6%  This is is valid. 
What I wonder is how JB could've attempted 218 3's with the "constant double and triple teaming and constantly being the focus" of opponents' game plans (Raymond often shot over double teams or had to pass on the 3 b/c of pressure- he attempted 156).  Either JB's shooting 3's with 6 hands in his face and still making 43%, or he has teammates that require some defensive attention, or he's playing people incapable of defending 20 feet away from the basket.  So is he an amazing shooter, playing on a better balanced team than people are saying, or are the opponents just terrible? 

4- FT%: KR = 88.3% JB = 83.7% 

5- "Now, Raymond played better competition, no one is doubting that, but those are also without a doubt materially better stats. " 
Those "materially better stats" are really just rebounds/game (+2.5).  Then +6% on 3's and +.09 Steals and +0.6 Blocks/game. 
Now consider that KR puts up equal and better numbers in every other category.  What you are underestimating is the difference between the strength of opponents both players face: National Rank: CCIW #1, NEWMAC #17.  Wheaton's Schedule Played #7, MIT #177. 

That's where my confusion comes in.  In looking at Jimmy Bartolotta's stats, I can see he's a very good player.  But having watched Raymond play and seen who he's squared off against, when I imagine what he could do in the NEWMAC, and what he would have to do playing on only a 6 man rotation, his stats would be off the charts.  That's where my confusion comes in with this whole thing. 

[Ralph Turner]

Yale goes 9-deep on the roster with double-digit minutes!  Yale plays lots of players.  Three starters averaged only 29.0-30.3 minutes this season, and then there was a huge drop-off to 21.7 and 20.0 minutes.

The Yale center in the MIT game only played 12 minutes, so Yale may have gone with a smaller line-up.

As an outsider to the CCIW wars, I saw Raymond on WETN several times.

Candidly, I was put-off by his whining and working the refs!  That is just me.  I don't like players who work the ref.  Not on my team, not in the game in general.

Maybe Raymond's on-court antics are the "400-lb gorilla in the room" in the minds of many voters.

Maybe they thought that Bartolotta was a classier player.

[CCIWchamps]

Yale goes 9-deep on the roster with double-digit minutes!  Yale plays lots of players.  Three starters averaged only 29.0-30.3 minutes this season, and then there was a huge drop-off to 21.7 and 20.0 minutes.

The Yale center in the MIT game only played 12 minutes, so Yale may have gone with a smaller line-up.

As an outsider to the CCIW wars, I saw Raymond on WETN several times.

Candidly, I was put-off by his whining and working the refs!  That is just me.  I don't like players who work the ref.  Not on my team, not in the game in general.

Maybe Raymond's on-court antics are the "400-lb gorilla in the room" in the minds of many voters.

Maybe they thought that Bartolotta was a classier player.

I'll accept your use of the word "maybe" as evidence that you'd have to watch a few more games in person before attempting to make that assertion.

[Ralph Turner]

Yale goes 9-deep on the roster with double-digit minutes!  Yale plays lots of players.  Three starters averaged only 29.0-30.3 minutes this season, and then there was a huge drop-off to 21.7 and 20.0 minutes.

The Yale center in the MIT game only played 12 minutes, so Yale may have gone with a smaller line-up.

As an outsider to the CCIW wars, I saw Raymond on WETN several times.

Candidly, I was put-off by his whining and working the refs!  That is just me.  I don't like players who work the ref.  Not on my team, not in the game in general.

Maybe Raymond's on-court antics are the "400-lb gorilla in the room" in the minds of many voters.

Maybe they thought that Bartolotta was a classier player.

I'll accept your use of the word "maybe" as evidence that you'd have to watch a few more games in person before attempting to make that assertion.

So might seeing the whining by Raymond in person would soften my impression of him?

I think that I would be even more put-off by him in that case.