All Americans

[jamtod]

A few other thoughts...

1) I have always loved the intent of the D3hoops.com Top 25 to construct 5 teams that could actually play a game.  Meaning instead of the 1st Team having 5 guards, you reward the value of all positions.  This is how the teams should be constructed in my opinion.

2) I don't love the D3hoops crew being tied to whatever position is on the roster.  There is too much inconsistency in the way players are listed on rosters.

Somebody needs to tell UST Coach Tauer you can't play a team of 5 guards. Modern coaches aren't tied to these positional constraints, so it makes some sense for the d3hoops.com selections to evolve with positional flexibility as well.

[Pat Coleman]

A look at the All-Region teams will show a lot of four-guard lineups. I'd say we're aware. (And, to add to the point, Tommy Anderson is listed as a forward, so what does that mean?)

[Titan Q]

The number of what I would consider true point guards -- guys who put up huge assist totals that we find credible and can also score -- has really gone down in Division III in the past 15 years or so. Similarly, we all know about back-to-the-basket guys across basketball, which makes a true 1-5 on every team really difficult to achieve.

And let me clarify...

I don't think every team should have a pass-first, doesn't-score-a-lot PG...but just rather a guy who plays the PG spot.

And yes, there are barely any true Cs left anymore, so the AA teams have to recognize that for sure.  But I do think there should be recognition for guys who play the 5 spot and are Fs (guys who spend time in the low post...even if they also shoot. a lot of 3s) vs guys who are pure wings and called Fs.

[Pat Coleman]

When I'm looking for those guys (ones who are forwards playing the 5), I'm usually looking for tall players with a bunch of boards and some blocked shots and not really looking to eliminate guys who shoot 3's, because let's be honest, we all love to shoot 3's.

[Titan Q]

When I'm looking for those guys (ones who are forwards playing the 5), I'm usually looking for tall players with a bunch of boards and some blocked shots and not really looking to eliminate guys who shoot 3's, because let's be honest, we all love to shoot 3's.

Yes, absolutely.  Most 5s shoot 3s nowadays.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

The number of what I would consider true point guards -- guys who put up huge assist totals that we find credible and can also score -- has really gone down in Division III in the past 15 years or so. Similarly, we all know about back-to-the-basket guys across basketball, which makes a true 1-5 on every team really difficult to achieve.

And let me clarify...

I don't think every team should have a pass-first, doesn't-score-a-lot PG...but just rather a guy who plays the PG spot.

And yes, there are barely any true Cs left anymore, so the AA teams have to recognize that for sure.  But I do think there should be recognition for guys who play the 5 spot and are Fs (guys who spend time in the low post...even if they also shoot. a lot of 3s) vs guys who are pure wings and called Fs.

There are just more and more teams that don't have a main ball handler.  In the same way, there are fewer and fewer pure shooting guards, as well.  I think it's great to have two guards on each team whose games match well with each other, but I don't think it'll always be in roles as defined as the traditional 1 and 2.

If you look this year, Schimonitz and West are both true, ball handling, strong passing PGs.  I think West is more capable of playing the off ball role and you could see that happen on the floor.  But, I imagine, if we had all five of those guys on the floor together, likely it's Raridon who would be the main assist man out of the high post.

As I look at these, teams, I'm realizing we do have some good guard mixtures.  Buzz Anthony is clearly a PG, Bower-Malone can handle the ball fine, but he'd be a great off-guard, too, while Cameron can be a more traditional swingman easily; he loves to get to the hoop.

On the third team, Delaney is a PG and Nolan is a scorer; Voelker plays well in the paint.  That fourth team might be off-guard heavy, but it's not like Rhode and Bruton couldn't do the ball-handling duties.  And, as much as Demers scores, he's been a pass first PG for much of his career.

I'd hate to ever get to a point, though, where we're "demoting" someone simply because the two best guards are both 1s.

[Titan Q]

The number of what I would consider true point guards -- guys who put up huge assist totals that we find credible and can also score -- has really gone down in Division III in the past 15 years or so. Similarly, we all know about back-to-the-basket guys across basketball, which makes a true 1-5 on every team really difficult to achieve.

And let me clarify...

I don't think every team should have a pass-first, doesn't-score-a-lot PG...but just rather a guy who plays the PG spot.

And yes, there are barely any true Cs left anymore, so the AA teams have to recognize that for sure.  But I do think there should be recognition for guys who play the 5 spot and are Fs (guys who spend time in the low post...even if they also shoot. a lot of 3s) vs guys who are pure wings and called Fs.

There are just more and more teams that don't have a main ball handler.  In the same way, there are fewer and fewer pure shooting guards, as well.  I think it's great to have two guards on each team whose games match well with each other, but I don't think it'll always be in roles as defined as the traditional 1 and 2.

If you look this year, Schimonitz and West are both true, ball handling, strong passing PGs.  I think West is more capable of playing the off ball role and you could see that happen on the floor.  But, I imagine, if we had all five of those guys on the floor together, likely it's Raridon who would be the main assist man out of the high post.

As I look at these, teams, I'm realizing we do have some good guard mixtures.  Buzz Anthony is clearly a PG, Bower-Malone can handle the ball fine, but he'd be a great off-guard, too, while Cameron can be a more traditional swingman easily; he loves to get to the hoop.

On the third team, Delaney is a PG and Nolan is a scorer; Voelker plays well in the paint.  That fourth team might be off-guard heavy, but it's not like Rhode and Bruton couldn't do the ball-handling duties.  And, as much as Demers scores, he's been a pass first PG for much of his career.

I'd hate to ever get to a point, though, where we're "demoting" someone simply because the two best guards are both 1s.

Yes, not saying it is bad to have two combo guards on the same team.  Schimonitz and West is a good example - they could easily both start together.

Just saying there shouldn't be an All American backcourt where 1 of the 2 Gs really could not play PG effectively in a real game.  It is nice to acknowledge the critical importance of ball-handling and distribution on the AA teams.

[SpringSt7]

I'd hate to ever get to a point, though, where we're "demoting" someone simply because the two best guards are both 1s.

At that point you would run the risk of taking the position stuff a little too seriously. I think everybody appreciates the effort to put together a team that can fit on the floor as a group of 5 together, because we are ultimately talking about "teams", but I think it is also still important to allow yourselves the flexibility to be able to move guys up and down based on their accomplishments and production throughout the year. I would say the way the positions were handled on these teams took care of that balance. Not every team fits perfect, but they fit enough to recognize each player the way they deserve to be recognized.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I'd hate to ever get to a point, though, where we're "demoting" someone simply because the two best guards are both 1s.

At that point you would run the risk of taking the position stuff a little too seriously. I think everybody appreciates the effort to put together a team that can fit on the floor as a group of 5 together, because we are ultimately talking about "teams", but I think it is also still important to allow yourselves the flexibility to be able to move guys up and down based on their accomplishments and production throughout the year. I would say the way the positions were handled on these teams took care of that balance. Not every team fits perfect, but they fit enough to recognize each player the way they deserve to be recognized.

And that's really the point.  Ryan Turell brings the ball up the floor a lot for Yeshiva, but certainly not exclusively and the way their offense works, no one is really starting the offense or the focal point.  The ball moves.  Sure, Turell can shoot, but he's scoring most of his point in the paint and at the rim, so a G/F sort of thing is justifiable.  We've done a lot of that in past, as well.

The issue's been a little more pronounced for women in recent years - it's tough to have 3 or 4 true back to the basket post players on one team.  Things just don't work that way on the court.

[Smitty Oom]

And as others have said -- team success is definitely a thing, but it is not what we are generally trying to measure here. Yes, great teams have great players, but not-great teams also have great players. We didn't eliminate Carleton at 11-14, Gordon at 13-14, Calvin at 15-11.

The thing is that Demers led the nation in scoring and DeVris was scoring 5 more points a game, same rebounds, only slightly less efficient and had better ast numbers on a team that made their conference playoffs in a league that Massey said was equal to the MIAC this year.

I really do think Hanson is a great player and deserving of his all conference, Josten Trophy Finalst honor, but I'm really surprised he made the top 25 players, all American list. There had to be another player that fit the "F" position. Connor Siepel comes to mind. Maybe Grunder from Cortland? Was there any debate between Hanson and those players or someone else? Obviously I'm not trying to change things, at this point I'm just curious what led you guys in this direction.

Sorry to come off as such a downer/complainer on this, but it really shocked me so this will be my last post on it. I really do appreciate the work you guys do and how responsive you are here.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

And as others have said -- team success is definitely a thing, but it is not what we are generally trying to measure here. Yes, great teams have great players, but not-great teams also have great players. We didn't eliminate Carleton at 11-14, Gordon at 13-14, Calvin at 15-11.

The thing is that Demers led the nation in scoring and DeVris was scoring 5 more points a game, same rebounds, only slightly less efficient and had better ast numbers on a team that made their conference playoffs in a league that Massey said was equal to the MIAC this year.

I really do think Hanson is a great player and deserving of his all conference, Josten Trophy Finalst honor, but I'm really surprised he made the top 25 players, all American list. There had to be another player that fit the "F" position. Connor Siepel comes to mind. Maybe Grunder from Cortland? Was there any debate between Hanson and those players or someone else? Obviously I'm not trying to change things, at this point I'm just curious what led you guys in this direction.

Sorry to come off as such a downer/complainer on this, but it really shocked me so this will be my last post on it. I really do appreciate the work you guys do and how responsive you are here.

Some of it has to do with All-Region voting.  Seipel, for instance, would've been one of my choices, but he finished on the second team for the GL, behind DeVries and Tyler Frederick from LaRoche.  As much as we try to watch games and see guys in person, there is some measure where we have to rely on people in the region, who see these guys more often, to provide some feedback.

It's one of the reasons I really like the All-Region/All-American system Pat has set up.  It provides input from outside our central group of decision makers AND it gives input from people who see these players on a more regular basis.

Maybe we missed on Hanson.  I don't know.  Because of his team's record, I probably saw him play much less than a lot of others guys.  He has been picked among the best forwards in his conference for three straight years now - not an easy feat in the MIAC.  He was also the top forward for West All Region voting.

Yeah, there were other guys that could compete for that spot: Seipel for one, Zac O'Dell, Mahoney from RPI - I'm sure a few others that escape me at the moment.  In the end we went with Hanson.  That was our decision.  It's just as likely to be "wrong" as "right" if there were some way to definitively quantify those things.  We can only do our best.

There's a lot of Wooster folks upset about Hempy being overlooked.  They're just as right in their criticism as you are.  I'm not sure what else I can say.

[ronk]

And as others have said -- team success is definitely a thing, but it is not what we are generally trying to measure here. Yes, great teams have great players, but not-great teams also have great players. We didn't eliminate Carleton at 11-14, Gordon at 13-14, Calvin at 15-11.

The thing is that Demers led the nation in scoring and DeVris was scoring 5 more points a game, same rebounds, only slightly less efficient and had better ast numbers on a team that made their conference playoffs in a league that Massey said was equal to the MIAC this year.

I really do think Hanson is a great player and deserving of his all conference, Josten Trophy Finalst honor, but I'm really surprised he made the top 25 players, all American list. There had to be another player that fit the "F" position. Connor Siepel comes to mind. Maybe Grunder from Cortland? Was there any debate between Hanson and those players or someone else? Obviously I'm not trying to change things, at this point I'm just curious what led you guys in this direction.

Sorry to come off as such a downer/complainer on this, but it really shocked me so this will be my last post on it. I really do appreciate the work you guys do and how responsive you are here.

Some of it has to do with All-Region voting.  Seipel, for instance, would've been one of my choices, but he finished on the second team for the GL, behind DeVries and Tyler Frederick from LaRoche.  As much as we try to watch games and see guys in person, there is some measure where we have to rely on people in the region, who see these guys more often, to provide some feedback.

It's one of the reasons I really like the All-Region/All-American system Pat has set up.  It provides input from outside our central group of decision makers AND it gives input from people who see these players on a more regular basis.

Maybe we missed on Hanson.  I don't know.  Because of his team's record, I probably saw him play much less than a lot of others guys.  He has been picked among the best forwards in his conference for three straight years now - not an easy feat in the MIAC.  He was also the top forward for West All Region voting.

Yeah, there were other guys that could compete for that spot: Seipel for one, Zac O'Dell, Mahoney from RPI - I'm sure a few others that escape me at the moment. In the end we went with Hanson.  That was our decision.  It's just as likely to be "wrong" as "right" if there were some way to definitively quantify those things.  We can only do our best.

There's a lot of Wooster folks upset about Hempy being overlooked.  They're just as right in their criticism as you are.  I'm not sure what else I can say.

Matt Mancuso - Scranton,  for 1

[Smitty Oom]

Thanks for the response. I do appreciate it. I didn't realize Connor Siepel was on the second team of the Great Lakes. I have now decided to let Kent Hanson enjoy his impressive accomplishments. Enough bashing of my own conference!

I Listened to the podcast this morning and it was a fun listen and I'm glad you guys were able to have interviews for the top 3 awards recipients. As with you Ryan, I definitely miss the all star game. Fun to see what people have planned for the upcoming years. Always looked forward to the Top 25 Double Take with you and Bob joining Dave, my favorite segments. I know Dave said it always went longer than expected but I'd be down for planning out 30-45 minutes for it each show. Fun conversations all year longer.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Matt Mancuso - Scranton,  for 1

If Zac O'Dell couldn't get on the All-America list, Mancuso wasn't going to get there, either. I liked what Mancuso was able to bring to the table this season and I know he put up some pretty nice numbers, but a lot of those numbers were thanks to the early part of the season when he averaged 20-plus points a game against Stevenson, Houghton, William Paterson, Wilkes and Cabrini - a combined 40-76 this season. His numbers then went down steadily from December through January. He definitely had an uptick in February, but at that point guys like Logan Bailey were driving the Scranton team.

We can't fit everyone on the teams, but consider who else we left off the list ... it was going to be a tough sell to get Mancuso on it.

[jamtod]

A look at the All-Region teams will show a lot of four-guard lineups. I'd say we're aware. (And, to add to the point, Tommy Anderson is listed as a forward, so what does that mean?)

If that were the case here (and not just the All-Region), the argument for Hanson over Alade (or whoever else) wouldn't be an issue.

I saw plenty of 5 guard lineups from UST though, as Anderson averaged only 16 mins per game.