MBB: NESCAC

[lefrakenstein]

amh63, great post, I felt like I was there... a little at least. +k Will you be coming to Atlanta? I already know of a fair contingent of Amherst '08s going. I'm hoping that we get a good turnout, but I realize it's quite far from "home" for most Amherst fans.

Also, I completely agree with the elder Workman. Willy had a fantastic game, despite his lack of scoring.

[magicman]

3 NESCACS in the Elite 8... shows how this league is the Toughest in the Country.

...and say, "Hey, things aren't quite level in terms of getting to the Elite 8."


The top 2 NESCAC teams are always national championship contenders, and the third best team is usually in the Top 15 mix.  Good CCIW fans know that.

dcahill44's first and only NESCAC board post certainly has caused a lot of consternation. Judging by his post history, I guess he's a fan of a team in the East region.

Posters who tune in regularly to Hoopsville would know that dcahill44 is a young man (12 or 13 years old) who follows East Region teams, such as Nazareth, Oswego State and Rochester and is not a regular poster on the NESCAC boards. Dave McHugh had him on the show back in February as a "special guest" due in part to this young man's passion for D3 hoops. In his exhuberence over 3 teams from the same conference making the Elite Eight, he made the statement which seems to have caused an awful lot of back and forth between the posters on the NESCAC and CCIW boards. For a person that is only 12 or 13, young Mr. Cahill does have a very good knowledge of current D3 teams especially those in the East Region where he resides. His young age though, limits him when it comes to the history behind the leagues in question. I think we should cut him some slack regarding his statement and move on.

[lefrakenstein]

3 NESCACS in the Elite 8... shows how this league is the Toughest in the Country.

...and say, "Hey, things aren't quite level in terms of getting to the Elite 8."


The top 2 NESCAC teams are always national championship contenders, and the third best team is usually in the Top 15 mix.  Good CCIW fans know that.

dcahill44's first and only NESCAC board post certainly has caused a lot of consternation. Judging by his post history, I guess he's a fan of a team in the East region.

Posters who tune in regularly to Hoopsville would know that dcahill44 is a young man (12 or 13 years old) who follows East Region teams, such as Nazareth, Oswego State and Rochester and is not a regular poster on the NESCAC boards. Dave McHugh had him on the show back in February as a "special guest" due in part to this young man's passion for D3 hoops. In his exhuberence over 3 teams from the same conference making the Elite Eight, he made the statement which seems to have caused an awful lot of back and forth between the posters on the NESCAC and CCIW boards. For a person that is only 12 or 13, young Mr. Cahill does have a very good knowledge of current D3 teams especially those in the East Region where he resides. His young age though, limits him when it comes to the history behind the leagues in question. I think we should cut him some slack regarding his statement and move on.

Sorry, didn't mean to disparage dcahill. I hope, if he has read any of this, that he has not taken offense.

[old_hooper]

This interesting, Coach DeWeese of Mary Hardin Baylor has been coaching for 43 years and his record to date is 691-229.  Coach Hixon in his 36 year is 692-252.  Rare that you would get two coaches that are close to 700 wins playing in for national championship at the DIII level.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Hoopsville is on the air right now. Pat and I are recapping the weekend and my conversation with Dave Hixon is upcoming.

Website: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2012-13/march24

[amh63]

LeFrak....thanks.  Posted earlier that that particular time I am up in upstate New York on "baby sitting" duty with my grand daughter during spring break.
Talking about your possible Amherst visitors....have a trivial comment you might enjoy.
Was having a very late night meal......watching games does not help one's diet
....hot dogs with chili, popcorn, etc.  Dropped by to a Salem late night eatery/sports bar......McDonald was even closed to inside food!.  Joined some Amherst players and their families for an after the game meal. 
Saw Walzy and the younger Amherst assistant coaches come in.  Most of them ware asked for their ID's....being "carded"! 
The players got a kick out of seeing that!
Made an correction to an earlier post....changed Cabrini to St Marys......too many games in a day gets me confused.

[Bucket]

I laughed a little while reading Panther nation's post that it was a bad day against Amherst for the player that scored 31 against Midd....being a good day.  Ah youth!  Willy Workman was Defensive Player of the Year last year...and is bigger than Norm T. How one forgets. 

I'm afraid that you are confused, my friend.

Nolan Thompson did, indeed, shut down NCC's best player on Friday: Raridan.

Willy Workman did the same the next night.

Neither player guarded Kmiec who was unconscious shooting the ball against Midd and ice cold against Amherst.

[Panthernation]

Willy's father notice his leadership, his rebounds, his blocks and his steals.  Most of all, his shut down of NCC's best offensive player that hit for 31 against the Panthers.  I laughed a little while reading Panther nation's post that it was a bad day against Amherst for the player that scored 31 against Midd....being a good day.  Ah youth!  Willy Workman was Defensive Player of the Year last year...and is bigger than Norm T. How one forgets.  Is Kalema a talent? Of Course!  Is he a better pg than Aaron Toomey?  Better watch a few more BB games Panthernation....before you repeat that comment, my young bloggers.  When Kalema was taking the role of ball handler, there were many old former BB players in the stands nervous about it.  Comments such as slow down... quit dribbling so much.., etc.  Bright future ahead...yes.  Paired with Toomey...yes.

Albus Dumbledore explained this moment best: "Youth cannot know how age thinks and feels. But old men are guilty if they forget what it was to be young."

[amh63]

Panthernation.....good quote...but doesn't apply.  Maybe you all should play a little ball....no. best see a few hundred more games to make a better judgement as what it takes to be a point guard.   Clear enough for you persons to pick a more applicable quote?  Then we can have a better discussion on the subject/statement.
Bucket.....thanks for the clarification on the particulars.  So no one is given credit for shutting down a shooter that averages around 11 points and is having a hot streak.....other than he is having a good day and then a bad day.  What is your take on that?  that analysis.   Think on that a bit please.

[madzillagd]

Well enough of the obnoxious comments from me.  Couldn't help myself, had to throw some digs back after some of the stuff I was reading on all the boards. 

In terms of Toomey & Kalema, for me Kalema dribbles too much even though he's a nice change of pace he isn't the best ball handler.  He tends to dribble with his head down which eliminates any chance of him getting an assist when he's breaking people down off the dribble.  Toomey shoots some bad shots but he's also a much better passer that gets his teammates easy looks.

[Panthernation]

Panthernation.....good quote...but doesn't apply.  Maybe you all should play a little ball....no. best see a few hundred more games to make a better judgement as what it takes to be a point guard.   Clear enough for you persons to pick a more applicable quote?  Then we can have a better discussion on the subject/statement.
Bucket.....thanks for the clarification on the particulars.  So no one is given credit for shutting down a shooter that averages around 11 points and is having a hot streak.....other than he is having a good day and then a bad day.  What is your take on that?  that analysis.   Think on that a bit please.

Amh63, struggling to understand your hostility. Have not taken any shots at you.

As for your analysis, Titan Q pointed out that Kmiec is a streaky scorer. Those players tend to shoot very well one night and poorly the next, as I pointed out in my last post that made you laugh because you were confused regarding who matched up with whom.

Having watched both games, Kmiec got largely the same looks Friday against Middlebury as he did on Saturday against Amherst. He missed a couple of shots wildly against Amherst, including a wide open three that skimmed off the backboard and didn't catch any of the rim. If you want numbers, you should go back and read what I wrote originally, which you seemed to have ignored, but for the sake of clarity, here are the sparknotes: he was a 31 percent three-point shooter on the season. His shooting over the course of the two games confirmed that. He just happened to shoot 4-7 from beyond the arc against Middlebury and 0-6 against Amherst, something entirely in character — albeit unlucky for Middlebury — of a streaky scorer. If you want to claim that had something to do with the way Amherst defended him go ahead, but then everyone should question your basketball knowledge.

As for your comments about Toomey and Kalema, I don't pretend to think that Kalema is more talented than Toomey or a better all-around basketball player. All I'm suggesting is that he is a better fit for this offense. While he may play with his head down when he drives (something Toomey does as well), Kalema appears far more prone to swinging the ball and playing within the offense than Toomey. That Toomey went to the bench for extended periods of time in both the Cabrini and the North Central games and the Amherst offense didn't suffer, supports this.

In the Cabrini game, Toomey picked up two fouls and went to the bench at the 8:20 mark with his team up 24-20. He sat for the rest of the half and with Kalema in the game, Amherst extended the lead to 44-30 over that period. The Lord Jeffs were on pace to score 70 points over the first 11:40 of the half that Toomey played and 94 points with the team that played for the final 8:20 of the half. In the North Central game, meanwhile, Toomey went to the bench with 9:19 to go. In the first 11:41 of the game with Toomey on the floor, Amherst had scored 12 points and Toomey was 1-5 from the floor. When he sat, the offense scored 17 points in a 9:19 span (I don't think I need to pro-rate the difference over a 40 minute game) and Amherst lead by 7 at the half vs. 3 when he left the game. When he subsequently returned for the start of the second half, Amherst went 9 minutes without scoring. Now I'm not putting that all on Toomey as North Central played great defense, and everybody on the team struggled, but the offense was far less successful over the course of the game when Toomey was in the game: 35 points in 31 minutes vs. 17 in 9 minutes without him. With Kalema on the floor, meanwhile, Amherst scored 46 points in his 28 minutes.

But again, because you seem to struggle to understand what I'm saying, I am not concluding that Kalema is a better player, just that when he is on the floor, it creates more opportunities for Workman and Williamson, who I think should be taking the lion's share of shots instead of Toomey. When Toomey isn't on the floor, Workman is also more aggressive going to the basket, and from what I've seen that's when he's most effective.

It's hard for me to understand how it's defensible that Toomey takes almost 100 shots more than Workman and over 100 shots more than Williamson when both are far better scorers. Kalema, for all his other problems, doesn't take nearly as many shots away from his teammates as Toomey does.

[lefrakenstein]

It's hard for me to understand how it's defensible that Toomey takes almost 100 shots more than Workman and over 100 shots more than Williamson when both are far better scorers. Kalema, for all his other problems, doesn't take nearly as many shots away from his teammates as Toomey does.

How do you figure that when Toomey scores more points per shot than either of them? You may not like Toomey's shot selection, but his shots still produce more points than anyone else's on Amherst. This is true despite the fact that Toomey is the guy every Amherst opponent game-plans to stop, and he's the guy who draws every team's best perimeter defender.

Also, there's no way Kalema is a better fit for Amherst's offense than Toomey. Anyone who has watched a significant number of Amherst's games this season knows that. You're taking a very small sample size -- 10-min stretches in two games-- to make a very sweeping conclusion. And it's a conclusion that completely fails the season-long eye test.  Your anti-Toomey vendetta is puzzling and tiresome.

Also, amh63 may be hostile to you because of responses, such as your last one, in which you completely talk down to posters who have proven they know a ton about basketball as if they're idiots. ( "you seem to struggle to understand what I'm saying"; "you should go back and read what I wrote originally, which you seem to have ignored") If you don't want people to be hostile to you, maybe don't be such a dick. (or dicks I guess) Just a suggestion.

Sorry for the semi-profanity, but 'jerk' didn't seem strong enough.

[Panthernation]

It's hard for me to understand how it's defensible that Toomey takes almost 100 shots more than Workman and over 100 shots more than Williamson when both are far better scorers. Kalema, for all his other problems, doesn't take nearly as many shots away from his teammates as Toomey does.

How do you figure that when Toomey scores more points per shot than either of them? You may not like Toomey's shot selection, but his shots still produce more points than anyone else's on Amherst. This is true despite the fact that Toomey is the guy very Amherst opponent game-plans to stop, and he's the guy who draws every team's best perimeter defender.

Also, there's no way Kalema is a better fit for Amherst's offense than Toomey. Anyone who has watched a significant number of Amherst's games this season knows that. You're taking a very small sample size -- 10-min stretches in two games-- to make a very sweeping conclusion. And it's a conclusion that completely fails the season-long eye test.  Your anti-Toomey vendetta is puzzling and tiresome.

Also, amh63 may be hostile to you because of responses, such as your last one, in which you completely talk down to posters who have proven they know a ton about basketball as if they're idiots. ( "you seem to struggle to understand what I'm saying"; "you should go back and read what I wrote originally, which you seem to have ignored") If you don't want people to be hostile to you, maybe don't be such a dick. (or dicks I guess) Just a suggestion.

Sorry for the semi-profanity, but 'jerk' didn't seem strong enough.

Lefrakenstein,

I'm sorry you feel that way. Wasn't trying to upset you or amh63. My harsh tone for amh63 came out of frustration for how quickly he dismissed something he didn't understand. Had he read our post and considered it rather than laughing at it much of this discussion would be unnecessary. He then asked that we provide analysis for our statement, which we had already done. I feel as though my frustration was justified.

Returning to your point, yes it's a small sample size, I'll go back further and see if it holds. Again, I'm suggesting we think about this.

And much of the reason that Toomey scores more points per shot than workman is because he has the ball in his hands so much more. Toomey averages 1.5 points per shot, Workman 1.44. If workman played on the ball more and Toomey off the ball, Workman would make more free throws and Toomey less, which accounts for the difference. It's hard to make the case that Toomey is a better scorer simply because he has more opportunities to score.

[frank uible]

I can fit more angels on the head of my pin than you can on yours!

[lefrakenstein]

It's hard for me to understand how it's defensible that Toomey takes almost 100 shots more than Workman and over 100 shots more than Williamson when both are far better scorers. Kalema, for all his other problems, doesn't take nearly as many shots away from his teammates as Toomey does.

How do you figure that when Toomey scores more points per shot than either of them? You may not like Toomey's shot selection, but his shots still produce more points than anyone else's on Amherst. This is true despite the fact that Toomey is the guy very Amherst opponent game-plans to stop, and he's the guy who draws every team's best perimeter defender.

Also, there's no way Kalema is a better fit for Amherst's offense than Toomey. Anyone who has watched a significant number of Amherst's games this season knows that. You're taking a very small sample size -- 10-min stretches in two games-- to make a very sweeping conclusion. And it's a conclusion that completely fails the season-long eye test.  Your anti-Toomey vendetta is puzzling and tiresome.

Also, amh63 may be hostile to you because of responses, such as your last one, in which you completely talk down to posters who have proven they know a ton about basketball as if they're idiots. ( "you seem to struggle to understand what I'm saying"; "you should go back and read what I wrote originally, which you seem to have ignored") If you don't want people to be hostile to you, maybe don't be such a dick. (or dicks I guess) Just a suggestion.

Sorry for the semi-profanity, but 'jerk' didn't seem strong enough.

Lefrakenstein,

I'm sorry you feel that way. Wasn't trying to upset you or amh63. My harsh tone for amh63 came out of frustration for how quickly he dismissed something he didn't understand. Had he read our post and considered it rather than laughing at it much of this discussion would be unnecessary. He then asked that we provide analysis for our statement, which we had already done. I feel as though my frustration was justified.

Returning to your point, yes it's a small sample size, I'll go back further and see if it holds. Again, I'm suggesting we think about this.

And much of the reason that Toomey scores more points per shot than workman is because he has the ball in his hands so much more. Toomey averages 1.5 points per shot, Workman 1.44. If workman played on the ball more and Toomey off the ball, Workman would make more free throws and Toomey less, which accounts for the difference. It's hard to make the case that Toomey is a better scorer simply because he has more opportunities to score.

It's also pretty well-established though that scoring efficiency tends to decrease as shooting volume increases. So if Williamson and Workman shot more they might be less efficient. It might be close, but it's hard to show that Williamson and Workman are 'far better' scorers than Toomey.

Agree though (and Hoopsville covered this) that there are times when Toomey tries to carry the whole team on his back when it's detrimental for him to do so. He seems to have come a long way in recognizing that though, and as a fan, it's tough not to love his willingness to be the guy who wins or loses the game.