MBB: NESCAC

[lefrakenstein]

Aaron Toomey named national Player of the Year:

http://www.nabc.org/awards/2013_NABC_Division_III_POY.pdf

PN, per your tweet: "Toomey: 17.4 ppg, 4.9 apg, 4.7 rpg, 1.4 spg, 44/43/90. DiBartolemeo: 22.6 ppg, 5.3 apg, 5.7 rpg, 2.0 spg, 46/46/91. NABC is a joke." I think you have to at least somewhat acknowledge that DB and his team just collapsed down the stretch. Rochester lost 4 of their last 6 games. In those loses Johnny D was 14-57 or under 25% from the field.  That includes an 0-8 showing in the Ithaca game. You can talk about Toomey not shooting as well in close games and loses but.... yikes, that takes it to another level. I think it's fair to question DiBarolemeo's POY candidacy given those numbers. Pat has explained elsewhere that, for instance, Raridon was higher on the regional teams than Gamble and Gamble higher on the national all-america teams than Raridon b/c the d3hoops crew thought that Gamble out-performed Raridon in the tournament.

And I know you guys would never agree with this, but I would say that Toomey is the obvious next choice, especially given some huge games in the tournament. His tourney averages: 19.3 ppg, 47% shooting, 5.5 rpg, 4 apg, 1.25 steals/game. Oh yeah, and his team hasn't lost since Dec. 6th.

14-57 in four of six select games takes it to another level? In four of six select games during the exact same stretch of the season Toomey went 17-63. A stark contrast! Really makes up for JD's +5.2 ppg,+ 0.4 apg, +1.0 rpg, +0.6 spg, +2/+3/+1 shooting.

Did you forget that you spent the better part of last week discussing Toomey's performance in select games (close games and losses), or are you just explicitly acknowledging that you completely reject arguments that you often use yourself when they suit your purposes?

Not to mention the highly-touted "happens to have better players around him" (or "his team wins") metric for determining a player's value, which cements your case.

Also, is this cementing your, Toomey should get 100%, or at least close to it, of the blame for losses, but nearly 0% of the credit for his team's wins line of argument?

It is impressive that the fact that literally no one agrees with your general assessment of Toomey gives you 0 pause. Maybe your argument is just so brilliant that no else can appreciate it. Or in the immortal words of Spinal Tap, "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."

[frank uible]

Answer: That is what bunko artists, used car salesmen, lawyers and, most of all, politicians do all the time.

[Panthernation]

Did you forget that you spent the better part of last week discussing Toomey's performance in select games (close games and losses), or are you just explicitly acknowledging that you completely reject arguments that you often use yourself when they suit your purposes?

The select games argument was never rejected. Actually I just took your argument (let's choose 4 of 6 games in one stretch of the season), and did the exact same thing, in the exact same stretch of the season, for Toomey, showing that the 14-57 was hardly a justifiable distinguishing factor, given Toomey's 17-63.

[Panthernation]

Also, is this cementing your, Toomey should get 100%, or at least close to it, of the blame for losses, but nearly 0% of the credit for his team's wins line of argument?

While the % of credit phraseology is a mischaracterization, the same argument wouldn't apply to JD because of style of play and surrounding talent variables, as made clear in the earlier argument to which you are referring. 

[lefrakenstein]

Did you forget that you spent the better part of last week discussing Toomey's performance in select games (close games and losses), or are you just explicitly acknowledging that you completely reject arguments that you often use yourself when they suit your purposes?

The select games argument was never rejected. Actually I just took your argument (let's choose 4 of 6 games in one stretch of the season), and did the exact same thing, in the exact same stretch of the season, for Toomey, showing that the 14-57 was hardly a justifiable distinguishing factor, given Toomey's 17-63.

And do you think that if I took Kizell's entire season, not paying attention to losses and close games, I couldn't find a set of Kizell games that matched Toomey's poor shooting in close games and losses? I think I could. The point is, you used close games and losses as a metric to select which games to look at, the same way I used 'losses' as a metric to select which games to look at.

By the way, if you also use 'playoffs' (conference or tournament or both) as a metric to select which games to look at, Toomey also easily out-performs JDB.

[Panthernation]

Did you forget that you spent the better part of last week discussing Toomey's performance in select games (close games and losses), or are you just explicitly acknowledging that you completely reject arguments that you often use yourself when they suit your purposes?

The select games argument was never rejected. Actually I just took your argument (let's choose 4 of 6 games in one stretch of the season), and did the exact same thing, in the exact same stretch of the season, for Toomey, showing that the 14-57 was hardly a justifiable distinguishing factor, given Toomey's 17-63.

And do you think that if I took Kizell's entire season, not paying attention to losses and close games, I couldn't find a set of Kizell games that matched Toomey's poor shooting in close games and losses? I think I could. The point is, you used close games and losses as a metric to select which games to look at, the same way I used 'losses' as a metric to select which games to look at.

What is this a counterargument to?

[lefrakenstein]

Also, is this cementing your, Toomey should get 100%, or at least close to it, of the blame for losses, but nearly 0% of the credit for his team's wins line of argument?

While the % of credit phraseology is a mischaracterization, the same argument wouldn't apply to JD because of style of play and surrounding talent variables, as made clear in the earlier argument to which you are referencing.

It may be an exaggeration, but it is not a mischaracterization.

On the Toomey deserves most of the blame for losses and little credit for close wins side: You made a whole big argument about the fact that Toomey hasn't shot as well as in close wins and losses, essentially implying that Toomey is primarily to blame when his team loses (and should get little credit in close wins). Without going through all your posts, you have either explicitly said this, or come close to it. Can we at least agree on that?

On the Toomey should get little credit for big wins side: You've argued that Toomey's points in big wins don't increase his team's chances by a very large amount. To demonstrate this you used a flawed poker analogy, comparing Toomey's teammates' points to a flop and turn that take the game from a theoretical 50/50% chance of winning, to say, a 95% chance of winning (don't remember the exact numbers you used). You compared Toomey's points to a river that merely cements an already near-certain win, maybe only contributing 5% to the certainty of victory. The reason this analogy is flawed is obvious - the turn and flop always come before the river. Toomey's points do not always come after his teammates have nearly locked the game up. Becasue his points are intermingled with his teammates', they have the same marginal effect on the team's likelihood of winning as any of his teammates' points.

[lefrakenstein]

Did you forget that you spent the better part of last week discussing Toomey's performance in select games (close games and losses), or are you just explicitly acknowledging that you completely reject arguments that you often use yourself when they suit your purposes?

The select games argument was never rejected. Actually I just took your argument (let's choose 4 of 6 games in one stretch of the season), and did the exact same thing, in the exact same stretch of the season, for Toomey, showing that the 14-57 was hardly a justifiable distinguishing factor, given Toomey's 17-63.

And do you think that if I took Kizell's entire season, not paying attention to losses and close games, I couldn't find a set of Kizell games that matched Toomey's poor shooting in close games and losses? I think I could. The point is, you used close games and losses as a metric to select which games to look at, the same way I used 'losses' as a metric to select which games to look at.

What is this a counterargument to?

You don't see the parallel?

I argued for Toomey over JBD using 4 losses in certain stretch. You selected 4 games, not losses, in the same stretch, in which Toomey shot just as badly, to counter my argument.

You argue for Kizel over Toomey using Toomey's stats from close games and losses (I'm not sure how many games that was, but lets say it was 10). If I wanted to, I could find 10 games, not close games or losses, in the same stretch, in which Kizel shot just as badly.

These are exact analogies. So you either have to a) accept that you're rejecting my argument despite it being exactly the same sort of argument you made for Kizel, or b) acknowledge that your earlier Kizel argument was flawed.

[Panthernation]

It is impressive that the fact that literally no one agrees with your general assessment of Toomey gives you 0 pause. Maybe your argument is just so brilliant that no else can appreciate it. Or in the immortal words of Spinal Tap, "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."

Lefrakenstein,

Lack of explicit agreement and lack of agreement are different things. No one has stated their agreement with us in writing. That doesn't mean that "literally no one agrees" with us. If you somehow knew that literally no one agreed with us (and could prove it) that would be quite impressive. Further, I think there is some proof that quite a few people do agree with our general assessment that Toomey was not the right pick for this award, as many on this board didn't think he should win the NESCAC Player of the Year Award, nescac1 going so far as to call Toomey a "straw man" when we argued against his candidacy.

Also, you are introducing a straw man by bringing Toomey into it, at least as regards my argument.  My argument was that Workman should win. 

At that point no one on this board was making a strong case (or really any case at all) that Toomey should win NESCAC Player of the Year and we voiced our surprised that no one was making the case for him. Does that mean that no one thought he should win, and, subsequently, that no one then agreed with your general assessment of Toomey? Hardly.

Also, you continue to blatantly ignore our admission that we could be wrong, as we have stated multiple times. Here, for example:

And of course, this could be an example of sampling bias. We're open to the fact that we might be wrong. Few, however, are open to the fact that we might be right, which is why we are constantly on the defense. With the exception of a few analytical posts, most members of the board attack us for the very suggestion that this is worth talking about.

Or here:

Contrary to what some believe, we do not blindingly support/argue our case irrespective of changing variables and situations. On our radio show midway through the season when Kizel was struggling and Toomey was on a tear, we agreed that at that time we'd rather have Toomey in a late game scenario than Kizel, which was contrary to everything we thought previously and, as you can tell, since.

We often reflect back on previous arguments and assess their current validity and have demonstrated so. It takes a selective reading of what we write to miss that.

[lefrakenstein]

Did you forget that you spent the better part of last week discussing Toomey's performance in select games (close games and losses), or are you just explicitly acknowledging that you completely reject arguments that you often use yourself when they suit your purposes?

The select games argument was never rejected. Actually I just took your argument (let's choose 4 of 6 games in one stretch of the season), and did the exact same thing, in the exact same stretch of the season, for Toomey, showing that the 14-57 was hardly a justifiable distinguishing factor, given Toomey's 17-63.

Also, you did not do the same thing. I chose 'games in which the player in question's team lost' not, 'the 4 worst shooting games out of 6'.

[Panthernation]

I argued for Toomey over JBD using 4 losses in certain stretch. You selected 4 games, not losses, in the same stretch, in which Toomey shot just as badly, to counter my argument.

You argue for Kizel over Toomey using stats from close games and losses (I'm not sure how many games that was, but lets say it was 10). If I wanted to, I could find 10 games, not close games or losses, in the same stretch, in which Kizel shot just as badly.

These are exact analogies. So you either have to a) accept that you're rejecting my argument despite it being exactly the same sort of argument you made for Kizel, or b) acknowledge that your earlier Kizel argument was flawed.

So you are saying it was illegitimate to take 4 of 6 games in the same stretch you took 4 of 6 games and show Toomey's stats? I never said it made your argument wrong, just that it showed what a flimsy basis it was. Also where has our argument been that Kizel is better than Toomey, ever? They were both on our first team. We said only four players deserved consideration for conference player of the year, including Toomey, and not including Kizel. So you are making a false analogy. In order to make the analogy complete, you would need to say that you were only arguing that Toomey was better than JD in select losses in a select point of the season, just like we argued that Kizel was better than Toomey in a select type of game (a close one), and that your argument was not that Toomey deserved POY. If that is your argument, then I would not reject it, and "a)" and "b)" are both avoided.

[lefrakenstein]

It is impressive that the fact that literally no one agrees with your general assessment of Toomey gives you 0 pause. Maybe your argument is just so brilliant that no else can appreciate it. Or in the immortal words of Spinal Tap, "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."

Lefrakenstein,

Lack of explicit agreement and lack of agreement are different things. No one has stated their agreement with us in writing. That doesn't mean that "literally no one agrees" with us. If you somehow knew that literally no one agreed with us (and could prove it) that would be quite impressive. Further, I think there is some proof that quite a few people do agree with our general assessment that Toomey was not the right pick for this award, as many on this board didn't think he should win the NESCAC Player of the Year Award, nescac1 going so far as to call Toomey a "straw man" when we argued against his candidacy.

Also, you are introducing a straw man by bringing Toomey into it, at least as regards my argument.  My argument was that Workman should win. 

At that point no one on this board was making a strong case (or really any case at all) that Toomey should win NESCAC Player of the Year and we voiced our surprised that no one was making the case for him. Does that mean that no one thought he should win, and, subsequently, that no one then agreed with your general assessment of Toomey? Hardly.

Also, you continue to blatantly ignore our admission that we could be wrong, as we have stated multiple times. Here, for example:

And of course, this could be an example of sampling bias. We're open to the fact that we might be wrong. Few, however, are open to the fact that we might be right, which is why we are constantly on the defense. With the exception of a few analytical posts, most members of the board attack us for the very suggestion that this is worth talking about.

Or here:

Contrary to what some believe, we do not blindingly support/argue our case irrespective of changing variables and situations. On our radio show midway through the season when Kizel was struggling and Toomey was on a tear, we agreed that at that time we'd rather have Toomey in a late game scenario than Kizel, which was contrary to everything we thought previously and, as you can tell, since.

We often reflect back on previous arguments and assess their current validity and have demonstrated so. It takes a selective reading of what we write to miss that.

I said, your 'general assessment of Toomey', which seems to consistently be that he is not an elite, first-team all-american level player. Am I wrong on that point?

You're right about the explicit agreement part, but everyone who actually decides these things has disagreed with you, no one has said that they explicitly agree with you (taking Workman over Toomey doesn't suggest that Toomey is not all-american, and I hope you understand that calling Toomey a 'strawman' was attacking your arguing techniques, and not Toomey), and many people on the board have explicitly disagreed with you. The tally starts to add up.

[Pat Coleman]

Aaron Toomey named national Player of the Year:

http://www.nabc.org/awards/2013_NABC_Division_III_POY.pdf

PN, per your tweet: "Toomey: 17.4 ppg, 4.9 apg, 4.7 rpg, 1.4 spg, 44/43/90. DiBartolemeo: 22.6 ppg, 5.3 apg, 5.7 rpg, 2.0 spg, 46/46/91. NABC is a joke." I think you have to at least somewhat acknowledge that DB and his team just collapsed down the stretch. Rochester lost 4 of their last 6 games. In those loses Johnny D was 14-57 or under 25% from the field.  That includes an 0-8 showing in the Ithaca game. You can talk about Toomey not shooting as well in close games and loses but.... yikes, that takes it to another level. I think it's fair to question DiBarolemeo's POY candidacy given those numbers. Pat has explained elsewhere that, for instance, Raridon was higher on the regional teams than Gamble and Gamble higher on the national all-america teams than Raridon b/c the d3hoops crew thought that Gamble out-performed Raridon in the tournament.

And I know you guys would never agree with this, but I would say that Toomey is the obvious next choice, especially given some huge games in the tournament. His tourney averages: 19.3 ppg, 47% shooting, 5.5 rpg, 4 apg, 1.25 steals/game. Oh yeah, and his team hasn't lost since Dec. 6th.

Pat - can you comment? Was Toomey involved in the d3hoops.com POY discussion? Would you say Toomey was in "second place", or were there others between DiBartolemeo and Toomey?

We don't usually comment on who might have been in second place ... but yes, those were really the only two we seriously considered (all apologies to Colton Hunt).

[lefrakenstein]

So you are saying it was illegitimate to take 4 of 6 games in the same stretch you took 4 of 6 games and show Toomey's stats? I never said it made your argument wrong, just that it showed what a flimsy basis it was. Also where has our argument been that Kizel is better than Toomey, ever?

Errr... I could have sworn you said that on twitter, but upon further review, I was wrong. That is a valid distinction between the arguments. You win this round PantherNation!!!

I still think both a) Toomey's play was better down the stretch and b) that should matter. 

[Panthernation]

I said, your 'general assessment of Toomey', which seems to consistently be that he is not an elite, first-team all-american level player. Am I wrong on that point?

You're right about the explicit agreement part, but everyone who actually decides these things has disagreed with you, no one has said that they explicitly agree with you (taking Workman over Toomey doesn't suggest that Toomey is not all-american, and I hope you understand that calling Toomey a 'strawman' was attacking your arguing techniques, and not Toomey), and many people on the board have explicitly disagreed with you. The tally starts to add up.

You're right that our general assessment of Toomey is that his performance this season was not deserving of a first-team all-american selection. You are wrong that "everyone who decides these things has disagreed with you" because again, people make decisions without explicitly writing their agreement or disagreement. There are many reasons why people may not express their opinion one way or the other (most often because they are sick of our argument as someone will surely soon say).

And finally, you are correct that many people have explicitly disagreed with us. That is a strange way of determining correctness as you seem to be suggesting. Imagine if we had made an argument last year that Nolan Thompson was the best defender in the NESCAC, as we believed. Wouldn't there have been a number of people who explicitly disagreed with us then too? But if you would prefer to simply tally agreements or disagreements as a measure of an argument, by all means go ahead.