MBB: NESCAC

[nescac1]

Remember, the Pool C field is determined nationally, and there are not a ton of second or third place teams this year with terribly strong credentials, everyone keeps losing.  Unless there are a TON of upsets in conference tourneys, I'd be stunned if Amherst didn't make it, especially when Brandeis made it in last year despite a much worse record in what likely will end up as a more competitive Pool C group ... I think it will all be moot after Saturday, anyway.

[7express]

Walzy, I can't imagine that Amherst would drop below Western Conn., even with a loss to Bates, and WPI is definitely going to drop with their most recent loss. Becker will likely win its conference, Western Connecticut likely won't get in if they don't win their conference (that'd be five losses), and I think 2-3 Pool C bids is a reasonable assumption. There's a chance they won't get in - but I think it's a low one.

I think West Conn's in good shape should we win Saturday, then win our game in the LEC semi's next Friday night.  Should West Conn get the #2 seed in the LEC which seems likely, and plays Eastern again in the semi's, I think the winner of that still has a chance at a pool C, but Western would have a lot better opportunity then Eastern would.  I think Western's the only chance for the LEC to grab 2 bids, as long as we get to the LEC finals.  Even though RIC is 7th in the East, their a terrible road team (5 of 7 losses are road losses including to 10-14 Southern Maine, and 11-13 Colby) so they might be on the fringe if they don't win the auto bid.  Eastern Conn is 11th in the East, but is 0-4 against the top 2 in the LEC, they'll probably have to win the auto bid to get in.

[grabtherim]

This statistical talk for the most part is much ado about nothing.  You guys cite it and then comment on it as though it is sacrosanct.  What a crock.  Put ten coaches in a gym watching kids play and they don't need any of this stuff you guys comment on endlessly.  Show me a player who wants the ball and is not in the need of new shorts down the stretch of a two point game, and I want him versus the a kid with the highest PER or whatever else you cite.  Many years ago, Al McGuire was infamous for going to gyms to see a kid his assistants had told him they were recruiting.  He invariably would forget the player's name and even the team he played for.  He would go back to Marquette, and tell his assistants to get me #35 from the home team.  In many cases, it was not even the kid he was there to see.  Of course talent trumps all, but instincts, guts and the willingness to lay it on the line in a tight game not part of this ridiculous discussion of PERs or whatever other mumbo jumbo you cite.  Watch games, watch players, look in a kid's eyes.  The old fashioned way is the only way to pick winners.

[Colby Hoops]

This statistical talk for the most part is much ado about nothing.  You guys cite it and then comment on it as though it is sacrosanct.  What a crock.  Put ten coaches in a gym watching kids play and they don't need any of this stuff you guys comment on endlessly.  Show me a player who wants the ball and is not in the need of new shorts down the stretch of a two point game, and I want him versus the a kid with the highest PER or whatever else you cite.  Many years ago, Al McGuire was infamous for going to gyms to see a kid his assistants had told him they were recruiting.  He invariably would forget the player's name and even the team he played for.  He would go back to Marquette, and tell his assistants to get me #35 from the home team.  In many cases, it was not even the kid he was there to see.  Of course talent trumps all, but instincts, guts and the willingness to lay it on the line in a tight game not part of this ridiculous discussion of PERs or whatever other mumbo jumbo you cite.  Watch games, watch players, look in a kid's eyes.  The old fashioned way is the only way to pick winners.

Yeah let's totally disregard statistics or any method that may actually be able to quantify a players value.  Lets just go with gut reactions and make our decisions without any actual analysis.  That's definitely how to make the best decisions.  That guy made a really lucky shot at the end of the game the one time I saw him, so he must be the best player.

[grabtherim]

Not sure if you are capable of understanding an adult argument without acting the fool and giving a qucik kneejerk reaction.  "For the most part" means just that.  Stats have their place, but are only a part of a informed analysis of an athlete.  Your immediate reaction is akin to the little kid who takes his ball home when things dont go his way.  After I posted this, I found this.  Sort of says what I did albeit in a clearer way that I hope you can grasp.  Remember before you shoot back a comment, take a few deep breaths. 

  Problems With PERPER largely measures offensive performance. Hollinger freely admits that two of the defensive statistics it incorporates -- blocks and steals -- can produce a distorted picture of a player's value and that PER is not a reliable measure of a player's defensive acumen. For example, Bruce Bowen, widely regarded as one of the best defenders in the NBA (at least through the 2006-07 season), has routinely posted single-digit PERs.

"Bear in mind that this rating is not the final, once-and-for-all answer for a player's accomplishments during the season. This is especially true for players such as Bruce Bowen and Trenton Hassell who are defensive specialists but don't get many blocks or steals."

Neither PER nor per-game statistics take into account such intangible elements as competitive drive, leadership, durability, conditioning, hustle, or WIM (wanting it more), largely because there is no real way to quantitatively measure these things.

In addition, some have argued that PER gives undue weight to a player's contribution in limited minutes, or against a team's second unit, and it undervalues players who have enough diversity in their game to play starter's minutes.

Lastly, PER rewards inefficient shooting. To quote Dave Berri, the author of The Wages of Wins:

"Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA player does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots."

[ediProblems with PER ProjectionsThe projections are built by looking at comparable players at the same age and how their stats changed in the following season. For players in most age brackets, this is extremely reliable, but there have been so few players to turn pro out of high school in the past two decades that there is a very small sample to work with. While some players who have come out of high school have shown a lot of promise in their future years, many have floundered and never quite reached their full potential.

[grabtherim]

Do you think Bobby Knight needed PER to judge a player?  How about Phil Jackson or the late Red Auerbach?  Larry Bird willed a nearly out of the league Dennis Johnson to a level no one thought he would ever reach again.  For what Bird did for their games, Kevin McHale and Robert Parrish should name their children after him.  Where is the PER number for that?  In a big game, do you want Bill Russell or Dwight Howard?  Tell me you need statistics, PER or whatever else to make that decision. 

[Colby Hoops]

First off, my last post was mostly in jest.  Second off, I'm the one who has been pointing out that PER is a pretty poor stat especially when used for the NESCAC given that assists are far harder to come by than rebounds.

Lastly, your original post was clearly not arguing against the inefficiencies of PER, but rather calling it "mumbo jumbo" and deeming it a "ridiculous discussion."  I'm completely on board that using PER as a sole means of determining a player's value is ridiculous, but its also equally absurd to dismiss it, as you had seemingly done in you're original post.  While statistical analysis in terms of basketball is crude compared to baseball, it certainly has its merits. I am also in agreement that PER only captures a portion of the picture as Hollinger will readily admit. The part of your post that bothers me is that your seemed to indicate that we should throw out all the statistical analysis and simply base our judgements on how a player is able to perform at the end of a game.  I'm pretty sure that we can agree that doing that is equally as inefficient as simply using PER.

As for your references to Bird, Auerbach and the like.  It seems that you are saying because people were successful without using advanced statistics that we shouldn't be willing to use them.  It's certainly possible to be right without using advanced statistics, but wouldn't you want to look at all possible information before making an informed decision? 

Did I take enough "deep breaths" before that post?

[grabtherim]

I didn't and upon review do not see the "in jest" you cite, but that's OK.  We seem to be somewhat in agreement.  I just can't stand seeing kids measured by and commented on using stuff like PER.  Now that you and I have found common ground, maybe we can settle those pesky little problems in the Mideast. 

[booyakasha]

In a big game, do you want Bill Russell or Dwight Howard? 

This may be a totally different debate, but in an effor to piss off the old folks, I'm confident that Russell would be eaten alive by Howard. Too big/strong/fast, different era.

I'll leave it to ColbyHoops to continue to point out the massive flaws in your logic grabtherim.

[Major Hoople]

Hey Booyakasha, are you old enough to have seen Russell play against Wilt Chamberlin?  Wilt was more physically imposing than Howard and you should check his PER.  Stats have their place, but heart, desire and real talent cannot be statistically measured.

[Bucket]

Very nice local tv piece on Middlebury's Andrew Locke:

http://www.fox44now.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?vt1=v&clipFormat=flv&clipId1=5578251&at1=Sport&h1=Locke%20Leads%20Middlebury%27s%20Defense&flvUri=&partnerclipid=&rnd=70878146

[walzy31]

Bucket,

Great clip on Locke. Seems like a good kid in addition to being a dominant inside presence in the NESCAC.
I'll pretend those highlights weren't all against Amherst...

Interesting the newscaster said Locke would not be playing in the Quarterfinal match up and that he expects to return for the Semis/Finals weekend should Middlebury advance.

[walzy31]

The All-Crazy Team is complete. A Camel took the last slot.

[Bucket]

After seeing him lying on the court in obvious pain the other night, having him back for the NESCAC semis/finals   (should the Panthers advance) and/or for the NCAA tournament would be a blessing both for him and for the team. So glad to hear that the injury apparently wasn't as severe as it could have been.

[amh63]

First comment.......Lefrakenstein.....see what you started with the "Per" posts!  Should take away your "calculator".  I believe many of the posters..including myself is stating that don't be caught in the "spell" of number crunching without knowing what they..the numbers... are not telling you.
Second comment....maybe Coach Hixon should try harder to play RIC away after the Bates game.   I feel that Becker and WPI will drop after their recent losses.......still a possible win over RIC can help in this crazy year where SOS used in Div 1 is applied to Div 3.  Anyway,  Walzy, if we should meet in a NCAA post season Amherst game, the drinks are on me.  
Third comment... in this chatter about next year...Amherst has a very promising front court player for the 5 position.  He played in a few games last season and is at least 6'7" and very long.  He missed this season due to an ACL injury.  I guess its "out of sight, out of mind".