MBB: NESCAC

[nescac1]

Middhoops, amen and amen to your "enough already" comment.  At a certain point, it seems like folks are being contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian.  Every player has holes in his game, but Toomey will end up being a three time all-American and possibly a two-time NESCAC POY for a reason, and it's not because coaches are stupid. 

[iwumichigander]

One final thought on this topic.  Even let's assume that I buy in to the "Midd" theory that there are two Vince Kmiecs: one who, regardless of his opposition, wakes up one morning and can't miss all day and one who wakes up and can't buy a jumper. I am honestly curious to hear from Midd posters about how Midd decided to defend Kmiec once it was clear (midway thru the first half perhaps) that they had the misfortune of having "good" Vince on their hands.  To my (admittedly untrained) eye, Middlebury did not defend Kmiec any differently throughout the course of the game, even as he was torching them for 31 points.  Now, surely they must have made some adjustment, but I would like to know what it was.  I know they never switched Thompson on him, and I am curious why not or if Midd posters think this was a mistake.  By all appearances, Kmiec fits the profile of being in Thompson's wheelhouse defensively.  Obviously, I understand that putting Thompson on Kmiec would mean taking him off the All-American Raridon, but it was clear fairly early in the game that Kmiec was the one playing like an All-American. Is there something else I am missing as to why Kmiec couldn't get the Thompson treatment?

Briefly, to answer your question about Kmiec. Middlebury had Kizel on Kmiec in the first half and Wolfin in the second half. In his post-game press conference after the game, Jeff Brown specifically addressed Kmiec's performance. This is what he said: "Kmiec had a tremendous game. We were so concerned about Raridon and Gamble that maybe we lost some focus defensively."

I think the main reason why coach Brown didn't switch Thompson onto Kmiec was because he felt Kmiec's first-half performance was unsustainable in the second half. That's a guess on my part, but given what Kmiec did against Amherst (and I can promise you the defensive look wasn't much different, and even when left open, Kmiec still missed good looks) he wasn't too far off. It's really hard to move your best defensive player who's shutting down an All-American and have him guard a guy scoring 11 points per game who shoots 44% from the floor and 31% from beyond the arc. In some ways Middlebury challenged Vince Kmiec to beat them, and that's exactly what he did (obviously with help).

Kmiec averaged 10.8 PPG over 32 games this season.  In short, Kmiec had a 'career night' against Middlebury. 
The offensive production for North Central this season primarily came from Raridon (14.0), Gamble (14.5 PPG), and Kmiec (10.8 PPG).  Their offense goes through Raridon who does so many little things that do not always show up in a stat sheet.  IMHO, any CCIW team would have game planned exactly the way Coach Brown did.

[lefrakenstein]

While Toomey helps the Lord Jeffs win big in many cases, he has also been a primary cause for some of their losses and many of their close games.

Just as Kobe, Lebron, and Durant are the primary causes for their teams losses.

Or Nolan Thompson. The league's runner up in true shooting % and PN's choice for POY has shot just 27-77 or 35% in Midd's losses over the past two years. Also, Toomey's raw fg% numbers, even when bad, are somewhat mitigated by the fact that he gets to the line a ton. Twice as much as Thompson. Middlebury is 4-6 (.400) over the past two years when Thompson takes 7+ shots and shoots under 40% for the game. Middlebury is 47-2 (.959) when he doesn't. Does that mean that Thompson's poor shooting is the primary reason Midd loses? I don't think so.

Also, are you actually arguing that Amherst's scoring leader, assists leader and PER leader only saved Amherst one loss this season? That seams... incorrect. For starters, didn't he hit a big game-winning shot at some point during the year, not the RIC game? hmm... trying to remember which game that was....Could you help me remember PantherNation: against which team did Toomey bury a dagger three on the road right at the end of a third overtime? Can't remember for the life of me.


Also, you mentioned that Amherst might win more if Toomey were replaced by Kalema or a replacement player during one of his bad nights. In NESCAC play this year, the PER of a replacement player was almost exactly at 10.0. It's worth noting that Toomey's PER was the 4th highest in the league, and his estimated wins added over a replacement player was 2.87, second highest in the league behind Mayer. Kalema's PER was 9.59, below that of a replacement player. I guess it's possible that Hixon could guess, ahead of time, when Toomey was going to play very poorly by Toomey's standards and Kalema was going to play very well by Kalema's standards, and for those minutes, play Kalema ahead of Toomey, and thereby improve the team's estimated wins. But that would be one heck of a feat.

In fairness to Kalema, like Williamson, he has been on fire throughout the playoffs. He's also done well keeping his per minute TOs down, which is the main factor that killed his PER during the NESCAC season.

[lefrakenstein]

Put simply, when Toomey plays well, the game is usually a blowout or close to it, and his performance has less of an impact on the team's chances of winning.

Let's just look at this sentence. You don't think turning a game into a blowout has a big impact on a team's chances of winning?

[Panthernation]

While Toomey helps the Lord Jeffs win big in many cases, he has also been a primary cause for some of their losses and many of their close games.

Just as Kobe, Lebron, and Durant are the primary causes for their teams losses.

Or Nolan Thompson. The league's runner up in true shooting % and PN's choice for POY has shot just 27-77 or 35% in Midd's losses over the past two years. Also, Toomey's raw fg% numbers, even when bad, are somewhat mitigated by the fact that he gets to the line a ton. Twice as much as Thompson. Middlebury is 4-6 (.400) over the past two years when Thompson takes 7+ shots and shoots under 40% for the game. Middlebury is 47-2 (.959) when he doesn't. Does that mean that Thompson's poor shooting is the primary reason Midd loses? I don't think so.

Also, are you actually arguing that Amherst's scoring leader, assists leader and PER leader only contributed to one of Amherst's wins this season? That seams... incorrect. For starters, didn't he hit a big game-winning shot at some point during the year, not the RIC game? hmm... trying to remember which game that was....Could you help me remember PantherNation: against which team did Toomey bury a dagger three on the road right at the end of a third overtime? Can't remember for the life of me.


Also, you mentioned that Amherst might win more if Toomey were replaced by Kalema or a replacement player during one of his bad nights. In NESCAC play this year, the PER of a replacement player was almost exactly at 10.0. It's worth noting that Toomey's PER was the 4th highest in the league, and his estimated wins added over a replacement player was 2.87, second highest in the league behind Mayer. Kalema's PER was 9.59, below that of a replacement player. I guess it's possible that Hixon could guess, ahead of time, when Toomey was going to play very poorly by Toomey's standards and Kalema was going to play very well by Kalema's standards, and for those minutes, play Kalema ahead of Toomey, and thereby improve the team's estimated wins. But that would be one heck of a feat.

In fairness to Kalema, like Williamson, he has been on fire throughout the playoffs. He's also done well keeping his per minute TOs down, which is the main factor that killed his PER during the NESCAC season.

Lefrakenstein,

Yes Aaron Toomey hit a big three to win the game against Middlebury. He also was a big reason why the game came down to his play at the end. He was 4-23 before he took that shot. Do you think if some of those 19 shots he missed before making that shot had gone to other teammates that Amherst would have needed triple overtime to win that game? Hard to say that Workman, Williamson or Kaasila who combined to shoot 29-46 in the game wouldn't have been better options, particularly since Toomey wasn't getting to the free throw line (he attempted 7 free throws — 1 from an intentional foul — and made 4 of them in a 3OT game). This is precisely the game we are talking about. Toomey's play was a huge reason why they need three overtimes to win the game. And, sure, you can talk about a huge three-point shot to win the game (on his third game-winning attempt) but it only happens because Willy Workman makes the play of the season. Come on, you really think Toomey contributed more to that win than he he detracted from it?

Regarding PER, yes of course Toomey has very good stats. We're not arguing that he isn't a very good player. There are plenty of scenarios (Bill Simmons calls this it the Ewing Theory) when great players leave teams and those teams either get better or don't see much of a drop-off. Look at what the Celtics have done in the absence of Rajon Rondo, for example. No one doubts that Rondo is one of the five best players at his position, but his team played better without him because Rondo overdribbled and took playing time away or shots from capable players. There aren't many people who think that Avery Bradley is a better player than Rondo, and he doesn't have a higher PER, but he is a better fit for that team, as we believe Kalema is for this team.

With regard to coach Hixon (f assuming we're right that Kalema would make Amherst better than Toomey, for the sake of argument), do we think it's a reflection on his coaching ability that he plays Toomey over Kalema? Of course not. To do so would defy convention, even if the numbers seemed to point that way. It is far easier, and more defensible to play the lineups that on the surface should be most effective and very few coaches would be willing to risk playing Kalema over Toomey, particularly when they will most likely win either way. Analysts and bloggers question lineups and their impact often (here for example: http://www.welcometoloudcity.com/2011/5/14/2171042/nba-playbook-kendrick-perkins-hurting-the-thunder-in-the-crunch). Such analysis is not meant to be an insult to the coaches or players, but rather a discussion about how a team might improve.

Of course it is far easier to suggest that Kalema should play over Toomey on this board, where we can deal in theory and not have to face nearly the degree of backlash of players, parents, fans, etc. that coach Hixon would if he made the switch. For that reason, and others, we don't hold it against coach Hixon for not making what we think would be a prudent move. This is not a commentary on anyone's coaching abilities or even really playing abilities. Our argument is about fit and value.

[Charles]

While Toomey helps the Lord Jeffs win big in many cases, he has also been a primary cause for some of their losses and many of their close games.

Just as Kobe, Lebron, and Durant are the primary causes for their teams losses.

Or Nolan Thompson. The league's runner up in true shooting % and PN's choice for POY has shot just 27-77 or 35% in Midd's losses over the past two years. Also, Toomey's raw fg% numbers, even when bad, are somewhat mitigated by the fact that he gets to the line a ton. Twice as much as Thompson. Middlebury is 4-6 (.400) over the past two years when Thompson takes 7+ shots and shoots under 40% for the game. Middlebury is 47-2 (.959) when he doesn't. Does that mean that Thompson's poor shooting is the primary reason Midd loses? I don't think so.

Also, are you actually arguing that Amherst's scoring leader, assists leader and PER leader only contributed to one of Amherst's wins this season? That seams... incorrect. For starters, didn't he hit a big game-winning shot at some point during the year, not the RIC game? hmm... trying to remember which game that was....Could you help me remember PantherNation: against which team did Toomey bury a dagger three on the road right at the end of a third overtime? Can't remember for the life of me.


Also, you mentioned that Amherst might win more if Toomey were replaced by Kalema or a replacement player during one of his bad nights. In NESCAC play this year, the PER of a replacement player was almost exactly at 10.0. It's worth noting that Toomey's PER was the 4th highest in the league, and his estimated wins added over a replacement player was 2.87, second highest in the league behind Mayer. Kalema's PER was 9.59, below that of a replacement player. I guess it's possible that Hixon could guess, ahead of time, when Toomey was going to play very poorly by Toomey's standards and Kalema was going to play very well by Kalema's standards, and for those minutes, play Kalema ahead of Toomey, and thereby improve the team's estimated wins. But that would be one heck of a feat.

In fairness to Kalema, like Williamson, he has been on fire throughout the playoffs. He's also done well keeping his per minute TOs down, which is the main factor that killed his PER during the NESCAC season.

Lefrakenstein,

Yes Aaron Toomey hit a big three to win the game against Middlebury. He also was a big reason why the game came down to his play at the end. He was 4-23 before he took that shot. Do you think if some of those 19 shots he missed before making that shot had gone to other teammates that Amherst would have needed triple overtime to win that game? Hard to say that Workman, Williamson or Kaasila who combined to shoot 29-46 in the game wouldn't have been better options, particularly since Toomey wasn't getting to the free throw line (he attempted 7 free throws — 1 from an intentional foul — and made 4 of them in a 3OT game). This is precisely the game we are talking about. Toomey's play was a huge reason why they need three overtimes to win the game. And, sure, you can talk about a huge three-point shot to win the game (on his third game-winning attempt) but it only happens because Willy Workman makes the play of the season. Come on, you really think Toomey contributed more to that win than he he detracted from it?

Regarding PER, yes of course Toomey has very good stats. We're not arguing that he isn't a very good player. There are plenty of scenarios (Bill Simmons calls this it the Ewing Theory) when great players leave teams and those teams either get better or don't see much of a drop-off. Look at what the Celtics have done in the absence of Rajon Rondo, for example. No one doubts that Rondo is one of the five best players at his position, but his team played better without him because Rondo overdribbled and took playing time away or shots from capable players. There aren't many people who think that Avery Bradley is a better player than Rondo, and he doesn't have a higher PER, but he is a better fit for that team, as we believe Kalema is for this team.

With regard to coach Hixon (f assuming we're right that Kalema would make Amherst better than Toomey, for the sake of argument), do we think it's a reflection on his coaching ability that he plays Toomey over Kalema? Of course not. To do so would defy convention, even if the numbers seemed to point that way. It is far easier, and more defensible to play the lineups that on the surface should be most effective and very few coaches would be willing to risk playing Kalema over Toomey, particularly when they will most likely win either way. Analysts and bloggers question lineups and their impact often (here for example: http://www.welcometoloudcity.com/2011/5/14/2171042/nba-playbook-kendrick-perkins-hurting-the-thunder-in-the-crunch). Such analysis is not meant to be an insult to the coaches or players, but rather a discussion about how a team might improve.

Of course it is far easier to suggest that Kalema should play over Toomey on this board, where we can deal in theory and not have to face nearly the degree of backlash of players, parents, fans, etc. that coach Hixon would if he made the switch. For that reason, and others, we don't hold it against coach Hixon for not making what we think would be a prudent move. This is not a commentary on anyone's coaching abilities or even really playing abilities. Our argument is about fit and value.

pass the grey poupon...

[rlk]

With regard to coach Hixon (f assuming we're right that Kalema would make Amherst better than Toomey, for the sake of argument), do we think it's a reflection on his coaching ability that he plays Toomey over Kalema? Of course not. To do so would defy convention, even if the numbers seemed to point that way. It is far easier, and more defensible to play the lineups that on the surface should be most effective and very few coaches would be willing to risk playing Kalema over Toomey, particularly when they will most likely win either way. Analysts and bloggers question lineups and their impact often (here for example: http://www.welcometoloudcity.com/2011/5/14/2171042/nba-playbook-kendrick-perkins-hurting-the-thunder-in-the-crunch). Such analysis is not meant to be an insult to the coaches or players, but rather a discussion about how a team might improve.

Far be it for me, a NEWMAC man who was hoping to see the Engineers contend for the championship (or even the wrong Engineers) to get involved here, but this just doesn't make sense on its face.

I personally haven't seen Toomey play, but I've never seen any suggestion that he's any but one of the top players in D3.  Hixon is by any possible measure one of the most successful coaches in D3 (and probably at any level), and doesn't have to answer to anyone for the decisions he makes.  No coach whose team is playing for the national championship really does, for that matter, but I'd say Hixon less than most of that small crowd.  He doesn't have to answer to bloggers or analysts.

Any player can have an off game.  I've seen Mitch Kates play uncharacteristically poorly, although it's not common.  Jamie Karraker had a horrendous shooting night against UW-Whitewater last year in the semi.  And they're in good company.  LeBron James has had off nights.  Larry Bird and Magic Johnson did.  I'm sure even Michael Jordan did, and Toomey's not better than any of the latter.  But cold shooting can turn around in a hurry, even right at the end of the game, and the best players won't stop playing (that's really the big thing LeBron has learned over the past couple of years, comparing the Heat's loss in 2011 with their title in 2012).  If Toomey's anywhere near the clutch player I've heard he is, he's not going to get timid just because his game has been off most of the night.

The other theory about what happened (at least initially) with the Celtics when Rondo went down is that it shakes up the rest of the team a bit, and they regroup and bear down harder (and you'll notice the Celtics haven't been doing as well lately).  I'm sure we could think of any number of times when Rondo basically rescued the Celtics from an otherwise off game.  It doesn't mean Rondo's a poor fit; it could be nothing more than sampling bias.

[lefrakenstein]

Come on, you really think Toomey contributed more to that win than he he detracted from it?

That's a good question. I don't think the answer is as obvious as you do. Toomey contributes in a lot different ways other than shooting, perhaps most importantly by running the Jeffs' offense. He did have 8 assists in that game to 1 turnover, and Amherst shot nearly 50% in the game and had just 12 turnovers in 3OT game. I personally don't think there's any way Amherst's offense would have been as effective if Toomey had sat. He did personally shoot very poorly, but I suspect part of the reason the rest of the team shot 62% from the field was because the Midd defense was focused on stopping Toomey. If nothing else, he kept Thompson occupied to free up the rest of the team. So yes, even in his worst shooting game of the season, I would say that he contributed more than he detracted.

[madzillagd]

To that point:

Toomey: 1045 mins, 64 tos
Robertson: 1056 mins, 101 tos

[Panthernation]

With regard to coach Hixon (f assuming we're right that Kalema would make Amherst better than Toomey, for the sake of argument), do we think it's a reflection on his coaching ability that he plays Toomey over Kalema? Of course not. To do so would defy convention, even if the numbers seemed to point that way. It is far easier, and more defensible to play the lineups that on the surface should be most effective and very few coaches would be willing to risk playing Kalema over Toomey, particularly when they will most likely win either way. Analysts and bloggers question lineups and their impact often (here for example: http://www.welcometoloudcity.com/2011/5/14/2171042/nba-playbook-kendrick-perkins-hurting-the-thunder-in-the-crunch). Such analysis is not meant to be an insult to the coaches or players, but rather a discussion about how a team might improve.

Far be it for me, a NEWMAC man who was hoping to see the Engineers contend for the championship (or even the wrong Engineers) to get involved here, but this just doesn't make sense on its face.

I personally haven't seen Toomey play, but I've never seen any suggestion that he's any but one of the top players in D3.  Hixon is by any possible measure one of the most successful coaches in D3 (and probably at any level), and doesn't have to answer to anyone for the decisions he makes.  No coach whose team is playing for the national championship really does, for that matter, but I'd say Hixon less than most of that small crowd.  He doesn't have to answer to bloggers or analysts.

Any player can have an off game.  I've seen Mitch Kates play uncharacteristically poorly, although it's not common.  Jamie Karraker had a horrendous shooting night against UW-Whitewater last year in the semi.  And they're in good company.  LeBron James has had off nights.  Larry Bird and Magic Johnson did.  I'm sure even Michael Jordan did, and Toomey's not better than any of the latter.  But cold shooting can turn around in a hurry, even right at the end of the game, and the best players won't stop playing (that's really the big thing LeBron has learned over the past couple of years, comparing the Heat's loss in 2011 with their title in 2012).  If Toomey's anywhere near the clutch player I've heard he is, he's not going to get timid just because his game has been off most of the night.

The other theory about what happened (at least initially) with the Celtics when Rondo went down is that it shakes up the rest of the team a bit, and they regroup and bear down harder (and you'll notice the Celtics haven't been doing as well lately).  I'm sure we could think of any number of times when Rondo basically rescued the Celtics from an otherwise off game.  It doesn't mean Rondo's a poor fit; it could be nothing more than sampling bias.

Rlk,

Is Aaron Toomey clutch? We know how we feel about that, but would be very interested to hear the Amhert crowd's opinion on that one, because I suspect they would have difficulty defending or showing that Toomey is a clutch player.

And yes, cold shooting stretches can turn around. However, Toomey is a career 43.4% shooter from the field and has shown little-to-no improvement as a two-point scorer over that time. He has shot 43.2%, 43% and 44% from the field in his three years at Amherst. Given that he is having his best season as a three-point shooter this year (42.7% vs. 34.3% and 40.2% the years previously) it is surprising that his two-point field goals have not improved. If he played for a team where he shot 44% because he had to take a lot of shots because his teammates were unreliable, that would be far more defensible. The fact that his gross shooting numbers are not considerably better than they were two years ago as a freshman and the fact that he has so many different players at his disposal suggests that he is probably hurting his team to some degree by taking too many shots.

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.

Finally, as we've tried to make clear, we're not calling out Dave Hixon or asking him to answer to us or anyone else on this board. The point that bloggers/analysts evaluate players and their value to a specific team/lineup is not meant to suggest that coaches then follow that advice, rightly or wrongly. Instead, it's to point out that we are not alone in doing this kind of thing, and the negativity it has inspired seems off base.

[Panthernation]

To that point:

Toomey: 1045 mins, 64 tos
Robertson: 1056 mins, 101 tos

Toomey does a far better job protecting the ball than most other guards in the NESCAC. We feel that is accurately reflected by the fact that he was a First-Team All-NESCAC selection and Robertson (who we are very high on) was not selected to either team.

[lefrakenstein]

The fact that his gross shooting numbers are not considerably better than they were two years ago as a freshman and the fact that he has so many different players at his disposal suggests that he is probably hurting his team to some degree by taking too many shots.

Does it though? I would argue that whether he has improved bears absolutely no relation to whether he is hurting his team by taking too many shots. His excellent shooting helped his team as a freshman and it continues to help his team now. 44% from the field is only bad when a) you don't get to the line and b) you don't shoot a lot of three pointers. Toomey does both of those a ton, and as a result his true shooting % is 5th in the league and the highest on Amherst.

As for having other weapons at his disposal, I'll go back to my two main points: a) his shots are more valuable than any of theirs; 2) 20th best a/to ratio in the entire country, 27th in # of assists. I think there's something like 800 teams.

All of your arguments eventually boil down to your perception that Toomey is a bad shooter and doesn't pass enough. Both of those statements are patently and demonstrably untrue.

[Panthernation]

Is anyone struck by the irony of the continued deconstruction of the league's best player?  Aaron Toomey has torched every NESCAC team a few times.  Arguing that he's not better than his understudy?  That he causes the best team in D3 to lose games?  None since Dec. 6th or so.  This is nuts.
I can't find an intellectual distinction between this and arguing that Nolan Thompson is actually not a better defender than Hunter Merryman.
D3 players, even the best, aren't D1 players for a reason.  Finding holes in Toomey's game may mean he won't be drafted by the NBA, not that he isn't a truly great player at this level.   Enough already.

Middhoops,

We're not arguing that David Kalema is a better player than Aaron Toomey and have stated so explicitly. We just don't think that Aaron Toomey's offensive game is as effective for this Amherst team as it would be for others and that, at times, the way he plays makes Amherst susceptible to losses while when he plays well it very rarely changes Amherst's likelihood of winning.

Just as Kobe, Lebron, and Durant are the primary causes for their teams losses.

This is an interesting assumption. Unfortunately the evidence doesn't back it up. Using the same parameters to judge Toomey's play (single digit wins and losses) here is what we found for LeBron, Kobe and Durant.

Over the past two seasons Toomey is a 43.5 percent shooter from the floor. In the 16 games Amherst has won by single digits or lost over that stretch, Toomey is shooting 34 percent. Obviously our sample size is still too small for the trend to be statistically significant, but it is fair to say that Toomey's performances in losses and close games has been notably subpar. Now to Walzy's point. Here are Lebron, Durant and Kobe's stats in single digit wins or losses this season, along with their season-long shooting numbers.

LeBron is shooting 406-758 (53.6%) in the 38 games the Heat have won by single digits or lost this season. LeBron is a 55.7% shooter on the season. Even when you eliminate single-digit wins, LeBron is shooting 53.2% from the floor in his team's 14 losses this season. It is very safe to say that LeBron does not routinely shoot his teams out of games.

Durant has made 325 of his 671 shot attemps (48.4%) in Oklahoma City's 32 single-digit wins and losses this season. He is a 50.3% shooter on the season. In Oklahoma City's 19 losses, Durant is shooting 47.7%, suggesting that Durant doesn't play as well when his team loses or wins tight games, but you don't see the same kind of drop-off that Toomey has in those games.

Kobe, meanwhile, is a 46.6% shooter over the course of the season. In his team's 52 single digit wins and losses this season, Bryant is shooting 45.9% from the floor. When you isolate the losses (Kobe has played in 34 Laker losses this season) there is hardly any drop off in his shooting numbers (45.5%).

So while all three players performed slightly worse in their teams close wins and losses, none of them approach the drop that Toomey had over the past two seasons. Again, we recognize his is a particularly small sample size, but it has been notable to us, other posters and even to the point that Dave McHugh specifically asked coach Hixon about Toomey's performances in these situations.

Put simply, when Toomey plays well, the game is usually a blowout or close to it, and his performance has less of an impact on the team's chances of winning.

Let's just look at this sentence. You don't think turning a game into a blowout has a big impact on a team's chances of winning?

Yes, turning a 10-point game into a 20-point game increases your team's chances of winning. They go from roughly 95 percent to say 99 percent. This is undoubtedly helpful. However, when Toomey performs poorly in close games his team's winning chances go from say 80 percent (which was probably Amherst's pre-game likelihood of winning against nearly every opponent) to 50 percent or below. That drop-off, from a likely win, to a 50/50 game is far more detrimental than the advantage gained from improving your win chances from what was likely a sure win to a clinch.

Texas Hold 'em explains this pretty well. Say you're head's up with someone in an all-in situation and you are leading the hand after the flop with a 95% chance of winning, and there are four cards that could clinch you the hand on the Turn, but unless your opponent hits on back-to-back cards you win anyway. In that situation it is far more important for your opponent not to hit one of his two cards on the Turn than for the Turn to be one of the four cards that gives you the victory.

To relate this back to Toomey, his contributions changing games from wins to blowouts does increase Amherst's win probability. But, much like the poker analogy, Amherst almost certainly wins those games regardless of whether Toomey plays or not (You don't need one of those four cards to win, but it does help). On the other hand, Toomey's poor performances in close games has a far greater impact on Amherst's win probability in a negative way. Ultimately you have to wonder whether Amherst was more or less likely to win the game against Middlebury had Toomey not played. Do his 8 assists offset shooting 5-24? What about his below average defense, which PER does not account for and has largely gone undiscussed? Of course if he doesn't play then Nolan Thompson guards Willy Workman, a significant factor.

The fact that his gross shooting numbers are not considerably better than they were two years ago as a freshman and the fact that he has so many different players at his disposal suggests that he is probably hurting his team to some degree by taking too many shots.

Does it though? I would argue that whether he has improved bears absolutely no relation to whether he is hurting his team by taking too many shots. His excellent shooting helped his team as a freshman and it continues to help his team now. 44% from the field is only bad when a) you don't get to the line and b) you don't shoot a lot of three pointers. Toomey does both of those a ton, and as a result his true shooting % is 5th in the league and the highest on Amherst.

As for having other weapons at his disposal, I'll go back to my two main points: a) his shots are more valuable than any of theirs; 2) 20th best a/to ratio in the entire country, 27th in # of assists. I think there's something like 800 teams.

All of your arguments eventually boil down to your perception that Toomey is a bad shooter and doesn't pass enough. Both of those statements are patently and demonstrably untrue.

Our final rebuttal. When you argue that Toomey's shots are more valuable than his teammates, I would agree that some of them are vastly more valuable. However, as any player who is in control of his or her actions and decisions, Toomey should be able to distinguish between the shots that are more valuable than those his teammates takes and those which are not. We are not suggesting that Toomey should never shoot, clearly he can be a prolific scorer. However there are many examples of shots that Toomey takes in game which are not more valuable than the looks his teammates might have. This was particularly evident in his 5-24 performance against Middlebury and in many of the close games/losses that he has played in, which we've pointed to in past posts.

If you think Toomey was destined before the season to shoot 44% from the floor, than yes, given that he shot 44%, his performance this year was very impressive. But what is stopping Toomey from shooting between 47 and 50% from the floor? It's often his inability to discern good shots from bad shoots in key situations. And while the fact that he gets to the free throw line — and shoots 90% from the line — mitigates some of his mistakes, it's not as though you have to take the good with the bad. If he forced fewer bad shots and found teammates more often, Amherst would be a better team. We're taking that a step further and wondering how different Amherst would look if Toomey wasn't on this team at all.

We don't dispute the fact that he doesn't turn the ball over very often and that he does average high assist numbers, both very important metrics of point guard play. His teammates, however, are very effective scorers, which undoubtedly helps his assist numbers. (Of course you can play chicken and the egg here and say that Toomey puts his teammates in good scoring situations, but let's agree that it's some combination of both). Willy Workman, however, had just 30 fewer assists than Toomey (one per game) over the course of the season. If Workman played the point-forward would his assist numbers not bet better than Toomey's? (Noting that his TOs would be higher, too).

Our suggestion that Amherst might be better without Toomey on the floor is based only because his absence would mean greater opportunities for Workman, Williamson and Kaasila. When you look at the games in which Amherst has lost or nearly lost, Toomey struggled mightily in the majority of them. It is fair, we feel, given that Toomey is often indiscriminate with his shot selection and number, regardless of how he is playing, to question whether Toomey's costs outweigh his benefits on this particular team. This, coupled with Toomey's subpar defense, is also the basis for our argument that Toomey is largely undeserving of NESCAC and Regional Player of the Year awards.

[AmherstStudent05]

Thanks for the kind words, magician. They are much appreciated.  And your veteran eye did catch a portion of my post that I did not phrase as well as I should have.  By "'outsiders' on the board" I meant to describe NESCAC board regulars who were not Amherst (or Midd) partisans.  I definitely did not mean to denigrate the legendary nescac1 in my inaugural post -- what a most indecorous debut! In fact, I was trying to convey that if nescac1 agrees, it is probably in the mainstream.

Thanks also to PantherNation for answering my question about Kmiec.

As for the Toomey topic, I have lots I want to say, but I am actually leaving the country for a week, so it looks as though the rest of you will be spared!  While I would like to respond in full when I get back, I sense that this topic is likely to have played itself out by the time I return.

I would like to unburden myself now with a few (somewhat random) thoughts.

First, in my initial post, I intended to mention that Toomey is currently the 9th all-time leading scorer in Amherst history with 1400 points.  Barring a serious injury, he is a virtual lock to supplant the great Steve Zieja (1708) as Amherst's all-time leading scorer.  There also remains a (very) remote possibility that Toomey will cross the Nogelo 2000 point threshold (would take a remarkable senior season coupled with another deep Amherst run next year just to be close).  Maybe these traditional accomplishments are overrated, but I still think they are impressive.

PN, you suggest that Amherst might have won more games this year with Kalema playing over Toomey.  I think you have finally found an argument that is just inarguably wrong. Kalema actually started in both of Amherst's losses -- he even fouled out against Springfield so you can say that he really did get his fill. (This is not at all to say that Kalema -- not KaDEEMa NCAA.com! -- was responsible for these losses, in fact, he was Amherst's top scorer in both games).  I realize that this doesn't totally decide the issue, but I thought it was worth pointing out. Amherst is undefeated this year when its preferred starting 5 have dressed -- a streak that I hope will be extended next week.

Also, I was going to respond to your argument that Toomey did not help Amherst win the Middlebury game, but brother Lefrakenstein has made the arguments I would have made. I do just want to highlight one point he made.  It seems to me that there is a contradiction running through much of your basketball analysis.  On one hand, you fault NESCAC coaches and others for not adequately considering a player's defensive contributions when determining value, but then you totally seem to ignore the fact that certain players receive greater defensive attention.  So I ask the question again, if Kalema plays for Toomey against Middlebury, who does Thompson guard?  If the answer is Kalema, I suppose you could be on your way (still a long journey) to an argument.  But if the answer is Workman, then we seem to run in to serious problems.  I know you don't think that Workman would have dropped 30 on Middlebury had Thompson been on him all game (strangely, you have already cited Workman's 30 point, 13 rebound game as an example of Thompson shutting down Workman because Thompson guarded Workman for 20 minutes, and in those 20 minutes, Workman scored 10 points, good for a 20ppg average if my math holds, but most of those didn't actually count against Thompson because other things happened). Does Kalema really make up that difference? I love the guy, but come on.

One thing I would like to have a discussion on at some later date is how much defensive ability should factor in to our views of an individual player's value.  You seem to advocate for a 50-50 split, and, on an individual player level (as opposed to a team level) that strikes me as way off-- particularly when the player is not a shot blocker (I think nescac1 may have addressed a few reasons why a while back).  I can't resist sharing one thought on the matter now though.  Despite having Nolan Thompson, Middlebury's conference numbers for ppg and opponents' fg% were middling at best.  Now, maybe these "traditional" statistics don't adequately reflect Midd's true defensive capabilities.  Or maybe everyone else on Midd other than Thompson is a dreadful defender. But my intuition is that a stellar individual defender does not have the same impact on team defense as a stellar offensive player has on team offense. (I would note that Amherst was clearly the best offensive team in the conference based on ppg, fg% -- this makes sense to me since I think they are helped by Toomey, but I guess it is theoretically possible that he has just been weighing them down this whole time)

One final point before I head overseas.  To be clear, I meant my Jensen for Thompson comment as a joke -- I was trying to make a statement that we could all agree was ridiculous.  Are you really saying that you think it is possible that Midd would be better served if Jensen played instead of Thompson? I thought Thompson was your PoY. I thought one of his greatest strengths (this I agree with) is that he can play a full 40 minutes without any noticeable letup in his game.  I am very confused now.  Is there something I am missing?

[Panthernation]

PN, you suggest that Amherst might have won more games this year with Kalema playing over Toomey.  I think you have finally found an argument that is just inarguably wrong. Kalema actually started in both of Amherst's losses -- he even fouled out against Springfield so you can say that he really did get his fill. (This is not at all to say that Kalema -- not KaDEEMa NCAA.com! -- was responsible for these losses, in fact, he was Amherst's top scorer in both games).  I realize that this doesn't totally decide the issue, but I thought it was worth pointing out. Amherst is undefeated this year when its preferred starting 5 have dressed -- a streak that I hope will be extended next week.

Also, I was going to respond to your argument that Toomey did not help Amherst win the Middlebury game, but brother Lefrakenstein has made the arguments I would have made. I do just want to highlight one point he made.  It seems to me that there is a contradiction running through much of your basketball analysis.  On one hand, you fault NESCAC coaches and others for not adequately considering a player's defensive contributions when determining value, but then you totally seem to ignore the fact that certain players receive greater defensive attention.  So I ask the question again, if Kalema plays for Toomey against Middlebury, who does Thompson guard?  If the answer is Kalema, I suppose you could be on your way (still a long journey) to an argument.  But if the answer is Workman, then we seem to run in to serious problems.  I know you don't think that Workman would have dropped 30 on Middlebury had Thompson been on him all game (strangely, you have already cited Workman's 30 point, 13 rebound game as an example of Thompson shutting down Workman because Thompson guarded Workman for 20 minutes, and in those 20 minutes, Workman scored 10 points, good for a 20ppg average if my math holds, but most of those didn't actually count against Thompson because other things happened). Does Kalema really make up that difference? I love the guy, but come on.

One thing I would like to have a discussion on at some later date is how much defensive ability should factor in to our views of an individual player's value.  You seem to advocate for a 50-50 split, and, on an individual player level (as opposed to a team level) that strikes me as way off-- particularly when the player is not a shot blocker (I think nescac1 may have addressed a few reasons why a while back).  I can't resist sharing one thought on the matter now though.  Despite having Nolan Thompson, Middlebury's conference numbers for ppg and opponents' fg% were middling at best.  Now, maybe these "traditional" statistics don't adequately reflect Midd's true defensive capabilities.  Or maybe everyone else on Midd other than Thompson is a dreadful defender. But my intuition is that a stellar individual defender does not have the same impact on team defense as a stellar offensive player has on team offense. (I would note that Amherst was clearly the best offensive team in the conference based on ppg, fg% -- this makes sense to me since I think they are helped by Toomey, but I guess it is theoretically possible that he has just been weighing them down this whole time)

One final point before I head overseas.  To be clear, I meant my Jensen for Thompson comment as a joke -- I was trying to make a statement that we could all agree was ridiculous.  Are you really saying that you think it is possible that Midd would be better served if Jensen played instead of Thompson? I thought Thompson was your PoY. I thought one of his greatest strengths (this I agree with) is that he can play a full 40 minutes without any noticeable letup in his game.  I am very confused now.  Is there something I am missing?

AS05,

We agree that Amherst is so talented that they can play what we feel is a suboptimal lineup for a majority of the game and still go undefeated. We don't think the Kalema-Toomey distinction is going to cost Amherst, only that it could have. Ultimately this argument will only exist in theory.

Regarding Workman, yes he had 10 points from the 5:13 mark onward. Three of those came on an intentional foul and put back, and four more came off of free throws from Peter Lynch fouls after Workman collected defensive rebounds. When Thompson was matched straight up with Workman, therefore, Workman scored three points in just over 20 minutes. Now, to the contradiction you've pointed out. Yes we value Nolan Thompson's defense and agree that if Toomey didn't play Thompson likely would have guarded Workman, who almost certainly wouldn't have scored 29 points in that case. While that certainly makes a big difference, we also think that Amherst probably would have shot better than 5-24 with Toomey's shots and Workman may have still been effective. If you think this is a contradiction, it's not. In Amherst's two wins last season, Workman went 11-18 while being guarded largely by Nolan and averaged 11.5 points in the two games. He has been one of the very few players to really give Nolan trouble, given his size, ball-handling ability and finishing touch. While he probably wouldn't go off for 30 in that game, it also doesn't mean he would struggle the way many other players have.

Finally, we understood that your Jensen vs. Thompson point was a joke. Our point was only that James Jensen probably did deserve to get more minutes, but because Middlebury so often runs a three-guard set and Lynch's inside scoring ability was so important, Jensen didn't see as much of the court as he might have otherwise. In saying that we could make a good argument for why Jensen deserved to play more we meant that a good (though not necessarily correct) argument could be made — a Devil's Advocate — argument at worst. At best you could point to Wolfin's down shooting numbers and the possibility of Thompson wearing down to suggest that Jensen should have played in front of either of them.

Yes, Nolan Thompson was our Player of the Year nominee. That doesn't mean we can't objectively look at, and even agree with, an argument that suggests Nolan should have played fewer minutes. For example, we would have agreed that playing Nolan fewer minutes in conference may have meant he was fresher later in the season, and that ultimately individual awards are inferior to team accolades — something nobody understands or embodies more than Nolan himself. Further, if you watched the Curry game, Jensen did a tremendous job shutting down Sedale Jones in the first half with Nolan sitting out due to foul trouble.

You'll notice that we haven't made the same case for Nolan's candidacy as an All-American or Regional Player of the Year. While his regular season performance was still worthy of NESCAC Player of the Year in our eyes, we don't feel his case for Regional Player of the Year or as First-Team All-American is anywhere as strong. His shooting has fallen off since the end of NESCAC play and while we still feel he is one of the best perimeter defenders in the country, that does not merit Regional or National honors.

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.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion surrounding our Thompson/Jensen discussion. Thank you for considering what we wrote and sharing your questions/critiques. Though we disagree, it is much appreciated.