MBB: NESCAC

[amh63]

Madz....thanks for the clarification.  To me that is like trying the tango...stick to what I can do best...the foxtrot..American?
Forgot...The Student announcers alerted me to one of the woman Middlebury player's technique shooting fouls...the star?  Anyway, the player actually shot a jumpshot..two from the foul line..made them both.

GingerBaker....most interesting stuff.  Some inputs on your topics...especially wrt to Willy.  I heard the same story of the relationship between the Pollacks and Workmans.  It could be....through the mothers.  Willy as you may know is playing in Israel on a team as a citizen of the country.  Citizenship player vice a foreign player.  He had that option because of his mother.   I posted after the Salem games last year that I had an enjoyable late dinner with the Kaasilla and Pollack families.  After a discussion with Mrs Pollack...we agreed that we could be related!  Jokingly of course for those who know me....but true remark.  Warm person and great families.
There was a story on Willy coming out of Atlanta.  In it he stated that he went to all of Coach Hixon's  camps growing up....paying for the coach's sons' education in the process.  He had a serious back injury/problem that prevented him from playing.  Hopes of playing college hoops dashed. He thought of going to South Carolina, his father's school.  Sometime later, he recovered so that his hopes returned.  Went on to a prep school to improve his skills.  Maybe the reason, Willy never wanted to leave the floor in a game.  Did really like to beat Williams.  His performance in them were outstanding.  Let others to speculate why

[grabtherim]

Fun conversation.

Ryan Sharry is an excellent example of this, as he was lightly recruited (I know of another NESCAC coach who told Sharry and his family that he had an A list of recruits and a B list of recruits and Sharry was on the B list) and he grew into a first team All American.

Peter Lynch also really developed over the course of his four years. He played scant minutes his freshman and sophomore years, yet was one of the most valuable players on the team by his senior year. He worked really hard, had terrific coaching, and also the luxury (and patience) to sit and learn behind Andrew Locke, Jamal Davis, Ryan Sharry.

The gold standard for me, though, is Nolan Thompson. He wasn't lightly recruited...he wasn't recruited at all. A D3 walk on. After being accepted to Middlebury, he reached out to the basketball program and asked about trying out for the team. From what I understand, it took all of one pickup game in the fall for the Midd captains and players to go to Coach Brown to let him know that a heck of a player would be joining the program. He started from day 1.

Bucket we both know of another guy who wanted to go to one school in the league badly, and they all but told him he couldn't play in the conference, only to be burned by him over the next four years.

Yep. Wasn't the quote "You can't play at this level"?

Exactly what was said Bucket.     
I listened to Walzy's interview on Hoopsville.  Very interesting.  Although he has sat on the sidelines, it would be nice for him to return from his self-imposed exile to give point spreads for the tournament games and the All Crazy Team at the end of the season.  Amh63, you seem to have a pipeline to him. See if you can get that done. 

[nescac1]

Despite the unsolicited shots at Williams and Mike Crotty (and Walzy, I hope that you enjoyed the last two Elite 8 soccer games ), I too hope Walzy returns, in particular, for another All Crazy Team. 

Walzy mentioned the NBA comparisons, which dovetails into some of our recent all-NESCAC conversation.  I would compare, at this point in his career, Matt Hart to either Jeff Hornacek or Reggie Miller -- a great shooter from anywhere who is extremely adept at working off ball screens, is very crafty at creating space for his shot, and is a clutch player. 

[amh63]

Grabtherim.....thanks for the suggestion.   One thing I have learned, while watching my dear wife raise three strong, independent successful in life Amherst graduates....is to let them finish the path chosen, once selected.  My kids know themselves better than I do so I leave them alone and if they want help at any time and ask, we will respond.  I state this here because I feel Walzy's decision is his alone.  He has picked the timing.  Our mutual wish of his return may be best to wait for next season.  Time does heal, and a repeat title can do wonders ...maybe check with him in Salem.

[ECSUalum]

Consider this a "quiet period" ....the eye of the storm....before the posts begin on the key games this weekend.  Therefore will like to to post on the impact of announcers on me while watching on-line games...D3 games.
Has it been 9 pages of posting...ago that I stated I would do this....wow...we do talk at length here....me included.  Anyway, here goes...hoping to hear from posters on their thoughts on the topic.
I have watched games from the UAA...WashU in particular....the LEC and recently the dreaded midwest schools.  All have  single announcers...some have teams with a "color" person to add local flavor.  They are professional in their cover of the games and are quite informative on players and coaches....the part I enjoy most.  In our beloved NESCAC, we have had mixed bag of announcers....mainly non professional....students really....who I sometimes prefer to turn the audio off while watching.  Lately, with the addition of NSN webcast...we have gone to another level for me....though Amherst still has students do the broadcasts and imo have been good when they show up.  Partly in defense of student announcers, I do enjoy their local color comments and particulars about the players....if they understand BB and attempt to be impartial.  As the recent announcers stated...they are one call away from being fired.  I enjoy their outburst when a player flushes down a bucket.  I recognize that it may annoy the opponent viewers but it illustrates the normal reaction of the students....though I prefer a simple layup.  Another example....in the Middlebury WBB game, not really a close game, the announcers doing their homework pointed out that the leading scorer for the Panthers was a soccer star....a top player in the conference.....but Amherst had defended her well in soccer and seemed to be doing so in the game.  I like that info and focused my attention to the Middlebury player quite often in an otherwise not competative game.  The announcers, athletes themselves, praised the sophmores on the Amherst team because they were sophmores.   Last example.....in the MBB game.  I did learn about the "euro" step, a pro term?, when J. Brown made a drive.  Near the end of the game when Coach Brown was putting in bench players...the announcers pointed out that Tom Killian, the captain, made a foul.....in order that the likewise Amherst bench players could be inserted.  Nice gesture.....liked that info...caught my attention....saw who was being put in as the players lined up for the foul shots by Middlebury.  Do not remember if the foul shots were made or missed.

Now to the professional announcers of the NSN games....in particular the two recent Bowdoin games...against Amherst and Middlebury.  Who could forget them. 
In the Bowdoin games in Maine, there was a "color" man that was good except for shouting "Bang?Bam" whenever, a Bowdoin player made a 3-point shot.  Like the energy, etc....but it became annoying after watching both the women and men's game.  Yes the men's game had many Polar Bear make 3-point shots...it was Senior Day!  Liked the info that Swords has a way of talking to the refs whenever he is called for a foul....looking down and the ref up attentatively.  I looked for those discussions by Swords in the Middlebury game.  The major bit of info I picked up from the announcers in both games....was the primary one the same NSN announcer?...was that announcers would keep track of the time outs by the coaches.  Found that professional announcers in other conferences often do that.  Anyway, in the Bowdoin game, it was pointed out that the P'Bear dcoach was calling a number of TOs, while Coach Hixon had not...especially in the 2nd half.  I though about it as the game was quite competative.  I thought, it was because Aaron was on the floor and Hixon had complete faith in him to make the right descisions, etc.  Hixon did make a TO call near the end.  The announcer pointed out that the P'Bear coach was yelling for a TO during the three shot attempt to tie the game but was not heard.
We all have posted about the TOs situation and the Technical call  on Bowdoin that helped win the game for the Panthers.  The announcer on the webcast kept track of Time Outs.  I wondered for a little while, if the refs in the Amherst game ignored the Bowdoin coach at the end of the game....because he did not want to call a technical foul.  Thought about going to the NSN achieves of the game and count the time outs in the 2nd half.  I have learned to watch other things that I do not normally do like coach behavior during games.

In summary, I found that the announcers to games on-line have enhanced my enjoyment of the games.  The good ones and even some bad ones.  The annoying ones, I can turn off the audio

amh63,
Really nice overview of the "state of D3 basketball game announcers".  I certainly agree that most of these guys add enjoyment to watching the games and provide important info on teams and players beside the "exclamations: that are normal for the "homeys:.  The LEC has, imho, some really solid teams and UM Dartmouth, besides doing a great job on the play by play/color, enhances their stream with instant replay which I have not seen anywhere else.  LEC Tournament games historically have had outstanding coverge, providing multi camera angle shots, replay capability and professional interviews/analysis before at halftime and postgame.  WCSU, RIC, UMD, Keene St and Eastern announcers are particularly good providing excitement and objectivity, (at least most of the time )

[lefrakenstein]

Thought I'd chip in a little bit on the all-NESCAC team convo. The following are the top 20 players in the league in terms of estimated wins added in the NESCAC season:

Aaron Toomey   Amherst   3.67
Michael Mayer   Williams   2.97
John Swords   Bowdoin   2.97
Duncan Robinson   Williams   2.74
Matt Hart   Hamilton   2.61
Hunter Sabety   Tufts   2.51
Joey Kizel   Midd   2.28
Dylan Sinnickson   Midd   1.96
Chris Hudnut   Colby   1.93
Tom Killian   Amherst   1.86
Andrew Madlinger   Bowdoin   1.50
Daniel Wohl   Williams   1.46
Mike Boornazian   Bates   1.40
Matt Vadas   CC   1.32
Shay Ajayi   Trinity   1.29
Mason Lopez   CC   1.21
Luke Westman   Colby   1.17
Billy Selmon   Bates   1.16
Keegan Pieri   Bowdoin   1.15
Stephen Haladyna   Tufts   1.08

I think the top 5 there is actually a pretty good selection for the top 5 players in the league. I would bump Kizel up for seniority/wins and bump Hart down. I know a lot of people wouldn't have Swords up there, but from watching Bowdoin a couple of times, I think his size on the defensive end is really what makes Bowdoin work. He's also come so far on offense.

So first team: Mayer, Robinson, Toomey, Swords, Kizel

For a second team, Although he's borderline on stats, I think Killian deserves it on the basis on his defense and being the second best guy on one of the two best teams. I think Midd deserves to have two players and Sinnickson has been great. Then I think you almost have to Sabety in on his stats. For my last guy, I think I'm going with Daniel Wohl. He really came on toward the end of the season now, and I think that's a big reason why Williams is probably the hottest team heading into the tournament. I can see saying that Williams shouldn't get three guys if they didn't even get the top seed, but in my opinion they have three of the best 10 guys.

Second team: Killian, Wohl, Sinnickson, Sabety, Hart

In terms of who will actually make it, I think this is a really hard year to predict. I don't think Robinson will be the first freshman ever to make a team. I could be wrong, but I think the no-freshman thing is probably close to a set-in-stone rule, based on some of the qualified freshman who haven't made it in the past. I also wouldn't be surprised if guys like Epley and Green made it basically as gesture of respect. At least Green had a phenomenal OOC season, although he's been ice-cold since new year's. We'll see, I could be wrong, I hope I am.

Swords is my DPOY, then Toomey as the obvious POY (the gap between him and the next guy statistically is enormous), and Robinson is equally obviously the ROY.

[middhoops]

Thought I'd chip in a little bit on the all-NESCAC team convo. The following are the top 20 players in the league in terms of estimated wins added in the NESCAC season:

Aaron Toomey   Amherst   3.67
Michael Mayer   Williams   2.97
John Swords   Bowdoin   2.97
Duncan Robinson   Williams   2.74
Matt Hart   Hamilton   2.61
Hunter Sabety   Tufts   2.51
Joey Kizel   Midd   2.28
Dylan Sinnickson   Midd   1.96
Chris Hudnut   Colby   1.93
Tom Killian   Amherst   1.86
Andrew Madlinger   Bowdoin   1.50
Daniel Wohl   Williams   1.46
Mike Boornazian   Bates   1.40
Matt Vadas   CC   1.32
Shay Ajayi   Trinity   1.29
Mason Lopez   CC   1.21
Luke Westman   Colby   1.17
Billy Selmon   Bates   1.16
Keegan Pieri   Bowdoin   1.15
Stephen Haladyna   Tufts   1.08

I think the top 5 there is actually a pretty good selection for the top 5 players in the league. I would bump Kizel up for seniority/wins and bump Hart down. I know a lot of people wouldn't have Swords up there, but from watching Bowdoin a couple of times, I think his size on the defensive end is really what makes Bowdoin works. He's also come so far on offense.

So first team: Mayer, Robinson, Toomey, Swords, Kizel

For a second team, Although he's borderline on stats, I think Killian deserves it on the basis on his defense and being the second best guy on one of the two best teams. I think Midd deserves to have two players and Sinnickson has been great. Then I think you almost have to Sabety in on his stats. For my last guy, I think I'm going with Daniel Wohl. He really came on toward the end of the season now, and I think that's a big reason why Williams is probably the hottest team heading into the tournament. I can see saying that Williams shouldn't get three guys if they didn't even get the top seed, but in my opinion they have three of the best 10 guys.

Second team: Killian, Wohl, Sinnickson, Sabety, Hart

In terms of who will actually make it, I think this is a really hard year to predict. I don't think Robinson will be the first freshman ever to make a team. I could be wrong, but I think the no-freshman thing is probably close to a set-in-stone rule, based on some of the qualified freshman who haven't made it in the past. I also wouldn't be surprised if guys like Epley and Green made it basically as gesture of respect. At least Green had a phenomenal OOC season, although he's been ice-cold since new year's. We'll see, I could be wrong, I hope I am.

Swords is my DPOY, then Toomey as the obvious POY (the gap between him and the next guy statistically is enormous), and Robinson is equally obviously the ROY.

Plenty of people won't love this, but still, nice job LFenstein.  It's no coinkidink that Toomey's name sits at the top, is it?

[lefrakenstein]

I know people do get annoyed by the overly statistical stuff, so if you're one of those people feel free to move on past this post. By the way, I haven't posted in a long time, but thanks nescac1 for the props on my last stats-binge, I appreciate the props.

I wanted to try to add a little statistical gloss on the importance of amherst losing Pollack. I think it's easy to watch a lot of Amherst games and come away with the impression that Pollack is much better on offense and George is better on defense. However, I think that 1) the gap on defense is much smaller than you might think, and 2) that the gap on offense is much bigger than you might think.

My main evidence for the first statement is that Pollack is a much better rebounder than George. His overall rebounding rate is 17.08, compared to 11.06 for George. 17.08 is a very good mark and is far-and-away the best mark on this amherst team. By contrast, George grabs barely more than the average for all players (10.0 - rebounding rate is just the % of available rebounds you grab while on the court. 100% / divided by 10 players = 10). While their numbers are actually close in terms of offensive rebounds, the discrepancy is huge on defense, where Pollack grabbed 20.34% of available rebounds and George only 9.86% of available rebounds, a frankly terrible mark for a center. The eye-test suggests that George is currently a better rim protector than Pollack, which is certainly very valuable. But it's hard to know exactly how much better he is without awesome sportvu stats like opponent FG% while a certain defender is near the rim. I thought about going back and scouring play-by-play recaps to try to see what % of lay-ups and dunks opponents made while George was on the court versus when Pollack was on the court, but that's just too much work.

As for the second statement, my evidence is that George's TO rate, the % of his possessions that end in a turnover, is a whooping 25.95, the highest of any player in the league. Pollack's is only 8.90, the second-lowest among Amherst's regulars, trailing only Killian.

In summary, losing Pollack is a really big deal, maybe bigger than people realize. He has the second highest PER on the team, above even Killian. I don't mean to disparage George - I think he's a great player, and like most freshman bigs, will likely get much better as he gains experience, but right now the gap between him and Pollack is pretty large.

[middhoops]

I know people do get annoyed by the overly statistical stuff, so if you're one of those people feel free to move on past this post. By the way, I haven't posted in a long time, but thanks nescac1 for the props on my last stats-binge, I appreciate the props.

I wanted to try to add a little statistical gloss on the importance of amherst losing Pollack. I think it's easy to watch a lot of Amherst games and come away with the impression that Pollack is much better on offense and George is better on defense. However, I think that 1) the gap on defense is much smaller than you might think, and 2) that the gap on offense is much bigger than you might think.

My main evidence for the first statement is that Pollack is a much better rebounder than George. His overall rebounding rate is 17.08, compared to 11.06 for George. 17.08 is a very good mark and is far-and-away the best mark on this amherst team. By contrast, George grabs barely more than the average for all players (10.0 - rebounding rate is just the % of available rebounds you grab while on the court. 100% / divided by 10 players = 10). While their numbers are actually close in terms of offensive rebounds, the discrepancy is huge on defense, where Pollack grabbed 20.34% of available rebounds and George only 9.86% of available rebounds, a frankly terrible mark for a center. The eye-test suggests that George is currently a better rim protector than Pollack, which is certainly very valuable. But it's hard to know exactly how much better he is without awesome sportvu stats like opponent FG% while a certain defender is near the rim. I thought about going back and scouring play-by-play recaps to try to see what % of lay-ups and dunks opponents made while George was on the court versus when Pollack was on the court, but that's just too much work.

As for the second statement, my evidence is that George's TO rate, the % of his possessions that end in a turnover, is a whooping 25.95, the highest of any player in the league. Pollack's is only 8.90, the second-lowest among Amherst's regulars, trailing only Killian.

In summary, losing Pollack is a really big deal, maybe bigger than people realize. He has the second highest PER on the team, above even Killian. I don't mean to disparage George - I think he's a great player, and like most freshman bigs, will likely get much better as he gains experience, but right now the gap between him and Pollack is pretty large.

Please annoy us.  This is good stuff.

[GoWesYoungMan]

What if? What if? Every team has key plays that make or break the season. For Wes it was the final possession in regulation, OT, and 2OT vs. Middlebury. The Cardinals had the final shot in each situation. A Wes victory over Midd would have created a four way tie for fourth with Wes, Midd, Trinity and Hamilton all 5-5...and by the quirks of the tiebreaker system Wes would get the five spot and travel to Trinity. Midd would actually drop to seven and travel to Williams. The two way tie for 8th would got to Tufts due to their head to head victory over Colby and the Mules would stay home. As it happened the ball didn't bounce their way on any of those three possessions and due to the quirks of the tiebreaker the Cards are left at home. This is not to say that Wes deserves the fifth seed, or even the eighth (very hard to pick between three teams 4-6); just pointing out how little things can make or break a season.

Separately, as recent discussion revolves around the top players in the conference, and none of the names are Cardinals, how did they go 4-6? I suspect it's a combination of balanced scoring and lack of a signature win to get everyone's attention. Trinity is in a similar situation even at 5-5.

Enough about Wesleyan. Good luck to the teams who have advanced and let's hope for strong NESCAC representation in Salem.

[Old Guy]

This n that:

Good observations, GoWesYoungMan. Midd fans wonder what might have been, had the team not lost on the same weekend in the final seconds to both Williams and Hamilton, without giving perhaps enough consideration to the good fortune the week before in tight games against Wes and CC. Who would you nominate, GoWes, what Cardinals player or players, for post-season recognition?

I have no problem with Hart as first team All-NESCAC. I had him there even before the heroics of the Middlebury game. I was able to get the video of that game. I made a Cameroonian friend laugh when I described the three point shot Hart hit in the last minute from the corner falling out of bounds, saying he "shot it out of his a--," an inelegant metaphor to be sure, but effective in describing its implausibility. The Hamilton club was competitive this year to be sure - but I don't think Hart's role as the main scoring threat is that easy, as a lot of attention is paid to stopping him game after game. He's more Kobe than Carmelo.

There will be no taking the Continentals lightly this weekend. How will Middlebury defend Hart? Will we put Kizel on him? Maybe not - we need to keep him on the floor out of foul trouble. Quick 5'10 frosh Jake Brown? Long 6'5" Dylan Sinnickson? Or a combination thereof. Alas, live stats will probably not tell me.

Teams who focus on a particular great player, who is surrounded by other worthies, do so at their own risk. Last year, Midd had match-up problems with Amherst (not just Midd): who did Nolan Thompson, a terrific on-the-ball defender, guard, Toomey or Workman? 

Last year, when Kalema came in the game, it was usually to replace Toomey; this year, he plays alongside him. This results in more scoring opportunities, no? Hard to focus on Kalema when Toomey is in the game. Has Kalema's game really improved that much from his junior to senior year, or is he benefitting from being used differently?

The elephant in the room: the reason for the special tension when Amherst and Middlebury play is easy to understand, and goes back to that amazing triple overtime game at Middlebury last year (perhaps the best-played, most exciting college game I have ever witnessed in person) - and the special circumstances in the last ten seconds (absolutely no need to rehash here: it was thoroughly discussed last year, and hard feelings resulted). But it will be a couple more years before that tension dissipates on the Middlebury side, with the "graduation" of this team's/last year's team's parent group especially.

On student announcers: I realize the justification is that it's a "student job" and I'm generally sympathetic to that view. I also have been told officially that the intended audience is the extended "family" of the home team. I increasingly think this is a narrow view, especially as the technology improves and the audience of non-"family" members expands. I like the NSN approach as it get expressed at Middlebury with Bruce Bosley at the mike: he always offers a balanced and professional presentation.

I got "live stats," no video, here for the Amherst-Midd game - and live stats quit with the score 35-34. I watched the video then, though it was constantly buffering, because the running score ran along the bottom. Agonizing. I thought for a while that there were further technological problems, as the Middlebury score was advancing so slowly.

Big weekend.

[nescac1]

lefrakenstein, good work once again.  I think those numbers are a very good starting point, but not perfect.  I wonder, though, are they calculated on a per-minute basis?  Because that is the only way I can see Sabety as more valuable than Hudnut.  To me, Hudnut belongs above Sabety on an all-NESCAC second team (although both are certainly excellent centers -- historically good year for center play in NESCAC, as Rashid Epps, Pollack before he got injured, whichever Trinity guy you consider to the center between Ogundekwo and Ajayi all played very well at the five as well). 

Compare their conference numbers:
Hudnut -- 17.7/8.3/3.4  shooting 48/32/82, .4 spg, .6 bpg, 2.5 top, 1.8 fpg
Sabety -- 14.5/6.5/.2, shooting 64/0/59, .4 spg, 2.7 bpg, 1.2 top, 2.8 fpg

Sabety is a much better shot-blocker and has a better two-point percentage -- he is really dominant within five feet of the rim, just a monstrous presence down there on both ends, but I thought looked a bit lost once he leaves the paint, since he hasn't really developed his shot or his ball-handling skills.  Hudnut has a much more well-rounded game (and this is backed up by the eye test) -- he can shoot all the way to the three point line, is an elite passer for a big guy, a great free throw shooter, and his two-point shooting percentage is still over 50 percent (his high number of three point attempts for a center drive that down, but his true shooting percentage when you account for threes is better than 48 percent).  And he's still a solid post presence as well.  Now, Sabety plays about 11 fewer minutes per game, so on a per-minute basis, he is far more efficient.  But would you rather have Hudnut for 34 minutes, or Sabety for 22?  For me, the answer is clearly Hudnut.  First, especially for a big guy, it's really hard to maintain productivity when your minutes are at Hudnut's level, so that will hurt his efficiency on a per-minute basis, whereas Sabety is always fresh.  But the big issue is fouls -- Hudnut rarely gets in foul trouble, while Sabety frequently does.  So while he is a great player when he is on the floor, that is only about half the time most games, severely limiting his value. 

If a per-minute basis is used, that would explain Mayer over Robinson as well -- otherwise, I can't see how Mayer could possibly outpace Robinson when Robinson beats him in most statistical categories, other than rebounding, in conference play.  In particular, Robinson's true shooting percentage HAS to be the best or close to the best we've ever seen in NESCAC, maybe Whittington was higher but I think the high number of threes Robinson makes and takes makes that number truly elite.   

I also think Kizel is a bit low.  Numbers can't account for much of what he brings to the floor.  For the most part, though, your statistical analysis closely corresponds to the consensus view on the best players in NESCAC this year, which is impressive / surprising. 

[AmherstStudent05]

Great post, as usual, Old Guy.

On Kalema.  While DK was certainly Toomey's backup last year -- I am not sure the Jeffs played  a minute of competitive basketball last year without at least one of them on the court -- he was also much more than that.  Our clear 6th man, Kalema actually played more minutes than both Killian and Williamson (though both missed time early in the season due to injuries).  Kalema played more minutes per game than Killian and was often on the court over TK in "crunch time" situations.  My point is that DK and Toomey shared the court a lot last year and it was really from his sophomore to junior season that Kalema made the biggest leap -- particularly in regards to his shooting. (I think he really surprised the Ephs in particular with his 3 point accuracy.)

All this is to say that, to be honest, while I am very pleased with the progress Kalema has made this year, I can't say as I am surprised in the least.  Even when Kalema struggled a bit early in the season, I believe I posted here saying I wasn't worried about him in the least.  DK showed what he can do last year. Where Kalema has certainly improved though, as nescac1 already pointed out, is in taking care of the ball.  That was his big weakness last year.   Last season Kalema had 65 assists and 74 turnovers.  This year he already has 64 assists and just 47 turnovers.  Keep up the excellent work, David.

The real surprise of course (to me, anyway) has been Killian.  Last year, when comparing starting 5s with Williams or even Midd, TK always seemed to be the forgotten man.  Indeed, as I wrote above, Kalema often got his minutes in crunch time.  Loyal Amherst fan that I am, I did think Tom was underrated heading into this season.  I knew he was capable of playing great, opportunistic defense and I also knew that he could be a scoring threat at times.  What I did not expect at all was how consistent and versatile his offensive game had become.  Entering the season, I thought for sure that Green would be our second leading scorer.  Didn't even think it would be close.  And Green started the year so well that I missed just how much Killian had improved over the off-season (as amh63 posted earlier, Tom is apparently known as a guy who works incredibly hard in the gym and it definitely shows.)  I think it is a mistake to compare Tom to Workman.  They are different players (and Workman was an All-American) with their own way of doing things, but Killian has certainly been doing sensational things for Amherst this season.  I, for one, am grateful and just hope he keeps it up! (One of Tom's rare poor games was at Colby, so I think it is time to make amends!!)

OG, I think I have already said enough about the atmosphere at Sunday's game.  I obviously expected your "elephant in the room" to generate some tension, and it did (which, unfortunately was made very clear in an incident after the game.)  What I didn't count on was how much of a two-way street this "bad blood" ran.  There was just as much tension on our side as yours -- can't deny that (with, as previously mentioned, the conspicuous exception of the student section).  Maybe it has been like this for a while between Amherst and Midd and I just missed it being by my computer a couple hundred miles from the trenches.  Anyway, it did make for a better rivalry and atmosphere than I expected.  I just hope next time both sides do a marginally better job venting their frustrations at the hapless refs rather than the opposing players or coaches!

Finally, as for announcers, I am firmly in the camp in favor of student announcers.  I just think it is a wonderful opportunity to provide to STUDENTS!  Look, as I have said before, Bruce Bosley does excellent work.  Professional and balanced indeed.  He is also much better on his own than with a color guy (Curry game).  Still, I would MUCH rather that opportunity be handed to PN.  I thought this was one of the big selling points of life at a LAC -- the opportunity to do things that could almost never be done at those big universities.

[AmherstStudent05]

I confess that I have no idea how this "Estimated Wins" thing works, or what exactly it is supposed to represent.  However, with the benefit of hindsight, I can't help but think Brother LeFrakenstein that your projections for the Bates players in particular seem rather optimistic!  Unless, can someone have a negative "estimated win" number.

nescac1,I agree with you entirely on Hudnut.  He is really impressive. (Of course, lots of Mules looked impressive in the Colby game I watched most closely this year.  Hopefully they don't intend to make a habit of it.)

[Bucket]

Finally, as for announcers, I am firmly in the camp in favor of student announcers.  I just think it is a wonderful opportunity to provide to STUDENTS!  Look, as I have said before, Bruce Bosley does excellent work.  Professional and balanced indeed.  He is also much better on his own than with a color guy (Curry game).  Still, I would MUCH rather that opportunity be handed to PN.  I thought this was one of the big selling points of life at a LAC -- the opportunity to do things that could almost never be done at those big universities.

The Panther Nation duo has been the Voice of the Panthers on WRMC, and they are terrific, as you might expect. They don't get the recognition, alas, as a vast majority of folks tune into the webcast, as opposed to the radio stream, but they are very, very good. (It is the 'RMC play-by-play you hear on the RtS documentary series.) This is not meant to bash or denigrate Bruce Bosley; he's a pro, very good at what he does. And I agree that the student opportunity is one to be embraced. I had a great experience doing radio pbp during my student days at Washington & Lee; I even have a tape somewhere of me interviewing Dick Vitale during a W&L-Hampden Sydney game--he was on campus that day for a speaking engagement and joined me in the booth for 5 minutes.