MBB: NESCAC

[nescac1]

Congrats to the slew of NESCAC players named all region by d3hoops: POY Aaron Toomey, plus Michael Mayer (1st), John Swords (2nd), Joey Kizel (2nd), Duncan Robinson (3rd), Matt Hart (3rd) and Chris Hudnut (4th).  All well-deserved.  I guess Hart is considered New England due to conference affiliation, even though Hamilton, geographically, plays in the East Region.  Although I was surprised Tom Killian didn't make it -- I think he was more deserving than any of the guys on the fourth team, at the very least.

No disrespect to regional ROY Joey Flannery, who had an incredible year and is already a star player and a future all-American, and in almost any other year would be worthy of the selection, but it is crazy that Robinson is not the ROY.  He had the best freshman year in the last 20 years in NESCAC, which is really saying something for a league that has produced multiple national players of the years. Robinson was the second-best player on a Final Four team.  Flannery is the best player on a team that lost in the first round.  Duncan is the only first year (I believe) in NESCAC history to be named to an all-league team, and also scored the most points of any first year in at least a decade in NESCAC, and perhaps quite longer.

Comparing the stats, while both are very impressive, Duncan also has a clear overall statistical edge. Robinson: 16.7-6.7-1.9, 55/44.6/88.4, 1.2 spg, 1.2 bpg, 1.1 topg, vs. Flannery: 19/6.2/1.1, 55/36/75, .5 bpg, 1.1 spg, 1.5 topg. 

They are even in two point percentage, Flannery averaged two more ppg, but Duncan has the edge in every other statistical category, in some cases by a wide margin (3 point percentage, FT percentage, and bpg).

And watching them play, Duncan can do a lot more on the court.  Flannery's only real edge is that he is better at drawing fouls.  Both are great scorers and very good rebounders, but Duncan is taller, has more range on his shot, is a better overall shooter (although both are tremendous), is more of a playmaker for his teammates, is quicker off the dribble, and creates more turnovers on the defensive end.  I realize that Flannery was player of the year in NEWMAC, which is incredible for a first-year, but honestly, this was a year in which NEWMAC was lacking in elite individual performers -- heck, no one else even averaged more than 16 ppg in the league, and on one else from NEWMAC made any of the all-region teams, or really, even came close to doing so.  [Edit: I missed that Sam Longwell from WPI was second-team all-region, which kind of shocked me ...]

Had Flannery played in NESCAC, I don't think he makes second-team all conference (I mean, Hunter Sabety didn't despite some really dominant games), certainly not first-team.  Perhaps Duncan was hurt by not being named first-team all-NESCAC, but NESCAC was loaded with elite individual performers this year, and in all events, NESCAC coaches simply don't give props to first-years.  But if you ask any coach in New England who would be the first freshman they'd pick for a team, I'm sure all, or almost all would pick Duncan Robinson (although a few might pick Sabety or George due to enormous upside for both, and because they are centers).  I imagine Flannery would be picked fourth.   

A few other notes:

As has been discussed before, the depth at center in NESCAC is truly incredible.  Three NESCAC all-region centers, and Hunter Sabety and David George have more talent (albeit not yet more production) than any of them, plus Tom Palleschi, who was better than Hudnut last year, appears to be returning.  All but Mayer are back next season.  Watching some of the tournament games, I think that the fourth or fifth best center in NESCAC are as good or better than the best from many other conferences.  This was not a traditional position of strength throughout the league in past years, anything but, but wow, NESCAC coaches have done an amazing job recruiting true fives, which are truly a rare commodity at the D3 level.

On another note, regarding lefrankenstein's question about recruiting, it has been a very quiet year in that regard, and not just for Amherst.  The influx of talent into NESCAC this year was truly remarkable.  But unless a lot changes in the next month or so, next year isn't going to feature nearly as strong a group of frosh.  By this time last year, it seemed like there were already a slew of highly-regarded players committed to teams throughout the league, including Robinson and Sabety.  While some solid players are headed to NESCAC next year (most notably Nick Tarantino, Cole Teal, and Johnny McCarty), none seem to be sure-fire superstars.  Strange.  Perhaps there will be a few big-time additions late in the game, like George was for Amherst last year. 

[middhoops]

In this tournament, three teams have played at what appeared to be their highest possible level against Amherst.  I, for one, have been shocked at the level of play York, Plattsburgh and Morrisville rose to.  The LJs have played well enough to win but not looked particularly over powering thus far.
Williams weekend in Virginia was completely dominant.  The Ephs appeared to be playing the kind of precision offensive basketball that's impossible to stop.
Amherst has proven three times in three chances that they are the better team.
That being said, I think the playing field may have leveled a bit recently.  I'm not going to say that it's a pick 'em game but I wouldn't bet on this one.  Williams has picked a choice time to play their best ball.
The effect of Connor Green's injury was plain to see against Morrisville.  The LJs are a great team with great athletes.  They are not, however, playing at the top of their game right now.  Maybe by Friday they will be again.  Nothing brings out the best in Hixon's squad like playing  against Williams.
Can't wait for Friday.

Before going off and doing something productive, I just wanted to acknowledge the rapid improvement of David George at the perfect time.  His play last weekend was huge.  George may have more upside than any other player in D3 basketball.  Teams take the ball to the rack always knowing he's waiting and can swat their shot.  That knowledge will cause many tentative and altered shots the rest of the way. 
Williams may be able to prepare for that but if Amherst makes it to the finals, I think he may be the difference.

[amh63]

More early posts!  There is 10 " of snow in my back yard.  Maybe the Final 4 ... Will be postponed?
The snowstorm did pound Salem...still going on with frozen stuff....bringing memories of harsh travel to the games in a past year.  There was delay and a number of posters had accidents...truly.   Government in D.C. Closed...the good news.  I have to move snow...the bad news.

Middhoops...interesting and perceptive posts.  Also enjoyed the views and " voices" of the newer Amherst posters.....plus K to all.

Nescac 1...concerning the all region selections.  Part of the selection process is the candidates that were up to be judged.  In the case of  Tom Killian, I think he may not have even been pushed by Amherst.  In the late season performance of David George and others in the conference...the "eye" test judgement used by TV Pundits versus the Body of Work...I would have made different choices...also.   

Watching the placement and seeding of D1 teams into the Dance a little...and reaction of Experts it is like a Shakespere play...do not know which one.  Some respect given to Buckets' Beloved UVA after all...the winners of the ACC...congrats!   Then their is the seeding of Louiville..the defending Champs.   I am making some comments on Div 1 to point out the diversity of opinions of knowledgeable experts ears on many early shows.  Heh...we posters here on D3 are good in comparison, IMHO 

[magicman]

nescac1
Hamilton isn't in the East region any longer. it's been in the Northeast region ever since Hamilton joined the NESCAC league. That's why Hart is where he is.

[Pat Coleman]

Can't say what the rest of the voters did but when I looked at Flannery and Robinson vs. common opponents (Salem State, Amherst, Springfield), I was pretty satisfied that Flannery deserved the nod. The only team against whom Robinson had a much better game was against Bowdoin.

It's not as if Flannery played in a bottom-feeder conference. And yes, being named conference player of the year, or at least first team, definitely helps.

[AmherstStudent05]

Can't say what the rest of the voters did but when I looked at Flannery and Robinson vs. common opponents (Salem State, Amherst, Springfield), I was pretty satisfied that Flannery deserved the nod. The only team against whom Robinson had a much better game was against Bowdoin.

It's not as if Flannery played in a bottom-feeder conference. And yes, being named conference player of the year, or at least first team, definitely helps.

I only saw Flannery play once, so I will have to defer to the judgment of others on this.  Certainly, Flannery's statistical output was outstanding this year and he certainly looked the part against my Jeffs.  I just wanted to say though that Duncan Robinson's performance in the NESCAC Championship game was much more impressive than anything Flannery did to us -- indeed, it was one of the best performances against us by anyone all season. (Admittedly, Duncan did not have great games against us in the regular season.)

[nescac1]

Pat, vs. common opponents really should be a tie-breaker when the entire body of work is even.  Here, it is not.  But in all events, Robinson performed better vs. common opponents, in actuality.  So why would the performance vs. common opponents satisfy you that Flannery deserved the nod?  That seems strange to me. 

Flannery was terrible vs. Bowdoin, 5/2/0, 2-6 from the field overall, whereas Robinson absolutely lit up Bowdoin with 24 points including 7-10 from three -- that is an enormous difference. 

Vs. Salem State: Robinson -- 18/7/4, 3 blocks, 1 steal.  Flannery put up 30/7/1, no blocks, no steals, so a marginally better game overall, but it's close, and Flannery played 7 more minutes against a terrible defensive opponent.  Had Williams not blown Salem out, Robinson could have easily put up more points, and I think having more assists, blocks and steals basically evens it out.  And that is a consistent theme -- Robinson contributes a lot on both ends of the floor, not just offensively. 

Vs. Springfield: Robinson put up 17/9/3, 2 blocks, 1 steal.
In three games vs. Springfield, Flannery averaged 20/7/1, 0 blocks, and 1 steal.  Slight edge to Robinson there. 

They played back-to-back vs. Gordon in the tourney, Williams won handily, and Babson lost, and again it was close, but I'd say Robinson had the better game of the two: 16-7-4, no steals or blocks, on 5-8 shooting, vs. 17-9-2 on 7-16 shooting, 1 steal, 1 block.  I watched the Babson-Gordon game and Flannery was pretty invisible until the last few minutes of the game, when it was too late for Babson to mount a comeback.  Most telling stat: one less point for Robinson, on half as many field goal attempts ...

So that leaves Amherst.  Flannery put up 17-7-2, no steals or blocks, Robinson in three games averaged 16-3-1 and one steal. Definitely an edge to Flannery there, but then again, he only had to play Amherst, one of the best few teams in the country, once, and I'm fairly confident that Amherst's level of intensity in those Williams games was significantly higher.  Robinson struggled the first two times vs. the Jeffs, but had an awesome game in the NESCAC final, which to me is more significant. 

One other note: Flannery played his best ball early in the season.  His last four games, though, when the intensity picked up, he struggled a bit.  Robinson started quiet as he deferred to upperclassmen, but performed much better once conference play began, and has played great ball on both ends in the NCAA tourney. 

In all events, looking at their body of work vs. common opponents, it's a fairly close call, but I can't see how you can say that Flannery outperformed Robinson.  I'd say they were roughly even overall excluding the Bowdoin game, but the huge disparity in that game tips the balance to Robinson.  So by whatever measure you look to -- overall statistical performance, performance vs. common opponents, team success, level of overall competition, or frankly, talent level / upside -- Robinson wins. 

The only area that Flannery trumps Robinson is in is luck -- NEWMAC may be a strong conference, but it's not as strong as NESCAC, and it seems based on NCAA performance that it isn't quite as strong as we thought.  And it also a conference in which the good teams are basically balanced units lacking nationally elite players.  It's not Robinson's fault that he plays in a conference featuring two likely first-team all-Americans, whereas Flannery played in a conference where few if any other individual performers stood out.  And it's also not Robinson's fault that NESCAC coaches essentially discriminate against frosh -- but the fact that he made an all-NESCAC team (even if he should have been first-team all-NESCAC, not second) as a first-year when guys like Aaron Toomey, Michael Mayer, Mike Crotty, Ben Coffin, Troy Whittington, Willy Workman, Andrew Olson, Blake Schultz, Ryan Sharry and Joey Kizel did not, is pretty telling regarding just how good he played this year. 

What's interesting is that, based on the paucity of first-years on other all-region teams, it seems like Robinson and Flannery are each other's biggest competition for national rookie of the year.  Obviously, based on the all-region vote Flannery has the edge right now, but if Robinson has a big game (or hopefully two ) in Salem, I'd like to think that would give him the edge when it's time for the national ROY vote.  Even though I believe that Robinson has already done more than enough to clinch that honor. 

[Pat Coleman]

Pat, vs. common opponents really should be a tie-breaker when the entire body of work is even.  Here, it is not.

This is your subjective opinion. Our voters' subjective opinion, better balanced among all of the northeast conferences, differs from your NESCAC-centric one. One thing to keep in mind as well is that I'd expect a Williams player to score more points -- the team averages 10 points more per game than Babson does. Babson simply doesn't need Flannery to score as many points as Williams seems to need Robinson to score.

You are more likely to see Robinson get national rookie of the year if you stop trying to influence me.

[madzillagd]

Here are the stats if anyone is interested:  they both played a total of 7 games against Bowdoin, Salem St, Amherst, Springfield & Gordon (Duncan 3x against Amherst; Flannery 3x against Springfield)

Flannery 7 game total:  128 pts, 53% fg, 36% 3fg, 83% FT, 45 reb, 8 ast,   5 stl, 2 blk, 8 to, 18 pf   (Team record 2-5)
Robinson 7 game total: 122 pts, 55% fg, 45% 3fg, 88% FT, 42 reb, 14 ast, 8 stl, 5 blk, 12 to, 16 pf (Team record 4-3)

Flannery scored 6 more points taking 6 more shots to do so and grabbed 3 more rebounds and less tos.  Robinson shot a better % from every category, had more assists, steals, blocks and less fouls.  At worse I'd say that is a wash. 

Agree with Pat on the usage comment - similar to our discussion on Hart a few weeks ago.  These guys have different roles they all fill and sometimes it's apples to oranges.  I'd disagree a bit on Williams needing Robinson to score because the fact is you have a lot more guys on the Williams team that can put up a lot of points, so there is more balance as a result in their stats.  My personal opinion is if you threw Robinson on Babson or Hamilton, he'd put up 25+ a game (although at a much more inefficient rate).  I think we'll get a chance to see next year (sadly) because with Epley and Mayer both being gone, guys are definitely going to have to step up to stay a top team. 

[amh63]

Did anyone catch the interview with Mike Mayer and Coach Maker of Williams last night on Hoopsville ?
Williams' responses on the opponents play at Mary Washington was charitable, IMO.  I believe that AM and UMW were not prepared to play against Williams.  Couple that with the level of play by the Ephs and you have the lopsided wins.  AM has two players on the regional teams and the coach wins the regional award.  Fine.  AM seems to play one on one offense and not tough defense....both not good against Williams when they are shooting well and passing the ball well.  Then there is Mary
Washington who has no one to match up with Mayer and no player it seems to create and attack Williams inside.  What to do?  UMW starts to shoot from outside and when the shots misses...shot some more.  Coach Maker out coached the other coaches...period.  Coach Maker admitted on the video that Williams is not a quick team.  He even stated that he knew he could go man to man defense and did not have to use a zone defense much.  That was what I picked up.
I found that interesting in that Coach Maker has said several times that he thinks a zone works better against Amherst.  Guess it is the match up situation again.

I will relate a discussion I had with a player during the NESCAC tourny  that will support feelings of posters here on the Friday's game...should not get Coach Hixon  mad at me.
It was after Williams had beaten the Panthers in. LeFrak.  I spoke to Connor Green briefly and mention that Amherst had to play Williams again...remembering the third game last season.  Connor took in my remark and smiled, looked to his friends nearby and said something like...we will just have to beat them again.  He looked to me that he wanted to play Williams...looked forward to the game.
Coach Maker mentioned that he felt Williams played their best game in the Title matchup...for 34 minutes.   That was the game without Pollack...and George was still improving . As Coach Hixon has stated, his players get up for Williams.  Am sure there will be game plan adjustments needed.

[nescac1]

Pat, all opinions are subjective, including both mine and yours, and anyone who votes on these sort of awards, which are always going to ignite debates, regardless of who makes the selections.   I'm not just judging Robinson against his region, or even nationally (where, admittedly, I have far less knowledge than you do), I'm also judging him against a long history of watching regional and national players of the year that played at Williams and in NESCAC, and he is the best first-year I've seen among that storied group, and I'm not alone in voicing that opinion.  And by the way, I've sung Flannery's praises all year -- I think he is tremendous player, who would be regional rookie of the year more often than not.  I just think he is up against the rare player who had an even better freshman year.  And watching them play back-to-back vs. Gordon, Flannery was very good, but Robinson just has a more complete package, in my view. 

To your second point, frankly, I hope you think on what you wrote and retract it, as I was really taken aback by that.  Folks on this board make all sorts of arguments / advocacy for or against a certain player for all sorts of post-season honors.  Think back to the epic arguments regarding Aaron Toomey last season as just one example, or all the discussions, statistical analysis, etc. re. all-NESCAC.  I am not sure why you would even run a D3hoops message board if you find these kind of discussions somehow inappropriate or distasteful.  It is, however, beyond inappropriate (and self-defeating) to "threaten" negative repercussions for a player because of advocacy made on a message board (which isn't directed just at you, but rather, a general commentary), that you run, who happens to be a fan of that player's team.  I have never once said "Pat, vote for Duncan" (to be honest, I have no idea how the voting even works).  Rather, I'm comparing two players' relative performances. 

If that sort of advocacy can negatively impact a player's odds of earning a post-season award, it without any doubt diminishes the legitimacy of that award, which should be based on a player's performance, rather than fan commentary.  I am just trying to bring to light my observations, and in particular, to counter a factual claim that I felt was inaccurate about performance vs. common opponents, which anyone who is reading (not just you) might take it to mean that Flannery outperformed Robinson in those games, when the statistics simply don't support that claim.  But if that sort of advocacy from a fan with no relation to the player could actually hurt a college player's chances of earning an individual award, I would certainly stop posting here (or maybe keep posting, but start advocating for Amherst players ), and I'm sure I would not be alone, and I can't imagine that is the outcome you are looking for.  I mean, can you imagine the outrage / scandal if someone who voted for NCAA D1 all-Americans said, "I was leaning towards Doug McDermott until I read some fan arguments on an Internet message board -- dude just lost my vote." 

Just like many other posters (who you frequently support) advocate for their teams by bashing NESCAC's scheduling, and so on.  I guess it's a good thing that the NCAA selection committee doesn't base its determination of tournament selections by punishing fans who post on d3hoops, lest the CCIW never get another Pool C team into the tourney!

[booyakasha]

Pat, all opinions are subjective, including both mine and yours, and anyone who votes on these sort of awards, which are always going to ignite debates, regardless of who makes the selections.   I'm not just judging Robinson against his region, or even nationally (where, admittedly, I have far less knowledge than you do), I'm also judging him against a long history of watching regional and national players of the year that played at Williams and in NESCAC, and he is the best first-year I've seen among that storied group, and I'm not alone in voicing that opinion.  And by the way, I've sung Flannery's praises all year -- I think he is tremendous player, who would be regional rookie of the year more often than not.  I just think he is up against the rare player who had an even better freshman year.  And watching them play back-to-back vs. Gordon, Flannery was very good, but Robinson just has a more complete package, in my view. 

To your second point, frankly, I hope you think on what you wrote and retract it, as I was really taken aback by that.  Folks on this board make all sorts of arguments / advocacy for or against a certain player for all sorts of post-season honors.  Think back to the epic arguments regarding Aaron Toomey last season as just one example, or all the discussions, statistical analysis, etc. re. all-NESCAC.  I am not sure why you would even run a D3hoops message board if you find these kind of discussions somehow inappropriate or distasteful.  It is, however, beyond inappropriate (and self-defeating) to "threaten" negative repercussions for a player because of advocacy made on a message board (which isn't directed just at you, but rather, a general commentary), that you run, who happens to be a fan of that player's team.  I have never once said "Pat, vote for Duncan" (to be honest, I have no idea how the voting even works).  Rather, I'm comparing two players' relative performances. 

If that sort of advocacy can negatively impact a player's odds of earning a post-season award, it without any doubt diminishes the legitimacy of that award, which should be based on a player's performance, rather than fan commentary.  I am just trying to bring to light my observations, and in particular, to counter a factual claim that I felt was inaccurate about performance vs. common opponents, which anyone who is reading (not just you) might take it to mean that Flannery outperformed Robinson in those games, when the statistics simply don't support that claim.  But if that sort of advocacy from a fan with no relation to the player could actually hurt a college player's chances of earning an individual award, I would certainly stop posting here (or maybe keep posting, but start advocating for Amherst players ), and I'm sure I would not be alone, and I can't imagine that is the outcome you are looking for.  I mean, can you imagine the outrage / scandal if someone who voted for NCAA D1 all-Americans said, "I was leaning towards Doug McDermott until I read some fan arguments on an Internet message board -- dude just lost my vote." 

Just like many other posters (who you frequently support) advocate for their teams by bashing NESCAC's scheduling, and so on.  I guess it's a good thing that the NCAA selection committee doesn't base its determination of tournament selections by punishing fans who post on d3hoops, lest the CCIW never get another Pool C team into the tourney!

Boom; roasted   

[nescac1]

amh63, I'm not sure what level of candor you were expecting from Mayer/Maker, but if you are waiting on a Williams player or coach to ever be anything less than glowing with praise for recent or prospective opponents, you'll be waiting for a looooonnnngggg time.  Whoever Williams is playing, win or lose, they are "talented and well-coached."  Maker will never give an iota of bulletin board material, or appear less than gracious in victory, and his players seem to be well-schooled in his philosophy.  In fact, if you ever catch any Williams player or coach doing anything but praise an opposing team, I'll buy you a six pack. 

[grabtherim]

This is the computer age version of "if you don't do things my way, I'm taking my ball and going home" or I'll hold my breath until I turn blue".  What a tool!  Feel free to change the t in tool to an f.  You have to be kidding me.  Even with your obvious response to come that we should all know you are kidding, your ability to debate as an adult and credibility are shot.
     

Pat, vs. common opponents really should be a tie-breaker when the entire body of work is even.  Here, it is not.

You are more likely to see Robinson get national rookie of the year if you stop trying to influence me.

[Pat Coleman]

Just letting you guys know -- attempts to influence me won't help, whether it's 500 words or a few. Don't know if that's what you were trying to do by saying "it is crazy that Robinson is not the ROY," but that's what it sounded like.