MBB: NESCAC

[eclinchy]

Wow.  Springfield?

Remember when we used to put Trinity in the same sentence with Bates and Tufts?  That was fun while it lasted, huh Bants?

Sorry, but that's a really bad loss.

[ballaholic4]

With the williams thing...

you can't be a significant threat in the NESCAC without some sort of legit inside presence.  In addition, it's not like they're the damn phoenix suns and have all these great wing players (kind of like trinity has had in the past) running around and causing matchup problems. 

they have two guys who are all-league caliber in Shalvoy and Rose, however, Rose depends too much on the outside shot.  Shalvoy is a true point-guard type (Hinrich, Nash, ****....Crotty) he should NEVER TAKE 27 shots.  and for that, i don't blame him, it's the scheme that sucks.  I'm sure he was just tryin' 2 keep his team in it.  AND 15 3s!!? in another game rose took 25, and the rest of the starters 30.  There's no balance, that's too many shots for one player, unless they're ABSOLUTELY HOT.  Rose is averaging 10 3's taken a game vs. 1.6 FTs.  YOU GOTTA GET TO THE RIM and get fouled.  You can't settle so much, it's not always about the shooter, some days they just don't go down and you have to have both dimensions to your game. 

Think about all the nescac teams since 2002 with over a 6-3 record, they've all had AT LEAST 1 excellent forward/center to rely on (WIL03 Demuth, WIL 03/04 Coffin, AMH03 Zieja, TRIN04-06 Rhoten, BOW04Petrie, AMH04/05Scheil, TUF05 Stovell, BAT 05/06 Stockwell, TUF06 Martin) That's every 6-3 + team since '02, the only exception to this rule was Amherst last year who was incredibly deep and started both Casnocha 6'6'' and Wheeler 6'5'' who could play inside/outisde and are very strong players.  In reality, Rose is just a 6'5'' 215 lbs SG. 

Williams needs to understand they won't win NESCAC games playing like they are now, playing like this, they don't have any control over their own fate.  They can't control tempo or matchups. 

tell me what you think....

[JeffRookie2]

Anybody got that MIT score? Also, any Amherst fan's think maybe its time to let Hopkins start over O'shea? I know O'Shea is supposed to be better defensively, but I've always thought he gets into foul trouble too quickly. The other day he even had trouble against Springfield, getting four fouls very quickly, and if there was anything to whine about with Amherst's play it was that they committed too many fouls.

[hugenerd]

I was at the game.  MIT matched up well against Tufts because Tufts, much like MIT, is a small, guard oriented team (or at least they played that way).

Yes and no.  Tufts is definitely more guard oriented than they were last year, but you have to keep in mind that usually, Jon Pierce (#1) gets off a lot more shots.  The MIT game was different because the Engineers took a big lead in the second half, and most of the Jumbos' shots were from outside.  Pierce spent most of his time in the paint, picking up the slack for Fitzgerald (#50), who had a pretty lousy game.

The Jumbos were 2- and 3-oriented on Saturday, because their two best shooters are Weitzen (#31) and O'Keefe (#20).  Jake was 2 for 4 from beyond the arc, and Ryan was 5 for 8... that was huge.

MIT only has one real post player, and that is freshman Eric Bracht, and he completely controlled the middle going for 16 points and 17 boards.  The players that seemed to want to score in the post for Tufts, #50 and #1, scored 1 and 7 points respectively and only had 12 boards between them.

One thing we can agree on, and that's that Erich Bracht had a huge game.  The most impressive stat on him is his minutes -- amazingly, he played all 55.  Not bad for a freshman!  Even Shepherd, who's considered to be Tufts' workhorse, only played 49 minutes.

But as far as rebounding goes, let's not get carried away.  Bracht was by no means in complete control.  Keep in mind that despite everything Bracht did, you guys got outrebounded overall!  Jake Weitzen had 10 for us, which was really impressive considering he plays the 3 most of the time.  And Pierce, who you lump into the same category with Fitz for some reason, had nine, eight on the defensive end.  Fitz and Pierce were completely different players in that game.  Fitz got his ass kicked, while Pierce was really clutch, in terms of getting crucial rebounds to give the Jumbos the ball back.

MIT was also able to keep up consistent ball pressure despite only having 6 players with significant minutes.  The pace of the game was controlled by MIT.  It seemed like Tufts wanted to run up and down the court but MIT continually slowed it down and kept the game under control. If they had played at Tufts pace they would have been blown out (they only played 6 players over 7 minutes).

That last sentence is incredibly true.  But I don't think you guys "controlled the pace" of the game.  You tried to, but we had a really aggressive full-court press (it helps to have 12 good players on your roster instead of eight).  Jeremy Black (in my opinion, the best defensive player Tufts has) had a huge steal in the second overtime (one of seven on the game for the Jumbos), that put us back in the game.  If you guys had a bit better ball-handling, you would have been in more control.  But in the end, it didn't work. Barnett Koryan was especially terrible for you guys -- he had a really bad game.

Tufts also had alot of turnovers (MIT had quite a few as well).  #2 for Tufts, for example, came in for 4 minutes in the second half, had 2 turnovers and airballed a couple of shots before he hit a jumper and was taken out of the game.  He alone cost Tufts 4 possessions in the second half (which happened to coincide to the time in the game when MIT went up by 10).

Haha.  Congratulations, you managed to find a flaw in our fourth or fifth best guard.

Gallant didn't get much time to develop last season, and he's still playing like a freshman so far.  Give him time, and he'll get better.

I think Tufts will have trouble with bigger teams that can control the pace of the game.  Both Brandeis and RIC are pretty big teams and we all know how Tufts fared against them.

First of all, RIC's two best players are their guards, Kinsey Durgin and Tirrell Hill, and those two guys are both under six feet.  I was there when RIC beat Tufts (and I doubt you were?), and RIC won by out-running the Jumbos, just the Jumbos did to MIT.

And second, when this Tufts offense gets on a fast break, they're very hard to stop.  Between Shepherd, Black and O'Keefe, this team has so many speedy, athletic scoring options that they're hard to stop.  Your best chance of beating them is to try and run with them -- that's what RIC did, and it worked.

I wont take the time to itemize my response as you have, but I will comment sequentially to your comments.  First of all, about Jon Pierce, I have several things to say.  It appeared as though he had the athleticism to do more on the outside, but he played almost the entire game inside, thats why I lumped him into the post spot.  Also, since you mentioned that he usually gets off alot more shots, I looked it up and he has taken 66 shots in 6 games this season (11 per game) and took 10 in the MIT game.  That doesnt seem like alot more.  I also felt like he was held in pretty good check by Barnett Koryan, who guarded him for most of the game.  You say that Koryan had a lousy game, but I have to disagree.  Given his toolset as a player (he is a 5'11" - 6' post player with not much basketball experience), he played an outstanding game.  The only reason he is getting so much time is that MIT has no other options in the post (one post player from last year is taking the year off while another is studying abroad).

You also mention that Tufts was 2 and 3 oriented on saturday, but I do not think that was for the whole game.  If I remember correctly at least 4 of the 7, if not more, of those threes were in the last couple minutes of regulation if not overtime and I am pretty sure #20 hit two of his five in the third OT specifically.  Therefore, in my opinion, MIT controlled the game for most of regulation.

In terms of rebounding, I did not get carried away.   I agreee that MIT was outrebounded, but one should point out that MIT shot awful from the field (26-74) and therefore missed 48 shots, compared to Tufts only missing 37 (a difference of 11 from the field) yet MIT was only outrebounded by 4.  Another main factor in the rebounding differential was MITs guards, as MITs starting 1, 2 and 3 had a total of 6 rebounds.  Therefore, I believe my initial statement about Bracht controlling the middle was accurate (and I am using the word control in the basketball sense, not the literal sense, meaning he played much better than any post player on Tufts. I mean, he did outrebound and outscore all of the post players that played for Tufts in the game).

About the pace of the game, I am going to have to disagree.  First of all, your press wasnt that great as you still had more turnovers than MIT.  Secondly, ball handling wasnt really the issue, I think it was fatigue.  I can say pretty confidently that the starting point for MIT was extremely tired in the OTs and most of his turnovers occurred during that time, 2 of them coming specifically in the 3rd OT (he played 53 minutes). As I said earlier, if you have seen Barnett play in the past, he had a very good game.  He is in there to play defense and rebound, which in my opinion he did.  He may have had 5 turnovers but you have to know who you are talking about to make a fair assessment of their play.

About #2 (aaron), I brought him up more to illustrate the time in the game that MIT had the most control.  In my opinion, he shouldnt have been in the game at all, which I thought was a coaching error.  The coach should have taken him out after the first airball and turnover, yet he left him in for a few more minutes in which he made a couple more bad plays.  I was sitting in the first row and he honestly looked like a deer in headlights matched up against MITs best player and defender(#25).  If that move was made earlier, Tufts probably would have won in regulation.

And finally, about Tufts losses.  You are right, I am not familiar with RIC but just saw that they have 4 players ~6'5" or taller that get significant minutes.  However, I am very familiar with Brandeis as I recently played in the UAA for four years and Brandeis always has always had very good, athletic big men (even when their teams werent that good).  I also stand by my statement that Tufts will have problems with any big teams that can control the pace, they did not play any good big men or anyone who looked like they were a good post defender (at least in the game I saw).


With regards to the whole UAA vs. NESCAC talk.  I disagree that the 4th or 5th best team in the NESCAC could have won the UAA.  I think the only team that I would clearly put above the UAA teams or as a great team on the national level is Amherst.  I have played in the UAA and coached in the new england area for a division III team and the style of play is completely different.  In NE you have teams that are built around strong guards that have a complete absence of strong post players (for the most part).   While these teams get along fine in NE and build rather impressive records, I really do not think they would fare well against teams that have strong post AND perimeters players, like some of the teams in the Midwest.  I remember playing against UW-Stevens Point in 2002 and it seemed like three of their players standing side to side in their 3-2 press could reach across the entire width of the court.

As for the UAA last year, I think a reason that everyone thought it was so down last year was because all of the teams in the top of the league were so close to eachother in skill level. Teams just beat up on eachother and therefore their overall records didnt look that great.  You also have to figure in travel, which in NE isnt that big a deal -- you jump on a bus, play the game and then go back home, in the UAA however, you have to fly on Thursday afternoon, stay in a hotel, miss school on Friday, worry about classwork (you may have to take an exam on the road in a hotel room, etc.), then play Friday night, fly again on saturday, play sunday afternoon, and then fly back home sunday night.  Travel may be overlooked in some conferences, but in the UAA there is a distinct drawback because it takes you out of your schedule completely.  This may work as a positive or negative (if you are away from school you may just concentrate on basketball and play better or you may be tired from travel and play worse) but it defintely adds some different dynamics. When the teams are so close to eachother this results in a lot of seasons splits (teams play home and away). Also, because of the geographic distribution of the schools, you have teams playing completely different schedules out of conference.  Sine the NESCAC is so geopraphically close, it is easier to gauge the teams against eachother and other teams in the region.  You also have a tendency of teams beating up on the same bad out-of-conference teams.

As for this year, I think the UAA is very strong with WashU, Chicago, Brandeis, Rochester and NYU fielding extremely strong teams.  If you want to see a dominant big man, I recommend seeing Jason Boone for NYU play when they come to town (Daniel Falcon is very talented as well, just not as physically imposing). I dont think the NESCAC is overall as strong, but dont take this the wrong way (and it is far too early to tell).  I think Amherst is deservingly ranked #2 in the country.  I just think you should give the UAA some credit.  Go watch some UAA games at Brandeis before you make up your mind, especially those against the teams I listed earlier.

[Red1]

I think we may have just seen the longest essay ever posted on DIII hoops.

Here's an abstract for ease of reading:

Both, Tufts and MIT had notable strengths and weaknesses, were fairly evenly matched overall, and Tufts won in 3ot.  And on a completely different topic it's too early to tell who's better between the UAA and NESCAC.

Cheers,
Red1

[hugenerd]

I think we may have just seen the longest essay ever posted on DIII hoops.

Here's an abstract for ease of reading:

Both, Tufts and MIT had notable strengths and weaknesses, were fairly evenly matched overall, and Tufts won in 3ot.  And on a completely different topic it's too early to tell who's better between the UAA and NESCAC.

Cheers,
Red1

Very good abstract.  I am an engineer so I am used to including all the facts and evidence when supporting my claims.  I noticed that it was quite long after I had written the note as well, but it didnt  seem that long when I was writing.  The post also looks longer because I quoted a very long post to begin with.

I will probably be at the Amherst game on Thursday so we can compare notes again after that game.

[Red1]

Hugenerd,

I'm in library school, and am just finishing a class in abstracting, so I thought I'd try my hand at it.  I should have been more specific in the strengths and weakenesses of each team.  One more sentence would've done it.

I don't really follow Amherst (and I live in Maine, so I don't really get to Le Frak very often), so I don't kow that I'll have much to compare beyond what's in the box score.  I'll be happy to abstract for you though.  Being a huge fan of Bates, my only real concern with Amherst is whether or not Bates can beat them in Lewiston this year.  As a soon to be librarian I wouldn't mind trying my hand at abstracting another post though.

Cheers,
Red1

[eclinchy]

The Amherst-MIT game is actually at Rockwell, not at LeFrak.  Tufts is only a few stops down the Red Line, and I enjoyed my last trip to MIT... maybe I'll check out the Amherst game.  It would be good to get a preview of the Jeffs before they come to Medford.

[thunder32]

Red1,

I thank you for the quick summary beceause there is no way that I was going to even try to read that monster of a post. 

[JeffRookie2]

Wow, tufts sounds really good. They must be undefeated no?

Nice cheap shot?

Your post would be a lot funnier if I hadn't just closed mine with talking about how Tufts lost.

yeah, I'm not going to lie, i have a pretty short attention span and i definitely didnt get all the way through that monster. Also, I made the mistake of thinking the Amherst-MIT game was tonight, since we typically play on Tuesday, so feel free to make fun of me for that

[thunder32]

Keene Tufts should be a good game tonight wanted to wish the Jumbos good luck tonight and this may be a way to right the ship.  Unfortunately I wont be able to make this game.  Also congrats to Jake Weitzen for getting NESCAC player of the week.

[walzy31]

Red1,

I'm with ThunderDan on the appreciation of your summary.

Geronimo,

Legendary post from the retired. You're like MJ coming out of retirement so many times. Yesterday I was flipping through cable channels and I swore I saw him on the D-League 66ers.

Taking down Keene would be a good way to get Tufts right on track. Let's have the NESCAC teams win out of conference region games so that the UAA is quieted.

[nchoops]

We 've just published a story on a *future* NESCAC player from our region that your board might be interested in (http://norcalpreps.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=613630). I've cut-and-pasted the piece below:

******
Union Mine's Bennett Commits

After taking an official visit to UC San Diego, unofficials to Williams College and Amherst, Union Mine's Kurt Bennett has made up his mind. The 6-foot-8, 215 pound power forward has committed to play basketball for Amherst, a small liberal arts college in Massachussettes. An NCAA Div. III school, Amherst boasts the oldest athletic program in the nation, offering sports teams as far back as the 1800s.

Bennett averaged 19 points and 9 rebounds per contest as a junior last year, and expects to improve on those statistics. "We want to go deep into the playoffs this year. The section championship is a goal," said Bennett. Last year, Union Mine lost in the Sac-Joaquin section Div. III semi-finals.

Looking to be an English major, Bennett currently has a 4.0 GPA, and scored an outstanding 2010 out of 2400 on the SAT.

"Both Amherst and Williams are top-notch in academics and basketball. At Amherst, I just really liked the coaching staff and players," said Bennett.

After college, Bennett's dream is to play basketball overseas for a couple of years, and then return and attend graduate school in journalism. He would ultimately like to be a sportswriter at some point.

It is appropriate that Bennett will be attending college just 90 minutes from Boston, as he models his game after former Celtics great Kevin McHale.

Union Mine's legendary coach, Terry Battenberg, describes Bennett's game. "Kurt is a tough, hard-nosed player who loves to score on the inside. He has excellent post moves and he is a great passer around the basket."

Battenerg continues, "I have been coaching [Kurt] for four years now and it seems like we have always been together. He knows what I want done and he encourages others as well as himself to do what is best for the team. It has been fun watching him grow in his game through these past four years."

Regarding what is expected out of Bennett this year, Battenerg responded, "I would expect him to be the toughest and strongest inside player in the league and probably the Sac area. He has the experience and desire to have a great season."

"Kurt is the only 4-year starter I have ever coached who started every game from day one. He is the only player I have ever coached to make all-league and lead the team in scoring as a freshman," concluded Battenberg.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Sounds like a good one.  Hopefully he doesn't have too good a year and get offers from better d1s.

[eclinchy]

That's really frustrating.  He talks about wanting to be in Boston, and wanting to go into journalism, yet doesn't mention Tufts, which a) is practically in Boston; and b) has a daily newspaper he could work for.