WBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletics Association

[realist]

   Thanks for taking no offense, because none was intended.  I was merely stating a historical fact.  I never have had any animosity towards any of the Hope players involved in the action.  They were just doing what they were trained to do, nothing vicious, and it could have been anyone who got hurt when the play is at that level.  Your point is well made on the need for the refs. to control play. 
FWIW at the time I thought the Hope players felt as bad about what happened to the Calvin players as anyone in the building.

[Erm Schmigget]

That's what I like about your posts, realist.  I think I know where you're coming from and usually it turns out my guess was right.  As much as our Rivalry is a heated and competitive affair, in the midst of such an unfortunate turn of events, I think most of us can put all that aside and be the siblings we really are.

[WWWRHH]

WW et.al  I do not know what more I can tell you my friend.  IMHO this years Calvin team compares favorably with the one that lost two players in 5 minutes to a good Hope team.  No hard feelings.     Frankly, if Hope can pull 2 out of 3 versus Calvin this year they are going to know all they need to know as they advance in the big dance.  My friend, relax, enjoy the ride, and make plans for March.   Once again, imho, the pressure of wanting to win it all on their home court worked against your team the last two years.  You are much bettter off at #3 than #1.

Realist, like Erm I generally appreciate you comments,  however I think in your effort to "keep it real" you may have missed the point of my recent posts - at least I am puzzeled by your reaction to my recent comments.

If you read my posts you will note that I have said very little about Calvin, and when I did it was complimentary.  I have even outlined the scenario that I believe will create a potential problem for the Dutch and feel Calvin is most likely to present the matchups that will create that challenge.

Hope has not played the Knights, they have no common opponents, and the Dutch just cruised past a highly ranked team.  They have not been seriously challenged on a consistent basis during the regular season in two and a half seasons.  It is a waste of time to say more about the Jan 19 game because it has yet to be played and I am not going to engage in trash talk or speculation about the outcome of a game that has all the makings of a barn burner.

If you are absolutely correct in your assessment of the Knights, and I have no reason to argue with you on that point, that does not create the strength of schedule that I think is optimal for post-season preparation. 

However, the facts remain that the MIAA is viewed as a weak conference, playing the conference schedule yields poor strength of schedule rankings for both the Knights and the Dutch and always makes it problematic for both to get into the tourney if they stumble agaist unranked teams.  On many levels it is not good for the conference, nor the Dutch and Knights for the such a great divide to exist between the top two teams and everyone else.  Let's not kid ourselves, the MIAA always has a couple of women's teams that would not fair well against decent high school squads.  With Albion and Olivet rebuilding, the conference may be even weaker than is typical. 

Given that set of facts, I am really puzzled by your reaction to my recent posts.  I thought I was primarily engaged in a discussion with other Hope fans (or perhaps only myself) as to the relative strength of this year's team, vs. the talent of other recent rosters.  Some of my comments could even be taken as mildly critical since I stated that this year's team did not yet measure up to the '06 and '08 editions and I was worried that I would be chastised by other wearers of orange.  Of course, any such discussion is always speculative and may be colored by my fondness of players that I watched for their entire careers and the nostalgia re: past glories which seems to overtake some of us as we grow older.   

If you choose to engage in a similar vein of conversation with other Knight fans you will not receive any complaints from me.  I may throw my two bits in about how effective I thought the Winkle - Harris combination was, lament Harris' lost time to injury,  or state how I think Van Eck is the toughest "little" big player I've had the pleasure of watching.  But I will not disrupt your meandering and tell you to relax.....perhaps it is too bad there aren't more Knight fans active on the boards ......

A final point, the last two years the Dutch lost hard fought games in the elite eight to the eventual champion.   Pressure to make it home for the final four may have played a part in the losses, but there were other factors (not the least of which was tough opponents) that played a role in the disappointments.  That may be a discussion for another day.  In the end, only eight losses, one national championship pl;us two subsequent appearances in the elite eight over a four year period is not a bad record.

Finally I will add that when that unfortunate scramble for the ball occured I was on my feet yelling for the ref to blow the whistle.....of course, my solution to the problem of refs wanting to avoid influencing the game with a possession change is to get rid of the alternate possession rule and go back to jump balls.  I don't think it would slow the game too much and it would be more fair - especially late in the game.

[WWWRHH]

WWWRHH-

A few thoughts regarding rebounding.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are weak compared to recent teams.  This year's team has 43/game, and the 06 National Champs had 43.8.  Also this year's team is shooting better (45.9% v 43.0%) and scoring more (80.8 v 76.5).  True that Carrie has by far the most on the team, but the other post players are all at or over 3/game in under 18 min each.

Since I am making efforts to clarify myself this afternoon let me expand on my thoughts that so far this year's Dutch efforts on the boards are relatively weaker than recent teams. 

The battle of the boards is not determined by the absolute number of rebounds grabbed, but by the rebounding margin.

The rebounding margins have declined in recent years:

2005 -2006   8.4

2006 -2007   9.3

2007-2008  10.7

2008-2009    7.4

2009- 2010   5.0

Still a healthy margin, but relatively narrow compared to some eye-popping margins of previous years.  Of course, it is not often that you have rebounders like Lange, Snikkers, Knox, Greene and  Warsen on the squad (07-08) together.  In 07-08 Snikkers avg. 5.9 per game in 15.5 mpg and Knox had 6.3 in only 13.2 mins. per game.  Last year each averaged over 8 per game in about 21 mins on the floor - it is unusual to have that type of rebounding tandem.

Your points regarding turnovers and shooting percentage do factor into this discussion.  If a team has a positive turnover ratio and higher shooting percentage some opportunities for rebounds are lost - this is especially telling at the defensive end where a team should capture most rebounds. 

[realist]

I think I got the point of your posts.  You express a genuine concern for what you feel are potential problems or weaknesses that your team may have.  There is no doubt playing against top ranked teams more often is the best way to build your teams ability to play top ranked teams.  To do that one would imagine that Hope would have to be willing to travel to where these teams are located, or perhaps pay for the teams to come to them.  I am sure all coaches, and or schedulers, are caught in that bind of wanting to play higher teams in terms of "strenght" of schedule, but not wanting to do so at the expense of coming away with a L. At what point does the down side risk exceed the potential upside gain?  
What would you do if tomorrow it became your job to schedule all of Hope's future non-conference games?  

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Since I am making efforts to clarify myself this afternoon let me expand on my thoughts that so far this year's Dutch efforts on the boards are relatively weaker than recent teams. 

The battle of the boards is not determined by the absolute number of rebounds grabbed, but by the rebounding margin.

The rebounding margins have declined in recent years:

2005 -2006   8.4

2006 -2007   9.3

2007-2008  10.7

2008-2009    7.4

2009- 2010   5.0

Still a healthy margin, but relatively narrow compared to some eye-popping margins of previous years.  Of course, it is not often that you have rebounders like Lange, Snikkers, Knox, Greene and  Warsen on the squad (07-08) together.  In 07-08 Snikkers avg. 5.9 per game in 15.5 mpg and Knox had 6.3 in only 13.2 mins. per game.  Last year each averaged over 8 per game in about 21 mins on the floor - it is unusual to have that type of rebounding tandem.

Your points regarding turnovers and shooting percentage do factor into this discussion.  If a team has a positive turnover ratio and higher shooting percentage some opportunities for rebounds are lost - this is especially telling at the defensive end where a team should capture most rebounds. 

Let me attempt to look at this from a slightly different angle.  I have for years thought that rebounding statistics and rebounding margin can be very misleading.  Let me explain.  Suppose you play two games, and in each game your opponent takes 60 shots from the floor.  In game 1, the opponent shoots 50%, so there are 30 rebounds up for grabs.  In game 2, the opponent shoots 25%, so now there are 45 rebounds available.  Of course the same is true as your own shooting percentage varies.  These variations can lead to rebounding margins that are meanignless (to a point) Think of the 1985 Villanova championship team.  They had a measly 2 offensive rebounds that game (of course they only missed 5 shots the entire game).

So I have created a formula to calculate rebounding % for both offense and defense using these formulas:

DR % = Defensive Rebounds / (Opponent's missed FGs + opponent's missed FTs)
OR % = Offensive Rebounds / (Team's missed FGs + team's missed FTs)

Based on these formulas, here are the numbers:

Year ---- DR % ---- OR %
05-06 -- 64.7% --- 37.5%
06-07 -- 64.7% --- 38.0%
07-08 -- 63.7% --- 40.1%
08-09 -- 62.5% --- 39.9%
09-10 -- 64.5% --- 33.7%

So while the DR% looks to right on track, the OR% this year needs some work.  Food for thought.

[sac]

Ah, welcome to the dark side of reason and logic through numbers FDF.

[Erm Schmigget]

So I have created a formula to calculate rebounding % for both offense and defense using these formulas:

nerd   

[pointlem]

So I have created a formula to calculate rebounding % for both offense and defense using these formulas:

nerd   

Flying Dutch Fan . . . your logic is compelling.  I love your analysis. 

I also think this Hope starting 5, especially defensively, is the best I've ever seen.  Having the top three post players all be effective 3 point shooters, having two defensively superb wing guards, and having a terrific new point guard (and improved player in the back up role) all bode well.  And the second five seem to be doing better and better as the season progresses.  I love watching this team . . . and their comraderie.

I see that top-ranked Illinois Wesleyan has just pick up a DI transfer, who has entered their program immediately.  No doubt they're dreaming home-court national championship this year.  If it happens, Hope players and fans will have some envy issues to deal with.

[Mr. Ypsi]

So I have created a formula to calculate rebounding % for both offense and defense using these formulas:

nerd  

Flying Dutch Fan . . . your logic is compelling.  I love your analysis.  

I also think this Hope starting 5, especially defensively, is the best I've ever seen.  Having the top three post players all be effective 3 point shooters, having two defensively superb wing guards, and having a terrific new point guard (and improved player in the back up role) all bode well.  And the second five seem to be doing better and better as the season progresses.  I love watching this team . . . and their comraderie.

I see that top-ranked Illinois Wesleyan has just pick up a DI transfer, who has entered their program immediately. No doubt they're dreaming home-court national championship this year.  If it happens, Hope players and fans will have some envy issues to deal with.

You're damn right that that is our dream!

Whether or not we can pull it off remains to be seen.  (I really thought Hope would pull it off, but 'twas not to be. )

I'm intensely disappointed that IWU fell short of reaching Holland the last two years (I certainly would have been there).  Bloomington is farther away, but I'm there if they are!

And I DO want to see a Solari-Snikkers showdown.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Hmm Mr Y - so IWU is trying the old Rowan approach, huh?   

[oldknight]

Hope has not played the Knights, they have no common opponents,

They do now. Last night the Lady Knights struggled to beat Madonna 56-53, a team Hope trounced by a rather easy 12 points in last month's opener. In Hope's win, the Lady Dutch cruised to a 70-40 lead midway through the second frame before getting outscored 30-12 to make the final score look more respectable. Hope did have a few hiccups in that game committing 35 turnovers, 20 in the first half, but was able to open up a 50-27 lead at the break on the strength of excellent shooting from the arc going 7-11.

In the FWIW Department, I find myself in full agreement with WWWRHH's recent string of posts. Right now I would judge Hope's team to not yet be the equal of the squads of  2 or 3 years ago, and that largely because of the uncertainty in the backcourt. The talent level is every bit the equal of recent years, they just have some things to prove. Players like Boles and Henderson had leadership skills and high basketball IQ's that the current Hope backcourt has not yet displayed. Maybe they will as the season progresses; they just have not consistently done it against quality competition.

Similarly, Calvin has things to prove against good competition.  Calvin may well be able to match Hope this season but I'm concerned about the Lady Knights' perimeter game. Hope appears to be a much better team from the arc than is Calvin and, unlike the Lady Knights, Hope's women force far more turnovers than they commit. As good as Snikkers is, I think how well or poorly the two teams perform in the backcourt may be the deciding factor when they finally meet.

[realist]

Quoting Pointlem: "Having the top three post players all be effective 3 point shooters,....."  is there a correlation between a lower OR, and the fact the post players are out past the arc?

[Erm Schmigget]

Quoting Pointlem: "Having the top three post players all be effective 3 point shooters,....."  is there a correlation between a lower OR, and the fact the post players are out past the arc?

There must be a formula for that.  FDF?   

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Quoting Pointlem: "Having the top three post players all be effective 3 point shooters,....."  is there a correlation between a lower OR, and the fact the post players are out past the arc?

There must be a formula for that.  FDF?   

Sure, you take the square root of the third derivative of....

ah, who cares - final score is the only statistic that matters