MBB: Midwest Conference

[jeffdc]

Even here in GrinCity, there are things we simply won't do. Plus I don't want to get barred from YouTube.

[systemfan86]

Isn't he the star of Alias? 

I was going to say "wasn't he that old guy who played Mel Gibsons's father in that old west movie with Jodie Foster."

But, I thought that might give systemfan a heart attack or something, so I dialed it down a few notches.

LOL. Nope that's a good one.

Of course, no one has indicated that they understood the musical reference yet.

I just figured April would come through for you on that one.

BTW, do you remember the name of that movie? (and I don't think it was his father, the character's name was Marshal Zane Cooper. )

[fightingscots13]

sf86 - "how do you propose we answer the question? If there is no way to do it, WHY ASK?!"

I didn't ask - my post was from an earlier discussion, and my point was that no one can really say he would or wouldn't be successful in a (since you don't like 'normal') non-system offense...if you played, then you should get that 'normal' is anything but the 'system.'

...and the name of the movie was Maverick, and Marshal Zane Cooper WAS Mel Gibson's (Maverick's) dad.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Yeah, I know it was called Maverick and that James Garner was the original Maverick and that's why he got cast in the film in the first place. 

I just figured I could construct an utterly sad remembrance of the reference would totally embody the lack of historical knowledge (both pop cultural and political, historical, and otherwise) inherent in most of my generation.  "Forgetting" the name of the movie was just another way to make it seem ridiculous.

[systemfan86]

Yeah, I know it was called Maverick and that James Garner was the original Maverick and that's why he got cast in the film in the first place. 

I just figured I could construct an utterly sad remembrance of the reference would totally embody the lack of historical knowledge (both pop cultural and political, historical, and otherwise) inherent in most of my generation.  "Forgetting" the name of the movie was just another way to make it seem ridiculous.

Well done grasshopper. My original post had to do with the theme song lyric from the original Maverick series. http://www.culttelly.co.uk/lyrics/mav.html

[systemfan86]

sf86 - "how do you propose we answer the question? If there is no way to do it, WHY ASK?!"

I didn't ask - my post was from an earlier discussion, and my point was that no one can really say he would or wouldn't be successful in a (since you don't like 'normal') non-system offense...if you played, then you should get that 'normal' is anything but the 'system.'

Fair enough, you didn't ask, but then were discussing whether we can successfully debate the issue? That seems oddly unproductive.

Anything but the 'system' is normal? That seems just a bit broad. Are you saying that the only difference between Carroll scoring 82 points a game and Lake Forest scoring 63 points a game is talent? After all, they play the same normal game (!?!). Or are you simply saying it's easier to translate the numbers - which while I might disagree at some level, I can at least understand better.

Maybe CC and LFC have different styles of play, and if you took Drury and put him on Lake Forest, he wouldn't be in the top ten in scoring in the league but his rebounding would be 'better'. Maybe, just maybe? Can you easily tranlslate Drury to LFC? Is Horton of BC simply more talented than any other player on a 'normal' team in the league? Is Maclin of Knox more talented than anyone on MC because he has better stats? Can you translate their numbers to other teams? Good luck.

I understand the point that Grinnell's style of play creates statistical outliers that make it hard to compare their stats to others, but one needn't have "played the game" to understand that not everyone else falls in the category of normal. I'd submit that the teams that play the Princeton style of basketball are as statistically abnormal for today's game as those who play like Grinnell. Comparing the stats of player from these teams is likely just as difficult as comparing GC's players to other team's players.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

It's not so much about system as the numbers.  I think we'd be better off looking at it this way:

If Grotberg were to begin playing 32-35 minutes per game in the system, would his points per minute average continue to rise at the same level or would the sheer volume of shots eventually degrade his ability to score?

The whole premise of one side of the argument is that if he can score 30ppg in 22 minutes in the system, he should be able to score 30ppg in 35 minutes in another system.

Then again, of course the debate comes back to whether or not he's talented enough to get noticed in another system.  We've made that case before.

[scottie]

A competent SID department from the visiting school would provide a pronounciation key.  And,  competent announcers would use it.     I'm too far removed from the roster to be sure, but I think the announcers were mispronouncing some of the Scots' names as well.  So don't take it too hard Jdc. 

Competent announcers wouldn't wait for a key. They would ask the SID or an assistant coach how to pronounce names.

Yes...they would, Pat.  Many times, however, students don't realize these things early on in their broadcasting experience.  They learn their lessons by experience.  Again, let's allow them to make their mistakes and grow.   Maybe someday, if they say their prayers and eat their vitamins, they can achieve Pat Coleman-like perfection at least once in their life.

[gobucs]

Maybe we can persuade JeffP to do double duty as the GC cheerleading squad of one.... 

OOOOOOO....now that would be worth double the price of admission   (yes, I know admission is free to GC games....LOL)

[TeeDub]

It's not so much about system as the numbers.  I think we'd be better off looking at it this way:

If Grotberg were to begin playing 32-35 minutes per game in the system, would his points per minute average continue to rise at the same level or would the sheer volume of shots eventually degrade his ability to score?

The whole premise of one side of the argument is that if he can score 30ppg in 22 minutes in the system, he should be able to score 30ppg in 35 minutes in another system.

Then again, of course the debate comes back to whether or not he's talented enough to get noticed in another system.  We've made that case before.

Hoops Fan,  I think you're right on "point" with this one.  The volume of shots would sure diminish in a more traditional style.  For example, Mr. Drury from Carroll only takes about 14 shots per game in 32 minutes of play.  I hear he is a pretty decent player as well.

[Pat Coleman]

A competent SID department from the visiting school would provide a pronounciation key.  And,  competent announcers would use it.     I'm too far removed from the roster to be sure, but I think the announcers were mispronouncing some of the Scots' names as well.  So don't take it too hard Jdc. 

Competent announcers wouldn't wait for a key. They would ask the SID or an assistant coach how to pronounce names.

Yes...they would, Pat.  Many times, however, students don't realize these things early on in their broadcasting experience.  They learn their lessons by experience.  Again, let's allow them to make their mistakes and grow.   Maybe someday, if they say their prayers and eat their vitamins, they can achieve Pat Coleman-like perfection at least once in their life.

They don't learn their lessons if their mistakes aren't pointed out. I doubt you would want them to remain ignorant, right?

[fightingscots13]

Anything but the 'system' is normal? That seems just a bit broad. Are you saying that the only difference between Carroll scoring 82 points a game and Lake Forest scoring 63 points a game is talent? After all, they play the same normal game (!?!).

C'mon, sf, you're nitpicking...didn't I just post that you didn't like the term 'normal', so I used 'non-system'  And no, I'm not saying the difference is talent - don't put words in my mouth...there could be a number of reasons why CC puts up 82 ppg and Lf only 63 - maybe Coach Conger feels his best chance to win is to limit the other team's possessions, so his team works the shot clock down before putting up a shot...but if you put a guy like Drury (who I haven't seen play yet this year) on that team, maybe Conger loosens the reins a little bit.

I give up...maybe we're just missing each other's point, but I'm done.

[scottie]

A competent SID department from the visiting school would provide a pronounciation key.  And,  competent announcers would use it.     I'm too far removed from the roster to be sure, but I think the announcers were mispronouncing some of the Scots' names as well.  So don't take it too hard Jdc. 

Competent announcers wouldn't wait for a key. They would ask the SID or an assistant coach how to pronounce names.

Yes...they would, Pat.  Many times, however, students don't realize these things early on in their broadcasting experience.  They learn their lessons by experience.  Again, let's allow them to make their mistakes and grow.   Maybe someday, if they say their prayers and eat their vitamins, they can achieve Pat Coleman-like perfection at least once in their life.

They don't learn their lessons if their mistakes aren't pointed out. I doubt you would want them to remain ignorant, right?

Truth be told, I did email a few constructive criticisms to one of the MC SIDs.  However, since all of the schools are now playing a new role in the webcasting (whether they were prepared for this responsibility or not), I'm not expecting ESPN-broadcast-team quality just yet.  Although, if Erin Andrews needs a tour of the Monmouth campus, I'll drop whatever I'm doing and be over there in 2.5 hours...      

[systemfan86]

Anything but the 'system' is normal? That seems just a bit broad. Are you saying that the only difference between Carroll scoring 82 points a game and Lake Forest scoring 63 points a game is talent? After all, they play the same normal game (!?!).

C'mon, sf, you're nitpicking...didn't I just post that you didn't like the term 'normal', so I used 'non-system'  And no, I'm not saying the difference is talent - don't put words in my mouth...there could be a number of reasons why CC puts up 82 ppg and Lf only 63 - maybe Coach Conger feels his best chance to win is to limit the other team's possessions, so his team works the shot clock down before putting up a shot...but if you put a guy like Drury (who I haven't seen play yet this year) on that team, maybe Conger loosens the reins a little bit.

I give up...maybe we're just missing each other's point, but I'm done.

Sorry that you feel that way - i.e. giving up. 

If I was nitpicking, my apologies. Overly broad statements tend to bring that out in me.

I thought it was interesting that you stopped the quote where you did and then objected to me putting words in your mouth. The next sentence I wrote was:

Or are you simply saying it's easier to translate the numbers - which while I might disagree at some level, I can at least understand better.

So I allowed for the possibility that the talent wasn't your point. OK?

I went back and looked at the original post. You included this:

Also, even though he has the ball in his hands a lot on the offensive end, it doesn't take nearly as much energy to handle it for 10 seconds as it does to play defense for 30 seconds.

So, with that being said, I can't say how good he could be.  Too many questions come up - can he score within the framework of a "normal" offense, where there's helpside 'D' all the time?  Would the physical pounding of playing man-to-man for 30+ minutes affect him (and any other GC players for that matter)?

So it appears that your point, after watching the game, is, at its base, the style of play makes it too difficult to determine how he would do in a different style of play. That's true. And I'm guessing we'll never know since I doubt GC is changing their style of play, and he's likely not transferring. So the question is essentially moot.

As long as I'm nitpicking, might I offer the following question: presuming you'll accept the premise that players like Grotberg and Long are shooters who can go on scoring streaks when their shots are falling, is it possible that a coach employing a different style might find a way to modify their approach to protect their shooter from the physical game you describe? If they'd do it - modify their approach - for Drury, might they do it for another scorer?

[schwanman]

Although it's likely true that Grotberg's production in a typical Division III offense will never be known, here is one attempt. From my experience, a typical game involving Monmouth College men's basketball has a little less than 40 possessions per team per half, or roughly 75 for the game. Obviously, the number is higher in Grinnell games and lower when the opponent is Lake Forest or St. Norbert.

In fact, there were 97 possessions per team in Tuesday's Grinnell-Monmouth game. Obviously, that's how Grotberg is able to score more than your average star ... there are simply more opportunities to score (and no, I don't think the fact that he plays fewer minutes cancels all this out -- the reason I don't is because he is Option A, Option C and Option D every time he's on the floor).

After 39 possessions in the first half against Monmouth, Grotberg had 16 points. The 39th possession was two Grotberg free throws at the 6:33 mark. Through 38 possessions in the second half, he had another 19 points. The 38th possession was two Grotberg free throws at the 4:11 mark. That would give him 35 points had that particular night been a 77-possession game, or 31 had those two free throw possessions not counted.

It is my belief that 35 points would be the upper end of what he would do "normally." And 35 points is darn good. Against a team that defended him differently than Monmouth did, that number would surely drop. Would he average 25 points per game, then, given 75 or so possessions a night? If not, certainly 20-plus, I would think, which would make him a consensus first-team All-MWC player.