MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[AndOne]

Well, according to the live stats, Whitewater was beating North Central 88-78 with 12 seconds left...The Warhawks were up by 18 at half. 

Game Story and Box Score link

I think Whitewater just dribbled out the last 12 seconds.

After digging a huge hole and trailing by 18 at the half, North Central outscored the Warhawks 56-48 in the 2nd half to make the final respectable. Again, you have to wonder what this Cardinals team could do if it was at full strength.

Some things that stand out:

*The Cards' starters scored only 36 points. Not enough.
*NCC was outrebounded 33-21.
*UWW tallied 20 2nd chance points and 13 more off turnovers.
*Dean Prince had 7 assists and no turnovers. He now has 49 assists compared to only 17 turnovers for an assist/turnover ratio of 2.89. Pretty dam good.
*If the box score is correct, Reid Barringer hit for 28 points in only 12 minutes of action!

[79jaybird]

Elmhurst 76
Manchester 62

The Bluejays led by as many as 22 in the second half.  Most of the starters were rested in the second.  Burks and Ruch 15 each.

Overall, an "ok" game against a weaker Manchester team.  The positive is that Elmhurst is not just a Ruch/Burks show as Hintzsche and others are scoring.  The Bluejays did minimize their turnovers in the first half which is going to be the Barometer of Elmhurst this year.
One downer was the play of the underclassmen who were given a lot of PT in the second half.  After the game on the radio talking with Coach Scherrer, we was not very pleased with the "intensity" of his bench players.

Glad to see Elmhurst get a chance to rest their starters as the Bluejays have 2 games in 24 hours this weekend. 

Wheaton vs. Rivier, I am not stunned by the fact that Wheaton had a slight "scare".  Similar to Elmhurst getting a slight scare from Anderson. It's hard to just flatten teams everyday.  The important thing is that Wheaton WON the game.

[Sakman 1111]

Understand what you are saying Jaybird and the Elmhurst game lacked intensity except for spurts but Manchester just isn't a very good basketball team and in talking with a few players after the game it is hard to be intense when playing such a poor team......I realize from a coach's standpoint it shouldn't change but I hope this weekend proves to be somewhat better competition before league play starts. There weren't as many turnovers from the guards but there wasn't much pressure from Manchester. Offensively the Bluejays have 8 or 9 players that can score which is a plus.....their sucess in my opinion rests with guard play. If the guards can limit turnovers and and defend off the dribble the Bluejays will have a solid season and contend for the league title.....

[79jaybird]

Sakman11 agreed.  The Bluejays have good post presence, and need to have better, consistent play from the PG's.
Excluding Wade, Manchester had no fire power and looked real weak in many spots.  Then once they fell behind 10-12 points, were content just to fire away 3 pointers which only 20-30% fell in.

[AndOne]

79jay & Sak------

I think bench players especially, who are fighting for PT, should always bring intensity onto the floor with them no matter what kind of team they're playing against.
Don't you agree?

Also, when any player at least plays with intensity, he is more apt to make errors of commission rather than errors of Omission and I think a coach is more apt to forgive the former type errors than the latter.

Lastly, I'm still surprised Marco Macias in particular hasn't shown more. He was great last year.

[79jaybird]

AndOne- funny you mention Marco Macias because after the game, my girlfriend and I thought he was "sleepwalking" and always appears he just crawled out of bed. 
I agree that if you are not a starter, when you get your chance to compete you will give ALL YOU CAN to impress the coach, and earn perhaps a look at the starter's slot. 

[Sakman 1111]

I agree that subs should have the intensity but some nights against a much less talented team it just isn't there which I agree doesn't make sense but you see it time and time again......Macias last night had a real rough game.

[AndOne]

Well, two similar opinions on Macias tells the tale. Thanks guys.

I just am very surprised about his performance. He was likely the best guard I saw play last year. I know he was at or near the top of many schools recruiting list, and was the subject of an intense battle among many recruiters. The EC staff must have been licking their chops when he enrolled. I believe he was also offered a 3/4ths scholarship to Winona St, MN which had won the D2 national championship the previous year. Initially, I was concerned about his ability in the classroom, but never imagined he wouldn't have progressed further on the court by now. Perhaps he is still a bit overwhelmed by the entire college experience.

[Titan Q]

A blog entry I made for Titan Tidbits on defensive and offensive efficiency stats in the CCIW...

http://iwuhoops.blogspot.com/

A thanks to our friend David Collinge for putting this thought in my head via a post he made here last week.  The numbers are pretty interesting.

(DC, I don't know if there is a better way to calculate this using the season boxscore?  This seems to be the easiest way.)

[David Collinge]

A blog entry I made for Titan Tidbits on defensive and offensive efficiency stats in the CCIW...

http://iwuhoops.blogspot.com/

A thanks to our friend David Collinge for putting this thought in my head via a post he made here last week.  The numbers are pretty interesting.

(DC, I don't know if there is a better way to calculate this using the season boxscore?  This seems to be the easiest way.)

I confess that I've never even tried to think about how to calculate it from a box score, for either a game or a season.  The Wooster coaches, from whom I learned the concept, keep a running tally during the game, which would of course be the most accurate way to do it.  Your methodology seems reasonable to me, though.

I note that the Wooster goals are and have always been offensive efficiency of 1.1 and defensive of 0.9.  According to your calculations, only three CCIW teams achieve the defensive goal, just one on offense, and nobody achieves both.  Neither does Rochester (1.06/0.82) or, for that matter, Wooster (1.15/0.95), although each does achieve the desired margin. 

[sac]

I used to frequent this site www.ebastats.com ,( more direct link, http://www.eba-stats.com/form/tables.htm ) its loaded with stat formulas and other information on how to use it, what it all means etc.   I'm sure somewhere you can find a much more complicated and mindnumbing formula for offensive and defensive efficiency.

Just for kicks, Hope is 1.08 on offense, .834 on defense.

[sac]

I used to frequent this site www.ebastats.com ,( more direct link, http://www.eba-stats.com/form/tables.htm ) its loaded with stat formulas and other information on how to use it, what it all means etc.   I'm sure somewhere you can find a much more complicated and mindnumbing formula for offensive and defensive efficiency.

Just for kicks, Hope is 1.08 on offense, .834 on defense.

Upon further review, it appears this site has become mostly a vehicle to sell books, guides and manuels, not much free stuff............probably why I quit going there.  sorry. 

[Pat Coleman]

... silently scraps plans to turn sites into book sales portals ... 

[dansand]

A blog entry I made for Titan Tidbits on defensive and offensive efficiency stats in the CCIW...

http://iwuhoops.blogspot.com/

A thanks to our friend David Collinge for putting this thought in my head via a post he made here last week.  The numbers are pretty interesting.

(DC, I don't know if there is a better way to calculate this using the season boxscore?  This seems to be the easiest way.)

I confess that I've never even tried to think about how to calculate it from a box score, for either a game or a season.  The Wooster coaches, from whom I learned the concept, keep a running tally during the game, which would of course be the most accurate way to do it.  Your methodology seems reasonable to me, though.

I note that the Wooster goals are and have always been offensive efficiency of 1.1 and defensive of 0.9.  According to your calculations, only three CCIW teams achieve the defensive goal, just one on offense, and nobody achieves both.  Neither does Rochester (1.06/0.82) or, for that matter, Wooster (1.15/0.95), although each does achieve the desired margin. 

Excellent Q. I've also seen slightly diffrerent formulas for estimating possessions, although I'm sure they would yield roughly the same results. Many schools' sites also include a play-by-play with box scores so, although tedious, it's possible to figure the exact number of possessions for teams and their opponents. I'm not feeling quite that ambitious yet...

[Titan Q]

I found some good information on calculating offensive/defensive efficiency.  Obviously the formula = points/possessions.  The tricky part is in determining # of possessions with only the use of a cumulative boxscore.

The official formula for determine total possessions for the season is:

.96* (FGA - Off. Reb. + T.O. + (.475 * FTA))

It is explained here, towards the bottom of the page:

http://www.sportsdiscipline.com/basketball/APBRmetrics.html

Those .96 and .475 multipliers are adjustments made based on college basketball averages.  The only truly accurate way to count possessions would be to manually go through the play-by-play for each game.


Using this formula for possessions, I revised those CCIW offensive/defensive efficiency numbers...

http://iwuhoops.blogspot.com/