MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Titan Q]

Illinois Wesleyan 73
Millikin 64

http://www.iwusports.com/boxscore.aspx?id=4072&path=mbball

* Andy Stempel: 18 pts (4-5 3-point)
* Brady Rose: 15 pts, 5 reb, 4 assists
* Trevor Seibring: 12 pts, 5 reb, 5 assists (4-4 FG, 4-4 FT)

* Zach Fisher: 11 pts
* Nathan Lovekamp: 10 pts
* Tyler Pygon: 9 pts, 6 reb, 5 assists


This one was a grind for the Titans. IWU led 37-36 at the half and by just 3 with 7:46 to play before pulling away just a bit down the stretch.

Millikin played great.  The Big Blue have some really nice young talent - guys who are going to be very good - and they played with a lot of confidence and energy.  Overall, I thought IWU played well outside of missing a few 3-point shots they normally make.

IWU (10-3, 2-2) hosts Wheaton (6-6, 2-1) Saturday.

[izzy stradlin]

Augustana

Orange. 17
Ebel.      16
Sortillo.  12
Johnston 11
Wofford.  11 and 12 reb

It was almost if Augie has been playing possum on the defensive end all year, especially behind the arc.  Sorensen and Henry got couple fouls early and Raridon sat them a majority of the first half and NCC was playing a bunch of Freshman and Sophmores throughout much of the game.  IMO Augie played its best game of the year defensively on the perimeter and continue to be relatively efficient offensively.  Fellas,  Nolan Ebel is starting to remind me a lot of Hunter Hill with his clutch shooting, ability to penetrate, run the offense and get to the line and convert (9-9 fts) .

I was glancing at the box score at saw this as a good example of the "foul trouble fallacy". These two key players had limited minutes but only finished the game with 3 fouls each meaning the only thing that limited their minutes was the coach and what he perceived as foul trouble.  Not trying to pick on Raridon-- most all coaches do this as it has been ingrained into basketball culture, but in reality just decreases your chances of winning (similar to the sacrifice bunt in most cases in baseball).

A decent explanation:
https://theoryclass.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/foul-trouble/

[markerickson]

Following up on an earlier post, I see why the Maine South kid is playing D3.  First, he's not 6' 11".  Second, he's slow, which in part allowed Darius Brown to score a career-best tonight.  I'll stop now.

NPU was up 15 in the first half, but they watched Carthage shoot the treys again and again...wide open looks.  No observable change in the defensive scheme.  Carthage deserved to win.  Henry created a bunch of awkward shots that just did not click.  He's in a funk.

[Gregory Sager]

Carthage 82
North Park 76

Jordan Robinson: 19 pts, 16 rebs, 6:2 a:to
Darius Brown: 16 pts, 6 rebs
Juwan Henry: 16 pts
T.J. Cobbs: 10 pts

Mike Stevenson: 18 pts, 12 rebs
Drew Joiner: 14 pts
Jordan Thomas: 12 pts
Brad Perry: 11 pts

if you want to be the tenth-ranked team in the nation, you have to play like the tenth-ranked team in the nation for forty minutes. NPU didn't do that tonight, and the Vikings paid the price for it. They had a 15-point lead at 39-24 in the first half, then took their foot off the gas and let Carthage cut it to seven. The Vikings still had a ten-point lead at the half, but in the second half they were badly outworked by the Red Men. North Park's offense became a completely static series of half-hearted screen rolls and one-on-one plays -- and not the good kind, either, with a player utilizing a quickness mismatch to get to the rim and/or the line. If I don't see another jab-stepback trey attempt from the Vikings for awhile, it'll do my heart good.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the floor, Carthage steadily closed the gap and took over the lead with very efficient halfcourt sets. The Red Men moved without the ball on offense, while the Vikings didn't -- and that was really the story. That, plus NPU consistently got outhustled on the boards; after winning the rebound battle by four in the first half, they were outrebounded by nine in the second half.

The CCIW really ought to have a Most Improved Player award, because nobody's deserved one in recent memory more than Carthage's Mike Stevenson. I know that I've been plugging him on CCIW Chat for awhile now, but he really is a legitimate All-CCIW first-team candidate.

This was a very disappointing performance by the Vikings, not simply because they lost but because another team turned out to have a better work ethic than they had. That can't happen again if the Vikings are serious about playing past the 25th game of the season.

[Gregory Sager]

Augustana

Orange. 17
Ebel.      16
Sortillo.  12
Johnston 11
Wofford.  11 and 12 reb

It was almost if Augie has been playing possum on the defensive end all year, especially behind the arc.  Sorensen and Henry got couple fouls early and Raridon sat them a majority of the first half and NCC was playing a bunch of Freshman and Sophmores throughout much of the game.  IMO Augie played its best game of the year defensively on the perimeter and continue to be relatively efficient offensively.  Fellas,  Nolan Ebel is starting to remind me a lot of Hunter Hill with his clutch shooting, ability to penetrate, run the offense and get to the line and convert (9-9 fts) .

I was glancing at the box score at saw this as a good example of the "foul trouble fallacy". These two key players had limited minutes but only finished the game with 3 fouls each meaning the only thing that limited their minutes was the coach and what he perceived as foul trouble.  Not trying to pick on Raridon-- most all coaches do this as it has been ingrained into basketball culture, but in reality just decreases your chances of winning (similar to the sacrifice bunt in most cases in baseball).

A decent explanation:
https://theoryclass.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/foul-trouble/

Proof positive is what Mike Stevenson did tonight for Carthage. He picked up his second foul very early in the first half. Bosko sat him down for a couple minutes, then reinserted him into the game. Stevenson then proceeded to spark the Red Men run that cut the NPU lead from 15 down to seven, effectively keeping the Vikings from burying the Red Men then and there, and he went on to an 18 and 12 night while playing 36 minutes.

Guess how many fouls Stevenson had at the end of the game? Two.

Henry created a bunch of awkward shots that just did not click.  He's in a funk.

That's an accurate way to put it. He's going to have to stop forcing it so much, and he really, really, really needs to go back to his best weapon, which is the pullup on the drive prior to making contact.

[Gregory Sager]

Wheaton topped Carroll at King Arena, 78-71.  Aston Francis scored 21 for Wheaton and was joined in double figures by Ricky Samuelson (16 and 7), Jake Mlagan (16), and Luke Peters (10 with 10 assists to only three turnovers). The Pioneers continued their downward spiral in spite of a nice night from Ben Widdes, who scored 21 and had a great floor game (5:0 a:to), while Nick Penny contributed 14 points.

[4samuy]

Augustana

Orange. 17
Ebel.      16
Sortillo.  12
Johnston 11
Wofford.  11 and 12 reb

It was almost if Augie has been playing possum on the defensive end all year, especially behind the arc.  Sorensen and Henry got couple fouls early and Raridon sat them a majority of the first half and NCC was playing a bunch of Freshman and Sophmores throughout much of the game.  IMO Augie played its best game of the year defensively on the perimeter and continue to be relatively efficient offensively.  Fellas,  Nolan Ebel is starting to remind me a lot of Hunter Hill with his clutch shooting, ability to penetrate, run the offense and get to the line and convert (9-9 fts) .

I was glancing at the box score at saw this as a good example of the "foul trouble fallacy". These two key players had limited minutes but only finished the game with 3 fouls each meaning the only thing that limited their minutes was the coach and what he perceived as foul trouble.  Not trying to pick on Raridon-- most all coaches do this as it has been ingrained into basketball culture, but in reality just decreases your chances of winning (similar to the sacrifice bunt in most cases in baseball).

A decent explanation:
https://theoryclass.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/foul-trouble/

Thanks for the post.  It seemed awful strange to me.  He not only sat Henry and Sorensen, but also sat Jagger Anderson as well.  It just seemed as if he was trying to get the youngsters some quality time and experience, and quite frankly, they did a nice job.  NCC looks to continue to have some nice young players

[GoPerry]

Wheaton 78
Carroll 71

Aston Francis, 21 pts on 8/16 (5/10 from 3pt)
Ricky Samuelson 16 pts, 3 stls
Jake Mlagan, 16 pts on 7/9 shooting
Luke Peters, 10 pts, 10 asst

Ben Widdes, 21 pts, 4 reb, 5 asst
Nick Penny, 14 pts, 3-4 from 3, 2 stls
Kyle Keranen, Tanner Zaeske, 9 pts each

Overall a very solid game from the Thunder tonight vs a tough Carroll team.  The game was very tight, back and forth until about 6 mins left when Wheaton had a 2 minute mini-run with a couple 3 ptrs by Francis and Samuelson and baskets by Luke Peters.  Freshman Mlagan had 6 pts total for the season coming into the game, so his 16 pt performance was certainly a breakout of sorts.  I thought Carroll played pretty decently as well; the glaring difference was on the boards where Wheaton was +10.

Tonight's performance was quite a contrast to Wheaton's astonishingly poor play last week in Vegas.  They worked very hard on defending tonight and hustled to the ball the whole game.  Right now, it's 2-1 in the league and good for a half game lead for 3rd place.  I doubt they stay there since they haven't beaten anyone that they need to yet.  But now's their chance with road games in Bloomington and Foster/Kedzie coming up.  I agree with Mike Schauer that the next 2-3 stretch of games will determine if the Thunder have an outside shot at the 4th spot.

With Park losing a 2nd home game tonight, I'm not sure any team is looking super impressive right now.  In the end, I suspect it may come down to NPU, Augie and IWU down the stretch.  But I've yet to see Carthage play and injury has obviously brought NCC back to the pack. 

[4samuy]

Carthage 82
North Park 76

Jordan Robinson: 19 pts, 16 rebs, 6:2 a:to
Darius Brown: 16 pts, 6 rebs
Juwan Henry: 16 pts
T.J. Cobbs: 10 pts

Mike Stevenson: 18 pts, 12 rebs
Drew Joiner: 14 pts
Jordan Thomas: 12 pts
Brad Perry: 11 pts

if you want to be the tenth-ranked team in the nation, you have to play like the tenth-ranked team in the nation for forty minutes. NPU didn't do that tonight, and the Vikings paid the price for it. They had a 15-point lead at 39-24 in the first half, then took their foot off the gas and let Carthage cut it to seven. The Vikings still had a ten-point lead at the half, but in the second half they were badly outworked by the Red Men. North Park's offense became a completely static series of half-hearted screen rolls and one-on-one plays -- and not the good kind, either, with a player utilizing a quickness mismatch to get to the rim and/or the line. If I don't see another jab-stepback trey attempt from the Vikings for awhile, it'll do my heart good.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the floor, Carthage steadily closed the gap and took over the lead with very efficient halfcourt sets. The Red Men moved without the ball on offense, while the Vikings didn't -- and that was really the story. That, plus NPU consistently got outhustled on the boards; after winning the rebound battle by four in the first half, they were outrebounded by nine in the second half.

The CCIW really ought to have a Most Improved Player award, because nobody's deserved one in recent memory more than Carthage's Mike Stevenson. I know that I've been plugging him on CCIW Chat for awhile now, but he really is a legitimate All-CCIW first-team candidate.

This was a very disappointing performance by the Vikings, not simply because they lost but because another team turned out to have a better work ethic than they had. That can't happen again if the Vikings are serious about playing past the 25th game of the season.

Disappointed with the loss, but selfishly, my guy Jordan Robinson grabbed another 16 boards. 25 and 10 is still in the cards.

[kiko]

Augustana

Orange. 17
Ebel.      16
Sortillo.  12
Johnston 11
Wofford.  11 and 12 reb

It was almost if Augie has been playing possum on the defensive end all year, especially behind the arc.  Sorensen and Henry got couple fouls early and Raridon sat them a majority of the first half and NCC was playing a bunch of Freshman and Sophmores throughout much of the game.  IMO Augie played its best game of the year defensively on the perimeter and continue to be relatively efficient offensively.  Fellas,  Nolan Ebel is starting to remind me a lot of Hunter Hill with his clutch shooting, ability to penetrate, run the offense and get to the line and convert (9-9 fts) .

I was glancing at the box score at saw this as a good example of the "foul trouble fallacy". These two key players had limited minutes but only finished the game with 3 fouls each meaning the only thing that limited their minutes was the coach and what he perceived as foul trouble.  Not trying to pick on Raridon-- most all coaches do this as it has been ingrained into basketball culture, but in reality just decreases your chances of winning (similar to the sacrifice bunt in most cases in baseball).

A decent explanation:
https://theoryclass.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/foul-trouble/

I basically stopped reading that article when it said that the objective is to maximize minutes.  From my POV, the objective is to win the game.  So the two factors that should come into play are (1) to what extent does the coach trust his player to not pick up foul number n+1, and (2) what is the relative dropoff between the player and the reserve who will enter the game.  There is also potentially an element of how effectively the coach thinks he can steal minutes if his player is on the bench and he wants to shorten the game (or maintain the relative status quo, score-wise).

The decision on #1 should factor in both how disciplined/smart the coach feels the player can be about avoiding the foul, and also how much risk relative to the norm there might be from the opponent exploiting the player's status (read as: do they have the talent go at the player while he is relatively more exposed).

I probably would have sat one of the two but not both if I were controlling the joystick tonight.  The risk of a team like Augie exploiting the matchup of a reserve was fairly high, but the dropoff from either of those two to the next-available option was pretty steep.

The Cardinals have a lot of young, inexperienced players who are seeing significant minutes these days, and there are growing pains with that when you face a good team.  (Augie is young, but they are in reload mode and not rebuild mode.)  This is going to be a frustrating stretch at times for the Sons of Warden, but the minutes and game experience these guys are getting now can have a positive payoff down the road.

[izzy stradlin]

Augustana

Orange. 17
Ebel.      16
Sortillo.  12
Johnston 11
Wofford.  11 and 12 reb

It was almost if Augie has been playing possum on the defensive end all year, especially behind the arc.  Sorensen and Henry got couple fouls early and Raridon sat them a majority of the first half and NCC was playing a bunch of Freshman and Sophmores throughout much of the game.  IMO Augie played its best game of the year defensively on the perimeter and continue to be relatively efficient offensively.  Fellas,  Nolan Ebel is starting to remind me a lot of Hunter Hill with his clutch shooting, ability to penetrate, run the offense and get to the line and convert (9-9 fts) .

I was glancing at the box score at saw this as a good example of the "foul trouble fallacy". These two key players had limited minutes but only finished the game with 3 fouls each meaning the only thing that limited their minutes was the coach and what he perceived as foul trouble.  Not trying to pick on Raridon-- most all coaches do this as it has been ingrained into basketball culture, but in reality just decreases your chances of winning (similar to the sacrifice bunt in most cases in baseball).

A decent explanation:
https://theoryclass.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/foul-trouble/

I basically stopped reading that article when it said that the objective is to maximize minutes.  From my POV, the objective is to win the game.  So the two factors that should come into play are (1) to what extent does the coach trust his player to not pick up foul number n+1, and (2) what is the relative dropoff between the player and the reserve who will enter the game.  There is also potentially an element of how effectively the coach thinks he can steal minutes if his player is on the bench and he wants to shorten the game (or maintain the relative status quo, score-wise).

The decision on #1 should factor in both how disciplined/smart the coach feels the player can be about avoiding the foul, and also how much risk relative to the norm there might be from the opponent exploiting the player's status (read as: do they have the talent go at the player while he is relatively more exposed).

I don't think you're getting the point.  Of course winning any game is done by maximizing the minutes of the players who are playing the best.  I think that goes without saying.   The general point is that coaches only limit this by benching players with less than 5 fouls.  You can't assume a certain foul rate will continue and even if you could, it doesn't matter if you put a player on the bench-- if you do, he only gets to play less unless you time his minutes so perfectly that he fouls out when time expires.   N, N+1 etc should be irrelevant unless it's the 5th foul.  Obviously there are exceptions where a player has become emotional and is fouling and needs a minute on the bench but that's not what we are talking about.  I think the article goes through a couple caveats.  There is probably a similar article from the fivethirtyeight.com guys but I don't have time to look right now.     

I can guarantee you with 100% certainty, coaches who are most conservative with "foul trouble" over the years (ie 2 fouls in the first half always equals bench), have decreased their probability of winning games.       

I realize this goes against years conventional sports wisdom but there are quite a few similar sports fallacies that are coming light to when smarter people have taken a look at basic evidence rather than relying outdated group-think.

[izzy stradlin]

Augustana

Orange. 17
Ebel.      16
Sortillo.  12
Johnston 11
Wofford.  11 and 12 reb

It was almost if Augie has been playing possum on the defensive end all year, especially behind the arc.  Sorensen and Henry got couple fouls early and Raridon sat them a majority of the first half and NCC was playing a bunch of Freshman and Sophmores throughout much of the game.  IMO Augie played its best game of the year defensively on the perimeter and continue to be relatively efficient offensively.  Fellas,  Nolan Ebel is starting to remind me a lot of Hunter Hill with his clutch shooting, ability to penetrate, run the offense and get to the line and convert (9-9 fts) .

I was glancing at the box score at saw this as a good example of the "foul trouble fallacy". These two key players had limited minutes but only finished the game with 3 fouls each meaning the only thing that limited their minutes was the coach and what he perceived as foul trouble.  Not trying to pick on Raridon-- most all coaches do this as it has been ingrained into basketball culture, but in reality just decreases your chances of winning (similar to the sacrifice bunt in most cases in baseball).

A decent explanation:
https://theoryclass.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/foul-trouble/

Proof positive is what Mike Stevenson did tonight for Carthage. He picked up his second foul very early in the first half. Bosko sat him down for a couple minutes, then reinserted him into the game. Stevenson then proceeded to spark the Red Men run that cut the NPU lead from 15 down to seven, effectively keeping the Vikings from burying the Red Men then and there, and he went on to an 18 and 12 night while playing 36 minutes.

Guess how many fouls Stevenson had at the end of the game? Two.

I like it.  That's a guy who should be in "foul trouble" but his coach gave him a full 36 minutes.    Bosko might just be ahead of the curve on how he handles this but I have noticed coaches do a better job with this when they perceive themselves to be underdogs.   Similar to underdogs going for it more often on 4th down in football. It's almost as if they coach with less of a fear to lose, and more aggressively and rationally. 

[AndOne]

Izzy, Kiko,

You've got to trust that a veteran coach knows his personnel.

And, were you aware that one of the players whose fouls were being "managed" was also actually playing with a lower body injury that, at minimum, limited both his stamina and mobility to at least a moderate degree. Accordingly, his " foul management" was only part of story you are attempting to tell, and his being less than 100% physically necessitated physical as well foul management.

Lastly, you can take to the bank the fact that Todd Raridon has not achieved 484 D3 college victories, and taken two different teams to the Final Four, by frequently mismanaging, for whatever reason, his player's minutes. 

[iwu70]

Come on, AO, you just have to admit it, NCC is in trouble.

Augie is better than we all thought, surely CC is too. 

I thought MU played IWU very tough tonight -- so they are going to be pretty good in a year or two as well. 

One tough league . . . and you have injuries to key personnel, you are going to be in trouble.

IWU'70

[kiko]

Augustana

Orange. 17
Ebel.      16
Sortillo.  12
Johnston 11
Wofford.  11 and 12 reb

It was almost if Augie has been playing possum on the defensive end all year, especially behind the arc.  Sorensen and Henry got couple fouls early and Raridon sat them a majority of the first half and NCC was playing a bunch of Freshman and Sophmores throughout much of the game.  IMO Augie played its best game of the year defensively on the perimeter and continue to be relatively efficient offensively.  Fellas,  Nolan Ebel is starting to remind me a lot of Hunter Hill with his clutch shooting, ability to penetrate, run the offense and get to the line and convert (9-9 fts) .

I was glancing at the box score at saw this as a good example of the "foul trouble fallacy". These two key players had limited minutes but only finished the game with 3 fouls each meaning the only thing that limited their minutes was the coach and what he perceived as foul trouble.  Not trying to pick on Raridon-- most all coaches do this as it has been ingrained into basketball culture, but in reality just decreases your chances of winning (similar to the sacrifice bunt in most cases in baseball).

A decent explanation:
https://theoryclass.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/foul-trouble/

I basically stopped reading that article when it said that the objective is to maximize minutes.  From my POV, the objective is to win the game.  So the two factors that should come into play are (1) to what extent does the coach trust his player to not pick up foul number n+1, and (2) what is the relative dropoff between the player and the reserve who will enter the game.  There is also potentially an element of how effectively the coach thinks he can steal minutes if his player is on the bench and he wants to shorten the game (or maintain the relative status quo, score-wise).

The decision on #1 should factor in both how disciplined/smart the coach feels the player can be about avoiding the foul, and also how much risk relative to the norm there might be from the opponent exploiting the player's status (read as: do they have the talent go at the player while he is relatively more exposed).

I don't think you're getting the point.  Of course winning any game is done by maximizing the minutes of the players who are playing the best.  I think that goes without saying.   The general point is that coaches only limit this by benching players with less than 5 fouls.  You can't assume a certain foul rate will continue and even if you could, it doesn't matter if you put a player on the bench-- if you do, he only gets to play less unless you time his minutes so perfectly that he fouls out when time expires.   N, N+1 etc should be irrelevant unless it's the 5th foul.  Obviously there are exceptions where a player has become emotional and is fouling and needs a minute on the bench but that's not what we are talking about.  I think the article goes through a couple caveats.  There is probably a similar article from the fivethirtyeight.com guys but I don't have time to look right now.     

I can guarantee you with 100% certainty, coaches who are most conservative with "foul trouble" over the years (ie 2 fouls in the first half always equals bench), have decreased their probability of winning games.       

I realize this goes against years conventional sports wisdom but there are quite a few similar sports fallacies that are coming light to when smarter people have taken a look at basic evidence rather than relying outdated group-think.

Oh, I'm getting the point.  I just think it is a shallow and narrow analysis that attempts to apply linear thinking to a multivariate situation.  Whomever wrote that article is trying to be 538-like, but is IMO failing badly.

Are there times when leaving a player in as fouls pile up is probably a better call?  Sure.  But there are also times when, because of other factors, a coach is wise to show the player some pine.

And, were you aware that one of the players whose fouls were being "managed" was also actually playing with a lower body injury that, at minimum, limited both his stamina and mobility to at least a moderate degree. Accordingly, his " foul management" was only part of story you are attempting to tell, and his being less than 100% physically necessitated physical as well foul management.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.  There are a million considerations like this that may be a bigger or smaller part of the calculus depending on the situation.  They are nowhere in the equation shown in that article.