MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[KnightSlappy]

Hope didn't lose, and until they do it is a moot point.

Just curious how many posters think the eventual MIAA champion will finish 12-2 or better?

Sounds like a good poll question.

I'll throw my vote into the 12-2 or better category, but an Albion win at VNA on Saturday might change my thinking.

IMO, 12-2 will win you the league, 11-3 might still give you a shot, and four losses means you're out.

[ziggy]

Hope didn't lose, and until they do it is a moot point.

Just curious how many posters think the eventual MIAA champion will finish 12-2 or better?

Sounds like a good poll question.

I'll throw my vote into the 12-2 or better category, but an Albion win at VNA on Saturday might change my thinking.

IMO, 12-2 will win you the league, 11-3 might still give you a shot, and four losses means you're out.

12-2 probably gets the job done for Calvin, 11-3 and I'd say Calvin gets it outright or Hope and/or Albion enter back into the picture.

Assuming Calvin takes care of business in their two games with Alma and their home date with Trine, they need 4-2 to put themselves in great position to host the MIAA tourney. Of course, the last time I engaged in schedule math it left me disappointed after a 163rd game...

[KnightSlappy]

Hope didn't lose, and until they do it is a moot point.

Just curious how many posters think the eventual MIAA champion will finish 12-2 or better?

Sounds like a good poll question.

I'll throw my vote into the 12-2 or better category, but an Albion win at VNA on Saturday might change my thinking.

IMO, 12-2 will win you the league, 11-3 might still give you a shot, and four losses means you're out.

12-2 probably gets the job done for Calvin, 11-3 and I'd say Calvin gets it outright or Hope and/or Albion enter back into the picture.

Assuming Calvin takes care of business in their two games with Alma and their home date with Trine, they need 4-2 to put themselves in great position to host the MIAA tourney. Of course, the last time I engaged in schedule math it left me disappointed after a 163rd game...

Ah yes, schedule math. It always plays out so well on paper, doesn't it? 77 chances to make the playoffs, and they couldn't convert a single one.

[HopeConvert]

Well, it's hard to calculate the meaning of those records unless you know to whom those losses occurred. It would make a huge difference if Calvin were to lose to Kazoo and Adrian rather than Hope and Albion. Hope might be able to lose another game, but not to Calvin. And so on.

Last night's Hope game has been pretty well covered. The tipped rebound by Snuggeruud to Bunn was huge. No less huge was Logan Neil's shot-clock-beating three-pointer, a big play in the game as Albion was cutting into Hope's lead.

I challenged OK to a duel at the beginning of the conference season as to whether rebounding or shooting percentage would be statistically the best predictor of victory. I am waiting for some enterprising undergraduate to crunch the numbers, but I'm liking my chances.

Hope absolutely has to stop missing so many bunnies. Finishing better around the rim would, um, probably lead to a higher shooting percentage and less rebounds. 

[sac]

I challenged OK to a duel at the beginning of the conference season as to whether rebounding or shooting percentage would be statistically the best predictor of victory. I am waiting for some enterprising undergraduate to crunch the numbers, but I'm liking my chances.

Seems like I did that before and its FG%.

[northb]

Both these teams can still finish 11-3 or better so any talk about "must win" games is a bit premature. 

Had the Dutchmen lost to the Brits, they would have simply been "mostly dead". There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive.

It is very unusual to find a Hope team down 1-2 after 3 games in the MIAA.     As tempting as it is I know better than to start making a jello salad to take to Hope's wake.    
Granted, while Hope may not be the dominating power that their fans have come to enjoy, and expect, they are still far from dead.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs

[HopeConvert]

I challenged OK to a duel at the beginning of the conference season as to whether rebounding or shooting percentage would be statistically the best predictor of victory. I am waiting for some enterprising undergraduate to crunch the numbers, but I'm liking my chances.

Seems like I did that before and its FG%.

D'oh!

[KnightSlappy]

I challenged OK to a duel at the beginning of the conference season as to whether rebounding or shooting percentage would be statistically the best predictor of victory. I am waiting for some enterprising undergraduate to crunch the numbers, but I'm liking my chances.

Seems like I did that before and its FG%.

Although, if you collected every rebound in a game you'd be better off than if you simply made every shot you took.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

I challenged OK to a duel at the beginning of the conference season as to whether rebounding or shooting percentage would be statistically the best predictor of victory. I am waiting for some enterprising undergraduate to crunch the numbers, but I'm liking my chances.

Seems like I did that before and its FG%.

Although, if you collected every rebound in a game you'd be better off than if you simply made every shot you took.

You wanna 'splain that one to me Lucy? 

You could technically have a game where you had unlimited rebounds and zero points.   

[ziggy]

You wanna 'splain that one to me Lucy? 

You could technically have a game where you had unlimited rebounds and zero points.   

That is a team with a major turnover problem!

[KnightSlappy]

I challenged OK to a duel at the beginning of the conference season as to whether rebounding or shooting percentage would be statistically the best predictor of victory. I am waiting for some enterprising undergraduate to crunch the numbers, but I'm liking my chances.

Seems like I did that before and its FG%.

Although, if you collected every rebound in a game you'd be better off than if you simply made every shot you took.

You wanna 'splain that one to me Lucy? 

You could technically have a game where you had unlimited rebounds and zero points.   

I guess I was assuming that you also had a non-zero FG% and that turnovers would remain relatively constant in either scenario.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

You wanna 'splain that one to me Lucy? 

You could technically have a game where you had unlimited rebounds and zero points.   

That is a team with a major turnover problem!

Not necessarily.  In fact you could have just 1 turnover and lose 1-0 - assuming they make a single FT, and you go 0 fer, but get every rebound.

[KnightSlappy]

You wanna 'splain that one to me Lucy? 

You could technically have a game where you had unlimited rebounds and zero points.   

That is a team with a major turnover problem!

Not necessarily.  In fact you could have just 1 turnover and lose 1-0 - assuming they make a single FT, and you go 0 fer, but get every rebound.

You wouldn't even need the turnover. Either they win the tip or get the ball after the half.

From an offensive perspective, you'd score more points by increasing your FG% by 5% than if you increased your reb% by 5%. But rebounds also keep the opponent from getting a second opportunity so it probably comes out in the wash.

The best thing to do would be to work hard to get into good rebounding position and make sure the shots you take are high percentage. 

[Flying Dutch Fan]

It just seems to me that I've seen many more games where the winning team was outrebounded (significantly), but shot the lights out, then I've seen games where the winning team shot poorly (significantly worse), but won the battle of the boards.

[wiz]

Oh no!  It's not formula Friday again, is it?  Why do we have to talk all these stats and percentages and what ifs?  I just want to go to Hope and punch some one in the nose.