MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[pointlem]

HoopDreams, one other possibility for why it might seem like third string subs return to the bench after making a mistake is that, being third string subs, they're slated for shorter stints on the floor . . . so after a turnover they are more likely to be up for rotation out.

Much as critics of KVS should take a deep breath and pause to recall his banners, critics of GVW might want to be mindful of his coaching record:
-------------------------
On January 12, 2008, Van Wieren became just the sixth coach in NCAA Division III men's basketball history to achieve 600 victories. His 31-year record after an 80-71 win over Olivet was 600-201. His winning percentage (.749) at that time was the best in this elite coaching group. He also has reached 600 victories faster than any other Division III coach (801st game). The previous mark was by Glenn Robinson of Franklin & Marshall who won number 600 in his 821st game. His career record through the 2008-09 season is 639-211.
-------------------------
I know, part of being a fan is playing backseat driver, and we've all done it.  But the bottom line is I respect both KVS and GVW, both as people and for what they've accomplished.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Point well taken, but he is no longer the fastest to 600 wins - Steve Moore of Wooster just got his 600th with only 185 losses.

But, yeah, I'm guessing a guy with 600+ wins probably knows how to coach!

[sac]

MIAA Tournament Trivia

2010 is the 19th MIAA Tournament

CHAMPIONS
Calvin 8 times--92-93-94-00-01-04-05-07
Hope 8 times--95-96-97-02-03-06-08-09
Albion 1 time--98
Defiance 1 time--99

CHAMPIONSHIP GAME APPEARANCES AND RECORD
Calvin 14 times............8-6
Hope 10 times................8-2
Albion 5 times...............1-4
Kalamazoo 3 times.......0-3
Adrian 2 times..............0-2
Defiance 2 times...........1-1

SEMI-FINAL APPEARANCES (updated through 09)
Calvin...................18
Hope....................18
Albion...................15
Adrian...................8
Kalamazoo............7
Defiance................2
Alma......................1
Olivet.....................2
Tri-State.................1

SEMI-FINAL RECORDS
Calvin..................14-4
Hope....................10-8
Albion...................5-10
Kalamazoo............3-4
Adrian....................2-6
Defiance................2-0
Olivet.....................0-2
Alma......................0-1
Tri-State.................0-1

TOURNAMENT SEMI-FINAL HOSTS (updated through 09)
Calvin 9 times
Hope 7 times
Albion 2 times

Semi-Final Host has made the Championship game 16 of 18 times.



FIRST ROUND RECORDS (updated through 2009)
Calvin.............12-0
Hope..............12-0
Albion..............13-3
Adrian..............7-10
Kalamazoo.......7-10
Olivet................2-15
Alma.................1-16
Tri-State............1-4
Defiance............2-0

FIRST ROUND........Home teams are 55-6 overall, 2008 last home team to lose in first round play.


OVERALL TOURNAMENT RECORDS (updated through 2009 tournament)
Calvin..........................35-10
Hope...........................29-10
Albion..........................19-17
Kalamazoo...................10-18
Adrian...........................10-18
Defiance........................5-1
Olivet.............................2-18
Alma..............................1-18
Tri-State.........................1-5

[northb]

MIAA Tournament Trivia
FIRST ROUND RECORDS (updated through 2009)
Calvin.............12-0
Hope..............12-0
Albion..............13-3
Adrian..............7-10
Kalamazoo.......7-10
Olivet................2-15
Alma.................1-16
Tri-State............1-4
Defiance............2-0

FIRST ROUND........Home teams are 55-6 overall, 2008 last home team to lose in first round play.


OVERALL TOURNAMENT RECORDS (updated through 2009 tournament)
Calvin..........................35-10
Hope...........................29-10
Albion..........................19-17
Kalamazoo...................10-18
Adrian...........................10-18
Defiance........................5-1
Alma..............................1-18
Olivet.............................1-18
Tri-State.........................1-5

Thanks for the info/summary, but OCSID may take exception to this part.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

my post didn't pertain to starters in question, nor game planning.  It was about a "latitiude" given to starters in regards to shot selection, turnovers, and an opportunity to make plays.  If each player was given that same "latitiude" the role players would most likely contribute more and display a greater confidence.  I could be wrong, but I doubt it. 

Your questions are valid, but your answers are very one-sided.  Everything you say may be true IF a player who is left in the game then makes a good play, shot, pass or whatever. 

Now consider what kind of posting flurry we would see if the same player was left in the game and continued to turnover the ball or take bad shots - thereby putting his team further in jeopardy.  You might say - "leave him in, the experience will make him a better player" - but at what cost? 

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a very difficult balance that needs to be maintained between the good of an individual player and the good of the team.  For the coach, the good of the team has got to come first.  Sometimes that means a player is not going to be happy - but then this isn't a rec league of 4th graders.  Sometimes it means one of your starters may end up sitting on the bench at the end of a tight game, sometimes it means guys are not going to see any playing time at all (both situations that Hope has had this year).  But if it's what is best for the team, then the coach has to make those decisions.  Are they always the right decisions - no, but I believe they are always made with the same intent - whatever is best for the team.

[northb]

my post didn't pertain to starters in question, nor game planning.  It was about a "latitiude" given to starters in regards to shot selection, turnovers, and an opportunity to make plays.  If each player was given that same "latitiude" the role players would most likely contribute more and display a greater confidence.  I could be wrong, but I doubt it. 

Your questions are valid, but your answers are very one-sided.  Everything you say may be true IF a player who is left in the game then makes a good play, shot, pass or whatever. 

Now consider what kind of posting flurry we would see if the same player was left in the game and continued to turnover the ball or take bad shots - thereby putting his team further in jeopardy.  You might say - "leave him in, the experience will make him a better player" - but at what cost? 

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a very difficult balance that needs to be maintained between the good of an individual player and the good of the team.  For the coach, the good of the team has got to come first.  Sometimes that means a player is not going to be happy - but then this isn't a rec league of 4th graders.  Sometimes it means one of your starters may end up sitting on the bench at the end of a tight game, sometimes it means guys are not going to see any playing time at all (both situations that Hope has had this year).  But if it's what is best for the team, then the coach has to make those decisions.  Are they always the right decisions - no, but I believe they are always made with the same intent - whatever is best for the team.

I think his point is that it is worth questioning whether that type of substitution pattern and short leash on a player is, in fact, something that will benefit the team in the long run.  In any particular game, the goal is to score more points than the opponent.  But one long-term goal is to develop lesser players into better players, which helps the team in the long run.    Another is to attract good players to your team, which may suffer when they see a role player treated in such a manner.  Again, GVW forgot more about basketball today than I will ever know, and has 600+ DIII coaching wins to my 0, but it is still worth the discussion.  Haven't you ever seen the crowd get excited during "garbage time" for the guy that is scoring his first ever point in a Hope uniform? There is certainly some benefit for having all players on the team get at least some PT. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ7ZpLgkVxA

[KnightSlappy]

Speaking of "Stomps of the foot" I thought that Calvin's offense may have been stymied a bit after KVS gave John Mantel a chiding foot stomp following a three point attempt. It was clear that Mantel, a player that puts up the occasional three, wouldn't even consider taking another even when he had open looks.

Not to rag on KVS, I think he does a good job handling his players but did anyone else notice this or am I making too much of it?

JM is shooting 25% from 3 this year.  I don't think Calvin's offense became stymied because KVS wouldn't let JM shoot the 3.

Oddly enough, I calculated John's career stats today......in MIAA play, he's 14-50 from trey for his career.  Just 2-11 this year.

I don't mind seeing John shoot 1 or 2 threes per game, but if he's not going to put one up -- as he clearly wasn't going to after KVS' foot stomp -- then I don't want to see him outside the arc, as he was on Saturday.

Can't say enough about the job that Brent Schuster did down the stretch for Calvin. He got nothing but the bottom on two HUGE free throws (after coming up with a big offensive rebound), and then scored the first 5 points of the overtime. He's a deserving player of the week -- he may have saved Calvin's Pool C chances.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

my post didn't pertain to starters in question, nor game planning.  It was about a "latitiude" given to starters in regards to shot selection, turnovers, and an opportunity to make plays.  If each player was given that same "latitiude" the role players would most likely contribute more and display a greater confidence.  I could be wrong, but I doubt it. 

Your questions are valid, but your answers are very one-sided.  Everything you say may be true IF a player who is left in the game then makes a good play, shot, pass or whatever. 

Now consider what kind of posting flurry we would see if the same player was left in the game and continued to turnover the ball or take bad shots - thereby putting his team further in jeopardy.  You might say - "leave him in, the experience will make him a better player" - but at what cost? 

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a very difficult balance that needs to be maintained between the good of an individual player and the good of the team.  For the coach, the good of the team has got to come first.  Sometimes that means a player is not going to be happy - but then this isn't a rec league of 4th graders.  Sometimes it means one of your starters may end up sitting on the bench at the end of a tight game, sometimes it means guys are not going to see any playing time at all (both situations that Hope has had this year).  But if it's what is best for the team, then the coach has to make those decisions.  Are they always the right decisions - no, but I believe they are always made with the same intent - whatever is best for the team.

I think his point is that it is worth questioning whether that type of substitution pattern and short leash on a player is, in fact, something that will benefit the team in the long run.  In any particular game, the goal is to score more points than the opponent.  But one long-term goal is to develop lesser players into better players, which helps the team in the long run.    Another is to attract good players to your team, which may suffer when they see a role player treated in such a manner.  Again, GVW forgot more about basketball today than I will ever know, and has 600+ DIII coaching wins to my 0, but it is still worth the discussion.  Haven't you ever seen the crowd get excited during "garbage time" for the guy that is scoring his first ever point in a Hope uniform? There is certainly some benefit for having all players on the team get at least some PT. 

I agree, and it's exactly why I used the words "very difficult balance" when talking about the good of the player and the good of the team.  They are of course linked together.

[KnightSlappy]

Calvin receives 5 points in the latest Top 25 poll, that ties them with Brandeis at #33.

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/

That OT win over Alma must have really impressed the voters!

[almcguirejr]

Speaking of "Stomps of the foot" I thought that Calvin's offense may have been stymied a bit after KVS gave John Mantel a chiding foot stomp following a three point attempt. It was clear that Mantel, a player that puts up the occasional three, wouldn't even consider taking another even when he had open looks.

Not to rag on KVS, I think he does a good job handling his players but did anyone else notice this or am I making too much of it?

JM is shooting 25% from 3 this year.  I don't think Calvin's offense became stymied because KVS wouldn't let JM shoot the 3.

Oddly enough, I calculated John's career stats today......in MIAA play, he's 14-50 from trey for his career.  Just 2-11 this year.

I don't mind seeing John shoot 1 or 2 threes per game, but if he's not going to put one up -- as he clearly wasn't going to after KVS' foot stomp -- then I don't want to see him outside the arc, as he was on Saturday.

Can't say enough about the job that Brent Schuster did down the stretch for Calvin. He got nothing but the bottom on two HUGE free throws (after coming up with a big offensive rebound), and then scored the first 5 points of the overtime. He's a deserving player of the week -- he may have saved Calvin's Pool C chances.

John is 2-11 in league play for 18%.  Opposing coaches want him shooting the 3.  It's basically a turnover if he shoots, he's not in position to rebound, he doesn't attract a double team leaving others open, it keeps the other center from having to play tough D or picking up a foul.  Calvin's best opportunity to win is with JM staying close to the basket not drifting around the perimeter IMO.

I agree with you about Schuster.  His desire along with the other guys off the bench allowed Calvin to win Saturday. 

[ziggy]

Speaking of "Stomps of the foot" I thought that Calvin's offense may have been stymied a bit after KVS gave John Mantel a chiding foot stomp following a three point attempt. It was clear that Mantel, a player that puts up the occasional three, wouldn't even consider taking another even when he had open looks.

Not to rag on KVS, I think he does a good job handling his players but did anyone else notice this or am I making too much of it?

JM is shooting 25% from 3 this year.  I don't think Calvin's offense became stymied because KVS wouldn't let JM shoot the 3.

Oddly enough, I calculated John's career stats today......in MIAA play, he's 14-50 from trey for his career.  Just 2-11 this year.

I don't mind seeing John shoot 1 or 2 threes per game, but if he's not going to put one up -- as he clearly wasn't going to after KVS' foot stomp -- then I don't want to see him outside the arc, as he was on Saturday.

Can't say enough about the job that Brent Schuster did down the stretch for Calvin. He got nothing but the bottom on two HUGE free throws (after coming up with a big offensive rebound), and then scored the first 5 points of the overtime. He's a deserving player of the week -- he may have saved Calvin's Pool C chances.

John is 2-11 in league play for 18%.  Opposing coaches want him shooting the 3.  It's basically a turnover if he shoots, he's not in position to rebound, he doesn't attract a double team leaving others open, it keeps the other center from having to play tough D or picking up a foul.  Calvin's best opportunity to win is with JM staying close to the basket not drifting around the perimeter IMO.

I agree with you about Schuster.  His desire along with the other guys off the bench allowed Calvin to win Saturday. 

If part of your offense includes a big man handling the ball up top then you have to live with him putting up the occasional wide open three. Following the miss I saw too many times when Calvin looked stagnant offensively and the ball seemed to find its way into Mantel or Campbell's hands at the top of the key. You knew they weren't going to shoot but there weren't many better options.

Believe me, I don't want John taking a bunch of threes but even putting up a miss has to change the way the defense reacts to the ball in his hands up top. I just didn't think the transgression warranted the reaction.

[KnightSlappy]

Speaking of "Stomps of the foot" I thought that Calvin's offense may have been stymied a bit after KVS gave John Mantel a chiding foot stomp following a three point attempt. It was clear that Mantel, a player that puts up the occasional three, wouldn't even consider taking another even when he had open looks.

Not to rag on KVS, I think he does a good job handling his players but did anyone else notice this or am I making too much of it?

JM is shooting 25% from 3 this year.  I don't think Calvin's offense became stymied because KVS wouldn't let JM shoot the 3.

Oddly enough, I calculated John's career stats today......in MIAA play, he's 14-50 from trey for his career.  Just 2-11 this year.

I don't mind seeing John shoot 1 or 2 threes per game, but if he's not going to put one up -- as he clearly wasn't going to after KVS' foot stomp -- then I don't want to see him outside the arc, as he was on Saturday.

Can't say enough about the job that Brent Schuster did down the stretch for Calvin. He got nothing but the bottom on two HUGE free throws (after coming up with a big offensive rebound), and then scored the first 5 points of the overtime. He's a deserving player of the week -- he may have saved Calvin's Pool C chances.

John is 2-11 in league play for 18%.  Opposing coaches want him shooting the 3.  It's basically a turnover if he shoots, he's not in position to rebound, he doesn't attract a double team leaving others open, it keeps the other center from having to play tough D or picking up a foul.  Calvin's best opportunity to win is with JM staying close to the basket not drifting around the perimeter IMO.

I agree with you about Schuster.  His desire along with the other guys off the bench allowed Calvin to win Saturday. 

If part of your offense includes a big man handling the ball up top then you have to live with him putting up the occasional wide open three. Following the miss I saw too many times when Calvin looked stagnant offensively and the ball seemed to find its way into Mantel or Campbell's hands at the top of the key. You knew they weren't going to shoot but there weren't many better options.

Believe me, I don't want John taking a bunch of threes but even putting up a miss has to change the way the defense reacts to the ball in his hands up top. I just didn't think the transgression warranted the reaction.

I especially like it when John puts up a three relatively early in the game. If he makes it, his defender usually respects his shot for the rest of the game, forcing him to play John closer opening up space in the lane for others to work.

If I was KVS, my rule of thumb for John would be to shoot one per game (if you're wide open), if you make it you get one more (if you're wide open). Even if the second goes in, you're done shooting threes.

Obviously John isn't the best shooter on the team, but I think he has the ability to knock one down, especially if it's uncontested. Although, if the hip pointer has been affecting him, he probably shouldn't from long range at all.

If Calvin was awarded three points on 18% of their turnovers, they'd have an extra 111 points in league play! 

[Intangir]

If part of your offense includes a big man handling the ball up top then you have to live with him putting up the occasional wide open three. Following the miss I saw too many times when Calvin looked stagnant offensively and the ball seemed to find its way into Mantel or Campbell's hands at the top of the key. You knew they weren't going to shoot but there weren't many better options.

Believe me, I don't want John taking a bunch of threes but even putting up a miss has to change the way the defense reacts to the ball in his hands up top. I just didn't think the transgression warranted the reaction.

Yeah there were definitely a bunch of those times when Alma left either Mantel or Campbell wide open for a 3 to the point where the crowd was yelling for them to take the shot.

What I couldn't figure out is why Calvin didn't seem to take more advantage of their height, uh, advantage.  According to their rosters, Calvin has 5 guys with regular playing time over 6'6", while Alma's tallest player is 6'6" and he was out for a good chunk of the game with foul trouble.  Granted Mantel was not 100% but I still feel like they hardly ever even tried to get it inside, much less make a habit of it.  

Anyway, I think seeing the adjustments both teams make (or don't) on Wednesday will be very interesting - will Alma use that same slow down offense?  Will Calvin try and push the ball inside more?  Will Alma continue to make amazing on-the-run 3 pointers from 4 feet behind the arc?

[Happy Calvin Guy]

I think the biggest issue with Mantel shooting 3's is the opportunity cost of not having him in the post where he can dominate when he puts his mind to it.  if he does want to shoot the occasional 3 I would recommend not shooting his fadeaway from 20 feet.  I think that leaning back on the shot also hurts his FT percentage.  His touch and rotation on the shot are extremely good for a big man and I think he'd see all his shooting %'s go up if he went straight up or leaned slightly into his shot.  He's tall enough that he shouldn't have to worry about getting many shots blocked.  

I am especially opposed to our "second tier" three point shooters (i.e. Mantel, Schnyders, Snikkers) putting up 3's early in the shot clock.  

[realist]

The slow down worked rather well for Alma on Sat. for part of the game.  It looks great running the clock down, and hitting a 3 with 2 or 3 seconds left.  I don't think you can figure they make the same % of 3's if they try that tomorrow.  Also Calvin's players will have seen that strategy, and will be prepared to deal with it.  A key for Calvin tomorrow, and for future games is going to be how well Mantel is able to play.