MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[Titan Q]

You bring up a good point. When I said that a coach should maximize a player's minutes, I was incorrect. The coach should be maximizing the number of possessions in which he's on the floor.

I think a coach has to not only take the number of possessions into account, but also the number of "effective" possessions.

* By sitting a player in "foul trouble" I believe the coach is trying to maximize the number of possessions he'll have that player for.  Let's take last night's extreme example of foul trouble (extreme in that Nate Snuggerud picked up his 2nd foul 2 minutes into the game).  If Coach Neil sits Snuggerud the final 18 minutes of the 1st half, but by doing so has him for his usual 15 minutes in the 2nd half, then Snuggerud plays 17 minutes last night (and plays whatever corresponding possessions that is).  He actually played 10 minutes.  I'm not saying Neil should have sat him those final 18 minutes of the 1st, but just offering that for consideration.

* In terms of what I called "effective" possessions, it's not always best for the team to have a kid out there playing matador defense.  Obviously opposing coaches are going to try to go right at a star player in bad foul trouble -- if that player is giving up easy baskets it might not be worth it to have him on the floor, even if he's an offensive stud.  Or maybe if you have to switch to play zone defense to protect a kid in foul trouble, but zone defense doesn't give you the best chance to win...are those "effective possessions"?


It seems to me all of this is completely situational, and it's also a lot of guess work.  I just think that your position of "there's never a reason to take a guy out of the first half with only two fouls" is too extreme.

[pointlem]

Interesting discussion . . . and a couple further thoughts:

1) Good point about minutes/possessions . . . though minutes and possess are surely correlated--the player with the most minutes will tend to be in for the most possessions. 

2) If number of possessions matters, not minutes, is the implication that a good player has more impact in a speed-up (e.g. Grinnell) offense than in a slower-paced offense?  Thus if a coach has really good players the offense should be run and gun?

3) Snuggerud averaged only 2.3 fouls per game last year.  He has not been a foul-prone player.  Perhaps that could be an additional reason for, after a rest, putting him back in to play his normal game with his natural defense.  Obviously, that didn't work out last night . . . but we're talking strategic odds.

I wonder, however, whether there is a sense in which it does make a difference quantitatively, and that would be the case if a team on average has more possessions in the final two minutes of a game than they do at any other point in the game. I haven't seen any stats on this, but toward the end of a game a team with a lead is playing keep-away while the other team is more desperate to get the ball. This will lead to hurry-up strategies and fouling on the part of the latter team, which would lead, I assume to more possessions. Of course, this could be offset by the team playing keep-away. If in fact Hope (for example) would have more possessions in the final two or three minutes of the game than at any other time, then it would make sense to make sure you have your best players on the floor at that time.

But these are assumptions. KS or anyone else: do you have any data on this?

You bring up a good point. When I said that a coach should maximize a player's minutes, I was incorrect. The coach should be maximizing the number of possessions in which he's on the floor. It very well could be that there are more possessions in the last minute of a particular game -- making it the most important minute -- but each individual possession inside that minute carries no more weight than any other possession of the game.

So minutes aren't an ideal way to measure this -- wouldn't it be cool if box scores recorded possession data for each player !?! -- but the main point stands. If a player doesn't foul out, and the coach sat at some point him because of "foul trouble," he (the coach) limited his potential impact on the game.

[KnightSlappy]

2) If number of possessions matters, not minutes, is the implication that a good player has more impact in a speed-up (e.g. Grinnell) offense than in a slower-paced offense?  Thus if a coach has really good players the offense should be run and gun?

Yes and no. You want to tailor the tempo of your offense to the strengths of your team, but a faster-pace game usually favors the better team (and a slow-down style favors the "worse" team).

If your team typically scores 1.1 points per possession, and my team 0.9 points per possession, then it would behoove me to limit the number of possessions in the game to limit your opportunity to extend the lead. If we played a really fast 90 possession game, you'd probably win by about 18. If we played a really slow 50 possession game, you'd probably win by only 10 (and stay within single digits into the final few minutes). Of course, games don't always follow the numbers like that and I could hope a few three pointers go my way in the end (and maybe you miss a few free throws).

In short, the final outcomes of games with fewer total possessions are impacted more by randomness than games with lots of possessions. And randomness benefits the team on the short end of the talent stick more than it does the better team.

[KnightSlappy]

Calvin recorded an assist on 49 of their 66 field goals over the weekend (74%!). Quality of opponent caveats apply, but the Knights rarely settled for poor looks at the basket.

[calvinite]

"Calvin recorded an assist on 49 of their 66 field goals over the weekend (74%!). "

Hey, does that 49 assist stat include the 'assist' Powell gave to him self when he 'passed' the ball off the backboard to himself and then put it in for a deuce? That play wasn't as good as his dunk against Hope last year, but it was still pretty ..... unique.

[maroonandgold]

Calvin recorded an assist on 49 of their 66 field goals over the weekend (74%!). Quality of opponent caveats apply, but the Knights rarely settled for poor looks at the basket.

Interesting and accurate observation!  I noticed how often even rather good outside shots were passed up in favor of closer shots.  Would taking more outside shots loosen up the defense more for inside shots?  Passing up the shots for a better shot is generally a good sign, but I still agree with the comments about Calvin's need for developing its outside shooting.  I saw evidence yesterday and last year that the team now has guys who can hit from the outside.  The important thing will be to develop the good balance between the already excellent inside game and sufficient outside shooting to avoid the defenses packing the inside. 

This team looks good to start with and has the potential to be very good.  Its defense continues to look well balanced between covering the inside shots and not giving too many outside looks for easy shots as has often been the case early in the season in past years.   Is it a case of more experienced players who understand the defense better, or it a change of defensive philosophy?  Either way the defense looks better than I have seen early in the season in recent years.

[sac]

Wabash 53  Albion 51
no boxscore yet

Was at this one, not the prettiest game I'll see this year.  Albion led most of the way all of the way but could just never pull far enough ahead.  Wabash kept themselves in it with some really good and timely 3 point shooting(5-9 2nd half).  Down the stretch they played their best defense of the day and kept Albion from scoring on several trips.

Up 7 with 6 to play, Albion had two straight trips with turnovers while Wabash scored at the other end, really gave Wabash the chance to steal it, which they did.  Wabash really came to life the last 5 minutes after Fr. Daniel Purvlicis' dunk to pull within 3.  Different team those last 5 minutes.

Wabash was the sloppier team most of the day, kind of a strange game since they seemed to really pull it together the last quarter of the game.

The boxscore will say Wabash won it on a jump shot but it was more a tip from 5 feet away off the backboard.  Harville's last shot to win was actually a pretty good look from maybe 25 feet or more.

Albion might struggle without Kazen a little, the locals feel they played much better Friday, not so good today, but they'll feel like they should have won this one.  In retrospect it was a pretty good game just not great, pretty clear how different November basketball looks next to Jan/Feb/March.


Good to see Joe Hacklin in an MIAA gym today (handshake and embrace with official <gasps>).  Brooks Miller and an assistant from Trine doing some scouting.

[USee]

I attended the Hope game last night and had a number of thoughts:

1) First, on Snuggerud, he picked up two fouls in the first two minutes. Neil put him back in with 12 minutes in the first half when Hope was only down 3. A questionable call in my mind. Snuggerud got a very ticky-tacky foul number three then Neil was too slow getting a sub to mid-court and Snuggerud got foul four on the inbounds.

Snuggerud has to be smarter than making a foul outside the arc but getting that foul is on Neil in my mind. If you have to call a time out there you MUST get your best player off the floor.

If Snuggerud had been able to play the whole game I think he would have scored 25 plus. He clearly had the moves when on the court.

2) The refs were bad but they were equal opportunity bad. Just very inconsistent calls throughout and a few calls blown that were just awful. NVA with his foot out of bounds for 3 seconds while holding the ball and goal tending when the ball was outside and below the rim.

3) Hope was 3-18 from beyond the arc. If Hope shoots close to normal there they win.

4) NVA looked exhausted by the end of the game but gave a great defensive effort. Offensively, he still lacks consistent moves. There were a half dozen times that he received the ball with back to basket that if he had gone straight to his left they were giving him a lay up. However, he insisted on holding the ball and then going towards the middle of the lane.

And my "when I was in college" thoughts:

1) Hope's guards are really short this year compared to my time. I imagine having Neil and Wattenbach will help.

2) If those are two of the top 10 teams in D3 than the quality of basketball in D3 seems way down to me from where it was 7-10 years ago. Granted it was only the second game of the season but generally unimpressive.

I think you don't give NCC nearly enough credit here. They were 2-15 from the arc. Maybe if they shoot their normal percentage Hope loses by 25?

[AndOne]

Gentlemen-----

Among other points of analysis relative to last night's Hope/NCC battle, a great deal of "ink" has especially been devoted to the Snuggerud foul situation.
For anyone interested, here is a little additional insight for someone who I believe the CCIW room posters will tell you has a pretty good understanding of and insight into the NCC team.

First of all, Nate Snuggerud is a big boy. He has arms like a lumberjack, and I wouldn't be surprised if he couldn't be pretty effective as a linebacker on Hope's football team. The Cardinals knew they couldn't play him soft, and needed to go right at him physically. Furthermore, knowing he is Hope's best player, they consciously desired to raise Mr. Snuggerud's frustration level to a point that would, to at least some degree, take him out of the game mentally. You may disagree, but isn't using his aggressiveness against him sound game planning? And, it wound up working to a significant degree. 
Nate picked up his 1st foul after only 48 seconds of play, and his 2nd after only 1:17 had elapsed. At this point, Head coach Neil is introduced into the equation. The NCC contingent was pleasantly surprised that Coach Neil left Nate in the game at that point. And, he was able to play only about 8 more minutes before picking up foul number 3, an admittedly ticky-tack call at 10:32. However, if he is on the bench, that foul doesn't happen. So, thanks to Coach Neil for still having him in the game at that point. Additionally, the 3rd foul being ticky-tack in nature, clearly frustrated Snuggerud to the point where, only 7 seconds later,following a missed Aaron Tiknis FT, Nate, in the scrum going after the rebound, clearly pushed Aaron into the Hope bench from behind, thus drawing foul #4.
I do believe a sub was on the way to or was at the scorer's table, but the question remains as to why he was even in the game at that point to first, pick up that 3rd foul, and second, to draw his 4th foul on a very stupid play on his part that I'm sure was at least in part, due to his his frustration at picking up foul #3.

With regard to the officiating-----One ref could easily have been wearing a Hope jersey. Very few calls on his part favoring NCC. One could have been wearing a North Central jersey. Very few calls on his part favoring Hope. The 3rd ref evidently either left his whistle in the locker room or forgot what it is supposed to be used for once he hit the floor. Overall, a very rough game, but evenly called. For verification, consult the stats which show Hope shot 25 FTs, and NCC shot 27. Hope was called for 25 fouls, and NCC for 24.

I also saw an above post to the effect that if "Snuggs" plays 25 minutes its a different game. Well the fact is that he DIDN'T play even half of those 25 minutes. That was due in part, to an error in his coach's judgement, not pulling him after his 2nd foul, and and partially due to "Snuggs" losing his cool and committing foolish foul out of frustration   right in front of an official.

Lastly, another speculative comment that if the Hope squad would have shot their normal percentage from three instead of their paltry 16.7%, that they would have won. Sorry, to disappoint, but if NCC would have shot their normal percentage from three instead of their crappy 13.3%, they would have, at minimum, offset Hope's "normal" percentage and in effect cancelled each other out, just as the mutually low percentages did last night. Did you think NCC normally shoots 13.3?   

Thoughts/comments?

[Roundball999]

Gentlemen-----

Among other points of analysis relative to last night's Hope/NCC battle, a great deal of "ink" has especially been devoted to the Snuggerud foul situation.
For anyone interested, here is a little additional insight for someone who I believe the CCIW room posters will tell you has a pretty good understanding of and insight into the NCC team.

First of all, Nate Snuggerud is a big boy. He has arms like a lumberjack, and I wouldn't be surprised if he couldn't be pretty effective as a linebacker on Hope's football team. The Cardinals knew they couldn't play him soft, and needed to go right at him physically. Furthermore, knowing he is Hope's best player, they consciously desired to raise Mr. Snuggerud's frustration level to a point that would, to at least some degree, take him out of the game mentally. You may disagree, but isn't using his aggressiveness against him sound game planning? And, it wound up working to a significant degree. 
Nate picked up his 1st foul after only 48 seconds of play, and his 2nd after only 1:17 had elapsed. At this point, Head coach Neil is introduced into the equation. The NCC contingent was pleasantly surprised that Coach Neil left Nate in the game at that point. And, he was able to play only about 8 more minutes before picking up foul number 3, an admittedly ticky-tack call at 10:32. However, if he is on the bench, that foul doesn't happen. So, thanks to Coach Neil for still having him in the game at that point. Additionally, the 3rd foul being ticky-tack in nature, clearly frustrated Snuggerud to the point where, only 7 seconds later,following a missed Aaron Tiknis FT, Nate, in the scrum going after the rebound, clearly pushed Aaron into the Hope bench from behind, thus drawing foul #4.
I do believe a sub was on the way to or was at the scorer's table, but the question remains as to why he was even in the game at that point to first, pick up that 3rd foul, and second, to draw his 4th foul on a very stupid play on his part that I'm sure was at least in part, due to his his frustration at picking up foul #3.

With regard to the officiating-----One ref could easily have been wearing a Hope jersey. Very few calls on his part favoring NCC. One could have been wearing a North Central jersey. Very few calls on his part favoring Hope. The 3rd ref evidently either left his whistle in the locker room or forgot what it is supposed to be used for once he hit the floor. Overall, a very rough game, but evenly called. For verification, consult the stats which show Hope shot 25 FTs, and NCC shot 27. Hope was called for 25 fouls, and NCC for 24.

I also saw an above post to the effect that if "Snuggs" plays 25 minutes its a different game. Well the fact is that he DIDN'T play even half of those 25 minutes. That was due in part, to an error in his coach's judgement, not pulling him after his 2nd foul, and and partially due to "Snuggs" losing his cool and committing foolish foul out of frustration   right in front of an official.

Lastly, another speculative comment that if the Hope squad would have shot their normal percentage from three instead of their paltry 16.7%, that they would have won. Sorry, to disappoint, but if NCC would have shot their normal percentage from three instead of their crappy 13.3%, they would have, at minimum, offset Hope's "normal" percentage and in effect cancelled each other out, just as the mutually low percentages did last night. Did you think NCC normally shoots 13.3?   

Thoughts/comments?

All very logical and plausible, as are most of the other comments that maybe view things a little differently. 

The bottom line and all that counts is that the players have to win out on the floor, regardless of what the refs and coaches do.  NCC did what it had to do and deserves every credit.  Hope can redeem itself (though in my book there's no shame in a loss to a tough NCC squad) as the season progresses and perhaps it will get another crack at NCC down the road.

[ChicagoHopeNut]

AndOne,

First, on officiating. As a general point unrelated to last night, the fact the FT totals or number of fouls were even does not mean a game was called evenly. It simply means the refs (as most officiating crews do) sought to even out the calls so referring to those number is meaningless as it relates to any single game. The fact Hope and NCC ended up with the similar fouls and FTs does not mean the game was called evenly.

The refs were atrocious last night and made the game ugly. They had some horrifically missed calls (the examples I gave earlier were ones that benefited Hope) that made one wonder whether they last worked the Seahawks-Packers game in September. They made some incredibly ticky-tacky calls throughout but then let both teams get away with assault at other times.

That said, in terms of last night, I agree the refs were generally equal opportunity atrocious. They were not the reason Hope lost nor the reason NCC won.

Second, based on last night I don't think either Hope or NCC should feel very confident about their chances in the MIAA or CCIW respectively. Neither team impressed and it was more than good defense. That said it is the first weekend of the season and their is talent for both teams to grow. It'll be real interesting to see what these teams look like in March.

[Gregory Sager]

Second, based on last night I don't think either Hope or NCC should feel very confident about their chances in the MIAA or CCIW respectively. Neither team impressed and it was more than good defense. That said it is the first weekend of the season and their is talent for both teams to grow. It'll be real interesting to see what these teams look like in March.

I think that what you're forgetting is that it was the first weekend of the season for everybody, not just NCC and Hope. Based upon what the rest of the MIAA did this weekend, I think Hope'll be just fine (as if anyone ever really had to worry about Hope vis-a-vis the MIAA ...). With respect to North Central, the only CCIW teams that looked like they're ahead of schedule this weekend were Millikin (which, with an all-freshman rotation, isn't a threat to make the upper half of the league, much less win it) and Wheaton.

I don't think that either Hope or NCC need to lose any confidence about their chances in their respective leagues.

[ziggy]

Calvin recorded an assist on 49 of their 66 field goals over the weekend (74%!). Quality of opponent caveats apply, but the Knights rarely settled for poor looks at the basket.

Interesting and accurate observation!  I noticed how often even rather good outside shots were passed up in favor of closer shots.  Would taking more outside shots loosen up the defense more for inside shots?  Passing up the shots for a better shot is generally a good sign, but I still agree with the comments about Calvin's need for developing its outside shooting.  I saw evidence yesterday and last year that the team now has guys who can hit from the outside.  The important thing will be to develop the good balance between the already excellent inside game and sufficient outside shooting to avoid the defenses packing the inside. 

This team looks good to start with and has the potential to be very good.  Its defense continues to look well balanced between covering the inside shots and not giving too many outside looks for easy shots as has often been the case early in the season in past years.   Is it a case of more experienced players who understand the defense better, or it a change of defensive philosophy?  Either way the defense looks better than I have seen early in the season in recent years.

Definitely not a change of philosophy. I'm inclined to credit the experience level of the players but it goes beyond simply experience. It appeared quite obvious that those experienced players clearly buy in to the system and worked very hard to make it work as it should.

[Pat Coleman]

I love that the mobile version of MIAA.org says, under the score tab, that "there are no games scheduled today".

Mobile version of miaa.org is AWFUL

I'm sure it is. The MIAA's bizarre outdated requirements for its site probably don't play nicely with modern mobile templates.

[AndOne]

Second, based on last night I don't think either Hope or NCC should feel very confident about their chances in the MIAA or CCIW respectively. Neither team impressed and it was more than good defense. That said it is the first weekend of the season and their is talent for both teams to grow. It'll be real interesting to see what these teams look like in March.

I think that what you're forgetting is that it was the first weekend of the season for everybody, not just NCC and Hope. Based upon what the rest of the MIAA did this weekend, I think Hope'll be just fine (as if anyone ever really had to worry about Hope vis-a-vis the MIAA ...). With respect to North Central, the only CCIW teams that looked like they're ahead of schedule this weekend were Millikin (which, with an all-freshman rotation, isn't a threat to make the upper half of the league, much less win it) and Wheaton.

I don't think that either Hope or NCC need to lose any confidence about their chances in their respective leagues.

I agree. While neither team is yet operating on all cylinders, these are 2 very good teams who should be confident going forward as chances are certainly high that they will only get better. This is even more likely when you consider neither team is yet at full strength. Both teams still have players who are not yet 100% physically. This condition should only get better.
I can't speak for the Hope fans as far as NCC is concerned. But, from the NCC side, I'm glad we don't have to play Hope again. At least not in the "regular" season.