MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[realist]

HC:  I agree there was a sequence there were Marcus just took matters into his own hands.  He got fouled, and no call, and that seemed to punch his buttons.  After his h.s. experiences it was good to see the offensive spark again.

[sac]

short and sweet from the lobby

Carroll is a really good team, and shot very well early, Hope's D certainly changed that game.  The Pioneers are battlers and fought right to the bitter end.  I agree Hope let up too early and really to win with a miserable night from long range was at least surprising.  The domination of the boards tells the storey.

WashU's score doesn't reflect their domination of SP.  SP just couldn't buy a basket in the 2nd half but their shot selection was poor.  Has the WU lead grew they definately pressed and forced some bad shots.

WU has great ball movement and really terrific frontline, but they are not deep and neither WU or SP played D the way Hope is capable.

It should be a really good matchup

[oldknight]

HC:  I agree there was a sequence there were Marcus just took matters into his own hands.  He got fouled, and no call, and that seemed to punch his buttons.  After his h.s. experiences it was good to see the offensive spark again.

Wayne Randazzo, who did a very nice job on the d3hoops broadcasts last night, remarked on this as well. I wasn't paying too close attention at the time but apparently something Carroll did sparked Marcus because--in Randazzo's words "they woke up a sleeping giant." 

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Well I think others have pretty well summed up last nights game.  Some thoughts:

- This was definitely a game where the stats don't tell the story - or maybe they do.  The shooting percentages are a bit misleading.  Sure Carroll shot 44% to our 42%, but Hope took 12 more shots than Carroll.  Given that turnovers were almost dead even, this is a real reflection of the TOTAL dominance Hope had on the boards.  23 offensive rebounds!!

- The score was misleading.  If Hope hand't slowed down their offense the last 8 minutes (this was NOT as some have said due to Carroll's defense, it was a conscious decision by the Hope bench) this could have been a 30 point blowout.  From the eight minute mark on, most of Hope's posessions resulted in shots with under 10 seconds left on the clock.  I think in a 10 game series, Hope wins this one 8-10 times.

- I like our matchup with Wash U.  They remind me a lot of the Albion teams from the last few years (not counting this year of course).  Very deliberate, traditional pound it low, and either get the inside shot or kick it out for a 3.  Their defense is not Albion like however.  They also only play about 7 guys any significant minutes.  In my opinion, whoever controls the tempo of this game will win it.  I would love to see Hope win the tip, make their patented layup, and press hard.  A start like that would be a great help in controling the tempo.

As others have said, call everyone you know who is within driving distance of UWSP and tell them to put on some orange and blue and be there tonight at 7pm.

Go HOPE

[pointlem]

An afterthought regarding the strategy of slowing down the office after running up a 20 point lead with 9 minutes left. . . . 

My reaction while watching the shots starting to miss and Carroll closing the gap was to agree with those who questioned the slow-it-down strategy.  But in the light of a new day I did some calculations that helped me appreciate the coaching decision, which surely is predicated on the goal of maximizing the odds of a win, not maximizing the victory margin.

With nine minutes to go, assume a team with a 20 point lead takes 30 seconds on each possession and their opponent takes 15 seconds.  Is that a reasonable working assumption?  If so, the team that's behind will have to score 20 points in three minutes of possession---about 12 total possessions---even if the team with lead fails to score.

Let's say things go really well and the trailing team attempts six 2-point and six 3-point shots, and make about 60% of each during those nine minutes.   Even that only gets them to about 19 points, and that's assuming the team with the lead scores absolutely nothing.

Some of us remember when the Hope women's team did come from 20 points behind to win the national championship at the Civic Center (with a tie just before the buzzer).  But they did it with 100% shooting for the entire nine minutes . . . hence the aptly-named "Miracle on 8th Street."

It seems to me that, with a slow down game, it would indeed take a near miracle for a team with a 20 point lead to lose over a 9-minute span, even if the slow-down strategy reduces their shooting percentage a bit.  Thus on reflection, I understand the wisdom of last night's strategy.

[Pat Coleman]

Guilford beats Lincoln by 1 point 129-128 in 3 overtimes.  Wow. 

Looks like Dave McHugh got the plum d3hoops broadcast assignment of the night while Pat got "stuck" doing the games at St John Fisher. Wonder if our esteemed administrator is peeved about that turn of events?

Nah, I'm happy for Dave. What a great game for him to call PBP on, and from listening to the end of regulation and overtime (we did a live look-in on our broadcast) I was impressed by the job he did.

I have been lucky enough to call a lot of great games in my time doing this site and I have no problem sharing.

[realist]

Point:  I agree when you do the math the way you did.  However, it fails to take into consideration turnovers, and other circumstances that just happen when one team has all the momentem.  My thinking is if running/scoring got you a big lead why change the strategy, and the tempo of the game.  If Hope had continued pushing it the way they had been the final result could very well have been greater than playing not to lose.  

[Greek Tragedy]

Hey Hope fans,

Just wanted to say that it was a pleasure to be introduced to some of the Hope faithful like Civic Minded, Hopefan, Flying Dutch Fan, and Sac...I think I might have gotten them all.

For the ones that stayed for the Point game, I'm sorry that you had to see Point display one of their worst shooting performances of the year.  Very disappointing

I do hope you've enjoyed Stevens Point and liked the gym.  I'll most likely be at the game tonight. 

I'm probably pulling for Washington U because you'll need to stop Ruths and their solid guards.  I know that Point lost and Hope won, but from the two games I've seen Hope play, they still haven't impressed me too much.  They obviously play an opposite style than Point and there were times they just played too fast.  They did a great job of rebounding though, so if they can outrebound Washington U, they got a shot.  Good luck tonight.

[HopeConvert]

Re: pointlem. Consider this: in the last 7:31 of the first half of last night's game, Hope turned a nine-point deficit into an eight-point lead (a swing of 17 points in less than the nine minutes hypothesized). How did they do this? On 7 of 14 shooting (or 50%, less than the 60% hypothesized), and four of four shooting from the stripe. They hit 3 of 7 three-pointers during that time. In many (most) instances their time of possession was less than 10 seconds. During this time Carroll scored four points to Hope's 21. Carroll had 4 fouls  and 2 turnovers during this stretch, while Hope had 1 and 2. Hope had 3 steals to Carroll's 1 during that time.

I think taking away a team's aggressiveness too far in advance puts them in a bad frame of mind which makes mistakes more likely while increasing the other team's confidence. Steals and turnovers proliferate, as well as sloppy defense and fouls (I have no data for those claims, but years of observation make me think the data would support me). With a 20 point lead, I wouldn't consider letting the air out of the ball until about 2 or 3 minutes left. Dance with who brung ya.

[mgoblue]

I graduated from Calvin last year and now I attend Wash U for grad school.  I may be biased towards the MIAA, but I've seen Wash U play a couple times this season and I've said ever since that they are overrated and that the UAA was the most overrated conference in the country.  I know they just blew out Stevens Point last night, but I don't see any reason why Hope won't make it to the Final Four.  Again, didn't see the game last night, but thats just my opinion.  Believe me, I'd rather see Wash U go than Hope, but I think Hope is the better of the two teams.

[northb]

An afterthought regarding the strategy of slowing down the office after running up a 20 point lead with 9 minutes left. . . . 

My reaction while watching the shots starting to miss and Carroll closing the gap was to agree with those who questioned the slow-it-down strategy.  But in the light of a new day I did some calculations that helped me appreciate the coaching decision, which surely is predicated on the goal of maximizing the odds of a win, not maximizing the victory margin.

With nine minutes to go, assume a team with a 20 point lead takes 30 seconds on each possession and their opponent takes 15 seconds.  Is that a reasonable working assumption?  If so, the team that's behind will have to score 20 points in three minutes of possession---about 12 total possessions---even if the team with lead fails to score.

Let's say things go really well and the trailing team attempts six 2-point and six 3-point shots, and make about 60% of each during those nine minutes.   Even that only gets them to about 19 points, and that's assuming the team with the lead scores absolutely nothing.

Some of us remember when the Hope women's team did come from 20 points behind to win the national championship at the Civic Center (with a tie just before the buzzer).  But they did it with 100% shooting for the entire nine minutes . . . hence the aptly-named "Miracle on 8th Street."

It seems to me that, with a slow down game, it would indeed take a near miracle for a team with a 20 point lead to lose over a 9-minute span, even if the slow-down strategy reduces their shooting percentage a bit.  Thus on reflection, I understand the wisdom of last night's strategy.

and you also are not taking into consideration that the last 10-12 possessions would take much less time than described, with fouling to regain possession, time outs to advance the ball more quickly, etc.

[pointlem]

Regarding letting the air out too soon . . .

I agree that turnovers and fouls mean that, in reality, the team ahead won't average 30 second possessions.  But some turnovers will likely afflict both teams, including the one that's pressing.  And while fouls will give the trailing team more possessions, those fouls also give the team ahead easy opportunities to score.  Even if their scoring drops to half its normal rate---say a mere 10 points in those last 9 minutes---it means the team that was 20 points behind needs to score 30 points.   Thirty points in 9 minutes is a 130 point a game rate.  Moreover, that's made all the harder by their having fewer minutes of possession because of the slow-down strategy.  Thirty points in 9 minutes of race horse basketball is do-able, but it becomes improbable in a slow-down game.

Ergo, with that big a lead---with the 20 point lead that Hope had with 9 minutes left---a slow-down strategy would seem to make victory exceedingly likely.  But, in agreement with HopeConvert, that doesn't necessarily commend the strategy if, say, there's a 10 point lead with 9 minutes to go.

Is this the sort of analysis that underlie's the coaching decision?  I haven't a clue.  But after thinking about it, I understand their strategy.

[Pat Coleman]

time outs to advance the ball more quickly

This is an NBA rule. College basketball has not been afflicted with this abomination.

[northb]

Regarding letting the air out too soon . . .

I agree that turnovers and fouls mean that, in reality, the team ahead won't average 30 second possessions.  But some turnovers will likely afflict both teams, including the one that's pressing.  And while fouls will give the trailing team more possessions, those fouls also give the team ahead easy opportunities to score.  Even if their scoring drops to half its normal rate---say a mere 10 points in those last 9 minutes---it means the team that was 20 points behind needs to score 30 points.   Thirty points in 9 minutes is a 130 point a game rate.  Moreover, that's made all the harder by their having fewer minutes of possession because of the slow-down strategy.  Thirty points in 9 minutes of race horse basketball is do-able, but it becomes improbable in a slow-down game.

Ergo, with that big a lead---with the 20 point lead that Hope had with 9 minutes left---a slow-down strategy would seem to make victory exceedingly likely.  But, in agreement with HopeConvert, that doesn't necessarily commend the strategy if, say, there's a 10 point lead with 9 minutes to go.

Is this the sort of analysis that underlie's the coaching decision?  I haven't a clue.  But after thinking about it, I understand their strategy.

and in the end, they won, so the strategy did work, didn't it?

[calalum]

I will be listening to the Hope men and Calvin Women tonight and routing for both. Represent the MIAA well.  Remember defense is the key.