MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[oldknight]

Aquinas showed that their HOF Classic victory was no fluke. They're a quality club and Hope will have their hands full this weekend. The Saints have a lot of players with excellent footspeed, ball handling skills, athleticism and they shoot the ball well too. Calvin didn't play that badly, they just couldn't match the intensity Aquinas brought for the full 40 minutes. The difference wasn't really in the post but on the perimeter. Mantel competed well with Lazic who went 2-5 from the floor and had 8 boards. John scored 9 and grabbed  5 rebounds. But I thought Calvin couldn't quite match Aquinas at the other positions and got beat to loose balls all night. It will help the Knights a lot when Veltema and Schuster start hitting from the arc--both are currently struggling with their shooting but both have a track record of good shooting. When they find their stroke everyone will notice the difference immediately. It's amazing how team "chemistry" improves once shots start dropping.

[almcguirejr]

Thanks, aljr.  I was hoping someone could fill in the blanks on what happened tonight.   I expected it to be a closer game, but thought that maybe Calvin would be "up" for this one and would handle AQ.  I've seen Calvin play this year 4 times, and I just can't put my finger on what's missing.  As someone mentioned last weekend, my best hunch is that maybe it's chemistry???

I think Calvin played hard but Aquinas was better.  They took it to Calvin and Calvin didn't respond.

[HopeConvert]

I was at the Calvin/Aquinas game tonight (I had to do an emergency lesson to the student body on Calvinist doctrine) and have a few observations. I thought Calvin played hard, but didn't play well. They set very few picks, seemed to have little plan on the offensive end of the floor, and gave up a lot of easy baskets on the defensive end. Veltema didn't really struggle with his shot so much as he can't create his own shot and never had any open looks. He's not tough to defend, I think. I thought Calvin's lack of purposeful movement, not lack of effort, was the story of the game. Plus, they pay the other guy too. Aquinas played well. You have to give them some credit.

[HopeConvert]

A further thought on the game. I don't know as much about basketball as KVS, so I'm hesitant to criticize. But I do know when I see things that make sense to me. When I was watching Aquinas on the offensive end of the floor, their movement and sets made sense to me. They rotated the ball around, broke down the defense sometimes with ball movement, sometimes with dribble penetration, made the extra pass, and had a lot of open looks. They looked quicker than Calvin's defense was able to handle. But I couldn't make sense of what Calvin was doing on the offensive end. There were some unusual lineups on the floor at times. They didn't seem sure how to attack Aquinas' zone, and did pass the ball around the perimeter. The movement away from the ball seemed purposeless, if it occurred at all. They looked lost to me. Granted, they had some shots that should have gone down. They missed too many free throws. The game could easily have been closer, but it wasn't. I think they have quite a bit of work to do if they are going to be consistently competitive in big games. They proved against Wash U they can do it, but I'm not sure how the team I saw on the floor tonight pulled that off.

That said, I still like Calvin's talent. Smith played well, I thought Mantel played hard and, on the whole, quite well. He's got a nice soft touch on the ball. Engelsma has nice footwork and a quick dropstep. I like Kaat's intensity. They really needed to get some perimeter shooting going, which would have opened more things up inside, and Veltema didn't provide any. And he's not out there for his defense, and Doug E. said.

I turned to my friend when Zoerhof entered the game and bet him that 24 would pick up a foul within a minute. It only took 13 seconds.

[KnightSlappy]

Thanks NWH: "8-0 and beating arguably one of the better teams in NCAA DIII for the second time in a week..."  Even with my maroon and gold glasses on I am not sure I can give you an 'amen' on that.
Calvin put a great deal of time, effort, and emphasis on beating Wash. U., but since then they have gone 2 of 5. 
On paper I still think Calvin has the talent, and ability to be one of the better teams, but on the floor they haven't shown it.

Aquinas is a very good team and I don't think that there is much argument to that.  Calvin hasn't necessarily played up to their potential on all occasions but they are a couple of bounces or breaks away from being 6-1.  One loss was in 2OT and the other by one point but you gotta win the close ones.  All three loses were to good teams.

[scottiedawg]

Let me begin by saying I am not a statistician, so feel free to pick apart my numbers. 

In John Mantel's three highest scoring games, Calvin "wins" by an average of 14.6 points.
In his four lowest scoring games, Calvin "wins" by an average of -3.5 points.

In Caleb Veldhouse's three highest scoring games, Calvin "wins" by an average of 2.6 points.
In his four lowest scoring games, Calvin "wins" by an average of -2.83 points.

In Derek Griffin's three highest scoring games, Calvin "wins" by an average of 10 points.
In his four lowest scoring games, Calvin "wins" by an average of 0 points.

None of these numbers can be examined in a vacuum, but I think that success by Mantel leads to success of his teammates, and Calvin as a team.  (to a higher degree than either Griffin or Veldhouse).

Also, Mantel's three highest FTA games were also his three highest point totals, and also Calvin's three biggest wins. 

Take these figures with a grain of salt, but I find them interesting.   

[Gregory Sager]

I have nothing against preseason polls per se. My objection is to the way that they bleed into the regular season polls. In other words, pollsters will base their first in-season poll upon how the first weekend's results modify the preseason poll. That's applying a real-data modifier to a no-data base, and you can't do that and call it a legitimate in-season poll that is constructed from real data (i.e., actual game results).

I understand your point, Greg, but the problem is that to have a credible poll in the first month/month and a half, you have to consider preseason information to a pretty significant degree.

That's what I'm driving at -- the current system does not produce credible polls, either. Early season polls simply don't carry much in the way of credibility, no matter whether you're basing them upon actual data or upon projections modified by actual data.

Take defending national champion and current #1 Amherst, for example. Their schedule hasn't allowed them to prove anything at this point...

Nov. 16  Hunter       
Nov. 17  Southern Vermont     
Nov. 27  Emmanuel     
Nov. 30  Westfield State   
Dec. 1  at Western New England   
Dec. 6  MIT

That's Cupcake City for the most part (although Amherst's next opponent, MIT, is 6-2), but, then again, the pool of 5-0 teams in D3 is not a large one, so Amherst can certainly be ranked highly based simply upon the merits of its record. Besides, the one team with a winning record that the Lord Jeffs have played to date, Westfield State (4-3), was doubled up by the Lord Jeffs, 98-49, in a game played at a neutral site. That's impressive enough to warrant high ranking consideration.

But I have always felt that early-season polls were dubious endeavors, so I'm not going to argue too strenuously in favor of Amherst's resume to date.

While I agree with your main point, which is that as the season goes on the pollsters should be using in-season data only, that is not always practical in determining who the best 25 teams really are.  Without factoring in what you know about teams coming in - at least a little bit - you're vulnerable to overreacting to one great win or one terrible loss.  Now there will always been those teams that everyone is too high on or too low on coming in, and that affects their placement in the poll for a month or so (see UW-Oshkosh a couple years ago), but most of the time the pre-season information used is pretty reliable.

Yes, but it's not actual, current hard data. There's nothing evidentiary about preseason projections, since they exist apart from real-world results (i.e., the scoreboard). In a situation such as D3's, in which the inability to see more than a limited regional slice of the top teams hinders an accurate national poll, the distortion can grow even wider. Say that Team A is highly ranked in the preseason because it brought back three starters who each averaged over 15 ppg last season from a team that made the D3 tourney, and that team then starts out 3-2 (with the three wins coming against weak competition). A lot of pollsters will be tempted to keep ranking Team A, because Team A started out high in the preseason poll (which is bleeding into their early-December ballots, since they're using the preseason poll as their original template) and because there are those three great returning starters that they've read about. But what they don't know, because Team A is in a different part of the country, is that one starter is playing with a bad back, another is being asked to play out of position, and the third's got an attitude problem and didn't work out much in the off-season and has thus stagnated.

To have a poll where only in-season data is used, I honestly don't think I'd feel comfortable submitting a ballot until about February 1.

Well, there's the rub. While February 1 might be a bit drastic, a lot of us don't think that any of the polls are trustworthy until at least the midpoint of the season.

[realist]

ALjr;  Having never coached it is hard to say what needs to be done.  It just seemed so obvious the starters needed more time to work out their problems.  Playing the bench was a short term fix (which didn't seem to be working) , and like the old adage a hitter has to hit their way out of a slump.  You make some good points on Mantel, and now they can work to fix/correct those areas.  28 minutes is much better than 17. 
KS.  AQ is a very good team, and takes what the other team gives them.
Calvin just hasn't seemed to respond very quickly when another team has made a run, nor have they responded to the opponent with the hot hand.

[realist]

At this point I would think that Hope may very well be getting another shot at AQ.  CU beat Trinity Intl. last weekend, and Hope should handle Marygrove.
It won't be easy for Hope, but they should be able to defend their home floor.  Hope was at a major disadvantage in the first meeting in that it was Hope's  first game. 

[section7]

No word from Chelsa mom lately.

Lots of talk about her team and son.

Wonder what her thoughts are?

[almcguirejr]

No word from Chelsa mom lately.

Lots of talk about her team and son.

Wonder what her thoughts are?

I don't think it's any of our business what her thoughts are.  I admire her wisdom in remaining silent. 

The rest of rest of us can state our opinions for whatever their worth (which is nothing),  CCmom's opinion and thoughts would actually mean something to somebody.

[almcguirejr]

ALjr;  Having never coached it is hard to say what needs to be done.  It just seemed so obvious the starters needed more time to work out their problems.  Playing the bench was a short term fix (which didn't seem to be working) , and like the old adage a hitter has to hit their way out of a slump.  You make some good points on Mantel, and now they can work to fix/correct those areas.  28 minutes is much better than 17. 
KS.  AQ is a very good team, and takes what the other team gives them.
Calvin just hasn't seemed to respond very quickly when another team has made a run, nor have they responded to the opponent with the hot hand.

KVS is going to use a 9 or 10 person rotation.  Dan Aultman averaged 25 minutes a game as a senior.  I believe Calvin has won many games because they had fresher legs in the last 5 minutes of the game.  KVS's use of the bench has been a strength of Calvin and I don't see that changing.  I think it would be a mistake if they did.

I agree with your analogy about letting a hitter hit his way out of slump to a point.  If a shooter isn't shooting well I would continue to let him shoot.  If a player isn't playing the way a coach wants him to play I think he loses playing time.  If he is making mental mistakes or failing to play defense the way your taught, or if the intensity isn't there, a coach has to sit the player down to send a message to whole team that that way of playin is not acceptable here.

I credit GVW for having the guts to sit DVS at the start of the Cornerstone game.  DVS was poor against AQ.  I think all of Hope's team got the message that even one of the "stars" can be sat if you don't play the way you're expected to.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Al - I agree.  She's his mother, and her thoughts about this are personal and none of our business.  And trust me, she's not the only parent out there reading what we say about their kids.  It's probably a good thing that for the most part, they are just reading and not posting.  I know how emotional and defensive we can get about our teams or players - I can only imagine what it would be like to read that about your own flesh and blood.  I guarantee is it was my kid, I would not even read it.

[sac]

At this point I would think that Hope may very well be getting another shot at AQ.  ..........  Hope was at a major disadvantage in the first meeting in that it was Hope's  first game. 

Steve Kratz also sat out that game, in a game where rebounding and interior defense were so important, it might have put Hope over the top had he been available, or maybe not.

Hard to argue that Hope hasn't been a much better team since the first game, I think Hope was ready to play.........they just weren't ready to play a team that plays the way Aquinas does in their first game.

[NW Hope Fan]

So where is this AQ team showing up in the NAIA polls? ((EDIT) 22nd in the preseason poll. First in season poll came out today, but I have not found it yet.)

8-0 and beating arguably one of the better teams in NCAA DIII for the second time in a week...


I hope the Dutchmen are ready this weekend!

Looks like the NAIA DII coaches are rewarding Aquinas for their 9-0 start with a #7 ranking.

Doesn't look like Hope has lost to AQ twice in a season since '80-'81, with the second game a triple OT and AQ winning by 2.

Again, I hope the boys are ready... and a win, while nothing for the DIII pool C figures, would be a nice feather.