MBB: University Athletic Association

[tommygun]

Hugenerd, I think you are making my point for me.  I feel that because you played at CMU you are holding them to a higher standard than everyone else, which is certainly your right.  However, I stand by my point that they have one debateable loss.  This seems to upset you, but the same thing happened to Rochester.  Last year Wash U lost at CMU by 35, these things happen from time to time.  Case has played everyone in the league unbelievably tough in the past few weeks.  They let a couple get away, but they had Rochester on the ropes, Brandeis on the ropes and NYU on the ropes, you know as well as I do that road game on Sunday are tough one's.  I don't think Chicago is 35 points worse than Brandeis, (and scoring less than 40 points overall is laughable.)  I don't think Rochester is worse than Emory, and I don't think Wash normally struggles with NYU.  All four things happened on Sunday, it is well known that the Sunday game is tough for the road team.  So CMU losing to Case, while disappointing for CMU fans, happens from time to time, it is what makes the league so tough.

I am not questioning that CMU maybe could be a little better, but I didn't go to CMU.  It seems to me that if we want to break them apart, we are being a little unfair.  Teams have issues, very few play perfectly.  People go to games all the time and say why is team such and such doing this.  Why doesn't this guy play more, or why doesn't this guy shoot more.  It happens all the time.  Brandeis, Rochester, NYU, certainly Chicago all have games and my guess would be overriding issues that an outside observer would say "why is that happening?" 

I would take CMU's season so far over everyone in the league's except Wash U.  They seem to play as well as Brandeis (a reasonable loss at Brandeis, who was also getting smoked at Case for a lot of the game,) who everyone, (or at least everyone else,) seems to think has more talent than CMU.  Rochester just lost at Emory and no one seems to have a huge problem with this.  And NYU just lost four home games in the league in the first trip through, including by 21 to CMU.

All I am saying is you seem to look at them through a magnifying glass, which is fine, but you seem like a parent in some ways, and possibly your expectations, much like dblock for NYU, I would argue are a little unrealistic.  You seem to want perfection.  I would say that CMU, picked fourth in the UAA, and I did re-read your posts and you seemed to think that was about right at the time, is exceeding expectation, and now you seem to want them to be 16-2.  It just seems like all of the sudden things have changed.  You seem to feel some of the players take bad shots, etc.  I don't doubt this is true, however if they are as talented as you think, than sometimes teams like that take tougher shots in my opinion.  Looking at their stats certainly their fg% is solid, not great, but not bad either, (right in the middle of the pack for the UAA.)  They don't shoot the three very well, however they also don't take very many (less than 25% of their total shots, which is really low for a college basketball team,) that seems to show some shot discipline anyway.  Also, they are last in FT%, so it strikes me that they probably just don't shoot the ball very well.  Looking at their stats, it seems that Anderson's fg% is a little low (40%, again not great, but he's one of their action guys and 40% isn't god awful, it's a little low, there are teams that shoot 40%. O'Rourke's is dreadful, but he only takes about 5 shots a game in a lot of minutes, so again does he shoot too much, maybe, but it's rare you see someone not shoot at all and he has to keep them honest.  But everyone else is good to very good.  Anyway now I am looking at them with a fine tooth comb too.  Which is what I think is a little unfair.

I certainly don't watch them as much as you, but they're results seem pretty solid.  If simply stating that they seem to win a lot and do better than everyone, (except you,) thinks they should means I don't know what I'm talking about, then so be it.  I think it is unfair to expect me to have the same insight into CMU basketball as you.  To say I don't know basketball seems to be a little arrogant on your part.  I don't follow them as closely as you do, because I didn't go there, but I think that is the problem here.  You having gone there, want them to play better than anyone else thinks is justified, not unusual with parents, alums, etc, in my experience.  My guess is if you followed any other team in the league the same way, (again with the possible exception of Wash U.) you would feel the same way about that team, that there are things they could do better and therefore they aren't playing as well as they possibly could be.  I just feel that looking at the league as a whole, that CMU is doing well, better than I thought they would, the Case loss excluded, but again that happens, just ask Rochester.  Within the context of all the teams Carnegie Mellon is having a very good year.  If you go over them looking for every little flaw, than like the vast majority of teams, you are bound to find some.

My final point is again I was speaking toward your and dblock points.  He doesn't think they are very talented, and he has seen them, so how does he explain the fact they win a lot.  You are convinced they are more talented than their record, which would make them top 10 in the country.  So which is it, are the not very talented and lucky, or are they super talented and performing poorly.  My guess is, in the grand scheme of things, neither.  They probably are within their potential range for this year and toward the high end of that range.  They have been as high as 11th in the country and in the top 25 all year (23rd this week.)  Much better than anyone, including you, thought before the season.  Once again I don't care if CMU is good or not, it just seems like they all of the sudden are being held to a higher standard than everyone else, and I'm not sure why, except you went there.  Which again is fine.  If you think they should be 16-2 and number 8 in the nation, I don't have a problem with that.  But again, nobody, and I mean nobody, thought they should be that good before the season.  People thought Brandeis should be that good before the season.  If before the season someone looked at them, or you, I would bet, and said 18 games in you're 14-4 take it or leave it, they, would have, and my guess is you would have, taken it. 

So I also stand by my point, I think all in all, without going over them with a fine tooth comb, which I'm not doing to anyone else either, they are having a very good season.  Could they be a little bit better?  Maybe, but I think most teams could probably be a little bit better, if everything went perfect.  Could they be a lot worse too, absolutely.  Getting 15 kids on board and playing close to their potential (maybe not their peak absolute top potential, but certainly toward their potential,) which CMU seems to be doing, puts them ahead of a lot, if not most, teams. And, as such, means they are having a very good year, although not upto your standards, which seem a little high in my opinion.  You follow the tournament stuff closer than I do, so I will acquiesce to you on these points.  It seems to me over the past few years (since tournament expansion,) that UAA teams with solid non-conference records get in with 18 wins.  Is this a perfect measure, of course not, just a rule of thumb.  Based on that I think CMU is in with 18 regardless if they are second in the league or not, which I don't think the committee cares a whole lot about due to none of the teams playing in the same region.  Could I be wrong, of course.  But assuming I'm right, once again if you had said before the season, going into the second half of the league all CMU has to do to get in the tournament is go 4-3 most of us wouldn't have believed it, and said wow they must be having a very good year.  Which in my humble opinion they are, not a perfect year, a very good year.  All right this got long.  Hugenerd I hope CMU plays as well as you wish and we see them in the final 8 along with all the other UAA schools, I'm not sure it's realistic, but I hope it happens.  It's a good league with true student-athletes and I like seeing all the teams do well.

[tommygun]

Sorry I didn't have to work this morning, and that was longer than I realized I will work to keep it much briefer in the future, so you don't need your lunch break to read it 

[Hugenerd]

Hugenerd, I think you are making my point for me.  I feel that because you played at CMU you are holding them to a higher standard than everyone else, which is certainly your right.  However, I stand by my point that they have one debateable loss.  This seems to upset you, but the same thing happened to Rochester.  Last year Wash U lost at CMU by 35, these things happen from time to time.  Case has played everyone in the league unbelievably tough in the past few weeks.  They let a couple get away, but they had Rochester on the ropes, Brandeis on the ropes and NYU on the ropes, you know as well as I do that road game on Sunday are tough one's.  I don't think Chicago is 35 points worse than Brandeis, (and scoring less than 40 points overall is laughable.)  I don't think Rochester is worse than Emory, and I don't think Wash normally struggles with NYU.  All four things happened on Sunday, it is well known that the Sunday game is tough for the road team.  So CMU losing to Case, while disappointing for CMU fans, happens from time to time, it is what makes the league so tough.

I am not questioning that CMU maybe could be a little better, but I didn't go to CMU.  It seems to me that if we want to break them apart, we are being a little unfair.  Teams have issues, very few play perfectly.  People go to games all the time and say why is team such and such doing this.  Why doesn't this guy play more, or why doesn't this guy shoot more.  It happens all the time.  Brandeis, Rochester, NYU, certainly Chicago all have games and my guess would be overriding issues that an outside observer would say "why is that happening?" 

I would take CMU's season so far over everyone in the league's except Wash U.  They seem to play as well as Brandeis (a reasonable loss at Brandeis, who was also getting smoked at Case for a lot of the game,) who everyone, (or at least everyone else,) seems to think has more talent than CMU.  Rochester just lost at Emory and no one seems to have a huge problem with this.  And NYU just lost four home games in the league in the first trip through, including by 21 to CMU.

All I am saying is you seem to look at them through a magnifying glass, which is fine, but you seem like a parent in some ways, and possibly your expectations, much like dblock for NYU, I would argue are a little unrealistic.  You seem to want perfection.  I would say that CMU, picked fourth in the UAA, and I did re-read your posts and you seemed to think that was about right at the time, is exceeding expectation, and now you seem to want them to be 16-2.  It just seems like all of the sudden things have changed.  You seem to feel some of the players take bad shots, etc.  I don't doubt this is true, however if they are as talented as you think, than sometimes teams like that take tougher shots in my opinion.  Looking at their stats certainly their fg% is solid, not great, but not bad either, (right in the middle of the pack for the UAA.)  They don't shoot the three very well, however they also don't take very many (less than 25% of their total shots, which is really low for a college basketball team,) that seems to show some shot discipline anyway.  Also, they are last in FT%, so it strikes me that they probably just don't shoot the ball very well.  Looking at their stats, it seems that Anderson's fg% is a little low (40%, again not great, but he's one of their action guys and 40% isn't god awful, it's a little low, there are teams that shoot 40%. O'Rourke's is dreadful, but he only takes about 5 shots a game in a lot of minutes, so again does he shoot too much, maybe, but it's rare you see someone not shoot at all and he has to keep them honest.  But everyone else is good to very good.  Anyway now I am looking at them with a fine tooth comb too.  Which is what I think is a little unfair.

I certainly don't watch them as much as you, but they're results seem pretty solid.  If simply stating that they seem to win a lot and do better than everyone, (except you,) thinks they should means I don't know what I'm talking about, then so be it.  I think it is unfair to expect me to have the same insight into CMU basketball as you.  To say I don't know basketball seems to be a little arrogant on your part.  I don't follow them as closely as you do, because I didn't go there, but I think that is the problem here.  You having gone there, want them to play better than anyone else thinks is justified, not unusual with parents, alums, etc, in my experience.  My guess is if you followed any other team in the league the same way, (again with the possible exception of Wash U.) you would feel the same way about that team, that there are things they could do better and therefore they aren't playing as well as they possibly could be.  I just feel that looking at the league as a whole, that CMU is doing well, better than I thought they would, the Case loss excluded, but again that happens, just ask Rochester.  Within the context of all the teams Carnegie Mellon is having a very good year.  If you go over them looking for every little flaw, than like the vast majority of teams, you are bound to find some.

My final point is again I was speaking toward your and dblock points.  He doesn't think they are very talented, and he has seen them, so how does he explain the fact they win a lot.  You are convinced they are more talented than their record, which would make them top 10 in the country.  So which is it, are the not very talented and lucky, or are they super talented and performing poorly.  My guess is, in the grand scheme of things, neither.  They probably are within their potential range for this year and toward the high end of that range.  They have been as high as 11th in the country and in the top 25 all year (23rd this week.)  Much better than anyone, including you, thought before the season.  Once again I don't care if CMU is good or not, it just seems like they all of the sudden are being held to a higher standard than everyone else, and I'm not sure why, except you went there.  Which again is fine.  If you think they should be 16-2 and number 8 in the nation, I don't have a problem with that.  But again, nobody, and I mean nobody, thought they should be that good before the season.  People thought Brandeis should be that good before the season.  If before the season someone looked at them, or you, I would bet, and said 18 games in you're 14-4 take it or leave it, they, would have, and my guess is you would have, taken it. 

So I also stand by my point, I think all in all, without going over them with a fine tooth comb, which I'm not doing to anyone else either, they are having a very good season.  Could they be a little bit better?  Maybe, but I think most teams could probably be a little bit better, if everything went perfect.  Could they be a lot worse too, absolutely.  Getting 15 kids on board and playing close to their potential (maybe not their peak absolute top potential, but certainly toward their potential,) which CMU seems to be doing, puts them ahead of a lot, if not most, teams. And, as such, means they are having a very good year, although not upto your standards, which seem a little high in my opinion.  You follow the tournament stuff closer than I do, so I will acquiesce to you on these points.  It seems to me over the past few years (since tournament expansion,) that UAA teams with solid non-conference records get in with 18 wins.  Is this a perfect measure, of course not, just a rule of thumb.  Based on that I think CMU is in with 18 regardless if they are second in the league or not, which I don't think the committee cares a whole lot about due to none of the teams playing in the same region.  Could I be wrong, of course.  But assuming I'm right, once again if you had said before the season, going into the second half of the league all CMU has to do to get in the tournament is go 4-3 most of us wouldn't have believed it, and said wow they must be having a very good year.  Which in my humble opinion they are, not a perfect year, a very good year.  All right this got long.  Hugenerd I hope CMU plays as well as you wish and we see them in the final 8 along with all the other UAA schools, I'm not sure it's realistic, but I hope it happens.  It's a good league with true student-athletes and I like seeing all the teams do well.

I kind of skimmed through your post, but I am not at all trying to be paternal in my expectations of CMU.  What I was trying to say, without pointing individuals out, is that if a couple of the starters would stop playing outside of their game, CMU would be a lot better.  Since this was not clear in my previous post, let me illustrate the point with examples I was withholding earlier.  Ryan Einwag plays within himself, he doesnt force shots, if he is guarded, he passes the ball and tries to make his team better.  He is shooting over 54% from the field and only averaging 1.0 turnovers per game.  Jack Anderson is an extremely talented player and shooter, he is more athletic than Einwag and could be just as good a shooter, but he tends to play more out of control and force up shots from outside and when he is guarded. He also tends to try to take his man 1 on 1 (which is fine), but when he gets into the paint, even if he is double-teamed, he has a propensity to still force up shots.  For these reasons, Anderson is shooting less than 39% from the field (has taken about the same number of FGs as Einwag) and committing 3.5 turnovers a game (leads the team, even the point guards dont average as many TOs).  Similar situation with Corey O'Rourke.  He is the team's point guard and when he plays like a point (he has a great handle and good court vision), CMU is a different team (they are a legit top 25).  He can get them into their offense and really run the team well.  However, sometimes he starts trying to be a scorer (he is shooting 27% from the field and 20% from 3 on the season) and then the team struggles. 

Dont get me wrong, I think both are really great players, especially when they play within the team (not forcing shots,etc.), but they both can hurt the team also when they are forcing things that arent there.  I didnt want to single anyone out, because obviously every player goes through some stretches where they dont play well and I am sure there are others on the team that may not always play within themselves, but I just chose Anderson and O'Rourke as examples to clarify my point.  Obviously looking at any single game is not fair because anyone can have a single bad game, but when you are looking at the entire season stats (or when you have seen them play 5 or 6 times), you can definitely start to draw some conclusions and pinpoint some trends.

Thats all I was trying to say.  Even in games they have won, I think the problems I illustrated were still at play, but CMU has a very talented group of guys so they can overcome that against most teams on most nights.

[tommygun]

And what I'm trying to say is that in the Case game Einwag took as many shots as the rest of the starters combined (22, I just looked at the box,) and had a very good game.  They still lost, as the rest of the starters didn't make anything.  Anderson and O'Rourke (1-3) went 1-10 and I have not seen them play but I know that Anderson is certainly considered one of their more talented guys.  He was 0-4 on threes, he only took a couple of twos.  This is not a lot of shots from those two.  As a team they shot more threes than usual, which maybe Case packed it in, I don't know.  You seemed to take exception to this loss, but it doesn't seem that the reasons you feel they don't play well had anything to do with the loss.  CMU on the road on a Sunday didn't shoot very well, (apparently an issue for them,) despite their best player taking over a third of their shots, and Case won.  This happens. 

It just seems you weren't calling them a legit top 25 team before the season and now you want them to win every game.  I'm sorry the first post was so long, but my point was that perhaps Anderson and O'Rourke, and I'm not trying to pick on them either, I think they are both probably very good players, their FG%'s are just a little low, probably should indeed shoot less (and on Sunday they did, Einwag took 3x as many shots as Anderson.)  However, all of the sudden CMU is supposed to win every game and I think that is a little unfair.  They have beaten some very good teams (John Carroll is ranked this week,) and 2 of their 4 losses are to top 10 teams with another being at Brandeis.  You said you wanted them to play upto their potential that they shouldn't be losing to Case, and I was simply trying to point out that however they play they seem to be having a very good year and things like the loss to Case happen to everybody in the league except Wash U (this year, its happened to them in the past as well,) and I don't think CMU is nearly as good as Wash U is.  I think they probably are playing upto their potential or very close.  The other main point in my too long post, was every team has things outside observers think they should do different and if the other teams in the league Brandeis, Rochester, NYU, and Chicago being the most notable were being held under the same light they probably also have flaws and things they should do better that would make them have a better record, no different than your criticisms of CMU feeling that certain players try to do things that they shouldn't, which may well be a valid criticism as again, I have seen them play one half on line and that's it.  That's all.

Anyway I just feel like based simply on results (which seems pretty important, and a decent way to judge things,) that CMU is doing quite well, especially compared to where we thought they'd be, despite a disappointing loss on Sunday. 

[Hugenerd]

And what I'm trying to say is that in the Case game Einwag took as many shots as the rest of the starters combined (22, I just looked at the box,) and had a very good game.  They still lost, as the rest of the starters didn't make anything.  Anderson and O'Rourke (1-3) went 1-10 and I have not seen them play but I know that Anderson is certainly considered one of their more talented guys.  He was 0-4 on threes, he only took a couple of twos.  This is not a lot of shots from those two.  As a team they shot more threes than usual, which maybe Case packed it in, I don't know.  You seemed to take exception to this loss, but it doesn't seem that the reasons you feel they don't play well had anything to do with the loss.  CMU on the road on a Sunday didn't shoot very well, (apparently an issue for them,) despite their best player taking over a third of their shots, and Case won.  This happens. 

It just seems you weren't calling them a legit top 25 team before the season and now you want them to win every game.  I'm sorry the first post was so long, but my point was that perhaps Anderson and O'Rourke, and I'm not trying to pick on them either, I think they are both probably very good players, their FG%'s are just a little low, probably should indeed shoot less (and on Sunday they did, Einwag took 3x as many shots as Anderson.)  However, all of the sudden CMU is supposed to win every game and I think that is a little unfair.  They have beaten some very good teams (John Carroll is ranked this week,) and 2 of their 4 losses are to top 10 teams with another being at Brandeis.  You said you wanted them to play upto their potential that they shouldn't be losing to Case, and I was simply trying to point out that however they play they seem to be having a very good year and things like the loss to Case happen to everybody in the league except Wash U (this year, its happened to them in the past as well,) and I don't think CMU is nearly as good as Wash U is.  I think they probably are playing upto their potential or very close.  The other main point in my too long post, was every team has things outside observers think they should do different and if the other teams in the league Brandeis, Rochester, NYU, and Chicago being the most notable were being held under the same light they probably also have flaws and things they should do better that would make them have a better record, no different than your criticisms of CMU feeling that certain players try to do things that they shouldn't, which may well be a valid criticism as again, I have seen them play one half on line and that's it.  That's all.

Anyway I just feel like based simply on results (which seems pretty important, and a decent way to judge things,) that CMU is doing quite well, especially compared to where we thought they'd be, despite a disappointing loss on Sunday. 

After seeing them (after non-conference play, preseason I did not know many of the players because I did not play with any of the current players), I felt that they had a better chance to contend for the UAA (or at least push WashU).  With that said, I still feel like they have the talent to do so, the team is just not very consistent and dont always play as disciplined as they should.  When they are playing their game, they can be a top 10 team in the country, but they are susceptible because of their lack of consistency.

I am going to drop the conversation now.

[tommygun]

Hugenerd, you are mistaking being talented and athletic for being elite (which we I would believe we would agree top 10 teams are.)  I was curious so I did a little research on this.  Carnegie Mellon is shooting 31.5% from 3 point range and 64.5% from the FT line.  I have come to the conclusion, they can't shoot.  If there is a team in the top 10 that shoots as poorly as they do, I will be incredibly surprised.  CMU takes the lowest percentage of three point shots of anyone in the league (compared to total shots,)  Emory is the only other team that is close. And they are close to 30%, CMU is less than 24% so it would appear they know they can't shoot, and have the discipline to not just shoot three's and shoot far fewer of them than the average NCAA team (24% is one of the lowest I have seen.)  The only team in the league that is lower than them from 3 overall is NYU at about 30%, which is probably why they have a hard time winning as well, that offense relies on good shooting.  Wash shoots over 40% and Brandeis makes close to 45% (outrageously high,) this is a massive advantage for these teams.  CMU and NYU would have to be rediculously more talented than these teams to beat them if both teams in the game shot the way they normally do. 

Furthermore Carnegie Mellon leads the league in FG% defensed, and 3 pt  FG% defensed.  This hardly seems like a team that completely lacks discipline.  They don't shoot many 3's at all, again this seems like a team that realizes its weakness and tries not to play into it.  In order to avoid a rediculously long post I am going to go with a couple of shorter posts.  I think the Case game proves this point really well, which I will get to now.

[tommygun]

Case was able to get them to shoot many more three's than usual 22-64 shots were three's CMU made right at their average 7-22, however it accounted for a much higher percentage of their total shots than usual, hence a lower overall FG%.  They also went 12-24 from the FT line. 

It would seem this is a talented but badly flawed team.  What happened to them against Case will probably happen again at some point.  I would assume Case packed it in the lane and wouldn't let them get the ball toward the basket (if anyone was at the game, please chime in.)  I would also assume Bouldin-Johnson's 1-5 and Rife's 2-7 and Anderson's 0-3 on two's was a function of them being heavily guarded around the basket as they attempted to stay away from just gunning up 3's.  However, if Case puts enough big bodies between you and the basket and essentially let's you shoot it, eventually you have to be able to make enough three's to get them out of it, which is what any top 10 team would do.  They can't do that, or at least quite often they can't do that.  I don't believe that is a lack of discipline, I believe that is a function of not being very good shooters.  I'm not sure there is a whole lot they can do about this.  It clearly is an issue and is going to remain an issue in all likelyhood.

[tommygun]

Finally, I haven't heard anyone else even suggest that CMU is a top 10 team in terms of talent.  They won a bunch of non-conference games, which I pointed out earlier resulted in 20 straight non-conference wins, Wash had a similar streak ended at 20.  NYU also wins a million non-conference games, things get tougher in conference and teams are more apt to exploit your weaknesses.  And CMU seems to have a glaring one.  A team that shoots the ball as poorly as they do is never going to finish in the top 10, I would be surprised if one ever has, and would have to have dominant big men, which I don't believe CMU has, although I don't know that much about Rife. 

So again I go back to my initial statement that I think you are being a bit unrealistic in your expectations.  I think games like the Case game are going to happen from time to time, and I think in games where they face other very talented teams, Brandeis and Washington to name two, they are at a major disadvantage because those teams make an incredibly high % of their three pointers, where CMU makes a very low % of theirs.  Throw in the FT disparity and you are looking at a major disadvantage for CMU which it would seem that they try to make up for with good defense, which apparently they do, and not living by the 3 and getting to the basket, which is a little tougher to do if the other team packs it in the lane.  Again I think CMU is doing even better than I realized considering this major disadvantage.

So that's it I will drop it now too unless you feel I've made an error in my analysis.  Suffice it to say I don't think CMU is a top 10 team, they simply don't shoot the ball well enough, meaning what happened to them on Sunday is much more likely to happen to them than some of the other top teams.  If they had won that game they would be 15-3, with the 3 losses being to really top teams.  I think they are doing fine.   Which is how this all got started.  They are talented but not elite, they are going to lose from time to time, and they will have trouble with equally talented teams that shoot the ball much better than they do.

[Hugenerd]

I guess we arent dropping this after the essay you wrote.

First off, when I said top 10 talent, I was referring to their highest ranking of the season, which was about 10 (they were ranked as high as 12).  So obviously at that point most voters had them at or around the 10th ranking in the country.

Second, your point about FG% and FT% isnt all that correct.  There are teams that are currently in the top 10 that are in the same ballpark as CMU:  Richard Stockton shoots 35% from 3 and 63% from the FT line, Ithaca shoots 34% from 3, etc. There are also teams that are great from 3 and the FT line that arent currently ranked; for example MIT is shooting 44% from 3 and 73% from the line.

Anyway, I am seriously not responding to this line of conversation anymore, this has gotten out of hand.  I tried to make a simple point that CMU could play better if some of their players played slightly more disciplined and it exploded into a multipage debate.  Anyway, I still believe that CMU has the talent to be a better team than they have played recently, even though they still have a very good record at 14-4.  Thats all I was trying to say.

[tommygun]

My point is absolutely correct.  Richard Stockton is 35.5% from three significantly better than 31.5% and Ithaca is 34.5% and shoots almost 80% from the FT line (77 somthing to be fair.)  If you want to claim that is the same as 31.5 and 64.5 go ahead but it's not.  And those teams are currently 9 and 10.  If CMU makes 80% of their free throws agains Case they probably win.  CMU can't shoot and it will cost them games upper echelon teams would win because they shoot better.  You are free to believe whatever you like. 

The fact that early in the season they were ranked I believe as high as 11 is probably a function of poor starts by the top UAA teams Brandeis and Chicago, and a poor start by the GL region teams as you correctly pointed out at the time.

I agree to stop and sorry if the stats were too much, but I am pretty sure I'm right about this, and I've certainly seen you go after people when you believe you are right.  Anyway I appreciate your comments, and as far as I'm concerned that's that.  People are free to form there own opinions.

[Hugenerd]

Richard Stockton may shoot 3-4% higher than CMU from 3, but they also shooting 1.5% worse than them from the FT line.  Those numbers are comparable.  To quantify this, lets say CMU shot 3.5% better from 3, that would gain them about 8 made 3s or 24 points, divide that by the number of games (18) and you get a wopping +1.3 points per game.  If they shot 1.5% worse from the FT line, they would have missed 7 more FTs, or about -0.4 points per game.  So overall if CMU had Richard Stocktons number from 3 and the FT line, they would score less than a single additional point per game.  CMU has no 1 point games this season and none of their losses were by less than 8 points. I dont care what you say, that is comparable (if it isnt, please explain to me how that is not comparable) and Richard Stockton is ranked top 10.

[Hugenerd]

CMU can't shoot and it will cost them games upper echelon teams would win because they shoot better. 

I am not trying to say CMU is a great outside shooting team, and I havent made that argument as far as I can remember (I agree that those numbers are bad, but as I showed in my last post there are other ranked teams that have comparable numbers from 3 and from the FT line). 

My argument all along has been that when they play as a team, instead of forcing shots and playing outside themselves, they can compete with anyone in the country.  Some teams dont have the talent to play with the top teams, no matter how well they play.  All I was trying to say was that, after watching them play several times this seaosn, I think CMU has the talent to compete with anyone in d3, but they are sometimes unable to do that because they fall into the habit of not playing as a team and trying to do things themselves.  This is obviously something that can be said about many teams and/or players, and definitely think it applies in the case of this year's CMU team.

[tommygun]

Hugenerd I am not going to argue your point, I am sure your math is correct. However there is more to it than that.  CMU has made 76 three pointers they are shooting 31.7% this year and equally importantly 24% of their shots are threes, only two guys on the team have made more than 10.  Richard Stockton has made 156 they shoot 35.6% (I would still argue this is a non-trivial difference,) and 34% of their shots are threes, and Ithaca has made 170+ is shooting 34.5% and 39% of their shots are threes (a big part of their offense.)  You have to play these teams honestly.  Judging by their stats, you don't have to play CMU honestly or at least you can roll the dice against them, and again, I live in Florida, I wasn't at the game, but I would be willing to bet my bottom dollar that Case didn't play CMU honestly.  They dared them to shoot it, which it seems is an excellent strategy against them.  There's no guarantee it will get you a win, and I doubt they were the first to try it.  However, I would dare say that you couldn't get away with this against Richard Stockton and Ithaca.  They would run in about 6 out of 8 and you would be back playing them honestly.  CMU was 2-11 against Brandeis and Wash U.  At home they will probably beat Case and Emory this week, that would put them at 16-4.  To beat Wash or Brandeis they will have to make more shots, it will be tough, because they don't shoot it great.  After that I bet they drop one against Chicago, NYU, or Rochester, in a game they don't shoot well.  Carnegie Mellon is MIT's shooting ability away from being really, really good.  I haven't seen MIT but in reading your posts about them it sounds like they shoot it great and are having a very good year, despite lack of size, depth, etc. probably due in large part to their great shooting. 

CMU can be very good without shooting it well, with the lead leading defense etc.  However, CMU will not be an elite team and will be more susceptible to a loss like the one on Sunday where they have a low 3 pt. % combined with a low ft% (tough to overcome,)  because they can't shoot.  So I acquiesce that I should have mentioned the number more than I did and that the % in and of itself doesn't tell the whole story, although there is no debating that 31.7% is very low for a college team, and 76 made threes at this point of the season is exceptionally low for a college team.  I again would be curious to see if there has ever been a top 10 that shoots what CMU shoots in combination with the lack of number that they take/make. 

And with that I am going to bed.  I do have to work tomorrow.  I'm sorry this whole thing got so long, but it was interesting for me anyway.  I will be happy to continue the discussion if you like, but again I stand by my thought that CMU's shooting certainly is a very real deterrant from them being an elite type team and will continue to be so, much more than any other issues that they have.  They are very good, better than anyone thought in the pre-season.  They appear to be big and athletic and play good defense, etc. etc. But the statistics indicate that they are a very poor shooting team and when forced into it even if they are open it is a 50-50 proposition if they will make enough shots to beat really good teams consistently, and they will lose to teams they are more talented than from time to time more than those really good teams we are talking about.

[Hugenerd]

I stand by my thought that CMU's shooting certainly is a very real deterrant from them being an elite type team and will continue to be so, much more than any other issues that they have. 

I dont diagree with you.  I am just saying they would be a better shooting team then they show in their stats if they just stuck to their offense and a couple players played within themselves. Thats all I was saying.  You have changed your argument from "you are taking pot shots at CMU", to "you are being paternal and have unrealistic standards for CMU", to "CMU is not a good shooting team."  I disagreed with your first two arguments, not the last one.

[David Collinge]