MBB: University Athletic Association

[deiscanton]

I'm really afraid that Brandeis's season will end at 12:30 PM Eastern on Monday now with the bubble popping.  Brandeis did not declare for ECAC New England tournament, so if bubble pops, season is over.    Strong SOS at .570 going into the week, and a lot of games vs regionally ranked opponents, but really low in-region W/L percentage at 17-8 (.680).  Will a 4-7 (.364) record vs regionally ranked opponents be enough, or will the NCAA take the late season losses as a reason to pop the bubble?

[Hugenerd]

Springfield also beat MIT today, so they will also likely stay ahead of Brandeis in the final regional rankings.  Therefore, given automatic bids will be given to the winner of the NESCAC and NEWMAC, and hoping RIC wins and gets the LE AQ, that means 5 teams from the NE region would have to get a Pool C bid before Brandeis even gets into consideration.

[Pat Coleman]

I don't see Brandeis falling any further down the regional rankings, though. In fact, other than swapping Springfield and MIT, my top nine remain the same.

[Hugenerd]

Yes, but Brandeis would still be 5th up for consideration for a Pool C out of the NE region.

You really think a 2-1 head-to-head advantage would outweigh 3 additional losses (almost 0.100 in WP)?

[WUPHF]

A quick look at the final standings.  No one could have predicted this finish.

Rochester goes 7-0 in the conference (along with the No. 1 ranking and an 18-0 season record) before finishing 3-4 including losses to NYU, Washington University, Case Western Reserve and Emory. 

Washington University goes 2-3 to start conference play and goes 8-1 the rest of the way. 

Emory goes 0-2 to start conference play and goes on to lose only two more; both of which were very close road losses.

Rochester 10-4 (21-4)
Washington 10-4 (20-5)
Emory 10-4 (19-6)
Brandeis 8-6 (17-8)
New York University 5-9 (15-10)
Case Western Reserve 5-9 (12-13)
Chicago 5-9 (11-14)
Carnegie Mellon 3-11 (6-19)

[Charles]

A quick look at the final standings.  No one could have predicted this finish.

Rochester goes 7-0 in the conference (along with the No. 1 ranking and an 18-0 season record) before finishing 3-4 including losses to NYU, Washington University, Case Western Reserve and Emory. 

Washington University goes 2-3 to start conference play and goes 8-1 the rest of the way. 

Emory goes 0-2 to start conference play and goes on to lose only two more; both of which were very close road losses.

Rochester 10-4 (21-4)
Washington 10-4 (20-5)
Emory 10-4 (19-6)
Brandeis 8-6 (17-8)
New York University 5-9 (15-10)
Case Western Reserve 5-9 (12-13)
Chicago 5-9 (11-14)
Carnegie Mellon 3-11 (6-19)

Has Rochester earned a spot?

[jaybird44]

The AQ goes to Wash-U via the UAA tiebreaker procedure.  Rochester should be one of the first five teams to get a Pool C bid, judging by the prevailing statistics and wisdom on the message boards.

[deiscanton]

Congratulations to Rochester and Emory on being selected to the NCAA tournament today on Pool C bids.

The bubble popped on Brandeis today-- Last 2 Pool C teams selected were Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic) and Randolph (South).  Brandeis was left on the national table, but the bids ran out.

Williams, Middlebury, MIT, and Springfield were the Northeast teams selected on Pool C.

Good luck to our UAA Co-Champions Wash U, Rochester, and Emory this weekend in the first round games.

[DMJSports]

Here is an interesting look at how individuals impact a team's performance.  The following analysis is not based on individual stats, but compares team performance with individual players in and out of the lineup.  This is an objective analysis using actual data from every game played by University Athletic Association teams this season.  Based on this comprehensive analysis, the following players are making the most positive impact on their respective team:

Brandeis:  Surprisingly, the data shows ANTHONY TRAPASSO may only average 3.2ppg but improves Brandeis's scoring rate by 2.1ppg and reduces opponent scoring rate by 4.0ppg when he is on the floor - a net gain of 6.1ppg, highest on the team.  DEREK RETOS (4.9ppg) and YOURI DASCY (2.8ppg) also make a positive impact.

Carnegie Mellon: MATT LOEBBAKA improves Carnegie Mellon's scoring rate by 2.8ppg but also reduces opponent scoring rate by 3.4ppg - a net gain of 6.2ppg.   ASAD MEGHANI (4.3ppg) also makes a positive impact.

Case Western Reserve: TIM CHUNG improves Case Western Reserve's scoring rate by 7.4ppg and reduces opponent scoring rate by 1.5ppg - a net gain of 8.9ppg.    JORDAN DEAN (7.5ppg) also makes a positive impact. 

Chicago: IAN JOYCE improves Chicago's scoring rate by 7.0ppg and reduces opponent scoring rate by 1.0ppg - a net gain of 8.1ppg.   NATE BROOKS (5.7ppg), SAM GAGE (4.3ppg), CHARLIE HUGHES (2.7ppg) and WAYNE SIMON (1.2ppg) also make a positive impact.

Emory: MICHAEL FLORIN slows down the game and actually reduces Emory's scoring rate by 0.1ppg but also reduces opponent scoring rate by 11.5ppg - a net gain of 11.4ppg.    ALEX GREVEN (8.9ppg), MICHAEL FRIEDBERG (8.0ppg) and MCPHERSON MOORE (7.7ppg) also make a strong positive impact.

New York University: CARL YAFFE does a nice job of not only improving New York University's scoring rate by 9.3ppg but also reducing opponent scoring rate by 6.8ppg - a net gain of 16.1ppg.   KYLE STOCKMAL (12.4ppg), RYAN TANA (10.9ppg) and DEVIN KARCH (9.4ppg) also make a strong positive impact.

Rochester: JOHN DIBARTOLOMEO does a nice job of not only improving Rochester's scoring rate by 13.6ppg but also reducing opponent scoring rate by 5.6ppg - a net gain of 19.3ppg.   KENT COYNE (12.0ppg), NATE VERNON (11.9ppg), TYLER SEIDMAN (8.4ppg) and TYLER SANKES (6.2ppg) also make a strong positive impact.

Washington U.: NICK BURT improves Washington U.'s scoring rate by 6.1ppg and reduces opponent scoring rate by 4.8ppg - a net gain of 10.9ppg.    KEVIN BISCHOFF (6.7ppg), ALAN ABOONA (4.7ppg) and CHRIS KILMEK (2.6ppg) also make a positive impact.


On the lighter side, focusing on secondary goals (team stats other than the primary objective - outscoring opponents).  Following are players making the most positive impact in these areas:

Team scoring: having JOHN DIBARTOLOMEO on the floor correlates to Rochester increasing its scoring rate by 13.6 ppg compared to when DIBARTOLOMEO is on the bench.  DEREK RETOS-Brandeis (13.5) also makes a strong positive impact.

Opponent scoring: having MICHAEL FLORIN on the floor correlates to Emory decreasing opposition scoring rate by 11.5 ppg compared to when FLORIN is on the bench.

Team field goal percentage: having DEREK RETOS on the floor correlates to Brandeis increasing its field goal percentage rate by 6.8 percentage points compared to when RETOS is on the bench.  CARL YAFFE-New York University (6.4), JASON SEBAK-Carnegie Mellon (6.2) also make a strong positive impact.

Opponent field goal percentage: having NATE VERNON on the floor correlates to Rochester decreasing opposition field goal percentage rate by 5.8 percentage points compared to when VERNON is on the bench.

Team made field goals: having CARL YAFFE on the floor correlates to New York University increasing its made field goals rate by 3.7 per game compared to when YAFFE is on the bench.

Opponent made field goals: having JASON SEBAK on the floor correlates to Carnegie Mellon decreasing opposition made field goals rate by 3.7 per game compared to when SEBAK is on the bench.  NATE VERNON-Rochester (3.5) also makes a strong positive impact.

Team offensive rebounds: having ROBERT BURNETT on the floor correlates to Washington U. increasing its offensive rebounds rate by 6.3 per game compared to when BURNETT is on the bench.  JORDAN SMITH-Chicago (3.3)  and A|MATT PALUCKI-Washington U. (2.9) also make a strong positive impact.

Opponent offensive rebounds: having SAM GAGE on the floor correlates to Chicago decreasing opposition offensive rebounds rate by 3.4 per game compared to when GAGE is on the bench.

Team turnovers: having JOHN DIBARTOLOMEO on the floor correlates to Rochester decreasing its turnovers rate by 3.9 per game compared to when DIBARTOLOMEO is on the bench.  MICHAEL FLORIN-Emory (3.9) also makes a strong positive impact.

Opponent turnovers: having JOSH SCHATTIE on the floor correlates to Emory increasing opposition turnovers rate by 4.4 per game compared to when SCHATTIE is on the bench.

Team steals: having SEAN BROPHY on the floor correlates to Carnegie Mellon increasing its steals rate by 3.3 per game compared to when BROPHY is on the bench.  JOSH SCHATTIE-Emory (3.1) also makes a strong positive impact.

Team assists: having CARL YAFFE on the floor correlates to New York University increasing its assists rate by 6.8 per game compared to when YAFFE is on the bench.

Team defensive rebounds: having TIM CHUNG on the floor correlates to Case Western Reserve increasing its defensive rebounds rate by 3.7 per game compared to when CHUNG is on the bench.  CHARLIE HUGHES-Chicago (3.6), CARL YAFFE-New York University (3.5) also make a strong positive impact.

[toooldtohoop]

WOW!  What a fun analysis to consider.  Definitely worth a few karmas, but alas I can't provide.

[Hugenerd]

Do you account for when the players play?  If someone always plays in blowouts and increases/decreases the lead, depending on which end of it you are on, its not as impressive as someone who plays against teams in close games.

[DMJSports]

Hello Hugenerd,

A player's impact is measured against his teammates.  Hence, whether a team blows everybody out or loses every game, the rating is based on the team impact versus teammates.  Even if you blow everybody out, some players will show up as negative due to other teammates having a more significant impact.  On the flip side, a team which gets beat on a regular basis still has players getting a positive rating because they make the team stronger, more competitive.  I hope that helps.

[Hugenerd]

What I meant was, if said player is playing a relatively small number of minutes (eg, when the game is out of hand), they may be making their team stronger, but only against the end of the other team's bench or with a limited number of minutes to analyze.  This could have the effect of skewing his team's offensive numbers (if they score more readily in garbage time) or his team's defensive numbers (if the end of the opponent's bench doesnt score at a high rate). Therefore, I was just trying to point out that you have to be careful when interpreting players who don't see a lot of minutes, because a lot of those minutes may be in situations that are not reflective of a competitive game.  Some examples of this could be Ian Joyce -Chicago (10 mpg) and Kevin Bischoff from WashU (13 mpg) (not saying they definitely are, but just looking at mpg, they could be).

I think the overall analysis is good, but some more explanation of the conventions used would help better explain the study.  For example, was there a threshold number of minutes that a player had to play in order to be analyzed in the study? Do you only count minutes in which the game is competitive (if the game is a blowout with under 5 to play, do those minutes count)?  Looks like you put a lot of effort into it, and did a good job, but I'm just curious about how the numbers were analyzed (I enjoy statistical analysis myself).  By the way, did you do the analysis as a part of a course or assignment, or was this just for fun (I was an undergrad in the UAA, and could see this as a fun stats project)?

[DMJSports]

Excellent points Hugenerd.  The analysis is limited to players who play more than 20% of the time (on average, more than 8 minutes per game) for the reasons you indicate.  No attempt is made to ignore blowout scenarios with under 5 minutes to play.  These scenarios will not impact players who play the majority of the game, but I see your point that 10min per game players could be effected significantly by a couple of these stretches...  Thanks for your comments/feedback!

[WUPHF]

The 2012-2013 UAA All-Association Team has been released.  As expected, John DiBartomoleo was named Player of the Year.  Jordan Smith was named Freshman of the Year while the coaches at Emory were named the Coaching Staff of the Year.

First Team
Alan Aboona, Washington 6-1 G Jr. Wheeling, IL (St. Viator)
Jake Davis, Emory 6-5 F Jr. Cincinnati, OH (Seven Hills School)
John DiBartolomeo, Rochester 6-0 G Sr. Westport, CT (Staples) † Player of the Year
Alex Greven, Emory 6-3 G Sr. Winston-Salem, NC (RJ Reynolds)
Chris Klimek, Washington 6-5 F Jr. Inverness, IL (William Fremd)
Gabriel Moton, Brandeis 6-2 G Jr. St. Petersburg, FL (St. Petersburg)
Carl Yaffe NYU, 6-8 F Sr. Bethesda, MD (Walter Johnson)

Second Team
Austin Fowler, Case 6-6 F Sr. Farmington Hills, MI (Birmingham Brother Rice)
Michael Friedberg, Emory 6-6 F Sr. Woodcliff Lake, NJ (Pascack Hills)
Dane McLoughlin, Case 6-6 F So. Westerville, OH (St. Charles Preparatory)
Asad Meghani, Carnegie Mellon 6-0 G Jr. Carrollton, TX (Greenhill School)
Matt Palucki, Washington 6-6 F So. Park Ridge, IL (Maine South)
Alex Stoyle, Brandeis 6-7 F Jr. Goffstown, NH (Tilton School)
Nate Vernon, Rochester 6-6 G/F Jr. Chapel Hill, NC (Carolina Friends School/Suffield Acad.)