WBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

Started by wheatonc, March 03, 2005, 06:18:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: iwu70 on March 17, 2018, 07:18:38 AM
Undefeated Amherst vs. Bowdoin, from their same league, for the national championship.  Was surprised how easily Bowdoin took apart undefeated Wartburg. 

May the best team win . . . Amherst won by 4 in a previous match up earlier in the year, on their home floor. 

IWU'70

It was a GREAT game for 27 minutes, then Amherst put it into another gear - Bowdoin didn't score a single point for the next 11 minutes!  Amherst has now won two consecutive undefeated national titles.

RogK

Amherst's coach has to be getting some good D1 offers; nothing more for him to prove in D3.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

Quote from: RogK on March 18, 2018, 10:50:28 AM
Amherst's coach has to be getting some good D1 offers; nothing more for him to prove in D3.

Maybe he's interested in challenging WashU's four consecutive championships or their undefeated streak.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 18, 2018, 05:34:15 PM
Quote from: RogK on March 18, 2018, 10:50:28 AM
Amherst's coach has to be getting some good D1 offers; nothing more for him to prove in D3.

Maybe he's interested in challenging WashU's four consecutive championships or their undefeated streak.

I don't know Amherst's schedule for next season, but the D3 winning streak may be theirs by mid-January (just 15 games to go).

I know nothing about the coach's ambitions, but SOME coaches simply prefer the situation of D3.  You won't get filthy rich, but a good D3 coach will be quite comfortable financially, and (by some people's standards) far more comfortable in other ways than in D1.  There are many D3 coaches (in a variety of sports) who have spurned numerous D1 suitors over the years.

Roundball999

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 18, 2018, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 18, 2018, 05:34:15 PM
Quote from: RogK on March 18, 2018, 10:50:28 AM
Amherst's coach has to be getting some good D1 offers; nothing more for him to prove in D3.

Maybe he's interested in challenging WashU's four consecutive championships or their undefeated streak.

I don't know Amherst's schedule for next season, but the D3 winning streak may be theirs by mid-January (just 15 games to go).

I know nothing about the coach's ambitions, but SOME coaches simply prefer the situation of D3.  You won't get filthy rich, but a good D3 coach will be quite comfortable financially, and (by some people's standards) far more comfortable in other ways than in D1.  There are many D3 coaches (in a variety of sports) who have spurned numerous D1 suitors over the years.

Gromacki was an assistant at D1 Temple earlier in his career and has had D1 offers, but so far has preferred the D3 scene at Amherst and St. Lawrence and Hamilton prior to Amherst.  I don't know for sure, but I suspect it is a family and lifestyle issue.  Amherst is an incredibly selective school in a beautiful setting and is known as a mini Ivy League school.  They have something of a pipeline from the Ivies with girls who may not quite want the basketball D1 rigors (even at non-scholarship Ivies it's 50 weeks/year of practice) but want to keep playing and have the Ivy-type academic credentials.  What's not to like?

iwu70

I'd stay at Amherst or Williams or Swarthmore or Carleton too -- great places. 

'70

RogK

The final D3Hoops poll has IWU at 16, while Wheaton is 38th among the 41 schools that got votes. The CCIW's third best team this year, Carthage, probably is as good as a bunch of those 41 teams, but what's done is done.

Mr. Ypsi

Belated congratulations to Rebekah Ehresman on AA selection.  I was surprised and disappointed that she wasn't picked a team or two higher, but her true value doesn't show up well in statistics, and too many probably never saw her actually play (or only saw a tiny bit).  Personally, I would have had her AT LEAST third team, but then I admit to having green glasses!

Also surprising and disappointing to me was that Mikaela Eppard did not get named at all.  I would have had her at least HM.

And while I have no rooting interest in any of them, it astonishes me that Amherst (two consecutive seasons of undefeated ball) could only manage one player, 4th team - and that wasn't even FF MVP Emma McCarthy.  That must be one helluva balanced team to win 66 straight games with basically no stars! :o

RogK

I'd like to pick on Wheaton (and other teams) a little bit, within the context of a "rule of thumb" that I think applies when a team is trailing after 3 quarters.
Wheaton trailed Wash U 61-40 after 3 Q. My "rule of thumb" says that the team that is ahead after 3 is very likely to score at least 1 point per minute for the duration of the game. This point-per-minute scoring rate is 40 pts per game, which even the most pathetic offenses can average.
So, Wash U was probably going to reach a minimum of 71 points for the game. Therefore Wheaton likely needed to score at least 31 (a 124 pts/g rate) in the 4th quarter. This would require playing with increased urgency, shooting quite early in possessions, having four players try for o-rebs, gambling more than they did.
As I indicated initially, I think other teams in other games also tend to let time slip away, waiting until way too late in the 4th Q before turning up the intensity level.
Notice how easily I criticize any number of coaches!
Anyway, making the aforementioned "rule of thumb" scoring-deficit assessment isn't something to be done only at the end of the 3rd quarter, but probably makes the most sense around that stage of the game. Much earlier in the game, it's conceivable to make up a deficit by doing your regular thing. Very late in a close game, it's conceivable that you could shut out the opponent for a few minutes, thereby making up a moderate deficit without having to score quite so much yourself.
To re-state my idea here, you generally have to figure on the opponent scoring at least 1 point per minute for the duration of the game, so you can add that number to whatever deficit you face, telling you what you'll need to score during the remaining minutes.
Of course, doing the things that comprise "turning up the intensity" may not succeed in making up the deficit anyway, but it could give you a better chance.
Any comments on this? A useful calculation?

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: RogK on March 20, 2018, 06:00:50 PM
I'd like to pick on Wheaton (and other teams) a little bit, within the context of a "rule of thumb" that I think applies when a team is trailing after 3 quarters.
Wheaton trailed Wash U 61-40 after 3 Q. My "rule of thumb" says that the team that is ahead after 3 is very likely to score at least 1 point per minute for the duration of the game. This point-per-minute scoring rate is 40 pts per game, which even the most pathetic offenses can average.
So, Wash U was probably going to reach a minimum of 71 points for the game. Therefore Wheaton likely needed to score at least 31 (a 124 pts/g rate) in the 4th quarter. This would require playing with increased urgency, shooting quite early in possessions, having four players try for o-rebs, gambling more than they did.
As I indicated initially, I think other teams in other games also tend to let time slip away, waiting until way too late in the 4th Q before turning up the intensity level.
Notice how easily I criticize any number of coaches!
Anyway, making the aforementioned "rule of thumb" scoring-deficit assessment isn't something to be done only at the end of the 3rd quarter, but probably makes the most sense around that stage of the game. Much earlier in the game, it's conceivable to make up a deficit by doing your regular thing. Very late in a close game, it's conceivable that you could shut out the opponent for a few minutes, thereby making up a moderate deficit without having to score quite so much yourself.
To re-state my idea here, you generally have to figure on the opponent scoring at least 1 point per minute for the duration of the game, so you can add that number to whatever deficit you face, telling you what you'll need to score during the remaining minutes.
Of course, doing the things that comprise "turning up the intensity" may not succeed in making up the deficit anyway, but it could give you a better chance.
Any comments on this? A useful calculation?

I have no idea if your specific calculation is correct (but seems reasonable), but totally agree that way too many coaches (teams) seem to wait too long before showing any urgency.  It drives me crazy when a team is down 10-12 and dawdles up the court and shows no signs of wanting shots before the end of the shot clock until there are two minutes left.  That's too late for anything but a near-miracle!  Start that urgency 4-5 minutes earlier and you have a reasonable chance of catching up!

[It equally drives me up a wall when teams have waited too long to get 'urgent', then foul EVERY possession turning the last minute of a game that is already over into a twenty minute bore.]

RogK

Mr Ypsi, I agree with your reply; you made the point more concisely than I did.
And your mention of fouls reminds me of another minor criticism I have of something coaches will do : sit some of their best players for long stretches in the 1st half because they've picked up 2 fouls. The player has fouled out of the first half with 2 fouls. I can see sitting a star player for the duration of the 1st half if she has 3 fouls, but not 2.
And then in the 2nd half, why sit someone because she picked up her 3rd foul? Often, good players end up playing fewer minutes than they should, due to being "in foul trouble." The rules allow a player to keep playing with 2 fouls, 3 fouls, 4 fouls. Yet, coaches decide to impose additional restrictions on their own players, stricter than those in the rulebook : commit your 3rd foul too early in 3rd quarter and you've fouled out for the next 6 minutes; commit your 4th and you're banned from playing most of the rest of the game, as if an unused 5th foul can be carried over to the next game so she can commit 6 in that game.

lmitzel

Quote from: RogK on March 20, 2018, 11:53:46 PM
And your mention of fouls reminds me of another minor criticism I have of something coaches will do : sit some of their best players for long stretches in the 1st half because they've picked up 2 fouls. The player has fouled out of the first half with 2 fouls. I can see sitting a star player for the duration of the 1st half if she has 3 fouls, but not 2.
And then in the 2nd half, why sit someone because she picked up her 3rd foul? Often, good players end up playing fewer minutes than they should, due to being "in foul trouble." The rules allow a player to keep playing with 2 fouls, 3 fouls, 4 fouls. Yet, coaches decide to impose additional restrictions on their own players, stricter than those in the rulebook : commit your 3rd foul too early in 3rd quarter and you've fouled out for the next 6 minutes; commit your 4th and you're banned from playing most of the rest of the game, as if an unused 5th foul can be carried over to the next game so she can commit 6 in that game.

That was the interesting thing going back to North Central's System years. Michelle Roof kept her line changes the same regardless of foul trouble. Granted, you could get away with that with a 15-woman rotation where you're only playing 45 seconds to a minute at a time and that probably played a role. But over the five System years, players fouled out 4, 9, 12, 14, and 4 times in those years for a total of 43. Without looking up numbers across the rest of the conference in that time span, I don't know how those numbers stack up.

But it's an interesting dilemma. I remember reading something somewhere along the line that the strategy of sitting your best player just because of foul trouble isn't the best strategy. Bearing in mind foul trouble though, if you're keeping a player in with two fouls in the first half for example, how effective can they be on defense? If you value not picking up that third foul before the intermission, you can't play as aggressively on defense, and the other team will target that player on offense to try and force that third foul. Of course, by and large this shouldn't impact a foul troubled player on offense, and if your best offensive weapon is in foul trouble, you do cripple your team by sitting them due to said foul trouble (unless you have a catalyst on your bench that you can plug in in that player's spot, but even then is it an equitable swap?)

It's a risk-reward analysis, something that coaches have to do multiple times in every game. And a lot of common coaching doctrine seems to lean more towards the risk-averse side of the spectrum, which in and of itself isn't a big deal, but you get into the old football cliche of "Prevent defense only prevents you from winning" or the more general cliche "coaching not to lose instead of coaching to win." I'd be interested to see a statistical analysis of keeping your rotations the same regardless of foul trouble versus the generally accepted method of sitting players with two fouls before halftime, three in the third, four in the fourth, etc.

I did Google a couple articles relevant to the question. See here and here for a more quantitative analysis.
Official D-III Championship BeltTM Cartographer
2022 CCIW Football Pick 'Em Co-Champion
#THREEEEEEEEE

RogK

I was thinking recently about how the System experience was for North Central -- it sure would've been better if they'd had Tess Godhardt and Jamie Cuny for 4 full seasons each. Maybe add Emily Zgoda to that list.
Setting that aside, as you note, lmitzel, a System team should be able to withstand foul-outs with minimal effect. The foul-outs that hurt a lot are those involving the best scorers, who ideally should be reminded of their foul status (3 or 4) and sternly instructed to avoid committing the 5th -- hopefully the player can modify her defensive play to that end.
I've read the first link and like it. The writer brilliantly condenses the idea : when a coach benches a star player based on alleged foul trouble, "the coach is voluntarily imposing the penalty that he is trying to avoid, namely his player being taken out of the game."
Here's another way of looking at the "foul trouble" topic -- from the perspective of the rules/refs, there is no difference between a player with 4 fouls or one with 0 fouls; both are free to keep playing.
Your 2nd link, lmitzel, looks like it's going to give me a headache! Thanks!

Gregory Sager

Quote from: RogK on March 20, 2018, 11:53:46 PM
Mr Ypsi, I agree with your reply; you made the point more concisely than I did.
And your mention of fouls reminds me of another minor criticism I have of something coaches will do : sit some of their best players for long stretches in the 1st half because they've picked up 2 fouls. The player has fouled out of the first half with 2 fouls. I can see sitting a star player for the duration of the 1st half if she has 3 fouls, but not 2.
And then in the 2nd half, why sit someone because she picked up her 3rd foul? Often, good players end up playing fewer minutes than they should, due to being "in foul trouble." The rules allow a player to keep playing with 2 fouls, 3 fouls, 4 fouls. Yet, coaches decide to impose additional restrictions on their own players, stricter than those in the rulebook : commit your 3rd foul too early in 3rd quarter and you've fouled out for the next 6 minutes; commit your 4th and you're banned from playing most of the rest of the game, as if an unused 5th foul can be carried over to the next game so she can commit 6 in that game.

Calvin alumnus Matt Snyder (whose d3boards.com handle is KnightSlappy) over on the men's boards has made it a personal crusade to show coaches how wrong they are to sit down key players for long stretches of the game due to picking up an early second foul in the first half or an early third foul in the second half. Since KnightSlappy is a numbers guy, he always brings the science whenever he engages this topic. You should look up KnightSlappy via the d3boards.com member search and send him a personal message; he'll dump so much statistical data on you relating to this that it'll make your head spin.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

lmitzel

Admittedly, I only got through a couple pages of that second article I shared before quitting. :)

The "having Tess and Jamie" question is an interesting one. Had both been four year Cardinals they would have had one extra overlap year in 2013-14, when the Cardinals went 4-10 in CCIW play, but were only two games out of the #4 seed. Tess played a few games at the end of that year (including a win down at the Shirk when such a thing seemed unthinkable), but adding her for the full year, plus a full year of Jamie is probably worth the three wins they would have needed to get in the CCIW Tournament that year. They probably would have gotten bounced by Carthage in the semis again, though maybe having both Tess and Jamie eliminates Stephanie Kuzmanic's pushoff on her game-winner when the two teams met in Naperville that year. (I'm not bitter or anything. :P )

The Emily Zgoda question is harder to think about when you factor in why she transferred to Albion, but those same factors also open up what-ifs with the 2014-15 team and how much the chemistry and bonding of that team helped propel them to the NCAA Tournament (and it's one of the reasons why that team will always have a special place in my heart). It's an interesting what-if though that probably has more bearing on the 2016-17 team with Whipple missing a majority of the year.

I think the more interesting four year what-if for North Central? Therese Pettersson. We almost certainly win more than five games this year if she's around. :(

Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 21, 2018, 12:34:32 PM
Calvin alumnus Matt Snyder (whose d3boards.com handle is KnightSlappy) over on the men's boards has made it a personal crusade to show coaches how wrong they are to sit down key players for long stretches of the game due to picking up an early second foul in the first half or an early third foul in the second half. Since KnightSlappy is a numbers guy, he always brings the science whenever he engages this topic. You should look up KnightSlappy via the d3boards.com member search and send him a personal message; he'll dump so much statistical data on you relating to this that it'll make your head spin.

I look at it like the whole going for it on fourth down in football. Coaches don't do it anywhere near as often as win probabilities or other statistics suggest they should. I think it stems from the idea mentioned in the first article that I shared where coaches get reamed for going with the perceived "risky" idea because that's how it's always been done, even though statistical analysis now suggests that the "risky" move is actually a smart one. But if a coach goes with the "risky" option and it backfires, they get reamed; going the "safe" route is effectively a CYA route.
Official D-III Championship BeltTM Cartographer
2022 CCIW Football Pick 'Em Co-Champion
#THREEEEEEEEE