March 19, 2007
Weekend Thoughts
Not a good start to the NCAA Tournament for the ACC, huh? Unfortunately, I'm not terribly surprised. I mentioned briefly on this site and again on one or two of my radio interviews that the ACC was poised for a tough first two rounds of the tourney. Only Carolina would be a heavy favorite to win two and Maryland was probably the only other one even slightly favored. And well, the ratings and Vegas oddsmakers were right.
Does it mean the ACC had a terrible year? No, certainly not. Just getting seven teams in is a pretty impressive accomplishment that speaks volumes about how those teams played the entire season. But putting only one team in the Sweet Sixteen does mean that it's certainly not a banner year for the ACC. Not a great one and not even a very good one.
There are many ways for a conference to have an excellent year. One way is to have a few exceptional teams on top - two or three squads who are good enough to vie for a Final Four berth or even a title. Another way is to have strength at the bottom of the league - the whole "there is no off night in this league" thing. And a third is to have a strong middle of the league - maybe an elite team on top and one crappy one on the bottom, but with a large, successful middle class. I'd say the ACC pretty much fit that last mold this year, with a touch of the second one as well. As the bottom-feeders showed at the end of the year, no game was a guaranteed win this season and 10 of the 12 ACC teams earned postseason bids. The ACC led in pretty much every conference power rating, but had only national-level elite team.
Now, my thoughts on the weekend games, which despite the ACC's struggles, were pretty entertaining.
Saturday's games:
- That charging call on DJ Strawberry near the end of the Maryland-Butler game was horrendous. Not only was the guy not in position until after Strawberry was in the air, but there's also a rule that says you have to let someone catch a ball and come down. Terrible. The thing is though, Maryland probably still would have lost. They were down 2 at that point and Strawberry had just missed one of two free throws. Even if he had hit them both, Butler would have had 20 seconds to get off a last shot. Still, I'm sure the Terps would rather have been in that situation than the one that call left them in.
- Georgetown was extremely impressive in the last 10 minutes against Boston College. Their two stars, Roy Hibbert and Jeff Green stepped up and so did Patrick Ewing Jr. If those guys, Hibbert in particular, continue to play like that, then the national prognosticators who are jumping on the Hoya bandwagon may just be right.
- That Xavier collapse was crushing. It bummed me out all day; I can't even imagine what Musketeer fans must feel like. They had that game. Had it! Give Ohio State all the credit they deserve, because they seized the slim chances that were there, but still, Xavier blew it. One free throw here, one rebound there and the game ends differently. If the refs had blown an intentional foul on Greg Oden at the end (and he deserved one), it would have ended differently. But, instead we saw one of the great comebacks in NCAA history. Great game. But it hurt.
- Don't look now, but North Carolina is playing their best ball of the year. Sure, they had a midseason peak, but I like what they are doing now even better. Roy has tightened the rotation a bit, even if he'd never admit it, and the big guns are stepping up. Tyler Hansbrough played his best game of the season and Reyshawn Terry continued his last season surge. All season, I was sure that they would fall short of the Final Four, but I'm not so sure now.
- Early in the day, I happened upon an NIT game on TV, where Mississippi State was playing someone. While I was watching, I saw a quick, aggressive Bulldog guard drive through the defense for an impressive layup. The kid was Ben Hansbrough, Tyler's little brother. That got me thinking. It's one thing to be 6'9" and play college basketball. Sure, you have to be somewhat athletic, really how many people are you beating out for that spot? But to be 6'3" or so and play college ball, you have to be a hell of an athlete. And that's Tyler's brother.
Later, when Carolina was playing, they showed his dad and mentioned that he had high jumped as a student at Missouri and had once cleared 7'2". 7'2"!! So, Tyler's little brother is a D-1 guard and his dad was an elite track and field athlete. Hmmm, maybe Tyler's not quite the sub-athlete so many say he is. He's constantly praised for his motor, his aggressiveness, his work ethic and his hands, but never for sheer athleticism. Do you think maybe he'd be talked about differently if he were black instead of white?
- The Louisville-Texas A&M game might have been the most entertaining game of the day. Might have been except that it wasn't because the refs couldn't stop blowing their whistles. Damn near every possession ended with free throws. It was too bad, because both teams were playing hard, aggressive ball and it would have been nice to see them establish some flow.
Tough break for that Louisville kid who missed those free throws at the end. He was 15-15 at that point, but with just seconds left and his team down by one, he missed both. Ouch.
- Vandy must like their ACC imports. Back in the day Billy McCaffrey was an All-American there after leaving Duke. Now, former Cavalier Derrick Byars has them in Sweet Sixteen. They should have to donate a share of proceeds.
- The average margin at the end of regulation of the eight games - 3.6 points. If you take out the Carolina game, it was just 3.3 points, and in that game, UNC trailed by 3 with about 8 minutes left. Pretty amazing slate.
Sunday games:
- Virginia was sooo close, but I can't really argue with the outcome. Tennessee was probably the better team, but if they played 10 games, the final split would probably be 5-5 or 6-4. Things might have been different if JR Reynolds hadn't rolled his ankle 14 minutes into the game. At that point, he'd already scored 22 points, but he tallied just 4 more, both on layups, the rest of the way. Similarly, if the Vols hadn't banked in a damn three with about 2 minutes left, things might have been very different. It always sucks to see your team lose and end their season, but I'm still happy with what they did this year.
- Virginia Tech played against two of the best half-court defenses in the tourney and struggled mightily against both. Against Illinois, they found their rhythm by going to a full-court press, but nothing seemed to work against Southern Illinois. Thinking back, I don't remember if they even tried a press. One thing I noticed in both games is something I should have picked up earlier this year - the Hokies have no offense. Their points seem to pretty much come from dribble penetration from Jamon Gordon, Zabian Dowdell or sometimes Deron Washington. Basically, they pass the ball around a few times and then someone attacks. That just won't work against a disciplined defense with good on-ball defenders. When you are held to 44 points in a tourney game against a mid-major and you have the offensive talent VT has, something is wrong. It'll be interesting to see what happens to them next year without Gordan, Dowdell and Coleman Collins. That might be a last-place team.
- Thought I had during the day (many times) - Well, at least the Big Ten is sucking too.
- Memphis really reminds me of those old Denny Crum Louisville teams - athletes all over the floor, running and jumping and creating mayhem. Of course, I thought that last year too and they folded in the tourney. Their game against Texas A&M should be awesome. BTW, Joey Dorsey has a ridiculous body. That guy just looks like an All-American.
- The Kentucky-Kansas game was very entertaining. Both teams looked really good. I wonder if Kentucky just needed to see another elite program on the court to help them get motivated? The Jayhawks are looking more and more like a legit favorite for the title. It's great to see them, UNC and Florida all rounding into shape here at the end. It could be a hell of a Final Four.
- So, is UNLV a mid-major? They are from one of those minor western conferences, but they have some impressive history and were a traditional power 15-20 years ago. I say they are. Or are they some other category - Major program in middling conference? You could put Memphis in that category as well (and Louisville back in their Metro Conference heyday).
Comments
Sometimes I feel like it is just down to Dave and Me.
Dave is absolutely right about the different ways for a conference to be tough and this goes for schedules too. A top team could play ten non-conference games against teams ranked from 40-60 in the RPI and yet in a way, this could be easier than playing only teams from the below 60 teams plus two top ten teams, in terms of actually producing defeats.
In 2005, the ACC had 3 stellar teams, but perhaps a lot of easy nights too. This year, with the youth on Carolina and Duke, and a group of decent but not great teams, the ACC was middle heavy.
The ACC lost close games this week-end with BC, UVa and Maryland all getting edged. Had all of them won, we would be hearing how great the ACC is, with four teams in the final 16. This is all statistical nonsense.
We might just as well argue how good the ACC is given that highly-touted Georgetown almost lost to BC, which got annihilated by UNC in the ACC tournament and given UNC's convincing win over MSU, which was by far the highest ranked team facing a top seed in the tournament. Florida and obviously, OSU looked highly lackluster as did everyone's Big 12 favorite Texas. Where are all those people touting Texas now?
All of these different teams from different conferences played different teams, with different styles, in different locations. Comparing the results at this point, without more, is not particularly fruitful, except for the barbs that fans of different conferences like to sling.
The Big Ten had two teams in the Final Four while Carolina won it all in 2005. Which conference was better? I don't know and those two pieces of data aren't enough to tell you either. What we do seem to know is what we suspected before the tournament began: this year's top seeds appear to be a cut above the other teams and I would not be surprised to see three or more make the Final Four. If that happens, all of this nonsense about which conference is best will die away pretty quickly.
Dave is absolutely right about the different ways for a conference to be tough and this goes for schedules too. A top team could play ten non-conference games against teams ranked from 40-60 in the RPI and yet in a way, this could be easier than playing only teams from the below 60 teams plus two top ten teams, in terms of actually producing defeats.
In 2005, the ACC had 3 stellar teams, but perhaps a lot of easy nights too. This year, with the youth on Carolina and Duke, and a group of decent but not great teams, the ACC was middle heavy.
The ACC lost close games this week-end with BC, UVa and Maryland all getting edged. Had all of them won, we would be hearing how great the ACC is, with four teams in the final 16. This is all statistical nonsense.
We might just as well argue how good the ACC is given that highly-touted Georgetown almost lost to BC, which got annihilated by UNC in the ACC tournament and given UNC's convincing win over MSU, which was by far the highest ranked team facing a top seed in the tournament. Florida and obviously, OSU looked highly lackluster as did everyone's Big 12 favorite Texas. Where are all those people touting Texas now?
All of these different teams from different conferences played different teams, with different styles, in different locations. Comparing the results at this point, without more, is not particularly fruitful, except for the barbs that fans of different conferences like to sling.
The Big Ten had two teams in the Final Four while Carolina won it all in 2005. Which conference was better? I don't know and those two pieces of data aren't enough to tell you either. What we do seem to know is what we suspected before the tournament began: this year's top seeds appear to be a cut above the other teams and I would not be surprised to see three or more make the Final Four. If that happens, all of this nonsense about which conference is best will die away pretty quickly.
With respect to Hansbrough, maybe he will have to be more of a Larry Bird type with all the bigs in the NBA, but I think I have seen something in his game that is overlooked, but that he is better at than any other inside player I have ever seen.
Watch him on the inside when he shoots and watch how he uses that angles to score. Maybe it is due to superior vision or hand-eye coordination, but he seems to make more of what I will call "impure" shots than anyone else.
A pure shot is either intended to go in from straight on or is based upon a clear and easy banking angle. Hansbrough makes many of these of course, but he also nails a lot of shots which seem to bank in from very strange angles (acute?) or that seem to rim in from the back rim. After two years of doing this, it seems clear that it is not just luck. He seems to understand the geometry of making shots to a degree far greater than any other player. Compare him to B. Wright, who seems to either swish, dunk or miss.
Strangely enough, to me anyway, the Tar Heels also have a second player with a shooting style on the inside somewhat similar to Hansbrough and it is Ty Lawson. It often looks like he has a bad angle on those shots where he goes by everyone in the lane, but somehow they seem to almost always go in from a weird place on the backboard. We don't really know everything about how the human mind calculates the geometry of making shots (Shaq's mind just can't grasp the notion of arc), but it seems apparent that some players can really analyze the angles and make shots that other players would not be able to make.
Watch him on the inside when he shoots and watch how he uses that angles to score. Maybe it is due to superior vision or hand-eye coordination, but he seems to make more of what I will call "impure" shots than anyone else.
A pure shot is either intended to go in from straight on or is based upon a clear and easy banking angle. Hansbrough makes many of these of course, but he also nails a lot of shots which seem to bank in from very strange angles (acute?) or that seem to rim in from the back rim. After two years of doing this, it seems clear that it is not just luck. He seems to understand the geometry of making shots to a degree far greater than any other player. Compare him to B. Wright, who seems to either swish, dunk or miss.
Strangely enough, to me anyway, the Tar Heels also have a second player with a shooting style on the inside somewhat similar to Hansbrough and it is Ty Lawson. It often looks like he has a bad angle on those shots where he goes by everyone in the lane, but somehow they seem to almost always go in from a weird place on the backboard. We don't really know everything about how the human mind calculates the geometry of making shots (Shaq's mind just can't grasp the notion of arc), but it seems apparent that some players can really analyze the angles and make shots that other players would not be able to make.
| william wrote: |
| Strangely enough, to me anyway, the Tar Heels also have a second player with a shooting style on the inside somewhat similar to Hansbrough and it is Ty Lawson. It often looks like he has a bad angle on those shots where he goes by everyone in the lane, but somehow they seem to almost always go in from a weird place on the backboard. We don't really know everything about how the human mind calculates the geometry of making shots (Shaq's mind just can't grasp the notion of arc), but it seems apparent that some players can really analyze the angles and make shots that other players would not be able to make. |
That reminds me of one aspect of basketball that you rarely hear anyone make mention of - the difficulty of many "layups." Guards frequently penetrate and have to throw up high arcing shots off of their fingertips that spin off an odd spot on the backboard and yet go in. Quite often, they do this with their off hand. Those shots always amaze me and yet usually the announcers gush at the quickness of the drive.
Good point. I can remember a few games where announcers have said a team lost because they missed a "lay-up" but the shot in question was highly contested and not an easy one at all.
Here's a manual TrackBack to my comments on the Hansbrough stuff. Because, well, I need stuff to post on my own blog...
A couple of notes on the conference rating stuff: It really doesn't make sense to talk about absolute numbers of wins and losses when comparing conferences-- you need to take the seeds into account. There's a big difference, for example, between Georgia Tech losing in the first round as a ten seed, and Duke losing as a six seed. Duke was supposed to win that game, while Tech was not, and any attempt at comparisons between leagues ought to take that into account.
The way to do the comparison is to count up the number of games each team is expected to win, and compare the actual total to that. So, UNC as a #1 is expected to win four games, Maryland as a #4 is expected to win two, Duke as a #6 one, and Tech as a #10 none.
If you do this for various leagues, you find the following:
Conf. Expected Actual
ACC 9 (7) 6
PAC-10 7 (6) 6
Big 10 9 (6) 6
Big East 8 (7) 5
SEC 8 (6) 8
(The number in parentheses is how many they would be expected to win at this point-- that is, two of Carolina's expected wins haven't happened yet, so they shouldn't really be counted)
What does this tell you? Well, not much. None of the power conferences have really dramatically underperformed to this point. The SEC is doing better than expected (at the expense of the PAC-10 and ACC), but they're all within two games of where you'd expect them to be.
The way to do the comparison is to count up the number of games each team is expected to win, and compare the actual total to that. So, UNC as a #1 is expected to win four games, Maryland as a #4 is expected to win two, Duke as a #6 one, and Tech as a #10 none.
If you do this for various leagues, you find the following:
Conf. Expected Actual
ACC 9 (7) 6
PAC-10 7 (6) 6
Big 10 9 (6) 6
Big East 8 (7) 5
SEC 8 (6) 8
(The number in parentheses is how many they would be expected to win at this point-- that is, two of Carolina's expected wins haven't happened yet, so they shouldn't really be counted)
What does this tell you? Well, not much. None of the power conferences have really dramatically underperformed to this point. The SEC is doing better than expected (at the expense of the PAC-10 and ACC), but they're all within two games of where you'd expect them to be.
| orzelc wrote: |
| Here's a manual TrackBack to my comments on the Hansbrough stuff. Because, well, I need stuff to post on my own blog... |
I actually just finished reading your piece (before I saw this ping) and am planning on posting about (to complete the circle. Then you can post about my post about your post about my post.)
Thanks for the mention, ozelc, I have bookmarked your site and also sent the page to Adam Lucas, who is the media and press relations director for the Heels and does a fantastic job.
Maybe slightly on a different point, comes the issue for many whites as to whether it is moral to root more for a team that has more whites, maybe like the Celtics back in the 1980's or Duke currently.
Honestly, when I watch UNC I don't really see color. I had to stop and think as to whether Carolina had any white players among its rotation in 2005--I don't think it did--and it honestly didn't matter to me.
At the same time, I think we can take pleasure in Tyler's success for a reason articulated by Michael Wilbon, the black columnist for the Washington Post. He has noted that many of the excellent white players in the NBA of late, come from other countries and stated that after talking to parents of talented white athletes, that many of the American parents had convinced their children to focus on sports besides basketball, because they didn't think that their children could compete on an equal footing. The Spaniards, Germans and Eastern European players don't seem to have the same hang-up and do fine.
Perhaps Tyler and players like him can inspire more young people to play this great game of basketball. There has been a lot of newfound love for Pete Maravich lately with two biographies about him out.
It really makes me think back to how underappreciated he really was. In some ways, he was the Eminem or Tiger Woods of basketball (although Tiger is half-Asian, arguably a contributing background to his success hardly analyzed by anyone--too hot to touch?), meaning that Pete was the most skilled player in the history of basketball and white, a somewhat anomolous situation.
The rub on Maravich was that "he wasn't a winner." While not even necessarily true with respect to the facts (LSU was a dormant program that made it to MSQ in the NIT during Maravich's Senior year), one wonders whether the real problem was simply that his staggering talent and skill level intimidated even his own coaches and teammates. Not to mention his hair--he had the greatest white person hair in the history of the NBA--playing in the backyard, I would try to make my Bobby Brady-styled hair bounce up and down like his did. Pete seemed to have the whole package.
By the time Pete made it to a team worthy of his skill level, with Boston in 1980, his knees were gone and he never really contributed to a contender in the NBA.
It really doesn't matter though, because while basketball is a team game and winning is the ultimate goal, the main reason we do it is that it is fun.
Pistol Pete (probably the greatest nickname in the history of basketball--somebody at LSU understood marketing) knew implicitly that fun should be the sine qua non of sport, telling all that if he could accomplish the same goal with a standard pass or a fun one, he would always opt for the fun one.
When few people will remember or even care that the Washington-Capitol-Baltimore Bullets won the NBA title in 1978, people will remember Pete Maravich and the joy and inspiration that he brought to the game. When I shoot around in the backyard with my sons, I will try to make the hair remaining on my head flop up and down and tell them about Pistol Pete and how great he was and all the things that he could do with a basketball.
Now Tyler is not quite Pete Maravich, but he is a good, fun kid who says he wants to stay in college and is an excellent player. The more success he has, the better it is for the sport, because it is going to show some of the chicken-hearted prospective white players out there that race is no impediment to success in basketball. So, yeah, I am rooting for you Tyler. And Pete, wherever you are, we miss you. I wish we had told you that more when you were still with us.
Posted by Dave at March 19, 2007 01:40 PM
| TrackBack
Maybe slightly on a different point, comes the issue for many whites as to whether it is moral to root more for a team that has more whites, maybe like the Celtics back in the 1980's or Duke currently.
Honestly, when I watch UNC I don't really see color. I had to stop and think as to whether Carolina had any white players among its rotation in 2005--I don't think it did--and it honestly didn't matter to me.
At the same time, I think we can take pleasure in Tyler's success for a reason articulated by Michael Wilbon, the black columnist for the Washington Post. He has noted that many of the excellent white players in the NBA of late, come from other countries and stated that after talking to parents of talented white athletes, that many of the American parents had convinced their children to focus on sports besides basketball, because they didn't think that their children could compete on an equal footing. The Spaniards, Germans and Eastern European players don't seem to have the same hang-up and do fine.
Perhaps Tyler and players like him can inspire more young people to play this great game of basketball. There has been a lot of newfound love for Pete Maravich lately with two biographies about him out.
It really makes me think back to how underappreciated he really was. In some ways, he was the Eminem or Tiger Woods of basketball (although Tiger is half-Asian, arguably a contributing background to his success hardly analyzed by anyone--too hot to touch?), meaning that Pete was the most skilled player in the history of basketball and white, a somewhat anomolous situation.
The rub on Maravich was that "he wasn't a winner." While not even necessarily true with respect to the facts (LSU was a dormant program that made it to MSQ in the NIT during Maravich's Senior year), one wonders whether the real problem was simply that his staggering talent and skill level intimidated even his own coaches and teammates. Not to mention his hair--he had the greatest white person hair in the history of the NBA--playing in the backyard, I would try to make my Bobby Brady-styled hair bounce up and down like his did. Pete seemed to have the whole package.
By the time Pete made it to a team worthy of his skill level, with Boston in 1980, his knees were gone and he never really contributed to a contender in the NBA.
It really doesn't matter though, because while basketball is a team game and winning is the ultimate goal, the main reason we do it is that it is fun.
Pistol Pete (probably the greatest nickname in the history of basketball--somebody at LSU understood marketing) knew implicitly that fun should be the sine qua non of sport, telling all that if he could accomplish the same goal with a standard pass or a fun one, he would always opt for the fun one.
When few people will remember or even care that the Washington-Capitol-Baltimore Bullets won the NBA title in 1978, people will remember Pete Maravich and the joy and inspiration that he brought to the game. When I shoot around in the backyard with my sons, I will try to make the hair remaining on my head flop up and down and tell them about Pistol Pete and how great he was and all the things that he could do with a basketball.
Now Tyler is not quite Pete Maravich, but he is a good, fun kid who says he wants to stay in college and is an excellent player. The more success he has, the better it is for the sport, because it is going to show some of the chicken-hearted prospective white players out there that race is no impediment to success in basketball. So, yeah, I am rooting for you Tyler. And Pete, wherever you are, we miss you. I wish we had told you that more when you were still with us.
BrightCar Car Maintenance Software - Software To Manage Your Car Maintenance Schedule
