Back to Post
| Username | Post: Holy Cross | |
|---|---|---|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2698 |
11-28-18 08:47 PM - Post#267427
Lewis and Weisner Perez not dressed (in addition to Towns and Aiken). Bassey survives collision and trip to locker room but returns. Harvard up 40-29 at half. Robert Baker with energy: 8pts, 5rbs, 3 steals, 1blk. Kirkwood with 8 and Freedman 6 in first half. Bench 27, Starters 13. Welsh, Djuricic and Bassey aggressive. 9 TO's understandable due to lineup. 6 steals is impressive. Great to see the depth we knew was there pay dividends. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
11-28-18 08:53 PM - Post#267433
Carmody will make halftime adjustments like a ninja. Need to hope that the sheer force of the talent can hang on here. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2698 |
11-28-18 09:03 PM - Post#267437
Yes, but Carmody forgot to account for Corey Johnson. The invisible man had shot 2-15 thus far, but hits 2 3’s and dives for 50-50 ball leading to easy bucket for Juzang. Depth! |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2698 |
11-28-18 09:21 PM - Post#267441
Harvard cruising by 16. Tommy playing 3 freshmen (Freedman, Kirkwood, Forbes), 1 sophomore (Haskett) and a junior (Baker) for extended periods. Never could have imagined that. Kirkwood (17) and Baker (12) leading scorers. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
11-28-18 09:32 PM - Post#267446
Carmody. Guy just owns Harvard. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
11-28-18 09:45 PM - Post#267448
Very nice answer to that run - much like the St. Marys game. This team does have some real quality depth. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2698 |
11-28-18 09:55 PM - Post#267452
Ah, subs don't know about Carmody apparently. Bench outscores starters 41-32. For what is hopefully the first of many, Kirkwood scores 20. Baker 13 with 8 rbs. Still, Djuricic and Bassey with touch two way efforts. Team seems to be having fun. Got the sense from the announcers that we won't see Lewis, Towns or Aiken at Siena Saturday. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4919 |
11-28-18 10:31 PM - Post#267461
Not many teams could lose players like Aiken, Lewis, and Towns from the starting lineup and roll up wins. Impressive. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
11-28-18 10:47 PM - Post#267463
The Crimson looked good. I like Kirkwood a lot. Nice to see Robert Baker make an impact after 3 years of being AWOL. More suits down on the end of the bench than players. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2698 |
11-28-18 10:49 PM - Post#267464
Isn't this recruiting season for Consulting Firms and Investment Banks? Actually, that should have ended by now so that's not an excuse for the suits. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
11-29-18 11:00 AM - Post#267494
Baker had that big game against St. Joe's last year that seemed to be his breakout, and then he had a bunch of DNPs. Pretty crazy that Harvard had its three former All-Ivy 1st Teamers on the bench and here's still the seven guys they could trot out for 20 mins or more: Kirkwood - Consensus 4-star, Top 100 some places, had ACC offers Baker - 4-star and Top 100 at ESPN.com (3-star/Top 150 other places) Haskett - Consensus 3-star, VaTech offer Djuricic - 4-star and fringe Top 100 guy with a Michigan offer before reclassing from 2018 to 2017 Bassey - Consensus 3-star, mostly Mountain West school offers Freedman - Consensus 3-star (Top 150 some places) with a Washington offer Juzang - 2-star |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
11-29-18 11:38 AM - Post#267496
I think at some point, certainly by now for the juniors, their HS rankings are meaningless. There isn't a player on the Harvard roster who has played in an NCAA tournament game. That may well change soon, but for now, the team with the most talent hasn't won, but the team that has played the best has. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
11-29-18 12:13 PM - Post#267499
The 2016 class is 22-6 in Ivy play, 23-8 with the Ivy tourney and only one of those eight losses wasn't decided on the final possession. The NCAA Tournament is the type of small sample metric that can hide the ball. The better metrics to use when thinking about winning and talent are things like wins and win shares. The 2016 class is on near-record pace there, certainly record pace when quality of league adjusted. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32877 |
11-29-18 12:28 PM - Post#267503
You guys putting up that "Win Share Champions-2018" banner at Lavietes? |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
11-29-18 12:43 PM - Post#267507
Ha. I get the point you're both trying to make. It's just not very useful as a measure of output. It's useful as fan banter, which I don't really care for because it doesn't help improve my understanding of what I'm watching. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32877 |
11-29-18 12:48 PM - Post#267509
Look, I understand how talented the Harvard roster is, both from metrics and eyesight. But all that matters is who gets the bid (and sadly, for the indefinite future, there will be one of those for the Ivies). |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2698 |
11-29-18 01:07 PM - Post#267515
And the Tournament, especially when hosted by a participant other than the top seed, is a poor way to determine that. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32877 |
11-29-18 01:18 PM - Post#267520
Penn should have been the home team last year. It penalized the better team. The tiebreaker that penalized Penn for getting reffed and losing by 1 at Yale while favoring Harvard who lost to a much worse team in Columbia, was absolutely ridiculous and you know it. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
11-29-18 01:24 PM - Post#267523
What sport does tiebreakers that way? Sports that I’m familiar with that have tie breaking rules that get to that level all use Strength of Victory not Weakness of Loss. Sport seems to be premised on the notion that winning against better competition is more indicative of quality than losing against inferior competition. I’d actually be fascinated to hear about sports that use who lost to a worse team as the tiebreaker. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
11-29-18 01:33 PM - Post#267525
You guys putting up that "Win Share Champions-2018" banner at Lavietes? This is a classic! Made me laugh. I just think quoting players HS recruiting rankings after they have played multiple years of College Basketball is pointless. I also agree who you beat is much more important than who you lost to. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32877 |
11-29-18 01:43 PM - Post#267528
I hear both of you but Strength of Victory as a tiebreaker is used only (as far as I am aware) where the teams have different schedules. In baseball, for example ties within divisions are broken by a playoff game, not strength of victory. No 2 football teams have the same schedule and they use it as the 4th tiebreaker. Here, it's pretty clear that the strength of a team is demonstrated more obviously by who you lose to---as witnessed by NCAA selections where nothing is worse than a bad loss. And the Ivies have never distinguished between 2 tying teams, even if one has won both head to head matches. In terms of significance, among teams who lost 2 games each, the loss to a really bad team as Harvard did has much more meaning than 1 loss to the 3rd best team. Of course, the playoff was going to be at the Palestra anyway, so all of this discussion is moot. But in a balanced schedule, the stronger team is the one whose losses are better. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
11-29-18 02:03 PM - Post#267537
That's actually not correct. If you look at the tiebreakers across conferences, in most instances you compare head to head results and then compare records against the next best teams in the conference in descending order. ACC tiebreaker: https://www.syracuse.com/acc/index.ssf/2016/02/acc... SEC Tiebreaker: http://www.secsports.com/article/11098238/tour name... A10 Tiebreaker: http://www.atlantic10.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_... Big 12: http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM... on and on and on it goes. Who you beat is more important than who you lost to. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2698 |
11-29-18 02:06 PM - Post#267538
Guys, we've been through this all before and nothing will change either of our perspectives. Good Luck! Hope to see you all at Yale in March. |
|
|
mobrien Masters Student Posts 403 |
11-29-18 04:19 PM - Post#267563
Penn finally returns to relevance, gets gifted home-court advantage in the Ivy tournament despite being the 2-seed, barely ekes out a win when we didn't have our two best players for the second half ... and you're talking smack about that? Interesting choice. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
11-29-18 04:35 PM - Post#267565
Hmmmm. Interesting post. Don't think I was talking smack. Your post, however, could be categorized by some as inflammatory. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32877 |
11-29-18 04:59 PM - Post#267570
Look forward to the season as well. See you at Harvard. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
11-29-18 08:35 PM - Post#267583
While I don’t disagree with the sentiment around at-large bids for this season, it’s important to separate what the committee will do from objective measures of resume strength. By those objective measures, Harvard’s 10-11 squad should have been the first Ivy ar-large team, finishing with a positive Wins Above Bubble rating. At present, if Harvard had gone 2-1 in its close games (UMass, URI and USF) instead of 1-2, it would have a positive WAB again. This is obviously wholly different than what the committee decides to do, which tends to be to find every excuse to let a major conf team in (eg counting Tier I wins instead of considering record in Tier I games) and keep a mid-major out (eg citing too few Tier I wins even if the Tier I record is strong in a small sample). I can’t imagine this behavior will change any time soon. That being said, if you don’t have teams that objectively deserve to be in, then it doesn’t matter if the behavior changes. My point on this subject always tends to be that we actually have had a situation where a team objectively deserved to be in based on resume and will likely have more in the future. But I don’t believe the committee will ever be savvy enough to understand and accept these facts. Thus I would agree that a second bid is a bit of a pipe dream for now. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2698 |
11-29-18 10:22 PM - Post#267588
Uh, I fear that the committee is in fact too savvy ....to cut a mid major a break |
|
|
AntiUngvar Masters Student Posts 530 |
11-29-18 10:48 PM - Post#267591
O'B: They've been to the tournament eleven times in the last quarter century. I'd say there's quite a bit of not so recent and recent relevance for you, there! |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
11-29-18 11:02 PM - Post#267592
Mr James, Are you not arguing for the tie breaker to be about who you beat and then in your very next post arguing for the NCAA selection committee to consider the wins AND losses of teams against Tier I teams? Am I missing something? |
|
|
westcoast Senior Posts 302 |
11-29-18 11:56 PM - Post#267597
Yes, there is no contradiction. If you look at Tier 1 wins only, the committee might rate a Power 5 team with a 4-8 record against Tier 1 opponents higher than a mid-major team that went 2-1 in Tier 1 games. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
11-30-18 08:58 AM - Post#267602
Correct - there is no contradiction, because in one circumstance (a true round robin), the number of games played at each level is equivalent, thus number of wins implies number of losses and thus record at each level. In the other circumstance (uneven NCAA scheduling), performance against the best teams has to be focused on wins and losses, because the number of games team to team played against that competition varies. For instance, if in the Ivies last year, Harvard played 10 games against the No. 3 team and Penn played 2 games, for the tiebreaker, you'd still want to understand performance against the next best team first, but by looking at wins only, a 3-7 Harvard might win a tiebreak over a 1-1 Penn team. Similarly, if all NCAA teams played the same number of Tier I and Tier II games, you wouldn't need to concern yourself with record, just wins, because wins would imply record. Where there would be a contradiction is if I said that the committee really focuses heavily on Tier III and Tier IV losses more than wins or record against Tier I (and to a lesser extent II). We know that bad losses are mostly ignored in the selection process relative to the nauseating level of discussion surrounding those Tier I wins (and not record in Tier I wins, just counts of wins). |
|
|
 |
|
| Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved. Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution. |
|