Dave in Green

+1. Join the club. The Notorious D.I.G. claims another victim. I hope that my simple question posed yesterday in the Putting a Theory to the Test thread hasn't hurt your head so much that you are unable to respond to it. It's really not a trick question, but a serious and sincere request for a data reference. Link to Question

For the most part, I think all but a few are very happy with KD. I would hope that we all wish him better. If one of us should accidentally stumble upon something that might make him even more successful, we would be remiss if we didn't speak out.

I think that GoZips makes a legitimate point. I'm still not convinced what made Jimmy Conyers a bench rider for 3 years and all-MAC first team and MAC defensive player of the year in his final season. How much of that was JC and how much KD? Everyone is free to make their best guess on this. But who really knows for sure?

Great kid with good grades from a good family. Now about that vertical leap of 37 inches. I'd sure like to believe that was measured the same way that NBA players are measured. I haven't found an NBA player with exactly a 37-inch leap. But two I found listed at 38 inches are Kobe Bryant and Paul Pierce -- good company, to be sure.

The picture is actually pretty small and simple: It was the subject of a lot of conversation two years ago...but it isn't any longer. Why? Because the change has proven to be irrelevant. A two year sampling of hundred of teams and thousands of games has proven -- the 12" 3-point line change has done nothing to widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots". What's that GP1 line? Something like "...you want it to be one way, but it's the other." What you say may or may not be true. But it's still not clear if your personal conclusion is the result of studying specific data or just a casual assumption. If you could point me to the source of your data sampling, I'll gladly agree with you if what you've based your conclusion on is as compelling to me as it obviously has been to you.

Skip, you're absolutely correct that one of the stated reasons for the NCAA moving the 3-point arc back was to spread defenses out a little more, giving more offensive spacing and increased room to operate for post players in the paint as well as players using pass or dribble penetration. This would likely have at least as much affect on the college game as the change in 3-point shooting percentages. Racer did not address this issue in his original comment, focusing more on how the longer 3-point range would tend to hurt mid-majors more than majors. Fact is, the "have" coaches like Rick Pitino have lobbied in favor of an NBA-length 3-point arc in college, arguing that the best college players need to be prepared for the next step to pro ball. Obviously there are many more future NBA players at major "have" schools than the mid-major "have-nots." Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions from this. Any effect from spreading the floor would be even more difficult to measure statistically than 3-point shooting averages. Maybe someone has already done this, but I haven't found it. The combined 3-point shooting and floor spreading effect of moving the arc back a foot on majors vs. mid-majors might best be measured by analyzing results of all games between majors and mid-majors before and after the rule change. But that would require a lot of number crunching. For starters, it would also require a clear definition of major and mid-major. One need look no further than this thread to see that there's disagreement on which teams are majors or mid-majors. There is some inconclusive data that points to mid-majors suffering last season (2008-9), the first season of the extended 3-point arc, in terms of at-large bids to the NCAA tournament. Since 1997, the greatest number of mid-major at-large bids was 12 in 1998 and 2004, and the lowest number was 4 last season, the first with the extended 3-point arc. But as far as I've been able to determine, no one has yet come up with a definitive answer supported by hard data that's immediately clear to all. In the absence of definitive data, I think that most people will keep an open mind and continue looking for good data to help formulate an informed opinion. I suppose there's also the option to listen to and believe in The Great Wizard of Oz, thundering out great unquestionable absolutes amidst much fire, smoke, and fury. Just be sure to pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain pulling the levers.

Statistical significance was not formally calculated, but represents my informal evaluation based on the much smaller year-to-year changes in historical 3-point shooting percentage: 34.61% = 2004-5 34.81% = 2005-6 (+0.20%) 34.81% = 2006-7 (Unchanged) 35.02% = 2007-8 (+0.21%) 34.18% = 2008-9 ( -0.84%) 34.14% = 2009-0 ( -0.04%) The mid-major fall in shooting percentage in 2008-9 was from 34.98% to 33.82%, or -1.16%.

I do recall seeing one HS player evaluation service giving Dakotah Euton an 85 rating, Josh Egner an 84, and Michael Green an 80. How they will develop in college may or may not follow those ratings. One thing's for sure. Green and his Dublin Coffman team played Gahana a lot closer than Jared Sullinger and his #1 ranked HS team in the country (Northland) did.

WARNING: This post contains extensive factual statistical data, and may cause drowsiness among some viewers. I previously said that to prove the theory that extending the 3-point arc has hurt the 3-point shooting of mid-majors more than majors, one would have to do a major statistical analysis comparing the number of 3s attempted and made by all majors and mid-majors for several years before and after the rule change. I also said that as much as I like stats that I was not up for the amount of work it would take to put together such a comprehensive analysis. Following is a partial statistical analysis, which will have to do until someone puts in the hours necessary to do a complete one. This one took several hours to compile, so good luck to anyone who wants to try the complete analysis described above. The college 3-point arc was extended from 19.75 feet to 20.75 (5.1% increase) for the 2008-9 season, so the 2007-8 season was the final one under the old rule, making those two seasons the most interesting. I selected the top five conferences in RPI for the 2007-8 (ACC, Pac 10, Big 12, SEC and Big East -- a total of 62 teams) and compared them against the 5 conferences with RPI 11-15 (Horizon, MAC, CAA, West Coast and Sun Belt-- a total of 55 teams) to get a good sample comparison of major teams vs. mid-majors (the top 5 of the top 10 conferences vs. the top 5 of the second 10 conferences). This only includes conference games, which removes the variable of different OOC games each season. It compares the 2007-8 numbers to the 2008-9 season for the same conferences with the increased 3-point shot distance. First some baseline numbers for all D1 teams: 19.12 = average number of 3-point attempts per team per game in all 2007-8 games. 18.36 = average number of 3-point attempts per team per game in all 2008-9 games. 4.0% = percentage reduction in number of 3-point attempts per game in the first season that the distance was increased 5.1%. 35.02% = 3-point shooting average for all teams in all 2007-8 games. 34.18% = 3-point shooting average for all teams in all 2008-9 games. 2.4% = percentage reduction in 3-point shooting average in the first season that the distance was increased 5.1%. Now the comparison of the 5 major and 5 mid-major conferences: #1-5 RPI Conferences in 2007-8/2008-9 Conference Games Only 315.45/313.20 = average number of 3-point attempts per team. 110.02/110.11 = average number of 3-pointers made per team. 34.88%/35.16% = percentage of 3-pointers made per team. #11-15 RPI Conferences in 2007-8/2008-9 Conference Games Only 308.07/294.04 = average number of 3-point attempts per team. 107.76/ 99.45 = average number of 3-pointers made per team. 34.98%/33.82% = percentage of 3-pointers made per team. Caveats? As always, there are many hazards when considering partial or even extensive statistics. There are many variables not considered here, such as a change in player personnel from season to season. But we're comparing 62 major teams to 55 mid-majors across their entire conference schedules for two complete seasons. So some of those variables will be reduced over a smaller sample. Conclusions? The 62 major teams represented here took and made more 3-point attempts than the 55 mid-majors in both seasons, which was a surprise to me. But since this is only for conference games with majors vs. majors and mid-majors vs. mid-majors, that might change when mid-majors let more 3s fly to try to upset majors. Another surprise to me is that the 55 mid-majors had a slightly higher (34.98%-34.88%) 3-point shooting percentage than the 62 majors when the 3-point line was at 19.75 feet. That's actually pretty impressive for the mid-major players to outperform their generally bigger, stronger, more skilled counterparts at the majors. Not so surprising from my perspective is that the 55 mid-majors reduced their number of 3-point attempts more than the 62 major teams when the 3-point shot went to a longer distance and became more difficult to make, but not as difficult for bigger, stronger, more skilled players. Also not so surprising from my perspective is that the 55 mid-majors had a significant drop in 3-point shooting percentage (34.98% to 33.82%). Perhaps the biggest surprise to me was that the 3-point shooting percentage of the 62 majors actually went up with the longer shot from 34.88% to 35.16%. To summarize, during the final year of the 19.75-foot 3-point shot, the 55 mid-majors considered here had a very slight 3-point shooting percentage advantage in their respective conference play when compared to 62 majors. But the following season, the first of the longer 20.75-foot 3-point shot, the mid-majors lost that advantage as their 3-point shooting percentage fell significantly and the percentage for the majors rose slightly. Again, no absolute conclusions to be drawn from this. But it does provide another interesting data point. If anyone is still awake and has any questions, I'll do my best to answer.

OK all you unworthy little people, have you gotten the message yet? It's useless to post anything in this forum that is not fully approved and endorsed by the Designated Great Ones. When you get out of line, you will be reminded that your place in life is to sit quietly and listen to, believe, and repeat without question only the words of the Designated Great Ones. If you want to state your own unworthy opinions without being reminded of your unworthiness by a moderator, you should go start your own unworthy Zips fan forum for unworthy Zips fans. Got it?

OK, I've been one of Egner's biggest cheerleaders here. So I feel obligated to sound a note of caution. I just discovered the following bits of information. Prior to his brilliant 2 for 2 3-point and 6 for 6 free throw performances, Egner was: 2 of 15 from the 3-point line for the season. 55.9% from the free throw line for the season. The fact that he had his best performance of the season when anything less would have ended Jackson's season is good. But Egner will not necessarily shoot the lights out every night. I still think his attitude and overall game will be good for the Zips. But we shouldn't expect him to be dominant every game any more than we should have expected Zeke to dominate in his freshman season. The Zips will still need to win as a team and not expect to ride on the shoulders of Superman. Canton Rep Link

This line made me remember something. Do some of you remember when college basketball went to a three point line and in ACC league play, the line was less than 20 feet from the basket. I don't know why moving the line further away from the basket is always a good thing. Why not make it shorter and increase scoring and chances for teams to get back into games late? To me, that is more interesting than watching teams miss one three point shot after another. 19.75 feet is the arc for high school basketball. 19.75 feet was the previous arc for college basketball. 20.75 feet is the current arc for college basketball. 23.75 feet is the current arc for NBA basketball. However, on the baselines, with a line drawn directly from the center of the rim to the sideline, the NBA distance is 22 feet. The rules can be manipulated to create whatever show the sanctioning organization wants. The ABA pioneered 3-point shooting and tough enforcement of interior physical contact to encourage a high-scoring finesse game at a time when the NBA rules did not include the 3-point shot and encouraged big guys slugging it out under the basket. I personally enjoyed watching the ABA over the NBA. But then I prefer basketball over football.

I'm not sure how you get to here: From here: That leap makes my Mr. Spock meter chime Not Logical.

If two "perfect" defensive teams play each other, no one ever scores and the game goes into infinite overtime at 0-0. If two "perfect" offensive teams play each other, they both make every shot, but one eventually wins because it gets one more shot than the other team before the regulation time or an overtime final buzzer. What happens when the "perfect' defensive team meets the "perfect" offensive team, when one team can't miss a shot and the other can't be scored on?

Why is a 3-point shot worth 50% more than a 2-point shot? Because the further away from the basket you get, the harder it is to toss the ball through the hole (duh!). Why does the distance of the 3-point arc increase from high school to college, and again from college to the pros? Because at each increasing level the players become bigger, stronger and more skillful, and can better handle the increased challenge of the longer distance. Which colleges tend to attract the biggest, strongest, most skillful players, the major BCS conference schools or the mid-majors? Theoretically the teams with the bigger, stronger, more skillful players should benefit more from increasing the distance of the 3-point arc. All the theory above points to the possibility that the mid-majors may have been slightly hurt by making it slightly more difficult for them to use the 3-point "great equalizer" (as Dick Vitale refers to it) to gain the occasional upset over teams with bigger, stronger, more skillful players. But by how much, and how would one go about proving it? Having 4 mid-majors in this year's Sweet 16 certainly doesn't prove anything either way about moving the 3-point line back a foot. There are way too many variables in basketball to single out one minor factor like that to the exclusion of all the other variables. To prove the theory holds true, one would have to do a major statistical analysis of all colleges for several years before and several years after the rule change. You'd have to divide the teams into major BCS conference schools and mid-majors, and compare the number of 3s attempted and made both before and after the rule change. You'd need to see if mid-majors were shooting a lower percentage relative to major BCS conference schools in the years following the change than before, and if so, by how much. I like stats as much as anyone here. But I'm not up for the amount of work it would take to put that study together. In the absence of a verifiable, meaningful statistical analysis, I see nothing wrong with racer's original statement that he thinks moving the 3-point line back hurt non-major schools more than majors. I'd say that racer is using good logic in making that estimate in the absence of readily verifiable facts.

If the MAC is weaker, nothing changes. We're still a one-bid conference with the only hope of going dancing coming from winning the MAC tournament. If the MAC is stronger, there's still a chance that nothing changes as far as going dancing. To have a good chance at an at-large bid, the MAC would have to pass about seven other conferences. So, the MAC getting weaker with Akron staying the same would seem to give us a better chance of getting into the NCAA tournament, because if the MAC got stronger it means a harder time through the conference tournament but maybe not a better chance at an at-large bid unless the improvement is extremely dramatic. Congratulations, Zach. You have discovered what we call a 'Catch 22'. So we have one frequently expressed school of thought on ZN.O that the Zips suffer from playing in a weak conference, and another school of thought expressed in this thread that the Zips benefit if the MAC gets even weaker. If a weaker conference is good, instead of wishing for bad luck for other teams in the MAC, why not have UA take control of its own destiny and just move to an even weaker conference where the Zips would be more likely to win the conference each year and pick up an automatic NCAA tournament bid?

It's a simple question: Are the Zips better off overall if the MAC is weaker or stronger?

Jackson's success is built on Egner and Henniger being two big men with very different styles who work very well together. They complement each other well, and as a package offer the full range of options. I have to say that in the 3 Jackson games I've attended and reported on here, I've focused more on Egner's positives and Henniger's negatives. I don't mean to downplay Henniger's potential. But I just think that some of the things that make Henniger so dominant in HS will not translate as well to D1 as what Egner does, especially when the Zips' specific needs are taken into consideration. Some of the things that impress me about Henniger are his ability to finish shots at the rim when not closely guarded by a quality player. He has a really nice touch, and the ball rarely bounces off the rim. I know that's something that Zips fans would like to see from more Zips players. But watching the 6-4 center block him several times tells me that Henniger is going to have to improve a lot around the rim against any decent defensive pressure. Zeke would have Henniger eating basketballs all night. Egner has more of a power approach. If he gets as close to the rim as Henniger, he slams it down with authority. I'm also impressed with the way Henniger runs the floor. He usually beats the other team's bigs downcourt and gets open shots at the rim against the other team's faster but smaller players who can't block his shots. He even has decent ball-handling capabilities, though not to the point that he can create his own open shots like Egner can. Egner showed that he can bring the ball upcourt, similar to Nik but a little smoother. He can also blow by people through the lane and score over a tight defender. I'm also impressed with Henniger's free throw shooting, which is pretty accurate for a big man. He shoots free throws from his chest instead of from over his head, which is OK for free throws. But he shoots short jumpers the same way, from his chest area, which makes them more blockable. Egner also hits free throws well for a big man, but he uses a more classic approach of shooting from high over his head. He does the same with his jump shots, and when you factor in his high leaping ability, his jump shots will be hard to block. Egner is an accurate jump shooter from medium range to beyond the arc. Both Henniger and Egner play good D. Henniger is at his best close to the basket dominating the shorter players he's usually up against. He has reasonably quick feet and quick hands for a big man. Egner can play D anywhere on the court, whether chasing a guard and poking the ball away outside the arc or swatting shots by bigger players near the rim, thanks to his great leaping ability. Egner has great deceptiveness. He appears to move slowly at times and almost lulls the defense. But part of it is an illusion due to taking long strides. Then he strikes like a cobra with really quick hands and feet for a big man. The scenario I can imagine for Henniger at Can't is that their players slash to the basket, draw in the defenders and pass to Henniger in the paint for an easy bucket, as long as Henninger is not closely guarded. For the Zips, I see Egner being the one to slash to the basket and either take it all the way in or pass to Zeke in the paint for an easy bucket. This is really the first time in all my years of following basketball that I've tried to assess a HS player who was coming into a college program I closely follow. Knowing that many players with great HS stats ride the bench when they reach the next level, I understand that Egner may not impress me as much against D1 college competition. Then again, his abilities and performance impressed me much more against a really tough HS opponent than against the two weaker opponents I saw him play against. From what I've seen, Egner will make mistakes and remind us a little of Nik when he demonstrates his anger at himself for messing up. But he will refocus almost immediately and channel his emotion into a brilliant play within the next minute or two. In this area I see him a little more like Humpty than Nik. But despite his great intensity, in some ways he already comes across as more mature and controlled than some of the other Zips players. I really don't think he will be perceived as a freshman even from the minute he first enters a Zips game. I really believe that Egner's combination of physical abilities (energy, speed, coordination, leaping ability, etc.), fundamentals (shooting form, ball control, timing, positioning, etc.) and mental attitude (competitiveness, focus, toughness, etc.) is not common at lower levels and is more indicative of a quality high-level player. This all leads me to be optimistic that he will earn PT from KD early next season, that his game performances will earn him more PT as the season goes on, and that he will be a major contributor to the Zips for 4 full seasons.

I was actually reasonably impressed with the way DeVaughn Washington (6-8, 225 lbs) performed this year -- 50% from the field, 70% on free throws, 11 points and 5 rebounds per game. He's not a dominator, but I think he will give Ohio a decent inside presence next year in his senior season.

Good statistical analysis, w00t. Sorry I didn't have time to do it last night and just relied on the TV announcers saying Northern Iowa was #2 in defense. Turns out that's just scoring defense, which of course is affected by game tempo. Your citing of the Pomeroy numbers points out the fallacy of trying to make any point on the basis of a game or two, whether in favor of offense, defense or any other statistical category. Statistical reality plays out over time in all games. Stats must also be properly interpreted in context. For example, there's raw offensive efficiency (points scored per 100 offensive possessions) and defensive efficiency (points allowed per 100 defensive possessions). The stats you quote are Pomeroy's "adjusted" efficiency ratings, which applies a proprietary formula to the raw numbers. The variables of comparing some stats are monumental. In college basketball, all teams do not play each other. Some coaches tend to run up scores while some tend to back off. A team with both good offense and defense might be shooting well and jump out to such a big lead that they relax on defense, or the same team might be shooting so poorly that it will buckle down on defense to make up for its lack of scoring. Some teams are steady throughout the season while others peak early or late, skewing their statistical summary for the season. And ultimately we're measuring the performance of many imperfect humans working together, which always produces wildly fluctuating results. The best all-around teams with the best combination of offense and defense over the course of a season usually win, but not always. By most measurements, Georgetown was a better overall team this season than Ohio, and Kansas was a better overall team than Northern Iowa. But not in those two games. I know of no absolute way to document a laboratory analysis of whether offense or defense is more important than the other. Each can work better in certain situations. But ultimately you have to have both. It's up to each coach to decide which balance best suits the coach's style and the abilities of his individual players. I do know that most basketball players enjoy playing offense more than defense because offense is more like fun and defense is more like work. In the absence of good coaching, most players will try to shoot the lights out and put less effort into defense, as in the NBA All Star game. So coaches generally have to put extra focus on defense, and that's why so many coaches tell their players and the media that defense is king.

Side note: We were talking on the way home that it would be interesting to see how Egner might play against the best HS big in the country, Jared Sullinger. But, incredibly, Sullinger's Northland team, the #1 ranked high school in the country according to the USA Today poll, was destroyed tonight by Gahana Lincoln, 71-45.

So what did Toledo St. John's Jesuit coach Ed Heintchel think about Egner's game? Heintchel said Egner's all-around play took him by surprise. “(Egner) showed some versatility... more than I knew he had,” he said. “He showed versatility away form the basket, putting the ball on the floor. And he's a force inside being so long.” Suburbanite story here: Suburbanite Link

Photos of tonight's game here: Ohio.com Link

I know there were a few posts in the old Egner thread from people watching tonight's Jackson game on TV. But I wanted to start a new thread, because I finally got to see in person the real Josh Egner play at his peak tonight, and it was just over-the-top impressive. The first two games I saw him play he had a supporting role to Mark Henniger. But tonight showed me the real potential of this future Zips player with star potential. First of all, Toledo St. John's Jesuit was much tougher competition than Jackson has faced all year. They had lightning quick guards and a couple of talented big men, and they played Jackson tough. They have a really talented 6-7 freshman forward who can do it all -- dribble drive, shoot from outside, rebound, defend, etc. Their 6-4 center quickly took away Jackson's Option A of lobbing the ball into Henniger for easy buckets. Though 3 or 4 inches shorter than Henniger, he blocked 3 or 4 Henniger shots early in the game, and made it difficult to get the ball to Henniger. Then the St. John's guards started picking the pockets of the slower Jackson guards, and Jackson started falling further behind. If it were happening to the Cavs, they'd just turn the ball over to LeBron and let him take over. And that's what Egner did. Problem bringing the ball upcourt? Why not let Egner dribble it all the way, into the paint, through the other players and, bam!, 2 points. Problem getting the ball inside to Henniger? Why not let Egner shoot a couple of 3s and nail them both. Problem with the 6-7 St. John's player making plays? Why not let Egner shut him down with a couple of blocks and steals. Problem shooting free throws? Why not send Egner to the line and let him make every one he shoots, including 4-4 in the final 15 seconds. Problem getting rebounds at the end when St. John's is crashing the boards with all their players? Why not let Egner outjump them all and come down with key rebound after key rebound. Problem with St. John's thinking they still have a chance to pull it out? How about a back door high pass to Egner swooping in from the corner and slamming hard from Quade Milum altitude. So Jackson wins, 54-52, Egner ends up with 24 points and Henniger 17. But it wasn't that close in who dominated this game. Not just parts of the game, but every single aspect. OK, it was only a HS game. But it was a big game against a tough opponent. And Egner was at his very best. I absolutely love the guy's attitude and the way he plays the game. The JAR was rocking tonight like I've never seen it rock. UA would be crazy not to have a Jackson High School night at one of next season's games to come see Josh play and quadruple the noise level in the JAR. Zips fans need a Jackson HS fan enthusiasm transfusion. Or maybe just watching Josh Egner performing in a Zips uniform will do the job.

I thought I used some pretty clear English there. But let me use a little bolding and underlining for those who apparently read right over a couple of the main points: Oh, and by the way, the little mid-major with the #2 defense in the country just beat the #1 overall team in the country.