|
|
|
Monday, January 22, 2001
So, I guess I'm not welcome in Maryland
By Joe Lunardi
Special to ESPN.com
|
Every year I am public enemy No. 1 in at least one state. For the moment, that state seems to be Maryland. I guess it doesn't matter that I love crab cakes and Camden Yards.
Passion is a wonderful thing!
So much for Wake Forest being a top five team and Maryland being a fraud. Three of the Terps' losses came early in the year against tough teams that were in the Dance last year: Illinois, Dayton and Wisconsin. Another loss came against conference rival North Carolina, a game in which they dominated three-fourths of the time.
So what if Maryland's strength of schedule is currently 150 or so? By then end of the year, it will be top 15 with two games against Duke, Wake, Virginia, UNC and even Georgia Tech, who will surprise some people. No other conference can say they play a schedule that rough.
Gary Williams always gets his team playing well come tourney time, and they will be in the Sweet 16 again. If the big three (Baxter, Dixon, Morris) have games like they did against Wake more consistently, even Duke will have trouble beating this team.
Maryland is no fraud.
Doug Roland,
College Park, Md.
Indeed, Maryland is no fraud today. But no honest Terp fan can look me in the eye and say they were really with their team before last week. Maryland has just now posted its first significant victory of the season, and it is pushing late January. This from a group that most people expected would be a whole lot better than a Sweet 16 team.
If you are now setting the bar that low, I think it proves my original point. Plus, I watched every Sweet 16 game last year and don't remember seeing the Terps. And since when is the reputation of Gary Williams -- a great guy and coach by the way -- that his teams are playing their best in March? Can you say "UCLA 105, Maryland 70?"
PS: If Maryland's SOS (strength of schedule) gets anywhere near Top 15, I'll buy you a crab cake dinner!
Do you still think "Maryland is a fraud" after beating Wake Forest? In your mailbag follow-up article, you said that it would take wins over top teams to convince.
Wake has been slumping of late, but you still had them as a No. 2 seed and they're ranked No. 8. So is this win enough, or do you still need to see more to be convinced?
I'm convinced Maryland is good enough to win a home game over a very good team. I am not convinced the Terps have suddenly joined the national elite.
I'll be the first to admit that Maryland has played below expectations and their non-conference schedule is weak, but all of the major schools play their share of "cupcakes." You can calculate whatever you want until your heart is content. The bottom line is you have to win when you are expected to, and then beat some of those teams that are ranked
higher than you.
The Terps never seem to get respect because they have not reached "the next level". That is, past the Sweet 16. They are, however, always in the top 25. The fraud label is a little too much, even with the high expectations.
You want fraud? Look no farther than your No. 3 seed at Georgetown. Take a look at that schedule! Other than a Seton Hall team that is a year away, they have played absolutely nobody. Additionally, the Big East looks weaker and weaker everyday.
The Hoyas get credit because they beat everybody they were supposed to and are undefeated as of today. I'll give them credit for that, but take away, let's say, Nicholls State and Morgan State and replace them with Wisconsin and Illinois, and things might be a little different.
I do enjoy the column.
The difference is that you cannot discount expectations. I agree that Georgetown's non-league schedule is a joke, and everybody knows it. But the reality is that, of all the teams taken seriously as Final Four contenders before the season, Maryland was (and maybe still is) in the most precarious position.
As someone who believes strongly in the value of sportsmanship, I would like to ask you why ANY team that is 50 points better than its opponent needs to run up the score to prove it? I know when I'm playing my 6-year-old nephew, I feel no need to win, 100-4, even though I'm clearly that much better. Why should my keeping the margin of victory
within 20 reflect poorly on me?
In fact, it is quite aggravating to see Duke, winning by 30-plus points, with its starters on the floor for the final minutes of the game against teams like Army or Clemson. Last time I checked, a win is a win is a win. A double-digit win suggests the game was not close at the end. A 30-plus point win ... well, if scrubs weren't used, it suggests there is a coach who lacks sportsmanship or who has an axe to grind. And it also results in the kind of bush league behavior that the otherwise awesome Jason Williams displayed in the closing seconds of the game against Boston College.
I guess since sportsmanship has no mathematical equation and rarely makes highlight reels, it just can't be considered important. Regardless of this difference of opinion, as a minor league stat-o-phile, I find your column more interesting by leaps and bounds to the average banter.
Billy Faires,
Chattanooga, Tenn.
We probably agree more than you think. And this is an especially interesting topic given the current furor over Camden (N.J.) High School allowing star senior DeJuan Wagner to score 100 points against a vocational school.
I am by no means advocating poor sportsmanship or "running up the score." My introduction of Adjusted Scoring Margin was, and is, instead designed as simply one more item in the statistical toolbox. While it may in some cases unwittingly reward teams that run up the score, it also gives better weight to the quality of a given team's work relative to the strength of its opposition. The latter is a good thing, and one which I believe outweighs the former.
The most important statement you make is that "a win is a win is a win." This is one reason why I have long been a proponent of RPI, as opposed to other power ratings that factor in margin of victory. I look at it this way: Come the postseason, you only need one more point than your opponent to be the team that doesn't go home.
I thought your article on Offensive and Defensive Quotients was an interesting analysis and a good read, but I'm not sure that the methodology really accomplishes what you aimed for: namely, to separate the true contenders from those who have "overindulged on patsies."
In essence, the two quotients measure how much better each team is than their victims' other scheduled opponents. But how useful is this? If every team on the list had a standardized strength of schedule, I agree that it could be a good measuring stick of how strong a team really is. But those teams that beat up on patsies will still get a huge boost in your rankings. After
all, when you play (and crush) an Elon College, you know that Elon's other regularly scheduled opponents aren't even close to being in the same league as you (and thus may have played them tight). And your Offensive and Defensive Quotients thus get a nice fat boost.
Just something for you to chew on. Your analysis was indeed very interesting. But as you noted yourself, teams like Florida can still rank highly on your list just by beating up on patsies.
What about the teams who don't play patsies? Isn't Adjusted Scoring Margin a better stat for them than its unadjusted cousin? The bottom line remains: If the world beats Elon College by 10 points and you beat them by 30, and you repeat that pattern against 20 other teams, then the measurement has great value.
I was reading your column at ESPN.com and was intrigued by the statistics you brought up. I think it's important to look beyond the "obvious" stats (FG percentage, rpg, ppg) and see some that may relate more directly to a team's success.
But I couldn't help but be reminded of an idea I had the other day for another statistic that might be particularly telling. I was watching the UNC-Clemson game and noticed that Carolina tended to frustrate the Tigers' defense by keeping possessions alive with offensive rebounds, then getting second and third chances before converting. I thought that
one might measure the number of scores per possession, rather than per field goal attempt.
For example, a team that came down the court and shot 1 for 4 from the floor on a given possession, but kept it alive with three offensive boards before eventually scoring, would have a score-per-possession ratio of 1-1 (1.000) despite the mere .250 FG. On the other hand, a team might turn the ball over at midcourt without taking a shot, going 0-1 on that
possession without hurting its shooting percentage. A good ratio would be a function of offensive rebounding as well as precise offensive execution, and would be indicative, I think, of raw production -- how often a team scores with respect to the number of times it takes the ball down the court. That figure could even be adjusted by counting points-per-possession so 3- and 4-point plays would be more valuable than ordinary deuces or occasions when a team goes 1-for-2 at the line.
Then, of course, one could also measure the ratio of scores allowed per defensive possession.
When you think about it, the game can be broken down into wasted possessions versus successful ones, and I'd be curious to see how these numbers (extended over the course of a game or entire season) would relate to team success.
Lars Russell
Associate Sports Editor
The Badger Herald (Wisconsin)
1. Glad to see the guys in Madison thinking so hard.
2. You are not the first to discuss Points Per Possession, but you have done so more clearly than anyone to date (including me).
3. If I could have one team stat in every box score that is not currently available, this would be it.
4. If I could have one individual stat not currently available, it would be plus/minus (comparable to hockey). But that's another story for another day.
I'm thinking of recruiting a team to manually chart these two things during every NCAA Tournament game this year.
Love the stats article on ESPN's website.
I've followed the ACC for 30 years and counting. I'm here to tell you, the Tar Heels will demonstrate just how far they've come since early December on Feb. 1 against Duke. I don't think it'll be close (double-digit win by the Heels). Carolina is on a roll since getting some stability at the point (Curry), and Peppers is no slacker.
I haven't seen them in this "mental zone" in three years. Too much energy pumping in Chapel Hill to be ignored. If I'm wrong, I won't waste the bits in your inbox any more.
Bob, always nice to see someone else out on a limb besides yours truly.
Joe Lunardi is a regular in-season contributor for ESPN.com. He is also
contributing editor of the Blue Ribbon College Basketball Yearbook,
www.collegebaskets.com. Write to Joe at jlunardi@home.com.
|
|
ALSO SEE
Lunardi: Some 'Sweet 16s' sweeter than others
Chat wrap: Joe Lunardi
|
|
