Can someone explain to me why this stuff is allowed in basketball

Can someone explain to me why this stuff is allowed in basketball

Submitted by olsont on April 8th, 2015 at 6:00 PM

This bothered me a lot in the game regardless if it was some team doing it to us or vice versa

In the video linked below @ :19 seconds you see a player run into Irvins leg while he is in the air which causes him to fall a little akwardly.  Not that big of a deal but...

later

@1:28 a player goes underneath Irvin while he is in the air making him fall quite hard on his arm.  You can later see him rubbing his arm that he fell on.

I think there are more examples of this but why is this allowed?

 

 

http://mgovideo.com/michigan-vs-syracuse-highlights/

What to expect from 5* wing players in college basketball

What to expect from 5* wing players in college basketball

Submitted by taistreetsmyhero on April 8th, 2015 at 3:05 PM

Since there have been a couple of board posts discussing the [unnecessary] dichotomy of choosing Jaylen Brown or Caris LeVert, I thought I'd look at the stats of past 5 star wings to see what you could reasonably expect from Brown.

I used ESPN recruit rankings. I first looked at the stats of 5* freshmen who were labeled as SGs or SFs (i.e. Russel was listed as a SG on ESPN) from the 2014 class. Next, I went from 2014 to 2007 and picked out SGs or SFs who were ranked as a top 5 recruit in that class (because Jaylen Brown is a top 5 recruit), because I think that you can reasonably expect more from the #2 ranked player than the #20 ranked player. I know top 5 is arbitrary, and maybe next time I'd look at all players given the same ranking that Brown received (96)...although I'm sure those grades are also relatively arbitrary.

Charts:

5*Wings            
ESPN 2014 Rankings School Points Rebounds Assists Minutes Proj. Draft #
Stanley Johnson Arizona 13.8 6.5 1.7 28.4 8
Justin Jackson UNC 10.7 3.7 2.3 26.7 N/A
Theo Pinson UNC 2.8 3 1.5 12.5 N/A
Kelly Oubre Kansas 9.3 5 0.8 21 11
D'Angelo Russell OSU 19.3 5.7 5 33.9 3
Isaiah Whitehead Seton Hall 12 3.9 3.5 27.8 N/A
Justise Winslow Duke 12.6 6.5 2.1 29.1 5
Devin Booker Kentucky 10 2 1.1 21.5 18
Rashad Vaughn UNLV 17.8 4.8 1.6 32.2 33
James Blackmon Jr. Indiana 15.7 5.3 1.5 30 N/A
Grayson Allen Duke 4.4 1 0.4 9.2 N/A
Keita Bates-Diop OSU 3.8 2.1 0.5 9.9 N/A
Devin Robinson Florida 6.4 2.8 0.7 19 N/A
Jae'Sean Tate OSU 8.8 5 0.3 22 N/A
Melo Trimble Maryland 16.2 3.9 3 33.5 N/A
  Average: 10.9 4.1 1.7 23.8 13
 
 
Top 5 Wings            
2014-2007 School Points Rebounds Assists Minutes Draft #
Andrew Wiggins Kansas 17.1 5.9 1.5 32.8 1
Jabari Parker Duke 19.1 8.7 1.2 30.7 2
Shabazz Muhammad UCLA 17.9 5.2 0.8 30.8 14
Kyle Anderson UCLA 12.2 8.7 5 31.6 30
Austin Rivers Duke 15.5 3.4 2.1 33.2 10
Michael Gilchrist Kentucky 11.9 7.4 1.9 31.1 2
Bradley Beal Florida 14.8 6.7 2.2 34.2 3
Harrison Barnes UNC 16.3 5.5 1.3 29.3 7
Avery Bradley Texas 11.6 2.9 2.1 29.5 19
Xavier Henry Kansas 13.4 4.4 1.5 27.5 12
Eric Gordon Indiana 20.9 3.3 2.4 34.7 7
O.J. Mayo USC 20.7 4.5 3.3 36.8 3
Kyle Singler Duke 16.2 6.9 2 33 33
  Average: 16.0 5.7 2.1 31.9 11
Caris Levert (Jr yr) Michigan 14.9 4.9 3.7 35.8  

 

Stats compared to LeVert:

2014 5* Wings  
More points 4/14
More points + reb 2/14
> 30 minutes 4/14

 

Top 5 Wings  
More points 8/13
More points + reb 5/13
> 30 minutes 10/13
Stayed > 1 year 3/13

 

Some interesting take-aways:

There is, unsurprisingly, a wide range of productivity from 5* freshmen. If you are taking any 5* player, the chances that they can produce at LeVert's level is very low.

That being said, when you look at 5* wings that were ranked in the top 5 of their recruiting class (none of the current freshmen SG's or SF's were top 5), the variability drastically decreases, and productivity goes way up.

I don't know if Brown has the same hype as a Wiggins or Parker, but based on past recruits' performances, it seems likely that he could step in and be extremely productive.

Something that I guess I never truly appreciated enough about LeVert is his assist numbers. While I took LeVert's abbreviated stats from this season, which heavily samples games against scrubs, it is still impressive to see how many assists he had a game compard to other great wings. Losing LeVert would not only mean loss of a lot of experience, but also the loss of a great floor general.

One (somewhat unsurprising) thing is that almost every single top 5-rated wing went pro after their freshmen year. It leads me to believe that we'd either get one good-great year out of Brown, or a year where he didn't perform at the same level as a LeVert and then came back and tried to improve his game. I think it definitely removes the advantage of saying "well you might get multiple years out of Brown," because the only way that happens is if he doesn't play that well. In other words, I'm saying that I'd go with past precedent over the (well-intentioned) words of a high school senior when it comes to staying for more than one year.

All of this may very well be moot, as we have no clue of either Brown's or LeVert's intentions. It also doesn't give any clear answer to the pointless game of "pick one." However, it does show that...getting Brown would be awesome!

 

Joe Lunardi's 2016 Bracketology: Michigan an 11 Seed

Joe Lunardi's 2016 Bracketology: Michigan an 11 Seed

Submitted by BursleyHall82 on April 7th, 2015 at 8:37 PM

Every site is trolling for clicks today with their "Way Too Early Top 25" rankings. Joe Lunardi took it a step further by actually predicting the 2016 bracket. We're an 11 seed in a play-in game against Oregon.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology?ex_cid=espnFB

Pick one Jaylen Brown or Caris Levert

Pick one Jaylen Brown or Caris Levert

Submitted by MgoHacker on April 7th, 2015 at 11:51 AM
Title says it all who would you rather have for next year if their is truly no Beileinien way to get both. Both will be great offensively and both will head to the NBA after the year commences. Levert is almost certainly the better defender given his experience. Senior leadership is important however with Spike, Zak and Derrick there will be plenty. Caris is also very injury prone which is why I would lean towards Jaylen. What are your thoughts?

Chris Balas: Austin Hatch will be on the MBB roster next year [EDIT: But Sam thinks Michigan would make room for Brown]

Chris Balas: Austin Hatch will be on the MBB roster next year [EDIT: But Sam thinks Michigan would make room for Brown]

Submitted by Erik_in_Dayton on April 7th, 2015 at 11:22 AM

I know we had a post yesterday saying Coach Beilein expects no attrition* from the team, but that post did not say that Hatch would remain on athletic scholarship.  Chris Balas (the link is free) now reports Coach Beilein said yesterday that Hatch would be on the team next year.  This means, FWIW, that Michigan will only have room for Jaylen Brown if LeVert leaves for the NBA.

Editorial:  My admiration for Coach Beilein never stops growing, and obviously I love Hatch.  But man would it be nice to have Jaylen Brown!

 

https://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1754603 

 

*This does not account for LeVert or Bielfeldt.

EDIT:  See Maison Bleue's post below for Sam Webb's thoughts on the situation.  Sam disagrees with Balas's take. 

  

Game Over - ESPN Tournament Challenge Results

Game Over - ESPN Tournament Challenge Results

Submitted by Saint_in_Blue on April 7th, 2015 at 10:18 AM

So the 2014-15 NCAA basketball season came to an end last night (mercifully). Watercooler talks may still be going on about last night's game or what your favorite team has to look forward to next year. Also, people are collecting on their bracket pool money in offices and households as well. Who won money out there? My family doesn't play for money. The winner of our group gets to choose where we go out for dinner and we have to do a 'chore' for that person. My wife won this year.....I'm in trouble.

There was no money put into the ESPN Tournament Challenge, but bragging rights are also very important.

Congratualtions to owner knighthockey10 with his entry 'goblue 10' for winning this year's group challenge! He tallied an amazing 1540 points. He beat out runner-up darnelljporter who scored 1520 points. dmtatum_55 would have won the challenge if Wisconsin had been able to pull it off, but instead finished in 13th.

And the person in last place....housmanlyndsey...finished with 300 points. Better luck next year.

Thank you to everyone who participated. We had 643 entries this year compared to only 440 in 2014. This was not as volatile as last year, since last year's winning entry (kirby0013) only had 990 points!

Enjoy the offseason! And as always, GO BLUE!

So Much Do We Coarsen With The Passage Of Time

So Much Do We Coarsen With The Passage Of Time

Submitted by gremlin on April 7th, 2015 at 8:16 AM

When I was young and innocent, I remember often being frustrated whenever officiating robbed student athletes of their rightful achievement.  So after witnessing the officials last night refuse to make the correct call after video replay (objective proof of their intent), I was reminded of a quote from Orwell.  And after reflection, I've realized how sad it is that I've just come to accept intentionally incorrect officiating as something that cannot be changed.  

 

"WHEN I read of the goings-on in the House of Commons the week before last, I could not help being reminded of a little incident that I witnessed twenty years ago and more.

It was at a village cricket match. The captain of one side was the local squire who, besides being exceedingly rich, was a vain, childish man to whom the winning of this match seemed extremely important. Those playing on his side were all or nearly all his own tenants.

The squire’s side were batting, and he himself was out and was sitting in the pavilion. One of the batsmen accidentally hit his own wicket at about the same moment as the ball entered the wicketkeeper’s hands. ‘That’s not out,’ said the squire promptly, and went on talking to the person beside him. The umpire, however, gave a verdict of ‘out’, and the batsman was half-way back to the pavilion before the squire realized what was happening. Suddenly he caught sight of the returning batsman, and his face turned several shades redder.

‘What!’ he cried, ‘he’s given him out? Nonsense! Of course he’s not out!’ And then, standing up, he cupped his hands and shouted to the umpire: ‘Hi, what did you give that man out for? He wasn’t out at all!’

The batsman had halted. The umpire hesitated, then recalled the batsman to the wicket and the game went on.

I was only a boy at the time, and this incident seemed to me about the most shocking thing I had ever seen. Now, so much do we coarsen with the passage of time, my reaction would merely be to inquire whether the umpire was the squire’s tenant as well."

Choose one player, past or present, to add to men's basketball team next season

Choose one player, past or present, to add to men's basketball team next season

Submitted by white_pony_rocks on April 7th, 2015 at 8:05 AM

With news that the roster is set except for a Caris decision, it seems that if he comes back we'll have a legit shot at a deep run in the tourney.  I got to wondering, what past or present player could we add to get us over the hump and get us the title.  I was thinking a dominant center at first, but I would have to go with Lee Humphries.  I was living in gainesville when they won their first title, the dude was clutch, especially in the tournament, they never would have won those 2 championships without him.  Just think what he could have done in Beilein's system, he may hold all the NCAA 3-pt records instead of just 2 of them. 

OT: Instant Replay is Of The Devil

OT: Instant Replay is Of The Devil

Submitted by momo on April 7th, 2015 at 12:28 AM

As the title suggests, Instant Replay is Of The Devil.

 

In the average person's imagination, Instant Replay serves a single purpose: to make games more fair. In fact it does no such thing. At the expense of human enjoyment (by prolonging games, often seemingly interminably) it simply offers a placebo effect: because we have instant replay, things must be better than if we did not have it.

 

This is not, in fact, the case.

 

Human ingenuity has brought us incredibly accurate slow-motion replay. Thanks to technological genius, most people with functioning vision clearly saw the Duke player's finger deviate from its natural position in a splayed hand configuration due to its contact with the ball. And yet, in utterly predictable fashion* the refs stuck with their original decision: Duke ball.

 

The "tell" of slow-motion replay and its status as opium for the barely-sentient mainstream sports-consuming masses is the fact that it only applies (for out-of-bounds decisions) in certain time periods. As we all know, two points scored at 13:40 count the same as two points scored at 1:32. And yet, for some reason, out-of-bounds decisions become critical in the last two minutes of the game. So critical, in fact, that refs must review them (and then ignore the slow motion evidence).

 

Instant replay is a crude tool, selectively applied for no good reason, which has no significant positive effect on the accuracy of rule application in sporting events, or at least not enough to counterbalance its annoyance effect as an interruption to the flow of the game. It is, when all is said and done, Of The Devil.

 

* Not at all meant to be an anti-Duke comment: refs get it wrong all the time and probably not, in the long term, in Duke's favor. The point of this rant is that instant replay doesn't really improve things enough to justify the boredom of waiting for the final verdict.