Terrence Williams Has Mysterious, Possibly Fabricated Behavioral Issues

Recently, I’ve been reading a fairly standard column for this time of year – the “NBA draft stock report.” Just like countless other draft gurus, ESPN’s Chad Ford has been monitoring the successes and failures of numerous college basketball players that are considered NBA prospects. I will guiltily confess to devouring these reports with regularity, even though they are typically formulaic and unenlightening. Such columns serve essentially as gossip, and we know that sells.

I was struck by a sentence in the March 23rd edition of Ford’s column. About Louisville’s senior forward Terrence Williams:

He has all the physical tools to be a lottery pick, but his game has rarely matched his talent. Poor shooting percentages, high turnover rates and some off-putting on-the-court behavior have given many scouts pause.

Because I follow Louisville basketball a bit more than I should, I wondered about the veracity of the italicized section. For some reason, Louisville’s games are constantly broadcast here in New York. One of my closest friends is a Louisvillian, so I find myself much more cognizant of the Cardinals’ inner-workings than most people are on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. In my experiences watching and discussing Louisville, I have never heard of any on-the-court behavioral issues on Williams’ part. My friend was just as confused as I was. If anything, broadcasters continually praise Williams as a delightful young man, dedicated leader, and consummate teammate. I considered posting about this assessment, but decided there were bigger fish to fry. 

Today, in another moment of weakness, I found myself reading Ford’s chat on ESPN.com. A reader asked about the draft stocks of Williams and teammate Earl Clark. An excerpt from Ford’s answer:

And both have been maddeningly inconsistent … especially Williams. Combine that with some off the court concerns and you can see why they may not crack the lottery.

I officially have no idea what is going on. First, Williams had problematic on-the-court behavior. Now, he has off-the-court concerns. Those are fairly serious statements, and more than a little disconcerting considering that no one I know can think of a single explanation for these characterizations. It’s probably too much to call this libelous, but it would be awfully nice if Ford would explain the thinking or information behind these assessments instead of remaining unspecific. 

I ask you plainly: do you know what Ford is talking about? Has Williams had any behavioral problems that would warrant regular mention? My current status is curious, but it’s more than capable of escalating to angry if these characterizations remain without illustration or explanation.

 

 

Pittsburgh’s Free-Throw Shooting Did Not Cost Them The Game

It’s currently halftime of the Michigan State-Louisville game, and I just wanted to make a quick counter-argument to something color-commentator Len Elmore said in the first half. Regarding last night’s epic Villanova-Pittsburgh game:

“If Pitt hits their free throws, they win that game.”

Technically, Elmore is right. The Panthers lost by two points, and shot 21 of 29 from the line. If they made all 29 of their free throws, they would have won by six points. So, yes, if Pitt hit their free throws, they would won that game.

But I think Elmore – a very bright guy and an exceptional analyst – is misinterpreting the numbers a bit here. During the regular season, Pittsburgh hit 67.6% of their free throws. Last night, they made them 72.4% of the time. The Panthers did hit their free throws. Elmore is right to be looking at free-throw shooting as a deciding factor in the game – he’s just looking at the wrong team. Villanova shot 75.3% from the line during the regular season. They hit 22 of 23 last night, good for a 95.7% success rate. That’s the noteworthy part of the free-throw shooting story. Pittsburgh’s shooting from the line didn’t cost them the game. Villanova’s success from the line won it.

By the way, does anyone have any idea if “free throws” is hyphenated or not? 1,000 fictional Fan Interference Points if you can clue me in. I will edit accordingly.

Jimmy Dykes Completes Journey To His Inevitable Fate, Is Totally Wrong

First, Jimmy Dykes whined about the lack of national respect given to Southeastern Conference basketball. He called us crazy if we truly believed that the basketball teams in the 2008-2009 SEC were generally inferior to those in the other major conferences. Based on nothing but regionalism and selective memory, he assured us that teams like Tennessee, Florida, Kentucky, LSU and even Arkansas could compete with any team in the more highly-touted conferences. “Just you wait and see,” he said.

Time passed, and college basketball somehow managed to survive without any nationally ranked SEC teams. Unquestionably driven to his wits’ end by this inconceivable development, he promised us that five SEC teams would make the NCAA tournament – three from the SEC East, one from the SEC West, and a fifth from some magical faraway division. It was not the prediction itself that was ridiculous (at the time, it wasn’t), but the total lack of justification for making such an assertion. His guarantee wasn’t born of the careful merging of subjective (scouting) and objective (data) analysis, but of unprovoked defensiveness and regional bias. Dykes’ statement read less like useful insight and more like propaganda issued by a desperate leader as his regime is about to fall. Sure enough, three SEC teams made the NCAA tournament, including one that never would have been considered if not for winning the conference tournament.

Then, the coup de grace. In the same broadcast, Dykes claimed that not only would these five unnamed SEC teams make the NCAA tournament, but they would also thrive. Perpetually walking the line between self-assured and vague, he told us to wait and see how many SEC teams made it past that first weekend into the Sweet 16. Because – and this is a direct quote – “that’s how you really tell what the good teams are.”

Serious Questions About The #1 Seeds

In a little over an hour, the greatest four days in sports will commence. Right now, there are 64 teams in college basketball that – rightly or wrongly – believe that they can win the six games necessary to be crowned national champions. Monday morning, there will only be 16 teams left after the frenzied weeding-out process has finished. Most people have one of the #1 seeds eventually emerging as the last team standing. This is by no means ridiculous, since Louisville, Pittsburgh, UConn, and North Carolina are each certainly capable of winning it all. Each team, however, also has an issue or two that I believe will eventually become its undoing. 

The Cardinals have an enticing mix of factors working in their favor. They’re deep, balanced, and versatile. They have the apparently necessary “senior leadership” quota filled via Terrence Williams’ presence. They play exceptional defense and are hardened by the rigorous Big East schedule. Rick Pitino is an enormously successful and experienced postseason coach. Ostensibly, there is very little wrong with this mix. Then I am reminded of a text message I received from my Louisvillian friend very early in the season. It was bitingly accurate in its simplicity: “I hope we haven’t contracted Memphis Syndrome.”

“Memphis Syndrome,” in this case (are there other cases?), is synonymous with total futility at the free-throw line. As you may remember, last year’s Memphis Tigers shot 61.4% from the line, “good” for 329th in the country. In spite of this, the Tigers made it all the way to the national championship game, where this shortcoming finally did them in. All season, pundits had intelligently attached the “if they can hit their free-throws” caveat to any analysis of the Tigers’ chances. And all season, coach John Calipari had essentially said “we’ll hit them when we need them.” Well, they needed them against Kansas, and they didn’t hit them. The rest is history.

I bring this up, obviously, because I’m concerned about Louisville’s ability to convert at the free-throw line. They are not as inept as the 2008 Tigers were; the Cardinals shoot 64.3%, which ranks 302nd in the country. Samardo Samuels, Earl Clark, and Terrence Williams lead the team in free-throw attempts. They shoot 67.1%, 65.6%, and 57.3%, respectively. The rest of the gang is no great shakes either. I’m not sure why college basketball analysts aren’t hammering away at this deficiency the way they did with Memphis last year. I think some of it has to do with the seemingly perpetual quest to bring Memphis down from their lofty perch on top of Conference USA, but that’s an argument for another time. Ultimately, I believe the Cardinals will fall because of this shortcoming, although I am not rooting for it.

I can and will sum up Pitt’s issue in much fewer words than I did Louisville’s. Quite simply, the Panthers’ success is causally linked to DeJuan Blair’s ability to stay on the court and out of foul trouble. When he’s in the game, the Panthers are incredibly difficult to beat. When he’s not, they become an above-average team instead of an exceptional one. Small sample size be damned, I remain somewhat skeptical of coach Jamie Dixon’s decision-making with respect to his most important player. Like so many coaches, Dixon opts to sit his star player when foul trouble arises instead of letting him play through it because of his importance. To be fair, Dixon has done this in regular season games, when a loss doesn’t result in the end of the season. Perhaps Dixon will be more flexible in his management of Blair’s foul trouble, given the single-elimination format. In any case, I don’t think Blair can go six straight games against high-quality opponents and not run into serious foul trouble. Levance Fields’ iffy groin isn’t helping things either.

The Huskies don’t have one glaring issue, but two more moderate issues that could be disastrous if they occur simultaneously. The first and most obvious problem is the indefinite absence of guard Jerome Dyson. Perhaps Kemba Walker and Craig Austrie can continue to compensate for Dyson’s missing production, but it’s a tall order. The other and potentially exacerbating problem is center Hasheem Thabeet’s variance in performance. Thabeet is capable of both monster games and Grade-A stinkers. In looking at his game log, you also might notice that his performance tends to dip significantly when facing good teams. Of course, this can be said of virtually anyone. But UConn can ill-afford for this trend to continue, particularly with Dyson’s absence. Unfortunately for the Huskies, they face nothing but quality teams the rest of the way.

Ty Lawson’s toe. That’s it. It’s the most-watched digit in America right now, upon which the exchange of millions of dollars rests. If Lawson’s toe is truly fine, then this tournament is the Tar Heels’ to lose. North Carolina’s point guard is the most efficient offense in the country’s engine. He, not Tyler Hansbrough, is the team’s best player. He’s about as important to the Tar Heels’ success and DeJuan Blair is to Pittsburgh’s. I usually don’t put much stock in things like this, but some of the quotes seen here are pretty disconcerting. Teammate Bobby Frasor is saying “he’s not the same Ty we’ve all seen,” and Lawson himself is saying “it’s just pain when I’m cutting back and forth.” That’s cool, it’s not like there’s tons of cutting back and forth in basketball. I think you get my point. Much like the Blair situation, I don’t see Lawson physically holding up for six straight games. 

* * * * * * *

After long and serious thought (seriously), I’m picking Memphis to win the national championship. I’m not sure they’re as good as last year’s team, but that’s the whole point: I’m not sure. For each of the #1 seeds, I know of a serious danger or deficiency that could very well end their tournament experience. As for the Tigers, well, I don’t know. They spent another year absolutely annihilating everyone in their middling conference. Maybe this means they’re just picking on the little guys, or maybe it means they’re really good. Ultimately, that’s the reason I’m picking Memphis. I don’t know exactly what they are, but they might be exceptional. 

Happy March Madness, everyone. 

Jimmy Dykes Is Half-Way To Totally Wrong

 

Staggeringly wrong about the SEC, but you'll never hear him admit it.

As you may know, ESPN college basketball analyst Jimmy Dykes’ continual vouching for the quality of the SEC has been a small but interesting story this season. Both his crusade and my coverage of it began in late January. Dykes disputed the absence of ranked SEC teams, and went on to confuse this very understandable omission with a lack of respect. I concluded that his outcry was unwarranted since only Kentucky was even remotely deserving of a ranking. A few weeks later, inspired by another Dykes-authored defense of the SEC, I checked in with the teams that he had previously described as competitive by any standard. Even with a bigger sample size, the conference appeared to have just three teams worthy of any consideration for a national ranking, and even that was a stretch. Dykes’ impassioned touting of the SEC remained without much credibility.

Shortly after this check-in, Dykes made his most declarative statement regarding the maligned conference. He predicted – in no uncertain terms – that the SEC would get five teams into the NCAA tournament. Specifically, he predicted that the SEC East would get three teams in, the West one, and a fifth would sneak in there from some undisclosed location. I was both deeply skeptical of this prediction and irritated by Dykes’ utter lack of explanation as to his thinking. I promised to return in March and see how his forecast fared. Well, it’s March.

Gerald Henderson Deserves More Credit For His Shooting Ability

During tonight’s Southern Conference championship game, broadcasters Brad Nessler and Jimmy Dykes discussed the selections for the All-ACC First Team. Dykes turned his attention to its three backcourt players – Miami’s Jack McClinton, Florida State’s Toney Douglas, and Duke’s Gerald Henderson. In an honest attempt to enlighten the viewer, Dykes said the following:

“McClinton is going to be the best pro of the three, and Douglas… boy, can he stroke it. But I don’t think Henderson is going to come out early. He needs to stick around and work on his left hand and especially his shooting.”

As happens with some frequency, my internal “that sounds like it might not be right” alarm went off. I was skeptical of the implied gap between Henderson’s shooting ability and that of McClinton and Douglas. So, naturally, I looked it up.

• Henderson: 47.9% FG, 53.4 eFG%, 77.1% FT, 54% 2FG, 34.3% 3FG
• Douglas: 42.8% FG, 50.7% eFG%, 81.1% FT, 47.8% 2FG, 37.4% 3FG
• McClinton: 45.4% FG, 58.7% eFG%, 88.5% FT, 46.1% 2FG, 46.4% 3FG

Dykes’ assessment isn’t wrong, but it’s not right either. Henderson clearly doesn’t shoot as well from three-point range as the others, but he takes those shots less frequently. Douglas and McClinton have each taken 181 long-distance shots this season, while Henderson has taken 93. One possible explanation for this is that he’s so darn good at making two-pointers, particularly for a wing player, that he doesn’t really see the need. To be fair, Henderson also lags behind the others in free-throw percentage. All things considered, they should probably be ordered as McClinton, Henderson, and Douglas in descending order of shooting ability.

Ultimately, the idea that Henderson’s shooting “especially” needs improvement is misguided. His shooting ability is comparable to the others’, mostly on the shoulders of his excellent two-point conversion rate. Also misguided is the subtle implication – pertaining to all three players – that their shooting ability will make or break their potential NBA careers. While it’s certainly very important, it’s not everything. Each player, not just Henderson, will have to make adjustments to improve his chances of success. Douglas will have to cope with the common problem of being a volume scorer in a point guard’s body. McClinton must learn to diversify his offense, particularly given his difficulties getting to the line. Henderson must translate his athleticism into a higher rebounding rate and improved defense. The one thing that all three do have in common is their shooting ability, making Dykes’ distinction not all that accurate.

2009’s All-Underrated College Basketball Team

Yesterday, I posted my picks for five of the most overrated players in college basketball. In each case, the perception of the player did not match the reality, albeit in different ways. One player is thought of as good, when in fact he is decidedly below-average. Another has had his per game averages improve, but his measures of efficiency drop significantly. A third has seduced many with his glaringly obvious talent, but has not matched his ability in production. The final two are believed to be legitimately great players, yet they are not elite because of the inefficiency resulting from having to carry a team. You should check out the post to see exactly what I’m talking about.

This time around, I’m bringing you five players that haven’t received enough attention for their performance this season. You’ll probably find that three of them are household names, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be underrated. Just as the overrated players have found their performances marred by inefficiencies, these underrated players deserve more recognition for their efficient operation. Here they are:

2009’s All-Overrated College Basketball Team

While baseball will always be my first love, basketball has recently been giving it a run for its money as my favorite sport to analyze. I still enjoy baseball season more than basketball season, particularly because of the former’s forgiving duration and, let’s be honest, the Yankees’ traditional success. What has made basketball’s push possible, however, are the new and fascinating ways people have begun to analyze the game. Thanks to the work of pioneers such as Ken Pomeroy, John Gasaway, and Kevin Pelton, the way fans understand basketball is very slowly beginning to change. More specifically, basketball analysis is shifting its focus from simple box score numbers to the efficiency with which players perform. 

As was also the case with baseball, my brain has been completely reprogrammed in the way it processes basketball statistics. The focus is now solely on efficiency, not gaudiness. For example, I would have lauded Stephen Jackson’s 2009 season in years past. His line of 21 points, 6 assists, and 5 rebounds per game would have seduced me into making false proclamations about his skill. Now, I see his ghastly shooting percentages and his team’s league-leading pace, both of which reveal something about his actual ability. Context and efficiency are the newest and most important factors in intelligent basketball analysis. 

I say all this because the topic of this post may initially come off as a little cruel. This is, after all, essentially a declaration that these players do not deserve the amount praise they receive. I would choose, however, to look at this piece as an effort to educate rather than chastise. The players on this list are here largely because they are inefficient, which burdens their respective teams. Most analysts either ignore or are unaware of these players’ shortcomings, instead choosing to focus on their traditional statistics instead of their inefficiency. Here they are:

In Loving Memory Of “Intangible”: Fine Adjective & Acceptable Noun, 1640-2009

The waning moments of tonight’s Wake Forest-Duke game featured a graphic that highlighted the continued massacre of the English language. The victim, as is often the case, was the word “intangible.” This perfectly innocent word was once again subjected to a coordinated effort to raze its satisfactory meaning.

As the clock wound down, play-by-play man Tim Brando said:

“Let’s take a look at the intangibles that may have had an effect on this game – turnovers, points off turnovers, fast break points, bench points, and points in the paint.”

Brando’s partners-in-crime then guiltlessly posted a graphic on the screen that compared the teams’ performances in each of these categories. Discussion ensued. Then, somewhere across the Atlantic, from the general direction of Stratford-upon-Avon, an anguished cry rang out into the wintry night.

Look, if something is intangible, it means it cannot be touched or quantified. It’s abstract. Things like “creativity,” “leadership,” and “the anger a reasonably intelligent 22 year old male feels when a word is mangled” are intangible. I understand that you cannot palpably touch a turnover or a point, but their clear occurrence before thousands of watchful eyes and their subsequent logging as data suggests that these are things we can measure with a great degree of certainty. These are outcomes, not concepts. 

Historically, broadcasters and analysts discuss a player’s value with respect to his numbers (i.e. points, rebounds, assists) and his “intangibles” (i.e. leadership, knowledge, attitude). If points have suddenly fallen into the latter category, what counts as “tangible” now?

Big 10 Basketball, An Animated Adjudicator, And Shane Battier

I’m working on a few major posts, but in the meantime, I’d just like to share with you three links that require three different amounts of time to enjoy.

The first and briefest is, quite simply, the box score from tonight’s Penn State-Illinois game. The final score? 38-33, Penn State. Lately I’ve been adding pictures to my posts, because they often add visual flair to this formerly drab space. In that vein, my first instinct was to include in this post a picture of someone projectile vomiting, because I think that’s more relevant to this game than either team’s logo or mascot. But, because this is a family website, I’m taking the G-rated route.

There. Hooray Big 10 basketball.

* * * * * * *

While watching tonight’s Providence-Louisville game, I noticed that one referee in particular was making his calls with tremendous vigor and conviction. After seconds of squinting, it occurred to me that the coaches, players, and fans were graced with the enthusiastic presence of Ed Hightower, who can often be found assuming positions like this when spotting an infraction:

 

Now, this guy isn’t the most enthusiastic professional referee. But he’s hyperactive enough to have inspired a fantastically funny gallery to which Deadspin linked a couple weeks ago. It can be found here. My personal favorite, for those interested, is the “Mystery Science Theater 3000” rendition. There’s something for everyone.

* * * * * * *

Lastly, I wanted to share with you The New York Times’ recent piece on the increasing use of statistical analysis in the NBA. In the column, Michael Lewis (of Moneyball fame) examines Houston Rockets swingman Shane Battier, his under-appreciated skills, and the Rockets’ deployment of those skills based on unconventional but fruitful scrutiny. It’s a bit long, but it’s awfully interesting and well worth the time investment for basketball fans and generally curious readers alike.