SB Nation User Blog: billyzane

Leach and Sherman Continue War of Words; Leach Winning

billyzane — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:40:51 -0000

Leach and Sherman Continue War of Words; Leach Winning

If you haven't been following Mike Leach's comments about Stephen McGee (which were really more an indictment of the NFL at first, until Mike Sherman and McGee took offense), see here. After Sherman's comments stating that Leach doesn't know what he's talking about and shouldn't be commenting on his (Sherman's) coaching decisions (despite the fact that Leach was criticizing NFL talent evaluators in the first place and not Sherman), Leach went in for the kill:

"I’ve always said that it is truly exciting to play Texas A&M - the quality of coaches they have, the great team and great tradition and, above all, the quality of players they have," Leach continued. "I’ve always known A&M had great players. The fact that they have the luxury to put a third- or fourth-round draft pick on the bench, to me, identifies what a truly great team they are.

"It’s an honor for us at Texas Tech to have the opportunity to play them. There are numerous players on our team that will never get a look or play a down in the NFL, so you can imagine how exciting it is for me and them to go play a team the magnitude of Texas A&M and look over there on the bench and see third- and fourth-round draft picks."

The article continues: "Leach has been a burr under Aggie saddles. His teams have beaten A&M seven times in the last eight years, extending Tech’s recent dominance to 11-3 in the series since 1995."

OU Trying Really Hard Not to Cheat Anymore......Srsly

billyzane — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:42:32 -0000

OU Trying Really Hard Not to Cheat Anymore......Srsly

OU is getting all Big Brother on their athletic teams and players, both keeping track of their online activities and mandating what they can and cannot do and say on social networking sites. One choice line from the new policy, "Partying, drinking and getting wasted do not qualify as real hobbies or interests." I beg to differ, OU, I beg to differ.

Regardless, I understand the need for something like this. The fact that they're monitoring everything that goes on electronically does help defeat the "lack of institutional control" accusation (though it of course does make it harder to claim no knowledge when OU does eventually get caught cheating again, like they always do). And the fact that they have guidelines for the players isn't a bad idea either (Buck Burnette could have used some guidance, but I guess there's no accounting for stupid). It seems more a statement of how byzantine the NCAA rules are that something like this is needed at all, but still. Rules are rules, unless you're OU.

As an aside, did you know that OU cheats at the following sports: baseball, wrestling, women's basketball, softball, men's tennis and rowing? I didn't either, but I could have guessed. Also, six more (admittedly minor) football violations!

Interesting Article About Findlay Prep and the Nature of High School Athletics

billyzane — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:37:39 -0000

Interesting Article About Findlay Prep and the Nature of High School Athletics

Did you know that Findlay Prep, "high school" team of Texas signees Avery Bradley and Tristan Thompson, is not much more than an AAU team masquerading as a high school team? Did you know that Findlay Prep is not actually a high school? Me neither. I'm not sure there's any reason to doubt the players that come out of that program (they do actually go to a nearby high school), but there are plenty of reasons to question the propriety of an institution such as Findlay Prep.

OU 4-star Incoming Freshman DE Potentially Going to Jail Instead

billyzane — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:12:15 -0000

OU 4-star Incoming Freshman DE Potentially Going to Jail Instead

Shocking psychopath-esque behavior from a kid who apparently hadn't been in a lot of trouble before. OU hasn't commented yet, but I would assume that he's not going to be attending OU, even if he avoids jail time.

BZ's News and Views Fills Out a Bracket

billyzane — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:45:15 -0000

In the grand tradition of such terrible writers as Larry King and the terrible newspaper for which he wrote, USA Today, I'm proud to present BZ's News and Views -- random, disjointed thoughts from around the college basketball world and beyond.

Instead of going back after the fact and talking about why I made the picks that I did, I'm semi-live blogging my thoughts as I fill out my bracket. It could be way more interesting or way less. We shall see.
And just for fun, I'm bringing back BZ Gal [name still temporary] to fill out her own bracket and provide a little bit of running commentary as well. You're welcome, BON. If you missed her Fiesta Bowl running diary, it's a doozy.
And in case you're wondering, yes, I'm quite worried about her becoming more popular on this site than me.
And so, with the recognition that I've only seen about 40% of these teams play this year and know absolutely nothing, and with following adage in mind, we press forward: In KenPom we trust.

Midwest Region

A visual representation of the Midwest.

Any Minnesota fan you run into that would like to tell you about their win over Louisville can be rebutted by "Western Kentucky and UNLV." These are the two other teams Louisville lost to (UNLV at home) within a month of the loss to Minnesota.
Did you know that Siena is in upstate New York? I did not. Did you further know that the only difference between upstate New Yorkers and Aggies is the accent? Hicks are hicks, man.
I want desperately to pick Siena, but I hate the matchup with Ohio State. Siena's not really a 3-point shooting team and they just don't have the size down low. Plus the advantage they would have (they usually play at a frenetic pace that tOSU never plays) is negated by the fact that they're actually far less efficient on offense when playing that quickly.
Forget for a second that Arizona should under no circumstances be in this tournament, and instead think about whether any team has ever before lost to a Division II school and gone on to get as high as a #5 seed. Because Utah totally lost to Southwest Baptist (I swear) in their first game of the season. Oh, and it was at home. Yikes.
Has there ever been a major conference team as bipolar as Arizona? The 7th-ranked offensive efficiency team in the country and the 132nd defense. I have to go with Utah here, 5/12 upsets be damned. And by the transitive property of basketball, which is mathematical fact, Southwest Baptist would DESTROY the 'Cats.
Dayton is slightly overseeded at 11 probably, but that's not really an advantage when you run into a team that is absurdly underseeded like West Virginia.
Boston College has a couple nice wins (Duke, @UNC), but is that really enough to make it a 7 seed, especially considering they lost to St. Louis and Harvard? Seriously, they lost to Harvard. At home. By 12. BC and its first round opponent USC should probably be switched, maybe not in terms of how their entire seasons went, but certainly in terms of potential in the tourney. I'm picking USC and not thinking twice.
Michigan State is a good team, but they are nowhere near on par with the other three 2-seeds (in my opinion, not even OU). This team lost to North Carolina by 35 points in Detroit...am I the only one that remembers that? I suppose that's why the committee put them in the bracket with the overall #1. That's also why I have them losing to USC in the second round in my first real upset of the region. I think SC's athleticism frustrates what MSU does well (rebound, score down low) and it's not like SC's going to be bothered by MSU's physicality. It's a bit of a reach, but not an unreasonable one.
Likewise, I'm going with West Virginia over Kansas in the second round. I saw WFV lose to Davidson in the Garden earlier this year amid a hail of final-minute 3's from Stephen Curry, but I was impressed. WFV plays consistently great D and so the play of the offense really dictates whether this team wins or loses. I think that if WFV can keep Kansas from running too much, they have an excellent shot to win.
You heard it here first: Louisville will make the Sweet 16. Don't say I didn't warn you.
I'm not a big Wake Forest fan. I'm not sure exactly why. They run like crazy and still play good defense, and as a result are incredibly fun to watch. I just don't think they're any threat in the tournament for some reason. Lucky for them, Utah is even worse. Though I think Southwest Baptist might give 'em a game.
Down to Louisville/Wake and WFV/USC, Louisville cruises past Wake in one of the most exciting games of the tournament, with lots of fast breaks and lots of insane defense. The difference? Louisville can actually shoot the 3, while WFV has one guy who can fill it up (Teague) and no one else who can even hit the rim. And I have WFV over USC for no reason beyond that I think USC's luck runs out (and because putting a 10-seed in the Elite Eight on your bracket is a recipe for disaster.....though I'm not sure how much better a 6-seed is).
Louisville takes WFV in the regional finals. I don't know why. Which will become a recurring theme in my analysis.

Interregnum the First

Why do I even have West Virginia in the Elite Eight? It all sounds so logical game-by-game and so freaking absurd in the big picture. This is why the chalk usually beats everyone except the best guessers. Overthinking without knowing what to overthink about.
Yes, I am pre-emptively rationalizing my bracket loss to BZ Gal [name has to change].
If you like books about ninjas, mimes, war, secret organizations, and post-apocalypic worlds in which the line between reality and un-reality is getting blurrier every minute, but that is still hilarious, then you should probably read The Gone Away World. And seriously, who doesn't like those things?
Ever since I wrote about how Connor was actually playing pretty well despite his traditional statistics, he's played worse and worse every game. The BZ Curse (tm) strikes again!
This isn't nearly Larry King-esque enough. I'm stepping it up.

West Region

A visual representation of the West.

Yeah, there's no way I'm picking A&M.
Notice how I capitalized A&M. Let that be a lesson.
Oh, speaking of, apparently Taliban>Texas. You stay classy, Beergut.
Also, lonely. Though I guess it could be worse!
Purdue and Washington are both very dangerous teams. I don't know who to pick in the second round. BZ Rule of Thumb (tm): take the Big 10 over the Pac 10 in the tourney. Corollary to BZ Rule of Thumb (tm): always take Connecticut over both.
Speaking of Purdue, you know how it and Indiana have a joint campus in Indianapolis called IUPUI (pronounced yee-wu-poui -- though apparently no longer)? Well apparently there's an IUPU in Fort Wayne. Yee-wu-poof-way?
Since Dominic James went down with a season ending injury several weeks ago, Marquette has lost 5 out of their 6 games, and has lost 7 out of their last 11 overall, though the worst team they lost to in those last 5 was Villanova. But frankly Utah State just isn't very good. I have the Golden Eagles losing to Mizzou in the second round.
Cal can freaking shoot the 3, and they get a higher percentage of their points from 3 pointers (43.4%) than any other team in the NCAA. How good is Maryland at defending the 3? 181st! That said, Greivis Vasquez is a hell of a lot of fun to watch play. But I'm picking the Bears, only because mini-Ditka was inexplicably excluded from the field this year.
I ate at Ditka's restaurant in Chicago in like 2003. Meh.
Also, um, Memphis is going to destroy Cal.
Missouri is an excellent team that has Final Four talent. Which makes it unfortunate that they're running into that Memphis juggernaut in the Sweet Sixteen. Should be an amazing game though.
Memphis probably didn't deserve a 1-seed based on their season as a whole, but they might be the best team in the country. Before they lost Jerome Dyson, Connecticut might have been also. Memphis takes the West.

Interregnum the Second

I have a funny story that I can't tell you.
The logical next step in ironic use of internet slang is clearly spelling out acronyms phonetically. Oh em gee! Ell oh Ell! Dubya tee eff?!? Bee arr bee! (copyright!)
For Christmas, BZ Gal [name indefinitely temporary] found me a copy of the first edition of Catch-22, but only the second printing of it from 1961, not the first printing of 1955. Keep trying, kiddo.
Kidding!

East Region

A visual representation of the East (Village).

I have absolutely no idea who will win in the Okie State/Tennessee 8/9 game, mostly because I haven't seen the Vols play this year. Let's just go with KenPom here...hmm....okay, 50% chance of victory for each team? Come on! Well, I guess he has Tennessee by 1, so screw it. Rocky Top. It doesn't matter though, Pitt's taking them out.
I refuse to pick a 5/12 upset just for the sake of picking one. That said, Wisconsin is totally going to beat Florida State. Totally.
In the second round, though, as much as I like to pick mediocre Big 10 teams to win games they shouldn't just by virtue of beating the crap out of their opponents, I'm going to take Xavier.
Did you know that Xavier's beaten both Memphis and Missouri this year? Also, Yee-wu-poof-way. Ell oh ell! (tm)
VCU is pretty decent, but it's usually the experienced teams that pull upsets in the tournament, and VCU is very young. Then again, so is half of the UCLA team, but they're pretty underrated here. Pretty god team.
Speaking of teams that Texas beat what seems like 3 years ago, I'm not buying 'Nova. I saw them in the Garden against Texas (also, lots of fights between Texas and random drunk Philadelphians!) and was not particularly impressed. I have the utmost respect for Scottie Reynolds (thank god for Kelvin Sampson's cheating, am I right, guys? high five!) And the way they almost blew that game to Marquette in the Big East tournament was disgraceful. I have UCLA in the Sweet 16.
And then we came to Texas. The Horns are better than the Gophers. I know that much. As for who's going to win? I have no freaking idea. KenPom only gives us a 58% chance of winning. But what the hell am I going to do, pick against Texas in the first round? Of course not.
In the second round, though, of course I am. Look, Texas can beat Duke, definitely. Especially if Duke isn't shooting well. But, um, you've seen these cats play this year, right? Remember when I wrote that incredibly over-the-top preview of the K-State game, in which I stated that Texas was playing baseball on a basketball court? Metaphorically, of course. I said Dogus Balbay gives them the opportunity to play basketball on the court rather than baseball. Well, I think I was right. Texas is now playing basketball. Just not very good basketball.
That said, if the Horns pull it off, alert the MassPD, I'm heading to Boston for the regional because UCLA is totally beatable.
Which is why Duke will beat them immediately after beating Texas.
Pitt/Xavier is killing me. Pitt's obviously better, but this is an excellent upset pick. Xavier's definitely got the size to battle with Pitt and they play at the same pace so Pitt's not running them off the floor or anything. Ah, screw it, I talked myself into Xavier.
Whenever Xavier makes a 3-pointer, I shall dyslexically scream "Musketeers Three!" (tm). BZ Gal [nickname pending] will have no idea what I'm talking about. It's brilliant.
Oh, by the way, Duke is going to beat Xavier.

Interregnum the Third

On the phone with a partner at my law firm yesterday, we talked about how I corrected a few of her uses of the word "effect" to "affect" and she doubted I was right but wasn't sure and said, "Well, make sure you change it globally. If we're wrong, we might as well be consistent." I said, "Sure.....but we're right." She laughed politely. Then after we got off the phone I sent her an e-mail with this link for her future reference. This was perhaps not the best move in the current economic climate. But hey, good grammar isn't just for BON anymore.
The high today in New York is 58. This is huge as we're finally breaking out of winter. But I got a little overexcited this morning and didn't wear a jacket for my walk to the subway in 45 degree-weather.
My arms are rarely substantially warmer than my torso and thus I do not wear, nor do I understand, sweater vests. However, shouldn't there be an inverse alternative to sweatervests for those people whose arms are substantially colder than their torsos? What's that? There are? Oh em gee (tm)!

South Region

A visual representation of the (Deep) South.
And the Iraq. Such as.

My grandad drove a '57 Chevy for years. I thought it was pretty Rad. Not a Ford though. Therefore, UNC destroys the Highlanders.
LSU is not a good team. Plus they've lost 3 out of their last 4. But this isn't the same Butler teams as the last few that came through. All those kids graduated. This is a young team and I don't like to pick young mid-majors to upset teams in the tourney. I don't know. But I was born in Indiana and KenPom has Butler winning 51% of the time so what the hell.
Hey, remember when Illinois lost to Penn State 39-33? Did you know that they also only scored 36 points in a loss to Minnesota? Or that they once scored 48 points and won? Or that they once scored 52 points in a double digit win over Minnesota? I have Illinois destroying Western Kentucky, so I don't really have a point here other than "My god, the Big 10 makes for some awful television."
Note to the Big 10: I don't care how good your defenses are, that doesn't excuse your awful offenses. Notice how the following teams are all in the top 10 best defenses in the NCAA (per kenPom) and are still exciting to watch on offense: Memphis, Louisville, Connecticut, West Virginia, Missouri, Gonzaga. Three of those teams are in the same conference, so no talk about beating each other up. Stop making excuses and stop playing the 4 corners offense.
I have somehow not managed to see Gonzaga play this year (probably because they're on the West Coast and all their games start at like 11pm ET). But I am amazed at how high KenPom has them in his rankings. Sixth in Adjusted Offense, 8th in Adjusted Defense, and 5th overall. I have them beating Illinois in the second round on the strenghth of that, but I don't think they have the power to get by UNC, assuming Ty Lawson is back. If he's not back, I'd say even money.
All the Pac-10 teams are a little bit underrated at this point and I think I'm going to go out on a limb and pick Arizona State to beat Syracuse in the second round (or, you know, Stephen F. Austin...). The 'Cuse had a great run in the Big East tourney, but, uh, I don't know, KenPom thinks ASU is better. I certainly can't argue.
Speaking of SFA, here's a picture of Rhett Bomar pissing in an alley. No word on whether the stream was still a little bloody from the 2005 Texas/OU game.
Oh my god, I'm so tired of picking these games. Clemson beats Michigan and loses to OU. Why? I don't know. Ou is better than Clemson is better than Michigan. Case closed.
I think either ASU or Syracuse can and should beat OU in the Sweet 16 so I'm picking the Sun Devils to head to the Elite 8.
Speaking of, does anyone else remember a time maybe 10-15 years ago that there was no uniform term for the final 8 teams in the tournament? I recall Dick Vitale calling it the "Great Eight" back in the day. "Elite 8" certainly won out, and it fits better with the alliteration theme, but I distinctly remember it not being set in stone like it is now.
Obviously, UNC takes out ASU to head to the Final Four.

Interregnum the Fourth

In writing about the "Elite 8" above, I could not for the life of me remember the word "alliteration" and had to type into Google " first letters all the same". I need to drink less.
That partner I sent the grammar website to has subsequently responded with a smiley face. What does that MEAN?! Is that a "you're fired" smiley face?
Also, bee tee dubs (tm) (i'm not spelling out the letter "w"), instead of using a smiley face ironically (which, by the way, is one of the most difficult feats in ironic interwebdom, because you always seem sincere, no matter how saracstic you are normally), the ultimate ironic use would by to spell it out, just like internet abbreviations. Perhaps with an exclamation point (if you don't normally use exclamation points for purposes non-ironic) to really drive home how cool you are. Smiley-face! (tm)
If there were such a thing as grape Starbursts, I probably wouldn't think that the orange Starbusts were so freaking disgusting.

Final Four

I have Memphis beating Louisville. In the Final 4, it's all pretty much a guess, isn't it? I will thoroughly enjoy watching this game.
I have UNC beating Duke. I will likely watch this game and hate every minute of it.
The following records will be broken in a UNC-Duke Final 4 game: (1) most charges taken, (2) most spontaneous combustions by Dick Vitale, (3) most white McDonald's All-Americans on the bench going crazy, (4) most incessant and annoying clapping rather than actually playing defense, (5) most times I've ever wished someone dead since Steve Wojciechowski (Greg Paulus, though I'm eyeing you too, Gerald Henderson).
Memphis beats UNC in the title game. Why? I don't know. Everyone else is picking UNC to win it all? Lingering concern about Ty Lawson's health? I hate picking 1-seeds? I hate the ACC? All of the above? So yeah, Memphis. This is all very scientific.

Posterregnum*

*Note: not a word.
Has anyone ever seen Billy Packer and Andy Rooney in the same room together? Surely there's been a old coot convention that they and Larry King attend every year.
Seriously though, this bracket has the potential to be terrible. West Virginia, Arizona State AND Xavier in the Elite 8? I'm borderline incompetent. Unless I get really lucky, in which case I'm a genius.

And now for the significantly briefer analysis of BZ Gal [name seriously sucks] whose picks are shockingly solid and who will undoubtedly stomp on my bracket and spit on it for good measure. Sigh... Editor's notes are in brackets.

I've probably watched a total of 7 complete college basketball games in my life, the first one being the Texas/Memphis game in the Tournament last year, shortly after BZ and I met. That was a dark day. Needless to say, I haven't the slightest idea or opinion on how March Madness is going to unfold this year, nor will I lose sleep over any outcome. But I do like BZ (and charts!) so I agreed to fill out an NCAA bracket and post it for all the Internet (or select BONers) to see.

Okay, here we go! I started with Louisville, and my first thought was, "TBD? WTF is TBD, and how can I pick a winner for a matchup that isn't set?" [Spell that WTF out for maximal effect... -ed.] BZ informed me that it has something to do with the two worst teams competing to see who plays the best team. Well, he actually said, "just pick Louisville," because he knew that the entire explanation would have bored me to tears. So, Louisville it is! Also, I swear that's the only advice I received for this. You know, in case I do really well with my picks and people think I'm a ringer. What follows is a selection from my bracket picks and the inner monologue that led to them:

Ohio State vs. Sienna (Round 1): Sienna, because I've heard Ohio State isn't especially good, and I find it amusing that a Catholic university's mascot is a saint.

Wake Forest vs. Cleveland State (Round 1): Wake, because I refuse to believe that Cleveland State is a real place of learning (see below).

Purdue vs. N. Iowa (Round 1): Northern Iowa, because the ESPN matchup info thingy on the bracket says "woe be the team that draws the Panthers." Can't argue with that.

Florida State vs. Wisconsin (Round 1): Wisconsin, because my officemate went there, and he's a nice guy. I've also heard you need some upsets in this thing.

Villanova vs. American (Round 1): Nova, because they played in the only college basketball game I've ever attended (Texas/Nova, at MSG this year). Oh, and yes, I did go to college.

Utah State vs. Missouri (Round 2): Again, ESPN is telling me that Utah State is a "definite upset candidate," and I'm not ready to veer from that advice just yet.

Texas vs. Duke (Round 2): Duke, because I've heard a lot about this Texas team lately and I know better than to have too much faith.

Louisville vs. Kansas (Sweet Sixteen): Louisville - oh, look, the little mascot pops up when you put a team in the Final Four!

Elite Eight - Final Four Rounds: No logic went into these, really, because I don't know enough about the teams to make any sort of informed decision. [Sounds familiar. -ed.]

Louisville vs. Pittsburgh (Championship): Pitt, because, hey, maybe it's just the city of Pittsburgh's year.

To conclude, here is a list of actual, accredited academic institutions I never knew existed:

East Tennessee State

Portland State

Cleveland State

R Morris (Does that stand for something? I shall consult Wikipedia.)

CS Northridge (I'll just keep the Wikipedia window open.)

Radford

Butler

Morgan State

Top BON Search Engine Referrals

billyzane — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:36:03 -0000

Just for fun, here are some of my favorite terms that have been typed into search engines and resulted in clicks on BON pages in the past few days. I'm not sure how exactly these reflect on this fair blog (poorly? well? accurately?), but they're interesting to say the least...

Coach shorts (this is just a quality picture, but who the hell is searching for this?)

WTF (approximately 4 or 5 times...)

Cat Osterman Boyfriend (54b, we know this is you. All 6 times it was searched.)

Cat Osterman Lesbian (Mrs. 54b, it's okay. You have nothing to worry about.)

Texas Longhorns sucks (grammatically incorrect, natch)

OU Sucks (obvs)

My Girlfriends boobs (okay, interesting)

I have huge boobs (oooookay)

Jai lucas where is he (existential! sort of!)

Comparing boobs (oh, we're back on this?)

GG boobs (seriously? did this site used to be porn?)

Naked texas guys (at least we're evening it out a bit...)

an example of pluralistic ignorance (you're welcome google!)

beer boobs (it's quite a long ways from the last search term, isn't it?)

perfect boobs (seriously, WTF? PB, you opened a can of worms.)

conch shell in lord of the flies (BON=8th grade english class crib notes)

who will replace billie gillespie at UK (ha!)

Well, that was fun and pointless. The moral of the story is that you guys a sick (except the one who searched for pluralistic ignorance; you're awesome) and that this post will undoubtedly only serve to increase BON's google hits with such phrases until it inevitably becomes an all-out porn site. You're welcome BON!

Whither Chance Mock?

billyzane — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:38:32 -0000

Whither Chance Mock?

EDSBS has figured out what Chance Mock is up to these days and, well, it appears to involve an unfortunately named investment company that advertises on YouTube and LOTS of cheeseburgers. The Mock Plan? Seriously? That's what you're going with? As MaconDawg commented on the EDSBS post, "I shall be removing all of the funds from my Wu Tang Investments account immediately." And Chance doesn't appear to have been working out too much since his playing days ended in 2005. Still not as fat as Chase Daniel though.

The Reclamation of Connor Atchley's Reputation

billyzane — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:53:16 -0000

As many of you probably know by now, Michael Lewis wrote yet another epic article for the New York TImes Magazine this weekend. The author of Moneyball, Liar's Poker, The Blind Side, and the NYT Magazine article on Mike Leach that started the whole pirate thing in the first place, Lewis has a gift for seeking out instances in which someone in sports is exploiting inefficiencies in old ways of doing things and then translating what those people are doing for the layperson. The article published this weekend was about Shane Battier, Darryl Morey (the GM of the Houston Rockets), and the coming SABRmetric explosion in basketball statistics. You should absolutely read it if you haven't already.

The thesis is that, just as in baseball before Bill James' theories gained traction in front offices, traditional cumulative statistics do a poor job at evaluating the contributions individual players make to the team, the Houston Rockets front office is at the forefront of new efficiency statistics that make an attempt to more accurately measure what a player does for a team, Shane Battier is one of the most efficient players the Rockets have ever seen and makes his team a lot better simply by being on the court, but Shane Battier puts up terrible traditional statistics so he is undervalued by other teams and thus is a steal for the Rockets. Also made explicit in the article is that Shane Battier is, at best, a marginal NBA athlete with poor ball handling skills and a jumpshot that requires him to be open to make. Sound like Connor Atchley to you?

It sounds sort of crazy, I know, but Connor Atchley is one of the most efficient players on the Texas team this year and last year was one of the most efficient players in the entire NCAA. Note, of course, that "efficient" doens't mean "best." But a player who is efficient without putting up great traditional numbers is often overlooked and maligned for not doing anything on the court when in fact he is hard at work making the team better in difficult-to-measure ways. I believe Connor is in this category. Hear me out after the jump.

The comments that have been floating around BON about Connor this year are astoundingly short-sighted. He's not shooting the ball well this year, that much is certain, and his points, rebounds and minutes are all down. But sometimes, it's not traditional "box score" statistics like points, rebounds and assists that define how good a player is. This is especially profound in basketball because, as Darryl Morey points out to Michael Lewis in the article, individual basketball statistics can be accumulated to the detriment of the team (whereas baseball is a sport in which individual success more or less translates into team success). Luckily, over the last few years, Ken Pomeroy has been leading the charge of creating/implementing efficiency statistics and applying them to college basketball.

If you've been paying attention to BON's basketball coverage the last few years, you should know that we favor KenPom's rate statistics in terms of team analytics simply because while traditional statistics often belie the true nature of the game, reducing it to its most base formulation of "who can make more shots, get more rebounds, and dish more assists than the other guy," these KenPom statistics make an attempt to get deeper into the true nature of the game--the movements, the flash-outs, and in short, the little things that make it possible for certain players to score a lot of points, get a lot of rebounds or dish out a lot assists. In basketball, it's a lot easier to develop team efficiency statistics than individual ones, simply because what a team does is a whole entity that is affected by only one other variable, the other team. However, what an individual does is only part of that whole entity, meaning that there's an added layer of variables to account for (i.e. how that player operates within that team). As I said earlier, baseball doesn't have this problem because it is an individual sport in almost every capacity other than defense. It's difficult in basketball, however, to isolate and examine what, exactly, an individual is doing to help a basketball team, especially when he's not putting up traditional "box score" statistics.

But KenPom and some others have developed some metrics for doing just that. And by those metrics, Connor Atchley is an excellent basketball player even when his shots aren't falling. And when they are, like last year, he is elite in terms of efficiency. Let's look at some of those statistics. I explain some of the stats below; for explanations of others please see this and/or this.

	%Min	ORtg	%Poss	%Shots	eFG%	TS%	OR%	DR%	ARate	TORate	Blk%	Stl%	FC/40	FD/40	FTRate	FT%	2P%	3P%
2009 Nt'l Rank	49.5	112.8 308	13.4	14.8	48.1	53.5	6.7	12.3	5.1	14.5 275	7.9 64	1.7	5.1	2.5	27.6	.897	.521	.298
2008 Nt'l Rank	68.9	127.1 12	15.4	16.5	62.1 36	63.0 65	8.3	12.4	5.1	12.8 93	8.5 49	1.7	3.9	2.6	22.3	.672	.622	.413

In sum, what this tells us is that even though the offense doesn't really go through Connor Atchley (only taking 14.8% of the team's shots that occur while he's on the court this year and 16.5% last year), he has a strongly positive effect on the offense while he is on the court, as is Offensive Rating (ORtg) ranks him quite highly this year and was astronomical last year. ORtg is the efficiency statistic meant to measure what effect a certain player has on the offense. It's effectively a modified +/- statistic that measures how well an offense does with the player on the floor versus with him off of it, and then figures out how much of that plus or minus is attributable to that individual player. This year, Atchley is behind only two players on the team, Dexter Pittman and AJ Abrams (for the record, Clint Chapman is last on the team with an abysmal 67.1 ORtg). Last year, Atchley was behind only 11 other players in the entire NCAA, among those who played at least 40% of their team's minutes.

How did a guy who averaged 9.5 ppg, 5.3 rbg and .8 apg in 2008 end up as the 12th most efficient offensive player in the entire NCAA? Numerous ways. His effective field goal percentage and true shooting percentage were off the charts, he never turned the ball over, he got a fair amount of offensive rebounds, and he made everyone around him better. That is, the team scored more points when he was in the game than when he wasn't, it got more rebounds when he was in the game as opposed to when he wasn't, etc. In effect, while other players were running the show, Connor was behind the scenes making things happen. It's the little things that don't show up in the box score.

And that's just on offense. KenPom doesn't have an individual defensive efficiency statistic yet, but I have to imagine that Connor would be highly rated by that one as well, especially considering that in 2008 he blocked a full 8.5% of all shots that were taken while he was on the floor, good for 49th in the entire NCAA (and it's only down to 7.9% this year, a #64 ranking).

Note also the offensive and defensive rebounding percentages (OR% and DR%, respectively) for Atchley. These percentages show the numbers of rebounds he pulled down out of the number of possible rebounds that he could have pulled down in his minutes on the floor. KenPom says that 10% is a good OR% while 20% is a good DR% and that offensive rebounds are generally regarded as being more the result of individual effort than defensive rebounds. Note that Connor is a lot closer to the 10% threshold for "good" OR% than he is to the 20% threshold for "good" DR% (at least in 2008), and that while his OR% has gone down in 2009, his DR% has stayed the same. This tells me that Connor gets his own offensive rebounds fairly well, but his lack of overall defensive rebounds isn't indicative of his lack of worth on glass because even when he's clearly not playing as well as he did last year, his defensive boards are still more or less the same. And while I don't have the specific stats to show it, I would be willing to bet that a large part of his high ORtg is attributable to the fact that the team gets more defensive rebounds with him in the game than without. Boxing out your man and allowing Damion James to jump high for the rebound is probably more effective than trying to outjump James for the box score statistic.

And that's the crux of all of this. Connor does the little things that make teams better that they would be without him, even though those contributions don't show up in the box score. Last year, we had a love affair with "Good Connor" because in certain games, his contributions did begin to show up in the box score, mostly because of his ridiculous shooting percentages. This year, he's not making any shots and thus many of you have deemed him "useless." That's absolutely not true. There's more to basketball than scoring points, getting rebounds, and handing out assists. There's the rotation on defense that Connor is so good at, flashing an arm out in front of a cutting offensive player to deny him the ball, weakside help defense, cutting off the high pick and roll without getting too far out of position, and always keeping his blocked shots in bounds. On offense, it's the subtle moving screen he sets at the top of the key and the flash out for the 3 that defenses still respect, boxing out the weak-side to allow someone else to go get a rebound, keeping the spacing in tact in a way that our other big men just can't or don't. He makes the team better when he's on the floor, even if he's not hitting shots. And if he is, look out world, you've got an elite player on your team.

I've been noticing this about Connor for a long time, but one thing hit it home yesterday. An Aggie drove to the basket and Connor came over to block the shot from behind. He didn't block it, but ended up under the basket when the missed layup came down right towards an A&M player. Connor could have tried to grab the rebound, but he was out of position and would have easily lost the ball to the Aggie for an easy putback. Instead, he saw Abrams at the top of the key and patted the ball back out to him. If AJ hadn't lost the ball in a scrum with another Aggie, it would have been a fast break, a 4-point turnaround. Some got mad at Connor for seemingly not hustling to get the ball, but he actually made a good play that helped the team and didn't show up as a rebound in his stats.

Now, I'm not saying that Connor Atchley is necessarily a great basketball player, or that he's anywhere near as good as Shane Battier, even in the realm of these efficiency metrics. He's often out of position rebounding and does not have the strength to muscle bigger players. He can't create his own shot, and this year has had plenty of trouble making the ones that were created for him. But he is a very good basketball player and, if he's making his shots, he's a potentially great college basketball player. But because he doesn't put up a lot of traditional box score stats, he is undervalued, both by fans and potentially by his own team. And this will afford the possibility for a smart NBA team to pick him up as an undrafted free agent and start to mold his game here and there, while allowing him to do what he does best--make his basketball team better. In the meantime, he's doing just that for this Texas basketball team, whether you realize it or not.

Sports and the Law: Can Schools 'Cheer' Their Way into Title IX Compliance

billyzane — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:27:42 -0000

Sports and the Law: Can Schools 'Cheer' Their Way into Title IX Compliance

Interesting to think about the possibility of giving cheerleading scholarships and thus being able to form a varsity men's soccer team, or other neglected sport, without having to add another women's varsity sport (of which there are way more than men's sports to make up for the number of schollies given to football players).

Horns Play Terribly, Show Incredible Heart, Still Lose

billyzane — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:54:58 -0000

Denis Clemente somehow managed to beat the entire Texas team 1-on-5 today, scoring 44 points. The Longhorns played absolutely terribly for the first 30 minutes of this game before turning up the defensive pressure with a full court press and engineering a spectacular comeback before falling just short in overtime. The full court press was a great call by Barnes because even when KSU beat it, they were up by so much that they didn't take easy shots, instead choosing to pull back and kill clock. It worked as long as it could.

Great effort during that second half run by the entire team, with special accolades for Mason and Ward. Texas had been playing simply terribly but didn't fold when they were down 17 points. Instead they fought back, full well knowing that it probably would never be enough. And it wasn't quite enough today, with Clemente drilling everything he saw, but the very fact that the Horns took this game into overtime is a victory in itself. That doesn't excuse how unbelievably badly they played in all facets of the game for the first 30 minutes, but it's something to admire about this team.

Full recap is coming from txtwstr7 tomorrow, but feel free to talk about the game in the comments until then.

[Update by billyzane, 02/01/09 12:49 PM EST ] KenPom's data from the K-State game is out and, following up on the "tempo" discussion from my preview, the number of possessions per 40 minutes was 76. As I said in the preview, over 70 was going to put us in a dogfight and it did, as it put our offensive efficiency at the third lowest of any game this season.