PDA

View Full Version : 2013 All-ACC Teams, POY and other honors



vick
03-11-2013, 01:13 PM
Press release (http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/031113aac.html).

FIRST TEAM
Mason Plumlee Duke
Erick Green Virginia Tech
Shane Larkin Miami
Joe Harris Virginia
Richard Howell NC State

SECOND TEAM
Seth Curry Duke
Kenny Kadji Miami
Lorenzo Brown NC State
Reggie Bullock North Carolina
James Michael McAdoo North Carolina

THIRD TEAM
Michael Snaer Florida State
C.J. Leslie NC State
Ryan Anderson Boston College
Quinn Cook Duke
Devin Booker Clemson
Akil Mitchell Virginia


My thoughts: No surprises on the first team. Not surprised JMM made second team either, although it strikes me as absurd personally. Mitchell continues to be underrated IMO as he puts up numbers very close to Howell once you adjust for pace, on a better team.

Newton_14
03-11-2013, 01:17 PM
Press release (http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/031113aac.html).

FIRST TEAM
Mason Plumlee Duke
Erick Green Virginia Tech
Shane Larkin Miami
Joe Harris Virginia
Richard Howell NC State

SECOND TEAM
Seth Curry Duke
Kenny Kadji Miami
Lorenzo Brown NC State
Reggie Bullock North Carolina
James Michael McAdoo North Carolina

THIRD TEAM
Michael Snaer Florida State
C.J. Leslie NC State
Ryan Anderson Boston College
Quinn Cook Duke
Devin Booker Clemson
Akil Mitchell Virginia


My thoughts: No surprises on the first team. Not surprised JMM made second team either, although it strikes me as absurd personally. Mitchell continues to be underrated IMO as he puts up numbers very close to Howell once you adjust for pace, on a better team.

McAdoo on 2nd team over Ryan Anderson is criminal....

roywhite
03-11-2013, 01:21 PM
Thanks for posting, and congrats to Mason, Seth, and Quinn.

Generally agree with most of the picks; McAdoo on the 2nd team is questionable; I'd put Mitchell or Ryan Anderson ahead of him.

FerryFor50
03-11-2013, 01:24 PM
Considering I was more useful to UNC than JMM was, I think I should be on the 2nd team.

Other than that, no real issues with the picks. Hard to make a case for Curry over Howell...

BD80
03-11-2013, 01:24 PM
Where's Len? Alex Len. The highest rated pro prospect.

Leslie 3rd team? Not that he deserves higher, but he was sure expected to do better. Still a pro prospect, but why?

oldnavy
03-11-2013, 01:27 PM
McAdoo on 2nd team over Ryan Anderson is criminal....

That's James Michael McAdoo.... which is much cooler to say ;).

I agree, what a crock. Reminds me of when HB got voted in front of Kendall Marshall..... just a product of the PR machine.

sagegrouse
03-11-2013, 01:32 PM
Where's Len? Alex Len. The highest rated pro prospect.

Leslie 3rd team? Not that he deserves higher, but he was sure expected to do better. Still a pro prospect, but why?

I think voters felt his rewards should be in heaven in the NBA and not here on earth in the ACC.

sagegrouse

Kedsy
03-11-2013, 01:33 PM
Funny that we have three guys on All-ACC teams and the guy a lot of people are calling our best player isn't on any. I guess Ryan can't make an All-ACC team because he didn't play in enough ACC games, but it's a shame.

MCFinARL
03-11-2013, 01:34 PM
Where's Len? Alex Len. The highest rated pro prospect.

Leslie 3rd team? Not that he deserves higher, but he was sure expected to do better. Still a pro prospect, but why?

Len got an honorable mention, along with Ryan Kelly (whom many voters presumably left off their ballots because he missed so many ACC games). Not sure what that means except that someone voted for him.

All-Freshman team is out and Sulaimon is of course on it, tied with Warren for the second largest number of votes after Olivier Hanlon. Also on the frosh team: Devin Thomas and Marcus Paige.

CDu
03-11-2013, 01:38 PM
I'd make only 2 definite changes:

1. McAdoo would not be in the top-15.
2. Mitchell or Anderson would replace McAdoo on the 2nd team.

Otherwise, I think the media did a fairly reasonable job. One could quibble with the end of the list (Cook and Booker could easily be replaced by Scott, Hairston, or Len and I wouldn't blink), but quibbling about picks 14 and 15 aren't all that big a deal.

The general media's ignorance bias in favor of pace (i.e., looking at count stats and not considering efficiency)* certainly helped McAdoo and hurt Harris and Mitchell.

* Note: I'm disparaging the media as a collective and not any singular media member. There are certainly well-informed, reasonable media members who are able to look past the count stats in assessing quality. But as a collective, the group is still completely joined at the hip with count stats.

sporthenry
03-11-2013, 01:38 PM
McAdoo on 2nd team over Ryan Anderson is criminal....

I don't like JMM that much but it really isn't criminal to Ryan Anderson. Looking at numbers, JMM and Anderson were pretty much even as Anderson had 14.5 points to JMM 14.4. Both had 7.2 rebounds and JMM averaged 1.5 steals per game while Anderson wasn't even listed on ACC's website.

Mitchell probably has a better case 13.0 poionts, 8.8 rebounds and 1.2 steals but neither was that much better than JMM. I don't think the gap should have been so big but with all the hype, I'm not surprised. Also assuming that the Sports Media Association is NC centric and has plenty of North Carolina fans on it, can't expect much more.

CDu
03-11-2013, 01:43 PM
Funny that we have three guys on All-ACC teams and the guy a lot of people are calling our best player isn't on any. I guess Ryan can't make an All-ACC team because he didn't play in enough ACC games, but it's a shame.

Well, I don't know how many people are calling Kelly our best player. I think the argument is made that he's one of our most critical players. But I'd have to believe that the list is pretty short for guys calling Kelly our best player.

That being said, his exclusion is 100% a function of playing in only 5 of 18 ACC games. Kelly did average 19.2 ppg and shot 58.3% from the field (and 64% from 3pt range) in conference play. But if you play in less than 1/3 of the conference games, you shouldn't be on the All-Conference team.

FerryFor50
03-11-2013, 01:44 PM
I'm assuming that since Plumlee got the most votes for first team, he's a virtual lock for ACC POY, right?

hurleyfor3
03-11-2013, 01:46 PM
The general media's ignorance bias in favor of pace (i.e., looking at count stats and not considering efficiency)* certainly helped McAdoo and hurt Harris and Mitchell.

Also the media's North Carolina and especially unc bias.

CDu
03-11-2013, 01:50 PM
I don't like JMM that much but it really isn't criminal to Ryan Anderson. Looking at numbers, JMM and Anderson were pretty much even as Anderson had 14.5 points to JMM 14.4. Both had 7.2 rebounds and JMM averaged 1.5 steals per game while Anderson wasn't even listed on ACC's website.

Mitchell probably has a better case 13.0 poionts, 8.8 rebounds and 1.2 steals but neither was that much better than JMM. I don't think the gap should have been so big but with all the hype, I'm not surprised. Also assuming that the Sports Media Association is NC centric and has plenty of North Carolina fans on it, can't expect much more.

You're falling prey to the same mistakes to which the media voters fell prey. You're looking only at count stats rather than looking at efficiency.

McAdoo was the second-least efficient player on his own team (ahead of only Hubert, who is atrocious offensively). His stats were accumulated on volume of possessions (UNC plays at the #9 pace nationally - by far the fastest pace of any team in the conference) and volume of possessions used (McAdoo led his team in shot attempts by a wide margin).

Conversely, Boston College (#189 in tempo) and UVa (#339) both play at a really slow pace. So the fact that the stats accumulated by Anderson and Mitchell are so close to those accumulated by McAdoo is actually evidence that they've outplayed McAdoo. And that's ignoring usage rate, where McAdoo exceeds both.

vick
03-11-2013, 01:51 PM
I don't like JMM that much but it really isn't criminal to Ryan Anderson. Looking at numbers, JMM and Anderson were pretty much even as Anderson had 14.5 points to JMM 14.4. Both had 7.2 rebounds and JMM averaged 1.5 steals per game while Anderson wasn't even listed on ACC's website.

Mitchell probably has a better case 13.0 poionts, 8.8 rebounds and 1.2 steals but neither was that much better than JMM. I don't think the gap should have been so big but with all the hype, I'm not surprised. Also assuming that the Sports Media Association is NC centric and has plenty of North Carolina fans on it, can't expect much more.

I think Mitchell's case over JMM is a slam dunk, honestly, and that it's even close (let alone that JMM was voted far ahead of him) is a textbook example of what CDu is talking about, pace bias, along with ignoring how important efficiency is (and you may be right, some NC-centric media). I mean, JMM averaged just 1.4 more points during ACC play--on nearly 4 more shot attempts per game! JMM's offensive rating in ACC games is, according to Statsheet, 89.6, which is, quite frankly, pathetic. Add in Mitchell being a superior defender, and I think it's just a clear case in Mitchell's favor.

vick
03-11-2013, 01:55 PM
I'm assuming that since Plumlee got the most votes for first team, he's a virtual lock for ACC POY, right?

He got 73, Larkin got 72, Green got 72, Harris got 67. It's far too close to say that he's a lock for ACC POY, any one of those 4 could get it. After all, all 73 of those people could believe Plumlee is the fifth-best player in the league.

hsheffield
03-11-2013, 02:12 PM
anyone else seeing Ryan Kelly as MOP (or MVP or whatever it is these days) of the ACCT?

I just have this feeling...

jimsumner
03-11-2013, 02:24 PM
I'm assuming that since Plumlee got the most votes for first team, he's a virtual lock for ACC POY, right?

Bob Verga got the most votes for All-ACC in 1967 but finished second in ACC POY voting to Larry Miller.

Rashad McCants got the most votes in 2004 but finished third in POY voting to Julius Hodge and Chris Duhon.

I would be astonished if Green got POY. No way you can leave him off first team, no way you can vote him POY. It's a two-way race between Plumlee and Larkin, IMO.

sporthenry
03-11-2013, 02:27 PM
You're falling prey to the same mistakes to which the media voters fell prey. You're looking only at count stats rather than looking at efficiency.

McAdoo was the second-least efficient player on his own team (ahead of only Hubert, who is atrocious offensively). His stats were accumulated on volume of possessions (UNC plays at the #9 pace nationally - by far the fastest pace of any team in the conference) and volume of possessions used (McAdoo led his team in shot attempts by a wide margin).

Conversely, Boston College (#189 in tempo) and UVa (#339) both play at a really slow pace. So the fact that the stats accumulated by Anderson and Mitchell are so close to those accumulated by McAdoo is actually evidence that they've outplayed McAdoo. And that's ignoring usage rate, where McAdoo exceeds both.

Well I'm using counting stats b/c that is what they are usually judged on. Sure you can bring up advanced statistics but we are years and decades away from using them at least in college basketball voting. I guess you could say I'm falling prey to their mistakes or I'm just understanding how they vote.

As for the advanced stats, if we really did it like this, the teams would probably end up looking very different and it is unfair to pick one guy and do the advanced stats with him. If we want to go advanced stats and bring up usage rates then TJ Warren deserved a 1st team nod or at worst a 2nd team. Leads conference in eFG%, 8th in PER, 3rd in offensive rating, etc.

As for using usage rates, I'm not sure that the lower usage rate guys will ever get the nod. Such is the life but if you aren't used much on your team than you obviously have better players on your team and there is something to be said for being the focal point on offense and still putting numbers up. Curry and Greene had equal ORTG on kenpom but who do you think had the more impressive season? The guy used on 31.7% of his possessions or the one used on 22.5% of them?

And pace-wise, I don't think you'll ever see votes give a slow paced team any benefit. The narrative this whole season has been how this season has been ugly and slow so why would we go back and adjust all these stats for pace? Sure, JMM's stats should be normalized a bit for UNC's pace but when has that ever been done before.

OldPhiKap
03-11-2013, 02:29 PM
Bob Verga got the most votes for All-ACC in 1967 but finished second in ACC POY voting to Larry Miller.

Rashad McCants got the most votes in 2004 but finished third in POY voting to Julius Hodge and Chris Duhon.

I would be astonished if Green got POY. No way you can leave him off first team, no way you can vote him POY. It's a two-way race between Plumlee and Larkin, IMO.

Agree with this, and suspect it is Larkin. Given the remarkable job Miami did, relative to expectations, I have to figure that the POY is on that team.

Not saying that's fair or what I want to see -- but I think that logic is pretty compelling for many.

Wander
03-11-2013, 02:30 PM
I know he didn't have as good a season overall as many expected, and I know that people will say this accomplishment is "lucky" or flukey or whatever, but I'd put Snaer higher. Being responsible for half your team's conference wins with game winning plays is impressive. Especially since there's a guy that most of us agree on should be bumped off the 2nd team...

CDu
03-11-2013, 02:34 PM
Well I'm using counting stats b/c that is what they are usually judged on. Sure you can bring up advanced statistics but we are years and decades away from using them at least in college basketball voting. I guess you could say I'm falling prey to their mistakes or I'm just understanding how they vote.

As for the advanced stats, if we really did it like this, the teams would probably end up looking very different and it is unfair to pick one guy and do the advanced stats with him. If we want to go advanced stats and bring up usage rates then TJ Warren deserved a 1st team nod or at worst a 2nd team. Leads conference in eFG%, 8th in PER, 3rd in offensive rating, etc.

As for using usage rates, I'm not sure that the lower usage rate guys will ever get the nod. Such is the life but if you aren't used much on your team than you obviously have better players on your team and there is something to be said for being the focal point on offense and still putting numbers up. Curry and Greene had equal ORTG on kenpom but who do you think had the more impressive season? The guy used on 31.7% of his possessions or the one used on 22.5% of them?

And pace-wise, I don't think you'll ever see votes give a slow paced team any benefit. The narrative this whole season has been how this season has been ugly and slow so why would we go back and adjust all these stats for pace? Sure, JMM's stats should be normalized a bit for UNC's pace but when has that ever been done before.

I agree with all of what you said here. But all of what you said here is consistent with voters being biased in favor of count stats rather than actually considering who the best players were.

If you actually picked the 15 best players over the course of the ACC season (taking into account both count stats and some acknowledgement of pace and usage), McAdoo would most certainly not be in the top-15. That he is in the top-10 just further confirms the count-stat bias that is currently present in the media.

You're essentially arguing that it's okay McAdoo is top-10 because that's the way the media votes. We're arguing that McAdoo shouldn't be in the top-15 because the media is doing it wrong.

InSpades
03-11-2013, 02:42 PM
You don't necessarily have to use such "advanced" stats. Looking at FG% I don't think is too much to ask. JMM shot 45% from the floor. Mitchell shot 54%. Mithcell was also a 70% FT shooter while JMM was 57%.

CDu
03-11-2013, 02:43 PM
Agree with this, and suspect it is Larkin. Given the remarkable job Miami did, relative to expectations, I have to figure that the POY is on that team.

Not saying that's fair or what I want to see -- but I think that logic is pretty compelling for many.

The problem for Larkin is that his numbers just don't stand out compared to Mason.

Overall season:
Larkin: 13.7 ppg, 4.4 apg, 3.8 rpg, 2.0 spg, 2.2 tpg, 48.2 fg%, 40.3 3pt%
Mason: 17.2 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 2.0 apg, 0.9 spg, 1.5 bpg, 2.8 tpg, 58.9 fg%

In ACC play:
Larkin: 13.8 ppg, 4.8 apg, 3.9 rpg, 1.8 spg, 2.2 tpg
Mason: 16.0 ppg, 9.7 rpg, 2.3 apg, 1.2 spg, 1.4 bpg, 2.9 tpg

When you consider how biased the media is toward count stats, I think that difference in production more than offsets any edge Miami has for finishing one game above Duke in the standings (while playing an easier ACC schedule and catching a few breaks in timing on that schedule, too).

CDu
03-11-2013, 02:50 PM
You don't necessarily have to use such "advanced" stats. Looking at FG% I don't think is too much to ask. JMM shot 45% from the floor. Mitchell shot 54%. Mithcell was also a 70% FT shooter while JMM was 57%.

Yup. And Mitchell averaged 1.3 more rebounds (even ignoring the pace difference), 1.1 fewer turnovers, and a similar number of blocks, assists, and steals.

Basically, the only place McAdoo outperforms Mitchell is in jersey name and PPG. Taking even a rudimentary look deeper in the stats would show that Mitchell outplayed McAdoo. That difference is only magnified as you look deeper and deeper.

The case is a bit more shaky for Anderson, who is still more efficient but less so. But Anderson averaged more PPG, more RPG, more APG, fewer TPG than McAdoo even ignoring the tempo factors.

The only argument in favor of McAdoo over either player is that McAdoo played for UNC and had some ACC Player of the Year hype coming into the season. Even when looking at only count stats, it could be easily argued that Anderson and Mitchell were better. If you take FG% and turnovers into account, the margin spreads. If you then take tempo into account, the margin gets huge.

wgl1228
03-11-2013, 03:15 PM
I agree Larkin should be on the first team but does anyone think this talk of player of the year is just to give it to someone on the best team? I heard Adam and Joe on 99.9 the fan last week make a really good argument against him. One example was that Erik Green was only a few assists off Larkin's total. Also during this end of the year slide, they had noticed that Larkin seemed to hold on to the ball much of the possession and failed to get his teammates involved.

roywhite
03-11-2013, 03:25 PM
I agree Larkin should be on the first team but does anyone think this talk of player of the year is just to give it to someone on the best team? I heard Adam and Joe on 99.9 the fan last week make a really good argument against him. One example was that Erik Green was only a few assists off Larkin's total. Also during this end of the year slide, they had noticed that Larkin seemed to hold on to the ball much of the possession and failed to get his teammates involved.

On a slight tangent, seems to me that Miami has lost some of their positive chemistry in the latter part of the season. Two reasons could be Larkin's excessive dribbling as noted, and also the unsuccessful integration of big Reggie into the lineup.

Back to the All-ACC selections, or at least POY, my choices would be
1. Erick Green
2. Mason
3. Larkin

None of the three would be a bad choice IMO.

Olympic Fan
03-11-2013, 03:48 PM
My gripes:

--I have no problem with the first team, but I wonder about the four voters who didn't vote for Plumlee, the five who didn't vote for Erick Green and the five who didn't vote for Shane Larkin ... what the heck where they thinking?

-- I have an even bigger problem with the 14 voters (out of 77) who didn't vote Rasheed Sulaimon or TJ Warren first-team All-rookie (not necessarily the same 14 guys ... but 14 total for each). Really? I can understand the debate between Hanlan, Sulaimon and Warren for rookie of the year -- I don't have a problem with any of the three ... but you thought five freshmen were better than Suliamon? Five better than Warren? What were you watching?

-- I don't have a big problem with the all-defensive team, but the vote totals scare me -- Larkin was the leading vote getter. I wonder why? Last week Larranaga was asked on the ACC teleconference about his defensive anchors and he talked long and passionately about Durand Scott and Kenny Kadji. He never mentioned Larkin. A number of other coaches were asked about the best defenders in the league and Durand Scott was almost the unanimous pick as the league's best defender (with Jontel Evans as a distant second pick). Not one coach mentioned Larkin. Yet, Larkin led the votes on the all-defensive team by a fairly wide margin. He does rank second in the ACC in steals, but the guy who ranks first in steals (Lorenzo Brown) didn't make the team. If Larkin beats out Scott for defensive player of the year, it will be a major injustice.

-- Count me among those who things it's an outrage that JMMcdoo beat out Ryan Anderson and Akil Mitchell for the last second team spot. It's true that McAdoo leads Mitchell in points (14.6 to 13.1), but Mitchell leads in almost every other important category -- rebounding (8.9 to 7.6), field goal percentage (54.1 to 44.8), free throw percentage (70.4 to 57.4), assists per game (1.5 to 1.2), and less turnovers (50 to 84). And that doesn't take into account the fact that UNC plays one of the fastest tempos in the country, while Virginia plays one of the slowest. Anderson's numbers are better across the board -- points (15.1 to 14.6), rebounds (8.1 to 7.6), field goal percentage (47.8 to 44.8), free throw percentage (62.9 to 57.4) assists (1.5 to 1.2) less turnovers (59 to 84). And Anderson compiled his stats in a much slower tempo too.
McAdoo does lead both in steals and the three are almost even in blocked shots -- Anderson 14, McAdoo 13, Mitchell 12.
There is NO justification for putting McAdoo on the second team ahead of those two.

-- Where is C.J. Harris? The guy doesn't make third team? He's the number 5 scorer in the league. He lead the league in FT percentage ... he's tied with Erick Green for 3-pointers made. I know Wake ain't that good, but they did beat Miami (Harris had 23), Virginia (Harris led Wake with 16) and NC State (okay, he only had 10 against the Pack. He finished his season with 29 against Erick Green and VPI in a win.

Outrageous that he missed even third-team recognition. I think he's the best CJ in the league (but the second-best Harris).

CDu
03-11-2013, 03:58 PM
On a slight tangent, seems to me that Miami has lost some of their positive chemistry in the latter part of the season. Two reasons could be Larkin's excessive dribbling as noted, and also the unsuccessful integration of big Reggie into the lineup.

Very good point. All the talk about "best team" should be tabled too. Miami finished one game ahead of Duke in the standings while playing an easier schedule, and they lost the only head-to-head matchup with both teams at "full strength" (granted, that was at home).

As such, I'm not sure the "Larkin was the best player on the best team" is a strong argument (I would have considered it two weeks ago - not now).


Back to the All-ACC selections, or at least POY, my choices would be
1. Erick Green
2. Mason
3. Larkin

None of the three would be a bad choice IMO.

I'd go with:
1. Green (ridiculously efficient for such a high-volume player; will be hurt by playing on losing team)
1b. Harris (also ridiculously efficient; will be hurt by team's tempo)
3. Mason
4. Larkin (stats just aren't good enough to warrant Player of the Year, even though his impact on Miami's season has been undeniable)

But I think Mason will get it.

dukelifer
03-11-2013, 04:02 PM
My gripes:

--I have no problem with the first team, but I wonder about the four voters who didn't vote for Plumlee, the five who didn't vote for Erick Green and the five who didn't vote for Shane Larkin ... what the heck where they thinking?

-- I have an even bigger problem with the 14 voters (out of 77) who didn't vote Rasheed Sulaimon or TJ Warren first-team All-rookie (not necessarily the same 14 guys ... but 14 total for each). Really? I can understand the debate between Hanlan, Sulaimon and Warren for rookie of the year -- I don't have a problem with any of the three ... but you thought five freshmen were better than Suliamon? Five better than Warren? What were you watching?

-- I don't have a big problem with the all-defensive team, but the vote totals scare me -- Larkin was the leading vote getter. I wonder why? Last week Larranaga was asked on the ACC teleconference about his defensive anchors and he talked long and passionately about Durand Scott and Kenny Kadji. He never mentioned Larkin. A number of other coaches were asked about the best defenders in the league and Durand Scott was almost the unanimous pick as the league's best defender (with Jontel Evans as a distant second pick). Not one coach mentioned Larkin. Yet, Larkin led the votes on the all-defensive team by a fairly wide margin. He does rank second in the ACC in steals, but the guy who ranks first in steals (Lorenzo Brown) didn't make the team. If Larkin beats out Scott for defensive player of the year, it will be a major injustice.

-- Count me among those who things it's an outrage that JMMcdoo beat out Ryan Anderson and Akil Mitchell for the last second team spot. It's true that McAdoo leads Mitchell in points (14.6 to 13.1), but Mitchell leads in almost every other important category -- rebounding (8.9 to 7.6), field goal percentage (54.1 to 44.8), free throw percentage (70.4 to 57.4), assists per game (1.5 to 1.2), and less turnovers (50 to 84). And that doesn't take into account the fact that UNC plays one of the fastest tempos in the country, while Virginia plays one of the slowest. Anderson's numbers are better across the board -- points (15.1 to 14.6), rebounds (8.1 to 7.6), field goal percentage (47.8 to 44.8), free throw percentage (62.9 to 57.4) assists (1.5 to 1.2) less turnovers (59 to 84). And Anderson compiled his stats in a much slower tempo too.
McAdoo does lead both in steals and the three are almost even in blocked shots -- Anderson 14, McAdoo 13, Mitchell 12.
There is NO justification for putting McAdoo on the second team ahead of those two.

-- Where is C.J. Harris? The guy doesn't make third team? He's the number 5 scorer in the league. He lead the league in FT percentage ... he's tied with Erick Green for 3-pointers made. I know Wake ain't that good, but they did beat Miami (Harris had 23), Virginia (Harris led Wake with 16) and NC State (okay, he only had 10 against the Pack. He finished his season with 29 against Erick Green and VPI in a win.

Outrageous that he missed even third-team recognition. I think he's the best CJ in the league (but the second-best Harris).
Larkin is a very good player and facilitator but I have never seen him as a defensive stopper- not even close. Scott usually has to guard the teams best player. I am not even clear how Larkin made this top 5 list. Very odd.

Mudge
03-11-2013, 04:31 PM
Where's Len? Alex Len. The highest rated pro prospect.

Leslie 3rd team? Not that he deserves higher, but he was sure expected to do better. Still a pro prospect, but why?

You've got to wonder if maybe there isn't/wasn't an anti-Maryland bias (hah), given their departure-- in other words, why reward anyone from Maryland, unless their candidacy was simply undeniable.

oldnavy
03-11-2013, 04:39 PM
Well I'm using counting stats b/c that is what they are usually judged on. Sure you can bring up advanced statistics but we are years and decades away from using them at least in college basketball voting. I guess you could say I'm falling prey to their mistakes or I'm just understanding how they vote.

As for the advanced stats, if we really did it like this, the teams would probably end up looking very different and it is unfair to pick one guy and do the advanced stats with him. If we want to go advanced stats and bring up usage rates then TJ Warren deserved a 1st team nod or at worst a 2nd team. Leads conference in eFG%, 8th in PER, 3rd in offensive rating, etc.

As for using usage rates, I'm not sure that the lower usage rate guys will ever get the nod. Such is the life but if you aren't used much on your team than you obviously have better players on your team and there is something to be said for being the focal point on offense and still putting numbers up. Curry and Greene had equal ORTG on kenpom but who do you think had the more impressive season? The guy used on 31.7% of his possessions or the one used on 22.5% of them?

And pace-wise, I don't think you'll ever see votes give a slow paced team any benefit. The narrative this whole season has been how this season has been ugly and slow so why would we go back and adjust all these stats for pace? Sure, JMM's stats should be normalized a bit for UNC's pace but when has that ever been done before.

Well, you have to assume that the press actually watches the games right? And how anyone could have watched JMM play this year and think he is one of the top 10 players in the league, puzzels me.

OldPhiKap
03-11-2013, 04:40 PM
You've got to wonder if maybe there isn't/wasn't an anti-Maryland bias (hah), given their departure-- in other words, why reward anyone from Maryland, unless their candidacy was simply undeniable.

"Maryland is dead to me." -- ACC Writers Association.

Kedsy
03-11-2013, 04:40 PM
Larkin is a very good player and facilitator but I have never seen him as a defensive stopper- not even close. Scott usually has to guard the teams best player. I am not even clear how Larkin made this top 5 list. Very odd.

Perhaps the voters are trying to justify why he's an easy first-teamer and POY candidate, and since his stats aren't so good figure it must be because of his defense?

dukebluesincebirth
03-11-2013, 05:46 PM
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/78969/bullock-mcadoo-on-all-acc-second-team

Congrats Blue Devils and lets make a March run!!

BigWayne
03-11-2013, 05:53 PM
My gripes:

--I have no problem with the first team, but I wonder about the four voters who didn't vote for Plumlee, the five who didn't vote for Erick Green and the five who didn't vote for Shane Larkin ... what the heck where they thinking?



One voter each (could be the same guy) voted Mason and Larkin on the 3rd team. That can only be someone trying to use their 1st and 2nd team votes to push a player up that they feel the other voters will neglect.

On the other hand, I am glad to see there are only 5 guys on the first team.

toooskies
03-11-2013, 06:16 PM
Well, I don't know how many people are calling Kelly our best player. I think the argument is made that he's one of our most critical players. But I'd have to believe that the list is pretty short for guys calling Kelly our best player.

At the risk of being a page late, I'll take the bait.

Kelly is our best defensive on-ball player; at the time of his injury, opponents were shooting 22% against him (link (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8830027/ryan-kelly-duke-blue-devils-indefinitely-right-foot-injury)). He was our best help-side defender, leading to his team high in block percentage. He is the team's best 3-point shooter by percentage by far and the has the best offensive rating by a large margin.

People may have various definitions for "best player", but mine is who puts points on the board and keeps them off the board from the other team. And I believe RK is the best at those two things on this team, all-around.

Wander
03-11-2013, 06:40 PM
He is the team's best 3-point shooter by percentage by far and the has the best offensive rating by a large margin.

I'm not sure it's completely fair to directly compare Kelly's season-long stats to other players on the team, though. Kelly only had to play in one road game all season.

sporthenry
03-11-2013, 06:52 PM
At the risk of being a page late, I'll take the bait.

Kelly is our best defensive on-ball player; at the time of his injury, opponents were shooting 22% against him (link (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8830027/ryan-kelly-duke-blue-devils-indefinitely-right-foot-injury)). He was our best help-side defender, leading to his team high in block percentage. He is the team's best 3-point shooter by percentage by far and the has the best offensive rating by a large margin.

People may have various definitions for "best player", but mine is who puts points on the board and keeps them off the board from the other team. And I believe RK is the best at those two things on this team, all-around.

I think the biggest thing is, everyone looked at Duke with and without Kelly and was amazed at his impact. No doubt a huge one but he was probably the second best player to lose in the sense we had replacements on the bench. If Curry, Cook or Mason went down, we'd have more difficulty replacing them. So I just think it is a bit unfair to just look at how important Kelly is when we don't have those same splits with/without our other players.

As for the stats, I think advanced stats are still in their infancy. Defensively, certainly the opponents shooting percentage against is relevant but his block % isn't that much better than Mason and still trails top blockers like Shelden Williams.

And offensively, I don't think most will agree he is our best offensive player. His ORTG is probably a bit overrated with the Miami game and even then, the ORTG isn't perfect. Amile is higher than Cook, Sheed, and Mason. Tyler is ahead of Alex. Most of Kelly's 3's are wide open and I'd bet if Mason or Curry got injured and Kelly was focused on more defensively, his numbers would see a similar drop.

I think Kelly is very good and perhaps when you add defense, he might be the best all around player but that is still up for debate. But my biggest gripe is take any of Quinn, Seth, Mason, Ryan, or perhaps even Sheed out of the line up and I suspect Duke would see their stats fall off b/c those are the 5 best players on the team and there is a significant drop off in production after them. That is why this is a very good team b/c they complement each other so well. Take Cook away and Curry is forced to play point where he isn't comfortable, teams don't have to worry about TT as much and double Mason off of him and the floor becomes congested so Kelly isn't as open as he is now.

Olympic Fan
03-11-2013, 07:41 PM
A week from now, it will be interesting to compare the writers' team with the coaches' team.

This is the first year the ACC coaches will be picking their own All-ACC team. The team announced today was picked by ACSMA is the traditional team, the one that's been picked since 1954 (it was called ACSWA in those days). For a few years in the 80s I think, the AP picked a different all-acc team (picked by a panel of sports editors). It got little attention and was soon discontinued.

Not sure who instigated the coaches team -- from the conversations I've had with them, they are not too keen of voting. I also don't know WHEN they vote -- although the team is not announced until next week, not sure they'll vote after the ACC Tournaent -- imagine how that could impact voting. Well, we don't have to imagine it. In 1966, Steve Vacendak was the No. 8 vote-getter on the ACC balloting before the tournament. He then won tourney MVP honors. The next week, they voted on POY and Vacendak won the award -- as a second-team All-ACC guy.

If the vote is this week, I expect it to be very similar to the writers' vote -- their preseason projections were very much like the writers -- they had NC State, Duke, UNC 1-2-3 in that order. They did have Miami 4th, one spot higher than the writers. In fact, that was the only difference in the poll -- both had Maryland, Virginia, Clemson, Ga Tech 6-9. They also had exactly the same all-star votes as the writers -- CJ Leslie was their POY, Rodney Purvis was their ROY and their preseason first team was Lorenzo Brown, C.J. Leslie, JM McAdoo, Michael Snaer and Mason Plumlee.

Oh well, I guess 1 for 7 ain't too bad.

Troublemaker
03-11-2013, 07:57 PM
I think the biggest thing is, everyone looked at Duke with and without Kelly and was amazed at his impact. No doubt a huge one but he was probably the second best player to lose in the sense we had replacements on the bench.

I disagree strongly with that, for all the many reasons that have been discussed so much in recent Kelly threads. He's the leader of the defense, communicating from the backline, putting people in the right positions and generally being a 6'11" shotblocker and very good help defender. The replacements couldn't come close to duplicating that (and nobody is a bigger Amile fan than me). Offensively, Kelly makes things easier for everyone by allowing players to operate in space, something that Amile and Josh definitely couldn't do with their limited range. When Mason can operate 1-on-1 inside because there are 4 shooters on the court, he's a heck of a lot more efficient than when he has to deal with a crowded lane.

Kelly easily leads the team in plus/minus and I don't think the stats lie in this case. My two cents. I strongly believe Ryan Kelly is Duke's best all-around player and I'm certain he's Duke's most valuable player.

Kedsy
03-11-2013, 08:24 PM
And offensively, I don't think most will agree he is our best offensive player. His ORTG is probably a bit overrated with the Miami game and even then, the ORTG isn't perfect.

Ryan had by far the best oRating on the team when he got hurt, so suggesting he has the highest now because of the Miami game isn't accurate.

That said, I agree the team would take a big hit if any of our five starters became unavailable. I suspect the biggest hit would be with Ryan, but it's hard to say for sure. We don't really have a replacement for any of the five. Hopefully, we'll stay healthy from here on out.

ncexnyc
03-11-2013, 08:34 PM
Let me borrow a scene from “Casablanca.”
Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
[aloud]
Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!

Well I’m shocked, shocked to find people are now hedging on who our best player is. When Ryan went down we were given page after page of gloom and doom, along with all manner of facts and figures as to why our season was finished. Josh and Amile weren’t getting much love on this board. A funny thing happened. Once they were thrown into the pool we found out they could swim.

I would venture to guess that if Mason went down we’d find out that Marshall could actually swim. I also believe that if Seth went down and we were forced to play Rasheed at the 2, that Alex would have been able to takeover at the wing and do a very credible job. As they say, “Necessity is the mother of invention.”

These kids are at Duke for a reason and it’s because they actually have talent. So while some of you like to talk about the concept of the fist, how about you actually believe it. The sum of any Duke team is greater than each individual component and that is truly what a team should be and why Coach K is the Hall of Famer that he is. He actually believes what he preaches

As for the topic of JMM. There seems to be a great deal of disdain for this young man. Was it his fault the media anointed him the way they did? I don’t think so. You’ve got a kid who has been asked to play out of position and he has done this, while putting up decent numbers. Do UNC players get overhyped? Probably, but I’m sure fans at MD and BC feel the same about our kids as well. As Booker T. used to say, “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”

sporthenry
03-11-2013, 08:34 PM
I disagree strongly with that, for all the many reasons that have been discussed so much in recent Kelly threads. He's the leader of the defense, communicating from the backline, putting people in the right positions and generally being a 6'11" shotblocker and very good help defender. The replacements couldn't come close to duplicating that (and nobody is a bigger Amile fan than me). Offensively, Kelly makes things easier for everyone by allowing players to operate in space, something that Amile and Josh definitely couldn't do with their limited range. When Mason can operate 1-on-1 inside because there are 4 shooters on the court, he's a heck of a lot more efficient than when he has to deal with a crowded lane.

Kelly easily leads the team in plus/minus and I don't think the stats lie in this case. My two cents. I strongly believe Ryan Kelly is Duke's best all-around player and I'm certain he's Duke's most valuable player.

Does the 30 point drubbing have anything to do with +/-. If I get some time I'll run the +/- on games where they all only played.

Sure everything you said was right but again, you didn't really address how Duke fares without Cook or Curry or Mason. No Mason means Duke has no post presence and Kelly is left trying to play C. No Cook means TT is the point which probably means a lot of ball handling by Curry which hurts his production.

Yes, Kelly is/was very important and perhaps as a senior he was the glue on defense but take just about any starter out of the team and this team stumbles. That is my main point is that just about every starter's value over the replacement player will be as big or bigger than it was with Amile/Josh at the 4. Like I said, imagine Ryan or Josh playing significant minutes against Len or Reggie.

Look at Miami, they had Scott and Johnson miss their early season losses but that doesn't mean they are better than Kadji or Larkin but that without them, they aren't a complete team and without viable replacements, the loss is more amplified than it would be in something like the NBA.

cptnflash
03-11-2013, 08:38 PM
Two thoughts:

Congrats to Ryan for getting All-ACC honorable mention recognition despite only playing 4.5 out of a possible 18 ACC games. That is seriously impressive.

PJ Hairston should sue Roy Williams for malpractice. PJ is at worst UNC's second best player after Bullock (and quite possibly their best player period), but Roy played him so sparingly for most of the season that he didn't have a chance to accumulate the counting stats that the voters love so much. If Roy had played PJ for 80-85% of UNC's minutes instead of 50%, he'd be All-ACC second team at least (hopefully in place of McAdoo).

FerryFor50
03-11-2013, 08:42 PM
Two thoughts:

Congrats to Ryan for getting All-ACC honorable mention recognition despite only playing 4.5 out of a possible 18 ACC games. That is seriously impressive.

PJ Hairston should sue Roy Williams for malpractice. PJ is at worst UNC's second best player after Bullock (and quite possibly their best player period), but Roy played him so sparingly for most of the season that he didn't have a chance to accumulate the counting stats that the voters love so much. If Roy had played PJ for 80-85% of UNC's minutes instead of 50%, he'd be All-ACC second team at least (hopefully in place of McAdoo).

I wonder if PJ ever regrets not coming to Duke..l bet he'd play here. :)

sporthenry
03-11-2013, 08:50 PM
These kids are at Duke for a reason and it’s because they actually have talent. So while some of you like to talk about the concept of the fist, how about you actually believe it. The sum of any Duke team is greater than each individual component and that is truly what a team should be and why Coach K is the Hall of Famer that he is. He actually believes what he preaches

Fair enough although this is a message board and a discussion about individual accolades so it naturally makes sense that at some point this devolves into who is better than who. Contrary to my participation in these threads, I actually hate individual awards and discussing them b/c I agree with K that the fist is greater than the whole and it becomes near impossible trying to decipher what is actually attributable to the player and what is attributable to the rest of the team.

I agree that if we were forced to play Murphy or Marshall more, they'd learn to swim very quickly so I'm not trying to disparage them. I just think we were best suited to play without Kelly the most since we had a junior on the bench who was already the 6th man and the other 3 guys in Amile, Marshall and Alex all got time at that position. So we pretty much got to test all of those guys out and see who was most ready to play which is why I think on the bench, Duke was best suited to replace the 4 spot.

cptnflash
03-11-2013, 08:55 PM
Actually, one more thought while I'm at it. Huge congratulations to Richard Howell for a much deserved honor of making All-ACC First Team. I've been saying all year that he was NC State's best player (as have many others on this board), and I'm glad to see him finally get some recognition from the media as well. Much like Mason, Howell finally got his foul rate under control this season, allowing him to stay on the floor long enough for his considerable talents to really make an impact. He's a testament to the value of hard work, determination, and commitment. So a tip of the cap to you, Richard Howell, on a job well done. Hopefully in a few months you'll be getting paid big bucks to pull down all those rebounds!

Newton_14
03-11-2013, 09:08 PM
I don't like JMM that much but it really isn't criminal to Ryan Anderson. Looking at numbers, JMM and Anderson were pretty much even as Anderson had 14.5 points to JMM 14.4. Both had 7.2 rebounds and JMM averaged 1.5 steals per game while Anderson wasn't even listed on ACC's website.

Mitchell probably has a better case 13.0 poionts, 8.8 rebounds and 1.2 steals but neither was that much better than JMM. I don't think the gap should have been so big but with all the hype, I'm not surprised. Also assuming that the Sports Media Association is NC centric and has plenty of North Carolina fans on it, can't expect much more.

I am an eye test guy, and leave the geek stats to folks like Kedsy, CDu, many others, etc, but without even checking I would bet a large sum of money that Ryan Anderson was far more efficient on offense than McAdoo. McAdoo's numbers only look good if you take them w/o peeling the onion back a layer. Like CDu said above, "count stats". McAdoo is a poor defender, poor shooter from the floor and the line, and is a turnover machine. Yet he took the most shots on the team by like 30% or some ridiculous number. Bullock should have been the player with the most usage for the heels.

I am not trying to hate on the kid, I just think he is not nearly good enough to warrant 2nd team. I would not put him on 3rd team either.

JasonEvans
03-11-2013, 09:13 PM
-- Count me among those who things it's an outrage that JMMcdoo beat out Ryan Anderson and Akil Mitchell for the last second team spot. It's true that McAdoo leads Mitchell in points (14.6 to 13.1), but Mitchell leads in almost every other important category -- rebounding (8.9 to 7.6), field goal percentage (54.1 to 44.8), free throw percentage (70.4 to 57.4), assists per game (1.5 to 1.2), and less turnovers (50 to 84). And that doesn't take into account the fact that UNC plays one of the fastest tempos in the country, while Virginia plays one of the slowest. Anderson's numbers are better across the board -- points (15.1 to 14.6), rebounds (8.1 to 7.6), field goal percentage (47.8 to 44.8), free throw percentage (62.9 to 57.4) assists (1.5 to 1.2) less turnovers (59 to 84). And Anderson compiled his stats in a much slower tempo too.
McAdoo does lead both in steals and the three are almost even in blocked shots -- Anderson 14, McAdoo 13, Mitchell 12.
There is NO justification for putting McAdoo on the second team ahead of those two.

While I am loathe to do it, because I am no JMM fan, I do think there is one argument being missed in the discussion of JMM vs. Mitchell and Anderson.

Winning.

In the case of Ryan Anderson, he put up his numbers for a team that went 7-11 in the conference. Mitchell was clearly the "second fiddle" on a Virginia team that parlayed an easy schedule and success at home into 5th place in the regular season (tie for 4th, but NC St won the tie). Meanwhile, JMM was the "team leader" on the league's 3rd place team. Even if you don't consider the UNC vs. UVA comparison to carry much weight, we have to give JMM some kind of boost when compared to a player on Boston College.

I think the writers sometimes look at the standings and say, "this team finished high in the standings. Who led them to that position?" And then they put that player onto one of the All-ACC teams. I think a case can be made that the "UNC bias" everyone is talking about is more a "standings bias." Carolina won 12 games this year. The writers figure someone on a team that finished that high in the standings must be worth a 2nd team selection.

As I have said, I don't think Green should be a POY candidate because his team did so poorly in the standings. Similarly, I think some kind of boost should be given to the Carolina players, especially as compared to players who played on teams in the bottom half of the league, due to the Tarheels success in the conference this season.

-Jason "excuse me now, while I go wash my hands... they feel dirty from writing a defense of JMM" Evans

FerryFor50
03-11-2013, 09:20 PM
While I am loathe to do it, because I am no JMM fan, I do think there is one argument being missed in the discussion of JMM vs. Mitchell and Anderson.

Winning.

In the case of Ryan Anderson, he put up his numbers for a team that went 7-11 in the conference. Mitchell was clearly the "second fiddle" on a Virginia team that parlayed an easy schedule and success at home into 5th place in the regular season (tie for 4th, but NC St won the tie). Meanwhile, JMM was the "team leader" on the league's 3rd place team. Even if you don't consider the UNC vs. UVA comparison to carry much weight, we have to give JMM some kind of boost when compared to a player on Boston College.

I think the writers sometimes look at the standings and say, "this team finished high in the standings. Who led them to that position?" And then they put that player onto one of the All-ACC teams. I think a case can be made that the "UNC bias" everyone is talking about is more a "standings bias." Carolina won 12 games this year. The writers figure someone on a team that finished that high in the standings must be worth a 2nd team selection.

As I have said, I don't think Green should be a POY candidate because his team did so poorly in the standings. Similarly, I think some kind of boost should be given to the Carolina players, especially as compared to players who played on teams in the bottom half of the league, due to the Tarheels success in the conference this season.

-Jason "excuse me now, while I go wash my hands... they feel dirty from writing a defense of JMM" Evans

Yea but it's a team game. UNC wins games on talent alone. That's not something VT or BC can say. They win games in spite of their talent. So I think that while writers look at the team that's winning (kind of like MLB and the MVP award), that does not mean Anderson didn't flat out deserve 2nd team over JMM.

Plus, how many games did JMM cost his team with his poor performances and high volume of usage?

As for Green, I think a player on a bad team can win the POY, but he better be heads and shoulders above everyone else, and I don't think he is.

sporthenry
03-11-2013, 09:22 PM
I am an eye test guy, and leave the geek stats to folks like Kedsy, CDu, many others, etc, but without even checking I would bet a large sum of money that Ryan Anderson was far more efficient on offense than McAdoo. McAdoo's numbers only look good if you take them w/o peeling the onion back a layer. Like CDu said above, "count stats". McAdoo is a poor defender, poor shooter from the floor and the line, and is a turnover machine. Yet he took the most shots on the team by like 30% or some ridiculous number. Bullock should have been the player with the most usage for the heels.

I am not trying to hate on the kid, I just think he is not nearly good enough to warrant 2nd team. I would not put him on 3rd team either.

We already touched on it a bit. Anderson actually wasn't very efficient. He was the only guy other than Greene whose usage was over 28% so he was used more than JMM was. Mitchell is the one with the gripe but again, using pace to prorate stats seems like a novel idea of which Wisconsin players have probably been screwed over in the past 5 years if we go that route.

My biggest gripe with it was we brought up advanced stats for JMM/Mitchell but nobody else. Advanced stats probably leaves Anderson, JMM, or Leslie off the list in favor of guys like Okaro White, Devin Booker or TJ Warren. If we are going to get up in arms about JMM than you have to stay consistent throughout.

Troublemaker
03-11-2013, 09:25 PM
Does the 30 point drubbing have anything to do with +/-. If I get some time I'll run the +/- on games where they all only played.


You're right. You're absolutely right. Having given it some thought now, it's not fair to cite Ryan's huge +/- lead because the rest of the team had to play a bunch of games without him, which drained their +/- while he was always playing with a full complement of teammates.

Darnit, spreadsheet time. I now want to figure this out.




Sure everything you said was right but again, you didn't really address how Duke fares without Cook or Curry or Mason. No Mason means Duke has no post presence and Kelly is left trying to play C. No Cook means TT is the point which probably means a lot of ball handling by Curry which hurts his production.

While losing any starter would be a blow, I do think Ryan would be the biggest blow. It's completely subjective now, I know (hence, spreadsheet time), but here's what I'm thinking. Thornton is the 6th man (and sometimes starter) on this team, and his +/- (2nd to only Ryan) is not misleading because he's played every game. Basically, losing any of the starting guards would be tough, but it wouldn't be as big a blow as losing Ryan because you could always backfill with a very capable 6th man in Thornton. There's a dropoff from Thornton to Hairston/Jefferson.

So, to me, the "most valuable" debate basically comes down to Ryan vs Mason. Whom would we miss more? Personally, if given the choice, I would rather run Ryan and Amile out there than Mason and Amile (or Josh or MP3). With Ryan out there, the court is still spread, allowing the guards to drive and take on more of the scoring load, and Ryan would still be there captaining the defense. The key, though, is that Amile actually has very nice hands and is a crafty finisher inside, enough so that he sports a nifty 116.6 ORating, which is actually higher than Mason's 113.4 (not that I believe Amile is better or anything). Basically, my argument would be that Amile could come closer to providing what Mason does (inside scoring and rebounding) than Amile (or Josh or MP3) could come to providing what Kelly does (stretch 4 that captains the defense). IMO, Ryan is the most unique, irreplaceable player on the team.

vick
03-11-2013, 09:38 PM
While I am loathe to do it, because I am no JMM fan, I do think there is one argument being missed in the discussion of JMM vs. Mitchell and Anderson.

Winning.

In the case of Ryan Anderson, he put up his numbers for a team that went 7-11 in the conference. Mitchell was clearly the "second fiddle" on a Virginia team that parlayed an easy schedule and success at home into 5th place in the regular season (tie for 4th, but NC St won the tie). Meanwhile, JMM was the "team leader" on the league's 3rd place team. Even if you don't consider the UNC vs. UVA comparison to carry much weight, we have to give JMM some kind of boost when compared to a player on Boston College.

I think the writers sometimes look at the standings and say, "this team finished high in the standings. Who led them to that position?" And then they put that player onto one of the All-ACC teams. I think a case can be made that the "UNC bias" everyone is talking about is more a "standings bias." Carolina won 12 games this year. The writers figure someone on a team that finished that high in the standings must be worth a 2nd team selection.

As I have said, I don't think Green should be a POY candidate because his team did so poorly in the standings. Similarly, I think some kind of boost should be given to the Carolina players, especially as compared to players who played on teams in the bottom half of the league, due to the Tarheels success in the conference this season.

-Jason "excuse me now, while I go wash my hands... they feel dirty from writing a defense of JMM" Evans

I literally do not understand how a person could believe McAdoo played better than Mitchell in conference play this season. Forget about advanced stats and pace adjustments (though I think you would search in vain for ANY stat--PER, Win Shares, Plus-Minus--that says McAdoo outplayed Mitchell). I mean, take a look at their basic stats in ACC play:



Player Akil Mitchell James Michael McAdoo
Team Virginia North Carolina
G 18 18
MP/G 32.5 31.4
FG/G 5.2 5.8
FGA/G 9.5 13.3
FG% 0.550 0.438
FT/G 2.6 2.8
FTA/G 3.7 5.1
FT% 0.687 0.543
ORB/G 2.4 2.3
DRB/G 6.4 4.8
TRB/G 8.8 7.2
AST/G 1.2 1.1
STL/G 1.2 1.5
BLK/G 0.4 0.6
TOV/G 1.7 2.4
PF/G 2.2 2.4
PTS/G 13.0 14.4


Keep in mind, Mitchell did this on a team which finished all of one game behind UNC in the standings. Who in their right mind would take McAdoo here? It borders on surreal. Let me ask this--suppose you take any one of our players. Then have that player shoot four extra times a game, turn the ball over nearly one more time, and shoot a little over two more free throws a game--in order to generate barely one more point a game? Would anyone be happy about this development? Every advanced stat on the planet would say that's value-destructive because it's basically impossible to construct a rational model of how basketball works where it doesn't harm your team to do that. Now I don't know whether it's pace-bias, ignoring efficiency, or NC-centric bias, but it's just wrong.

CDu
03-11-2013, 09:52 PM
While I am loathe to do it, because I am no JMM fan, I do think there is one argument being missed in the discussion of JMM vs. Mitchell and Anderson.

Winning.

In the case of Ryan Anderson, he put up his numbers for a team that went 7-11 in the conference. Mitchell was clearly the "second fiddle" on a Virginia team that parlayed an easy schedule and success at home into 5th place in the regular season (tie for 4th, but NC St won the tie). Meanwhile, JMM was the "team leader" on the league's 3rd place team. Even if you don't consider the UNC vs. UVA comparison to carry much weight, we have to give JMM some kind of boost when compared to a player on Boston College.

I think the writers sometimes look at the standings and say, "this team finished high in the standings. Who led them to that position?" And then they put that player onto one of the All-ACC teams. I think a case can be made that the "UNC bias" everyone is talking about is more a "standings bias." Carolina won 12 games this year. The writers figure someone on a team that finished that high in the standings must be worth a 2nd team selection.

As I have said, I don't think Green should be a POY candidate because his team did so poorly in the standings. Similarly, I think some kind of boost should be given to the Carolina players, especially as compared to players who played on teams in the bottom half of the league, due to the Tarheels success in the conference this season.

-Jason "excuse me now, while I go wash my hands... they feel dirty from writing a defense of JMM" Evans

First, UNC finished exactly one game ahead of UVa, so "winning" is not any meaningful argument that should put McAdoo over Mitchell. One could argue for it over Anderson, but the counter would be that it is more impressive that Anderson was more efficient on a weaker team. In other words, teams could focus more on Anderson than they could on McAdoo. In spite of that, Anderson was more effective.

For some reason, the quality of one's teammates has been deemed a factor in one's resume for postseason honors. I get the sentiment that winning should matter. But winning is a team accomplishment, not an individual accomplishment. Postseason awards are individual honors, not team honors.

vick
03-11-2013, 09:53 PM
My biggest gripe with it was we brought up advanced stats for JMM/Mitchell but nobody else. Advanced stats probably leaves Anderson, JMM, or Leslie off the list in favor of guys like Okaro White, Devin Booker or TJ Warren. If we are going to get up in arms about JMM than you have to stay consistent throughout.

I would also have left off Leslie, FWIW, as he's basically McAdoo replacing a couple of bricks with a turnover. It's a pretty close call between those two. But I don't even think State fans were saying he should be second team.

But like InSpades said, you don't really need a computer to parse the gap between Mitchell and McAdoo--a glance at the FG% column should be enough.

JasonEvans
03-11-2013, 09:55 PM
I literally do not understand how a person could believe McAdoo played better than Mitchell in conference play this season.

I hear ya and I agree. Mitchell deserved 2nd team over JMM. I was mostly constructing my argument regarding Anderson of BC.

And, to further refute my own argument, as I think about it more and more, I think a smart sportwriter would look at UNC and say, "they won games because JMM, Bullock, and (to a lesser extent) Hairston and a couple other guys were all good but not great players. It was not a case of one guy lifting them to 3rd in the conference, it was more a team effort. So, rather than put one of their decent players on the 2nd team, the smartest thing might be to put a couple of their players on the 3rd team."

-Jason "anyone bother to think about how much money JMM has lost by staying in school this year... from high lottery to late first round" Evans

CDu
03-11-2013, 10:04 PM
We already touched on it a bit. Anderson actually wasn't very efficient. He was the only guy other than Greene whose usage was over 28% so he was used more than JMM was. Mitchell is the one with the gripe but again, using pace to prorate stats seems like a novel idea of which Wisconsin players have probably been screwed over in the past 5 years if we go that route.

Anderson was not greatly more efficient than McAdoo, but he was still more efficient. And his count stats were better across the board, even ignoring tempo. So Anderson certainly has a gripe. Mitchell has a bigger gripe.

I'm not sure why you're so offended by discussing how tempo factors in to the discussion. It's a definite factor when discussing count stats. A guy shouldn't be penalized because his team slows the game down. But that's exactly what happens in the ACC postseason awards (unless that slow-down team is just so successful that you HAVE to include someone - sort of like Miami).


My biggest gripe with it was we brought up advanced stats for JMM/Mitchell but nobody else. Advanced stats probably leaves Anderson, JMM, or Leslie off the list in favor of guys like Okaro White, Devin Booker or TJ Warren. If we are going to get up in arms about JMM than you have to stay consistent throughout.

Ignore advanced stats. Just look at FG%, FT%, turnovers, and count stats. On the basis of those not-very-advanced metrics, McAdoo is inferior to both Anderson and (especially) Mitchell. And that's without considering tempo (which deflates the stats of Anderson and Mitchell and inflates the numbers of McAdoo).

As for the second part, Leslie should probably not be on the list. He was atrocious at times in the second half of the season. His inclusion, like McAdoo's, is driven largely by his pre-season hype and his count stats. His FG% was solid (better than White's and Booker's), though his FT% lags well behind White. Honestly, I'd have no problem with Leslie being dropped for Booker (or better yet McKie or Harris), but probably not White (and definitely not Warren). Warren's advanced metrics look fabulous, but I think you do have to consider that he was the 4th/5th option and wasn't a starter. There's an art to balancing advanced metrics with the eye test.

vick
03-11-2013, 10:05 PM
I hear ya and I agree. Mitchell deserved 2nd team over JMM. I was mostly constructing my argument regarding Anderson of BC.

And, to further refute my own argument, as I think about it more and more, I think a smart sportwriter would look at UNC and say, "they won games because JMM, Bullock, and (to a lesser extent) Hairston and a couple other guys were all good but not great players. It was not a case of one guy lifting them to 3rd in the conference, it was more a team effort. So, rather than put one of their decent players on the 2nd team, the smartest thing might be to put a couple of their players on the 3rd team."

-Jason "anyone bother to think about how much money JMM has lost by staying in school this year... from high lottery to late first round" Evans

Anderson is indeed a tougher case--somewhat (but not vastly) more efficient on offense. I'm not nearly the judge of defensive ability that a lot of people here are, I don't think McAdoo was great but I don't know as much about Anderson's D. Then there's the guys like McKie and the 'other' CJ who are numerically superior but on worse teams--it's tough to judge. I'm fine with guys on weak teams making it--I think Green is pretty clearly one of the five best players in the conference--but like you said, winning should matter (that and defense are the only reasons Snaer deserves to be anywhere near all-ACC, and I am very fine with him).

I actually think Bullock tends to be underrated because he's relatively quietly efficient--as much as I dislike him (and, despite how it may appear on this thread, I actually don't dislike McAdoo personally, and don't much like Bullock, but that shouldn't alter my opinion of them as basketball players), I think he probably really is worthy of second-team.

sporthenry
03-11-2013, 10:30 PM
Anderson was not greatly more efficient than McAdoo, but he was still more efficient. And his count stats were better across the board, even ignoring tempo. So Anderson certainly has a gripe. Mitchell has a bigger gripe.

I'm not sure why you're so offended by discussing how tempo factors in to the discussion. It's a definite factor when discussing count stats. A guy shouldn't be penalized because his team slows the game down. But that's exactly what happens in the ACC postseason awards (unless that slow-down team is just so successful that you HAVE to include someone - sort of like Miami).



Ignore advanced stats. Just look at FG%, FT%, turnovers, and count stats. On the basis of those not-very-advanced metrics, McAdoo is inferior to both Anderson and (especially) Mitchell. And that's without considering tempo (which deflates the stats of Anderson and Mitchell and inflates the numbers of McAdoo).

As for the second part, Leslie should probably not be on the list. He was atrocious at times in the second half of the season. His inclusion, like McAdoo's, is driven largely by his pre-season hype and his count stats. His FG% was solid (better than White's and Booker's), though his FT% lags well behind White. Honestly, I'd have no problem with Leslie being dropped for Booker (or better yet McKie or Harris), but probably not White (and definitely not Warren). Warren's advanced metrics look fabulous, but I think you do have to consider that he was the 4th/5th option and wasn't a starter. There's an art to balancing advanced metrics with the eye test.

I don't necessarily have a huge gripe using pace but if we are going to do that, then we have to do that for everyone. That means Harris probably jumps to the front of POY discussions. Mitchell is perhaps a first teamer, Hanlan is probably on there somewhere. I just didn't understand why everyone was up in arms with JMM when it wasn't the only problem with the group.

And pace has never really been used to normalize stats. In the NBA they don't really need to since teams have about equal possessions but I'm just perturbed that we are doing it now and never did it with say Malcom Delaney versus Nolan Smith.

And then your last part about trying to merge the eye test with advanced metrics is obviously the difficult part. And usage rate is a double edged sword, sure it gives you a chance to accumulate stats but it also will hurt your efficiency after a certain point and as you allude to, being the first option as JMM is, is more difficult than Mitchell who is probably the 3rd option or at least 2B behind Evans and Harris.

Troublemaker
03-11-2013, 10:48 PM
Darnit, spreadsheet time. I now want to figure this out.


So here's what I did. I went to the +/- pages on statsheet.com for our top 8 rotation players, e.g. here is Thornton's: http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/duke/tyler-thornton/plus_minus

I copied into a spreadsheet, removed all games where Kelly didn't play, and re-calculated +/- per 40 for the players.

As you might expect, Kelly's +/- per 40 came down to Earth a bit. He still leads the team, but not by such a huge margin anymore. Still, I feel comfortable in my conclusion that he's the most valuable player on the team.

+/- per 40

Kelly...........21.3
Thornton.....21.2
Curry..........18.8
Cook...........16.4
Mason.........16.0
Sulaimon.....12.5
Jefferson.......9.9
Hairston........2.8

CDu
03-11-2013, 10:55 PM
I don't necessarily have a huge gripe using pace but if we are going to do that, then we have to do that for everyone. That means Harris probably jumps to the front of POY discussions. Mitchell is perhaps a first teamer, Hanlan is probably on there somewhere. I just didn't understand why everyone was up in arms with JMM when it wasn't the only problem with the group.

As I've noted elsewhere, I'd have put Green and then Harris as the top two in the PoY race. They both made 1st team, which is why I didn't have a gripe on their behalf (yet). I would definitely vote for either of them over Mason or Larkin.


And pace has never really been used to normalize stats. In the NBA they don't really need to since teams have about equal possessions but I'm just perturbed that we are doing it now and never did it with say Malcom Delaney versus Nolan Smith.

Sure, it's been ignored in the past (and largely ignored even to this day). There are lots of things we used to do that were wrong. There are plenty of things we still do that are wrong. Ignoring tempo when considering individual honors is one of them. So saying that we previously ignored them is not a strong argument, because what we previously did was wrong. Why not start doing things the right way?


And then your last part about trying to merge the eye test with advanced metrics is obviously the difficult part. And usage rate is a double edged sword, sure it gives you a chance to accumulate stats but it also will hurt your efficiency after a certain point and as you allude to, being the first option as JMM is, is more difficult than Mitchell who is probably the 3rd option or at least 2B behind Evans and Harris.

Mitchell is most certainly the #2 option (Evans is a nonexistent scorer), and the primary post option.

As for the nuance, it's not as hard as you seem to be suggesting to merge the eye test and metrics - ESPECIALLY in the discussion of McAdoo vs Anderson/Mitchell. Anyone watching McAdoo play this year knows he's largely been awful. And while it is true that volume tends to reduce efficiency, in McAdoo's case it was self-induced volume inefficiency. He repeatedly takes wide open 15 footers. The only problem is that he's atrocious at shooting. No one is forcing him to take bad shots but himself. Contrast that with a guy like Anderson (who must shoot a lot for BC to have any chance) or Snaer (ditto) and you see the discrepancy. And of course that ignores guys like Green and Harris (but they are just so efficient that they made 1st team anyway).

Guys like Bullock and Hairston are much better offensive options. Even a freshman like Johnson is a better scoring bet at the same position. But in spite of that, McAdoo keeps jacking up shots. Jack up enough shots, and your count stats will look good. Add to that the fact that McAdoo is slightly behind the count stats and behind in simple efficiency measures (ignoring the advanced metrics) and it's a slam dunk. There are certainly cases where the nuance is more difficult. But this was a pretty glaring case.

sporthenry
03-11-2013, 10:55 PM
So here's what I did. I went to the +/- pages on statsheet.com for our top 8 rotation players, e.g. here is Thornton's: http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/duke/tyler-thornton/plus_minus

I copied into a spreadsheet, removed all games where Kelly didn't play, and re-calculated +/- per 40 for the players.

As you might expect, Kelly's +/- per 40 came down to Earth a bit. He still leads the team, but not by such a huge margin anymore. Still, I feel comfortable in my conclusion that he's the most valuable player on the team.

+/- per 40

Kelly...........21.3
Thornton.....21.2
Curry..........18.8
Cook...........16.4
Mason.........16.0
Sulaimon.....12.5
Jefferson.......9.9
Hairston........2.8

Curry missed the Delaware game so if you take out the plus 25, I think he and Curry are tied. And +/- doesn't always give you the best player as shown by the times when Shane has a better +/- than Lebron during some games or perhaps that Thiago Splitter has a better +/- on the season than Manu Ginobli.

I guess we are splitting hairs at this point and I hope to never test out the other theories but I think we'd have seen a similar fall in other stats with Curry or Plumlee going down. Heck, people think our rebounding was bad, imagine instead of Mason it is only Kelly in there trying to rebound.

Troublemaker
03-11-2013, 11:16 PM
+/- doesn't always give you the best player as shown by the times when Shane has a better +/- than Lebron during some games or perhaps that Thiago Splitter has a better +/- on the season than Manu Ginobli.

+/- in individual games might not mean much. But over a set of many games, it starts to become meaningful.



I guess we are splitting hairs at this point and I hope to never test out the other theories but I think we'd have seen a similar fall in other stats with Curry or Plumlee going down. Heck, people think our rebounding was bad, imagine instead of Mason it is only Kelly in there trying to rebound.

Yeah, we'll just agree to disagree at this point. I think Curry and Plumlee are huge parts of our team. They're 2/3rds of our Big 3 Seniors. Still, I think if we played a bunch of games without Curry, a bunch without Plumlee, and a bunch without Kelly, the impact of losing Kelly would be clearly shown to be the greatest.

But, that can't be proven definitively. Or at least I hope it can't be proven at this point! No more injuries/re-injuries this season, please!

Kedsy
03-12-2013, 12:01 AM
Mitchell was clearly the "second fiddle" on a Virginia team that parlayed an easy schedule and success at home into 5th place in the regular season (tie for 4th, but NC St won the tie).

I'm fairly sure Virginia is the 4th seed in the ACC tournament. In what way did NC State "win the tie"?

BigWayne
03-12-2013, 01:57 AM
I'm fairly sure Virginia is the 4th seed in the ACC tournament. In what way did NC State "win the tie"?

He probably fell for the ESPN.com standings order. They order teams by conference record, but then reorder tied teams by their overall record, which is in the next column. NCSU has a better overall record at 22-9 vs. UVA at 21-10. As you stated, conference seeding tiebreak is done differently.

wgl1228
03-12-2013, 09:35 AM
Anyone know what time we can expect the ACC Player of the Year announcement or press release?

CDu
03-12-2013, 10:08 AM
Anyone know what time we can expect the ACC Player of the Year announcement or press release?

Last year, the All-ACC teams were announced on Monday March 5 and the Player of the Year was announced on Tuesday March 6. So I'd expect the announcement to come today or tomorrow.

wgl1228
03-12-2013, 11:25 AM
I saw a report yesterday that the announcement will be made today. We'll probably know around 1:00pm. Fingers crossed for Mason but Green, Larkin, or Harris are worthy as well. I'm hoping the split vote will help Mason.

azzefkram
03-12-2013, 11:52 AM
At the risk of being a page late, I'll take the bait.

Kelly is our best defensive on-ball player; at the time of his injury, opponents were shooting 22% against him (link (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8830027/ryan-kelly-duke-blue-devils-indefinitely-right-foot-injury)). He was our best help-side defender, leading to his team high in block percentage. He is the team's best 3-point shooter by percentage by far and the has the best offensive rating by a large margin.

People may have various definitions for "best player", but mine is who puts points on the board and keeps them off the board from the other team. And I believe RK is the best at those two things on this team, all-around.

I would say our best player is the one most critical to the teams overall success. Without Kelly, we were still a top 10 team but probably not a serious threat to win it all. Without Quinn or Mason, we may not be a tournament team. All three are outstanding players (Seth as well).

CDu
03-12-2013, 12:25 PM
I would say our best player is the one most critical to the teams overall success. Without Kelly, we were still a top 10 team but probably not a serious threat to win it all. Without Quinn or Mason, we may not be a tournament team. All three are outstanding players (Seth as well).

I think that's a bit drastic, but I agree with the general sentiment. I think we'd be worse without Mason or without Cook than we were without Kelly. We'd still be a tournament team for sure. But we'd be sweating that tournament seeding a lot more than we were without Kelly.

Conversely, I don't think I'd say we were really a top-10 team without Kelly. We stayed a top-10 team without Kelly based largely on our hot start and on not having too many tough ACC games. But we dropped from #1 to #6 over several weeks, and had we lost to Miami upon Kelly's return we might have dropped out of the top 10 altogether. So had we been only a #7 or #8 team prior to Kelly's injury, we'd certainly have been outside the top-10 without him.

But I tend to agree that Kelly is not the most critical piece to the puzzle. He's critical, but I think not having Cook or Mason would be a bigger issue. But by having Cook and Mason, Kelly's impact is huge (because he's such a perfect complement to Mason and Curry.

JasonEvans
03-12-2013, 12:42 PM
I saw a report yesterday that the announcement will be made today. We'll probably know around 1:00pm. Fingers crossed for Mason but Green, Larkin, or Harris are worthy as well. I'm hoping the split vote will help Mason.

Huh? What split vote? If anyone is going to be hurt by "split vote" it might be Mason who falls prey to some voters picking Curry.

-Jason "I think Harris or Larkin wins" Evans

vick
03-12-2013, 01:08 PM
From VT press release (http://www.hokiesports.com/mbasketball/recaps/20130312aaa.html).

Erick Green - 38
Shane Larkin - 23
Mason Plumlee - 12

Out of 76 votes. Don't know who got the other three--I'd guess Harris.

MCFinARL
03-12-2013, 01:14 PM
From VT press release (http://www.hokiesports.com/mbasketball/recaps/20130312aaa.html).

Erick Green - 38
Shane Larkin - 23
Mason Plumlee - 12

Out of 76 votes. Don't know who got the other three--I'd guess Harris.

I assume this is right because otherwise they wouldn't have run with it at VT--but it is interesting that it's up on their website before there is anything on the ACC website. Guess the ACC folks are still too busy reporting on the addition of Notre Dame.

They have posted the unsurprising news that Larranaga is coach of the year and Hanlan is the freshman of the year.

Olympic Fan
03-12-2013, 01:17 PM
The release was supposed to be 1 p.m. today.

On the ACC website, they've posted (as of 1:10 p.m.) the rookie and coach ... no player of the year or defensive player of the year yer.

As many of us feared, Hanlan won ACC rookie by a wide margin -- 43 of 77 votes ... Rasheed was second with 15 ... Warren third with 12.

Larranaga got 75 of 77 votes for coach ... K and Rou got one each.

nocilla
03-12-2013, 01:18 PM
Durand Scott DPOY

Interesting since he didn't make the ACC-Defensive team. (not that I disagree.)

ACC Sports ‏@ACCSports
Erick Green ACC POY, Durand Scott, DPOY, Olivier Hanlan Rookie of the Year.

Olympic Fan
03-12-2013, 01:22 PM
Durand Scott DPOY

Interesting since he didn't make the ACC-Defensive team

yes he did ... but he was just the third vote-getter behind Larkin (43), Daniel Miller (37) ... Scott had 36 votes, followed by Len (35) and Jontel Evans (33)

I'm glad the voters got it right in the end ... that third-place placement worried me.

nocilla
03-12-2013, 01:24 PM
yes he did ... but he was just the third vote-getter behind Larkin (43), Daniel Miller (37) ... Scott had 36 votes, followed by Len (35) and Jontel Evans (33)

I'm glad the voters got it right in the end ... that third-place placement worried me.

Yes, I noticed that after going to look. I guess I was remembering him getting less votes than Larkin.

AGDukesky
03-12-2013, 01:45 PM
I think that's a bit drastic, but I agree with the general sentiment. I think we'd be worse without Mason or without Cook than we were without Kelly. We'd still be a tournament team for sure. But we'd be sweating that tournament seeding a lot more than we were without Kelly.

Conversely, I don't think I'd say we were really a top-10 team without Kelly. We stayed a top-10 team without Kelly based largely on our hot start and on not having too many tough ACC games. But we dropped from #1 to #6 over several weeks, and had we lost to Miami upon Kelly's return we might have dropped out of the top 10 altogether. So had we been only a #7 or #8 team prior to Kelly's injury, we'd certainly have been outside the top-10 without him.

But I tend to agree that Kelly is not the most critical piece to the puzzle. He's critical, but I think not having Cook or Mason would be a bigger issue. But by having Cook and Mason, Kelly's impact is huge (because he's such a perfect complement to Mason and Curry.

Pretty much my thoughts. Kelly makes a very good team become great but needs to be a secondary option at a typically less central position than those two. Also agree this team rarely played like a Top Ten team without Kelly and probably only once away from home if beating FSU even counts.

FerryFor50
03-12-2013, 02:02 PM
From VT press release (http://www.hokiesports.com/mbasketball/recaps/20130312aaa.html).

Erick Green - 38
Shane Larkin - 23
Mason Plumlee - 12

Out of 76 votes. Don't know who got the other three--I'd guess Harris.

I can see Green winning, but by that wide of a margin? And Plumlee only got 12 votes?

Dislike.

CDu
03-12-2013, 02:02 PM
Durand Scott DPOY

Interesting since he didn't make the ACC-Defensive team. (not that I disagree.)

ACC Sports ‏@ACCSports
Erick Green ACC POY, Durand Scott, DPOY, Olivier Hanlan Rookie of the Year.

If true, I'd have no problem with any of those selections. Green was my pick for PoY (Harris second, Mason third). Scott is a very solid choice for DPoY. And Hanlan had the best (and most consistent) year among the freshman.

I'd have loved to see Sulaimon and Mason honored with FoY and PoY, but I think the guys who got it were deserving.

Wander
03-12-2013, 02:06 PM
To the historians here: how many times has the ACC POY, or any conference POY, come from the team that finished dead last?

BuschDevil
03-12-2013, 02:08 PM
http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/031213aaa.html

Leading the nation in scoring, I think, over came being on the last place team.

CDu
03-12-2013, 02:20 PM
http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/031213aaa.html

Leading the nation in scoring, I think, over came being on the last place team.

Yup. And doing so without being simply a chucker (like Stoglin was last year). Green was a really efficient offensive player this year, and a pretty good defender too. On a team in which he was largely the only real scoring threat, to score so efficiently and so often is really impressive.

Duvall
03-12-2013, 02:22 PM
To the historians here: how many times has the ACC POY, or any conference POY, come from the team that finished dead last?

In the ACC? Never. Len Bias is the only player to win ACC POY for a team that finished below .500, and his team was a 5-seed in the NCAA Tournament.

A-Tex Devil
03-12-2013, 05:19 PM
Who voted for Michael Snaer as ACC player of the year? C'mon, fess up. It was awfully cute of you to do that, but I'm afraid we are going to have to take your vote away.

A-Tex Devil
03-12-2013, 05:22 PM
http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/031213aaa.html

Leading the nation in scoring, I think, over came being on the last place team.

Yeah. There is a lot of cache in that, rightly or wrongly. I imagine if Green was even second in the nation in scoring he loses a number of votes. But he was 2 ppg clear of the no. 2 scorer. When was the last time the ACC had a national scoring leader? JJ was 2nd.

vick
03-12-2013, 05:36 PM
Yeah. There is a lot of cache in that, rightly or wrongly. I imagine if Green was even second in the nation in scoring he loses a number of votes. But he was 2 ppg clear of the no. 2 scorer. When was the last time the ACC had a national scoring leader? JJ was 2nd.

I believe it was Grady Wallace, for South Carolina, in 1957.

If he finishes as the nation's scoring leader, Green will be the first "BCS-conference" player to win the title since Glenn Robinson in 1994.

loran16
03-13-2013, 03:14 PM
It's not official of anything, but Pomeroy - as part of his conference Tourney previews - released his ACC Players of the Year:

All-kenpom: Mason Plumlee, Duke (kPOY); Joe Harris, Virginia; Akil Mitchell, Virginia; Kenny Kadji, Miami; Quinn Cook, Duke.

Again, this incorporates Defense and promotes teams for winning which is why Erick Green is left out. Nice to see Quinn there.

superdave
03-13-2013, 04:16 PM
It's not official of anything, but Pomeroy - as part of his conference Tourney previews - released his ACC Players of the Year:

All-kenpom: Mason Plumlee, Duke (kPOY); Joe Harris, Virginia; Akil Mitchell, Virginia; Kenny Kadji, Miami; Quinn Cook, Duke.

Again, this incorporates Defense and promotes teams for winning which is why Erick Green is left out. Nice to see Quinn there.

Quinn's play this year boosted Duke a level. Remember when we were not sure if he'd be platooned with Tyler again this season? Well, he wont he job in Maui and has been solid ever since.

turnandburn55
03-13-2013, 06:36 PM
Quinn's play this year boosted Duke a level. Remember when we were not sure if he'd be platooned with Tyler again this season? Well, he wont he job in Maui and has been solid ever since.

Very strong chance Quinn Cook is first-team all-ACC next year, IMO. His progress from last year to this has been notable, and I hope to see him step up to the mantle of being one of the team leaders next season. But I digress...