2014 ACC Player of the Year

[FerryFor50]

The pro-Harris case vs. Hanlan, IMO, rests on the fact that Virginia was a much, much better defensive team than Boston College, and I think in no small part due to Harris (as well as Mitchell and Brogdon). Shouldn't defense matter? UVa was every bit as defensively dominant as we were on offense (and better offensively than we were on defense)--shouldn't that show up in the all-ACC teams?

Yea, but was UVA's defense a result of Joe Harris? Or more a result of Akil Mitchell, the pack line and other factors?

Harris is a serviceable defender, but I wouldn't tout his defense as All-ACC. His dRTG is 93.7:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/...harris--1.html

CJ Fair comes in with a 98.7 dRTG:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/...cj-fair-1.html

Jabari Parker, not known for his defense, is at 97:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/...-parker-1.html

Mitchell has a dRTG of 88:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/...itchell-1.html

Coming into this season, I thought Harris would dominate. But his overall production has dropped since last season. His minutes, points per game, shooting, rebounding... even his FT % is down. He regressed. He's the anti-McDermott.

[CDu]

The pro-Harris case vs. Hanlan, IMO, rests on the fact that Virginia was a much, much better defensive team than Boston College, and I think in no small part due to Harris (as well as Mitchell and Brogdon). Shouldn't defense matter? UVa was every bit as defensively dominant as we were on offense (and better offensively than we were on defense)--shouldn't that show up in the all-ACC teams?

The problem is that there is no strong evidence to suggest that (a) BC was a bad defensive team due to Hanlan or (b) UVa was a good defensive team because of Harris.

I'd suggest that BC was bad defensively because they had no interior presence whatsoever. I think their guards Hanlan and Rahon) were actually capable defenders, but the other three spots on the floor were complete liabilities defensively. Is it fair to penalize Hanlan because his team stunk at defense? What if it is really Anderson, Jackson, Odio, and whatever scrubs are getting PT at SF through C that are causing BC to stink defensively?

As for UVa, I have seen a bunch of their games and I haven't come away thinking Harris was a really good (or bad) defender. I think what makes UVa good defensively is (a) they are TENACIOUS on the defensive boards, (b) they are really good defenders in the paint, and (c) Bennett runs a fantastic scheme. Should Harris be given credit for the fact that his team is good at defense? What if it is really Brogdon, Anderson, Tobey, Mitchell, Atkins, and Gill that are the driving forces of that great defense, and Harris is just okay?

I'm all for giving defense its due credit on the All-ACC teams. That's why I suggested that Miller make it, as I think he's the best defensive C in the conference. But it just seems like putting Harris on the All-ACC team is really just taking the next-best offensive player on UVa and giving him credit for his team's defense.

[vick]

The problem is that there is no strong evidence to suggest that (a) BC was a bad defensive team due to Hanlan or (b) UVa was a good defensive team because of Harris.

I'd suggest that BC was bad defensively because they had no interior presence whatsoever. I think their guards Hanlan and Rahon) were actually capable defenders, but the other three spots on the floor were complete liabilities defensively. Is it fair to penalize Hanlan because his team stunk at defense? What if it is really Anderson, Jackson, Odio, and whatever scrubs are getting PT at SF through C that are causing BC to stink defensively?

As for UVa, I have seen a bunch of their games and I haven't come away thinking Harris was a really good (or bad) defender. I think what makes UVa good defensively is (a) they are TENACIOUS on the defensive boards, (b) they are really good defenders in the paint, and (c) Bennett runs a fantastic scheme. Should Harris be given credit for the fact that his team is good at defense? What if it is really Brogdon, Anderson, Tobey, Mitchell, Atkins, and Gill that are the driving forces of that great defense, and Harris is just okay?

I'm all for giving defense its due credit on the All-ACC teams. That's why I suggested that Miller make it, as I think he's the best defensive C in the conference. But it just seems like putting Harris on the All-ACC team is really just taking the next-best offensive player on UVa and giving him credit for his team's defense.

That's fine, except I don't think Hanlan has looked particularly capable defensively in the games I've watched, at least by all-ACC standards. But then shouldn't Mitchell be higher than third team? You didn't even have him on any of the teams, if I am looking at this correctly. Put differently, can you imagine a team winning the conference by two games and having a single spot on the all-ACC team (as you would have it) if they did it in a style like Duke this season, with exceptional offense? I don't think it would ever happen. So why should it happen with if the team does it with exceptional defense?

Here are the teams to win the conference outright since expansion in 2005:

UNC 2005 - May (1), Felton (1), J. Williams (3), McCants (3)
Duke 2006 - Redick (1), Williams (1),
UNC 2008 - Hansbrough (1), Ellington (2)
UNC 2009 - Hansbrough (1), Lawson (1), Green (3)
UNC 2011 - Zeller (2), Henson (2), Barnes (2), Marshall (3)
UNC 2012 - Zeller (1), Henson (1), Barnes (1), Marshall (2)
Miami 2013 - Larkin (1), Kadji (2)

All of them had at least two players in the top 10. I can accept reasonable disagreement with Harris (is the gap between #10 and #16 so large?). What I don't buy is that a team can win the conference rather easily, and somehow do it with only one of the top 15 players.

[CDu]

What I don't buy is that a team can win the conference rather easily, and somehow do it with only one of the top 15 players.

See, I see no reason why this couldn't be the case, especially in a 15-team conference. Let's say the team had a top-5 player and then players 16-22. Wouldn't you think that that team would have a shot at the top seed? That team would have only the one representative on the all-conference team.

With UVa, the reason I didn't include Mitchell is because I think it is the system and the balance of talent (they are very good from 1-8 in their rotation) rather than the individual players that make their defense so good. I would put Mitchell on the All-defensive team for sure. But I don't think his individual defense is enough to offset his rather pedestrian offense.

[vick]

See, I see no reason why this couldn't be the case, especially in a 15-team conference. Let's say the team had a top-5 player and then players 16-22. Wouldn't you think that that team would have a shot at the top seed? That team would have only the one representative on the all-conference team.

With UVa, the reason I didn't include Mitchell is because I think it is the system and the balance of talent (they are very good from 1-8 in their rotation) rather than the individual players that make their defense so good. I would put Mitchell on the All-defensive team for sure. But I don't think his individual defense is enough to offset his rather pedestrian offense.

Yeah, in theory, I agree that team would be really good. FWIW, I look at a variety of metrics that try to explain efficiency margin--Basketball-Reference's win shares (calculated both the way they do it for college and for the pros), a statistical plus-minus method, and so forth, and generally but not always they put Harris and Mitchell in the top-15. PER, which doesn't try to account for defense aside from steals, blocks, and rebounds, doesn't (the others adjust the levels of players up based on team defense that isn't accounted for in those stats--like the dRTG Ferry referenced). But it's for sure an inexact process, and individual stats can probably only explain half, at most, of a player's defensive value. For example, Fair in particular tends to look pretty bad on these sorts of things (not top 15), but I think he's a pretty valuable defender in their zone.

[CDu]

Yeah, in theory, I agree that team would be really good. FWIW, I look at a variety of metrics that try to explain efficiency margin--Basketball-Reference's win shares (calculated both the way they do it for college and for the pros), a statistical plus-minus method, and so forth, and generally but not always they put Harris and Mitchell in the top-15. PER, which doesn't try to account for defense aside from steals, blocks, and rebounds, doesn't (the others adjust the levels of players up based on team defense that isn't accounted for in those stats--like the dRTG Ferry referenced). But it's for sure an inexact process, and individual stats can probably only explain half, at most, of a player's defensive value. For example, Fair in particular tends to look pretty bad on these sorts of things (not top 15), but I think he's a pretty valuable defender in their zone.

Totally agree on the bolded part. I also agree with one of your earlier comments about the difference in player #10 vs player #16 (I might even extend that all the way to player #20 or so) is fairly small this year.