Williamson sweeps ACC honors, 2-18-19

[devildeac]

Haha... thanks. Sometimes, it's hard to tell truth from fiction...

Have you been conversing with someone in the "u"nc athletic department recently?

[elvis14]

it was a joke...

Mixture of joke, hyperbole and frustration. Thank goodness Zion is on our team.

[Troublemaker]

The current gap between Zion and the next-closest player in ACC performance to date (Hunter? Blackshear? Guy? Barrett? Johnson?) is way larger than that between Battier and Forte was. If voting ending today, it would not be close.

Not true. According to sports-reference.com Battier had 10.1 winshares in 2001, Joe Forte had 4.8.
This year, Zion has 6.7 so far, Hunter has 5.2.

That's not to say that I don't think Zion will win it. But just to point out what a travesty it was for Forte to share that award, the gap between him and Battier was a chasm. There were probably at least 5 players in the ACC better than Forte that year. (JWill and Juan Dixon for sure).

Whatever the advanced stats say, they weren't a factor in that voting decision in 2001. UNC tied with Duke for 1st place that season, and *that* was probably the (bad) reason Forte won -- tie goes to the player that had less talent around him.

As long as Duke remains in 1st place this season, Zion is a huge favorite. Even if we tie with UVA, the sweep of UVA would put him over the top.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Whatever the advanced stats say, they weren't a factor in that voting decision in 2001. UNC tied with Duke for 1st place that season, and *that* was probably the (bad) reason Forte won -- tie goes to the player that had less talent around him.

As long as Duke remains in 1st place this season, Zion is a huge favorite. Even if we tie with UVA, the sweep of UVA would put him over the top.

Years ago, unless I'm on drugs, the Player of the Year and the Coach of the Year in the ACC were not awards merely based on conference games - they were awards based on the whole body of work. You know, so and so was player of the year in the league from an ACC team...but not necessarily just regarding ACC games.

I noticed some of the local talk jocks, who I hold in moderate to low regard, start to comment in a way that makes it seem like the only contemplation for these awards is in league games. Did I miss the memo?

[Jeffrey]

Have you been conversing with someone in the "u"nc athletic department recently?

Now, now, the poster could have been conversing with politicians.

[Troublemaker]

Years ago, unless I'm on drugs, the Player of the Year and the Coach of the Year in the ACC were not awards merely based on conference games - they were awards based on the whole body of work. You know, so and so was player of the year in the league from an ACC team...but not necessarily just regarding ACC games.

I noticed some of the local talk jocks, who I hold in moderate to low regard, start to comment in a way that makes it seem like the only contemplation for these awards is in league games. Did I miss the memo?

Yes, "whole regular season with extra emphasis on conference games" is how I've always understood it. Keep in mind, though, that at the time of the voting, UNC had 5 losses and Duke 4. That Duke team would go on to really separate itself from the pack in the postseason, of course, but these awards are regular season awards.

And I'm obviously not arguing in favor of using team records to decide individual player awards. I'm just re-constructing how it was possible for the voters to make such a bad decision.

[devildeac]

Now, now, the poster could have been conversing with politicians.

That is true, too. Thank you.