With eight games completed and conference play coming on fast, Damon and I wanted to reflect on what we’ve learned about the 2013-14 Panthers, and discuss what the rest of the season might hold in store. We sent a list of questions and answers back in forth, and this is the finished product. We discussed player development, reasons for concern and optimism, surprising storylines, projected finishes, and more. Thanks for reading, and happy New Year.

We had a number of preseason concerns for this team. What concern of yours has been most alleviated over the first semester? What concern remains strongest? What new concern do you have after the first eight games of the season?

Jeff: Going into the season, I was worried that Matt St. Amour was too one-dimensional to get starter minutes. I thought he was a great shooter, but was concerned that his defense, athleticism, and other offensive skills were lagging. This was dumb because we had both seen him play in person, and came away most impressed with his passing and vision, not his scoring. I think maybe I bought a little too much into the idea that the transition from Vermont high school hoops to the NESCAC would limit him more in the other areas. (The scouting lesson: trust your eyes.) What we saw in the fall semester was a complete player. While his shooting was underwhelming, his defense, passing, ball-handling, off the ball motion, vision, awareness and rebounding were all better than I expected. When he is on the court, the team plays better: the ball moves faster, there is more space to operate, and the offense is more efficient. He’s one of my favorite players to watch because of everything that he brings to the table.

The concern that remains the strongest from preseason is the hole left by Nolan Thompson’s graduation. We were used to opponents’ leading scorers being kept to about 50% of their season average against Middlebury, because of Thompson’s shutdown defense. This year, the opponent’s leading scorer on the season has scored above his season average in six of eight games. In other words, Middlebury has gone from otherworldly to sub-par in their ability to stop elite individual opponents. And the effects have been noticeable: As a team, Middlebury is allowing 11.4 points per game more this season than last. (And already has as many losses as they did all of last regular season.).

The new concern that has emerged is that this team might be without Dylan Sinnickson for the rest of the year. This is a player who was on the court fot 38 minutes in the opening weekend, after not having played for a year and a half, and scored 29 points, on 10-20 FG shooting, 5-7 from three. He is an exceptional shooter and a strong athlete on defense and in the fast break as well. Now, we’re not sure if he will be back in uniform for the rest of the season, and that, to me, would eliminate any hopes Middlebury had of winning the conference.

Damon: When we talked preseason about the potential problems this team might face, the most drastic one in my mind was that they just might not be good enough, deep enough or ready enough to play at a high level. That fear has been largely assuaged as the Panthers have won six of their first eight games—the same number of which were on the road—and have competed in every game they’ve played this season. The early season hasn’t been without its miscues—Middlebury looked decidedly mediocre when it played against both RPI and Castleton State—but winning ugly is, when necessary, an important process for a young team to learn. Barring a major disappointment in NESCAC play, this Middlebury team appears to have quelled any concern I had about their ability to compete with—if not beat—the best teams in the conference and the country.

The concern that remains after eight games is the workload that has been placed on the shoulders of Joey Kizel. Without a consistent second scoring option (though Hunter Merryman played 4-5 great games and Matt Daley appears to be that and more when healthy), Kizel has had to carry the team offensively for long stretches, which he can undoubtedly do, but the All-American guard is most lethal when he can pick his spots late in games and take over for the final five minutes. Unfortunately he has been forced into taking shots and making plays that he wouldn’t normally attempt in certain game situations. Playing for long stretches at maximum effort on the offensive end also threatens to jeopardize his play on the defensive end, where Kizel’s active hands and keen sense of spacing allow him to make disruptive plays that outlet into transition opportunities on the other end for the Panthers. I’m sensitive, as we all are, to the defensive—and offensive—void left by Nolan Thompson, but I still believe that Middlebury’s optimal defensive identity this season is as a team that gets into the passing lane, forces turnovers and gets out in transition, which plays more to the strengths of Kizel, Brown, St. Amour, Jensen and others. Whether it’s Merryman, St. Amour, Daley or someone else, therefore, finding a reliable scorer who can make plays when the offense is out of rhythm—tough buckets, as some might say—remains a crucial, missing ingredient to Middlebury’s potential success.

As for a new concern, I don’t think anything rivals the Sinnickson situation. When one considers (as you pointed out) Dylan’s efficiency as a shooter and ability to create his own shot in light of the team’s struggles to find a second scoring option to complement Kizel, having number 41 on the floor would lift a barbell size weight off the offense and give Jeff Brown greater flexibility in his rotation and lineups. Jeff: You make a good point about winning ugly. One thing that we should keep in mind is that Jeff Brown uses a lot of fall semester games to give opportunities and toy with lineups, and results or score differences, for Middlebury more than most teams, often are sacrificed for the sake of long-term improvement.

Matt St. Amour, Matt Daley and Jake Brown (the three underclassmen we identified preseason as the players who would make or break Middlebury’s season) all demonstrated flashes of brilliance, but were, on the whole, inconsistent through the first eight games. What should we expect from each during NESCAC play? Can the Panthers get consistent play from all three?

Jeff: This is a good question because we really don’t know the answer. These three players will all define themselves with their play going forward. St. Amour is the surest thing. He will continue to see starter minutes, improve his scoring, and might surpass Jensen and Merryman and finish the season as Middlebury’s second most valuable player. Jake Brown is capable of running the point, but needs to let the game come to him a bit more. I think he learned from his ups and downs in the fall and will be a consistent, 10-15 minute per game guy going forward. He will provide some scoring bursts, but mostly can be counted on to find open guys (currently averaging 3.7 apg) and create problems for opposing ball-handlers. Daley, in my view, is the most important of the three (repeating myself from the preseason and our broadcasts). At 6’8”, he has the offensive potential of a Ryan Sharry, as we saw in his 24-point (11-14 FG) opening night performance. He has a better developed post game than I realized, as well as a smooth outside shot, strong court vision, and an explosive finishing ability. Yet he slowly disappeared after that first game, partly due to illness, averaging 7.0 points in his other five games. He was hesitant at times, or just not getting the ball enough, and the offense was several notches worse without his scoring. I don’t know which Daley we are going to get the rest of the way, but that’s the first thing I’m going to be looking for every time this team steps on the court.

Damon: I think Matt Daley has the best chance to be a consistent offensive threat for Middlebury going forward. His performance in practice last season drew rave reviews from his teammates and we caught a glimpse of his actualized potential in his first game this season. As you mentioned, the biggest concern isn’t about his experience or whether he can play at the speed of the game, but rather his ability to impact the game to the degree that he should, whether the issue is passivity on his part or a shortage of touches due to poor execution from his teammates. Having said that, I agree that St. Amour is probably the safest bet, given his approach to the game and his role in the offense. You outlined some of the many things that St. Amour does well earlier and I think we will only see his role increase as the season progresses, as a result. When he and Daley are on the floor, the offense operates at a higher level because both guys are remarkably adept at spacing the floor and are willing passers who make the players around them better. I do think that St. Amour will be a streaky scorer this season as a freshman, along the lines of what we’ve seen so far, but the maturity of his game in other areas is striking. Jake Brown, as we suspected, is a little behind St. Amour in terms of his development as a complete player, but what I love about his approach—and St. Amour shares this—is his confidence. Both guys are tremendously talented players and they understand that, even when their shots aren’t falling or they’re struggling to make plays (you might call it the Jake Wolfin effect). I think Jake Brown’s role is one of the more intriguing questions that remains to be determined. I agree that he’s likely a 10-15-minute-per-game player who provides energy and ballhandling off the bench, but I think he may also enjoy the most significant improvement over the course of the season as the game slows down for him and his role becomes clearer. St. Amour and Daley both appear primed to step into crucial roles offensively as NESCAC play begins, but don’t be surprised if Jake Brown makes big plays down the stretch.

Middlebury is ranked 19th in the country heading into 2014. Is that too high, too low, or just right?

Jeff: I think it is just right. After three years of watching other conferences, I’ve come to believe that there aren’t a lot of great teams in Division III. This year, Illinois Wesleyan and UW-Stevens Point (led by the incredible, must-watch Tyler Tillema) are total powerhouses, and a few other teams in the midwest are dominant, but there isn’t depth of greatness across the country. So, why shouldn’t Middlebury be any higher than 19th? Because I don’t think Middlebury is great either. The defensive weakness, softness on the boards, and struggles finding an offensive identity all give me reason to believe that this team, if it makes the NCAA tournament, will not have a substantial chance of making Salem.

What is the biggest storyline/takeaway of the fall semester in the conference?

Damon: The biggest storyline from the first semester has been the play of Bowdoin. Prior to this season, Middlebury had been unbeaten against pre-New Years opponents dating back to 2008, but the Panthers have been the exception in the NESCAC in that regard. Yes, Middlebury, Bowdoin and most everyone else plays a vanilla non-conference schedule, but playing consistent basketball over a nine-game stretch is impressive and has put the rest of the league (and its esteemed bloggers) on notice. What the Polar Bears have accomplished is particularly remarkable given the offseason injury sustained by point guard Bryan Hurley, who was a burgeoning star in the conference, and may not play at all this season.

Whether Bowdoin can replicate its non-conference success against NESCAC competition remains to be seen, but after tempering our expectations for the Polar Bears after learning of Hurley’s injury, Bowdoin’s success is clearly the storyline of the first semester, for me. The question now, is whether the Polar Bears have enough ballhandling to make a run in the NESCAC.

Jeff: For me, the biggest storyline of the fall semester is Duncan Robinson. The Williams freshman, who we have been following with a combination of fear and excitement for the better part of two years, and who we picked to win conference rookie of the year, might already be one of the best five players in the NESCAC. In 10 games, the 6’7” wingman is averaging 15.0 points on 57/47/96 shooting, to go along with 7.2 rebounds, 2.0 assists, and 1.8 blocks per game. When I’ve seen him play, he looks at least that good. The game comes to him effortlessly and I don’t see anyone slowing him down. I think NESCAC fans are going to be talking about Duncan Robinson for longer than anyone else we have seen come through the conference in the last four years.

Damon: I saw Duncan Robinson play for the first time in the spring of 2012 when he visited Middlebury and I’ve been awed by his ability ever since. But I hadn’t seen those numbers yet. 15 points per game on those shooting splits as a freshman is incredible. If he somehow improves in NESCAC play he’s deserving of Player of the Year consideration.

Is Bowdoin actually a legitimate conference title contender?

Damon: It’s hard to know what legitimate title contender means, exactly, though I would lean towards yes, in the sense that after Williams and Amherst, the gap between Middlebury, Tufts and Bowdoin isn’t as significant as the dropoff that follows between the fifth and sixth best team in the NESCAC. This might be conservative on my part, but it’s hard to rule Bowdoin out, given their start, without seeing a single NESCAC matchup. Furthermore, I think Bowdoin will give certain teams fits. John Swords is a matchup nightmare for just about anyone in the conference and Andrew Madlinger and Keegan Pieri are effective wing scorers for the Polar Bears. I still think Williams is a heavy favorite to hoist the conference crown, but I think that Bowdoin has an outside shot (and that qualifies as legitimate in my book) at a NESCAC title.

Jeff: No. Bowdoin is a lot better than I expected, and the emergence of 7’0” John Swords (15.4 ppg, 9.9 rpg, 3.2 bpg, 71% FG) is one of the top storylines of the season thus far. Two other guys I’ve really enjoyed watching are sophomore Lucas Hausman (10.2 ppg, 46/19/93 shooting) and senior Grant White (you might know him as Bowdoin football’s oft-injured quarterback), who has stepped into Hurley’s spot in the rotation admirably (9.1 ppg, 3.2 apg, 52/54/59 shooting). But all of those numbers are inflated by a weak schedule, and Bowdoin’s offense is limited (73.7 ppg, 8th in the conference). I could see them finishing ahead of any one or two of Tufts, Middlebury, Amherst, and Williams, but not winning the conference.

What Middlebury player do you expect to step up his game after the break?

Damon: As I mentioned earlier I think both Matts (Daley and St. Amour) should have strong 2014 seasons, but I’m not sure that has as much to do with improvement as it does with greater opportunity. The player I expect to demonstrate the most improvement in the second semester is Jake Brown, particularly as a scorer. Brown is already a polished finisher around the basket and his combination of quickness and excellent ball-handling should open lanes to the basket. Despite playing a shade under 20 minutes per game, Brown is averaging fewer than five points per game on 41.7 percent shooting. As his shot recognition improves and he adapts completely to the speed of the game I think we’ll see even more attacks at the rim and fewer long jumpshots. Like Jake Wolfin before him, Brown appears able—as most good players are— harnessing his jumpshot for sustained scoring bursts, but at least as a freshman, Jake will be most effective working off the dribble, getting into the paint and either dishing to open teammates or finishing around the basket.

Jeff: My pick would be St. Amour, but I already discussed what impressed me about his game and the positive signs I see going forward. I’m going to go with Nate Bulluck, a guy who’s spot in the rotation isn’t a given, but who quietly put together a really nice fall. He has improved his ball-handling and shooting, and brings an assertive offensive mentality off the bench. He can hit open shots, play hard defense, and has a knack for drawing fouls while driving to the basket. He is a senior, and he looks determined to win. I think he turns the tide in a few big games this year.

In the past, teams have received important contributions from “undervalued” guys (e.g. Jamal Davis in 2011, Peter Lynch as a junior in 2012). Do you see a guy on this team playing that role?

Jeff: My answer is the same as the last question: I expect Nate Bulluck to be that guy. If not Bulluck, my choice is Jake Nidenberg. He put up 7.5 points in 15 minutes per game in the fall, and is a strong, efficient, productive presence in the paint. He looked off during the last couple of games, but Coach Brown will give him opportunities heading forward, and his scoring numbers will surprise.

Damon: Like you I’ve been really impressed by Nate Bulluck so far this season. Over the years I’ve always admired Bulluck’s moxie, but this year in addition to that unrelenting energy and fierce competitiveness, Bulluck has exuded a sense of maturity that is noticeable in both his play on the floor, but also off the court as well. In the past Nate has made his fair share of “No-No-Yes!” plays (and also a couple of “No-No-NO!” plays, too), but his drastic improvement as a ball-handler and a shooter have assuaged some of the latent anxiety I have felt in the past when he’s on the floor. He has developed a comfortable three-point shot that he takes without hesitation and is especially effective from either wing. His ability to knock down the three and create his own shot at times has helped replace some of the offensive role that might otherwise belong to Dylan Sinnickson. As in season’s past, Bulluck is at his best when he is orchestrating a Middlebury run—if nothing else having a player who can come off the bench and work against the flow of a game is valuable—but the senior guard has likely earned a larger role in the rotation this season as a spot-up shooter, strong-bodied defender and aggressive rebounder, particularly on the offensive glass. Bulluck may indeed spark a comeback or two this year, but he will also play an understated role in Middlebury’s success from one game to the next.

Middlebury plays Bowdoin, Tufts and Williams (likely 4 of the 5 best teams in the NESCAC) at home this season and there is a ton of talent between them. What individual player are you most excited to see play?

Jeff: I have already discussed two of the top candidates, Duncan Robinson and John Swords. Outside of those two, I am really looking forward to seeing Tufts freshman Hunter Sabety, a 6’8” monster who leads the team in scoring (13.6), rebounding (7.4), blocks (2.3) and field goal percentage (63%). He is likely the second best freshman in the conference behind Robinson, and I look forward to seeing how he matches up with Roberts, Jensen, Churchill, and whomever else Jeff Brown throws at him. By the way, Tufts has six guys in double figures while last year’s leading scorer, Ben Ferris, has yet to play, but should soon. That offense has scary potential.

However, the player I am looking forward to seeing most does not play for one of the teams you mentioned, and that is Graham Safford of Bates. Panther fans may remember him for his 19-point performance off the bench two Januarys ago, but after two years of inconsistent play, the junior is hitting on all cylinders in 2013-14. Taking on ball-handling duties in the wake of the injury to Luke Matarazzo, Safford is averaging 20.6 points and 5.7 assists, and 2.2 steals per game. He is 3rd in the conference in each of those categories. He can go on scorching hot runs where he is in total control on the court, and I expect him to make that January 10 game close.

Damon: Way to go above and beyond for the reader, Jeff, and to answer the “best” question possible, rather than the one that was posed (though I should have thought about Safford when I made the list). There’s so much great talent in the NESCAC this year (perhaps it’s just present-dominated thinking, but I don’t know if the league has been this good the past 4-5 seasons) that it’s difficult to isolate just one or two guys to watch. Along those lines, I really can’t wait to watch Williams play (technically the final game of my Middlebury career!); the top talent on their roster is remarkable. Michael Mayer somehow remains underrated, despite averaging nearly 18 and 9 on 57/37/76 splits last season, and Boston College transfer, Ryan Killcullen, who we expected to have a big 2012-13 season, has finally found his role in Mike Maker’s tough-to-crack rotation. I’ll be especially excited to watch Duncan Robinson play, particularly since opportunities to watch him in person may be sparse after this year. But the player I’m most looking forward to watching is Daniel Wohl, whose skillset—unlimited, as far as I can tell—intrigues me most. After battling mononucleosis for most of the regular season, Wohl recovered in time to blitz Middlebury for 19 points (and seemingly every big shot) in 31 minutes off the bench in Williams’ NESCAC semifinal victory last season. Listed as a 6’6’’ guard, Wohl can handle the ball, shoot the three and rebound the basketball (he ranks second on the team in assists, fourth in threes made and three point percentage and third in rebounds per game). By all accounts, Wohl is also an outstanding defender, which means his abilities align very closely with those of Willy Workman, another player whom I particularly enjoyed watching. Having said that I’m not nearly as acquainted with Wohl’s game as I was with Workman’s—thanks (or no thanks) to his performance at Pepin a season ago that will be marked indelibly in my mind—and I’m really looking forward to watching Wohl play and better evaluating him—and his team—with my own eyes.

What do you project the final conference standings (regular season) to be?

Damon:

1) Williams — The Ephs have easily the highest ceiling (an Amherst-type run to the national championship game wouldn’t surprise me) of any team in the NESCAC. Thus far they have failed to play to their potential, but as Amherst taught us a season ago, it’s safer to bet on talent at this point than quality of play.

2) Amherst — After Williams, the Lord Jeffs have the best one-two scoring punch in the conference in Aaron Toomey and Connor Green. Green improved considerably over the course of the NCAA Tournament last season, capped off a by an impressive performance in the national championship game and has taken another leap forward to begin the season. Amherst has dangerously little depth, but Toomey and Green will carry the offense, while David George anchors an improved defense that will considerably limit opposing teams’ scoring chances inside the paint.

3) Middlebury — The third spot is something of a toss up right now, with three teams that haven’t separated themselves by their play, with some consideration being given to preseason expectations. Middlebury takes this spot in my mind because the Panthers have the best combination of established players (I’m relying on the dangerous “been-there-before” argument to a degree) and outstanding young talent of the three. Middlebury also has the considerable benefit of playing both Bowdoin and Tufts (not to mention Williams, Bates and Colby as well) at home where the Panthers have been especially tough to beat over the past four years. It’s nearly impossible to imagine Middlebury losing more than three games given their schedule breakdown and an 8-2 or 9-1 finish seems well within reason.

4) Bowdoin — The Polar Bears competed in the conference a season ago and should take the next step this year as a top-four team in the conference. Tufts undoubtedly has a higher ceiling than Bowdoin, but the Polar Bears have demonstrated a consistency that the Jumbos have not.

5) Tufts — I’m skeptical (though I have no inside information) that Ben Ferris will be able to return and play at a high level after sustaining a pelvis injury. Resting any team’s hopes on a player’s successful return from injury is dangerous, as Middlebury fans learned from Sinnickson’s struggles to return last season (he, too, was originally expected back in early January, but ultimately sat out the remainder of the season). In Ferris’s absence, Tufts has struggled to win tight games against quality competition, something that ailed them last season as well. Getting over the hump in the NESCAC is difficult and until Tufts demonstrates they can do it, they will be an immensely talented, but incomplete team. A healthy Ferris could push Tufts into title contention, but for now my expectations are (comparatively) minimal for the Jumbos.

6) Bates — Star power is scarce at the bottom of the league and Bates has a couple different players that can take over games, including Graham Safford who has had a First-Team All-NESCAC-caliber start. The Bobcats also enjoy a considerable homecourt advantage and have the talent to beat Wesleyan and Connecticut College on the road.

7) Hamilton — At the risk of sounding flippant (and being proven wrong), the bottom four teams in the conference are competing for the final two spots in the tournament and not much else. Matt Hart is an electric player and a natural scorer and there are a couple of nice players around him, but even if the floor is somewhat high for Hamilton, the ceiling is not much higher.

8) Colby — The Mules already have double-digit losses at home (nonconference) to both Bowdoin and Bates. Chris Hudnut rounds out the NESCAC’s extremely talented crop of big men, but he will not have enough help around him this year to make a significant difference.

9) Trinity — There are some interesting pieces for the developing Bantams, but they are a year away from being an up-and-comer.

10) Wesleyan — The Cardinals were decimated by graduation—an indicator of the difference between an established top-tier team (Middlebury/Amherst) and a great class (Wesleyan). All three teams lost nearly the same amount of talent, but the Panthers and Lord Jeffs will compete for a NESCAC title, while the Cardinals will enter the relegation (just kidding!) zone.

11) Connecticut College — It’s going to be another tough year for the Camels who play home games against Middlebury, Tufts, Bates, Williams and Hamilton this season.

Jeff:

1) Williams — Too much offensive talent. Mayer, Robinson, Epley, Wohl, Kilcullen, and Rooke-Ley are probably six of the 20 best players in the league.

2) Amherst — By far the hardest pick. I don’t believe in Amherst as separating itself from the next three teams, but I don’t believe in any of the next three teams that much either. Connor Green and Aaron Toomey have been spectacular on offense this season, and they have strong support in David George, David Kalema, Tom Killian, and Ben Pollack. In a year when defensive play is down around the league, that might be enough.

3) Tufts — When Ferris comes back, they replace Middlebury as the deepest team in the league.

4) Bowdoin — Swords could replace Mayer as the first-team center if he maintains his current play, and the team defense numbers (58 ppg, 5th in the country) hold.

5) Middlebury — Joey Kizel will have something to say about this, but I don’t think this team is playing with the consistency and urgency it needs to stay in the hunt.

6) Bates — Safford and Mike Boornazien form a lethal backcourt.

7) Colby — Center Chris Hudnut is off to a remarkable start (18.6 ppg, 7.4 rpg), but has limited help.

8) Hamilton — Worst defense in the league, and no real weapons outside of sophomore star Matt Hart.

9) Trinity — Struggles on offense suggest they can’t keep up with most of the conference.

10) Wesleyan — Top four scorers are underclassmen. Good for the future, bad for the present.

11) Connecticut College — Might be another winless conference season for the Camels. Disappointing showings from Aaron McBurnie and Rob Harrigan, in particular.

Damon: Joey Kizel won’t be the only one with something to say about this ranking. My biggest critique is that consistency and urgency in nonconference play only go so far. Of course it is preferable to a lack thereof, but I still think Middlebury has the talent—and will—to improve as the season goes on. Jeff Brown’s team answered a lot of questions for me in their win over Skidmore before the break. Obviously you don’t want to take away too much from one result, but the intensity and execution was there throughout for the team. A rotation of inexperienced players was always going to require time to develop and Middlebury had (and may still have) some frustrating moments, but the foundation has been built for a run in the NESCAC.

 

December 8, 2013 Middlebury (5-2) @ Skidmore (3-1)

A year ago, the Thoroughbreds traveled to Middlebury and ran with the Panthers in the first half, shooting 52 percent from the field behind the play of 6’4” point guard Aldin Medunjanin, who provided as tough an individual matchup as Middlebury saw in nonconference play in 2012. Nolan Thompson struggled to keep Medunjanin from getting into the lane in the first half, but sagged off him considerably in the second half when Skidmore mustered just four field goals total as Middlebury cruised to what would be an eventual 19-point victory.

The game this year could look very different with Middlebury traveling to Saratoga, which has been a challenging place for the Panthers to get results in the past.. Also, sophomore Tanner Brooks, who finished last season as the Thoroughbreds’ second leading scorer did not face Middlebury a season ago. A 6’0” guard, Brooks provides another dynamic (if inefficient) scoring weapon in the backcourt for Skidmore. In the front court, Vermont native Connor Merril leads the way averaging 18 points per game on 57/56/77 shooting splits and scored 15 points on 6-12 shooting when he matched up with Middlebury last season. Playing alongside him is 6’5” sophomore (the Thoroughbreds class of ’16 is loaded) Erik Sanders who enters the game averaging 16.8 points per game. The starters—and really the rotation—are rounded out by Perun Kovacevic, a 6’6” forward, who did not play in Skidmore’s most recent win over SUNY Potsdam, but has averaged 9.3 points in three games this season.

Kovacevic’s availability will be something worth noting in this game because the Thoroughbreds, while talented, are as thin a team as you’ll find right now. Head coach Joe Burke leans heavily on his starters—Brooks, Medunjanin, Merrill and Sanders all average between 38 and 32 minutes per game—and only six players on the team are averaging more than 8 minutes per contest. The scoring disparity is even more concerning for the Thoroughbreds, who do not have a reserve player averaging more than 2 points per game.

Middlebury, which has placed a much greater emphasis this season on pushing the basketball in transition, will have opportunities to run against the Thoroughbreds, who shoot just 43 percent from the floor as a team and 34 percent from beyond the arc and are not a threat on the glass. Skidmore has limited its turnovers to a respectable rate (14.25 per game) but they have not been able to force many turnovers on the defensive end, likely because they cannot afford to risk their starters getting into foul trouble.

This is where Middlebury has a distinct advantage. James Jensen, Joey Kizel and Matt St. Amour have all been excellent at drawing fouls and getting to the free throw line so far this season and we would expect the Panthers to attack the heart of the Skidmore defense from the start and look to get out in transition as often as possible. Again, given the Thoroughbreds’ lack of depth and their poor rebounding statistics—they’ve been outrebounded on the season by some vertically challenged teams—it seems likely that they predominantly play zone on the defensive end.

If that is the case, Middlebury done a pretty good job so far this season against the zone, using good ball movement to find open shots. One area of concern, however, has been the Panthers’ three-point shooting woes. As a a team, Middlebury has made just 36 percent of the threes they have taken so far this season. Heading into the season what we thought would be a great strength of this team has actually been a puzzling weakness so far as Kizel and St. Amour in particular have gotten off to slow starts from beyond the arc.

Defensively, Middlebury can throw a number of different looks at Skidmore, both in man and zone. Skidmore plays predominantly with three front court players in the game, but does not boast any size that will concern the Panthers (6’10” freshman Larry Cermak is one to watch for the future though). The Thoroughbreds’ lack of size will allow Jeff Brown to mix and match lineups throughout the course of the game, which is something we’ve seen him do a lot during Middlebury’s first six games this season. Because Skidmore typically lines up with three “bigs” (though at 6’5” or 6’6” that’s a stretch), Jack Roberts should be able to matchup on a player (likely either Kovacevic or Brian Moore, who started the last game) who isn’t a real offensive threat, allowing Roberts to give backside help, which is where the majority of his blocks come from. Matching up around him will probably be a little more complicated as Jensen will likely draw Medunjanin to start the game. Kizel will likely guard Brooks, but the question then is whether St. Amour and Merryman can guard Merrill and Sanders. We’ve rarely seen Jeff Brown open a game in zone, but the matchups are such that, if he wants Jensen to guard Medunjanin, there may be a different starting lineup or some intriguing matchups to start this game.

Regardless of how the teams lineup, however, Middlebury’s depth and attacking offensive style should cause considerable problems for Skidmore, who have yet to play a team that can give as many diverse looks as Middlebury. If the Panthers can force the Thoroughbreds into turning the ball over and control the glass, the final score of the game could look similar to last year’s final. And yet Middlebury has not made things easy for themselves, particularly on the road. Whether the Panthers can execute their game plan and exploit some of the glaring weaknesses of a talented, but limited Skidmore team will say a lot about how far this team has progressed, seven games into the season.

After a tough 0-2 weekend at the Hoopsville Classic, the Panthers travel to Rensselaer for the first of five non-conference games before NESCAC season tips off on January 10th. The Engineers lost their top three scorers from a 17-10 squad last season, and have started off 2013-14 with three consecutive losses. RPI runs a modified Grinnell offense, in which they often pressure the ball with a full-court press, take chances on defense, look to shoot early in the shot clock, and substitute wholesale lines every few minutes. This leads to an often frantic tempo and creates unusual stat lines and tons of scoring. This is the team against which Middlebury scored a team record 123 points in 2012, that usually plays 15 players for double-digit minutes, and that allowed Pete Lynch and James Jensen a combined 39 points in last year’s matchup. As it has been each of the past few years, the RPI game will be intriguing and will probably produce a few box score surprises.

While Middlebury will be forced to adjust because of RPI’s style of play, there is little reason to believe that they will not win by virtue of being the better team. It might take some time to get accustomed to the pace of play, but RPI’s defense is porous, its offense is inefficient, and Middlebury can make more of their possessions because of the disparity in both size and talent. In last year’s matchup, Middlebury won 105-86, shooting 57% from the field and getting a lot of open looks around the basket. This season, one area of emphasis has been the fast-break, with coach Brown imploring his players to push the ball up the court after defensive rebounds. We have seen several big runs so far this season behind that style of play, pushing the tempo and taking it to basket, and we expect Middlebury to excel in transition Sunday. Jake Brown and Joey Kizel are both capable of leading the break and there is enough depth and athleticism around them to run with the substitution-heavy Engineers.

That said, one area of weakness so far for Middlebury has been passing. On several occasions last weekend, a pass back to a guard was telegraphed, thrown weakly and intercepted, leading to a fast-break layup. In particular, Middlebury’s bigs were casual with the basketball when they initiated the offense at the top of the key. Rensselaer will sell out trying to make plays on similar passes, so it will be on the Panthers to show they have learned quickly, and be more aware in those situations. In a game like this, inexperienced players (of which Middlebury has several) need to show that they are heady and can make good decisions in unexpected or chaotic situations. Because of RPI’s aggression, this matchup will be valuable for the players and instructive for the coaches. In 2012, Middlebury’s veteran-heavy squad limited RPI to four steals. This year, RPI comes in averaging 17 steals per game and will likely have more success than last year, but if it gets to double digits that should raise concerns about Middlebury’s savviness on the ball.

The rotation continues to be defined by moving pieces and the closer we get to conference play the fewer chances those on the outside are going to have to prove themselves. The only three guys who have started every game are Joey Kizel, Jack Roberts and Matt Daley. We expect one of the latter two to get pushed out by the return of James Jensen (likely in this game). Hunter Merryman’s play has earned him a start in every game since the season-opener, and he is likely to stick there. The other guard spot is going to come down to Matt St. Amour, Jake Brown and Nate Bulluck. If those eight are near-locks in the rotation, it doesn’t leave much room for the minutes of those behind them come conference play. Jake Nidenberg has scored efficiently (8.2 ppg, 70% FG in 16 mpg) and will stay in the rotation as long as he keeps that up. Henry Pendergast is battling an injury and should get an opportunity to play more on the ball in the coming weeks, which will determine his status going forward. Bryan Jones looks like he could be a strong contributor at point guard in the future but will likely only play if Pendergast’s injury keeps him out. Connor Huff, Chris Churchill, and Dean Brierly have all shown enough to play situationally, but will need some statement play this month to earn rotation minutes. For those three guys in particular, the deeper rotation against RPI will give them another opportunity to make their case, but coach Brown will likely solidify his rotation by the time NESCAC play rolls around, so opportunities to earn increased minutes are becoming sparse.

Regardless of result, today’s game will look very different from Middlebury’s loss to Stevenson on Friday. Stevenson was relentless in its defensive pressure, so much so that Jeff Brown said after the game that his team wasn’t able to reverse the ball around the perimeter. The Mustangs also essentially negated Middlebury’s transition game, both by crashing the offensive boards and getting second chance opportunities and also by tracking Middlebury exceptionally well in transition. St. Mary’s, on the other hand predominantly utilizes a 3-2 zone defensively that tat times the extend into the backcourt to provide three-quarter court pressure. Cabrini exploited St. Mary’s’ zone in many of the same ways Stevenson did to Middlebury, pulling down 15 offensive rebounds and outrebounding the Seahawks 41-27 in their win on Friday night.

Offensively the Seahawks are very polished and run a number of effective sets that get open looks for a variety of different players. Offensively they don’t look dissimilar from the past two Middlebury teams that relied on excellent offensive execution to score efficiently, if not at a break-neck pace. Middlebury does not want to play a half-court game with a St. Mary’s team that has more experience and has been more effective than the Panthers early in the season. Where Middlebury can exploit the Seahawks is on the boards and in transition, which Cabrini demonstrated Friday night. From the tape, Middlebury appears to be the more athletic of the two teams, which should give them a rebounding edge in a matchup of two susceptible teams in that area. The Panthers have played better defense than many—see our comments—seem to think, but they have not been able to close out defensive possessions by securing rebounds. In Friday’s loss, Stevenson shot 41.7 percent from the floor, a good mark by any defensive measure and one that would be far better if you consider only first-shot opportunities. In so far that rebounding is the final act of a defensive possession, Middlebury needs to improve defensively, but their base defense—and it was particularly notable when they played zone—was very effective.

On the offensive end, Middlebury needs to turn the ball over at a drastically lower rate. 25 turnovers doomed the Panthers as much as the 19 offensive rebounds they allowed and it remains somewhat remarkable that they had a chance to tie the game with 97 seconds left. Leadership, man.

To pull of the upset today, Middlebury needs to get out in transition and execute offensively, both of which can only be accomplished if Middlebury rebounds the ball effectively on the defensive end and doesn’t turn the ball over on offense. St. Mary’s has the size and polish to compete with anyone in the country, but I don’t think they will overpower Middlebury. They have the potential to be ruthlessly efficient on the offensive end and will undoubtedly take advantage of mistakes the Panthers make, but this game is more within Middlebury’s reach than the outlook of many Middlebury fans would suggest.

To Stevenson’s credit, they matched up incredibly well with Middlebury and executed a strong game plan Friday. St. Mary’s does not match up nearly as well and, given their approach defensively, cannot game plan as effectively for the Panthers as Stevenson did. Having Jensen available for this game would help tremendously—the Seahawks are led by 6’5”, 230-pound forward Brendan McFall, who is averaging 25 points per game this year—but with the exception of McFall, Middlebury matches up far better against St. Mary’s from a systematic point of view. Early in the year as the Panthers find their identity on both ends of the floor, playing two vastly different opponents like Stevenson and St. Mary’s will help Jeff Brown and his staff manage the team going forward. Don’t be surprised if today’s result and output from Middlebury looks very different from Friday.

Over the past five years, Middlebury basketball has been the picture of consistency, doing something that no other NESCAC team has done—gone undefeated in the lead up to NESCAC play, a stretch of 40 straight games without a loss. That streak ended Friday in the Panthers’ 80-69 loss to Stevenson. There has been a lot of talk—virtual talk … it hasn’t really caught on in the Proctor booth room yet—about Middlebury’s issues. Leadership has been a word that’s been thrown around a lot with many Middlebury posters concerned about an apparent lack of leadership or will from Middlebury on Friday. To me, this seems like a buzzword problem that has been exaggerated in the wake of the loss. If Joey Kizel makes the long three he attempted with 1:37 with the Panthers down 68-55 and Middlebury goes on to win, the narrative is of a resilient Panther team that saw younger players step up (dare I say into leadership roles) and steal a game in which the team underperformed. Now don’t get me wrong, with the exception of Hunter Merryman, Jake Brown and Jake Nidenberg, Middlebury played a brutally ugly game in just about all phases of the game. However, it seems impossibly early (not to mention incredibly reactionary) to worry about leadership. Joey Kizel often makes things look hard on the court and he rarely displays “good body language.” But Kizel is an exceptional leader—he has been the emotional heart of this team for the past three years—and it’s silly to question his leadership simply because his style is different from a Nolan Thompson or a Ben Rudin or whomever. Effective leadership comes in all different forms and is expressed differently by different people. Far more important than whether it appears effective from the outside is whether it is effective in the locker room and I haven’t seen or heard anything to suggest that the rest of the team has anything but the utmost confidence in Kizel. (I’ll get to his shooting problems in a moment.)

Losing, particularly in situations where you aren’t accustomed to losing early in the season, can raise premature questions. I would argue this concern over Middlebury’s leadership is such an example. This is a very inexperienced Panthers’ team that has two freshmen in its rotation as well as three sophomores who saw almost no playing time last season. Middlebury has also missed James Jensen, a versatile player on both ends of the floor, who is another team leader. And on that front, the impact of Albert Nascimento and Luis Alvarez—two seniors who won’t see very much playing time, but are respected voices in the locker room—should not be overlooked. Finally, during the preseason, Nate Bulluck was as vocal as any player we saw and organized the team and ran the offense at times, too. As fans we like to prescribe leadership roles to certain individuals on the floor who look and play the part. Some players, like Kizel, undoubtedly lead by example; but we should not discount the presence of those players whose impact is less noticeable and therefore visually reassuring.

Over the past five years (and more) Middlebury fans have had the incredible luxury of watching very polished basketball with no early season lapses. This team is not going to be those teams—and that’s a good thing. They likely won’t be as dominant against inferior competition and consistency could be a very real issue for much of the season, but I do believe, given what we’ve seen from Daley, Merryman, Brown and St. Amour, this team’s potential is as high as any Middlebury team I’ve watched and that they’re closer to realizing that potential than I thought before the season started.

So if leadership isn’t the problem, what is? I think it’s still too early to answer this question conclusively, or even confidently. But if I had to pinpoint my biggest concern, it’s consistency. Daley has demonstrated how good he can be, but can he stay out of foul trouble on the defensive end and be assertive enough on the offensive end? Is Merryman a potential All-NESCAC player with vastly improved defensive skills? Will St. Amour find his shooting stroke and give Middlebury another floor-spacing, can’t-be-helped-off offensive threat? Will Jake Brown continue to spark the team on both ends of the floor with his energy and playmaking? The play of those four guys and their ability to produce game-to-game on a consistent basis is the biggest question mark at this point.

You likely noticed that I didn’t include Joey Kizel’s shooting struggles among those questions. Through his first four games last year, Kizel was shooting 36 percent from the floor and 30 percent from beyond the arc—only slightly better numbers than what he has posted so far this season. Kizel has looked good in practice and over the course of his career has gotten better as the season goes on. If his offensive struggles carry over into NESCAC play, this will become an issue, but I think Kizel will figure it out sooner than later and return to his All-American caliber play. If you’re not convinced, ask yourself if there’s anyone else you’d rather have taking a big shot in the NESCAC (or even the country) and that should answer both your concerns about Joey’s shooting concerns and any leadership issues you think this team may have.