We’ve covered a lot in the past two days, but there were a couple of thoughts and questions that needed to be discussed further. The following is our attempt to answer those questions and share our final thoughts about the team before the season begins.

Who do you project to be day one starters? Who are your first four off the bench?

DAMON:
G – Henry Pendergast
G – Joey Kizel
F – Hunter Merryman
F – Dylan Sinnickson
C – Jack Roberts
Bench – Nate Bulluck, Matt Daley, Matt St. Amour, Chris Churchill

JEFF:
G- Henry Pendergast
G- Joey Kizel
G- Nate Bulluck
F- Hunter Merryman
C- Jack Roberts
Bench – Matt St. Amour, Matt Daley, Dylan Sinnickson, Jake Nidenberg

JEFF: Kizel is the obvious start. I put Bulluck next to him because I think Jeff Brown likes him for his experience and defense. Next it came down to Pendergast or Sinnickson for me, and I took Pendergast because I don’t think Bulluck and Kizel are enough in terms of ball-handling, at least early in the season. That said, I don’t want Pendergast playing too much. Even though they are looking to move Kizel off the ball this year, at this early juncture the team needs an experienced distributor so that everybody else can focus on more complementary roles. On the bench, I think Sinnickson will be the first substitution, probably for one of the guards, to test out a bigger lineup. Jake Brown would be in the discussion but he sustained an injury and is likely out for this tournament. The same goes for James Jensen. St. Amour gets rotation minutes right away because of his offensive maturity, while Daley and Roberts could essentially split minutes at center. Are we assuming too much in regards to the talented by unproven duo of Matts?

DAMON: We’re one paragraph into this conversation and I’m already backtracking. This isn’t a good sign of things to come. You’ve sold me on your Bulluck argument, particularly because Sinnickson is working his way back from a year away from basketball and then an injury this fall that cut his football experiment short. What can I say—he made a pretty compelling case to start on our radio show a couple of weeks ago. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve overreacted to a compelling pitch. The ball-handling concern is a fair one and Nate has really improved in that department. Given the departure of Jake Wolfin and Nolan Thompson, Bulluck probably realized that improving his dribbling and trying to assume Thompson’s third-guard role in the offense was his best avenue to more minutes—smart.

And no, we’re not assuming too much from the pair of Matts. I think we’re going to see a lot of different lineups in today’s game and I would imagine both of those guys will be featured heavily. You and I both agree that if Middlebury is going to make a deep tournament run (we’ll get to that in a moment) Daley and St. Amour will need to have big seasons. Obviously the talent is there in bundles, the question is whether one or both can realize it. I like your Nidenberg pick—he has had a great preseason—but I think Churchill will get a good look in this game. Coach Brown has to figure out what he has at the ‘5’ and determining the rotation between Roberts, Daley and Churchill is one of the most pressing questions.

•••

What about halfway through the NESCAC season? Does the starting five change, assuming good health? The top reserves?

JEFF:
G – Jake Brown
G – Joey Kizel
F – Hunter Merryman
F – James Jensen
C – Matt Daley
Bench- Matt St. Amour, Nate Bulluck, Dylan Sinnickson, Jack Roberts

DAMON:
G – Joey Kizel
G – Matt St. Amour
F – James Jensen
F – Hunter Merryman
F – Matt Daley
Bench – Jake Brown, Dylan Sinnickson, Jack Roberts, Connor Huff

DAMON: So you’ve gotten caught up in the Jake Brown hype, huh? In all seriousness, I think we have a similar outlook for JB, but I see St. Amour starting over him because a Kizel, Brown starting backcourt is, uh, vertically limited. Also, I think ultimately, if Daley and St. Amour win starting jobs, Middlebury will have enough offense on the floor to move Kizel back onto the ball, which is where I think he is most effective and will allow him pick his spots late in games. Speaking of which, the lineup Jeff Brown uses to close games will be equally intriguing. If Kizel is going to transition late in games and look to score more, it may require either Brown or Henry Pendergast (who neither of us have in our first four off the bench) to be in the game in order to add an extra ball handler. The interesting question to me is who they would replace—likely either St. Amour or Merryman. If it comes down to the two of them, my bet is St. Amour stays on the floor, but Sinnickson may also work his way into the closing lineup, too. Too many closing options is anything but a bad problem, though. Jeff Brown will be able to determine his lineup based on how his team matches up defensively and ride the hot hand offensively.

If there’s a bench guy Middlebury fans should watch this season, it’s Connor Huff, in my opinion. Everytime Huff takes the floor, whether it’s in practice or a game he makes things happen. He’s a hard worker and a good shooter, who can score from anywhere inside the three-point line. If he gets an opportunity early, I think he’ll stick.

JEFF: We both are projecting some high potential guys to improve, which is what this season will depend upon. One guys whose role is going to be interesting to watch is Jack Roberts. He could take a senior year jump after starting as a junior, but I actually think the style of play of this team (fast-paced, stretch the court) might not fit well with his game. He could turn into an opponent-specific stopper at center. Against most D-III teams, Jensen, Sinnickson, and Daley are enough to hold up defensively down low. One thing I love about this rotation is the potential for Kizel, St. Amour, Merryman, and Daley to all be on the court together. Each is an excellent outside shooter for his position, and a distributor like Jake Brown or Henry Pendergast could drive and kick to whomever the defense dictated. Sinnickson and Jensen are also strong enough in the mid-range to mesh with that strategy.

•••

Is this team going to make the NCAA Tournament?

JEFF: Yes. One thing that we often forget is how dominant the NESCAC is. I see no problem with four teams going to the tournament, and I don’t see Middlebury finishing below fourth in the conference, which would probably mean six losses before tournament play (Alvernia, St. Mary’s, Tufts, Williams, Amherst, Conference semifinals). If this is the floor (or a slight variation of it), given that those losses will most likely have come against five tournament teams, they will beat out the at-large candidates from weaker conferences. Even if the complementary players underwhelm, Joey Kizel and a decent supporting cast should be enough.

DAMON: This question makes me far more nervous than it should. Obviously Middlebury is a more established team than Wesleyan was in 2011-12, but the Cardinals went 20-6 (7-3) and advanced to the NESCAC semifinals that year, but missed out on an NCAA Tournament bid. Gun to my head—or deadline advancing—I’ll say they make it, if only because I think Jeff Brown is a tremendous coach and there is a ton of talent on this roster, which goes 14 players deep. Of those 14, Middlebury realistically needs eight to nine players to have solid to spectacular seasons  to make it’s seventh consecutive NCAA Tournament. So yeah, I think they’ll make it, but I also get the feeling we’ll be all kinds of nervous watching the selection show come March.

•••

Where will Joey Kizel rank among the recent Middlebury greats when his career is over?

JEFF: Let’s put Ben Rudin and Tim Edwards aside because we both would probably put Joey above them without a fair treatment, since they came before our time. The Middlebury greats who we are talking about are Andrew Locke, Ryan Sharry, Nolan Thompson, and Jake Wolfin. Those are the players who defined the program over the past four years. Locke was the most breathtaking to watch, Sharry was the best offensive player, Wolfin mastered the art of the point guard, and Thompson was the best shutdown defender we’ll ever see. Right now, because Sharry and Thompson had more complete games, I’m saying they are the top two, then Kizel, then Locke and Wolfin. Kizel belongs there right now because in addition to his remarkable scoring, he has singlehandedly won this team more games over the past two years than anyone else. We are guaranteed some more vintage Kizel games this season, as he is going to have to start putting the team on his back in a few hours, and might not stop until March. He is within range of the top of the list.

DAMON: You’re not really addressing the question. Yeah, right now I’d put Thompson and Sharry ahead of Kizel, but to me, when his career is over—short of a truly disappointing senior season—Joey is at the top of this list. And you can throw Rudin, Edwards and pretty much whomever else you want onto that list. Other guys may finish with gaudier numbers than Joey, but more than any player I’ve ever been around only one thing matters to Kizel: whether his team wins the final game of the season. When we look back on his career and all of the awesome, incredible—and I mean awe inspiring and truly unbelievable—things he did during his career at Middlebury, there’s no way anyone else tops him on that list. You baited me with this question because I’m not sure there’s another athlete across any sport at any level I’ve enjoyed watching more than Joey Kizel. (This is just between you and me right?)

JEFF: Sure thing. Here’s why it’s hard for me: Sharry might have been the best player in the country his senior year, putting up totally obscene numbers that reflected on-court dominance: 18.8 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 2.0 apg, 2.0 bpg, 1.0 spg, and 61/43/67 shooting splits. If that doesn’t make you think twice, look at those numbers again. You can nitpick some of his performances, but this program will never have somebody who can do it all like Sharry could. And Thompson might challenge Kizel’s claim to the greatest will to win, in addition to being an underrated offensive player and otherworldly on defense. All I’m saying is, let’s be cautious—we’re dealing with some big time claims. But a scoring jump and a few more magic moments from Kizel this year, and I’ll happily concede.

•••

How much will losing Nolan Thompson’s defense hurt this team?

DAMON: This is a difficult question to answer because it depends so much on whether Middlebury evolves into an explosive offensive team that relies on forcing turnovers and getting out in transition. Either way, though, I think Middlebury will noticeably miss Nolan’s defense, in much the same way they’ve missed Andrew Locke’s presence inside the past two seasons. Think about how many times we’ve thought to one another, “It would be nice to have Andrew in this game.” Well, we’ve already started doing that with Nolan, who would be all kinds of helpful this weekend against an undersized, guard-heavy Alvernia team. And while Jensen should return to the court soon at full health, he’s really the only guy who can comfortably match up against the plethora of wings in the NESCAC and beyond. There will also be a fair number of games (Williams comes to mind, in particular) when Jeff Brown is going to have to pick his poison because he doesn’t have the benefit of two defenders who can shut down guards, wings and forwards. Where this team may mitigate some of the loss of Nolan is with Jake Brown, who’s going to be a really good defender and, perhaps more importantly, plays the style of defense that is perfect for this team. Nolan was a lock-down defender who made it impossible for his man to move sometimes, let alone dribble, pass or score. Jake might not be as adept keeping his man in front of him, but he will also force more turnovers, which will let this team run the floor. I’m already so excited to watch him pick guys’ pockets and find Daley or Sinnickson running the floor. They may not win as many games as we want, but there are going to be dunks this year.

JEFF: Well wins and dunks have a pretty even exchange rate in my mind, so that’s a nice consolation. (This statement will be less funny and more sad if this team doesn’t find a defensive identity.)

I’ve never experienced anything as a fan like what we experienced with Thompson. The fact that the first thing that we would do when we were looking at a future opponent is look for their best scorer’s height, and if it was under 6’6” stop worrying about him, is amazing. And it wasn’t hubristic on our part either. Thompson shut down all of these guys, usually surpassing our expectations, and forcing opposing offenses to make due with their other four players. In Division III, where so many teams are built around one superstar—often a score-first guard—that was a pretty incredible luxury. We can hope that this year’s defense is opportunistic, but I’m less optimistic than you. Are they athletic? Yes, but I’m not sure this team has many fundamentally strong defenders. This will be exposed, and we will see a lot more great individual scoring performances from opponents this year than we are used to.

•••

Who will be the second leading scorer, behind Kizel?

DAMON: Ugh, you’re baiting me again. I should know better than this, but the season is less than 24 hours away and I’m giddy. Matt St. Amour will be the second leading scorer after Kizel. (This is either going to look very smart or very stupid five months from now.) I think St. Amour will slowly work his way into the rotation and the starting lineup, but defer to his teammates early in the season. There’s going to be a moment, though, sometime this season when St. Amour realizes he can play a big role on the offensive end. And while he may not be able to consistently beat his man off the dribble, and there will be times when looks like a freshman, I think he’ll have a couple of games where his potential becomes his production and St. Amour goes off.

To temper my enthusiasm slightly, I don’t see a non-Kizel player averaging more than about 12 points per game and I think shots and points will be pretty evenly distributed across the rotation. So it’s not so much that I think St. Amour will take the NESCAC by storm, but that he’ll outproduce his teammates in a balanced Middlebury offense.

JEFF: St. Amour is a great shooter, but adjusting to the speed of the college game will be tough, and he might not play enough minutes to score so much right away. Here’s my ranking of the most likely players to finish second in scoring:

1) Hunter Merryman – 8.3 points in 15 minutes per game last year; if his outside shooting is on, he will certainly put up double digits.

2) James Jensen – I agree that the scoring will be evenly distributed, and Jensen will get the second-most minutes on the team. He can finish around the hoop, and get to the line frequently.

3) Dylan Sinnickson – Lest we forget, he scored at a torrid rate his freshman year; he might not have a complete game yet, but he produces when he is on the floor.

4) Matt St. Amour – I love his shot, and I love his offensive approach, but I still have concerns about the transition.

5) Matt Daley – If he starts early (which I think is just a 25-30% chance), he moves to first on the list. He can finish down low, run the break, and stretch out to beyond the arc.

DAMON: I’m glad you were more reasonable in your response than I was. The readers definitely appreciated your more well-rounded response to the question. I do think your critique of my response is fair and if not St. Amour, then I agree that Merryman is the most likely alternative to follow Kizel in points per game. Again, the reasoning behind my St. Amour pick isn’t so much that I don’t believe in the other guys you listed as much as I think they’re all going to score in the 8-12 points per game range, opening the door for St. Amour, if he makes the transition. To that point, I think the NESCAC, while full of gifted athletes, is a fairly easy league for a player of St. Amour’s caliber to transition into. It won’t always be pretty, but I don’t see any reason why St. Amour can’t have a Matt Hart type season, taking fewer shots, but scoring with greater efficiency. Maybe I’m blindly naive, but I’m going with my instinct until I see something that tells me otherwise.

•••

What can we expect from Matt St. Amour and Jake Brown over the course of their careers?

JEFF: I think these two both start for three years, St. Amour scores 1,200 points, and both are first-team all-league guards their senior season. Brown already seems in his element with the upperclassmen, and just makes things happen on both ends of the court. St. Amour needs to build on his game to be a top scorer but is starting in a better place offensively than any freshman in recent memory. Let’s not discount the two underclassmen who will be sharing the backcourt with them, Henry Pendergast and Bryan Jones. That nucleus can accomplish a lot in the coming years.

DAMON: My amour for the freshman class is forte as the French would say. And since I’ve already outed myself as a member of the MSA fan club, I’ll keep plowing forward (jump on now, Panther nation). I think Matt St. Amour will be discussed similarly to Joey Kizel by the next version of us (do you think they’ll be cooler than we are?). I think St. Amour is a future All-American, NESCAC scoring champion and when his career is all said and done, his name is going to be very close to the top of Middlebury’s all-time scoring list. Brown, meanwhile, has a chance to be special, too. He’s a true point guard, with great ball skills and could be a future NESCAC Defensive Player of the Year candidate. Offensively, he has shades of Shasha Brown in his game, though I think he’ll score fewer points (and take fewer bad shots, too) and accumulate more assists. More than anything, I think the two of them will be a nightmare backcourt for opposing teams to prepare for and matchup with. Throw Bryan Jones and Pendergast into the mix and you have the making of a truly special backcourt that could rival the Wolfin, Thompson, Kizel trio.

 JEFF: If there is a next version of us, I can only hope they are cool enough to not refer to Panther nation in its common noun form. And prudent enough to never try to defend themselves logically against critics.

DAMON: They’re already a lost cause.

•••

So what do you make of this team? What are your final thoughts before the season starts?

JEFF: On the one hand, this program finally made it to elite status after years of mediocrity, and these recruiting classes reflect that prestige. On the other hand, we just experienced what felt like the program’s golden years, with some irreplaceable players, and most guys on this team haven’t accomplished anything. This reflects a tension between big-picture high expectations and some relatively low short-term expectations. I have little doubt that Middlebury will compete at a national level as long as Jeff Brown heads the program. As of right now, I won’t be surprised if the growing pains are too much for them to match recent success. Middlebury fans, of late, are used to total dominance. Over the past five years, this team has lost 10 regular season games. Connecticut College lost that many games in conference play last winter. We’re going to experience some uncharacteristic losses, and might have to recalibrate our expectations if certain players don’t emerge. Having said that, I already like a lot about this team, and with Joey Kizel and Jeff Brown at the helm, there aren’t many programs in the country I would bet on against these guys.

DAMON: Honestly, this season could go in so many different directions, very few of which would surprise me. I’ve gone back and forth on this team a number of times during the course of writing the preview and I’m still not particularly confident I have a great feel for where things are headed this season (but please, don’t stop reading!). We laughed about how positive my player breakdowns were, but that’s because it’s very difficult to critique potential. If little to none of this team’s potential is realized, it could be a disappointing season, where Middlebury falls flat and fails to make the NCAA Tournament. I’m (sort of) prepared for that possibility. The freshmen could all be a year away—despite what I’ve expounded over the thousands of words I’ve written about the team—and without significant contributions from St. Amour and/or JB, it’s going to be hard for this Middlebury team to make a deep tournament run, or even an appearance. But again, I’m hanging my hat on the last time a Jeff Brown team was in this situation—Jake Wolfin and Nolan Thompson’s freshman year, when an understated recruiting class—only Wolfin was expected to contribute—replaced then the most decorated senior class in program history. I think Brown and St. Amour can make similar impacts (obviously in different ways) to Wolfin and Thompson, particularly playing alongside Kizel, who is going to make life easier for both of them on the floor. And yeah, there may be a loss to Tufts or Bowdoin along the way—this team certainly won’t be as consistently excellent as the 2009-13 teams—but I do think, come March, if things go well, this team’s ceiling is just as high as any of those teams. For now, I’m going to forget how many conditionals were in that statement and enjoy the start of the basketball season. Regardless of where this season ends up, it’s so good to have Middlebury basketball back in our lives.

In our conference breakdown, we discussed how Middlebury would match up with every opponent, and projected a final conference regular season record of 8-2. But this year, more than any other, their fate could be determined by how they finish out of conference. Given the likely non-conference success that will be had by Williams, Amherst, and Tufts, Middlebury might be looking for a fourth NESCAC bid to the NCAA tournament come March, and organizers will look to this brutally tough November schedule to gauge their caliber. Given all of the moving parts coming into place this fall, the Panthers will not be playing at their potential early. After those tests, the non-conference schedule eases up. The following is our projection for every non-conference game, including some discussion where warranted. As always, we will provide more in-depth analysis as these games approach.

November 15, Alvernia: LOSS. Alvernia finished last season 24-5, losing in the second round to eventual national quarterfinalists St. Mary’s, and returns five of their top six scorers. The Panthers have struggled out of the gate in recent seasons, but haven’t paid for it. With question marks at virtually every position for Middlebury, the veteran Crusaders will capitalize.

November 16, Franklin and Marshall/Baruch: WIN. This opponent depends on the Alvernia game. We like Middlebury over both of these teams, though F&M is a perennial tournament contender, and Baruch is coming off a 17-11 campaign.

November 19, Green Mountain (home): WIN. Green Mountain is a fun and improving program, but their defense was nonexistent in last year’s matchup.

November 22, Stevenson: WIN. Stevenson, the tournament host, increased their win total by ten last season, and boasted the conference freshman of the year, but will not match Middlebury’s depth of talent.

November 24, St. Mary’s: LOSS. We saw St. Mary’s in the Elite Eight in 2011, and again (vs. Mary Hardin-Baylor) in 2013; they are one of the more impressive programs in the country. Returning their two top scorers and ranked 10th in the country, the Seahawks will be the favorites in this one, and rightfully so in our minds.

December 1, RPI: WIN. RPI, another good test for the Panthers, finished 17-10 last season. They run a modified Grinnell offense, creating a fast pace that should cater to Middlebury’s depth and athleticism.

December 3, Castleton State (home): WIN. Castleton graduates senior star Mark Comstock, and will likely regress after a 17-11 record in 2013.

December 7, Skidmore: WIN. The Thoroughbreds are talented, led by sophomore wingman Aldin Medunjanin, but they finished 15-11 last year, including a 21-point loss to the Panthers.

January 14, Lyndon State: WIN. This one should be easy; a short bus ride to visit a team that lost by 30 to both Middlebury and Williams last season.

January 21, Johnson State: WIN. The Badgers finished 9-17 last season.

January 23, St. Joseph’s (VT) (home): WIN. This team is not in Division III, and scored 46 points against Middlebury last season. These are the games that should allow the Panthers to find out how deep their bench runs and give opportunities to guys outside of the rotation.

February 4, Keene State: WIN. It was nice to get the taste of the 2012 loss out of mouths with a dominant performance at home last year. This year, Keene State has lost some star power and should be an easier matchup.

Final non-conference record: 10-2

•••

One of the many major question marks surrounding the upcoming season is the new-look conference schedule. Instead of the Friday evening-Saturday afternoon schedule to which Middlebury is accustomed, the Panthers will be playing on Fridays and Sundays all conference season long. They are the only team in the conference that will be on this schedule, and each of their opponents will be playing only one game during the weekend they play Middlebury. (In simplified NESCAC terms, Middlebury no longer has a travel partner.) This arrangement is a product of Hamilton’s joining the conference several years ago, giving the NESCAC an uneven 11 total teams. We reached out to three former members of the Middlebury basketball program to ask them how they thought the schedule would affect the team. They each expressed mixed sentiments.

Ryan Sharry ’12: I remember when I was a senior we found out the schedule would be this way when these guys were seniors and we were on them then telling them how bad it would be. But looking back I think I would really like it. Doing homework will be tough, but I always loved road trips. It’s all basketball all the time. There are no distractions and it’s great to build team chemistry. The extra day of recovery is nice and you can scout more for the team Sunday. When you play a team Saturday it’s tough to scout for them so that will be helpful. Not getting back for Saturday night is a tough blow though. There aren’t many things better than coming home Saturday night after two big wins. Also, the NESCAC always argues they are doing things with academics in mind but sending guys away for whole weekends doesn’t seem to be doing the same thing.

Alex Popp, former Middlebury assistant (now at Holy Cross): Being the standalone is a two-way street: you have the luxury of added—and much needed—rest, but by virtue of being your opponent’s only match-up that weekend you are their singular focus. And they WILL focus on beating you. In a league that prides itself on preparation and advance scouting, giving a Colby or Trinity staff a week to dissect your weaknesses is a daunting thought. The UAA plays on Friday/Sundays, and they deal with far more demanding travel. Therefore I believe that it’s manageable, but my main concern is the NESCAC scholar-athlete. Players like Joey Kizel and Jack Roberts were adamant about dedicating Sundays to the books without the distraction of athletic commitments. My second concern is the parents (the biggest Panther fans on the planet): e.g., the Bullucks and Merrymans who make the weekly trek from the West Coast to watch their sons rain threes in Pepin. Now they can’t take advantage of Sunday, either (formerly a travel day). The Friday/Sunday schedule isn’t ideal, especially when Friday/Saturday NESCAC weekends have become a way of life for student-athletes and their families. But if anyone can make it work, it’s the overachieving Panthers who seem to always have something to prove.

Scott Picard, former Middlebury assistant (now at UMass-Dartmouth): On the one hand, the opponent just has one NESCAC game to prepare for each weekend, while Middlebury has to prepare for two. Usually a team has a game mid-week, so the Friday opponent would get the same amount of time to prepare as Middlebury. The Sunday opponent is likely to treat Thursday as a practice day, then watch film Friday and Saturday, whereas Middlebury will only watch film on Saturday. I think it could be a good thing for Middlebury going on the road because they can get an extra day of rest. Driving to Bates for a game then having to go to bed and wake up early and drive another two hours to Tufts is really tough for a team to come play right out the gate and play 40 minutes. You’re tired, from all the travel, its tough to adjust. They can have all day Saturday to relax, watch film, and game plan. Whenever you have an extra day to prepare it’s a positive. A Coach Brown team will always be prepared and ready to play.

A huge thanks to Sharry, Popp, and Picard for taking the time to share their insights. Our major takeaway is that teams will take advantage of the extra time to focus on Middlebury and it will force Middlebury’s coaches to be more efficient game-planners. The schedule seems brutal for academics, as they pointed out. One benefit is that with Middlebury playing on Sundays, NESCAC fans can now watch high-caliber teams for three consecutive days in this era of quality webcasts.

These picks are based on our predictions for the upcoming season, including projected player growth and role changes.

First Team

Joey Kizel, Middlebury
Aaron Toomey, Amherst
Daniel Wohl, Williams
Taylor Epley, Williams
Michael Mayer, Williams

Second Team

Ben Ferris, Tufts
Matt Hart, Hamilton
Matt Vadas, Connecticut College
Connor Green, Amherst
Stephen Haladyna, Tufts

Third Team

Graham Safford, Bates
Duncan Robinson, Williams
Andrew Madlinger, Bowdoin
Keegan Pieri, Bowdoin
Chris Hudnut, Colby

All-Rookie Team

Duncan Robinson, Williams
Harry Rafferty, Wesleyan
Matt St. Amour, Middlebury
David George, Amherst
Hunter Sabety, Tufts

POY: Michael Mayer, Williams
DPOY: James Jensen, Middlebury
ROY: Duncan Robinson, Williams
COY: Michael Maker, Williams

Projected Conference Standings

1. Williams (10-0)
2. Amherst (9-1)
3. Middlebury (8-2)
4. Tufts (8-2)
5. Bowdoin (5-5)
6. Hamilton (4-6)
7. Bates (4-6)
8. Colby (3-7)
9. Connecticut College (2-8)
10. Trinity (2-8)
11. Wesleyan (0-10)

AMHERST LORD JEFFS

2013 record: 30-2, 10-0 (Conference Champions, National Champions)

The Lord Jeffs have not lost a game since 2012. They went on the run of all runs through conference and tournament play last season, winning their last 24 games behind a prolific offense, a driven senior class, and individual improvement across the board. For Middlebury fans, it is easy to go back to that unforgettable February 12th night and wonder: if Willy Workman doesn’t tip in his own missed free throw to tie the game at the buzzer in double overtime (leading to a Middlebury win, as everyone but Workman thought they already had, and Amherst likely playing the conference tournament on the road) what might have changed? Sports hypotheticals are instructive but ultimately don’t matter. Amherst cruised the rest of the way (though the conference final came down to a game-saving Allen Williamson block), and nobody would dispute that on the whole they played the best of any team in the country in 2013. Amherst was the class of the nation and their championship felt anything but fluky, which is saying a lot given the random nature of college basketball tournament play. That said, the Lord Jeffs lose three (arguably still underrated) senior stars in Workman, Williamson, and Pete Kaasila. Workman was an all-around star — a shooter, rebounder, passer, ball-handler, defender, and leader. Williamson was a complementary player whose athleticism outshined his performance until the final stretch of 2013, when he became the best player on the team, putting up 16.1 points and 7.4 rebounds on 54% shooting in postseason play. Kaasila was an unmovable rock down low who had a knack for scoring when the team needed it, and led the conference with a 64% field goal mark. When considering Amherst’s 2014 prospects, it is important to temper expectations by appreciating how well that senior class played last season.

The Lord Jeffs are ranked 1st in the 2014 preseason D3Hoops.com Top 25 Poll, but probably shouldn’t be. No team can lose that much talent and bounce back to the top that easily.  That said, Amherst returns a lot of talent. It starts with Aaron Toomey, the senior point guard with a complete offensive game. Toomey averaged 17.3 points per game last season on 44/42/89 shooting, to go along with 4.8 rebounds and 5 assists. Toomey’s style of play translates well to his new role as a score-first creator. He will be asked to take more shots this season and to create his shot more often, a role in which he will likely thrive, though it will test his durability. Around Toomey there is a ton of talent but little in the way of proven commodities. Connor Green, a 6’4” guard, averaged 9.3 points per game as a freshman, and could be Amherst’s next offensive star. He has a nice outside shot to go along with strong finishing ability at the rim. Green displayed his improvement over the course of the season in the national championship game, scoring 16 points on 5 of 9 shooting, knocking down a pair of threes and finishing at the rim. Joining those two in the starting backcourt will be David Kalema, a senior point guard sharpshooter who scored 9.0 points per game on 48/44/66 shooting last season. Another guard in the picture is Tom Killian, who started last year but is less efficient offensively than the other three. A lanky 6’4”, Killian will be a big part of the rotation but needs to improve on his 40/36/88 shooting splits to surpass Green and Kalema for more minutes. Together those four form an extremely talented offensive backcourt, and each will be asked to carry more of the scoring load this season. The major question is whether any or all of the complementary three can maintain their efficiency and effectiveness in a higher usage role. We project Green to take the biggest jump of the group, possibly finishing in the top 10 in the conference in points per game.

The frontcourt is more of an unknown for the Lord Jeffs, as the top returner is sophomore Ben Pollack. We like what we have seen from Pollack, as he averaged 4.3 points, 3.6 rebounds, and 0.8 blocks in 13 minutes per game last season. Asking him to go from the fourth best forward to the top forward in one year will be hard though, as he will no longer be a secondary concern for opposing defenses. Around him is a slew of unproven talent, from upperclassmen Joe Mussachia to a very talented freshman class, including six players at or above 6’4.” The freshman class is led by the 6’8” David George, who projects to secure a role immediately. The fate of Amherst’s season likely depends on whether a couple of those unknown bigs can contribute at a plus level. Last year, Amherst’s complementary players showed drastic offseason improvement across the board. If they experience similar progress this year, it will be enough to carry Amherst to its third consecutive NESCAC title.

Matching up
Sunday, February 16, 4 pm, Middlebury at Amherst
Last year: 104-101 Amherst (3 OT)

It is fitting that Joey Kizel and Aaron Toomey end their final regular season playing on the same court. Two all-time great NESCAC guards, and the two best guards in the country according to D3Hoops.com, Kizel and Toomey have gone back and forth in epic battles over the past three years. From Kizel’s comeback-sparking steals against Toomey to Toomey’s game-winning plays, these games have not been short on memorable moments. So that’s where our immediate focus will be in this matchup, but while we can count on great games from both point guards, this one will likely be decided by their supporting casts. This late season matchup will be an indicator of which team did a better job of transitioning its talent into a competitive product. As it has the past two years, this game could determine tournament hosting rights.

2013-14 Predicted Winner: Amherst

•••

BATES BOBCATS

2013 record: 10-15, 5-5 (lost in conference quarterfinals)

After making a NESCAC semifinals appearance in 2012, there were some expectations for a bigger year from Bates, but those faded when they lost six non-conference games before January. Bates ended up finishing respectably, led by their conference-leading defense (63.7 ppg allowed), but will have to replace two of their top scorers in forward Ed Bogdanovic (13.4 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 46% FG) and guard Mark Brust (10.0 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 2.9 apg). The returners are led by Luke Matarazzo, a slippery quick point guard who can score (10.8 ppg, 35/34/82 shooting). He is flanked by two talented wing players who both have the potential to be stars: junior Graham Safford (pictured right) and sophomore Mike Boornazian. Safford is most likely to be the feature scorer, as he averaged 11.7 points per game on 42/41/67 shooting last season. Boornazian is bigger, but less dynamic with the ball in hands. Outside of those three, Bates’ top returning scorers are Billy Selmon and Sean Cunningham (7.0 combined points in 30.6 combined minutes per game), which leads to the question: who do the Bobcats start down low? In fact, Bates doesn’t have a single forward or center remaining on its roster who scored a point last season. Freshmen brothers Marcus and Malcolm Delpeche, 6’7” and 6’8” respectively, will get big time opportunities early and could determine this team’s fate. It is likely that the Bobcats go with a four-guard rotation fairly often and hope that at least one of the recruits can jump in quickly. The key for Bates this season is going to be setting the tempo and playing aggressive defense. If it turns into a half-court game, their lack of front court polish will be exposed.

Matching up
Friday, January 10, 8 pm, Bates at Middlebury
Last year: 59-56 Middlebury

The Bates-Middlebury game last year was ugly at times, which is a reflection of Bates controlling the tempo. Their guards are pestering, and this game means that Joey Kizel’s new backcourt mates will be tested early in conference play. Though Bates can be exploited in the half court, the Panthers might not have a half court-identity this year given the relationship between athleticism (lots) and post skills (few) on the team. That said, you can take advantage of height disparities in more ways than half-court post sets. Expect Middlebury to get Dylan Sinnickson and Matt Daley facing the basket in the mid-range, and Hunter Merryman shooting over defenders on the outside. If Middlebury loses its NESCAC home opener vs. Bates, it could be a long season.

2013-14 Predicted Winner: Middlebury

•••

BOWDOIN POLAR BEARS

2013 record: 14-10, 5-5 (lost in conference quarterfinals)

Bowdoin was on track for a big jump this year before a summer injury to star point guard Bryan Hurley put his entire season in jeopardy. The rest of the team has plenty of talent, but Hurley was the distributor who made it all come together, averaging 8.3 assists per game, the second best mark in all of Division III. Hurley’s absence raises several questions. First, how valuable was he to Bowdoin’s success? Can the talented players around Hurley make up for his absence, or was the offense predicated on his unique ball distribution abilities? Our guess is that Bowdoin would have competed with the top tier in the conference this year with Hurley (with a good shot of sneaking into the semifinals), but his absence will put some distance between them and Williams, Amherst, Tufts, and Middlebury.

Senior captains Andrew Madlinger and Matt Matthias are both guards, and will likely take some time at the point, but are used to playing off the ball. Madlinger is an unsung star, averaging 14.3 points per game on 45/42/86 shooting last year. Matthias was similarly efficient (45/42/70) though less proficient (8.4 points per game). The third best offensive weapon will likely be Keegan Pieri, a 6’6” forward who averaged 13.3 points on 50% FG shooting last season. Madlinger, Matthias, and Pieri are going to have to grow accustomed to creating their own shots more, and whether they do so successfully will tell us a lot about their games. The last player to keep an eye on for Bowdoin is John Swords (shown above), the 7’0” center who will be intriguing as long as he remains 7’0” tall. Swords averaged 6.1 points in 15 minutes per game last season, and his peripheral statistics suggest he could be one of the conference’s better big men if he played more minutes. Big centers like Swords mature late, so don’t be surprised if he turns into a force and Bowdoin forges a new identity around an efficient Swords and the scoring wings around him.

Matching up
Sunday, February 9, 4 pm, Bowdoin at Middlebury
Last year: 72-61 Middlebury

You would think that combination of Jack Roberts and Chris Churchill would be the best antidote in the conference for John Swords, but he scored 14 points on 6-6 FG shooting in last year’s matchup. If he is a focal point in the offense by this matchup, Middlebury’s ‘5s’ will have to step up. Outside of that matchup, Middlebury simply has a more complete and talented team than Bowdoin, and should be able to dictate the style of play and execute better than the Polar Bears.

2013-14 Predicted Winner: Middlebury

•••

COLBY MULES

2013 record: 7-17, 3-7 (lost in conference quarterfinals)

If Bowdoin struggles without Hurley, don’t sleep on Colby as the darkhorse winner of the Maine rivalry this year. The Mules return seven of their top eight scorers from last year, and seem to have a good foundational piece in sophomore Chris Hudnut (seen right). Hudnut, a 6’8” center, averaged 12.3 points and 5.3 rebounds in 23 minutes per game last season as a freshman, on a respectable 45% FG shooting. NESCAC centers practically never step into immediate success like Hudnut did last season (a helpful comparison might be Ryan Sharry’s rookie year: 7.7 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 57% FG, 18 mpg), so his performance rightfully has turned some heads. Hudnut was given a lot of touches in a program depleted of talent however, so it’s unclear how much of his production was based on skill as opposed to opportunity. Outside of Hudnut, the most exciting player in Waterville is fellow sophomore Patrick Stewart. The 6’6” forward averaged 7.5 points and 6.7 rebounds on 50/41/75 shooting last season. If Hudnut and Stewart continue to improve, they could form one of the better frontcourts in the conference. What this season will really tell us about Colby is whether they should be on our radar as a top tier contender in a year or two. If Hudnut, Stewart, and the young core around them show that they have committed to the program and have the talent and work ethic to make major strides in their games over the offseason, it will indicate that Colby’s infusion of youth is part of something significant for their future as a NESCAC contender.

Matching up
Friday, February 7, 8 pm, Colby at Middlebury
Last year: 85-62 Middlebury

Last year’s matchup was a blowout, as Colby’s interior defense was exposed. Middlebury bigs Pete Lynch, Jack Roberts, Matt Daley, Jake Nidenberg, and James Jensen combined to shoot 20-29 from the field. While the Colby defense should be improved, enough of the Panthers listed above will be too. This one might be tougher than last year’s, but it will take at least another year before Colby can seriously challenge this caliber of team.

2013-14 Predicted Winner: Middlebury

•••

CONNECTICUT COLLEGE CAMELS

2013 record: 7-16, 0-10

Senior Matt Vadas, a somewhat under-the-radar scoring sensation, averaged 20.2 points per game last season, and is on pace to become Connecticut College’s all-time points leader by season’s end. Vadas’ scoring numbers are not totally contingent on an offense with nowhere else to go, either. He shot a respectable 41/41/77 line and added 7.5 rebounds and 1.4 steals per game last year (compare to Aaron Toomey’s 44/42/89, fewer points, fewer rebounds, and fewer steals), which suggests he is an elite scorer. The problem in New London is that Vadas’s supporting cast is weak. Last year’s star freshman, Jared Schill, has left the program, and that leaves 6’5” sophomore Aaron McBurnie (7.6 ppg, 42% FG) as the top returning scorer. However, senior guard Rob Harrigan returns after a year away from the program. As a sophomore, he led the conference in minutes per game and scored 8.8 points per game, shooting a very efficient 44/45/89. If Schill were still in the mix, Harrigan and Vadas would form a potent wing duo, but with the Camels lacking an established ball handler, their scoring abilities will likely not be maximized. Outside of McBurnie and Harrigan, two seniors, Mason Lopez and Tyrone Turner, with mediocre production but good efficiency are likely to flank Vadas in the Camel offense. Lopez is a smooth-shooter who shot 45/45/80 last year, putting up 7.2 points per game, while Turner shot 47% from the floor but only scored 5.3 points per game. If the Camels are going to make something of 2014 and Matt Vadas’s career, it is going to take Harrigan’s resurgence, a big jump from McBurnie down low, and the surprise emergence of either a distributor or one of their three 6’5” or taller freshman forwards. Otherwise, Vadas isn’t the style of scorer who can will his team to victory — he scores a lot, but we’ve never seen him “take over a game,” which is a distinction worth making — so don’t expect the Camels to make much noise in conference play this year.

Matching up
Sunday, January 19, 4 pm, Middlebury at Connecticut College
Last year: 85-68 Middlebury

Matt Vadas is 7-30 from the field in his career against Middlebury. That is what Nolan Thompson did to opposing scorers (in fact, Vadas’ most successful game vs. the Panthers came when Thompson was returning from his 2012 absence and came off the bench). This season we might get to see the Vadas that has had major success against other opponents over the past three years. By this point in January, we should probably have a good feel for who Jeff Brown relies on as a defender for players like Vadas. The best two-guard defender on the team right now is probably Nate Bulluck, though a Jake Brown, Connor Huff, or James Jensen could come out of position to guard Vadas. It probably will not matter, though, because whether or not Vadas wins his matchup, the Camels cannot stack up with the rest Middlebury’s rotation.

•••

HAMILTON CONTINENTALS

2013 record: 12-12, 3-7

After Joey Kizel and Aaron Toomey, Hamilton sophomore Matt Hart (right) be the best guard in the conference this season. Ultimately, we think Daniel Wohl is more valuable given his contributions on the defensive end, but Hart is the more dangerous offensive player. As a freshman, he averaged 15.3 points per game on 44/37/85 shooting, to go along with strong peripherals. His primary weapon is his mid-range and three-point jumper, which he can hit with little separation because of his high release point. Hart could be the NESCAC’s next All-American guard if he continues developing on his current projection. Last year’s second and third top scorers also return: Greg Newton, a senior point guard who scored 10.5 points per game on an efficient 45/42/78 shooting line, and Peter Kazickas, an undersized forward who shot 54% from the field and scored 7.6 points per game. Joseph Lin, younger brother of Houston Rockets point guard Jeremy Lin, needs to add bulk to his 5’11,” 135 pound frame, but will get rotation minutes after averaging 4.4 points per game last season.

Matching up
Sunday, February 2, 4 pm, Middlebury at Hamilton
Last year: 66-47 Middlebury

Last year’s win was all about Nolan Thompson. The senior scored 18 points on 7-10 shooting, notched his career 1,000th point, and his shut down perimeter defense helped Middlebury limit the Continentals to 47 points, the lowest scoring output for a regular season opponent since 2000. This year will be different, as Hamilton comes back at full strength to host Middlebury sans Thompson. We expect this to be a close matchup, one in which Middlebury will attempt to push the tempo to exploit an athletic advantage, and likely pull away with the win.

2013-14 Predicted Winner: Middlebury

•••

TRINITY BANTAMS

2013 record: 9-15, 2-8

Trinity returns their top four scorers from last season, as the Bantam roster was underclassman-heavy to the extreme in 2012-13. To that point, only Mick Distasio departs due to graduation, and there are no current seniors on this year’s roster. Trinity’s roster is built around two very talented sophomores, Jaquann Starks and Shay Ajayi. Starks, a 5’9” guard, led the team with 10.6 points per game last year, on 42/45/84 shooting. Ajayi is a long 6’5” and has high upside, already producing last year with 8.2 points and 5.5 rebounds per game. Both could be in all-conference range at least by next year. Down low for the Bantams is the 6’8” junior George Papadeas (right), who averaged 7.4 points and 5.1 rebounds per game last season. Papadeas is one of the more intriguing scorers in the league, because he produced those numbers in a limited 15 minutes per game. He should be tested in a bigger role in 2014.

Matching up
Friday, February 14, 8 pm, Middlebury at Trinity
Last year: 66-59 Middlebury

Last year’s game was too close for comfort, as Starks, Ajayi, and Papadeas all put up double figures, and Middlebury struggled from the field (41%). One matchup of intrigue this year might be Jake Brown vs. Jaquann Starks, as the Middlebury freshman, if he gets rotation minutes (we think he will), is the only player on the roster with the quickness to shut down Starks. As for Ajayi, he might see more of Jensen, who can match him athletically and outmatch him physically.

•••

TUFTS JUMBOS

2013 record: 17-9, 7-3 (lost conference semifinals)

The Jumbos’ 2014 prospects took a major hit this offseason when they learned that rising sophomore center Tom Palleschi would no longer be able to play for health reasons. Palleschi, the 2013 NESCAC Rookie of the Year, was a rising star. A physical center with a developing offensive skillset, Palleschi averaged 10.0 points, 6.0 rebounds, and 1.7 blocks per game as a freshman. During conference play, he averaged a dominant 13.7 points per game on 57% shooting. Without Palleschi, Tufts still boasts one of the most talented rosters in the conference. Ben Ferris (right) is an efficient shooting guard who scored 13.3 points per game on 49/44/78 shooting last year. He is supported by dynamic wingman Stephen Haladyna, a 6’5” sophomore with athleticism and plus shooting (52/44/81). Two veteran guards will likely share ball-handling duties in Kwame Firempong and Oliver Cohen. Neither is a strong scorer, but they can distribute (2.8 and 3.6 assists per game, respectively). Both played starter minutes last year, but we expect freshman Tarik Smith to chip into their playing time this upcoming season. Smith is a potential star who will likely arrive game-ready, but he is not Tufts’ most highly touted recruit. That distinction belongs to 6’8” Hunter Sabety, who will be asked to take Palleschi’s role in the offense, and upon whose performance the Jumbos’ fate likely hinges. Because of Smith and Sabety, Tufts has the talent to compete for a NESCAC title and make a run in the NCAA Tournament. Even without Palleschi, this is an up-and-coming program that will probably make its presence known nationally in 2014.

Matching up
Sunday, January 12, 4 pm, Tufts at Middlebury
Last year: 70-69 Middlebury

Middlebury has never seen the real Ben Ferris, because he has always been unable to get out from under Nolan Thompson’s smothering defense. Ferris has 8 points and 2 made field goals in his career against the Panthers. This year, Ferris will likely be the center of the offense, which will make it that much more difficult to stop Haladyna, Sabety, and company. This is going to be Middlebury’s biggest challenge of the first half of conference play, and could have a major say in conference tournament seeding. Don’t be surprised if Tufts claims its first win against the Panthers since 2006.

2013-14 Predicted Winner: Middlebury

•••

WESLEYAN CARDINALS

2013 record: 12-13, 4-6 (lost conference quarterfinals)

Believe it or not, last year’s mediocre Wesleyan team came into the season nationally-ranked and expected to challenge Amherst and Middlebury for the conference title. They returned three eventual 1,000-point scorers in their senior class, and had lost in the conference semifinals the year before. What happened? The seniors regressed and played inconsistently, and nobody filled the depth roles behind them. It was a poor reflection on the program, and leaves them in an ugly place headed into 2014. A sub-.500 team without its top three returning scorers cannot compete in this conference. Making matters worse is the departure of two underclassmen, Julian Harris and Avery Robinson, who would have projected into starting roles. Forwards Glen Thomas and Rashid Epps are the best returners, but the two forwards combined for a mere 9.7 points per game last season. Bryan Bartner is a great outside shooter but has no other plus skills. The biggest bright spot is highly touted recruit Harry Rafferty, who will almost certainly start at point guard from day one. Rafferty can’t be expected to carry the team out of mediocrity, though. It’s going to be a long season in Middletown.

Matching up
Friday, January 17, 8 pm, Middlebury at Wesleyan
Last year: 78-77 Middlebury (OT), 61-49 Middlebury (Conference quarterfinals)

Mike Callaghan and Shasha Brown were tough matchups for Middlebury last year, at times. The Panthers will prefer to play the younger, less talented Cardinals squad that hosts them in mid-January. As long as Rafferty hasn’t turned his teammates from water to wine in two months, this will be one of many conference losses for Wesleyan.

2013-14 Predicted Winner: Middlebury

•••

WILLIAMS EPHS

2013 record: 26-5, 9-1 (lost conference finals, lost national quarterfinals)

The 2014 Ephs are a masterpiece. We said prior to last season that Williams was drastically underrated (most observers actually had Williams finishing fourth or fifth in the conference) and predicted that they would finish in the top 10 in the nation. The Ephs came through with conference final and national quarterfinal appearances. This year, they bring back an incredibly talented roster, led by two of the best seniors in the country, Michael Mayer (right) and Taylor Epley. Mayer, 6’9,” is a preseason favorite for Conference and National Player of the Year, coming off of a season in which he posted a superstar line: 17.7 ppg, 8.8 rpg, 2.3 apg, 1.2 bpg, and 57/37/76 shooting. Mayer is very skilled for a player his size, a capable ball-handler and passer with an array of post moves and very soft touch around the basket, to go along with an improving three-point shot. If Williams decides to lean on him more, Mayer could have a monster senior season. Epley is a pure scorer, a 6’4” lefty with tremendous range and a nice ability to finish near the basket. He scored 18.5 points per game last season on 50/43/84 shooting, and is underrated as a defender. Then there’s Daniel Wohl, one of our favorite players to watch in the conference, a lanky, athletic, 6’6” guard/forward who started to really put it together last year. His final stats, 10.2 points per game, 5.5 rebounds per game, and 53/42/69 shooting, do not reflect his realizable potential. Wohl could be a Willy Workman type presence for the Ephs this year. Senior John Weinheimer and junior Hayden Rooke-Ley are likely to be the other starters. Weinheimer scored 4.4. points in 17 minutes per game last season, while Rooke-Ley missed all of last season but was a sharp scorer (7.0 points on 46/44/90 shooting) off the bench as a freshman.

Behind those two is a lot of talent, starting with Duncan Robinson, a phenomenally talented freshman with Division I length and shooting range. Robinson was touted by some as the best non-Division I player in his recruiting class, after his performance and growth this past season turned heads. This year, it is reasonable to expect the 6’7” guard to play around 20 minutes per game and take (and make) a ton of threes. Also in the mix off the bench are point guards Luke Thoreson and Mike Greenman, both of whom will compete for playing time behind Rooke-Ley. Finally, there is Ryan Kilcullen, the 6’7” junior forward who transferred from Boston College before last season and who would probably be one of the more hyped players in any other program. Kilcullen is talented and should contribute as the top front-court reserve.

Because the talent is overwhelming in Williamstown, it is easy to overlook some potential problem areas, but sports are always more complicated than a superficial preview suggests, so it is worth considering some possible sources of trouble for the Ephs. In other words, what might stop this team, which we believe to be head and shoulders above the rest of the conference, from winning the conference and reaching the national title game? Besides the obvious caveat for injuries, one concern is that this group of players is a little short on big game experience because of their down 2012 season. Epley and Rooke-Ley were contributors to the 2011 Final Four team, but none on this squad have won a conference title or a game in Salem. Small potatoes, obviously, but maybe not when you match up with a powerhouse Illinois Wesleyan team that is more accustomed to winning in the postseason. The more serious concerns for Williams might be defense and point guard play. They have a strong zone defensive system that works well against most opponents, but can be exploited in individual matchups. If the outside shooting goes cold, or a physical center pushes Mayer out of his comfort zone, the Ephs defense probably isn’t good enough to win them games. Amherst’s 2013 championship team was built similarly — a juggernaut offense and a decent defense — so it certainly isn’t a cause for major concern. We also think the concern at the point guard is overstated. While Nate Robertson’s leadership and distribution went under-appreciated, we also believe Rooke-Ley, who made an immediate impact as a freshman before missing all of last season, will fill the void left by Robertson. We expect Coach Maker to have this team running like a well-oiled machine by conference play. They should be the favorites in every game they play up to Salem.

Matching up
Friday, January 31, 8 pm, Williams at Middlebury
Last year: 64-63 Williams, 87-80 Williams (OT) (Conference semifinals)

Middlebury’s Jack Roberts and James Jensen have both slowed Mayer in the past (Roberts by staying disciplined and keeping Mayer in front of him, Jensen by fronting him and winning the battle for position before the pass arrives). The Panthers’ best chance of stopping Williams is to rely on those two down-low and stay tight to the scorers on the outside. If Mayer draws help consistently, the Ephs have already won. Offensively, Kizel has had success against Williams throughout his career and likely will again. This is a team worth pushing at a faster tempo, and maybe even full-court-pressing, to optimize Middlebury’s superior athleticism and inferior half-court offense, but Williams still holds a significant edge.

2013-14 Predicted Winner: Williams

JOEY KIZEL  •  6’1” (Senior, Guard) 33.7 mpg, 14.3 ppg, 4.3 apg, 3.9 rpg, 49/42/79

Kizel, a preseason First Team All-American and one of the most complete players in the country, has been the NESCAC’s most efficient scoring guard, and the conference’s best finisher the past two seasons. After a blisteringly prodcutive sophomore season—Kizel’s shooting splits were 54/51/91 (that’s field goal, three-point and free throw percentage, respectively)—the New Jersey native had a slow start to the 2012-13, battling nagging injuries that affected him all year. After a quiet non-conference run, however, Kizel returned, if not quite to 2012 form, close to it, averaging 16.3 points per game during the 10-game stretch, while shooting 49 percent from the field and 47 percent from beyond the arc. Most notably, Kizel further cemented his legacy as one of the best big-game players in Middlebury history, with dazzling performances against Amherst, Cortland and Ithaca, the latter of which was strikingly similar to his late-game heroics (ignoring for a moment the final outcome) against Scranton. Kizel has been the Panthers emotional leader the past two seasons and will raise his game when the team needs him most.

As the lone captain this year, and with the departure of Thompson, Wolfin and Lynch, Kizel will be called on often. He will likely play off the ball more this season, particularly early, to provide a greater scoring presence. The challenge will be balancing his urge to do it all himself and deferring too much to his teammates. If history is any indicator, however, Kizel will develop that understanding with his teammates quickly and pick his spots wisely. Kizel has always been a great finisher around the basket—and anywhere on the court, really—but if there’s an area of his game that appears to be improved it’s his confidence finishing with either hand around the basket. Again, if possible, his game looks even smoother than seasons past. Some players (Ryan Sharry comes to mind) look relaxed on the court and make things look simple; others, like Nolan Thompson, can convey just how arduous basketball can be. Kizel is one of the few players we’ve ever watched, who routinely does both. Very rarely do you watch a player clearly expending maximum energy simply bringing the ball down the court against backcourt pressure, then beat his man and glide to the basket.

•••

JAMES JENSEN  •  6’6” (Senior, Forward) 21.1 mpg, 7.0 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 1.0 bpg, 0.8 spg, 44/–/74

Jensen’s calling card the past three seasons has been his defensive versatility and length on offense. He will play a bigger role this season on both ends of the floor, stepping into Nolan Thompson’s shoes—and Tim Edwards before that—as Middlebury’s primary defensive stopper. While Jensen does not have the lateral quickness that Nolan possessed, he can guard players up and down the lineup, from Sha Brown to Michael Mayer, both of whom he guarded effectively last year. In particular, the way he hounded Mayer a season ago, taking the ultra-talented Williams center out of his comfort zone in the second half, was one of the single best performances of the season. Jensen, too, had clutch moments, most memorably blocking Aaron Toomey’s buzzer-beater attempt at the end of the first overtime in the Amherst game, but also at the free throw line, a spot where Jensen improved drastically from 2011-12, particularly to close out games.

An injury he sustained early last year will keep Jensen out of the lineup for at least the first weekend of competition, which is a considerable blow, particularly given the difficulty of the early season schedule. When Jensen returns in late November or December, however, he will be a key cog in Middlebury’s season. His reputation lies on the defensive end of the floor—and for good reason—but the 6’6” swing man is more talented offensively than most people realize. He has contributed primarily as a slash-and-finisher, rivaled only by Kizel’s in terms of an ability to finish through and around contact, but his offensive game has developed considerably. If defenses sag off Jensen, playing him to drive, his midrange game will prove plenty effective to keep them honest. While not a shot creator, Jensen moves exceptionally well without the ball and his activity will create better looks than many players who can create their own shot ultimately receive.

•••

JACK ROBERTS  •  6’8” (Senior, Center) 19.7 mpg, 4.7 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 2.24 bgp, 60/0/47

Three years on, Roberts remains something of a mystery. His talent is undeniable, particularly on the defensive end, where he checked Amherst forward Alan Williamson—likely the most athletic player in the conference—during the triple overtime game and, later, the vertically challenged, but bruising Landon Gamble in the Elite Eight game versus North Central. In fact, the final game of 2012-13 was Roberts’s best performance of the season, and maybe of his career. On Division III’s biggest stage, Roberts rose to the occasion, playing stellar defense on one end and pouring in 10 points on 5-6 shooting on the other.

It’s difficult to know if the North Central performance is a precursor of better things to come from Roberts, who gives the Panthers a dominant defensive presence inside when he plays well, but can also frustrate with mistakes on the defensive end and poor shot selection at times offensively. Despite the graduation of Lynch, there will likely be greater competition at the ‘5’ and Roberts will need to perform on the floor to hold off Chris Churchill and, more likely, Matt Daley for the starting spot.

•••

HUNTER MERRYMAN  •  6’6” (Junior, Forward) 15.9 mpg, 8.3 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 50/43/79

We’ll say it up front: Merryman is much more than a three-point specialist. While he continues to improve on the defensive end, where Merryman will (but shouldn’t) surprise people is as a back-to-the-basket scorer. His range is cavernous—though with the arrival of Matt St. Amour, no longer the deepest on the team—but Merryman was also effective as a post scorer, where he was able to back down smaller defenders or work around bigger, slower players. Though he struggled last year when asked to make plays in space, both offensively and defensively, Merryman impressed me on both ends of the floor when he needed to use his size, either to create space offensively or to body bigger players defensively. His shooting numbers dipped after the halfway mark in 2012-13, but his struggles coincided closely with a broken nose that forced him to wear a facemask the rest of the year. Like Jensen and Kizel, Merryman also battled a number of debilitating injuries that required offseason attention.

Entering his junior season healthy and with a clear path to minutes and perhaps a spot in the starting lineup, Merryman could be primed for a breakout season. Few players of his size are as polished offensively both around the basket and beyond the three-point line. Consistency and shot creation will be the key areas of improvement for the California native, who needs to demonstrate greater ability to put the ball on the floor and make shots when the defense closes out on him. Expect him to find a home at the ‘4’ with Middlebury playing more three forward sets this season than in years past.

•••

DYLAN SINNICKSON  •  6’5” (Junior, Forward) 2011-12: 11.4 mpg, 5.7 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 53/0/75

Why will Jeff Brown play three-forward sets more frequently? Because there is a logjam at the forward position, where Sinnickson, Merryman, Jensen and others, including the next player on the list, will compete for minutes. Sinnickson returns to action for the first time since his freshman year during the 2011-12 season after a broken arm sidelined him last year and a short-lived football hiatus delayed his return to basketball activities this fall. While Sinnickson was gone, he shouldn’t be forgotten. As a freshman, he shot 57 percent from the floor, with most of his points coming around the basket or the result of his high-point release midrange jump shot that he utilized to great effect. Indeed, he progressed so far as a freshman that he was a member of the closing lineup against Scranton in the Sweet 16.

The Sinnickson who returns should be an improved version of the player we last saw play over a year ago, bringing with him his relentless energy and above-the-rim athleticism, but also a more refined offensive game that could include an effective three-point shot. How Coach Brown intends to utilize Sinnickson and the degree of freedom he will grant the 6’5” junior remains to be seen, but if Sinnickson returns to form and demonstrates that he can play within the offense, he has a shot not just to close games, but to start them as well.

•••

MATT DALEY  •  6’8” (Sophomore, Forward) 5.7 mpg, 2.1 ppg, 1.6 rpg, 53/0/75

If one player epitomizes the potential of the 2013-14 Middlebury basketball team it’s Daley, who will have an enormous say in whether the team finishes as a fringe Tournament team or a national championship contender. Simply, no player on the roster has a higher ceiling than Daley, who is as gifted an athlete as Jeff Brown (with a huge assist from Alex Popp) has recruited. After a year developing in the program, the question is to what extent Daley will realize that potential. If you stop to watch practice, there are times you can’t help but notice Daley, who dunks at game speed on a routine basis in big-man drills and can run the floor and pull up for transition threes in two-on-nothing drills. He has a deft touch around the basket, a solid midrange game and tremendous range and fluidity for his size. His skills have been less apparent, however, in five-on-five situations where he will sometimes take a back seat and become passive offensively.

In terms of talent, Daley can go toe-to-toe with any big man in the NESCAC; in terms of ability, he has not demonstrated that he can translate the talent to game situations and be a dominant player. Then again, few big men in the NESCAC have put the league on notice their freshman year. What Daley accomplishes as a sophomore will likely be a barometer for Middlebury’s success as a team and is undoubtedly one of the things to watch as the season progresses.

•••

MATT ST. AMOUR  •  6’3” (Freshman, Guard)

Speaking of high ceilings and immensely gifted recruits, St. Amour boasts a skill set unlike any Middlebury player in recent memory. There have been other great scorers with NBA three-point range, to be certain, but what ultimately will separate St. Amour from other players—in the same way it has for Kizel—is his efficiency. St. Amour is a dead-eye shooter, with a quick release and tremendous understanding of offensive spacing, which will lead to plenty of open looks when playing alongside a player of Kizel’s caliber. That in itself should be enough to secure the Swanton, Vermont star a spot in the rotation, but only scratches the surface of what St. Amour’s impact could be. A gifted passer with great vision—likely aided by a stellar career as a striker on the soccer field—it is difficult to imagine St. Amour not making an immediate impact on the offensive end. What may limit his effectiveness and ability to make a substantial difference is his progression, or lack thereof, on the defensive end.

Playing Vermont high school basketball, St. Amour was asked to do virtually everything on the floor—no, really—with the exception of consistently guarding NESCAC-caliber players. Removed from the pressure of having his team sink or swim based on his performance every night, the Missisquoi Valley product will have an opportunity to focus more closely on a number of different aspects of his game. Defense and, to a lesser degree, his ability to finish at the rim, are the two areas of his game that are least polished. Having said that, St. Amour displays incredible poise for a first-year player and appears ready for the challenges and pressures that come with playing right away. Twice the Vermont Gatorade Player of the Year, St. Amour is one of six Vermont players ever to score 2,000 career points. The 6’3” guard averaged 30.7 points per game, 11.9 rebounds per game and 5.7 assists his senior year.

•••

JAKE BROWN  •  5’10” (Freshman, Guard)

With all the talent this team boasts, it is Jake Brown, nephew of coach Jeff Brown, who has people buzzing as the preseason comes to a close. Brown is a natural point guard, with strong ball-handling skills and the tempo and quickness to lead the fast break. What has really stood out, however, is his defense, which has been suffocating in practice. Brown is quick both with his feet and hands and will pester opposing point guards with his defensive intensity. Two skill sets could not exist in better unison, as Brown’s ability to force turnovers and turn them into transition breaks is a weapon this team, with its length and athleticism, could use to great effect.

In order to earn a spot as one of the first guards off the bench and eventually compete for a starting spot, the diminutive guard will have to demonstrate an ability to knock down open shots. Particularly on attempts from beyond the arc, Brown has a number of moving parts that complicate and slow his shot release. If he fails to knock down shots, defenses will drop underneath him, taking away his driving opportunities and negate much of his slash-and-kick ability. Brown will find minutes because his defensive approach and ball-handling skills cannot be squandered, but unless he demonstrates great consistency and shot-making ability, his role will be reserved to a second-team contributor capable of coming off the bench and providing a spark, but little more.

•••

NATE BULLUCK  •  6’4” (Senior, Guard) 7.6 mpg, 2.8 ppg, 0.6 rpg, 35/36/83

In the past that role has been reserved for Bulluck, an explosive athlete with a volatile game. There’s rarely a dull moment when Bulluck is on the floor, usually as a wild card off the bench who can provide a boost with his instant energy and athleticism, or run right into trouble—most often in the form of a stationary defender preparing to take a charge. Despite his sometimes perplexing performances, Bulluck is an incredible luxury for Jeff Brown on both sides of the ball when utilized correctly. Because it is usually evident from the first time he touches the ball the degree to which Bulluck will be effective, Jeff Brown can adjust his expectations and patience accordingly. Particularly when Middlebury trails or starts flat, Brown has turned to Bulluck, who has helped engineer a number of Middlebury runs—most notably against Amherst in the NESCAC title game in 2011-12, when the Panthers trailed by 14 late in the second quarter, only for Bulluck and company to lead a late charge to cut the Lord Jeffs’ lead to two at the half.

In the lead up to his senior season, Bulluck has adopted a vocal leadership role and has improved his range and ball-handling significantly—an important consideration given Nolan Thompson’s vacated role as the third ball handler the past two seasons. Further, Bulluck’s style of play, fits the makeup of this team, should the coaching staff elect to push the ball more this year than in the past. In order to secure a more significant role, however, Bulluck needs to do more than demonstrate his dribbling ability and deeper range; more importantly he has to prove he will be reliable when on the floor. Until then, he will remain the ace up Jeff Brown’s sleeve, capable of turning a game on its head—one way or another—in a short period of time.

•••

HENRY PENDERGAST  •  6’3” (Sophomore, Guard) 6.6 mpg, 1.6 ppg, 1.0 apg, 0.9 rpg, 44/38/30

Physically, Pendergast has all the tools to play a significant role and he will have an extended opportunity to make his case for a starting spot next to Kizel in the backcourt. While Pendergast’s athleticism is not in question, other still-developing areas of his game have limited his ability to take full advantage of it in games. Last season, Pendergast caught our eye with a monster dunk over Green Mountain College early in the season, but that kind of electric athleticism, which we hoped to see more of, has been the exception rather than the rule thus far. In part, Pendergast has struggled to beat defenders off the dribble, allowing opposing players to stay in front of him and limiting the opportunities for his athleticism to take over. At 6’3”, Pendergast has elite size, but not elite quickness for a point guard. Pendergast can mitigate his lack of point-guard quickness by improving his ball-handling, in particular his tendency to dribble the ball high, which minimizes his window of opportunity to beat his man and get to the rim, where he is most effective. Finally, Pendergast’s inconsistent jump shot, has allowed teams to drop off the ball and play underneath him. Improving his shot was the Connecticut native’s top priority this summer, which could create more driving lanes for Pendergast if defenses have to honor his outside game.

Given that Kizel will likely play off the ball more, Pendergast should see extended minutes early in the season so the coaching staff can better assess his game-readiness. Should Pendergast impress, he could assume a large part of the role vacated by Wolfin, as a distributor-first, scorer-second point guard who is the primary ball handler and provides a physical, active defensive presence. Like almost everyone up and down the roster, the talent is evident and the question is whether it will be realized. And in Pendergast’s case it can only help that he appears to be a great teammate with strong leadership qualities.

•••

CONNOR HUFF  •  6’4” (Sophomore, Guard) 5.5 mpg, 3.1 ppg, 0.4 apg, 1.5 rpg, 59/50/69

Every time Huff takes the floor, he seems to make plays. It’s not always easy to explain how he puts himself in position or why he knocks down shots, but the sophomore forward—who is making the transition to the ‘4’—comes from the Peter Lynch mold as a deceptively productive player who doesn’t jump off the floor at you as an athlete, but is always around the ball and making the most of his opportunities. Huff doesn’t have the same potential as a Daley or Pendergast, but so far he appears to be the most consistent player of the 2012 recruiting class. As a freshman last year he knocked down 59 percent of his shots—spread across the floor—albeit in a very limited sample size. While impossible to extrapolate his freshman numbers to project his sophomore season, what Huff does possess is a poise that suggests he belongs on the floor. Perhaps that shouldn’t come as a surprise from a player who was voted the New York city high school player New York Post pollers would most want to take a game-winning shot his senior season in high school. Along with Pendergast, Huff stood out to us in Middlebury’s win over Green Mountain for his defensive intensity and unmatched effort in Middlebury’s blowout victory.

Competing with Jensen, Sinnickson, Merryman and, to an extent Daley and Jake Nidenberg, for minutes in the front court, Huff might be the odd man out in the rotation. However, if Jeff Brown chooses to extend his rotation this season and go deeper down his bench, expect Huff to make plays as soon as he steps onto the court.

•••

JAKE NIDENBERG  •  6’6” (Sophomore, Forward) 4.6 mpg, 1.0 ppg, 1.4 rpg, 33/0/43

Alongside Jake Brown, Nidenberg has turned heads during the preseason. Whether he has the combination of size, talent and consistency to earn a spot at the back end of the rotation remains in question, but Nidenberg is, at the very least, a player to keep an eye on down the road. At 6’6” and 230 pounds, Nidenberg is going to move people on the floor, but he he has also developed an effective outside shot that could allow him to space the formation and draw bigger defenders away from the basket. In some ways, Nidenberg’s game is the complement to Merryman’s: the focus is around the basket for the sophomore, who will play more often with his back to he basket, but he can also take defenders out of the paint, step back and knock down the three as well.

•••

CHRIS CHURCHILL  •  6’9” (Junior, Center) 5.9 mpg, 1.2 ppg, 1.1 rpg, 60/–/83

A year ago, we were hoping that Churchill would make the sophomore leap and challenge Roberts for the starting center spot. Unfortunately for the 6’9” big man, he spent much of the summer recovering from mononucleosis and never really found a rhythm or role, other than as a reserve center capable of spelling Roberts. He has great size, soft touch around the basket and runs the floor well for a player of that magnitude. While there wasn’t one performance to point to his sophomore year, Churchill is a skilled 6’9”, 220-pound center—a combination that often necessitates greater patience and sometimes leads to a late-blooming emergence. Having coached Andrew Locke—who accomplished more his freshman and sophomore years, but evolved into a truly dominant player on both sides of the floor his senior year—Jeff Brown will likely want to see how Churchill has developed over the last two seasons. He likely won’t supplant Roberts or Daley at the ‘5’, but Churchill could be a key cog in a possible three-man rotation at center.

•••

DEAN BRIERLEY  •  6’5” (Junior, Guard) 6.6 mpg, 1.5 ppg, 0.7 rpg, 33/32/67

Brierley struggled through a disappointing sophomore season, slowed by injuries, that saw him play just 6.6 minutes per game after a promising start to his freshman year that included a 20-point outburst against Southern Vermont. During his time at Middlebury, Brierley has been a relentless worker, seemingly always in the gym working on his shot. Unfortunately the hardwork has not translated to game action, where Brierley has struggled to make shots or contribute in other ways. At 6’5”, Brierley has strong ball-handling skills and, like Merryman, can shoot over smaller defenders. If he can regain his form—a big if, to be certain—he would give Middlebury the option to run another diverse lineup on the floor with a bigger backcourt presence.

•••

LUIS ALVAREZ  •  6’1” (Senior, Guard) 2010-11: 8.1 mpg, 2.6 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 44/20/82

Luis returns for his fifth season after receiving an injury exemption while sitting out almost all of last year. A slashing guard who pesters opposing ball handlers, Alvarez provides depth and experience to a largely unproven guard rotation. Injuries, however, have sidetracked a once promising career. In 2009, as a freshman, Alvarez was a rotation contributor for much of the season, playing over 9 minutes per game off the bench—the eighth highest mark on the team. After a sophomore season that saw his minutes reduced, Alvarez has played in just three games total. Healthy once again, Alvarez’s biggest impact will likely again be his presence on the bench, where he is a respected voice and holds his teammates to a high standard.

•••

BRYAN JONES  •  6’1” (Freshman, Guard)

Jones, the first and, for a while, only committed recruit from the 2013 class has had a solid, if unspectacular, preseason. Because he isn’t game ready to the same degree as St. Amour and Brown, he hasn’t received as much attention in the lead up to the season. The foundation for a multiple-year starter is there, however. Jones commands himself well on the floor, has a good understanding of how to run the fast break and finds open teammates. Built like a football player, Brown finishes well around the basket through contact and should be able to hold his own when he does see the floor. The area of his game that needs the most improvement is his outside shooting, though Jones is a solid player in almost all aspects of the game.

•••

LIAM NAUGHTON  •  6’1” (Freshman, Guard)

Middlebury’s first walk on since Nolan Thompson, Naughton has been a pleasant surprise during the preseason. He already boasts a great midrange game—he can create his own shot and get shots off from a variety of different angles—and looks like he belongs on the floor. The proficiency of his midrange game will give him an opportunity to contribute down the line—perhaps not this season, but certainly in future years. Naughton may not be Nolan Thompson—his game is more similar in many ways to Matt Hart —but he could be another Middlebury walk on that has an outsized impact.

•••

ALBERT NASCIMENTO  •  6’1” (Senior, Guard) 5.5 mpg, 1.9 ppg, 0.5 rpg, 32/29/78

Nascimento possesses a pretty stroke from beyond the arc and is a decent outside shooter, with better range than accuracy. The Brazilian played in significant situations last year, including closing against Amherst and providing a spark of the bench against Wesleyan by knocking down a pair of threes. An up-and-down tempo may also give him an opportunity to play more as the pace fits his style of play.

•••

EAMON CUDDY  •  6’7” (Junior, Forward) 2011-12: 2.8 mpg, 1.2 ppg, 0.8 rpg 100/–/–

If Cuddy can ever return to health, another big if, he could inspire a lot of “Where did he come from?” questions with his play. While athletically limited, Cuddy has a diverse array of post moves that, when healthy, he has used very effectively against bigger defenders in practice. It’s unlikely Cuddy will have any impact on this season, but if he can heal completely down the line, he could make an impact as a senior.