The Value of Experience

Lawrence Jordan: Many people confuse the terms "youth" and "inexperience." Youth simply refers to age. Freshman are generally 18-19 years old, so they are considered "young" in relation to their collegiate peers. A senior, at say 22-23 years old, is considered "old" by the same population sample. Easy enough.

But who is more experienced? Experience is more complicated. Experience refers to someone being familiar with the expectations of the position they currently hold. Experience is not only minutes played, but the role demanded during those minutes. Being the 4th or 5th scoring option is much different than being the 1st or 2nd.

Inexperience is why North Carolina is suffering through one of its worst seasons since the Doherty years and the dreaded 8-20 season. They have many young players, true, but their older players are in positions they've never held before. Former role players and now expected to produce at a higher level, and lead the team during tenuous moments. They are simply inexperienced with their current responsibilities.

"Found some humor yesterday listening to a Tar Heel fan talk about how ‘young’ their team is. I wonder if he realized they are starting a (1) fifth year senior, (1) senior, (1) junior, and (2) sophomores. In this era, that is a pretty experienced group." - Philip Thompson

This is a prime example of failing to understand inexperience versus youth (or in this case class eligibility). Noted Statistician Ken Pomeroy ranks the experience of each Div. 1 team. His "experience" calculation uses eligibility class weighted by minutes played. A freshman has no years experience, a sophomore has one year experience, etc. He ranks the Tar Heels at 290 out of 347 teams or the bottom 16%.

As many people know, the Heels lost four starters to the NBA along with an experienced senior guard. Roy Williams lined up a top recruiting class to supposedly fill the void, so many expected the team to pick up where it left off. Hence, the Tar Heels were preseason ranked #4.

The oversight, of course, was the inexperience of the '09-'10 team. While several upperclassmen returned, they were nothing more than role players on a talented roster who were now thrust into a starring role. And...two of those players were now asked to start after sitting out the majority of the '08-'09 season.

To put things into perspective, let's compare the '09-'10 Tar Heels to the '01-'02 squad.

'09-'10 Tar Heels

• Players Lost: Hansbrough, Ellington, Lawson, Green, Frasor
• Starts Lost: 76% (148/190): 4 of 5 usual starters
• Minutes Lost: 69% (5 of top 7 minute earners)
• Point Lost: 69% (Top 4 scorers)
• Freshman (5): Henson, Strickland, McDonald, D Wear, T Wear
• PPG: -12% (78.9/89.8)
• APG: -7% (16.7/18)
• TOPG: +29% (16/12.4)

'01-'02 Tar Heels

• Players Lost: Haywood, Forte, Peppers, Curry, Owens
• Starts Lost: 58% (95/155): 3 of 5 usual starters
• Minutes Lost: 61% (121.4/200) 5 of top 7 minute earners
• Points Lost: 60% (5 of top 7 scorers)
• Freshman (3): Williams, Manuel, Scott
• PPG: -9% (72.2/79.1)
• APG: -3% (17/17.5)
• TOPG: +5% (16.3/15.5)

Observations:

1. Each of these teams lost five players that played heavy minutes the prior year. Each of these teams forced a sophmore PG into a starting role (Boone/Drew II).
2. Each of these teams had role playing returning starters forced into a "starring" role (Capel & Lang / Ginyard & Thompson).
3. Each of these teams saw significant drops in points and assists while seeing an increase in turnovers.
4. The '09-'10 Tar Heels only return on true starter from the previous year, as Ginyard and Graves did not play the majority of the year.

Youth is not the problem on the '09-'10 team; inexperience is the problem. Combine that with injuries and poor coaching decisions (player rotations, offensive/defensive schemes, stubbornness) and the result is not as surprising as it might seem.