Sunday, March 23, 2008

Analysis: Davidson 74, Georgetown 70

Well, to use the HoyaTalk parlance, Edited. Davidson recovers from an 11-point halftime deficit, and being down 17 early in the second half, to beat the Hoyas, 74-70, and end their season.

Let's run the numbers:
                        Offense                            Defense
1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 31 32 63

Eff. 123.7 98.7 110.8 87.9 144.9 117.2

eFG% 78.6 72.5 75.6 30.0 59.3 43.9
TO% 26.0 37.0 31.7 9.8 6.2 7.9
OR% 33.3 27.3 30.4 31.8 38.5 34.3
FTA/FGA 47.6 35.0 41.5 40.0 66.7 52.6
FTM/FGA 23.8 15.0 19.5 30.0 55.6 42.1

Assist Rate 42.9 41.7 42.3 25.0 57.1 45.5
Block Rate 18.8 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Steal Rate 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 16.3 9.5

2FG% 64.3 77.8 69.6 37.5 76.9 55.2
3FG% 71.4 45.5 55.6 14.3 28.6 21.4
FT% 50.0 42.9 47.1 75.0 83.3 80.0

Some relevant numbers highlighted, but no other commentary from me right now. I'll probably do an HD box of this game some time in the next couple days, maybe even broken down by half.
---------
UPDATE (3/23/08, 2000 CT): Just one thing to add for now:

OffEff v.Expected DefEff v.Expected
110.8 +4.5 117.2 +20.8

Once again, the offense looks bad, and certainly did some bad things in the second half, but the real problem came on the defensive side of the ball. Davidson hit 10 of 13 on 2's in the second half. Make that 5 or 6, like a Hoya opponent normally hits, and I'm figuring out how I'm going to get all my work done and still go to Detroit.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Analysis: Davidson Preview

Check out the middle column. One of those things is not like the other:

Opponent Off v.Exp Def v.Exp
UNC 88.3 -12.6 93.5 +18.8
Duke 99.2 +1.1 107.4 +0.0
Charlotte 99.3 -10.5 102.9 -8.9
UCLA 99.1 +6.5 118.0 -9.2
NC State 96.1 -13.9 97.5 +0.0
Gonzaga 118.7 +16.3 114.3 -6.5

The above is the list of the top 100 (ok, NC State is #102) teams the Davidson Wildcats have played this year. They've notably outperformed their expected offensive performance in one of those games. They've won one of those games. Somehow, those happen to be the same game. They've notably outperformed their unexpected defensive performance in only one of those games, which happened to be UNC's first game of the year and Davidson's second--pardon me if I discount it.

Now that we've seen a little about what they do against better teams, let's check out their overall profile. They're a good but not elite team at both the offensive and defensive ends of the court. The keys to their offensive performance are:
--Good shooting. They shoot a lot of 3-pointers and shoot them well for a team that shoots them often. They're also even better, comparatively, on 2's.
--They don't turn the ball over. Yes, that's a familiar story, since that was UMBC's best attribute as well. Yes, those same Retrievers who turned the ball over 50% more against the Hoyas than they did regularly, and more than they had in any game they played in calendar year 2007.
--The Wildcats also don't get their shots blocked. I suspect that's a function of taking outside shots. Also, probably part of playing in a lousy conference (see above list of decent teams played).
--Except for Boris Meno (who really shouldn't ever shoot a 3), everybody they play is at least an average offensive player.

A couple more interesting features:
--They don't get fouled. Like, at all. Curry is a big reason behind this. Especially for a big shooter, he doesn't take many free throws.
--Their usage pattern is weird. Richards and Curry each play on average over 32 minutes a game. Sander, Gosselin, Meno, and Lovedale play a little over half the game on average. To complete the rotation, Archmabult, Rossiter, and Barr play 12-15 minutes a game. This changed a little on Friday against the Zags. Gosselin and Lovedale played more, Barr and Meno played less. This will probably vary a little on matchups, but it's something to watch for.

On the defensive side:
--Their opponents miss foul shots. Maybe they foul big guys. Maybe they're lucky. Maybe it's a function of playing bad opponents. Who knows-as far as I know, this is one of the more unexplained areas of figuring out tempo-free stats.
--They force a lot of turnovers. That's not surprising from a guard-oriented team, but they're only a little above-average w/r/t steals. Somebody who's watched them more than I have can probably say something sensible about this and why this is. Having a fairly high % of opponent TOs is something that's been fairly constant between games vs. good and non-good opponents, too, so it's not just a function of beating up weaker teams.
--They're surprisingly good on the defensive glass, to the tune of 23rd in the country in terms of preventing offensive rebounding. This was the key to their second half success against Gonzaga. The Zags hauled in 57% on the offensive end in the first half, and 19% in the second half, and efficiency fell accordingly, from 130.8 to 99.5. They're only average on the offensive glass, though, and were very average both halves against Gonzaga.
--There's no particular area defensively where they're very below average. They send opponents to the line a little more than average, but that's really it.
--Opponents tend to be perimeter-oriented. Not so much so as the Hoyas normally are, but a bit compared to the average. I don't have time to run the full opponent numbers, so it could just be who they've played (I don't believe that stat is opponent-adjusted) or that whole "playing bad teams" thing rearing its head again, but it's out there. I suspect this maybe a defensive strategy-Gonzaga isn't a three-point heavy team, but took half their shots in the first round from outside the arc. I don't think it's as important as the rebounding figures noted above, but part of the Zags' dropoff was going from 8-15 on 3's to 4-12 in the vesper half.

Keys to the game?
--[Insert normal verbiage about rebounding. If rebounding is vaguely normal/equal, fine.]
--[Insert normal verbiage about outside shooting. If Hoyas shoot really low and/or Wildcats shoot really well, not fine.]
--[Insert normal verbiage about good players taking good shots, and preventing good looks by other team.]
--[Insert verbiage about Stephen Curry.] The Hoyas can win limiting him to 15, and can win "limiting" him to 40. People who can speak more knowledgeably than I about basketball can answer which of these alternatives is better, and the coaching staff (who definitely fall into such category) will have to make the determination, to the best of their and the team's ability.

The Hoyas are a better team than Davidson. But, Davidson isn't UMBC, and the Hoyas aren't so superior they'd almost have to try to lose the game. The Hoyas are good enough that if they play a good game Davidson will have to be pretty close to perfect to win. Davidson's bad enough that if they stink up the joint the Hoyas will assuredly win. Probably something in between will happen, and the Hoyas will likely win, but it wouldn't be a shock to see Davidson win. KenPom says 67-61; I'll go with 68-63.
---
UPDATE (3/24/08 2101 CT): "Use the came" instead of "lose the game"? I swear, I was sober when I did that. Wonderful "disembodied hand" syndrome.

Friday, March 21, 2008

News: Georgetown Beats UMBC, Will Face Davidson Sunday

The Hoyas today advanced to the second round of the NCAA tournament, topping UMBC, 66-47. Not a pretty game, but the Hoyas did what they needed to do to win. No full box available yet, but here are some of the key stats:
  • Hoyas 64.3% from 2-point range, including 69.2% in the first half.

  • UMBC 33.5% from 2-point range.

  • Hoyas 42.9% from the charity stripe. Not a great performance.

  • Hoyas turned the ball over on 24.8% of possessions. Tough to win if they do that again on Sunday.

  • Most shots: Wallace, followed by Hibbert. Efficient players taking the lead offensively! I approve.

  • When your blogger takes a half day off work he intends to be home in time for the Hoya game, not work until 6:30. /Whine off.


I'll be back tomorrow (Saturday) with more on what you can expect from the Davidson Wildcats, and hopefully a full box score as well.
-------
UPDATE (3/22/08, 1915 CT): No full box still, so I'll just post what I have.
                Offense     Defense

Pace 60

Eff. 109.2 77.8

eFG% 58.8% 40.0%
TO% 24.8% 19.9%
OR% 35.5% 23.7%
FTA/FGA 27.5% 26.0%
FTM/FGA 11.8% 14.0%

Assist Rate 53.8% 50.0%
Block Rate 8.3% 0.0%
Steal Rate 9.9% 19.9%

2FG% 64.3% 33.3%
3FG% 34.8% 30.8%
FT% 42.9% 53.8%

Aside from the points noted above, nothing much to add from the full-game box.

Pomeroy prediction v Davidson: 67-61, 63 possessions, Hoyas with a 75.5% chance of winning.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Analysis: Keys for the Hoyas

Check out Georgetown's team stats this year. Compare them to 2007. Note the offensive and defensive ratings. Note how 2007 was a better offense and 2008 was a better defense. Note the key to winning last year was offense. Take a look at those Georgetown team pages again, scrolling down to the individual stats. Note 2007, when every player who played at least 30% of the time had at least an average offensive rating, and the three of the top four by Possessions used were 114.8+. Note this year, when after Hibbert (who's only really efficient instead of awesomely so this year), the two most-used players (Summers and Sapp) are only a little above average offensively. There's a bigger gap in Poss% until the next tier of Wallace, Freeman, and Ewing, who are all good offensive players, but who only shoot on about 18% of possessions-below-average use.

Those are the overall stats, but what's happened recently is probably more important. So, I took the individual splits for the last 5 and last 10 games and averaged them. No, this isn't an ideal statistical method, but it gives us a good snapshot weighted towards recent performance. Let's run some numbers:

Player   %Min  ORtg  %Poss
Summers 75.0 96.2 23.2
Hibbert 68.9 120.1 26.7
Ewing 60.1 99.5 19.7
Wallace 89.7 129.8 17.1
Sapp 64.5 112.3 20.3
Freeman 63.8 111.2 16.9

There's an extra column there, which I'll return to later. Note the recent trends:
--Sapp is shooting less, and shooting better. He's shooting 52.8% on 2's and 46.3% on 3's, up from 47.6% and 40.7%, respectively. Part of this may be hot shooting, but I think part of it is excellent shot selection.
--Ewing is shooting more, and shooting worse. He's 64% for the year inside the arc, and 46% lately. Outside the arc, the same: 22.5% recently, and 29.5% on the year. Any time PE2 shoots from outside, it's a gift to the other team.
--Among the six key players, the key to the Hoyas' offensive performance will be DaJuan Summers. He uses a lot of possessions and doesn't use them very effectively. His FG% has been fine, better than average lately, but an already low 3FG% of 33.7 has been even lower, 30.3%, lately. Plus, he's turned the ball over 26.2% of the time lately, up from 18.8% on the year. Note a reduction in turnovers was one of the keys to the Hoyas' tourney run last year.
--Wallace and Freeman are both playing well offensively, but are participating slightly less than their already below-average %possessions.
--Among the lesser-used players, Macklin and Rivers both have fantastically high (38.6% and 37.5%, respectively) recent turnover rates, and have really bad ORatings because of it. Those either need to stop or they need to sit on the bench if at all possible. Otherwise, you're just giving away possessions, and it's hard to win in the tourney when that happens. Just ask Kent State, which turned the ball over on 43.6% of first half possessions today to fall behind 31-10.

Ok, minutes. Jeff Green last year played 83% of the time, or about 33:20 per game. Who's been getting that time? Ok, Freeman of late has been getting a bit of it, but he's been playing about 25:30 a game. That leaves 8 minutes unaccounted for. Another key difference: Jessie Sapp is playing less, to the tune of about 7 minutes a game. Instead of 8 minutes to make up, that's 15 minutes. And the lion's share of that time, about 10 minutes, has been going to Patrick Ewing, Jr. From a size perspective, that's better than giving the minutes to Freeman. From an offensive efficiency perspective, well, see above.

Summary: to do well in the NCAA tourney, the Hoyas need a high usage player other than Roy Hibbert who does well offensively. Most likely, that's DaJuan Summers. If he plays well, the Hoyas can advance far. If not, then the Hoyas may well not advance to the second weekend.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Analysis: UMBC Preview

A little later than I'd hoped, but it's time for more on what we can expect when the Hoyas meet the Retrievers on Friday (link to KenPom page). Unfortunately, I lack CO's nifty graphing software, so you won't be getting chart like the ones he provided last year for Belmont. I can, however, still run the same numbers.

The Retrievers' best skill is their offense, ranking 9th nationally in raw terms and 60th in adjusted. It hasn't been very consistent, though. The key to winning their conference championship game against Hartford was an outstanding offensive game, OffEff 136 v. ExpOffEff 119.6, +16.4, but two weeks earlier, against that same Hartford team, they'd had a dreadful offensive game, OffEff 86.7, -32.9, based primarily on poor shooting against a very poor defensive team. A look at the Retrievers' Game Plan page shows that UMBC will have WIDELY varying shooting nights. Their overall eFG% is 51.7%, 99th, but look at their last four games:
Hartford    36.4%
Stony Brook 67.0%
Vermont 37.7%
Hartford 67.6%

If you can make anything of those numbers, please let me know, because I sure can't.

The defense has been a little more consistent-at least close to average performance for the past 7 games. That 8th game, though, they yielded 123.7 OffEff to a poor (257th overall) Boston U. team, 22.3 more than expected. The game plan indicates the Terriers shot the ball well, but only marginally better than Hartford did in the America East championship. BU also rebounded well, but not better than Stony Brook the next game or Albany in the AE tourney. BU shot a lot of free throws for a UMBC opponent, but not that much more than Albany the next game or Stony Brook or Vermont in the AE tourney. There's really no reason to expect UMBC won't go out and lay a tremendous egg defensively; they're a poor defensive team that doesn't do very much well except not foul opponents.

The other problem is that UMBC plays in the America East. The America East is, in a word, terrible. The Retrievers' offense is the best unit in the country. The only other unit in the entire conference above average is Vermont's defense, and the Catamounts, at 101.5 v. 101.8 nationally, barely qualify. UMBC hasn't played a team better than 180th nationally since Ohio State back in December. They're the best team in the America East, but that's really being the smallest midget.

Before I dismiss the Retrievers entirely, let's look at how they did against teams that aren't terrible:
Opponent        Off   v.Exp  Def  v.Exp
@ West Virginia 91.0 -7.5 126.3 -3.0
@ Ohio State 124.4 +26.7 137.8 -19.0

The keys to the offensive performance against Ohio State were offensive rebounding and an outstanding job of not turning the ball over (7.5%, 2nd best all year). UMBC pulled in 36.5% of the offensive rebounds, their best performance on missed shots until their two most recent games. Note that game, where UMBC was 3-bombing; they normally take 32.4% of their shots from outside the arc, and 47.3% that game. This doesn't look like a trend, though, as against West Virginia, a more normal 36% of shots were three pointers.

Ok, I'm ready to write this team off. How UMBC wins:
--Retrievers shoot at least as well as Villanova in 1985 championship game
--Hoyas turn the ball over at least 35% of the time
--Roy Hibbert skips game to attend religious services (hey, it is Good Friday)
--Hoyas shoot outside arc like they did @ Pitt this year
If all of those happen, then the Hoyas may be in trouble. Barring all of those unlikely occurrences, though, I don't see any way this is a close game. The KenPom predictor calls for a 75-57 game; doing this preview, I really think that's overestimating the Retrievers' chances.

I'll be back tomorrow with a look at individual Hoyas' recent performance, and what they may tell us about the team's chances for an extended run. In the meantime, I suggest checking this post by SFHoya on the Hoyas' chances (featuring my inaugural HoyaTalk post), and, if you haven't read it yet, Alexander Wolff's wonderful article on JT3 from SI.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Bracket Prediction

Here's the log5 analysis of the Midwest Bracket, using the updated KenPom ratings:

         Opening Round Sweet 16  Elite 8  Final 4
Kansas 98.55% 93.61% 82.05% 61.52%
Portland State 1.45% 0.32% 0.04% 0.00%
UNLV 56.62% 3.76% 1.26% 0.21%
Kent State 43.38% 2.32% 0.66% 0.11%

Clemson 77.09% 60.96% 12.60% 4.93%
Villanova 22.91% 12.40% 1.09% 0.47%
Vanderbilt 77.03% 23.78% 2.21% 0.40%
Siena 22.97% 2.86% 0.10% 0.01%

USC 43.59% 11.23% 4.64% 0.99%
Kansas State 56.41% 17.24% 8.17% 1.88%
Wisconsin 96.04% 71.11% 48.94% 19.62%
CSU-Fullerton 3.96% 0.42% 0.04% 0.00%

Gonzaga 55.84% 17.38% 4.41% 0.72%
Davidson 44.16% 11.77% 2.52% 0.35%
Georgetown 96.35% 70.51% 31.26% 9.25%
UMBC 3.65% 0.34% 0.07% 0.00%

Make of these what you will. Naturally, efficiency ratings are not destiny. If they were, Georgetown wouldn't have been to the Final Four last year. Kansas, though, is #1 overall by a much bigger margin than UNC was last year.
-----------
UPDATE (3/19/08 0117 CT): A brief lesson on the importance of extra numbers. The link above goes to KenPom's stats page, which has team ratings to three decimal points. The ratings page has an extra significant digit. The most prominent impact on the bracket is on Kansas, which is .9915, rounded up to .992. Using the extra significant digit decreases their Final 4 chances from 63.26% to 61.52%. The Hoyas, at .9704, increase from 8.89% to 9.25%. Wisconsin picks up most of the rest of the differential with the Jayhawks, increasing from 18.53% to 19.62%. Their chance of winning v UMBC also increases from 96.30% to 96.35%. Alas, the chance of making the Elite 8 actually falls, from 31.36% to 31.26%, because Wisconsin's rating also increases, from .982 to .9825.

News: Georgetown #2 Seed in Midwest Region, faces UMBC

The Hoyas earned the #2 seed in the Midwest Region and a trip to Raleigh for the first two games. Their first round opponent will be the Retrievers of Maryland-Balitmore County. Here's the full Midwest Region (Detroit) bracket, with Pomeroy rankings through yesterday's games:

OMAHA
1. Kansas-#1
16. Portland State #126
8. UNLV-#53
9. Kent State-#66

TAMPA
5. Clemson-#13
12. Villanova-#51
4. Vanderbilt-#48
13. Siena-#113

OMAHA
6. USC-#20
11. Kansas State-#15
3. Wisconsin-#4
14. CSU-Fullerton-#110

RALEIGH
7. Gonzaga-#28
10. Davidson-#34
2. Georgetown-#8
15. UMBC-#144

I'll run log5 predictions after the Pomeroy ratings are updated with today's games. Quickie analysis with current numbers: Hoyas, 96.3% chance of winning, 75-57 in 60 possessions. Here is UMBC's Pomeroy page-note the excellent offense. Note two players over 6'5". Note an excellent offense (in raw terms), based primarily on not turning the ball over. Note the bad defense, based on not doing anything other than not fouling particularly well. More on UMBC tomorrow or Tuesday, along with the log5 numbers. Oh, and Wisconsin got screwed-they should be flipped with Duke.
---------------------------------
The NCAA has posted the official bracket (PDF link). The first round game will be Friday afternoon, about 20 minutes after the conclusion of the 12:25 ET Gonzaga-Davidson game. Call it 3 PM ET, or about the same time as the Belmont game last year. The second round game will be on Sunday, either 2:40 or 5:15 PM. Win those, and it's off to Detroit for potential Friday and Sunday games.

Analysis: Pittsburgh 74, Georgetown 65

Well, Edited, to use the vernacular. The tempo-free box has everything I want to talk about, so I'll go ahead and run the numbers:

                        Offense                            Defense
1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 27 37 64

Eff. 102.9 100.1 101.3 114.0 116.3 115.3

eFG% 61.4 48.4 53.7 48.3 54.5 51.0
TO% 22.1 21.6 21.8 22.1 16.2 18.7
OR% 18.2 27.8 24.1 55.0 38.1 46.3
FTA/FGA 9.1 21.9 16.7 27.6 163.6 86.3
FTM/FGA 4.5 18.8 13.0 10.3 86.4 43.1

Assist Rate 63.6 57.1 60.0 58.3 54.5 56.5
Block Rate 10.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 18.8 19.4
Steal Rate 7.4 10.8 9.4 11.0 5.4 7.8

2FG% 60.0 55.0 56.7 40.0 56.3 47.2
3FG% 41.7 25.0 33.3 44.4 33.3 40.0
FT% 50.0 85.7 77.8 37.5 52.8 50.0


Pittsburgh Panthers vs Georgetown
03/15/08 9:07 p.m . at New York, N.Y. @ MSG
Final score: Pittsburgh Panthers 74, Georgetown 65

Pittsburgh Panthers Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Benjamin, Keith 25:28 + 7 4 /43 2 -6 0 -1 0 -0 7 /34 4 /14 0 /35 1 /35 0 /15 3 /27 3 /17 2
Young, Sam 36:12 + 4 16/63 5 -8 1 -4 3 -8 12/45 0 /13 0 /59 4 /59 3 /29 3 /39 3 /26 1
Blair, DeJuan 19:03 + 9 10/38 3 -8 0 -0 4 -8 8 /29 0 /11 1 /28 1 /27 0 /13 7 /22 3 /13 3
Fields, Levance 36:17 + 12 10/68 1 -7 1 -3 5 -13 10/48 6 /19 2 /59 1 /61 0 /30 1 /40 4 /28 0
Ramon, Ronald 36:38 + 1 17/66 2 -2 2 -5 7 -10 7 /46 1 /16 3 /58 1 /57 0 /28 1 /38 4 /24 1
Biggs, Tyrell 24:45 + 5 5 /47 2 -2 0 -0 1 -2 2 /28 1 /11 0 /39 1 /40 0 /20 0 /21 4 /19 4
Brown, Gilbert 21:37 + 7 12/45 2 -3 2 -2 2 -3 5 /25 1 /8 0 /37 1 /36 0 /20 3 /18 0 /18 1
TOTALS 40:00 74 17-36 6 -15 22-44 51 13/23 6 /63 10/63 3 /31 19/41 22/29 12
0.472 0.400 0.500 0.565 0.095 0.159 0.097 0.463 0.759

Georgetown Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Summers, DaJuan 22:50 - 6 9 /29 4 -4 0 -3 1 -2 7 /26 1 /8 0 /34 3 /33 0 /25 1 /14 5 /27 5
Sapp, Jessie 23:23 + 6 9 /41 0 -2 3 -6 0 -0 8 /31 1 /12 0 /30 3 /35 1 /18 0 /15 2 /22 2
Hibbert, Roy 28:31 + 5 17/50 8 -15 0 -0 1 -1 15/42 1 /11 0 /40 1 /48 1 /21 2 /23 4 /26 4
Wallace, Jonathan 32:47 - 5 12/56 2 -3 2 -6 2 -2 9 /47 5 /18 0 /55 1 /55 0 /30 1 /24 1 /35 1
Freeman, Austin 25:37 - 9 9 /44 0 -1 3 -6 0 -0 7 /37 1 /14 0 /41 0 /40 0 /25 0 /19 0 /22 2
Macklin, Vernon 10:54 - 14 0 /15 0 -0 0 -0 0 -0 0 /12 1 /6 0 /22 0 /16 1 /15 0 /6 1 /14 1
Wright, Chris 17:45 - 15 0 /31 0 -2 0 -2 0 -0 4 /29 0 /12 0 /32 2 /30 0 /18 0 /17 2 /18 3
Rivers, Jeremiah 10:07 - 5 1 /12 0 -0 0 -0 1 -2 0 /9 0 /4 1 /18 1 /14 0 /7 0 /5 3 /11 5
Crawford, Tyler 01:52 - 3 0 /0 0 -0 0 -0 0 -0 0 /2 0 /0 1 /3 0 /1 0 /0 0 /1 1 /1 0
Ewing, Patrick 26:14 + 1 8 /47 3 -4 0 -1 2 -2 5 /40 3 /15 3 /41 1 /43 3 /21 1 /21 1 /29 5
TOTALS 40:00 65 17-31 8 -24 7 -9 55 13/25 5 /63 13/63 6 /36 7 /29 22/41 28
0.548 0.333 0.778 0.520 0.079 0.206 0.167 0.241 0.537

Efficiency: Pittsburgh Panthers 1.175, Georgetown 1.032
eFG%: Pittsburgh Panthers 0.510, Georgetown 0.527
Substitutions: Pittsburgh Panthers 65, Georgetown 65

2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: Pittsburgh Panthers 2-2, Georgetown 2-2
Layups/Tips: Pittsburgh Panthers 7-17, Georgetown 14-23
Jumpers: Pittsburgh Panthers 8-17, Georgetown 1-6

Comments:

  • For the second time in three games (Villanova), the Hoyas played a Hoya-paced first half, and a North Carolina-paced second. Of course, when fouls short-circuit possessions and you spend a couple minutes in the three-and-foul strategy, that will increase the pace (the real meaning of "extend the game," formerly the sole appearance of tempo-free stats).
  • No, Pitt's second half FTA rate is not a typo, unfortunately.
  • Nor are the offensive rebounding numbers, either for Pitt or the Hoyas. To the extent this game wasn't lost on free throws, it was lost on the boards. Then again, losing on the boards is not an unfamiliar story against the Panthers.
  • The other familiar story from the first game is that the Hoya offense did about as well as expected (Exp OffEff: 108.9), but the defense didn't do nearly as well as expected (Exp DefEff: 99.9). Granted, it still wasn't the 133.8 of the second half of the previous Pitt game, but it's still not good.
  • Another familiar story: Pitt's block rate. The Hoyas did at least manage to block some shots of their own this time, unlike the first game.
  • One of the keys to winning three games in three days is bench scoring. For the Hoyas today, that was 1 FT by Baby Doc and PE2's 8 coming late in the game. Pitt had 17, including 8 by Gilbert Brown in that first half when it looked like Pitt might be blown out of the building.
  • I haven't stopped by HoyaTalk in a while, but I suspect it's in mini-meltdown mode. Admittedly, this is really a downer way to go into the NCAA tournament, but Pitt ain't bad and the Hoyas are still a very good team. Check out the KenPom ratings: the Hoyas are at .973, 7th overall, right where they were before this game. Compare that to a couple weeks ago, when they were at .966, 11th or 12th overall, and behind Marquette. This is a #2 seed that's won 8 of its last 10, not a reeling team that ends up as a #4.


Individual and team stats will be updated tomorrow.
-----------------------------
UPDATE (3/16/08, 1604 CT): Individual and team stats are now updated.

Friday, March 14, 2008

Analysis: Georgetown 72, West Virginia 55

Ho-hum, another day, another Hoya win in the BET against a team they were "lucky" to beat in the regular season.

The numbers:
                        Offense                            Defense
1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 27 31 57

Eff. 124.3 127.0 125.8 79.1 110.7 96.1

eFG% 61.5 57.4 59.2 41.3 55.8 49.0
TO% 26.4 9.8 17.5 26.4 16.3 21.0
OR% 61.5 47.4 53.1 31.3 14.3 23.3
FTA/FGA 11.5 11.8 11.7 17.4 23.1 20.4
FTM/FGA 3.8 0.0 1.7 8.7 19.2 14.3

Assist Rate 64.3 44.4 53.1 37.5 50.0 45.0
Block Rate 12.5 7.4 9.3 6.7 14.3 10.3
Steal Rate 15.1 3.3 8.7 15.1 9.8 12.2

2FG% 62.5 55.6 58.1 33.3 50.0 41.4
3FG% 40.0 42.9 41.2 37.5 41.7 40.0
FT% 33.3 0.0 14.3 50.0 83.3 70.0

Comments:

  • I believe it was at halftime that Bobby Knight said one thing the Hoyas were doing was trying to do was force West Virginia to react quickly to force them to run around. I thought it was a reasonable comment, but it's not reflected in the pace at all. The projection was 59, and the actual was 58.

  • See those offensive rebounding numbers? See WVU's low rebound numbers? See Hibbert play? I think it's fair to say Villanova qualifies as an aberration that can safely be forgotten. 78% eFG for the big guy isn't a bad day at all.

  • Hibbert lead the Hoyas in scoring in both the first and second halves. That's the first time the same player did that since Hibbert did it in Providence last month.

  • Joe Alexander eFG. BET First Round: 64.7%. BET Quarters: 77.2%. BET Semis: 37.5%. Enough said.

  • Alexander lock-down aside, WVU's offensive efficiency was about what it was expected to be (97.7). The Hoya offense was what really exceeded the pregame prediction of 102.3.

  • Looking at the previous game, the key improvements in offensive performance for Georgetown were first half offensive rebounding and second half three-point shooting.

  • One encouraging sign: the Hoyas stopped turning the ball over so much in the second half, and finished with a TO Pct below 20%. That was a trend that started in the BET last year and through the East Regional Final. It ended in Atlanta, and so did the Hoyas' season. Hopefully this is the start of a trend. [Note: one game is not a trend.]


Tomorrow: finish off "beat every team in the Big East," against Pitt, who topped Marquette, 68-61. Early KenPom-based prediction: Hoyas, 65-60, in 60 possessions, 29% chance of upset per log5 method. I'll see if I can't update the season stats before then.
---------------------
UPDATE (3/15, 0028 CT): Individual split stats are currently screwed up, and will be until I fix them after the Pitt game. Summary of known errors: ugly formatting, today's West Virginia game not included in Last 5 or Last 10, KompoZer annoying. Team season stats not yet updated; will also be done after Pitt game.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Analysis: Georgetown 82, Villanova 63

Roy Hibbert was shut out in 14 foul-plagued minutes, his first game without scoring since January 2005. Jonathan Wallace scored 1 point in the second half. The Hoyas didn't shoot a free throw for the first 27:40, by which point Villanova had taken 21 from the charity stripe. Sure doesn't sound like a 19-point win, does it? Well, that's what happens when you hit a Big East Tournament- and school-record 17 three pointers.

And the numbers:

                        Offense                            Defense
1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 30 37 67

Eff. 133.5 114.9 123.3 96.8 93.0 94.7

eFG% 71.4 71.7 71.6 35.0 41.9 39.2
TO% 26.7 21.9 24.1 13.4 32.8 24.1
OR% 46.2 8.3 28.0 12.5 47.6 32.4
FTA/FGA 0.0 56.5 25.5 90.0 32.3 54.9
FTM/FGA 0.0 39.1 17.6 75.0 25.8 45.1

Assist Rate 86.7 92.3 89.3 50.0 54.5 52.9
Block Rate 27.3 0.0 13.0 33.3 4.8 15.2
Steal Rate 16.5 8.2 12.0 6.7 13.7 10.5

2FG% 45.5 50.0 47.8 33.3 33.3 33.3
3FG% 58.8 63.6 60.7 25.0 40.0 33.3
FT% Div0! 69.2 69.2 83.3 80.0 82.1
Comments:

  • The game definitely went at Georgetown's pace in the first half, and the second half was at a North Carolina-style pace. Some of this was the normal late-game muck, but Villanova's TO rate probably contributed.

  • It was a tale of two halves on the boards. Georgetown dominated the first half, Villanova the second half.

  • Villanova couldn't buy a 2 all game. Then again, they couldn't the first game either.

  • 25 assists on 28 made field goals. That's pretty good.

  • The three-point shooting was just as good as you thought it was. For the Hoyas, 48% from 2 isn't special. 72% eFG is pretty awesome.


I'll try to get more comments up later, after I figure out how to update all the season stats stuff.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Preview: BET Quarterfinals v Villanova

Thanks to our regular host, CO_Hoya, for passing me the reins during his ongoing busy time. I'll be doing what I can to fill his estimable shoes. I promise my average post will be shorter and have fewer typos than the Ohio State preview I did last year.

First, if you haven't yet, check out the log5 predictions for the Big East Tournament, as provided by Ken Pomeroy. We've gotten a little more information since that was written, with the completion of three of the four first-day games as of this writing, but it's still a good guideline. Comparatively, the Big East Tournament is the most wide-open of almost all the tournaments, but the Hoyas still have about even odds to reach the final.

The Hoyas' first opponent on the road to the BET finals comes against Villanova, which topped Syracuse, 82-63 this afternoon to survive and advance. This is, of course, a rematch of the first "Jonathan Wallace Free Throws Save the Hoyas" games, aka "Will These Officials Please Stop Whistling Fouls." For more, check out the tempo-free notes for the 55-53 win.

As to what today's game tells us, there were three keys to Villanova's win: rebounding, three point shooting, and free throws. The biggest was probably rebounding-the Wildcats hauled in 44% of their own misses and pulled in 79% of defensive rebounds. Key #2: neither team shot from inside the arc particularly well, but Nova ended up with a 58% eFG as opposed to Cuse's 48.3% because of what happened behind the arc: 11-21, 52.4%, v. 9-24, 37.5%. Third key: free throws. The Wildcats took 22, 13 more, and hit 17, 11 more. The overrated storyline from the game: 0 turnovers by Scottie Reynolds. He normally giveth, but didn't today; no worries, though, as his teammates more than made up for it: the Wildcats normally turn the ball over 19.9% of the time, and turned the ball over on 24.2% of possessions today.

For more from people who actually watched that game (I forgot to record it), check out CardChronicle's liveblog (link from YABB) or the HoyaTalk thread, and I suspect GreyCat will have something up later from the Nova perspective.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Passing the reins

As I've mentioned a few times, things have been a bit hectic these days around Chez CO_Hoya, and due to work obligations, I won't be able to continue posting on the blog for the rest of the season.

Happily, my reader has volunteered to take over the reins and do his best to keep up with game recaps and what ever else he can come up with.

Other resources for the next few weeks:
  • For BET recaps, check HoyaProspectus guest blogger Ray Floriani's regular site - I'm hoping he'll get some coverage up there for us.

Cheers, and thanks for reading!

Analysis: Georgetown 55, Louisville 52

I apologize for the tardiness of this post, but my real-life responsibilities are now greatly outweighing my blogging duties (more on that later).

Georgetown and Louisville staged a classic game at the Verizon Center on Saturday, with the good guys pulling it out at the end, thanks to timely shots by Jonathan Wallace and DaJuan Summers. The senior class was able to go out on Senior Day with their 2nd consecutive regular season BE title, the first time this has been done by the Hoyas.

Let's run the numbers:

                        Offense                            Defense
1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 31 27 58

Eff. 76.8 115.7 94.7 60.8 123.1 89.6

eFG% 45.8 72.5 58.0 38.6 52.1 45.7
TO% 28.8 29.9 29.3 32.0 7.5 20.7
OR% 20.0 37.5 26.1 18.8 28.6 23.3
FTA/FGA 8.3 15.0 11.4 27.3 50.0 39.1
FTM/FGA 8.3 10.0 9.1 9.1 33.3 21.7

Assist Rate 88.9 38.5 59.1 50.0 72.7 63.2
Block Rate 6.7 12.5 9.7 28.6 21.4 25.0
Steal Rate 22.4 26.1 24.1 12.8 7.5 10.3

2FG% 33.3 62.5 48.4 50.0 57.1 53.6
3FG% 44.4 75.0 53.8 12.5 30.0 22.2
FT% 100.0 66.7 80.0 33.3 66.7 55.6


LOUISVILLE vs Georgetown
03/08/08 12:00 at Verizon Center
Final score: Georgetown 55, LOUISVILLE 52

LOUISVILLE Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
WILLIAMS, Terrence 38:42 - 3 14/52 4 -7 2 -5 0 -1 12/46 3 /13 0 /57 2 /57 0 /30 1 /30 4 /21 0
PADGETT, David 27:14 + 1 12/38 5 -7 0 -0 2 -2 7 /33 0 /9 1 /37 2 /40 0 /22 0 /21 0 /17 2
CLARK, Earl 31:10 - 1 11/44 3 -5 0 -1 5 -9 6 /36 0 /13 3 /44 4 /45 2 /24 2 /23 8 /18 0
MCGEE, Andre 24:33 - 3 3 /34 0 -0 1 -1 0 -0 1 /25 3 /10 3 /36 1 /34 0 /22 0 /16 1 /16 0
SMITH, Jerry 29:01 - 12 1 /37 0 -1 0 -6 1 -2 7 /35 1 /14 5 /43 0 /43 0 /23 2 /24 2 /16 2
KNOWLES, Preston 09:13 + 8 3 /12 0 -1 1 -2 0 -0 3 /9 2 /3 0 /13 0 /13 0 /6 0 /5 0 /7 2
PALACIOS, Juan 09:44 + 0 2 /10 1 -1 0 -0 0 -0 1 /11 0 /2 0 /15 0 /14 0 /7 1 /8 0 /5 0
SOSA, Edgar 18:31 + 1 0 /21 0 -1 0 -3 0 -0 4 /23 3 /9 0 /25 1 /27 0 /12 0 /15 1 /9 3
CARACTER, Derrick 10:18 + 2 6 /12 2 -5 0 -0 2 -4 5 /12 0 /3 2 /17 2 /16 1 /8 0 /8 1 /6 2
FARLEY, Terrance 01:34 - 8 0 /0 0 -0 0 -0 0 -0 0 /0 0 /0 0 /3 0 /1 0 /1 0 /0 0 /0 0
TOTALS 40:00 52 15-28 4 -18 10-18 46 12/19 14/58 12/58 3 /31 7 /30 17/23 11
0.536 0.222 0.556 0.632 0.241 0.207 0.097 0.233 0.739

Georgetown Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Wallace, Jonathan 37:49 + 8 9 /55 2 -5 1 -2 2 -2 7 /44 2 /19 2 /55 1 /54 0 /26 2 /23 1 /29 0
Summers, DaJuan 28:36 + 4 8 /37 1 -2 2 -4 0 -0 6 /32 1 /12 0 /40 1 /40 1 /18 0 /18 4 /22 3
Freeman, Austin 28:08 + 8 15/49 3 -5 3 -4 0 -0 9 /33 0 /13 1 /42 5 /44 0 /24 0 /15 1 /24 3
Sapp, Jessie 29:48 + 10 6 /51 3 -5 0 -0 0 -0 5 /34 5 /17 1 /42 0 /45 0 /23 1 /14 6 /23 3
Hibbert, Roy 36:17 + 5 12/55 6 -12 0 -0 0 -0 12/42 3 /16 0 /52 2 /53 4 /25 1 /20 5 /24 3
Macklin, Vernon 01:57 + 0 0 /0 0 -1 0 -0 0 -0 1 /2 0 /0 0 /2 1 /3 0 /1 0 /2 1 /1 1
Rivers, Jeremiah 12:23 - 12 0 /4 0 -1 0 -0 0 -1 1 /10 0 /2 0 /19 1 /17 0 /7 0 /9 1 /8 1
Crawford, Tyler 00:11 + 0 0 /0 0 -0 0 -0 0 -0 0 /0 0 /0 0 /1 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 1 /1 0
Ewing, Patrick 24:51 - 8 5 /24 0 -0 1 -3 2 -2 3 /23 2 /9 2 /37 6 /34 2 /16 1 /14 2 /18 1
TOTALS 40:00 55 15-31 7 -13 4 -5 44 13/22 6 /58 17/58 7 /28 6 /23 23/30 15
0.484 0.538 0.800 0.591 0.103 0.293 0.250 0.261 0.767

Efficiency: Georgetown 0.948, LOUISVILLE 0.897
eFG%: Georgetown 0.580, LOUISVILLE 0.457
Substitutions: Georgetown 29, LOUISVILLE 32

2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: Georgetown 1-1, LOUISVILLE 2-2
Layups/Tips: Georgetown 10-18, LOUISVILLE 8-13
Jumpers: Georgetown 4-12, LOUISVILLE 5-13

Comments:

  • This was most certainly a different game in each half, with a classic Big East defensive battle early on, followed by an offensive showcase in the Vesper half.
  • Louisville could only muster 0.61 points per possession in the 1st half - that was the 2nd best defensive half that Georgetown has played all season (2nd half vs. Fairfield, Def. Eff. = 59.3). Louisville is currently ranked 34th in Adj. Off. Eff. by Pomeroy (114.1), so this was truly an amazing effort.
  • Why did Louisville struggle in the 1st half? Turnovers, poor outside shooting, and missed FTs. Georgetown's steal rate in the 1st half (12.8%) was not exceptionally high, indicating a large number of self-inflicted TOs by the Cardinals.
  • Meanwhile, the Hoyas struggled to score themselves in the 1st half. A woeful 2FG% (5-15), which drove down eFG% is more likely to blame than any other factor - G'town's TO Rate, lousy as it often is, didn't improve in the 2nd half but Off. Eff. did. The Cardinals were credited with only 1 block in the 1st half, so the Hoyas can't lay the blame for the poor interior shooting entirely on the Louisville's interior defense.
  • In the 2nd half, Louisville simply took care of the basketball, and the extra possessions that ended in a scoring attempt allowed the Cardinals to become a much more efficient team. Shooting improved to expected levels across the board.
  • Georgetown was able to (mostly) match Louisville with a greatly improved offense of their own - inside shooting went from very bad to very good (2FG: 10-16). A shooting performance like this can lead to some misleading stats; the Hoyas had a OR% of 37.5%, but this came from only 3 off. rebounds (on 8 total missed shots).
  • In the end, it came down to execution in the last 2 minutes, and as SFHoya99 pointed out in a spectacular post on Hoyatalk, the JTIII-led Hoyas seems to have an unusual amount of luck in 1-possession games.

Comments from my reader:
I hope you got a chance to watch the game yesterday [Ed. note: Nope, just watched the end of the game on tape, err disk, after the fact]. Wasn't always pretty, but the result was the right one, at least from our perspective. First half-defense ruled the roost, particularly turnovers. UL stopped turning the ball over in the second half and Georgetown didn't, but thankfully the Hoyas shot the lights out and Louisville missed 3's like they had all game.

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Analysis: Georgetown 70, Marquette 68 [OT]

Jonathan Wallace scored 15 second-half points, including 8-10 FT and one unlikely 3FG, to help Georgetown win on the road against a ranked opponent for the first time since Jan. 5th, 2005 at Pittsburgh. In the interim, Georgetown had lost 6 road games to AP-ranked teams; the Hoyas were 4-2 at home and 4-2 on neutral courts against ranked opponents during the same time period.

Let's run the numbers:

                       Offense                            Defense
          1st Half  2nd & OT   Total         1st Half  2nd & OT   Total
    Pace     35        29        63

    Eff.    81.1     114.9      98.5           92.7      98.5      95.7

    eFG%    44.2      61.9      52.1           48.3      26.6      37.1
     TO%    34.8      24.6      29.5           17.4      16.4      16.9
     OR%    37.5      30.8      34.5           30.0      44.4      38.3
 FTA/FGA    23.1     104.8      59.6           33.3      81.3      58.1
 FTM/FGA    19.2      76.2      44.7           10.0      59.4      35.5

Assist Rate  60.0      75.0      68.2           76.9      37.5      61.9
Block Rate    6.7       0.0       3.6            9.1      12.5      10.9
Steal Rate   26.1      16.4      21.1           11.6       8.2       9.8

    2FG%    46.7      76.9      60.7           45.5      29.2      37.0
    3FG%    27.3      25.0      26.3           37.5      12.5      25.0
     FT%    83.3      72.7      75.0           30.0      73.1      61.1

  Georgetown vs Marquette  
  3/1/08 1 p.m. at Bradley Center - Milwaukee, WI  
  Final score: Georgetown 70, Marquette 68
     
  Georgetown              Min   +/-   Pts  2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A  FGA    A    Stl    TO   Blk    OR    DR   PF  
  Summers, DaJuan        41:17  + 6  6 /65 2 -3  0 -5  2 -3  8 /44 2 /18 0 /68 4 /69 1 /40 3 /28 11/42  3   
  Ewing, Patrick         34:47  - 2  7 /54 0 -2  1 -3  4 -6  5 /36 3 /14 1 /59 4 /58 0 /37 3 /24 6 /36  2   
  Hibbert, Roy           31:04  - 8  20/38 7 -11 0 -0  6 -7  11/32 2 /6  1 /51 2 /53 3 /33 3 /22 3 /33  4   
  Wallace, Jonathan      37:46  + 15 20/68 3 -4  2 -6  8 -10 10/41 4 /16 0 /64 5 /65 0 /39 0 /24 1 /42  4   
  Sapp, Jessie           16:58  - 9  0 /21 0 -1  0 -1  0 -0  2 /18 1 /7  2 /28 4 /30 0 /15 0 /12 3 /16  3   
  Macklin, Vernon        06:57  + 4  4 /15 2 -2  0 -0  0 -0  2 /9  1 /4  1 /12 0 /11 1 /7  0 /3  0 /8   2   
  Rivers, Jeremiah       30:22  - 8  6 /40 1 -1  1 -2  1 -2  3 /28 0 /11 1 /51 2 /47 0 /32 0 /17 4 /30  4   
  Freeman, Austin        21:14  + 8  5 /40 1 -3  1 -2  0 -0  5 /23 2 /11 1 /33 2 /35 0 /17 1 /13 1 /19  3   
  Crawford, Tyler        04:35  + 4  2 /9  1 -1  0 -0  0 -0  1 /4  0 /1  0 /9  0 /7  0 /10 0 /2  0 /9   1   
  TOTALS                 45:00       70    17-28 5 -19 21-28    47 15/22 7 /75 25/75 5 /46 10/29 29/47  26  
                                           0.607 0.263 0.750       0.682 0.093 0.333 0.109 0.345 0.617      
    

  Marquette               Min   +/-   Pts  2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A  FGA    A    Stl    TO   Blk    OR    DR   PF  
  HAYWARD, Lazar         30:03  - 4  0 /44 0 -6  0 -2  0 -0  8 /36 0 /12 4 /54 3 /52 0 /22 1 /29 4 /23  1   
  BARRO, Ousmane         17:49  + 2  4 /31 2 -2  0 -0  0 -0  2 /21 0 /9  0 /29 3 /33 1 /14 0 /13 1 /12  5   
  JAMES, Dominic         37:45  - 2  15/57 5 -8  1 -3  2 -6  11/50 1 /12 2 /64 4 /64 0 /21 0 /38 2 /23  3   
  MCNEAL, Jerel          37:15  + 2  17/59 5 -18 0 -3  7 -12 21/53 6 /14 6 /63 2 /64 0 /24 3 /39 5 /27  2   
  MATTHEWS, Wesley       37:00  - 3  22/56 4 -6  2 -5  8 -9  11/48 3 /10 0 /60 0 /59 0 /23 1 /37 2 /26  3   
  ACKER, Maurice         07:38  - 13 0 /2  0 -1  0 -0  0 -0  1 /10 0 /1  1 /12 0 /12 0 /4  0 /10 0 /2   1   
  FITZGERALD, Dan        13:58  + 4  3 /24 0 -0  1 -2  0 -0  2 /24 0 /8  0 /20 0 /21 0 /6  0 /16 1 /6   0   
  CUBILLAN, David        16:36  + 5  0 /30 0 -0  0 -1  0 -0  1 /27 3 /9  0 /28 0 /29 0 /12 1 /19 1 /9   1   
  BURKE, Dwight          13:23  + 3  5 /23 1 -1  0 -0  3 -5  1 /20 0 /5  1 /20 0 /18 0 /6  4 /15 0 /6   2   
  MBAKWE, Trevor         13:33  - 4  2 /14 0 -4  0 -0  2 -4  4 /21 0 /4  1 /25 0 /23 0 /8  4 /19 3 /11  4   
  TOTALS                 45:00       68    17-46 4 -16 22-36    62 13/21 15/75 15/75 1 /28 18/47 19/29  22  
                                           0.370 0.250 0.611       0.619 0.200 0.200 0.036 0.383 0.655      
     
  Efficiency: Georgetown 0.933, Marquette 0.907
  eFG%: Georgetown 0.521, Marquette 0.371
  Substitutions: Georgetown 42, Marquette 42
     
  2-pt Shot Selection:  
  Dunks: Georgetown 1-1, Marquette 3-3
  Layups/Tips: Georgetown 8-12, Marquette 8-18
  Jumpers: Georgetown 8-15, Marquette 6-25

Comments:
  • The game was played at Marquette's pace in the 1st half, thanks in large part to the ridiculous steal rate that the Hoyas gave up. As the turnovers and steals came down to a more reasonable level (although still quite lousy), Georgetown was able to exert its will on the pace, ending the game right near their season average (62.2). Marquette is by far the best Big East team at forcing turnovers in conference play (scroll down a bit to find it).
  • In addition to the turnovers, Marquette kept the Hoyas in check on 2FG in the 1st half - Georgetown came into the game 5th in the country on 2FGs, which keys their high effective FG%. For the half, the Warriors were able to match the Hoyas on inside shooting, thanks again, in part, to the super-high steal rate.
  • Marquette allowed Georgetown to stick around (trailing by only 4 at halftime) because of 3-10 FT for the half.
  • After halftime, the main improvement for Georgetown was in offensive efficiency. Besides reducing the TO Rate, 2FG shooting (10-13) jumped up enough to drag the total game 2FG % above G'town's season average and get the eFG% close.
  • Marquette faired well on the offensive glass after intermission, allowing the team to shoot 11 more FGs and 4 more FTs for the half (the Hoyas also had 3 more turnovers than the Warriors).
With the win, Georgetown has clinched no worse than a #2 seed in the Big East tournament. Next weekend's game against the Louisville Cardinals will determine the #1 seed and regular season champion.

I'll update the season stats tomorrow.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I actually had a some free time today, so I decided to take a look at the correlations between Off. Eff., Def. Eff. and the four factors. If you're not familiar with the four factors, take a look at the links at the upper right of the page. If you're not familiar with offensive & defensive efficiencies, you've probably wandered into the wrong blog.

The reason I delve into this is because the disconnect that exists between my perception of Georgetown's offensive efficiency while watching the game, and the rote analysis provided by KenPom on his team game plan page for the Hoyas.

I've discussed this quite some time ago, but briefly, KenPom has found, both last year and this year, that Georgetown's offensive efficiency is most strongly correlated with eFG% - as would be expected - and then with TO Rate. Here's this year's table (as of tonight):
                 Correlations
           to OE       to DE
    Pace:  +0.15       -0.14

    eFG%:  +0.81*      -0.49*
     OR%:  +0.26       -0.05
     TO%:  -0.46       -0.23
     FTR:  +0.14       -0.18

Opp eFG%:  -0.03       +0.69*
 Opp OR%:  -0.28       +0.16
 Opp TO%:  +0.12       -0.52*
 Opp FTR:  -0.10       +0.18 

To my eye, it almost seems that TO Rate is an even more important factor than Pomeroy gives it credit. I wondered if the occasional (frequent?) variability between halves (e.g. @ Syracuse) was washing out some of the correlation.

So, I've recalculated KenPom's table, using my by-half stats for this year. I see two main advantages using stats by half: it effectively doubles the size of the dataset, and it may remove the effect of blending two disparate halves of basketball into 1 set of averaged numbers.
                   Correlations
             to OE       to DE
      Pace:  +0.06       -0.04

      eFG%:  +0.70       -0.37
       OR%:  +0.30       -0.04
       TO%:  -0.61       -0.11
       FTR:  +0.06       -0.04

  Opp eFG%:  -0.10       +0.67
   Opp OR%:  -0.25       +0.27
   Opp TO%:  +0.16       -0.50
   Opp FTR:  -0.06       +0.15 

Sorry, no fancy bolds or asterisks - I was too lazy to work out confidence intervals.

However, I did highlight some of the more significant changes to the table with yellow indicating an increase in significance, and aqua indicating a decrease. For esoteric reasons, the difference between a +0.15 and +0.06 correlation is much less exciting than the difference between +0.81 and +0.70.
  • First, the by-half data does seem to agree with what I am seeing. The correlation between turnover rate and offensive efficiency is now much closer to the significance of effective field goal percentage. Also, do note that the changes in defensive efficiency (i.e. opponent's OEff.) to opponent's eFG% or TO% does not show nearly as significant a change.
  • The significance of Georgetown's own eFG% affecting DEff. is much weaker. This is the statistical basis for the argument that players play better defense when they are making shots, and it may not be as important an issue for the Hoyas as KenPom implies.
  • Opponents' OR% is now nearly as important to DEff. as OR% is to G'town's OEff. That is to say, while KenPom's table indicates that Georgetown's defensive rebounding is having no more effect on total defense than fouls committed, the by-half data shows that defensive rebounding is significantly more important. This also jibes with what I observe, although I hadn't noticed that KenPom didn't recognize it until I went through this exercise.


Finally, another sentiment I've noticed about this year's Hoya team, and Princeton Offense based teams generally, is that they live and die by the 3-point shot.

KenPom doesn't provide these correlations, but I can:
                   Correlations
              to OE       to DE
      2FG%:   +0.41       -0.18
      3FG%:   +0.59       -0.38

  Opp 2FG%:   +0.01       +0.54
  Opp 3FG%:   -0.15       +0.37

Now I don't have any baseline to know what a "normal" team's correlations should look like, so I'll assume that, since Georgetown is almost equally adept at defending the 2FG as the 3FG, that their opponents' performance would be typical.

What do we learn?
  • Opponents' OEff. (i.e. GU's DEff.) is more dependent upon their 2FG%; the reverse is true for Georgetown. So, as a first look, the adage about G'town's dependence upon outside shooting holds true.
  • Opponent's DEff. (i.e. GU's OEff.) shows no correlation with how well they shoot from in close, and just a weak correlation with outside shooting. However, there seems to be a stronger dependence between the Hoyas' DEff. and how well Georgetown shoots the ball, especially 3FGs. This goes back to the idea that shooting affects a player's defensive effort, although the relationship is not necessarily causal. E.g., perhaps missed 3FGs are leading to long rebounds and fast breaks.