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).
- Finally, the 3FG shooting by both teams today was sub par, but not unexpected, as they came into the game as the top 2 defensively on 3FG% in conference play.
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.
Hey man, wanna chat with you via e-mail about your Hoyas blog. Could you fire me a line at evan@mvn.com? Much appreciated!
ReplyDeleteA number of characteristics shared by Princeton Offense teams include:
ReplyDeleteLow pace (possessions)
3FGAs at or above 40% of the total FGAs.
Low offensive rebounding numbers (less than opponent's rebounding).
Few fouls (relatively low FTA/FGA).
John Gasaway described a larger set of teams as POTs or Perimeter Oriented Teams, of which I have discovered, Princeton Offense teams are a subset. I suspect that confusion over what the Princeton system does and what other forms of the motion offense (some of which, like John Beilein's variation of the 4-out, 1-in motion can also be decidedly perimeter oriented) do leads to a fair amount of mislabeling. But virtually all Princeton Offense teams fit Gasaway's profile (his original post over at the Big Ten Wonk Blog is here -- worth a read if you didn't catch it earlier). Georgetown is unique in that the Hoyas tend to turn the ball over a bit more than your average POT, but are nevertheless extremely efficient offensively. As you point out though, once broken down into halves, the turnovers can have a noticable impact on a team's offensive rating. I refer to the same phenomena in my breakdown of the Villanova - Louisville game on Sunday. Both teams had the same eFG (50.0), but Louisville had a first half ORtg of 113.5, while Villanova had an ORtg (same half, btw) of 77.5! The significant differences? Turnovers and offensive rebounds.
Very nice job on the breakdown.
I looked over the numbers and will send feedback shortly.