Saturday, December 20, 2008

Recap: Georgetown 69, Mount St. Mary's 58

It was a rather desultory effort today, but Chris Wright and . . . er . . . Chris Wright played a strong game in leading the Georgetown Hoyas to a 69-58 victory against local rival (?) Mount. St. Mary's. I didn't get a chance to watch or listen to the game, so this recap is done exclusively from the box score / play-by-play.

Let's run the numbers:

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE

. Home Visitor
. GU Mount St. Mary's
. 1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 31 32 64

Effic. 104.1 109.8 106.8 75.7 103.7 89.8

eFG% 41.7 47.5 44.0 36.7 48.3 42.5
TO% 9.5 18.3 13.9 18.9 21.4 20.1
OR% 40.9 31.2 36.8 27.3 50.0 37.5
FT Rate 46.7 120.0 76.0 13.3 30.0 21.7

Assist Rate 72.7 25.0 52.6 50.0 61.5 56.5
Block Rate 4.3 10.0 7.0 14.3 16.7 15.2
Steal Rate 9.5 15.3 12.4 3.2 12.2 7.7

2FG% 38.1 41.7 39.4 34.8 50.0 41.9
3FG% 33.3 37.5 35.3 28.6 30.0 29.4
FT% 57.1 70.8 65.8 50.0 55.6 53.8

First, a kudos to whoever entered the play-by-play for today's game - no errors (at least none detected by my compiler), which makes working up the numbers a pleasure.

The tempo-free box make it look like a relatively one-sided 1st half, but it actually was a fairly even game excluding the last 3:30, when, with the scored tied at 24, the Hoyas went on a 9-0 run to pull decisively ahead. The Mountaineers got no closer than 5 points in the 2nd half, but never trailed by more than 13 points.

Georgetown took excellent care of the basketball in the 1st half, with just three turnovers in 31 offensive possessions. However, the Hoyas settled for 2-pt jumpers too often, making only 2/8 (not surprising) out of 30 total FGA in the half.

From the realm of non-shocking developments, Georgetown allowed far too many offensive rebounds in the 2nd half (Mt. St. Mary's was able to gather half of their own misses), which likely was the determining factor in allowing the Mountaineers to hang around. Since Mt. St. Mary's is a pedestrian rebounding team, I think this has officially become one of the Hoyas' Achilles' heels (as noted by Basketball Prospectus).

The 2nd half eventually degenerated into a FT shooting contest (G'town shot more FTs than FGs in the half), but is also notable for the Hoyas shooting 0/2 on dunks (D. Summers and A. Freeman).


INDIVIDUAL NET POINTS STATS

GU Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
Summers, DaJuan 56 13.6 90.6 12.3 54 105.1 11.4 +0.9
Wright, Chris 59 16.6 109.1 18.1 57 61.6 7.0 +11.1
Monroe, Greg 39 7.9 95.9 7.6 39 89.0 6.9 +0.7
Freeman, Austin 48 7.3 117.0 8.5 47 97.0 9.1 -0.6
Sapp, Jessie 43 6.9 110.6 7.6 43 82.2 7.1 +0.5
Mescheriakov, Nikita 5 1.0 0.0 0.0 5 0.0 0.0 +0.0
Clark, Jason 23 3.2 137.9 4.4 23 86.7 4.0 +0.5
Vaughn, Julian 21 3.7 93.4 3.4 21 94.3 4.0 -0.5
Sims, Henry 6 0.0 - 0.0 7 200.0 2.8 -2.8
Wattad, Omar 20 1.5 217.3 3.3 19 51.9 2.0 +1.3
TOTALS 64 61.7 105.9 65.3 63 86.1 54.2 +11.1

Mount St. Mary's Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
Cajou, Jean 53 6.8 102.3 7.0 53 96.9 10.3 -3.3
Goode, Jeremy 51 15.8 65.7 10.4 49 105.0 10.3 +0.1
Beidler, Kelly 55 15.7 93.6 14.7 57 101.3 11.5 +3.1
Atupem, Sam 51 13.5 95.8 12.9 51 119.2 12.2 +0.8
Mitchell, Markus 45 4.3 137.2 5.9 45 81.4 7.3 -1.4
Brown, Pierre 12 1.0 0.0 0.0 13 67.4 1.8 -1.8
Atupem, Shawn 26 3.6 118.0 4.3 27 96.8 5.2 -0.9
Holland, Will 11 0.5 200.0 1.0 11 116.0 2.6 -1.6
Trice, Lamar 8 1.7 82.4 1.4 10 122.8 2.5 -1.1
Jackson, Tayvon 3 0.0 - 0.0 4 100.0 0.8 -0.8
TOTALS 63 62.9 91.4 57.5 64 100.6 64.4 -6.9

The 11-point margin of victory is also the net points attributed to Chris Wright (player of the game) in the game, so we can statistically say that he truly was the difference today. Mr. Wright was not particularly efficient today, but he did use 28% of the possessions he played in producing his points, while his defense was markedly stronger than his fellow starters.

Summers and Freeman were the next best starters in producing points, although they did it in different manners (missed dunks withstanding). Summers used a large percentage (24%) of available possessions to inefficiently generate offense (2/7 2FGA, 2/5 3FGA, 3/8 FTA (!), 2 TOs), while Freeman shot much better (2/5 2FGA, 1/2 3FGA, 3/4 FTA) but did so by using only 15% of possessions. Both struggled a bit on defense, as well.

G. Monroe and J. Sapp had games similar to Summers and Freeman, respectively, although their defensive effort was stronger.

J. Clark, J. Vaughn and O. Wattad appear to be settling into the 6-8 spots in the rotation, and Clark and Wattad had nice games in limited playing time. I'm penalizing Vaughn for shooting a 3FGA.


HD BOX SCORE

Mount St. Mary's vs GU
12/20/08 1:00 at Verizon Center
Final score: GU 69, Mount St. Mary's 58

Mount St. Mary's Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Cajou, Jean 32:56 - 6 10/50 2- 3 2- 7 0- 0 10/49 1/15 1/53 0/53 0/25 0/33 2/28 5
Goode, Jeremy 32:15 - 4 8/52 2- 9 0- 2 4- 7 11/51 4/18 1/49 2/51 0/26 3/34 4/26 0
Beidler, Kelly 34:36 -11 16/52 3- 8 3- 7 1- 2 15/52 3/15 1/57 4/55 0/30 3/34 5/34 4
Atupem, Sam 30:46 -18 12/43 6-12 0- 0 0- 0 12/46 0/11 0/51 4/51 2/25 5/31 3/26 1
Mitchell, Markus 28:39 - 2 5/40 2- 2 0- 0 1- 2 2/44 2/14 2/45 1/45 2/26 4/32 5/31 3
Brown, Pierre 07:13 - 8 0/ 2 0- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/ 7 0/ 1 0/13 0/12 0/ 6 0/ 7 2/10 1
Atupem, Shawn 17:57 + 0 5/29 2- 5 0- 0 1- 1 5/22 1/ 9 0/27 1/26 1/13 0/13 2/18 5
Holland, Will 08:01 - 1 2/12 1- 1 0- 1 0- 1 2/13 0/ 4 0/11 0/11 0/ 6 0/ 9 1/ 7 1
Trice, Lamar 05:21 - 5 0/ 6 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 4 2/ 3 0/10 1/ 8 0/ 6 0/ 2 0/ 9 2
Jackson, Tayvon 02:16 + 0 0/ 4 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 4 0/ 3 0/ 2 0/ 0 0/ 1 0
TOTALS 40:00 58 18-41 5-17 7-13 58 13/23 5/64 13/63 5/33 15/38 24/38 22
. 0.439 0.294 0.538 0.565 0.078 0.206 0.152 0.395 0.632

GU Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Summers, DaJuan 34:30 + 4 13/61 2- 7 2- 5 3- 8 12/45 2/13 1/54 2/56 1/37 2/35 2/32 2
Wright, Chris 35:59 +20 19/62 5- 9 1- 2 6- 9 11/46 3/11 4/57 3/59 0/40 3/36 3/38 3
Monroe, Greg 24:24 + 2 8/40 2- 5 0- 0 4- 6 5/30 1/10 1/39 1/39 0/25 1/23 3/22 3
Freeman, Austin 30:01 + 0 10/49 2- 5 1- 2 3- 4 7/40 2/12 0/47 2/48 0/33 1/31 6/31 2
Sapp, Jessie 26:33 + 4 6/41 1- 5 1- 4 1- 2 9/37 0/10 0/43 0/43 0/32 4/31 4/32 2
Mescheriakov, Nikita 03:06 + 6 0/ 6 0- 0 0- 2 0- 0 2/ 3 0/ 1 0/ 5 0/ 5 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 3 1
Clark, Jason 15:26 + 6 6/31 1- 1 0- 0 4- 4 1/15 0/ 6 2/23 1/23 0/ 9 0/ 9 1/ 9 1
Vaughn, Julian 13:14 + 6 2/24 0- 1 0- 1 2- 2 2/15 2/ 5 0/21 0/21 2/15 1/12 1/15 0
Sims, Henry 04:11 - 4 0/10 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 5 0/ 3 0/ 7 0/ 6 0/ 3 0/ 2 0/ 0 0
Wattad, Omar 12:36 +11 5/21 0- 0 1- 1 2- 3 1/14 0/ 5 0/19 0/20 0/ 9 1/ 9 3/13 1
TOTALS 40:00 69 13-33 6-17 25-38 50 10/19 8/63 9/64 3/41 14/38 23/38 15
. 0.394 0.353 0.658 0.526 0.127 0.141 0.073 0.368 0.605

Efficiency: GU 1.078, Mount St. Mary's 0.921
eFG%: GU 0.440, Mount St. Mary's 0.440
Substitutions: GU 21, Mount St. Mary's 36

2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: GU 1-3, Mount St. Mary's 2-3
Layups/Tips: GU 9-18, Mount St. Mary's 13-21
Jumpers: GU 3-12, Mount St. Mary's 3-17

Fast break pts: GU 6 (0.136), Mount St. Mary's 10 (0.196)
Seconds per off. poss: GU 19.2, Mount St. Mary's 17.9

2 comments:

  1. Man, I love that word "desultory," but it means disorganized, erratic, skipping around from topic to topic, up and down, wavering. And I just don't see it in yesterday's game.

    The word for the Hoyas seems more likely "lackluster" or "lifeless"--given the way nothing really was up for the team yesterday. A dull performance, even for Wright, if one looks at his offensive efficiency.

    It struck me, reading your post, that one measure of the team's dullness might be the relation of defensive rebounds surrender and fast-break points. If the players are giving up 50% of their rebounds--and still not getting any fastbreak points on the rebounds they do get--that's perhaps a sign that the team isn't trying in any direction: neither crashing the boards nor releasing for a fastbreak.

    Thanks, by the way, for doing these statistical breakouts. Always interesting to read--with good explanations along the way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was actually going for definition #4: "disappointing in quality or performance."

    I'll have to think about def. rebounding vs. fast break points - on face value it makes sense, but I wonder if coaching decisions ("let's walk it up and run the offense") would be too big a factor.

    And G'town is such a bad rebounding team, you'd expect them to be getting a ton of fast break points by your logic, but they seem to have really cut back on that since the Tennessee game.

    ReplyDelete