Extra recap: Villanova 78, Pittsburgh 76

I've completely dropped the ball on posting HD box scores for other Big East teams due to time constraints (read: I've been very busy since the end of January), but thought I'd wake up my play-by-play parser for the Elite 8 match-up between Pitt and Villanova.

I'll leave it to others to post comments, but thought the box scores would be of some interest.

Let's run the numbers:

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE

.            Visitor                         Home    
.            Villanova                       Pittsburgh      
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            32        34        66

Effic.         98.7     134.5     117.2       104.9     122.8     114.1

eFG%           39.1      64.6      50.0        45.8      58.9      52.9
TO%            18.5      20.5      19.5        18.5      14.6      16.5
OR%            42.9      40.0      41.9        26.7      40.0      33.3
FT Rate        21.9      66.7      41.1        62.5      50.0      55.8

Assist Rate    36.4      35.7      36.0        40.0      66.7      56.0
Block Rate     11.8      17.6      14.7        11.1       5.6       8.3
Steal Rate     12.3       5.8       9.0         6.2       5.8       6.0

2FG%           44.4      61.1      52.8        47.1      70.6      58.8
3FG%           21.4      50.0      30.0        28.6      27.3      27.8
FT%           100.0      93.8      95.7        80.0      64.3      72.4

INDIVIDUAL NET POINTS STATS

Villanova             Off    Poss           Individ     Def             Individ
Player                Poss   Used    ORtg   Pts Prod    Poss    DRtg   Pts Allow   Net Pts
Clark, Shane           41     6.2   135.2     8.4        43    111.5      9.6       -1.2  
Anderson, Dwayne       47    11.4   135.7    15.5        51     93.9      9.6       +5.9  
Cunningham, Dante      48    10.9   130.8    14.3        48    115.9     11.1       +3.2  
Reynolds, Scottie      56    13.8   105.7    14.5        54    110.8     12.0       +2.6  
Redding, Reggie        60    10.2    77.8     7.9        62     96.3     11.9       -4.0  
Pena, Antonio          12     0.0     -       0.0        14    118.5      3.3       -3.3  
Fisher, Corey          31     9.4   106.7    10.0        29    116.0      6.7       +3.3  
Stokes, Corey          35     2.7   147.9     4.0        34    135.1      9.2       -5.1  
TOTALS                 66    64.6   115.6    74.7        67    109.6     73.4       +1.2   

Pittsburgh            Off    Poss           Individ     Def             Individ            
Player                Poss   Used    ORtg   Pts Prod    Poss    DRtg   Pts Allow   Net Pts
Biggs,Tyrell           24     1.3    46.3     0.6        24    120.0      5.8       -5.1  
Young,Sam              65    17.3   124.8    21.5        63    120.9     15.2       +6.3  
Blair,DeJuan           57    13.1   125.4    16.4        54     91.7      9.9       +6.5  
Fields,Levance         61     9.5   138.2    13.2        61    121.4     14.8       -1.6  
Dixon,Jermaine         36     7.5    79.8     6.0        35    106.7      7.5       -1.5  
Brown,Gilbert          31     8.2   123.3    10.1        35    138.0      9.7       +0.4
Gibbs,Ashton           14     4.1    23.6     1.0        11     66.0      1.5       -0.5
Wanamaker,Brad         47     5.4   102.7     5.6        47    127.1     11.9       -6.4
TOTALS                 67    66.4   112.0    74.4        66    115.5     76.2       -1.8

HD BOX SCORE

Villanova vs Pittsburgh
3-28-09 7:05 p.m. at TD Banknorth Garden, Boston, Mass.
Final score: Villanova 78, Pittsburgh 76

Villanova               Min   +/-   Pts  2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A  FGA    A    Stl    TO   Blk    OR    DR   PF
Clark, Shane           25:50  + 1  11/47  1- 3  3- 4  0- 0  7/36  0/12  0/43  1/41  0/24  2/20  2/21   4
Anderson, Dwayne       28:20  - 4  17/51  3- 4  2- 6  5- 5 10/42  0/11  4/51  1/47  0/25  3/26  3/24   3
Cunningham, Dante      29:16  +11  14/67  6-11  0- 0  2- 2 11/43  2/15  0/48  2/48  1/29  2/22  3/20   4
Reynolds, Scottie      33:02  +10  15/67  4- 8  0- 3  7- 7 11/46  1/17  0/54  4/56  0/26  1/25  1/27   3
Redding, Reggie        36:03  + 0   5/66  2- 4  0- 2  1- 2  6/50  4/19  2/62  2/60  3/29  2/29  4/30   4
Pena, Antonio          06:46  -10   0/ 8  0- 0  0- 0  0- 0  0/ 5  0/ 2  0/14  0/12  0/ 3  0/ 3  0/ 8   2
Fisher, Corey          17:50  + 9   9/44  1- 4  0- 3  7- 7  7/25  2/12  0/29  2/31  0/16  1/12  3/13   3
Stokes, Corey          22:53  - 7   7/40  2- 2  1- 2  0- 0  4/33  0/12  0/34  1/35  1/18  0/18  2/12   1
TOTALS                 40:00       78    19-36  6-20 22-23    56  9/25  6/67 13/66  5/34 13/31 20/30  24
.                                        0.528 0.300 0.957       0.360 0.090 0.197 0.147 0.419 0.667    

Pittsburgh              Min   +/-   Pts  2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A  FGA    A    Stl    TO   Blk    OR    DR   PF
Biggs,Tyrell           14:44  -10   0/17  0- 2  0- 0  0- 0  2/20  0/ 4  0/24  0/24  1/12  1/16  1/13   2
Young,Sam              38:20  + 0  28/76  7-10  3- 7  5- 5 17/51  0/15  0/63  5/65  1/33  1/30  6/27   1
Blair,DeJuan           33:47  + 3  20/65  9- 9  0- 0  2- 6  9/44  2/15  2/54  3/57  0/31  2/24  8/29   3
Fields,Levance         37:03  - 3  10/70  0- 3  2- 5  4- 4  8/48  6/21  0/61  0/61  0/33  2/27  1/28   2
Dixon,Jermaine         20:05  - 3   5/36  1- 4  0- 2  3- 4  6/25  2/ 9  1/35  2/36  0/16  1/19  0/15   3
Brown,Gilbert          20:49  - 7   8/38  2- 4  0- 0  4- 6  4/24  2/11  0/35  0/31  1/22  2/11  0/15   1
Gibbs,Ashton           06:10  + 7   0/15  0- 0  0- 3  0- 0  3/10  0/ 4  1/11  1/14  0/ 6  1/ 8  0/ 8   1
Wanamaker,Brad         29:02  + 3   5/63  1- 2  0- 1  3- 4  3/38  2/21  0/47  0/47  0/27  0/20  1/20   5
TOTALS                 40:00       76    20-34  5-18 21-29    52 14/25  4/66 11/67  3/36 10/30 18/31  18
.                                        0.588 0.278 0.724       0.560 0.061 0.164 0.083 0.333 0.581    

Efficiency: Villanova 1.182, Pittsburgh 1.134
eFG%: Villanova 0.500, Pittsburgh 0.529
Substitutions: Villanova 47, Pittsburgh 30

2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: Villanova 0-0, Pittsburgh 0-0
Layups/Tips: Villanova 6-12, Pittsburgh 14-21
Jumpers: Villanova 13-24, Pittsburgh 6-13

Fast break pts: Villanova 4 (0.071), Pittsburgh 5 (0.091)
Seconds per off. poss: Villanova 16.1, Pittsburgh 20.0

Pace and Turnovers

No great insight in this post, I'm afraid, just a data dump.

First, a look at Georgetown's raw pace, both in all games and in conference regular season games only, during the JT3 era:

        Pace
Year  All    BE
2005  60.2  59.9
2006  59.0  58.6
2007  59.7  58.9
2008  62.1  62.3
2009  64.2  63.5

Next, back when John Gasaway was posting at Big Ten Wonk, he introduced a stat he called ePoss, or "effective possessions" which is simply a team's pace (possessions per 40 minutes) less the percentage of possessions on which they turn the ball over. Here's how those numbers have looked for the Hoyas:

        All games         Big East
Year  ePoss  TO Rate    ePoss TO Rate
2005   47.0   21.9       46.6  22.3
2006   47.9   18.8       47.6  18.6
2007   46.6   22.0       45.6  22.6
2008   48.9   21.2       48.7  21.9
2009   50.3   21.6       49.5  22.2

From both sets of numbers, it's clear that the Hoyas played faster this year than they did last year, and that last year was faster than 2007. 2007 stands out, in ePoss terms, as a clear aberration in terms of being slow-even slower, in fact, than the nominally slower 2006.

If/when I come up with something interesting to say about these numbers, I'll put up a post accordingly. Other reader(s), feel free to come up with potentially interesting comments of your own.


UPDATE (3/26/09 2215 CT): Per request, I've updated the table with TO Rate for each year, broken down between all games and just BE conference play:

I'll put up a separate post with the numbers for Hoya opponents.

Recap: Baylor 74, Georgetown 72

Our long national nightmare is over, or at least the Hoyas' basketball season.

It was an offensive showcase down in Waco, and the Hoyas came up 2 points short, in a game that served as a microcosm of their entire season.

The play-by-play doesn't contain substitution data, so you'll only be getting a tempo-free box score tonight.

Let's run the numbers:

                      Offense                            Defense
         1st Half  2nd Half   Total         1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace           28        28        56

Eff.         156.7      98.9     127.7          121.1     141.4     131.2

eFG%          90.5      48.1      67.0           63.6      75.0      69.6
TO%           21.4      21.2      21.3           14.2      17.7      16.0
OR%           33.3      33.3      33.3           25.0      33.3      28.6
FTA/FGA       33.3      11.5      21.3           40.9      20.8      30.4
FTM/FGA       28.6      11.5      19.1           27.3      16.7      21.7

Assist Rate   62.5      45.5      55.6           75.0      62.5      67.9
Block Rate    9.1       25.0      17.4           0.0       6.3       3.4
Steal Rate    21.4      17.7      19.5           10.7      10.6      10.6

2FG%          90.9      66.7      78.3           61.5      75.0      69.0
3FG%          60.0      21.4      37.5           44.4      50.0      47.1
FT%           85.7     100.0      90.0           66.7      80.0      71.4

That both teams got over 70 points in a 56 possession game is impressive; the 56 possessions played was the fewest of any game this season.

Defense just wasn't in the cards tonight, as the Hoyas reverted back to their early-swoon form of good offense / bad defense (think at Marquette or at Syracuse). It leads to aesthetically pleasing games, but the same, inevitable result.

Offensively, that was the highest efficiency since the aforementioned loss against Syracuse.
Defensively, that was the highest efficiency of the season (just nosing out the aforementioned loss at Marquette).

That's all for tonight, as it's way past my bedtime.


Look for a continuation of the season post-mortems over the next few weeks.

NIT-log5 and Adjusted Efficiency Predictions

Following up on yesterday's teaser post, it's time to post preview odds for the 2009 NIT.

Contrary to my hopes, I haven't been able to expand my bracket to account for championship chances, so you're just getting finals chances for every team. If the Hoyas win Wednesday and after the first round is over, I'll post complete odds for the rest of the NIT.

Because the NIT is played at campus sites, team's chances of making it to NYC for the semifinals are greatly affected by seeding. First, here's what team's chances would look like if this were the NCAA tournament and home court advantage was not taken into account, via the log5 method:

Seed  Team           2nd Round Quarters New York  Finals
1     Auburn           79.93%   43.19%   19.60%    8.89%
8     UT-Martin        20.07%    4.58%    0.82%    0.14%
4     Tulsa            53.29%   28.60%   12.30%    5.28%
5     Northwestern     46.71%   23.63%    9.43%    3.75%
3     Baylor           37.57%   22.07%   12.20%    5.76%
6     Georgetown       62.43%   43.78%   29.38%   17.48%
2     Virginia Tech    63.87%   24.63%   12.68%    5.50%
7     Duquesne         36.13%    9.52%    3.59%    1.10%

1     San Diego St     81.33%   47.34%   27.67%   15.94%
8     Weber St         18.67%    4.57%    1.14%    0.28%
4     Kansas St        59.62%   30.84%   16.71%    8.92%
5     Illinois St      40.38%   17.25%    7.71%    3.39%
3     South Carolina   52.41%   21.14%    8.65%    3.76%
6     Davidson         47.59%   18.12%    7.01%    2.88%
2     St Mary's        36.30%   18.92%    7.92%    3.51%
7     Washington St    63.70%   41.81%   23.19%   13.42%

Seed  Team           2nd Round Quarters New York  Finals
1     Creighton        78.07%   35.31%   14.01%    6.46%
8     Bowling Green    21.93%    4.16%    0.65%    0.13%
4     Kentucky         58.72%   37.48%   17.95%    9.75%
5     UNLV             41.28%   23.05%    9.06%    4.15%
3     New Mexico       63.69%   32.50%   19.72%   11.58%
6     Nebraska         36.31%   13.54%    6.38%    2.88%
2     Notre Dame       52.37%   28.83%   17.52%   10.30%
7     UAB              47.63%   25.13%   14.71%    8.31%

1     Florida          81.12%   43.34%   27.70%   14.55%
8     Jacksonville     18.88%    4.10%    1.20%    0.25%
4     Miami            66.70%   38.62%   25.45%   13.92%
5     Providence       33.30%   13.94%    6.86%    2.60%
3     Niagara          52.42%   29.91%   12.59%    5.29%
6     Rhode Island     47.58%   26.02%   10.36%    4.12%
2     Penn State       58.05%   27.52%   10.62%    4.09%
7     George Mason     41.95%   16.55%    5.21%    1.63%

Alas and alack, playing at on-campus sites significantly decreases the odds for teams that will likely end up playing a lot on the road.

Here's what it looks like with home field advantage taken into account, including Miami playing at Providence and assuming the higher (better) seed hosts in all second and third round games:

Seed  Team           2nd Round Quarters New York  Finals
1     Auburn           88.76%   61.58%   38.76%   17.28%
8     UT-Martin        11.24%    1.46%    0.16%    0.03%
4     Tulsa            68.66%   25.89%   10.07%    4.21%
5     Northwestern     31.34%   11.08%    4.00%    1.55%
3     Baylor           52.95%   25.35%   12.50%    5.77%
6     Georgetown       47.05%   27.83%   13.97%    8.23%
2     Virginia Tech    76.85%   42.87%   19.63%    8.29%
7     Duquesne         23.15%    3.95%    0.91%    0.27%

1     San Diego St     89.70%   64.40%   48.36%   28.63%
8     Weber St         10.30%    1.15%    0.18%    0.04%
4     Kansas St        74.11%   27.00%   14.09%    7.73%
5     Illinois St      25.89%    7.45%    3.20%    1.44%
3     South Carolina   68.19%   28.72%   10.08%    4.48%
6     Davidson         31.81%   12.68%    2.88%    1.21%
2     Saint Mary's     52.28%   35.16%   12.60%    5.72%
7     Washington St    47.72%   23.44%    8.61%    5.11%

Seed  Team           2nd Round Quarters New York  Finals
1     Creighton        87.58%   52.47%   28.24%   12.67%
8     Bowling Green    12.42%    1.23%    0.10%    0.02%
4     Kentucky         73.56%   35.55%   13.21%    7.03%
5     UNLV             26.44%   10.75%    3.23%    1.44%
3     New Mexico       77.71%   35.44%   21.01%   12.18%
6     Nebraska         22.29%    7.35%    2.28%    1.00%
2     Notre Dame       67.69%   45.92%   27.17%   15.71%
7     UAB              32.31%   11.29%    4.76%    2.64%

1     Florida          89.22%   62.56%   47.87%   25.07%
8     Jacksonville     10.78%    1.39%    0.24%    0.05%
4     Miami            51.97%   22.24%   12.48%    6.82%
5     Providence       48.03%   13.81%    5.51%    2.06%
3     Niagara          67.38%   32.57%   12.53%    5.22%
6     Rhode Island     32.62%   15.16%    3.98%    1.57%
2     Penn State       72.78%   45.52%   16.10%    6.13%
7     George Mason     27.22%    6.75%    1.30%    0.40%

Methodological note: This latter calculation is made using the Pythagorean expectation formula, with an exponent of 11.739. That seemed to produce results very similar to log5, so it's more of an apples-to-apples comparison.


The great advantages of a home team are pretty clear here, as all of the higher seeds look much better. Creighton's chances of making it to New York essentially double, and they're not alone.

In fact, game location probably matters more in the NIT than it does in the NCAA, simply because the teams, except for the automatic qualifying dreck at the bottom of the bracket, are fairly evenly matched in quality.


Finally - not that you need a reminder - efficiency ratings are not destiny.

NIT-Hoya Odds Report

I'm working on a full Auburn bracket and NIT report (which unfortunately won't appear until tomorrow evening), but in the interim log5 gives the Hoyas a 62.43% chance of beating Baylor, a 43.78% chance of making it to the quarterfinals, and a 29.38% chance of making it to New York City for the semifinals.

Adjusted for venue, though, the Hoyas have only a 47.11% chance of making it to the second round. See this page for more information on that calculation-I'm using that 11.5 exponent Ken lists there, but it looks like he's using something between 11.75 and 11.8 for his ratings this year based on the quick log5 check I did.

I'll have full reports on the complete NIT log5 and home-adjusted efficiency chances tomorrow. In the meantime, check out the results of a Monte Carlo simulation using both KenPom's efficiency ratings and Sagarin's predictor (best viewed in IE, so install IE tab if necessary). Thanks to GoldHoya for passing this along.

BET log5 predictions, after quarterfinals

From Tom, via HoyaTalk.

Here's the updated log5 analysis of the BET tourney, using the updated KenPom.com ratings, after the 3rd round.

Lots of movement yesterday, as Louisville and West Virginia were the big winners in terms of best odds of winning the championship.

However, Tom's predictions for yesterday didn't include that Cuse/UConn would play a 6-OT game, so I'm not sure if we can trust anything else he says.

Seed  Team     2nd Rnd   Quarters   Semis   Finals    Champ
9     Cinci      out       out       out      out      out
16    DePaul    100.0%     out       out      out      out
8     Provy       -       100.0%     out      out      out
1     L'ville     -         -      100.0%   63.77%   35.35%

12    G'town     out       out       out      out      out
13    St.J's    100.0%     out       out      out      out
5     Marq        -       100.0%     out      out      out
4     Nova        -         -      100.0%   36.23%   15.06%

10    N.Dame    100.0%     out       out      out      out
15    Rutgers    out       out       out      out      out
7     WVU         -       100.0%   100.0%   60.28%   32.34%
2     Pitt        -         -        out      out      out

11    SHU       100.0%     out       out      out      out
14    USF        out       out       out      out      out
6     Cuse        -       100.0%   100.0%   39.72%   17.26%
3     UConn       -         -        out      out      out 

Editor's note: These percentages are the probability a team will make it to that round, based on KenPom ratings.

Season Post-Mortem, Part II: Shooting

For the past few years, the Hoyas' offense has been effective primarily because the team takes good shots and makes them. This makes sense: shooting percentage is by far the most important of the "four factors" in terms of driving a strong offense. You have to make shots.

This should not be news to anyone.

This year, the Hoyas' effective shooting percentage was not strong. It was the worst of the Thompson era, and driven primarily by an awful three point shooting percentage.

Below is a chart of 3Pt% of each player and the number of threes they took, ranked by highest 3 pt % (minimum 50 shots).

Rank   2005%/Shots   2006%/Shots   2007%/Shots  2008%/Shots  2009%/Shots
1        40%/60        44%/119       49%/149      45%/159      39%/124      
2        39%/137       41%/120       38%/96       41%/151      36%/89
3        38%/162       38%/132       33%/127      40%/100      33%/79
4        37%/126       32%/92        30%/135      34%/139      33%/89
5        37%/148       29%/91        -            -            -
Rem.     24%/51        25%/56        35%/121      31%/132      28%/156

Overall, the Hoyas under John Thompson III have done a good job of having their best shooters take the most threes. In the early days with Ashanti Cook, DJ Owens and Jon Wallace, the Hoyas had three consistent three point shooters. Jeff Green and Brandon Bowman added years with nice shooting.

Since then, the level of shooter has declined. In the Final Four year, only Wallace and Green were all that effective as higher volume shooters, but Tyler Crawford and Pat Ewing had nice percentages to buoy the team in the remainder column.

Last year, it was Wallace again, as well as Austin Freeman and Jessie Sapp.

This year, there's been three main problems:

First of all, there's no Jon Wallace. DaJuan Summers has really picked up his shooting, but Wallace's mid to high 40's percentages are hard to replace.

Secondly, the team is giving way too many shots to players who cannot shoot. Jessie Sapp shot 36% and only took 89 shots -- by far the lowest total for the second highest shooting percentage on a team in the last five years. In contrast, we gave 156 shots to a group mostly made of bench players that collectively shot 28%. The rotation was too large for a team with very few shooters.

Lastly, Austin Freeman and Chris Wright didn't shoot well. Both shot over 40% last year. Both shot 33% this year. Wright has always been a streaky shooter and his FT % implied his dropoff might come. But Freeman's key offensive asset is his shot. The team just couldn't sustain an offense with one three point threat on the floor most of the time in Summers.

BET log5 predictions, after Round 2

From Tom, via HoyaTalk:

Here's the updated log5 analysis of the BET tourney, using the updated KenPom.com ratings, after the 2nd round.

The seeds holding on Day 2 worsened the odds for all the double-bye teams, but not by that much. Biggest beneficiary so far is Marquette, whose odds have increased about 4%.

Seed  Team     2nd Rnd   Quarters   Semis   Finals    Champ
9     Cinci      out       out       out      out      out
16    DePaul    100.0%     out       out      out      out
8     Provy       -       100.0%   13.47%    2.86%    0.36%
1     L'ville     -         -      86.53%   54.86%   25.79%

12    G'town     out       out      out       out      out
13    St.J's    100.0%     out      out       out      out
5     Marq        -       100.0%   48.04%   19.88%    6.60%
4     Nova        -         -      51.96%   22.40%    7.82%

10    N.Dame    100.0%      out      out      out      out
15    Rutgers    out        out      out      out      out
7     WVU         -       100.0%   40.32%   18.62%   10.04%
2     Pitt        -         -      59.68%   33.21%   20.97%

11    SHU       100.0%      out      out      out      out
14    USF        out        out      out      out      out
6     Cuse        -       100.0%   31.66%   11.22%    6.13%
3     UConn       -         -      68.34%   36.95%   23.38%

Editor's note: These percentages are the probability a team will make it to that round, based on KenPom ratings.

Season Post-Mortem, Part I: How Do You Score? A Brain Dump

There's no doubt the Hoyas' offense was extremely disappointing this year. Thanks to a late season offensive swoon (following a mid-season defensive swoon), this was the worst offensive efficiency in JTIII's tenure:

Year      Adj. Off. Eff.     Rank
2005           113            34
2006           117             9
2007           125             2
2008           117            18
2009           110            57

That's right. Let that sink in. A team with an assumed immense amount of offensive talent simply could not score at the level of even a passable tournament team.


So how does a team score?

There's only so many ways to generate a shot:

• Low post offense


• Dribble penetration


• Outside or mid-range shooting


• Motion/passing penetration (the backdoor cuts, UCLA cuts, pick and roll, high post, etc.)


• Offensive rebounding


• Transition offense

More importantly, it's my opinion that the more diverse an offense is the harder it is to stop. That's really easy to see with, say, offensive rebounding or transition offense, two things that generate shots and points without necessarily impeding a half-court offense. They are additive, occurring after and before the half-court offense.

But within the half-court offense, the other four factors open things up for each other. Low post players or dribble penetrators that require help defense create open outside or mid-range shooting. Quality outside shooting requires extended defenses that allow for better penetration, motion offense and slower (or no) doubles down low. Effective cuts and passes open up shooters outside or discourage too much help defense.

A defense that doesn't need to worry about outside shooting can simply sag on a team, making cuts and dribble penetration less effective. A team that doesn't need to worry about effective cuts or dribble penetration can extend the defense and give up less open looks. And a team that doesn't have to double a low post threat can do all of the above.


So what does Georgetown have? What did the Hoyas used to have?


Let's knock off what the Hoyas haven't done during Thompson's tenure: transition offense. They've never run much, and when they have, they've been awful at converting.

There's a certainly a strong argument for running more. Chris Wright is better in the open floor than Jon Wallace, and when you are struggling for offense, running can create some easy shots. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of other strong handlers on the team, and the team struggles to make the right decisions and finish on the break. I don't have the numbers, and nothing to compare it to, but I don't think anyone will disagree that the team has an incredibly low conversion rate on the break.


Before we get to the other elements, let's take a look at some of the offensive statistics over the years for Georgetown:

Offensive Stat   2005 (Rank)  2006 (Rank)  2007 (Rank)  2008 (Rank)  2009 (Rank)

Adj. Eff.         113  (34)    117   (9)    125   (2)    117  (18)    110  (57)
Opp. Def. Eff.     96  (24)     96  (22)     96   (8)     97  (31)     96   (3)

eFG%             53.1  (35)   53.4  (28)   57.0   (4)   56.8   (4)   52.5  (56)
2Pt%             51.8  (41)   53.5  (15)   57.8   (2)   56.3   (2)   54.2  (12)
3Pt%             36.5  (75)   35.5 (129)   37.0  (73)   38.4  (38)   33.0 (221)
3PA/FGA            43  (13)     37  (71)     35 (151)     40  (48)     36  (89)

FTA/FGA            30 (302)     32 (277)     37 (164)     34 (237)     43  (35)
FT%              70.4 (114)   70.6 (127)   71.0 (115)   65.2 (286)   71.2  (94)

OR%              35.6  (90)   36.3  (77)   40.2   (8)   33.8 (132)   33.4 (152)
TO%              21.9 (203)   18.8  (35)   22.0 (213)   21.2 (192)   21.6 (246)

A/FGM              63  (32)     66   (9)     49  (75)     62  (44)     57  (92)

Some initial thoughts to look into:

• This by far is the worst three-point shooting team Thompson has had. Why? Personnel, or lack of open shots?
  


• This year marks the largest divide between 2PT % and eFG%, meaning the mix between two point FGs and three point FGs was well off. And this was the first time (not counting fouls) that the Hoyas had definitely taken too many threes for our ability.
  


• We're probably going to need to look at 2009 split out. The team collapsed; the numbers of the early conference game are likely inflating the yearly totals, but that wasn't the issue.


• Two point shooting took a hit post-Hibbert, but less than you'd think, especially when you incorporate in lost offensive rebounds.
  


• Relative to the rest of college basketball, this year was the worst year for the Hoyas in terms of generating shots: the worst ranking the Hoyas have had in TO% and OR%.
  


• Georgetown hasn't always been awful at offensive rebounding (see before Jeff Green left), but there's only been one year where the turnovers have been passable.
  


• In the Final Four year, the team assisted on a lower percentage of its shots than any other year. However, the team also generated many offensive rebounds (which lead to put-backs), upped its FG% and its foul rate from the previous year and still managed to score. This year, the % of assisted baskets dropped, but rebounding did as well (and so did FG%). I'm not sure what this means.

The two things that jump at me more than any other are the poor outside shooting and the inability to generate shot opportunities due to turnovers and poor offensive rebounding.


In future posts, I hope to take a look at what is each of those points. Those two points would explain a lot in context of the six ways to score:

• Outside/midrange shooting: Assumed Poor

• Transition offense: Poor

• Offensive rebounding: Poor

With few shots, and no ability to make outside shots defenses can (and did) sag on the interior to harm those aspects of the offense.

• Low post offense: Mediocre to begin win, made worse by lack of shooting

• Penetration: Wright is better, but lots of turnovers from others, lots of help D

• Motion offense: Decidedly worse -- but defense could, again, sag

BET log5 Prediction, after Round 1

From Tom, via HoyaTalk:

Here's the updated log5 analysis of the BET tourney, using the updated KenPom.com ratings, after the 1st round:

Seed  Team     2nd Rnd   Quarters   Semis   Finals    Champ
9     Cinci      out       out       out      out      out
16    DePaul    100.0%    15.20%    0.42%    0.02%    0.00%
8     Provy       -       84.80%   11.61%    2.76%    0.35%
1     L'ville     -         -      87.97%   57.69%   27.02%

12    G'town     out       out      out       out      out
13    St.J's    100.0%    16.12%    2.07%    0.24%    0.02%
5     Marq        -       83.88%   36.42%   13.29%    3.85%
4     Nova        -         -      61.51%   26.00%    8.98%

10    N.Dame    100.0%    27.57%    5.49%    1.35%    0.42%
15    Rutgers    out        out      out      out      out
7     WVU         -       72.43%   28.63%   12.85%    6.82%
2     Pitt        -         -      65.88%   36.25%   22.85%

11    SHU       100.0%    22.04%    2.45%    0.34%    0.07%
14    USF        out        out      out      out      out
6     Cuse        -       77.96%   23.89%    8.54%    4.78%
3     UConn       -         -      73.66%   40.67%   25.85%

Editor's note: These percentages are the probability a team will make it to that round, based on KenPom ratings.

Recap: BET 1st round, St. John's 64, Georgetown 59

Well, that's one game closer to the end of this execrable season.

The Hoyas once again lost to the St. John's Redmen in Madison Square Garden, putting an end to their Big East Tournament the same day it started. This is the 1st time Georgetown was put out in the 1st round since the 2004 tournament.

Once again, I can't track down a workable play-by-play for the game, so I'll just post a tempo-free box score.

Let's run the numbers:

.                     Offense                            Defense
.           1st Half  2nd Half   Total         1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace           33        32        65

Eff.          85.5      96.0      90.7           91.6     105.3      98.4

eFG%          36.2      47.4      40.6           42.0      36.5      39.2
TO%           21.4      24.8      23.1           18.3      21.7      20.0
OR%           40.0      33.3      37.5           16.7      47.4      32.4
FTA/FGA       31.0      94.7      56.3           44.0      69.2      56.9
FTM/FGA       24.1      68.4      41.7           36.0      57.7      47.1

Assist Rate   40.0      50.0      44.4           33.3      44.4      38.9
Block Rate    4.3       0.0       2.9            10.0      35.0      22.5
Steal Rate    6.1       18.6      12.3           15.3      9.3       12.3

2FG%          39.1      54.5      44.1           30.0      40.0      35.0
3FG%          16.7      25.0      21.4           60.0      16.7      36.4
FT%           77.8      72.2      74.1           81.8      83.3      82.8

When you look at the tempo-free numbers, you should realize just how close this game actually was.

Georgetown ended the game with a higher eFG%, better rebounding and equivalent FTA rate to St. John's. The Redmen simply made more FTs than you'd expect (the Johnies shot 65% in conference play, but 85% in two games against the Hoyas) and committed two fewer turnovers. In fact, I just looked it up and the two Georgetown games were the only conference games where St. John's shot better than 80%.

Sometimes, it's just not going to be your year.

I could go own, but just lack the will right now.


The Hoyas will presumably compete in a post-season tournament (NIT?), so no end-of-season review until then.

I'll update the sidebar stats pages in the next few days. Hopefully Tom will update the log5 predictions for the rest of the tournament either late tonight or tomorrow morning.

BET log5 Prediction

Here's the log5 analysis of the BET tourney, using the updated KenPom.com ratings:

Seed  Team     2nd Rnd   Quarters   Semis   Finals    Champ
9     Cinci     85.45%    40.54%    5.11%    1.11%    0.13%
16    DePaul    14.55%     1.94%    0.05%    0.00%    0.00%
8     Provy       -       57.52%    7.93%    1.86%    0.24%
1     L'ville     -         -      86.91%   56.92%   26.71%

12    G'town    84.68%    41.91%   17.93%    6.53%    1.86%
13    St.J's    15.32%     2.31%    0.28%    0.03%    0.00%
5     Marq        -       55.79%   24.15%    8.90%    2.58%
4     Nova        -         -      57.64%   24.64%    8.54%

10    N.Dame    85.68%    23.23%    4.57%    1.11%    0.34%
15    Rutgers   14.32%     0.84%    0.03%    0.00%    0.00%
7     WVU         -       75.93%   30.15%   13.59%    7.27%
2     Pitt        -         -      65.24%   35.93%   22.72%

11    SHU       71.18%    14.53%    1.49%    0.19%    0.03%
14    USF       28.82%     2.71%    0.12%    0.01%    0.00%
6     Cuse        -       82.76%   25.47%    9.08%    5.05%
3     UConn       -         -      72.92%   40.10%   25.53%

Editor's note: These percentages are the probability a team will make it to that round, based on KenPom ratings.

Make of these what you will. As I said last year, efficiency ratings are not destiny.

If you want a sign of optimism, out of all the teams playing on Tuesday, the Hoyas have by far the best chance of making a deep run.

Recap: Georgetown 48, DePaul 40

Georgetown was able to put another tally in the win column tonight against lowly DePaul, but there was little improvement shown on offense from Tuesday's loss at St. John's.

The Hoyas head into the Big East tournament as a 12-seed against those St. John's Redmen on Tuesday at 2pm EDT.

Let's run the numbers:

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Home                            Visitor   
.            GU                              DePaul 
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            30        27        57

Effic.         79.4      86.2      82.9        49.7      89.7      69.0 

eFG%           40.0      50.0      44.2        22.4      41.7      32.2 
TO%            26.5      28.7      27.6         9.9      14.4      12.1 
OR%            25.0      35.7      30.0        16.7      35.0      25.0 
FT Rate        16.0      66.7      37.2        13.8       6.7      10.2 

Assist Rate    77.8      62.5      70.6        33.3       9.1      17.6 
Block Rate     10.5       5.6       8.1         8.3       0.0       4.3 
Steal Rate      3.3       7.2       5.2        16.6      17.9      17.3 

2FG%           58.3      54.5      56.5        26.3      44.4      35.1 
3FG%           15.4      28.6      20.0        10.0      25.0      18.2 
FT%           100.0      50.0      62.5        50.0       0.0      33.3

INDIVIDUAL NET POINTS STATS

GU                    Off    Poss           Individ     Def             Individ             
Player                Poss   Used    ORtg   Pts Prod    Poss    DRtg   Pts Allow   Net Pts
Summers, DaJuan        47    18.0    71.6    12.9        48     83.9      8.1       +4.8   
Wright, Chris          50    11.9    48.3     5.8        49     84.1      8.2       -2.5   
Mescheriakov, Nikita   27     3.9    97.6     3.8        26     68.6      3.6       +0.2   
Monroe, Greg           49     5.3   128.2     6.9        47     77.4      7.3       -0.4   
Freeman, Austin        28     2.6   130.7     3.4        27     45.6      2.5       +1.0   
Clark, Jason           24     6.7    48.6     3.3        26     49.7      2.6       +0.7   
Sapp, Jessie           40     4.7   132.8     6.3        39     53.6      4.2       +2.1   
Vaughn, Julian          9     1.0     0.0     0.0        11     29.1      0.6       -0.6   
Sims, Henry            16     2.8   129.9     3.6        17     39.5      1.3       +2.3   
TOTALS                 58    57.0    80.5    45.9        58     66.1     38.4       +7.5    

DePaul                Off    Poss           Individ     Def             Individ             
Player                Poss   Used    ORtg   Pts Prod    Poss    DRtg   Pts Allow   Net Pts
TUCKER, Dar            56    21.1    43.7     9.2        55     77.6      8.5       +0.7   
KELLY, Jeremiah        51     3.8   117.4     4.5        52     78.5      8.2       -3.7   
KOSHWAL, Mac           47     4.8    78.9     3.8        47     75.0      7.0       -3.3   
WALKER, Will           56    17.5    94.9    16.6        56     64.0      7.2       +9.4   
POSCIC, Matija         36     2.5   119.9     3.0        36     91.6      6.6       -3.6   
BIZOUKAS, Michael       2     0.0     -       0.0         2    150.0      0.6       -0.6   
HILL, Devin            26     5.5    21.0     1.1        26     74.2      3.9       -2.7   
STULA, Mario            9     2.0     0.0     0.0         9    114.9      2.1       -2.1   
FABER, Krys             7     0.0     -       0.0         7     -0.0     -0.0       +0.0   
TOTALS                 58    57.1    66.8    38.2        58     75.9     44.0       -5.9

HD BOX SCORE

DePaul vs GU
03/07/09 5:00 at Verizon Center
Final score: GU 48, DePaul 40

DePaul                  Min   +/-   Pts  2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A  FGA    A    Stl    TO   Blk    OR    DR   PF
TUCKER, Dar            38:23  - 5   9/40  2-10  1- 8  2- 4 18/56  1/14  1/55  5/56  0/23  2/41  5/29   4
KELLY, Jeremiah        36:26  - 6   5/34  1- 1  1- 3  0- 0  4/50  1/12  1/52  1/51  0/22  0/38  0/27   2
KOSHWAL, Mac           31:46  - 9   2/33  1- 2  0- 0  0- 2  2/50  1/13  1/47  1/47  1/20  3/37  9/24   5
WALKER, Will           38:31  - 5  20/40  7-14  2- 9  0- 0 23/56  0/ 8  6/56  0/56  0/22  1/41  1/29   0
POSCIC, Matija         25:02  - 2   4/32  2- 3  0- 0  0- 0  3/36  0/12  0/36  0/36  0/18  0/23  3/19   3
BIZOUKAS, Michael      01:50  - 3   0/ 0  0- 0  0- 0  0- 0  0/ 3  0/ 0  0/ 2  0/ 2  0/ 1  0/ 3  0/ 1   0
HILL, Devin            18:40  - 3   0/15  0- 6  0- 1  0- 0  7/27  0/ 6  0/26  0/26  0/ 6  2/22  1/13   1
STULA, Mario           04:50  - 5   0/ 6  0- 1  0- 1  0- 0  2/12  0/ 3  0/ 9  0/ 9  0/ 1  0/ 9  0/ 4   1
FABER, Krys            04:32  - 2   0/ 0  0- 0  0- 0  0- 0  0/ 5  0/ 0  1/ 7  0/ 7  0/ 2  0/ 6  1/ 4   1
TOTALS                 40:00       40    13-37  4-22  2- 6    59  3/17 10/58  7/58  1/23 11/44 21/30  17
.                                        0.351 0.182 0.333       0.176 0.172 0.121 0.043 0.250 0.700    

GU                      Min   +/-   Pts  2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A  FGA    A    Stl    TO   Blk    OR    DR   PF
Summers, DaJuan        32:48  + 9  15/44  5- 7  1- 7  2- 4 14/36  1/10  0/48  5/47  2/30  1/24  2/33   1
Wright, Chris          33:16  + 7   6/45  1- 2  1- 4  1- 4  6/37  3/14  0/49  4/50  0/31  0/24  1/37   3
Mescheriakov, Nikita   19:47  + 0   4/21  2- 4  0- 1  0- 0  5/20  0/ 6  0/26  0/27  0/16  1/12  3/20   2
Monroe, Greg           32:34  + 5   6/41  2- 2  0- 0  2- 2  2/36  3/12  0/47  2/49  1/32  2/25  6/36   1
Freeman, Austin        19:32  + 4   2/22  1- 3  0- 0  0- 0  3/24  3/ 9  0/27  0/28  0/20  1/14  7/23   1
Clark, Jason           16:43  + 4   4/19  0- 0  1- 4  1- 2  4/17  1/ 5  1/26  4/24  0/17  0/15  2/19   0
Sapp, Jessie           25:53  + 6   7/32  1- 2  1- 4  2- 2  6/27  1/ 7  2/39  1/40  0/24  1/22  4/28   1
Vaughn, Julian         07:26  + 3   0/ 7  0- 1  0- 0  0- 0  1/ 7  0/ 3  0/11  0/ 9  0/ 5  0/ 5  2/ 8   1
Sims, Henry            12:01  + 2   4/ 9  1- 2  0- 0  2- 2  2/11  0/ 2  0/17  0/16  0/10  1/ 9  3/16   1
TOTALS                 40:00       48    13-23  4-20 10-16    43 12/17  3/58 16/58  3/37  9/30 33/44  11
.                                        0.565 0.200 0.625       0.706 0.052 0.276 0.081 0.300 0.750    

Efficiency: GU 0.828, DePaul 0.690
eFG%: GU 0.442, DePaul 0.322
Substitutions: GU 23, DePaul 20

2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: GU 2-2, DePaul 0-1
Layups/Tips: GU 5-8, DePaul 6-12
Jumpers: GU 6-13, DePaul 7-24

Fast break pts: GU 2 (0.053), DePaul 8 (0.211)
Seconds per off. poss: GU 19.7, DePaul 21.8

Recap: St. John's 59, Georgetown 56

Georgetown lost another overtime game tonight by the score 59-56 to the St. John's Redmen.

If you didn't suffer through, or managed to forget the last few Esherick years at Georgetown, tonight's game probably came as a bit of shock to you.

But for those who do remember, this game was in no way a surprise as the second semester swoon continues for the Hoyas. At this point little can be said about Our Men in Gray, as they seem incapable of stringing together consecutive strong outings. I'd guess that HoyaTalk is in full meltdown-mode for tonight and tomorrow - I'm planning on staying away for a couple of days myself.

With the loss, the Hoyas have effectively eliminated their chances of making the NCAA tournament, barring an appearance in the BET finals at minimum. Before then, they'll have to deal with the DePaul Blue Demons, currently without a win in Big East play.

Due to the vagaries of playing in The World's Most Famous Arena, no play-by-play is available for tonight's game, so a tempo-free box score is all you'll get.

Let's (sob) run the numbers:

.                      Offense                            Defense
.            1st Half  2nd + OT   Total         1st Half  2nd + OT   Total
Pace           34        27        60

Eff.          91.9      74.9      83.5           86.0      89.9      88.0

eFG%          53.7      37.5      46.1           50.0      31.7      40.0
TO%           20.8      21.0      20.9           35.6      21.0      28.3
OR%           13.3      14.3      13.9           35.7      47.6      42.9
FTA/FGA       11.1      54.2      31.4           20.0      40.0      30.9
FTM/FGA       7.4       29.2      17.6           16.0      36.7      27.3

Assist Rate   53.8      50.0      52.4           54.5      33.3      45.0
Block Rate    5.6       11.1      8.3            12.5      16.7      15.0
Steal Rate    5.9       6.0       6.0            20.8      15.0      17.9

2FG%          55.6      33.3      44.4           50.0      33.3      40.0
3FG%          33.3      33.3      33.3           33.3      16.7      26.7
FT%           66.7      53.8      56.3           80.0      91.7      88.2

The old bugaboo of rebounding came back to bite Georgetown one more time - the Hoyas collected only 5 of 36 of their own available missed shots, while St. John's snagged 15 of their 35 missed shots. Those 10 extra sustained possessions for the Redmen more than offset the Hoya's 19-14 turnover advantage.

In the end - that being the last 10 minutes of regulation and all of overtime - the Hoyas offense failed them. Per the AP recap, Georgetown lead 45-30 at 10:42 in the 2nd half, having allowed St. John's to score a single 2nd half point as part of a 14-1 run to open the Vesper half - G'town managed to get outscored 21-6 the rest of the way in regulation.

As has seemed to become a tradition around here in close losses, I'll point out the FT% in the game, compared with BE conference averages for the teams:

Team     FT%-Game  FT%-Conf.  FTM/FTA    Exp. FTM/FTA
G'town      56.3     69.9       9/16        11/16 
St. J's     88.2     63.9      15/17        11/17

It's really a useless point, like complaining about officiating, but if both teams had merely shot their conference average at the FT line, the Hoyas would have pulled out the game.


One final note - A. Freeman missed the game with a hip-pointer suffered in practice yesterday, also per the AP recap. His absence was likely not insignificant.