Sunday, March 29, 2009

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

Saturday, March 21, 2009

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.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

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.

Monday, March 16, 2009

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.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

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.

Friday, March 13, 2009

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.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

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.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

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.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

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.

Monday, March 9, 2009

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.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

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

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

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.