On the most obvious level, this game did come down to three-point shooting. The Hoyas shot seven for ten and Pitt shot just four for 18. Even though the Hoyas' shots were generally more open, the shooting easily could have gone five or so threes the other way.
On another level, it's interesting to note the team that couldn't buy a three took 18 of them while the Hoyas only took what was given.
But to center on the three-point shooting alone would ignore the other things the Hoyas did well tonight.
The Hoyas rebounded about even with a team that ranked 56th in the nation in Offensive Rebounding % and 22nd in Defensive Rebounding %. The Hoyas had their best game of the year in terms of holding onto the ball, and while Pitt hardly plays an in-your-face style of defense this year, a 13% turnover will almost always translate to a highly effective offense.
There were still some issues. The exceptional three-point shooting was partially offset by some poor shooting inside the arc and specifically inside the paint.
On defense, Pitt had several stretches where they took advantage of slow or over-rotations, especially when the Hoyas were in their switching man to man and with the bench on the floor. Pitt has always been an excellent interior passing team, so this isn't unexpected. Still, these breakdowns are a potential point of improvement.
So, yes, it was about three-point shooting. But there's more there. The three-point difference was just so big, it's hard to see past it.
Still, an eight point win at the Pete? This team is getting better, game by game.
Let's run the numbers:
TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
Visitor Home
Georgetown PITT
1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 32 32 63
Effic. 97.6 134.9 116.9 97.6 109.8 104.2
eFG% 51.9 53.3 52.7 46.4 51.7 49.1
TO% 18.9 6.3 12.6 9.4 18.8 14.2
OR% 13.3 47.1 31.2 17.6 50.0 34.3
FTA/FGA 15.4 56.7 37.5 28.6 31.0 29.8
Assist Rate 54.5 53.3 53.8 91.7 42.9 65.4
Block Rate 15.0 10.5 12.8 10.5 11.1 10.9
Steal Rate 0.0 6.3 3.2 6.3 6.3 6.3
2FG% 31.6 48.1 41.3 50.0 63.2 56.4
3FG% 71.4 66.7 70.0 25.0 20.0 22.2
FT% 100.0 64.7 71.4 62.5 55.6 58.8
Are we seeing the start of a little bit of "different night, different hero?" It's all about match-ups, and while in previous years an argument could be made that the Hoyas didn't exploit the obvious mismatches enough, these Hoyas don't seem to have that problem.
Greg Monroe's troubles finishing in the post are well-documented at this point, and today was really no exception. I worried before the game about the potential that Nasir Robinson or Gilbert Brown might shut down Monroe simply because he wouldn't be able to take advantage enough of a smaller, quicker player.
This wasn't entirely true; McGee gave him as much trouble as the smaller guys. But the real down low mismatch was Julian Vaughn. Vaughn schooled freshman Dante Taylor and the other Panthers quite a few times on the blocks. He also dished what is likely to be a career-high six assists. Fantastic game from Julian.
The other star was Chris Wright. With the Panthers applying very little on-ball pressure, Wright played much more like an off guard today and responded by both drilling threes and driving repeatedly to the hoop. His assists were low, but that's mostly because Wright had an easier shot than a pass as he laid in basket after basket.
Austin Freeman had his usually efficient game, but he both sat a bit because of foul trouble and didn't press for a shot while in. I wasn't focusing on it, but I wonder if Dixon schemed at all to take him away. Or perhaps it was just too easy for Wright to drive.
Lastly, there's actually a bit of good news from the bench. It was only a total of thirty to forty possessions or so, but the defense was actually at its best when Hollis Thompson and Jerelle Benimon were on the floor. It's most likely just indicative of a Pitt cold spot, but perhaps the freshmen are starting to improve on defense.
INDIVIDUAL NET POINTS STATS
Georgetown Off % Pts Def Pts
Player Poss Poss O.Rtg Prod Poss D.Rtg Allow Net Pts
Vaughn, Julian 48 26.2 117.7 14.8 49 101.1 9.9 +3.5
Monroe, Greg 61 21.2 101.8 13.2 59 92.7 10.9 +1.7
Wright, Chris 59 29.1 132.1 22.7 58 104.3 12.1 +7.7
Freeman, Austin 47 19.8 121.1 11.3 45 113.9 10.3 +0.8
Clark, Jason 59 11.9 94.4 6.6 58 109.9 12.7 -3.6
Thompson, Hollis 27 14.8 0.0 0.0 26 73.5 3.8 -3.4
Sanford, Vee 1 0.0 - 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 +0.0
Benimon, Jerrelle 19 5.8 295.7 3.2 19 75.4 2.9 +1.4
Sims, Henry 4 0.0 - 0.0 5 180.0 1.8 -1.8
TOTALS 65 112.0 71.8 64 100.7 64.4 +7.3
PITT Off % Pts Def Pts
Player Poss Poss O.Rtg Prod Poss D.Rtg Allow Net Pts
ROBINSON, Nasir 29 8.6 127.9 3.2 29 103.3 6.0 -1.1
McGHEE, Gary 40 5.0 250.6 5.0 39 119.5 9.3 -0.8
GIBBS, Ashton 58 22.0 55.2 7.0 60 103.0 12.4 -5.7
WANAMAKER, Brad 58 23.7 108.2 14.9 59 114.9 13.6 +0.2
DIXON, Jermaine 54 21.5 111.2 12.9 55 129.9 14.3 -1.8
WOODALL, Travon 12 16.2 97.3 1.9 12 100.5 2.4 -0.3
ADAMS, Chase 2 0.0 - 0.0 1 200.0 0.4 -0.4
BROWN, Gilbert 47 19.2 151.9 13.7 48 104.3 10.0 +4.0
TAYLOR, Dante 20 27.5 51.5 2.8 22 78.6 3.5 -1.1
TOTALS 64 104.1 61.4 65 110.5 71.8 -7.3
HD BOX SCORE
Georgetown vs PITT
01/20/10 7:00 PM at Petersen Events Center, Pittsburgh, PA
Final score: Georgetown 74, PITT 66
Georgetown Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Vaughn, Julian 31:08 +16 11/65 4- 9 0- 1 3- 5 10/44 6/19 0/49 1/48 2/29 2/23 3/31 0
Monroe, Greg 36:41 + 6 13/68 4-13 0- 1 5- 7 14/53 1/20 1/59 1/61 1/37 2/31 9/32 3
Wright, Chris 35:31 + 8 27/68 8-14 3- 3 2- 2 17/49 2/13 1/58 4/59 1/35 2/27 1/33 2
Freeman, Austin 27:21 + 7 13/57 2- 4 2- 2 3- 4 6/41 3/16 0/45 2/47 1/30 1/22 3/24 4
Clark, Jason 35:43 + 3 7/67 0- 4 2- 2 1- 2 6/51 2/21 0/58 0/59 0/36 1/30 1/30 2
Thompson, Hollis 17:30 +13 0/32 0- 1 0- 1 0- 0 2/22 0/11 0/26 2/27 0/16 0/12 2/17 2
Sanford, Vee 00:48 + 0 0/ 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 1 0/ 0 0/ 1 0/ 1 0/ 1 0/ 1 0/ 1 0
Benimon, Jerrelle 11:38 - 6 3/11 1- 1 0- 0 1- 1 1/16 0/ 3 0/19 0/19 0/13 1/12 4/11 2
Sims, Henry 02:50 - 7 0/ 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 3 0/ 1 0/ 5 0/ 4 0/ 3 0/ 2 0/ 1 0
TOTALS 39:50 74 19-46 7-10 15-21 56 14/26 2/64 10/65 5/40 10/32 24/36 15
. 0.413 0.700 0.714 0.538 0.031 0.154 0.125 0.312 0.667
PITT Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
ROBINSON, Nasir 16:37 - 3 4/29 2- 2 0- 0 0- 0 2/25 3/ 9 0/29 1/29 0/15 0/14 2/12 5
McGHEE, Gary 26:08 - 4 7/48 3- 3 0- 0 1- 1 3/35 1/15 1/39 0/40 1/31 1/20 4/22 4
GIBBS, Ashton 35:51 -10 8/58 1- 8 2- 8 0- 0 16/52 2/19 2/60 1/58 0/42 0/34 3/28 2
WANAMAKER, Brad 36:22 -10 9/59 4- 9 0- 3 1- 2 12/54 7/19 0/59 2/58 1/43 5/35 8/31 3
DIXON, Jermaine 32:50 -10 14/58 3- 8 1- 4 5- 7 12/47 2/18 0/55 0/54 2/38 1/28 1/27 2
WOODALL, Travon 08:15 + 3 2/13 1- 1 0- 1 0- 0 2/11 1/ 5 0/12 0/12 0/ 9 0/ 6 0/ 7 0
ADAMS, Chase 00:21 + 2 0/ 4 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 3 0/ 2 0/ 1 0/ 2 0/ 0 0/ 1 0/ 0 0
BROWN, Gilbert 29:53 - 6 20/47 7- 7 1- 2 3- 5 9/46 1/12 1/48 2/47 0/37 2/30 2/23 3
TAYLOR, Dante 12:53 - 2 2/14 1- 2 0- 0 0- 2 2/17 0/ 5 0/22 2/20 1/15 2/12 0/10 1
TOTALS 39:50 66 22-40 4-18 10-17 58 17/26 4/65 10/64 5/46 12/36 22/32 20.
0.550 0.222 0.588 0.654 0.062 0.156 0.109 0.333 0.688
Efficiency: Georgetown 1.138, PITT 1.031
eFG%: Georgetown 0.527, PITT 0.483
Substitutions: Georgetown 27, PITT 25
2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: Georgetown 2-2, PITT 6-6
Layups/Tips: Georgetown 13-23, PITT 10-16
Jumpers: Georgetown 4-21, PITT 6-18
Fast break pts (% FG pts): Georgetown 6 (10.2), PITT 8 (14.3)
Pts (eff.) after steal: Georgetown 2 (100.0), PITT 2 (50.0)
Seconds per poss: Georgetown 18.0, PITT 19.1
---------
Stats pages will be updated tomorrow
"the defense was actually at its best when Hollis Thompson and Jerelle Benimon were on the floor. It's most likely just indicative of a Pitt cold spot, but perhaps the freshmen are starting to improve on defense."
ReplyDeleteCould indicative of Freeman playing less aggressive defense to avoid picking up fouls. Most of the minutes with both of them were when Free was on the bench.
Great game! It seems, if my memory is correct, that recently, the turnovers are coming predominantly in the first 5-10 minutes as the hoyas figure out opposing defenses and then they've gotten much better at keeping the ball after probing. Not at all to excuse the turnovers, but in the conn game, the nova game, and this game (3 of the last four counts as a trend to me), the TO rate was above 20% in the first half and then dropped by 8-15% in the second half.
ReplyDeleteany way you could test to see if the TO% is particularly high early in games?
Jack - it could be, though I wasn't paying that close attention to Freeman to tell.
ReplyDeleteRory - That's something Brian would have to do, and I don't know if he can. The Hoyas' TO Rate does drop in the second half, which may hint at that.
any way you could test to see if the TO% is particularly high early in games?
ReplyDeleteI can, but it's a bit of a pain in the ass. And I'm lazy by nature.
Two alternatives:
1. Take a look at the team splits page, which breaks out the stats by half for all games, and a variety of subsets.
2. Take a look at the game plots I add to the bottom of most recaps - I've been flagging each possession with a turnover or steal, so you can get a visual sense of when the turnovers are happening.
I do think you're right that the Hoyas are turning it over less in the 2nd half - the stats support that.