Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Thank you both for reading

Well, I think this is it.

I just don't have the time I used to to work up the stats for the games, and the rest of the spine-tingling content that Alan and I once cobbled together isn't writing itself.

We haven't written a season preview in years and most game recaps consist of stats dumps.

I think Woody and Diane described it best:



I'll leave the website live for a while longer in case anyone wants to refer back to the stats from previous years. I may even try to update the links on the sidebar one last time.

I hope someone found this thing useful, and it wasn't a complete waste of time. Alan and I will still be around HoyaTalk and Casual Hoya, as time permits.

Thank you for your support.

Friday, March 22, 2013

Recap: Florida Gulf Coast 78, Georgetown 68

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Home                            Visitor   
.            GEORGETOWN                      Florida Gulf Coast         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            33        44        77
 
Points          22        46        68          24        54        78   

Effic.         67.4     104.3      88.6        73.6     122.5     101.7  
 
eFG%           35.2      48.6      43.0        34.6      65.2      49.0  
TO%            18.4      18.1      18.2        15.3      18.1      16.9  
OR%            23.8      27.3      25.6        19.0      21.4      20.0  
FTA/FGA        29.6      32.4      31.2        46.2     139.1      89.8  

Assist Rate    44.4      73.3      62.5        62.5      76.9      71.4  
Block Rate     11.1      12.5      11.8        10.5       5.6       8.1  
Steal Rate      6.1       9.1       7.8         6.1       6.8       6.5  
 
2FG%           42.1      50.0      45.9        33.3      56.2      44.1  
3FG%           12.5      31.6      25.9        25.0      57.1      40.0  
FT%            37.5      83.3      65.0        50.0      75.0      68.2

And so ends another season for your Georgetown Hoyas. I'm not sure if it's because I'm getting older or just I've just grown numb to it, but the Hoyas fifth straight loss to a double-digit seed in the NCAA tournament just doesn't shock or distress me like they used to.

Instead, early in the second half when my sons asked that I play with them rather than watch the game, I said "Sure." Because rolling two five-year-olds into a comforter and tickling them until they could wriggle away was a lot more fun.

A few statistical observations from the evening:
  • Georgetown's lack of an interior game came home to roost tonight. In spite of shooting a higher percentage on inside shots than the Eagles [GU: 10-15 on dunks, layups and tips, FGCU: 11-22], the Hoyas simply settled for far too many 2-pt jump shots [GU: 7/22, FGCU 4/12]. When a major conference team is unable to punish a mid-major inside, the playing field is leveled.
  • While the game was certainly lost in the vespers half, the Hoyas did manage a stellar opening half of defense and had nothing to show for it but a two-point deficit. Georgetown's offense spurted because - you guessed it - too many jump shots. The Hoyas were 9/27 on FGs in the lift-off half: 3/6 on layups/tips; 5/13 on 2FG jumpers, 1/8 on 3FG jumpers.
  • To start the game, the Hoyas grabbed 5/12 own available missed shots on their way to an 18-12 lead, even though they could only generate two points on those offensive rebounds. Georgetown didn't get another offensive rebound until 6:32 was left in the game.
  • The bottom fell out during that stunning second-half run by FGCU. The Eagles managed to score on nine consecutive possessions in the course of a 21-5 stretch that broke the game wide open. During that run, the Hoyas attempted only one shot in the paint, which resulted in two (made) free throws for Jabril Trawick.
  • Hats off to Markel Starks, who led the team in scoring in each half and was the chief architect of the furious comeback attempt in the last three minutes [10 pts, 2 assist, 1 steal in 2:09 of game time] and to Aaron Bowen, who managed a +8 game in 12 minutes played when Coach Thompson finally called for full-court pressure and a frenetic pace.
  • And congratulations to the Florida Gulf Coast Eagles for outplaying the Hoyas all night long in their historic upset win.

more stats after the jump

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

South bracket: log5 prediction

As I did last year and have done in the past, I will be running log5 analysis based on the Pomeroy ratings for at least as long as the Hoyas are in the field.

Ken Pomeroy has run the official log5 odds for the tournament as a whole on his website. Rather than duplicate his what I will try to do here is provide supplementary information.

Log5 in Other Regions


The first question I want to answer is to what extent the Hoyas were unlucky or lucky to be the #2 seed in the South region as opposed to the #2 seed in some other region. To answer that question, I ran the log5 odds for the Hoyas in each region. Here are the results:
Bracket   2nd Round  Sweet 16  Elite 8  Final 4
South       89.6     60.7       20.0     10.2
East        88.9     63.3       44.5     18.4
Midwest     91.3     55.8       31.4     12.0
West        86.0     57.2       35.1     15.5
Based on that analysis, the South region is of only average difficulty when it comes to making it to the Sweet 16, but getting to the Elite 8 is a particularly difficult challenge. The reason is the presence of the Florida Gators, the top team in the Pomeroy ratings thanks to their obliteration of the rest of the SEC and some very strong non-conference performances. Should they manage to get past Florida though, they are a slight favorite to advance. Kansas is the weakest #1 seed by the Pomeroy ratings, #4 seed Michigan rates as a tossup, and the Hoyas would be a 60% or greater favorite against any other team from the top half.

Top 100 Performance: South Region


In last year's log5 post, I wondered whether looking at performance solely against teams in the top 100 of the Pomeroy ratings would produce more accurate predictions. Given no team the Hoyas are likely to meet other than Round of 64 opponent FGCU will be ranked outside the top 100, it seemed like measuring how teams fare against tournament-quality teams would be a better predictor of tournament success. To that end, I calculated how every NCAA tournament team fared against the top 100. Please note these are raw averages, not adjusted for opponent or venue. Here is what the South region log5 looks like based on top 100 performance.
Seed  Team           2nd Round  Sweet 16  Elite 8  Final 4
1     Kansas            98.6      88.4     68.8     36.4
16    Western Kentucky   1.4       0.1      0.0+     0.0+
8     North Carolina    55.2       6.8      2.2      0.3
9     Villanova         44.8       4.6      1.3      0.2

5     VCU               63.1      33.6      9.7      2.8
12    Akron             36.9      15.0      3.1      0.6
4     Michigan          77.6      45.0     14.1      4.3
13    South Dakota St.  22.4       6.5      0.9      0.1

6     UCLA              59.7      10.5      4.5      1.2
11    Minnesota         40.3       5.3      1.8      0.4
3     Florida           91.9      81.0     66.5     44.5
14    Northwestern St.   8.1       3.2      1.0      0.2

7     San Diego St.     62.3      25.2      5.4      1.5
10    Oklahoma          37.7      11.4      1.7      0.3
2     Georgetown        91.1      61.9     18.9      7.2
15    FGCU               8.9       1.6      0.1      0.0+
Note I listed a couple teams in bold in the bracket. The Hoyas were bolded to highlight their odds. The other teams I bolded are the result of one of the problems inherent in the method, namely that not every team in college basketball plays enough top 100 teams to get a good grasp of how good they are. Like Ohio last year, Akron presents a particular challenge. By virtue of a season sweep of the Bobcats, the 79th-ranked team in the Pomeroy ratings, the Zips come out as a well above-average squad in their seven games against top 100 competition. This seems very implausible to me, so I therefore manually adjusted their rating to reflect average performance against the top 100. This still leaves them an above-average 12th seed and better than North Carolina and Villanova, but does not break the system.

The Effect of Greg Whittington (and Pitt)


As devoted Hoya fans, we are aware the Hoyas experienced of Greg Whittington, which resulted in changes in how the team played. Cognizant of that, I broke down the Hoyas' performance in three ways.
Sample      Off Eff.   Def Eff.
All Games     96.8       89.4
Post-Whitt   100.7       87.7
W/o Pitt      98.1       87.2
I used the ratings for all games to produce the above odds. Keep in mind that even the least flattering sample size of all games has the Hoyas as an very good team, coming out 11th in the field. While that would not leave them as a #2 seed, they are comparatively much more deserving than last year's #3 seed. They are the best defensive team in the field and have a profile similar to, but better than, last year's #4 seed Louisville team that made it to the Final 4.

The most natural split would be before and after Whittington's suspension. This is natural for a number of reasons. First, Whittington will not be returning this season. Second, the Hoyas played 11 games against top 100 foes without Whittington, so we do not have a small sample size problem. Third, as Hoya fans, we recognize the current version of the Hoyas is better than the version of the Hoyas we saw in November and December, so we want to think of them at their best.

While I want to adopt this approach, particularly for the third reason, I am not fully comfortable with it for a number of reasons. First, the Hoyas still played those games and 80% of the contributions to those games came from people who will be playing in March. Second, the Hoyas are not the only team whose characteristics have changed over the course of the season. Judging them off post-Whittington ratings reflects a trend-based approach I am otherwise eschewing in my analysis. (If you're curious, Dan Hanner ran those numbers.) Third, they had one particularly anomalous game that is skewing their overall numbers. Half of the effect of removing Whittington comes from removing this one game. Given that I believe college athletics is prone to extreme games resulting from events extrinsic to the on-court (or -field) action, I am in some ways more comfortable with throwing out just one game than I am six.

With that in mind, here's how all three incarnations of the Hoyas fare in the analysis.
Team           2nd Round  Sweet 16  Elite 8  Final 4
All Games         91.1      61.9     18.9      7.2
Post-Whitt        94.9      75.3     31.9     16.5
W/o Pitt          93.8      71.0     27.0     12.7
In doing this analysis, it's worth noting the Hoyas without Whtitington come out as the fourth-best team in the field. That they still only have a 16.5% chance to make the Final 4 is because Florida and Kansas are the two best teams in the field.

The Problems Inherent in the Method


I have already discussed the problem of small sample sizes resulting in teams that appear to be much better than their overall body of work indicates. Akron is perhaps the most extreme example of this, but Memphis is another. The Tigers come out slightly better than the Zips, but they did not fare particularly well in their two games against teams ranked in the top 70. I am not comfortable declaring Josh Pastner's squad to be the 16th-best team in the country.

Since this is the second year I have done this, I can also look at last year's results and see which teams overachieved and underachieved relative to how their performance against top 100 teams would lead you to predict. The big overachievers all came from one of the prototypical power conferences. Some of the teams, like Louisville, did fairly well in conference, while others, including Cincinnati, South Florida, and, yes, NC State, fared poorly. Underachievers came from everywhere, but the biggest cause seemed to be mid-majors with gaudy performances against top 100 but not elite foes. Teams in this category included Wichita State, San Diego State, and St. Mary's.

It is worth noting that on the whole Ken's official log5 projection, based on all games, outperformed my raw, unadjusted top 100 performance last year when it came to predicting how the tournament ensued. If this method does not do better this year, I most likely will not be running it next year.

Top 100 projection: East region


Having gotten my disclaimer out of the way, I wanted to quickly run through projections for the other regions.
Seed  Team           2nd Round  Sweet 16  Elite 8  Final 4
1     Indiana           97.3      69.2     51.5     28.9
16    LIU/James Madison  2.7       0.2      0.0+     0.0+
8     NC State          56.7      18.7     10.7      4.2
9     Temple            43.3      12.0      6.1      2.0

5     UNLV              52.9      28.2      9.1      3.0
12    Cal               47.1      23.9      7.1      2.2
4     Syracuse          84.1      45.0     15.3      5.4
13    Montana           15.9       2.9      0.3      0.0+

6     Butler            53.2      31.1      9.2      3.4
11    Bucknell          46.8      25.9      7.0      2.4
3     Marquette         60.4      28.4      7.5      2.5
14    Davidson          39.6      14.6      2.9      0.7

7     Illinois          40.4       8.5      4.1      1.3
10    Colorado          59.6      16.4      9.4      3.8
2     Miami-FL          93.9      73.9     59.8     40.0
15    Pacific            6.1       1.2      0.3      0.0+
NC State-Temple is one of several intriguing mid-major vs. power conference games. Syracuse, Marquette, and Illinois are all good test cases for whether a stronger adjustment for strength of schedule would help the methodology, as all three performed poorly relative to their seed in strong conferences. Illinois-Colorado is a very interesting matchup in that regard.

Top 100 projection: Midwest region


Moving on to the other half of the bracket, we see the NCAA's top overall seed is a very good team, but perhaps not quite the strongest team in the field.
Seed  Team           2nd Round  Sweet 16  Elite 8  Final 4
1     Louisville        99.0      67.1     42.5     24.5
16    N. Carolina A&T    1.0       0.0+     0.0+     0.0+
8     Colorado St.      55.3      19.4      9.4      4.0
9     Missouri          44.7      13.6      5.9      2.2

5     Oklahoma St.      51.2      19.4      6.4      2.3
12    Oregon            48.8      18.0      5.8      2.0
4     St. Louis         79.3      54.9     28.3     15.2
13    New Mexico St.    20.7       7.7      1.7      0.4

6     Memphis           65.2      36.6     13.6      5.6
11    St. Mary's        34.8      14.5      3.6      1.0
3     Michigan St.      86.7      46.8     16.9      6.7
14    Valparaiso        13.3      2.1      0.2      0.0+

7     Creighton         72.7      28.5     16.8      7.8
10    Cincinnati        27.3       5.8      2.1      0.5
2     Duke              93.9      64.8     46.6     28.0
15    Albany             6.4       0.9      0.1      0.0+
Creighton-Cincinnati is perhaps the most interesting game of the round of 64. In addition to the mid-major vs. power conference battle, it also is a contrast of styles, as the Blue Jays are an outstanding offensive team with a weak defense while the Bearcats have a mediocre offense and a strong defense. I have already noted Memphis; my subjective opinion is that this system overrates their chances of a Sweet 16 trip relative to Michigan State's. Yes, St. Louis does seem to be that good, though the official log5 prediction likes Oklahoma State much more than this does. Duke's projection is based on their performance with Ryan Kelly. With Kelly, they come out as the fifth-best team in the field, narrowly behind the Hoyas. In all games, they are the ninth-best team in the field and have a 16.8% chance to make the Final 4.

Top 100 projection: West region

Seed  Team           2nd Round  Sweet 16  Elite 8  Final 4
1     Gonzaga           99.3      70.7     54.7     39.8
16    Southern           0.7       0.0+     0.0+     0.0+
8     Pitt              54.0      16.6      9.9      5.4
9     Wichita St.       46.0      12.7      7.1      3.6

5     Wisconsin         44.9      23.8      6.6      2.9
12    Ole Miss          55.1      32.0     10.2      5.0
4     Kansas St.        58.6      27.9      7.9      3.5
13    Boise/La Salle    41.4      16.2      3.6      1.3

6     Arizona           63.9      34.7     22.0      9.6
11    Belmont           36.1      14.7      7.3      2.3
3     New Mexico        75.1      42.9     28.1     12.8
14    Harvard           24.9      7.7      3.1      0.7

7     Notre Dame        47.1      20.0      6.5      1.7
10    Iowa St.          52.9      23.8      8.4      2.3
2     Ohio St.          81.4      51.1     23.6      8.9
15    Iona              18.6       5.2      0.9      1.1

I manually adjusted Iona's odds to put them more in line with the other 15 seeds in the field. They played only four games against top 100 competition and went 2-2, beating Denver and Georgia and losing to La Salle and St. Joseph's. Ohio State by this method is by far the weakest #2 seed, coming out just behind Ole Miss, Missouri, and NC State. They still stand a decent chance of getting to the Elite 8, as Arizona and New Mexico are both likely to be overrated by this methodology while the Buckeyes are underrated.

Finally, a gentle reminder: efficiency ratings are not destiny.

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Game stats: Syracuse 58, Georgetown 55 [OT]

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Home                            Visitor   
.            GEORGETOWN                      Syracuse         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            28        28        55
 
Points          20        35        55          29        29        58   

Effic.         72.3     100.7      88.2       104.8      83.4      93.0  
 
eFG%           32.7      50.0      41.5        47.8      39.7      43.3  
TO%            14.5      20.1      17.6        18.1      25.9      22.5  
OR%            30.0      36.8      33.3        26.7      39.1      34.2  
FTA/FGA        26.9      48.1      37.7        34.8      37.9      36.5  

Assist Rate    75.0      75.0      75.0        88.9      30.0      57.9  
Block Rate      0.0       9.1       5.9         5.3      18.8      11.4  
Steal Rate     14.5       8.6      11.2         3.6      14.4       9.6  
 
2FG%           36.8      56.2      45.7        41.7      31.8      35.3  
3FG%           14.3      27.3      22.2        36.4      42.9      38.9  
FT%            42.9      61.5      55.0        87.5      54.5      68.4

And so it goes for the Hoyas in the last year of the "original" Big East tournament.

What I hope doesn't get lost in this is that Mikael Hopkins grades out as clearly the best player on the court for either team tonight (see below). After a mostly difficult season for Hopkins, I was glad to see him have a performance that he can build upon during the NCAA tournament.

more stats after the jump

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 62, Cincinnati 43

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Home                            Visitor   
.            GEORGETOWN                      Cincinnati         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            27        26        53
 
Points          29        33        62          24        19        43   

Effic.        107.0     125.4     116.0        88.5      72.2      80.4  
 
eFG%           52.1      50.0      51.0        55.9      35.7      44.7  
TO%            25.8       7.6      16.8        33.2      22.8      28.1  
OR%            37.5      35.7      36.7        40.0      20.0      28.0  
FTA/FGA        29.2      45.8      37.5        47.1      23.8      34.2  

Assist Rate    60.0      54.5      57.1        57.1      57.1      57.1  
Block Rate      0.0       7.1       4.8         0.0      25.0      16.1  
Steal Rate     14.8      11.4      13.1        14.8       7.6      11.2  
 
2FG%           45.5      45.0      45.2        28.6      42.9      38.1  
3FG%           38.5      50.0      41.2        50.0      14.3      35.3  
FT%            57.1      81.8      72.2        62.5      80.0      69.2

more stats after the jump

Monday, March 11, 2013

Changes

When performance changes, or someone exceeds or fails to meet expectations, there's always a narrative. It doesn't matter if it is sports, or politics, personnel evaluation or rationalizing why you were late to dinner. The narrative is easier to come up with, always provides an answer, and is simple to communicate. Unlike the truth, which is often hard to get at, not definitive and almost always complicated.

The simple narrative behind Georgetown's improvement has been the rise of Otto Porter in the wake of Greg Whittington's suspension. There's several variations on the narrative here, from innocent to not so innocent:
  1. Greg's absence made Otto Porter realize he needed to step up
  2. Greg's suspension made JTIII realize the big lineup was a mistake
  3. Greg demanded the ball too much for a mediocre offensive player and the Hoyas would be not as good with him.
Is this narrative even right? I doubt that we can prove any of the above completely right or wrong either way. But we can examine why the team is doing better and see if that lines up with the 'absence of Greg' theories.

In all three cases, we'd expect the major cause of improvement of the team to be offensive. In all three cases, we'd expect the shift of possessions away from Greg Whittington to be the key driver of increased offensive ability.


Is it the Offense?
Stat                 Non-Conf.           Last Ten  
Off Eff. (Adj)      102.2 (102.5)     106.3 (110.5)
Def Eff. (Adj)       83.9  (84.1)      91.4  (85.1)

eFG%                   51.3               53.3
TO%                    18.4               20.6
OR%                    28.4               33.5
FTA/FGA                34.9               36.5
I'm using the last ten even though it's more the last 14 because it's easier (the only other easily available split was con/non-con and that doesn't suit because the first few conference games need to be in the "before" set). I'm using non-conference, because, even though it doesn't include the Pitt debacle, it's directionally right in terms of how the offense was performing.

It's the offense.

Given the competition level, the defense may actually have been better, but you'd never expect an offense to improve in raw efficiency in conference play versus a full set that includes seven or eight cupcakes unless it actually, you know, improved. This isn't a quirk of schedule -- the offense did get better (Ed note: I've added the adjusted efficiencies for the two time periods).

Most notably, the team has shot better (#1 in conference play in eFG%) and hit the offensive boards better. (Again, given the competition, they also improved in TOs and FTA, but those are smaller improvements).


Is it the shift of possessions away from Whittington?

One way to find causality in these situations is a Volume, Rate and Assortment calculation. Since we're dealing with per possession efficiency and possessions are our "volume", I've ignored that and focused on a rate and assortment calculation.

An increase in rate means that the player got better between the non-conference and the last ten games. The trade-offs in assortment will show the benefit of moving playing time around.

The results:
             Non-conf         Last 10
Player    Usage   ORate    Usage   ORrate  Assort  Rate
Starks     14%    108.4     20%     98.2     7     (2)
Lubick     12%    108.8     14%    100.5     2     (1)
Porter     17%    117.0     21%    135.2     5      4 
Hopkins    16%     83.7     10%     86.9    (4)     0 
Trawick     8%    101.4     11%     99.9     3     (0)
DSR         8%    104.6     15%    114.5     8      2 
Ayegba      3%     78.7      3%     91.4     0      0 
Bowen       1%     73.6      2%     88.0     1      0 
Whit       18%     98.4      0%       -    (18)     -  
Total      96%              97%              3      3 
What the heck does that say?

The first two columns are non-conference possession usage (including PT and games played) and Offensive Rating. The second two columns are the same, but for the Last Ten Games. The last two columns are the assortment and rate effects on overall efficiency.

Taking a look at the total column, the first takeaway is that the offensive improvement is partially due to a shift in who takes the shots, but equally (if not more) due to improvements in efficiency. Despite the increase in opponents' ability, Porter and Smith-Rivera are playing better than they were in the non-conference on a per possession basis. 

There's been a net improvement in who uses the possessions as well. But it's important to note that the grouping of Whittington, Trawick, DSR and Starks nets out at about flat in total affect. Not all of Whittington's possessions went to that group (they are up 16% and Whit is down 18%), so there was some improvement there, but not much.

A more substantial shift was away from Mikael Hopkins as the hub of the offense and towards Otto Porter, and to a lesser extent, Nate Lubick. Porter's non-conference possession numbers are artificially low (he missed 1.5 games), but the shift is unmistakable.

You can still build narratives around this data. Perhaps Otto doesn't take his efficiency to the next level until he realizes he needs to without Greg. Perhaps Thompson never shifts offense from Mikael to Otto (though he was already shifting Mikael's PT and role downward). Perhaps DSR doesn't blossom without the extra playing time. Perhaps Greg's style of playing slowed down the flow of the offense.

Perhaps. Then again, perhaps in the wake of the Pitt loss, Thompson shifts the offense to Otto anyway, Greg plays incredible defense and starts hitting his threes (41% in conference play last year), DSR gets his minutes from Hopkins, not Whittington, and the team goes 16-2 in conference.

Either way, what we do know for certain is that shift of possessions from Greg to DSR, Markel and Trawick had less impact than the shift away from Hopkins or the general improvement of Porter and DSR. The suspension of Whittington still could have been a trigger for either of the two latter causes, but there's little doubt that simply taking the ball away from Whittington was not the cause.


See, I told you the narrative was simpler.

Saturday, March 9, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 61, Syracuse 39

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Home                            Visitor   
.            GEORGETOWN                      Syracuse         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            27        28        55
 
Points          25        36        61          18        21        39   

Effic.         91.7     130.5     111.2        66.0      76.2      71.1  
 
eFG%           45.7      55.6      51.0        30.0      36.4      33.0  
TO%            25.7       7.3      16.4        29.3      21.8      25.5  
OR%            35.7      38.5      37.0        38.9      21.4      31.2  
FTA/FGA        17.4      29.6      24.0        24.0      31.8      27.7  

Assist Rate    75.0      92.3      85.7        28.6      25.0      26.7  
Block Rate     10.0      12.5      11.1         9.1      17.6      14.3  
Steal Rate     25.7       7.3      16.4         7.3       7.3       7.3  
 
2FG%           27.3      52.9      42.9        30.0      50.0      38.9  
3FG%           41.7      40.0      40.9        20.0       0.0       9.1  
FT%           100.0      75.0      83.3        50.0      71.4      61.5 

more stats after the jump

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Game stats: Villanova 67, Georgetown 57

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Visitor                         Home      
.            GEORGETOWN                      Villanova         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            33        32        65

Points          29        28        57          33        34        67   

Effic.         87.2      88.2      87.7        99.2     107.1     103.1  
 
eFG%           56.5      50.0      53.0        54.8      53.8      54.4  
TO%            36.1      34.7      35.4        27.1      25.2      26.1  
OR%            38.5      41.2      40.0        33.3      30.0      32.0  
FTA/FGA        21.7      11.1      16.0        76.2     200.0     123.5  
 
Assist Rate    83.3      72.7      78.3        70.0      33.3      56.2  
Block Rate      0.0      30.0      12.5         0.0       0.0       0.0  
Steal Rate     15.0       9.5      12.3        24.1      22.1      23.1  
 
2FG%           62.5      37.5      50.0        50.0      40.0      45.8  
3FG%           28.6      45.5      38.9        42.9      66.7      50.0  
FT%            60.0      33.3      50.0        62.5      76.9      71.4

more stats after the jump

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 64, Rutgers 51

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Home                            Visitor   
.            GEORGETOWN                      Rutgers         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            29        34        62
 
Points          29        35        64          28        23        51   

Effic.        100.6     104.2     102.5        97.1      68.5      81.7  
 
eFG%           53.6      50.0      51.5        50.0      33.9      41.7  
TO%            24.3      17.9      20.8        24.3      17.9      20.8  
OR%            20.0      35.7      29.2        37.5      18.2      26.3  
FTA/FGA       135.7     121.1     127.3        19.2      35.7      27.8  

Assist Rate   100.0      22.2      53.3        72.7      44.4      60.0  
Block Rate      5.6      22.7      15.0        14.3       0.0       4.5  
Steal Rate      6.9       8.9       8.0         6.9      14.9      11.2  
 
2FG%           42.9      53.3      50.0        38.9      36.4      37.5  
3FG%           42.9      25.0      36.4        50.0      16.7      35.7  
FT%            73.7      69.6      71.4        40.0      40.0      40.0

more stats after the jump

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 79, UConn 78 [2OT]

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Visitor                         Home      
.            GEORGETOWN                      UCONN         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            32        29        61

Points          19        60        79          22        56        78   

Effic.         59.2     138.0     104.4        68.6     128.8     103.1  
 
eFG%           31.0      72.2      57.0        36.5      60.0      50.8  
TO%            28.1      13.8      19.8        28.1      20.7      23.8  
OR%            12.5      25.0      18.8        25.0      44.4      35.3  
FTA/FGA        38.1      30.6      33.3        15.4      25.0      21.2  
 
Assist Rate    66.7      57.1      59.3        66.7      68.4      67.9  
Block Rate      4.8      12.5       8.1        18.8      23.8      21.6  
Steal Rate     12.5       9.2      10.6         9.4       6.9       7.9  
 
2FG%           31.2      52.4      43.2        38.1      56.2      45.9  
3FG%           20.0      66.7      55.0        20.0      41.7      37.9  
FT%            75.0      72.7      73.7        75.0      80.0      78.6

more stats after the jump

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

The Inevitable Comp

Both teams are led by an All-American caliber SF/PF.

Both teams have sharpshooting junior point guards and Onions at the SG position.

Both teams have a junior glue guy at PF. Both teams have a freshman scorer forcing his way into PT.

Both teams lost two early games in the Big East (including one to Pitt), then proceeded to go on a run.

The 2006-07 team went out after their Pitt loss and went 12-1 the rest of the way. The current team is 11-1 since their Pitt loss.

The 2006-07 opponents' average Pomeroy ranking during the run was 63. The current team's is 74 -- though if you just take the current 9 game winning streak, it is 64.

The average margin of victory during the 12-1 run was 10.5. The average margin of victory during this season's 11-1 run is 10.8.

Do with this as you will.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 57, Syracuse 46

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Visitor                         Home      
.            GEORGETOWN                      Syracuse         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            32        27        59

Points          21        36        57          23        23        46   

Effic.         65.1     133.1      96.3        71.3      85.0      77.7  
 
eFG%           26.7      60.4      41.7        36.2      40.5      38.0  
TO%            15.5      25.9      20.3        24.8      29.6      27.0  
OR%            21.7      58.3      34.3        30.0      46.7      37.1  
FTA/FGA        20.0      33.3      25.9        10.3      42.9      24.0  
 
Assist Rate    57.1      58.3      57.9        55.6      37.5      47.1  
Block Rate      7.1       6.2       6.7        35.3       8.3      24.1  
Steal Rate     15.5      14.8      15.2         9.3      14.8      11.8  
 
2FG%           29.4      58.3      41.4        42.9      43.8      43.3  
3FG%           15.4      41.7      28.0        20.0      20.0      20.0  
FT%            83.3      87.5      85.7        66.7      66.7      66.7

I guess Alan's post about Otto was spot-on. Now I'm expecting a post from him before every game the rest of the way.

And from the category of I'm not saying, but I'm saying:
  • In 16 minutes of game action with Mikael Hopkins on the court, the Hoyas were outscored by Syracuse 20-11.
  • In 27 minutes of game action with Moses Ayegba on the court, the Hoyas outscored Syracuse 51-26.
And if anyone has a copy of the game that they can send me, I'd appreciate it.

more stats after the jump

Friday, February 22, 2013

Ottomatic

Just how good has Otto Porter been in conference play?

Player           ORating    Usage %    DRating   Net Points
Porter '12-13      117        25%         80        +13
Freeman '10-11     109        26%        100         +5
Freeman '09-10     127        21%          -         +5
Monroe '09-10      106        26%          -         +9
Hibbert '07-08     120        26%          -          -
  
Unfortunately, I can't get good conference stats on Jeff Green's 06-07 run, but Porter is likely having the best in conference season for a Hoya since Roy Hibbert's dominant 2007-08.

His offensive game has been wildly efficient despite increasing his shot attempts. But Otto doesn't nearly get enough credit for being the lynchpin of a defense that has not really taken a step back since Greg Whittington's suspension.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 90, DePaul 66

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Home                            Visitor   
.            GEORGETOWN                      DePaul         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            33        36        69
 
Points          43        47        90          29        37        66   

Effic.        129.3     130.3     129.7        87.2     102.5      95.1  
 
eFG%           69.2      75.0      72.1        38.7      42.6      40.8  
TO%             9.0      22.2      15.9        27.1      13.9      20.2  
OR%            16.7      30.0      22.7        50.0      34.8      42.2  
FTA/FGA        46.2      34.6      40.4        29.0      32.4      30.8  

Assist Rate    56.2      76.5      66.7        63.6      28.6      44.0  
Block Rate      9.1      18.5      14.3        10.5       5.6       8.1  
Steal Rate     21.1       8.3      14.4         3.0      11.1       7.2  
 
2FG%           63.2      66.7      64.9        40.9      48.1      44.9  
3FG%           57.1      62.5      60.0        22.2      14.3      18.8  
FT%            58.3      88.9      71.4        55.6      72.7      65.0

more stats after the jump

Sunday, February 17, 2013

By special request: Lineup stats

While it has been very quiet around these parts for the past few months, I was prodded by someone over at Hoyatalk to dust off the old Cray II computer in my mom's basement and run some lineup stats for your beloved Georgetown Hoyas.

Now this is a bit of a tricky task this year, since the loss of Greg Whittington has forced the team to re-make itself on the fly, to surprisingly good results.

So, in light of the new WithOut Whittington era now upon us, I decided to break out the season into two parts, much like OverTheHilltop did over at Casual Hoya. One difference, though: instead of looking at all thirteen games played with Greg, I decided to pare the list down to the nine games either against top-150 competition or where the game remained competitive into the second half.
WithWhit        WoW
Duquesne        St. John's (a)
UCLA            Providence
Indiana         S. Florida
Tennessee       Notre Dame
Texas           Louisville
Towson          Seton Hall
W. Carolina     St. John's (h)
Marquette (a)   Rutgers (a)
Pittsburgh      Marquette (h)
.               Cincinnati

First, let's take a look at lineup minutes by position, using the same rules we've used before - players are sorted by height, shortest to tallest, with weight serving as the tie-breaker (one exception here: even though Whittington is bigger than Porter, I slot Otto in the bigger position between the two). All heights and weights come from the GU website. Not all slots will add up to 40 minutes, both due to rounding and because I don't show any player with less than a minute played at a position.

WithWhit:
  1. Starks [31], Smith-Rivera [9]
  2. Trawick [19], Whittington [9], Smith-Rivera [9], Domingo [2]
  3. Whittington [24], Porter [11], Trawick [4], Domingo [2]
  4. Porter [23], Lubick [14], Whittington [3]
  5. Hopkins [22], Lubick [14], Ayegba [4]

WoW:
  1. Starks [37], Smith-Rivera [3]
  2. Smith-Rivera [26], Trawick [13], Caprio [1]
  3. Trawick [15], Porter [15], Bowen [9]
  4. Porter [19], Lubick [18], Bowen [1], Hopkins [1]
  5. Hopkins [20], Lubick [11], Ayegba [9]
In spite of starting as the shooting guard, Greg spent about 2/3 of his time on the court as the small forward - his natural position - and this is where Coach Thompson had to now find players to fill those minutes.

Jabril Trawick has picked up about 10 of those available minutes per game, playing as a slightly undersized "3" in conference play, depending upon match-up. Also, Aaron Bowen has stepped into the lineup for about nine minutes a game (skipping over Stephen Domingo, who struggled in the OOC).

But this also causes a bit of a cascade effect, as DSR is now playing the major role as the shooting guard on the team (with some help from Trawick), meaning that Markel Starks has to play nearly the entirety of every game as the point guard.

Otto Porter is also playing a few more minutes as the small forward (i.e. his position in the starting lineup), but this is really from the effect of playing Moses Ayegba a bit more each game, letting Nate Lubick spend less time as an undersized center.

After the jump, lineup efficiencies.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 62, Cincinnati 55

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Visitor                         Home      
.            GEORGETOWN                      Cincinnati         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            35        30        66

Points          31        31        62          25        30        55   

Effic.         87.8     103.1      94.6        70.8      99.8      83.9  
 
eFG%           48.1      40.9      44.8        32.7      37.5      35.2  
TO%            17.0      13.3      15.3        14.2      20.0      16.8  
OR%             7.1      26.7      17.2        19.0      47.4      32.5  
FTA/FGA        34.6      72.7      52.1        65.4      46.4      55.6  
 
Assist Rate    58.3      50.0      55.0        50.0      66.7      58.8  
Block Rate      0.0       6.7       3.3        23.5      21.1      22.2  
Steal Rate      8.5       6.7       7.6         8.5       6.7       7.6  
 
2FG%           64.7      31.6      47.2        46.7      40.0      43.3  
3FG%           11.1      66.7      25.0         9.1      23.1      16.7  
FT%            66.7      81.2      76.0        47.1      69.2      56.7

Some quick thoughts:
  • Cincinnati grabbed a ton of offensive rebounds in the second half [9 of 19 available misses], but was actually under it's conference average [35%] overall for the game.
  • Porter, Starks, Lubick and Smith-Rivera were all better than +10 in plus/minus for the game, but only one other Hoya (Ayegba) had a positive plus/minus.
  • This was the third consecutive game, and fourth in five, where Otto Porter was in double-digits in Net Points. I wonder if anyone outside of the Hoya-sphere realized just how good he is.
  • In spite of the winning streak and the out-right lead in the Big East standings as of this morning, I still have the Hoyas rated as the fourth best team in the conference. Delusion, meet cynicism.
More stats after the jump

Monday, February 11, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 63, Marquette 55

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Home                            Visitor   
.            GEORGETOWN                      Marquette         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            32        32        64
 
Points          33        30        63          23        32        55   

Effic.        102.8      94.8      98.7        71.6     101.1      86.2  
 
eFG%           48.2      39.6      44.2        50.0      46.3      47.8  
TO%            24.9      19.0      21.9        37.4      22.1      29.8  
OR%            43.8      37.5      40.6        18.2      41.2      32.1  
FTA/FGA        25.0      70.8      46.2        42.1      33.3      37.0  

Assist Rate    63.6      77.8      70.0        55.6      45.5      50.0  
Block Rate      7.7      15.0      12.1         6.7      25.0      16.1  
Steal Rate     15.6       9.5      12.5         9.3       9.5       9.4  
 
2FG%           40.0      50.0      45.2        61.5      40.0      48.5  
3FG%           38.5      12.5      28.6        16.7      42.9      30.8  
FT%            85.7      64.7      70.8        50.0      77.8      64.7

more stats after the jump

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 69, Rutgers 63

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Visitor                         Home      
.            GEORGETOWN                      Rutgers         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            28        26        54

Points          33        36        69          33        30        63   

Effic.        117.7     137.2     126.8       117.7     114.3     115.7  
 
eFG%           64.6      63.0      63.8        61.9      36.4      46.3  
TO%            25.0      15.2      20.2        10.7      19.1      14.7  
OR%            36.4      55.6      45.0        16.7      60.0      45.9  
FTA/FGA        20.8      34.8      27.7        47.6      24.2      33.3  
 
Assist Rate    53.8      64.3      59.3        63.6      50.0      57.1  
Block Rate      0.0      13.6       8.3         0.0       0.0       0.0  
Steal Rate      3.6      11.4       7.3        17.8       3.8      11.0  
 
2FG%           57.1      65.0      61.8        50.0      27.3      36.1  
3FG%           50.0      33.3      46.2        57.1      36.4      44.4  
FT%            40.0      87.5      69.2        70.0      75.0      72.2


The biggest perceived negative from today's game is likely the huge advantage in offensive rebounds [17-9] that Rutgers had over the Hoyas.

The reality is that the teams got their own misses at essentially the same rate [GU: 45%, RU: 46%], it's just that Rutgers missed a ton more shots.


more stats after the jump

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 68, St. John's 56

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Home                            Visitor   
.            GEORGETOWN                      St. John's         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            30        29        60
 
Points          39        29        68          28        28        56   

Effic.        129.8      98.9     114.1        93.2      95.5      94.0  
 
eFG%           67.2      40.0      53.4        38.5      32.4      34.9  
TO%            26.6      13.6      20.1        16.6      13.6      15.1  
OR%            66.7      38.1      48.5        27.8      50.0      40.5  
FTA/FGA         0.0      23.3      11.9        46.2      13.5      27.0  

Assist Rate    58.8      60.0      59.3        44.4      45.5      45.0  
Block Rate     11.1      18.5      15.6        13.3      11.1      12.1  
Steal Rate      6.7      10.2       8.4         6.7      10.2       8.4  
 
2FG%           80.0      33.3      54.5        38.9      33.3      35.6  
3FG%           35.7      33.3      34.6        25.0      20.0      22.2  
FT%              -       71.4      71.4        66.7      80.0      70.6

more stats after the jump

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 74, Seton Hall 52

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Home                            Visitor   
.            GEORGETOWN                      Seton Hall         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            32        36        69
 
Points          32        42        74          22        30        52   

Effic.         98.8     115.1     107.5        67.9      82.2      75.5  
 
eFG%           50.0      59.6      54.9        42.9      34.1      38.4  
TO%            24.7      16.4      20.3        43.2      30.2      36.3  
OR%            35.7      37.5      36.7        35.7      36.8      36.4  
FTA/FGA        40.0      84.6      62.7        23.8      86.4      55.8  

Assist Rate    81.8      76.9      79.2        50.0      66.7      57.1  
Block Rate     10.0      15.4      13.0         6.7       5.9       6.2  
Steal Rate     27.8      16.4      21.8        21.6       8.2      14.5  
 
2FG%           53.3      47.1      50.0        60.0      23.1      39.1  
3FG%           30.0      55.6      42.1        18.2      33.3      25.0  
FT%            70.0      50.0      56.2        80.0      78.9      79.2

Notes:
  • Georgetown out-scored Seton Hall 50-16 when Otto Porter was in the game.
  • Seton Hall turned the ball over on 26 of their first 53 possessions (the official scorer missed one).
  • In 10:28 of game time in conference play, Stephen Domingo has yet to attempt a shot (including FTs).
more stats after the jump

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 53, Louisville 51

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Home                            Visitor   
.            GEORGETOWN                      Louisville         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            32        29        60
 
Points          33        20        53          29        22        51   

Effic.        103.7      70.0      87.8        91.1      77.0      84.5  
 
eFG%           56.2      32.0      43.9        37.0      39.1      38.0  
TO%            28.3      28.0      28.2        25.1      17.5      21.5  
OR%            33.3      36.8      35.5        26.7      29.4      28.1  
FTA/FGA        25.0      24.0      24.5        52.2      43.5      47.8  

Assist Rate    63.6      12.5      42.1        37.5      50.0      43.8  
Block Rate     10.0       0.0       5.7         9.1       4.8       6.2  
Steal Rate      6.3      10.5       8.3        18.9      14.0      16.6  
 
2FG%           54.5      38.1      43.8        35.0      40.0      37.1  
3FG%           38.5       0.0      29.4        33.3      25.0      27.3  
FT%           100.0      66.7      83.3       100.0      40.0      72.7

more stats after the jump

Monday, January 21, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 63, Notre Dame 47

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Visitor                         Home      
.            Georgetown                      Notre Dame         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            28        27        55

Points          34        29        63          21        26        47   

Effic.        120.9     107.1     113.9        74.7      96.0      84.9  
 
eFG%           65.9      56.5      61.1        32.5      39.7      36.7  
TO%            10.7      22.1      16.3        14.2       3.7       9.0  
OR%            10.0      33.3      22.7        11.8      25.0      18.9  
FTA/FGA        36.4      17.4      26.7        65.0      17.2      36.7  
 
Assist Rate    76.9      81.8      79.2        50.0      72.7      64.7  
Block Rate     13.3       5.6       9.1         0.0      13.3       6.7  
Steal Rate      3.6       3.7       3.6         3.6      18.5      10.8  
 
2FG%           66.7      46.7      56.7        33.3      55.6      45.5  
3FG%           42.9      50.0      46.7        20.0       9.1      12.5  
FT%            62.5      75.0      66.7        61.5      60.0      61.1 

It's going to be one of those years, isn't it?

More stats after the jump

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Game stats: South Florida 61, Georgetown 58

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Visitor                         Home      
.            GEORGETOWN                      USF         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            27        28        55

Points          31        27        58          23        38        61   

Effic.        115.0      98.0     106.4        85.3     138.0     111.9  
 
eFG%           72.5      44.0      56.7        32.8      65.9      47.1  
TO%            29.7      25.4      27.5        11.1       7.3       9.2  
OR%            37.5      43.8      41.7        33.3      16.7      27.3  
FTA/FGA        15.0      28.0      22.2        20.7      45.5      31.4  
 
Assist Rate    75.0      60.0      68.2        44.4      72.7      60.0  
Block Rate      0.0       0.0       0.0         0.0      11.8       7.4  
Steal Rate      7.4       3.6       5.5        22.3       7.3      14.7  
 
2FG%           70.0      47.1      55.6        53.3      44.4      50.0  
3FG%           50.0      25.0      38.9         7.1      53.8      29.6  
FT%            66.7      71.4      70.0        66.7      90.0      81.2

So what happened in the second half? It was a combination of the Hoyas inability to turn the Bulls over along with watching South Florida make 7 of 13 attempts from behind the arc. In other words, it was like almost every NCAA tournament game since 2008.

It's also worth noting that the Bulls didn't make a high percentage of shots from behind the arc for the game as a whole. The real culprit on defense - and the main reason the Hoyas lost - was that Georgetown simply couldn't generate turnovers.

more stats after the jump

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 74, Providence 65

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Home                            Visitor   
.            GEORGETOWN                      Providence         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            29        38        67
 
Points          38        36        74          19        46        65   

Effic.        129.9      94.3     109.9        65.0     120.4      96.5  
 
eFG%           75.0      41.3      58.5        29.3      58.6      44.0  
TO%            13.7      23.6      19.3        23.9      23.6      23.8  
OR%             0.0      27.8      18.5        43.5      43.8      43.6  
FTA/FGA        12.5      95.7      53.2        20.7      51.7      36.2  

Assist Rate    68.8      66.7      68.0        75.0      57.1      63.6  
Block Rate      9.5      11.8      10.5        12.5      10.5      11.4  
Steal Rate     17.1      15.7      16.3         6.8      15.7      11.9  
 
2FG%           75.0      42.1      57.1        33.3      47.1      39.5  
3FG%           50.0      25.0      41.7        12.5      50.0      35.0  
FT%            66.7      77.3      76.0        33.3      80.0      66.7

more stats after the jump

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Game stats: Georgetown 67, St. John's 51

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Visitor                         Home      
.            GEORGETOWN                      St. John's         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            34        38        72

Points          36        31        67          19        32        51   

Effic.        107.1      80.8      92.9        56.5      83.4      70.7  
 
eFG%           53.4      38.5      46.4        34.8      40.3      38.1  
TO%            14.9      28.7      22.2        20.8      10.4      15.3  
OR%            27.8      30.0      28.9         5.3      20.8      14.0  
FTA/FGA        27.6      57.7      41.8        43.5      16.7      27.1  
 
Assist Rate    78.6      40.0      62.5        37.5      38.5      38.1  
Block Rate      5.6      16.0      11.6        28.0       4.5      17.0  
Steal Rate     11.9       5.2       8.3        11.9       5.2       8.3  
 
2FG%           44.0      45.5      44.7        44.4      40.0      41.9  
3FG%           75.0       0.0      37.5         0.0      27.3      18.8  
FT%            62.5      73.3      69.6        30.0      50.0      37.5

more stats after the jump

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Game stats: Pittsburgh 73, Georgetown 45

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Home                            Visitor   
.            GEORGETOWN                      Pittsburgh         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            29        30        60
 
Points          22        23        45          37        36        73   

Effic.         75.4      75.8      75.6       126.7     118.6     122.6  
 
eFG%           40.6      35.7      37.8        65.4      54.3      60.2  
TO%            30.8      26.4      28.6        20.6      19.8      20.2  
OR%            16.7      41.2      31.0        41.7      41.7      41.7  
FTA/FGA        75.0      66.7      70.3        19.2      65.2      40.8  

Assist Rate    50.0      28.6      38.5        73.3      41.7      59.3  
Block Rate     14.3      10.0      12.2        33.3       0.0      16.0  
Steal Rate      6.9       0.0       3.4        10.3       9.9      10.1  
 
2FG%           41.7      46.2      44.0        52.4      55.0      53.7  
3FG%           25.0      12.5      16.7        80.0      33.3      62.5  
FT%            75.0      57.1      65.4        60.0      73.3      70.0

A simple question to ask after the game is whether that was the worst loss by the Hoyas since John Thompson III arrived. It was.

By our measure, last night Georgetown played about as well as a team ranked 250th by Ken Pomeroy (that's equivalent to Texas Tech or Cornell right now). The Hoyas previous worst effort was in Coach Thompson's very first game as a coach, an 18-point loss at home against Temple.

more stats after the jump

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Game stats: Marquette 49, Georgetown 48

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE
 
.            Visitor                         Home      
.            Georgetown                      Marquette         
.            1st Half  2nd Half   Total      1st Half  2nd Half   Total
Pace            27        29        55

Points          19        29        48          20        29        49   

Effic.         71.2     101.7      87.0        75.0     101.7      88.8  
 
eFG%           36.5      55.0      44.6        31.5      55.9      40.9  
TO%            15.0      21.0      18.1        18.7      21.0      19.9  
OR%            21.1      15.4      18.8        38.1      12.5      31.0  
FTA/FGA        11.5      45.0      26.1        14.8      82.4      40.9  
 
Assist Rate    88.9      66.7      77.8        85.7      88.9      87.5  
Block Rate      6.2      18.2      11.1         4.8      20.0       9.7  
Steal Rate     15.0      14.0      14.5         3.7      14.0       9.1  
 
2FG%           38.1      50.0      41.9        25.0      72.7      44.4  
3FG%           20.0      40.0      33.3        27.3      16.7      23.5  
FT%             0.0      77.8      58.3        75.0      71.4      72.2

more stats after the jump

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Josh Smith

Former McDonald's All-American Josh Smith is transferring to Georgetown and will be eligible to play next year after the first semester is over. He'll have a year and a half's worth of eligibility -- two conference seasons.

Smith's struggles at UCLA have been well-documented, as his weight has kept him off the floor and ineffective when on it. There's little doubt that if Smith cannot get in shape, he will not get significant playing time. Thompson and Howland do not seem very similar in their public personas, but neither has much playing time for players who do not play defense.

However, assuming Smith can get in shape, what kind of player will he be? In his high school days, Smith was known for his touch, soft hands, ability to use his size and surprising quickness. The immediate comparison that comes to mind for most Hoya fans is Mike Sweetney (unfortunately, right down to potentially eating their way out of an NBA career).

I've always wondered what Mike would have done in Thompson's offense. If there's one (on court) failing of the Georgetown offense, it is that it is too balanced -- repeated feeding of a star player simply doesn't happen as often as it could. Would a player as dominant as Mike get fed enough?

Would Mike -- who was a good passer but never racked up assist numbers like the Hoyas' centers usually do -- be as effective distributing the ball? How efficiently awesome would a player like Mike be in an offense that was designed to get him better shots than "here, score against a triple team!"? How many cutters would get easy layups when those triple teams came?

How comparable is Josh Smith to Mike Sweetney? Smith is actually listed as two inches taller, but he looks a bit softer than college Sweetney -- not just in weight but also in pure strength. Still, they seem very comparable subjectively.  Objectively, these are their freshman years (Smith stats from kenpom, Sweetney from this post):
Player   Min%  Poss%  Shot%  TS%  O/D Reb%  ARate  TORate  Blk%  Stl%  ORtg
Sweetney  60%   24%    26%   55%   13/17%    11%    22%     3%    2%   107
Smith     52%   26%    25%   58%   20/14%     7%    16%     5%    2%   110

Darn similar. Smith was an efficient scorer from the go, took a decent amount of shots and was a beast of an offensive rebounder.

This isn't to say (an in shape) junior Josh Smith will be similar to junior Mike Sweetney -- who took a ton of shots, made most of them and was an all-around beast. But Smith was probably the better offensive player as a freshman, and if it really is just the weight holding him back, even his freshman self would be a tremendous add to this team.