Image from here |
The big story for the game is that the Hoyas managed to shoot an eFG of 13% in the first half, and 33% for the game but still win. It has also been noted that this is the third terrible shooting day for the Hoyas this season [34% vs. Howard, 33% vs. Providence] that has ended in a victory, thanks to the Hoyas stellar defense. Prior to this season, the JT3-led Hoyas had managed one victory while shooting under 40% eFG (vs. Temple in Nov. 2009).
Out of morbid curiosity, I also went through the archives of this blog to find the worst shooting half since we've been keeping track. The only time Georgetown has managed even a sub-25% eFG in a half was Feb 23rd of last year, when a shell-shocked Hoyas team collapsed after Chris Wright left the floor with a broken hand.
The Scarlet Knights deserve a world of credit for the terrible shooting performance in the first half [3-15 2FG, 0-8 3FG] by the Hoyas, but Georgetown wasn't just missing tough shots - the Hoyas went 0-6 on layups and tips, including a blown fast-break layup by Greg Whittington. Rutgers' great FG defense came at a cost, though - lots of fouls. Those fouls resulted in 18 free throw attempts in the Lift-off half (and 14 makes) and didn't end during the Vespers half, where Georgetown went to the line another 18 times, although making only 11.
The problem for Rutgers was two-fold in the second half: Georgetown wasn't missing the easy shots anymore [4/5 on dunks, layups and tips], and had stopped turning over the ball. After committing 9 turnovers on 31 possessions in the first half, the Hoyas finally held onto the ball after intermission, committing only 5 turnovers in their last 29 possessions to claw back into the game, and finally to win it.
Let's run the numbers:
TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE . Home Visitor . Georgetown RUTGERS . 1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total Pace 31 30 61 Points 20 32 52 25 25 50 Effic. 63.9 107.7 84.9 79.9 84.2 81.7 eFG% 58.3 32.9 50.0 37.9 43.4 TO% 28.8 16.8 22.9 28.8 20.2 24.5 OR% 45.0 28.6 38.2 15.4 33.3 25.8 FTA/FGA 78.3 100.0 87.8 8.3 17.2 13.2 Assist Rate 66.7 66.7 66.7 80.0 40.0 60.0 Block Rate 18.8 23.8 21.6 13.3 0.0 7.4 Steal Rate 12.8 10.1 11.4 16.0 10.1 13.1 2FG% 20.0 50.0 33.3 37.5 38.1 37.8 3FG% 0.0 50.0 21.4 50.0 25.0 37.5 FT% 77.8 61.1 69.4 50.0 60.0 57.1
more stats after the jump
INDIVIDUAL NET POINTS STATS Georgetown Off % Pts Def Pts Player Poss Poss O.Rtg Prod Poss D.Rtg Allow Net Pts Thompson, Hollis 31 14.9 69.9 3.2 31 95.5 5.9 -1.9 Starks, Markel 28 10.4 91.7 2.7 29 93.0 5.4 -1.4 Sims, Henry 54 32.9 66.8 11.9 54 73.4 7.9 +1.4 Clark, Jason 55 19.0 96.4 10.1 54 69.3 7.5 +2.7 Lubick, Nate 35 13.5 114.4 5.4 37 76.4 5.7 +0.8 Whittington, Greg 36 28.9 71.2 7.4 34 74.9 5.1 +1.0 Porter, Otto 44 16.3 129.9 9.3 43 76.1 6.5 +3.3 Trawick, Jabril 22 14.1 73.3 2.3 23 84.0 3.9 -1.0 TOTALS 61 85.5 52.3 61 78.5 47.9 +4.3 RUTGERS Off % Pts Def Pts Player Poss Poss O.Rtg Prod Poss D.Rtg Allow Net Pts SEAGEARS, Jerome 31 20.6 58.4 3.7 30 93.5 5.6 -2.1 CARTER, Eli 51 33.2 81.3 13.8 52 91.9 9.6 +1.2 MILLER, Dane 52 12.1 121.6 7.7 52 96.7 10.1 -0.4 RANDALL, Derrick 19 16.7 139.8 4.4 18 91.1 3.3 +1.4 BIRUTA, Gilvydas 26 33.5 72.5 6.3 26 75.4 3.9 +1.1 MACK, Myles 44 19.6 40.1 3.5 43 67.9 5.8 -2.4 POOLE, Mike 41 15.2 105.5 6.6 42 59.5 5.0 +2.2 JOHNSON, Austin 31 19.9 120.5 7.4 30 68.0 4.1 +3.3 JACK, Kadeem 2 0.0 - 0.0 2 200.0 0.8 -0.8 LEWIS, Greg 8 30.3 52.6 1.3 10 56.0 1.1 +0.0 TOTALS 61 84.2 54.7 61 80.8 49.3 +3.8
HD BOX SCORE
RUTGERS vs Georgetown
01/21/12 12:00 at Verizon Center
Final score: Georgetown 52, RUTGERS 50
RUTGERS Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
SEAGEARS, Jerome 19:45 - 1 3/26 0- 2 1- 3 0- 0 5/30 1/ 9 0/30 2/31 0/11 1/18 1/17 3
CARTER, Eli 33:20 - 9 14/41 2- 7 3- 6 1- 2 13/44 2/11 2/52 5/51 0/22 1/28 1/28 4
MILLER, Dane 34:26 - 4 7/44 1- 2 1- 1 2- 2 3/45 2/15 0/52 2/52 1/23 1/27 3/28 2
RANDALL, Derrick 12:50 - 5 4/13 2- 5 0- 0 0- 0 5/18 0/ 3 1/18 0/19 0/ 4 2/12 1/ 6 4
BIRUTA, Gilvydas 16:55 - 4 7/21 2- 8 1- 1 0- 0 9/22 0/ 5 2/26 1/26 1/ 8 0/13 2/16 5
MACK, Myles 30:00 + 3 2/36 1- 5 0- 3 0- 0 8/38 3/14 3/43 1/44 0/22 0/22 2/29 1
POOLE, Mike 26:25 + 8 6/34 3- 3 0- 2 0- 0 5/36 3/12 0/42 1/41 0/22 0/21 5/31 2
JOHNSON, Austin 18:45 + 7 7/29 3- 5 0- 0 1- 3 5/25 0/ 9 0/30 1/31 0/15 1/14 2/18 5
JACK, Kadeem 02:01 - 4 0/ 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 1 0/ 0 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 1 0/ 1 0/ 0 1
LEWIS, Greg 05:33 - 1 0/ 6 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 6 1/ 2 0/10 2/ 8 0/ 7 1/ 4 1/12 2
TOTALS 40:00 50 14-37 6-16 4- 7 53 12/20 8/61 15/61 2/27 8/31 21/34 29
. 0.378 0.375 0.571 0.600 0.131 0.246 0.074 0.258 0.618
Georgetown Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Thompson, Hollis 21:15 + 1 4/28 1- 2 0- 3 2- 2 5/20 0/ 5 0/31 1/31 1/21 0/16 1/18 3
Starks, Markel 18:55 - 1 3/24 0- 0 1- 4 0- 0 4/23 1/ 5 0/29 1/28 0/16 0/20 1/14 4
Sims, Henry 36:01 + 2 12/46 2- 9 0- 0 8-13 9/34 2/ 9 1/54 4/54 3/30 1/31 9/27 2
Clark, Jason 34:52 + 6 11/48 0- 1 1- 3 8-10 4/35 1/10 2/54 3/55 1/35 1/32 4/31 2
Lubick, Nate 23:25 - 4 4/28 1- 1 0- 1 2- 4 2/23 2/ 5 1/37 0/35 2/23 3/23 3/23 1
Whittington, Greg 21:40 + 0 7/27 2- 8 1- 1 0- 0 9/25 0/ 4 1/34 4/36 0/19 3/23 2/15 1
Porter, Otto 27:44 + 5 9/36 3- 6 0- 1 3- 4 7/29 0/ 5 1/43 0/44 1/26 3/27 1/21 0
Trawick, Jabril 16:08 + 1 2/23 0- 0 0- 1 2- 3 1/16 2/ 5 1/23 1/22 0/15 0/13 1/11 1
TOTALS 40:00 52 9-27 3-14 25-36 41 8/12 7/61 14/61 8/37 13/34 23/31 14
. 0.333 0.214 0.694 0.667 0.115 0.230 0.216 0.382 0.742
Efficiency: Georgetown 0.852, RUTGERS 0.820
eFG%: Georgetown 0.329, RUTGERS 0.434
Substitutions: Georgetown 27, RUTGERS 40
2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: Georgetown 2-2, RUTGERS 0-1
Layups/Tips: Georgetown 3-10, RUTGERS 8-19
Jumpers: Georgetown 4-15, RUTGERS 6-17
Fast break pts (% FG pts): Georgetown 4 (14.8), RUTGERS 2 (4.3)
Pts (eff.) after steal: Georgetown 6 (85.7), RUTGERS 13 (162.5)
Seconds per poss: Georgetown 17.4, RUTGERS 21.7
Please join me in praying that Hollis has a "speedy and full" recovery from his injury.
ReplyDeleteUnless you know something about Hollis' leg injury that I don't, I'd suggest a physical therapist would be the most useful thing for his leg.
DeleteI mostly just wanted to try the reply option in the comments.