Saturday, February 28, 2009

Recap: Georgetown 56, Villanova 54

Just a numbers dump for now - hopefully some text added later tonight.


Let's run the numbers:
TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE

. Visitor Home
. GU Villanova
. 1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 33 31 65

Effic. 94.2 76.0 85.5 79.5 85.5 82.4

eFG% 58.0 47.5 53.3 29.2 45.2 36.7
TO% 35.3 41.2 38.1 29.4 31.7 30.5
OR% 33.3 38.5 36.0 47.4 28.6 39.4
FT Rate 16.0 30.0 22.2 66.7 52.4 60.0

Assist Rate 57.1 87.5 68.2 57.1 62.5 60.0
Block Rate 22.2 18.2 20.7 0.0 25.0 10.3
Steal Rate 8.8 15.8 12.2 23.5 12.7 18.3

2FG% 76.5 41.7 62.1 38.9 45.5 41.4
3FG% 12.5 37.5 25.0 0.0 30.0 18.8
FT% 75.0 83.3 80.0 81.2 72.7 77.8



GU                    Off    Poss           Individ     Def             Individ                
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
Summers, DaJuan 49 15.1 71.5 10.8 47 95.8 9.0 +1.8
Mescheriakov, Nikita 34 6.0 180.2 10.8 34 84.9 5.8 +5.0
Monroe, Greg 52 6.7 113.3 7.6 52 82.3 8.6 -0.9
Wright, Chris 59 16.2 85.4 13.8 58 72.0 8.3 +5.5
Freeman, Austin 27 4.0 51.1 2.0 25 80.3 4.0 -2.0
Clark, Jason 43 6.2 107.6 6.6 44 84.7 7.5 -0.8
Sapp, Jessie 25 5.8 26.2 1.5 27 53.3 2.9 -1.4
Vaughn, Julian 16 1.2 41.2 0.5 16 65.6 2.1 -1.6
Sims, Henry 25 3.3 17.7 0.6 27 78.5 4.2 -3.7
TOTALS 66 64.4 84.3 54.3 66 79.4 52.4 +1.9

Villanova Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
CLARK, Shane 29 1.6 93.3 1.5 31 83.5 5.2 -3.7
CUNNINGHAM, Dante 62 12.0 103.1 12.4 61 84.4 10.3 +2.1
REYNOLDS, Scottie 57 18.5 65.8 12.2 58 77.3 9.0 +3.2
REDDING, Reggie 57 9.0 93.3 8.4 57 79.8 9.1 -0.7
ANDERSON, Dwayne 45 9.7 80.8 7.9 46 71.9 6.6 +1.3
PENA, Antonio 3 1.0 0.0 0.0 2 50.0 0.2 -0.2
FISHER, Corey 40 8.6 55.0 4.8 37 91.7 6.8 -2.0
STOKES, Corey 37 6.4 96.0 6.1 38 75.5 5.7 +0.4
TOTALS 66 66.8 79.5 53.2 66 80.1 52.9 +0.3



HD BOX SCORE

GU vs Villanova
02/28/09 Noon at Wachovia Center (Philadelphia, Pa.)
Final score: GU 56, Villanova 54

GU Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Summers, DaJuan 28:26 + 2 16/45 2- 2 3- 6 3- 3 8/34 1/12 0/47 8/49 2/21 1/17 1/21 3
Mescheriakov, Nikita 21:44 + 5 11/37 3- 3 1- 2 2- 2 5/24 1/10 1/34 2/34 0/15 2/11 1/16 3
Monroe, Greg 31:16 - 2 8/44 4- 8 0- 0 0- 0 8/36 3/14 1/52 1/52 1/23 0/19 4/24 3
Wright, Chris 36:18 +10 13/54 5- 7 0- 3 3- 5 10/43 5/16 1/58 3/59 0/26 0/24 4/31 1
Freeman, Austin 16:10 + 0 2/20 1- 2 0- 1 0- 0 3/19 1/ 7 0/25 2/27 1/10 0/12 2/12 5
Clark, Jason 24:53 + 3 4/38 2- 3 0- 1 0- 0 4/28 3/14 0/44 2/43 0/19 3/13 1/21 2
Sapp, Jessie 16:21 - 5 2/14 1- 2 0- 1 0- 0 3/16 0/ 4 3/27 3/25 0/10 0/12 1/12 0
Vaughn, Julian 09:44 + 2 0/12 0- 2 0- 0 0- 0 2/10 0/ 4 1/16 1/16 1/ 8 1/ 7 0/12 0
Sims, Henry 15:08 - 5 0/16 0- 0 0- 2 0- 0 2/15 1/ 7 1/27 2/25 1/13 0/10 1/16 3
TOTALS 40:00 56 18-29 4-16 8-10 45 15/22 8/66 26/66 6/29 9/25 20/33 20
. 0.621 0.250 0.800 0.682 0.121 0.394 0.207 0.360 0.606

Villanova Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
CLARK, Shane 19:34 - 3 2/25 1- 3 0- 1 0- 0 4/21 0/ 6 2/31 1/29 1/13 0/16 0/11 2
CUNNINGHAM, Dante 36:46 + 0 13/53 4- 7 0- 0 5- 6 7/41 0/11 1/61 2/62 2/27 4/29 5/24 2
REYNOLDS, Scottie 34:30 - 4 12/48 1- 4 1- 6 7- 9 10/37 4/11 4/58 6/57 0/26 0/27 1/23 2
REDDING, Reggie 34:29 + 7 8/51 3- 4 0- 0 2- 2 4/38 2/11 1/57 4/57 0/23 3/26 1/20 3
ANDERSON, Dwayne 29:49 - 4 7/35 2- 3 0- 2 3- 4 5/33 1/ 9 2/46 3/45 0/21 3/23 4/21 2
PENA, Antonio 01:48 + 0 0/ 1 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 3 0/ 0 0/ 2 1/ 3 0/ 0 0/ 3 0/ 0 2
FISHER, Corey 21:28 + 0 6/32 1- 5 1- 3 1- 2 8/28 0/ 6 0/37 3/40 0/15 1/23 1/11 2
STOKES, Corey 21:36 - 6 6/25 0- 3 1- 4 3- 4 7/24 2/ 6 2/38 1/37 0/20 1/18 2/15 0
TOTALS 40:00 54 12-29 3-16 21-27 45 9/15 12/66 21/66 3/29 13/33 16/25 15
. 0.414 0.188 0.778 0.600 0.182 0.318 0.103 0.394 0.640

Efficiency: GU 0.848, Villanova 0.818
eFG%: GU 0.533, Villanova 0.367
Substitutions: GU 28, Villanova 36

2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: GU 0-0, Villanova 0-1
Layups/Tips: GU 12-19, Villanova 7-14
Jumpers: GU 6-10, Villanova 5-14

Fast break pts: GU 4 (0.083), Villanova 6 (0.182)
Seconds per off. poss: GU 20.1, Villanova 16.2

Friday, February 27, 2009

More on luck

I noticed a discussion of luck and consistency on HoyaTalk tonight, and that thread pointed to an article by John Gasaway on Basketball Prospectus.

Gasaway provides a list of top lucky and unlucky teams, based on winning percentage compared to net efficiency. This is something that I set up to track a while ago, but just have been too busy to get around to posting. Now that I've been scooped, I thought I'd just dump what I've got.

First, to define terms:
  • winning percentage is for conference play only, as are all following stats
  • net efficiency is simply the difference between offensive efficiency (points scored / 100 possessions) and defensive efficiency (points allowed / 100 possessions)
  • luck is the difference between actual winning percentage and expected winning percentage, based upon net efficiency
So how do we determine expected winning percentage? Well, there is a fairly strong correlation between net efficiency and actual winning percentage. Here are the actual winning percentage versus net efficiency numbers for the past five seasons (2005-2009) for the Big East:




I've colored the markers for this season (through 2/26) in blue, all previous seasons in red. The horizontal and vertical black lines represent the break-even points, either as net efficiency is zero or winning percentage is 50%.

The diagonal black line is the best linear fit to the data and the dashed blue lines are the 99% prediction bands - there is only a 1 in 100 chance that a team will lie outside of the prediction bands.

Teams that lay above and to the left of the fitted line are "lucky" in the sense that they have a better winning percentage than a team would expect to have based on net efficiency. And teams below and to the right of the fitted lines are unlucky.

The infamous 2006 Notre Dame team has been the unluckiest team in the five years I've run - they ended the year 6-11 (including a loss in the BET), but would have been expected to end up 10-7. Actually their expected won/loss record in the Big East was 9.7-7.3; I'm not a big fan of decimal wins and losses, but I'll use the extra significant digit to distinguish between teams (below).

That same year, the Syracuse Orangemen ran off four improbable wins in a row in the BET, which makes them the luckiest team in the last 5 years.

We can also glean a bit more from the graph:
  • While the conference is normally thought of as the Big 5 (UConn, Pitt, Louiville, Marquette and Villanova), the net efficiency rankings indicate that 'Nova may be just a bit behind those other four, and at about the same level as West Virginia.
  • It may not be apparant by winning percentage, but the efficiency stats indicate that there is a big jump between the top-12 teams in the conference and the bottom four (Rutgers, USF, St. John's, DePaul).
  • While there are some lucky and unlucky teams, this year there are not gross outliers either way - at least not yet.
  • It's always important to keep in mind that this analysis is for the conference season as a whole, and doesn't account well for injuries (D. James, J. Dyson, etc.).

Note: The actual method used by Ken Pomeroy (and probably John Gasaway) to calculate luck is based on Pythagorean winning percentage. The math is a bit more complicated, but the results are essentially the same as the graph presented above - the only big differences are for extremely good or bad teams, such as DePaul. For the table below, I'll use this more rigorous method.


Here's a table summarizing this year's teams, ranked by luck.
.                 Wins  Losses   Exp Win  Exp Loss   Luck
Cincinnati 8 7 5.6 9.4 2.4
Providence 9 7 7.1 8.9 1.9
St. John's 4 11 2.3 12.7 1.7
Villanova 11 4 10.4 4.6 0.6
South Florida 3 12 2.4 12.6 0.6
Louisville 13 2 12.7 2.3 0.3
Marquette 12 3 11.7 3.3 0.3
Seton Hall 6 9 5.7 9.3 0.3
Connecticut 14 2 14.1 1.9 -0.1
Pittsburgh 12 3 12.6 2.4 -0.6
Notre Dame 7 8 7.7 7.3 -0.7
DePaul 0 15 0.9 14.1 -0.9
Syracuse 8 7 9.1 5.9 -1.1
Georgetown 5 10 6.4 8.6 -1.4
Rutgers 1 14 2.5 12.5 -1.5
West Virginia 8 7 10.4 4.6 -2.4

As Gasaway says, Cincinnati, Providence and St. John's are the luckiest teams so far this season in the Big East, and Georgetown and West Virginia are amongst the unluckiest (for some reason, he left out Rutgers).

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Updated conference stats, by half

If there's one thing you can count on around here, it's that we'll pander to special requests.

With prodding from a poster over at HoyaTalk, here's an updated tempo-free box score for conference games only, broken out by half:


. Offense Defense
. 1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total

Record 5-10
Pace 31.6 33.3 64.9

Eff. 103.9 104.1 104.1 98.6 114.2 106.8
Eff. Margin 5.3 -10.1 -2.7

eFG% 53.2 50.2 51.7 50.0 53.5 51.8
TO% 23.0 20.5 21.7 23.0 17.6 20.2
OR% 36.7 34.1 35.4 33.8 40.5 37.2
FTA/FGA 24.1 45.8 35.0 24.8 51.0 38.2
FTM/FGA 15.9 32.7 24.3 17.0 34.2 25.8

Assist Rate 56.7 59.0 57.8 53.7 61.7 58.0
Block Rate 13.3 9.7 11.4 8.0 7.3 7.6
Steal Rate 10.8 9.9 10.3 12.7 10.1 11.3

2FG% 50.4 53.2 51.8 47.7 54.5 51.3
3FG% 39.1 29.6 34.4 36.3 34.1 35.2
FT% 66.0 71.4 69.5 68.7 67.1 67.6

Monday, February 23, 2009

Recap: Louisville 76, Georgetown 58

Well, this isn't much fun anymore. If you're looking for a meltdown, head on over to HoyaTalk.

I don't have too much to say about tonight's game, other than it was - statistically - the worst game of the year for the Hoyas. Worse than the Pitt game, where DeJuan Blair did whatever he wanted; worse than the Tennessee game, where Cameron Tatum likely had the game of his life, all in the last 6:00; and even worse than the West Virginia game, where the Mountaineers made sure to squeeze out the largest margin of victory possible.

Now a large reason for this being the worst game of the season is that Louisville was completely unconscious from deep, making 8 of their first 10 3FGA. That's gonna tend to skew Georgetown's defensive numbers. But the Hoyas also played poor offensively, even accounting for the customarily stellar Louisville defense.


All of this comes from the Performance Charts I update weekly (and now updated through tonight's game). If you have a look at the overall performance for the Hoyas this season (reproduced here), its clear that a sea change took place between the UConn and Pitt games.



After the UConn game, KenPom.com rated Georgetown the best team in the country. The Hoyas have been sliding down the ratings / rankings ever since, but that early season run is still skewing the overall computer numbers for the season, along with the expectations for Hoya fans going into each game.

If I look only at the 15 games played in 2009 (Pittsburgh forward), I can recalculate G'town's Pythagorean rating (per KenPom): Georgetown would rank 65th (with a rating = 0.814), just behind Siena (and 2 places ahead of Maryland), well off the NCAA bubble.


There's no cut-and-dry explanation for the free-fall - the defense has been mostly poor since the UConn game, with Georgetown defending better than expected only in the Rutgers and S. Florida games. But, if you'll forgive a fitted line, it looks like the defense has actually been trending worse all season:



For an eight game stretch between the Pitt and first Cincinnati games, the D was mediocre but never horrible. Since, there have been two strong performances (the aforementioned Rutgers and USF games), an average game (2nd game vs. Cinci) and four lousy efforts, including three of the last four. I don't see any common thread to account for the results from game-to-game, but would be happy to hear any suggestions. Pomeroy's analysis suggests all four factors contribute.


Offense, to me, is only slightly less troubling. Here, to my eye, there is a distinct declining trend since either the Maryland romp or soon afterward:



It looks like the offense declined strongly in December and January, and has now plateaued. For the middle part of the season, the offense was the great-unknown from game-to-game, leading to the blow-out win against Syracuse and the blow-out loss against West Virginia. Unfortunately, the defense has recently become even more unpredictable, making each game a crapshoot at best.


If you combine the two fitted lines and apply them to overall performance for this season since the Maryland game, you get this:



Not a pretty picture. If it's any consolation, it appears that the Hoyas may have finally hit bottom. We can only hope.


Well, that's all for tonight. I'll update the stats pages tomorrow.

As for tonight, let's run the numbers:

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE

. Home Visitor
. GU Louisville
. 1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 33 34 67

Effic. 93.9 78.6 85.8 124.2 102.0 112.5

eFG% 57.9 32.8 42.2 85.0 45.8 63.6
TO% 27.3 17.5 22.2 27.3 20.4 23.7
OR% 15.4 37.5 29.7 28.6 35.3 33.3
FT Rate 78.9 25.0 45.1 55.0 87.5 72.7

Assist Rate 30.0 40.0 35.0 71.4 70.0 70.8
Block Rate 0.0 5.6 3.1 0.0 12.5 8.6
Steal Rate 21.2 11.7 16.3 18.2 11.7 14.8

2FG% 72.7 37.5 48.6 57.1 44.4 50.0
3FG% 25.0 12.5 18.8 100.0 33.3 66.7
FT% 60.0 75.0 65.2 63.6 61.9 62.5



INDIVIDUAL NET POINTS STATS

GU Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
Summers, DaJuan 49 6.5 53.5 3.5 50 113.2 11.3 -7.8
Wright, Chris 61 15.5 71.2 11.0 60 110.2 13.2 -2.2
Mescheriakov, Nikita 27 4.5 71.6 3.2 27 118.9 6.4 -3.2
Monroe, Greg 51 10.7 89.0 9.5 50 95.3 9.5 +0.0
Freeman, Austin 46 5.4 126.1 6.8 47 107.6 10.1 -3.3
Clark, Jason 35 7.6 71.1 5.4 36 105.3 7.6 -2.2
Sapp, Jessie 40 9.1 100.4 9.2 40 87.5 7.0 +2.2
Vaughn, Julian 11 1.8 257.7 4.7 11 156.3 3.4 +1.3
Sims, Henry 6 0.5 200.0 1.0 6 132.2 1.6 -0.6
Wattad, Omar 9 1.0 0.0 0.0 8 76.8 1.2 -1.2
TOTALS 67 62.7 86.7 54.4 67 106.6 71.4 -17.1

Louisville Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
WILLIAMS, Terrence 64 14.4 109.7 15.8 64 76.5 9.8 +6.0
CLARK, Earl 63 17.0 115.2 19.6 62 71.1 8.8 +10.8
SAMUELS, Samardo 42 10.1 106.9 10.8 41 84.8 7.0 +3.8
McGEE, Andre 38 0.8 253.4 2.1 38 70.5 5.4 -3.3
SMITH, Jerry 35 6.2 93.7 5.8 36 81.9 5.9 -0.1
KNOWLES, Preston 31 5.9 116.3 6.9 29 101.2 5.9 +1.0
SOSA, Edgar 29 4.2 109.2 4.6 29 101.3 5.9 -1.2
SCOTT, Will 4 0.0 - 0.0 5 136.0 1.4 -1.4
SWOPSHIRE, Jared 4 1.0 0.0 0.0 5 100.0 1.0 -1.0
GOODE, George 7 1.4 47.6 0.7 8 131.6 2.1 -1.4
JENNINGS, Terrence 18 5.0 141.5 7.0 18 69.6 2.5 +4.5
TOTALS 67 66.1 110.9 73.3 67 82.9 55.5 +17.8



HD BOX SCORE

Louisville vs GU
02/23/09 7:00 at Verizon Center
Final score: Louisville 76, GU 58

Louisville Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
WILLIAMS, Terrence 38:36 +14 10/72 3- 7 0- 2 4- 9 9/42 7/19 2/64 2/64 1/35 2/24 10/36 2
CLARK, Earl 36:29 +19 22/72 2- 7 3- 3 9-13 10/42 3/18 4/62 4/63 0/31 1/23 7/35 1
SAMUELS, Samardo 21:39 +12 10/47 4- 5 0- 0 2- 4 5/22 2/11 1/41 4/42 1/18 1/11 3/21 3
McGEE, Andre 21:22 +17 3/45 0- 0 1- 1 0- 0 1/26 2/14 2/38 0/38 0/15 0/13 1/20 4
SMITH, Jerry 22:09 +14 8/40 1- 3 2- 3 0- 0 6/24 0/11 0/36 2/35 0/12 0/11 2/17 0
KNOWLES, Preston 17:15 + 9 10/35 2- 4 2- 3 0- 0 7/20 1/ 6 0/29 0/31 0/22 1/13 0/20 2
SOSA, Edgar 18:38 + 1 6/31 3- 3 0- 0 0- 0 3/18 2/ 6 0/29 2/29 0/20 0/11 0/17 3
SCOTT, Will 02:00 - 1 0/ 5 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 5 0/ 4 0/ 1 0/ 0 1/ 1 1
SWOPSHIRE, Jared 03:31 - 1 0/ 4 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 2 0/ 1 0/ 5 1/ 4 0/ 4 0/ 1 0/ 2 1
GOODE, George 05:57 - 4 0/ 5 0- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/ 9 0/ 2 0/ 8 0/ 7 0/ 9 1/ 7 0/ 9 0
JENNINGS, Terrence 12:24 +10 7/24 1- 2 0- 0 5- 6 2/13 0/ 6 1/18 0/18 1/ 8 1/ 6 1/ 7 4
TOTALS 40:00 76 16-32 8-12 20-32 44 17/24 10/67 16/67 3/35 8/24 26/37 21
. 0.500 0.667 0.625 0.708 0.149 0.239 0.086 0.333 0.703

GU Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Summers, DaJuan 28:21 -20 4/38 1- 4 0- 4 2- 4 8/42 1/13 2/50 0/49 1/18 0/32 4/13 3
Wright, Chris 36:02 -12 12/52 2- 8 1- 4 5- 8 12/47 1/15 0/60 4/61 0/30 1/35 3/23 4
Mescheriakov, Nikita 14:24 -14 5/21 0- 0 1- 1 2- 2 1/12 1/ 5 0/27 3/27 0/15 0/ 9 0/ 8 4
Monroe, Greg 29:52 - 7 10/45 4- 7 0- 0 2- 2 7/32 1/11 2/50 3/51 0/23 1/20 4/18 3
Freeman, Austin 27:02 -20 8/38 4- 5 0- 1 0- 1 6/34 0/ 9 2/47 0/46 0/22 1/27 2/18 3
Clark, Jason 22:37 -10 4/30 1- 3 0- 1 2- 2 4/26 1/ 9 1/36 2/35 0/18 2/18 0/13 2
Sapp, Jessie 25:02 - 3 9/41 2- 5 1- 5 2- 4 10/36 2/12 4/40 0/40 0/21 1/25 1/18 4
Vaughn, Julian 08:37 - 5 4/12 2- 2 0- 0 0- 0 2/16 0/ 3 0/11 0/11 0/ 8 3/13 0/ 6 1
Sims, Henry 03:12 - 3 2/ 4 1- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/ 4 0/ 1 0/ 6 0/ 6 0/ 1 0/ 2 0/ 0 1
Wattad, Omar 04:51 + 4 0/ 9 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 6 0/ 2 0/ 8 1/ 9 0/ 4 0/ 4 0/ 3 0
TOTALS 40:00 58 17-35 3-16 15-23 51 7/20 11/67 15/67 1/32 11/37 16/24 25
. 0.486 0.188 0.652 0.350 0.164 0.224 0.031 0.297 0.667

Efficiency: Louisville 1.134, GU 0.866
eFG%: Louisville 0.636, GU 0.422
Substitutions: Louisville 32, GU 32

2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: Louisville 3-3, GU 4-5
Layups/Tips: Louisville 7-16, GU 8-16
Jumpers: Louisville 6-13, GU 5-14

Fast break pts: Louisville 11 (0.196), GU 4 (0.093)
Seconds per off. poss: Louisville 18.0, GU 17.8

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Recap: Marquette 78, Georgetown 72

Sorry for the tardy post - it'll have to be a numbers dump for right now. I'll try to add some commentary tomorrow.

Edited to add:
- Doesn't look like I'll have time to add much, so I'll just round up some links and quotes from the blogosphere. As always, see HoyaTalk and HoyaSaxa for discussions and links from the traditional media.


HoyaHoops
The Hoyas missed shots from close range, failed to collect defensive rebounds, and turned the ball over at critical times. Marquette meanwhile continued their remarkably consistent play and pulled away in the final moments.


Cracked Sidewalks
The game was a see-saw battle through the first 32 minutes. The final 8, Marquette slowly outlasted Georgetown, playing tight defense, nurturing a 2 point lead into a 4 point lead, into a 6 point lead, outscoring GTown 17-10 over the final stretch, not counting an uncontested 3 as time expired and the game decided.

Georgetown sinks to 5-9 in the Big East, their NCAA chances slipping away, despite their schedule, which is the 3rd toughest in the country. One could see them winning the NIT with their talent, unless they go on a serious run in the BET.


Robert Churchwell's Revenge
Greg Monroe is an ultra-talented 6-foot-10 center for whom the Marquette Golden Eagles had no answer today. If the Georgetown Hoyas had wanted to, and if Monroe had been up for it, they could have run the entire second-half offense through him and won this game. He wasn't in foul trouble, the defense was working, and there were plenty of half-court sets, even some transition opportunities, that called for Monroe to forcefully take the ball to the basket and score.

But that doesn't work when all the guy wants to do is pass. It doesn't work when the offense works to get the big man the ball inside only to watch him dish it off at the last minute when the right play would be to shoot a hook shot, or even dunk the ball and scream the roof off the place like a real, monster big man does.

It doesn't work when there's nobody to get in Greg Monroe's ear and shout, "Okay! We get it! You're a great passer! But for God's sake, man! You're 6-foot-10! Freaking SCORE already!"



Yet Another Basketball Blog
I knew it was going to be a long day for Georgetown when a fan shouted “[obsenity] Marquette” during the national anthem. There’s just no good karma coming out of that one.


CasualHoya
We didn't play that poorly today.

If anyone wants to see me jump off the Key Bridge, I suggest you head to Georgetown immediately.



Hire Esherick
If I hear another person talk about how we can get into the Tourney by winning here and doing a backflip there, I am to throw my shoe at them.

Maybe even both shoes if the person is funny looking.



Let's run the numbers:

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE

. Home Visitor
. GU Marquette
. 1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 31 30 62

Effic. 138.9 90.4 114.9 138.9 109.8 124.4

eFG% 64.1 50.0 58.2 70.0 40.0 55.0
TO% 12.6 25.8 19.1 15.8 3.2 9.6
OR% 43.8 15.4 31.0 30.8 42.1 37.5
FT Rate 12.5 30.4 20.0 10.0 50.0 30.0

Assist Rate 47.1 36.4 42.9 50.0 63.6 55.2
Block Rate 11.1 10.0 10.5 9.5 0.0 5.4
Steal Rate 9.5 0.0 4.8 6.3 16.2 11.2

2FG% 47.6 62.5 54.1 66.7 45.0 55.3
3FG% 63.6 14.3 44.4 50.0 20.0 36.4
FT% 75.0 71.4 72.7 66.7 66.7 66.7



INDIVIDUAL NET POINTS STATS

GU Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
Summers, DaJuan 48 15.3 66.7 10.2 47 115.0 10.8 -0.6
Wright, Chris 55 12.8 127.5 16.3 56 109.0 12.2 +4.1
Mescheriakov, Nikita 22 2.5 52.8 1.3 24 137.9 6.6 -5.3
Monroe, Greg 56 11.3 145.5 16.5 57 121.6 13.9 +2.6
Freeman, Austin 56 8.1 144.4 11.8 54 117.7 12.7 -1.0
Clark, Jason 22 5.3 130.6 6.9 20 127.5 5.1 +1.8
Sapp, Jessie 47 6.0 84.7 5.1 48 113.2 10.9 -5.8
Vaughn, Julian 7 0.8 200.0 1.5 6 100.0 1.2 +0.3
Sims, Henry 2 0.0 - 0.0 3 133.3 0.8 -0.8
TOTALS 63 62.1 112.1 69.6 63 117.7 74.2 -4.6

Marquette Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
JAMES, Dominic 63 10.2 64.7 6.6 63 101.1 12.7 -6.2
BURKE, Dwight 27 2.7 133.5 3.6 26 119.6 6.2 -2.6
MCNEAL, Jerel 63 18.5 115.7 21.4 63 107.6 13.6 +7.9
MATTHEWS, Wesley 61 11.1 157.7 17.5 60 106.1 12.7 +4.7
HAYWARD, Lazar 60 15.7 118.5 18.5 59 112.5 13.3 +5.3
CUBILLAN, David 3 0.0 - 0.0 5 149.3 1.5 -1.5
BUTLER, Jimmy 38 3.4 203.5 6.8 39 114.4 8.9 -2.1
TOTALS 63 61.5 121.1 74.5 63 109.4 68.9 +5.5



HD BOX SCORE

Marquette vs GU
02/21/09 2:00 at Verizon Center
Final score: Marquette 78, GU 72

Marquette Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
JAMES, Dominic 40:00 + 6 6/78 2- 7 0- 2 2- 4 9/60 3/27 4/63 2/63 0/37 0/34 1/30 4
BURKE, Dwight 18:09 - 4 2/29 1- 1 0- 0 0- 2 1/23 0/ 9 0/26 0/27 0/17 2/15 2/12 4
MCNEAL, Jerel 40:00 + 6 22/78 7-11 2- 6 2- 4 17/60 7/20 1/63 2/63 0/37 1/34 5/30 3
MATTHEWS, Wesley 38:34 + 9 23/76 4- 8 5- 8 0- 0 16/58 3/19 2/60 0/61 1/37 2/32 1/29 1
HAYWARD, Lazar 36:58 + 6 17/74 4- 7 1- 6 6- 6 13/56 2/22 0/59 2/60 0/34 4/32 7/29 2
CUBILLAN, David 02:49 - 3 0/ 4 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 4 0/ 2 0/ 5 0/ 3 0/ 1 0/ 2 0/ 0 0
BUTLER, Jimmy 23:30 +10 8/51 3- 4 0- 0 2- 2 4/39 1/17 0/39 0/38 1/22 1/21 4/20 3
TOTALS 40:00 78 21-38 8-22 12-18 60 16/29 7/63 6/63 2/37 12/32 20/29 17
. 0.553 0.364 0.667 0.552 0.111 0.095 0.054 0.375 0.690

GU Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Summers, DaJuan 30:42 + 2 12/59 3- 7 2- 4 0- 0 11/39 0/18 0/47 5/48 0/26 1/19 3/26 5
Wright, Chris 34:33 - 1 17/66 2- 6 2- 5 7- 7 11/50 4/21 1/56 1/55 0/33 0/28 2/32 1
Mescheriakov, Nikita 15:03 -10 3/23 0- 0 1- 1 0- 0 1/15 1/ 8 0/24 2/22 0/16 0/ 8 0/13 5
Monroe, Greg 35:26 - 4 13/68 6- 9 0- 0 1- 3 9/48 2/20 1/57 0/56 3/33 4/25 4/31 1
Freeman, Austin 34:53 + 5 16/70 5- 5 2- 5 0- 1 10/52 2/20 0/54 2/56 0/30 0/27 5/28 1
Clark, Jason 14:08 - 1 6/25 3- 5 0- 1 0- 0 6/19 1/ 7 0/20 1/22 1/15 2/11 1/10 3
Sapp, Jessie 28:50 -15 3/45 0- 3 1- 2 0- 0 5/44 2/17 1/48 1/47 0/28 2/26 4/25 1
Vaughn, Julian 04:34 - 2 2/ 4 1- 2 0- 0 0- 0 2/ 7 0/ 1 0/ 6 0/ 7 0/ 5 0/ 5 0/ 3 0
Sims, Henry 01:51 - 4 0/ 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 1 0/ 0 0/ 3 0/ 2 0/ 4 0/ 1 0/ 2 0
TOTALS 40:00 72 20-37 8-18 8-11 55 12/28 3/63 12/63 4/38 9/29 20/32 17
. 0.541 0.444 0.727 0.429 0.048 0.190 0.105 0.310 0.625

Efficiency: Marquette 1.238, GU 1.143
eFG%: Marquette 0.550, GU 0.582
Substitutions: Marquette 18, GU 28

2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: Marquette 0-0, GU 3-3
Layups/Tips: Marquette 15-20, GU 11-20
Jumpers: Marquette 6-18, GU 6-14

Fast break pts: Marquette 4 (0.061), GU 4 (0.062)
Seconds per off. poss: Marquette 18.8, GU 19.3