Thursday, January 29, 2009

So...what's going on?

In the midst of a five game losing streak, there's been a massive amount of potential reasons for the losses.

Many of these are psychological in nature, revolving around team chemistry, leadership, toughness, etc. I don't discount the idea that these things are very real and have a very real effect on the team. I'm simply not going to talk about them here, because I don't have any way to verify them. And no one outside the team really does.

With that said, here's a fact-based view of the losing streak.

Offense Versus Defense

The very first thing I try to look at after a loss is a view of whether the Hoyas lost because of poor offense, defense or a combination of both. I do a very quick chicken scratch of their actual efficiencies for the game versus a simplistic expected efficiency (basically an average of our offensive and our opponent's defensive efficiency and vice versa). In other words, if the Hoyas have an defensive efficiency of 90 and our opponent has a 110 offensive efficiency, I would expect a defensive efficiency of about 100. If they gave up a 105, my plus/minus here would be -5 -- or 5 efficiency point versus what I'd have expected.

The chart below details the results.

Game              Offense         Defense
Duke +4 -12
West Virginia -17 -8
Seton Hall -14 -3
Cincinnati -10 -9
Marquette +12 -30

The above is versus expectations, and for the year, Georgetown is about seven points better per 100 possessions on offense than defense. If you rework the chart to compare our performances if Georgetown was perfectly average, the chart would look like this:

Game              Offense         Defense
Duke +21 +1
West Virginia -2 +5
Seton Hall -6 +6
Cincinnati 0 +1
Marquette +12 -16

Either way the result is the same.

The offense functioned well versus Duke and Marquette, and awful in the three middle games. The defense was below expectations in every game and absolutely horrendous versus Marquette.

In other words, the defense has been consistently bad. In fact, the Hoyas last real quality defensive game was probably versus Connecticut. The Hoyas simply outscored Syracuse.

The Hoyas haven't held an opponent under 100 points per offensive possession since 2008. Last year, the Hoyas gave up over 100 in four of 21 Big East games.

Don't get me wrong -- the offense fell apart for three games straight. But this will make it real simple:

Year              Offense         Defense
2007-08 117.2 86.4
2008-09 116.5 91.8

Does it get clearer than that? There's no doubt that the offense has been worse during this slide, but last year (or the year before) our defense is the difference between 0-5 and possibly 4-1.

Next post (hopefully before tomorrow), I'll take a look at the defense and see what's different.

Recap: Cincinnati 65, Georgetown 57

Looks like I picked the right time to be too busy to watch the Hoyas, as their death-spiral to the lower reaches of the Big East continues.

I hope the numbers can speak for themselves, because they'll have to until tonight, when I can get revise this post.

Let's run the numbers:

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE

. Visitor Home
. GU Cincinnati
. 1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 29 31 60

Effic. 88.1 99.0 93.7 91.4 121.4 106.9

eFG% 41.1 48.1 44.5 56.8 51.9 54.2
TO% 16.9 22.4 19.7 33.9 12.8 23.0
OR% 27.8 37.5 32.4 33.3 33.3 33.3
FT Rate 10.7 25.9 18.2 18.2 53.8 37.5

Assist Rate 50.0 41.7 45.5 81.8 45.5 63.6
Block Rate 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 5.6 13.2
Steal Rate 20.3 9.6 14.8 16.9 16.0 16.4

2FG% 35.0 55.6 44.7 66.7 46.2 56.0
3FG% 37.5 22.2 29.4 30.0 38.5 34.8
FT% 100.0 71.4 80.0 50.0 78.6 72.2


INDIVIDUAL NET POINTS STATS

GU Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
Summers, DaJuan 19 5.2 100.4 5.2 20 91.8 3.7 +1.6
Monroe, Greg 53 15.8 76.6 12.1 54 94.2 10.2 +1.9
Wright, Chris 55 12.6 95.9 12.1 55 100.5 11.1 +1.1
Freeman, Austin 45 10.0 139.3 14.0 48 110.2 10.6 +3.4
Sapp, Jessie 25 3.9 52.7 2.0 26 116.9 6.1 -4.0
Mescheriakov, Nikita 40 5.1 106.4 5.5 38 83.2 6.3 -0.9
Clark, Jason 35 3.0 89.4 2.7 34 94.0 6.4 -3.7
Vaughn, Julian 7 0.0 - 0.0 7 72.9 1.0 -1.0
Sims, Henry 5 0.4 200.0 0.8 5 100.0 1.0 -0.2
Wattad, Omar 16 3.6 49.4 1.8 18 125.9 4.5 -2.8
TOTALS 60 59.6 94.2 56.1 61 99.7 60.8 -4.7

Cincinnati Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
WILLIAMS, Mike 57 6.0 166.8 10.1 54 86.0 9.3 +0.8
BISHOP, Rashad 50 11.1 104.5 11.6 50 89.5 8.9 +2.6
TOYLOY, Steve 9 0.0 - 0.0 11 98.2 2.2 -2.2
VAUGHN, Deonta 54 18.6 98.7 18.4 51 79.7 8.1 +10.2
DAVIS, Larry 13 2.4 36.0 0.9 11 144.7 3.2 -2.3
DIXON, Dion 38 8.3 90.3 7.5 42 103.0 8.7 -1.2
WILKS, Darnell 1 0.0 - 0.0 2 120.0 0.5 -0.5
MITCHELL, Alvin 28 7.2 79.8 5.7 26 56.3 2.9 +2.8
MCCLAIN, Anthony 12 0.4 233.3 0.8 11 90.2 2.0 -1.1
GATES, Yancy 43 8.2 115.8 9.5 42 92.8 7.8 +1.7
TOTALS 61 62.2 103.7 64.5 60 89.2 53.5 +10.9


HD BOX SCORE

GU vs Cincinnati
01/28/09 7:30 p.m. at Fifth Third Arena (Cincinnati, Ohio)
Final score: Cincinnati 65, GU 57

GU Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Summers, DaJuan 13:16 - 6 7/14 3- 4 0- 1 1- 1 5/19 0/ 3 0/20 1/19 0/ 8 0/13 2/ 8 1
Monroe, Greg 35:38 - 6 10/53 4-10 0- 1 2- 4 11/51 3/18 2/54 4/53 0/24 3/30 5/26 2
Wright, Chris 37:09 -10 15/50 6- 9 1- 3 0- 0 12/50 1/12 3/55 3/55 0/23 1/32 1/26 1
Freeman, Austin 32:51 - 6 14/45 3- 8 1- 4 5- 5 12/45 1/14 0/48 1/45 0/18 3/28 3/20 3
Sapp, Jessie 18:01 - 3 0/26 0- 2 0- 1 0- 0 3/23 2/10 0/26 1/25 0/11 1/13 0/ 9 3
Mescheriakov, Nikita 24:00 + 6 3/42 0- 2 1- 4 0- 0 6/36 1/14 1/38 0/40 0/14 3/21 4/15 3
Clark, Jason 20:32 + 0 3/34 0- 1 1- 2 0- 0 3/32 2/12 1/34 0/35 0/13 0/20 1/16 3
Vaughn, Julian 04:22 - 2 0/ 4 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 4 0/ 0 1/ 7 0/ 7 0/ 1 0/ 4 0/ 1 0
Sims, Henry 03:10 - 1 2/ 4 1- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/ 4 0/ 1 0/ 5 0/ 5 0/ 2 0/ 3 0/ 3 0
Wattad, Omar 11:01 -12 3/13 0- 1 1- 1 0- 0 2/11 0/ 4 1/18 2/16 0/11 0/ 6 1/11 2
TOTALS 40:00 57 17-38 5-17 8-10 55 10/22 9/61 12/60 0/25 11/34 18/27 18
. 0.447 0.294 0.800 0.455 0.148 0.200 0.000 0.324 0.667

Cincinnati Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
WILLIAMS, Mike 37:31 +11 12/63 5- 7 0- 0 2- 2 7/45 1/16 2/54 0/57 0/35 1/25 5/30 0
BISHOP, Rashad 33:45 + 3 6/51 3- 5 0- 1 0- 0 6/38 9/15 1/50 3/50 0/31 1/21 5/30 3
TOYLOY, Steve 06:28 + 2 0/11 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 7 0/ 4 0/11 0/ 9 0/11 0/ 3 0/10 1
VAUGHN, Deonta 35:38 +12 20/62 2- 4 3-10 7- 8 14/45 3/16 3/51 5/54 0/32 1/25 4/27 3
DAVIS, Larry 08:57 - 1 0/14 0- 0 0- 1 0- 0 1/10 1/ 6 0/11 1/13 1/12 0/ 4 0/ 8 0
DIXON, Dion 24:58 - 2 10/38 0- 1 3- 7 1- 2 8/27 0/ 8 0/42 2/38 0/26 1/16 3/24 2
WILKS, Darnell 00:43 + 0 0/ 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 1 0/ 1 0/ 2 0/ 1 0/ 0 0/ 0 0/ 1 1
MITCHELL, Alvin 16:42 +12 8/30 1- 1 2- 4 0- 2 5/24 0/ 7 2/26 2/28 0/13 1/15 3/13 1
MCCLAIN, Anthony 07:26 + 6 0/14 0- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/11 0/ 6 0/11 0/12 0/ 2 1/ 6 0/ 3 1
GATES, Yancy 27:52 - 3 9/40 3- 6 0- 0 3- 4 6/32 0/ 9 2/42 1/43 4/28 3/20 1/24 0
TOTALS 40:00 65 14-25 8-23 13-18 48 14/22 10/60 14/61 5/38 9/27 23/34 12
. 0.560 0.348 0.722 0.636 0.167 0.230 0.132 0.333 0.676

Efficiency: Cincinnati 1.066, GU 0.950
eFG%: Cincinnati 0.542, GU 0.445
Substitutions: Cincinnati 29, GU 26

2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: Cincinnati 1-1, GU 2-2
Layups/Tips: Cincinnati 5-8, GU 10-20
Jumpers: Cincinnati 8-16, GU 5-16

Fast break pts: Cincinnati 0 (0.000), GU 11 (0.224)
Seconds per off. poss: Cincinnati 21.3, GU 18.4

Monday, January 26, 2009

Recap: Seton Hall 65, Georgetown 60

Sorry for the tardy post - real life is getting very busy for me these days.


There was an ugly incident in Newark, NJ on Sunday, masquerading as a college basketball game. In the end, the Seton Hall Pirates played less-poorly to pull out a five point win, their first against Georgetown since 2004.

Let's run the numbers:

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE

. Visitor Home
. GU Seton Hall
. 1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 30 32 62

Effic. 88.1 101.6 95.4 84.8 120.0 103.3

eFG% 42.0 29.6 35.6 39.3 46.2 42.6
TO% 35.9 18.5 27.0 19.6 9.2 14.3
OR% 53.3 50.0 51.5 29.4 45.0 37.8
FT Rate 28.0 74.1 51.9 14.3 88.5 50.0

Assist Rate 60.0 57.1 58.8 54.5 66.7 60.9
Block Rate 5.6 0.0 2.4 6.7 20.0 13.3
Steal Rate 9.8 3.1 6.4 16.3 6.2 11.1

2FG% 60.0 33.3 46.7 61.1 52.2 56.1
3FG% 10.0 16.7 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
FT% 85.7 85.0 85.2 100.0 65.2 70.4

Well, the Hoyas made their free throws and got half of their own missed shots . . . and that's about all the good news from yesterday.

If you tuned in to the game to watch a shooting exhibition, you came away disappointed. Georgetown made 3/22 3 FG (2/5 by J. Sapp, 1/17 by everyone else) - not to be outdone, Seton Hall went 0/13 3FG (0/10 by J. Hazell). While some of those missed shots were rushed as the shot clock was winding down, a number were open shots in the rhythm of the offense. The Hoyas also shot poorly from outside against WVU (2/16 3FG), and as I pointed out in that game recap, the offense tends to break down when there is no scoring from beyond the arc.

The Hoyas also were very sloppy with the ball in the 1st half, committing 12 turnovers on 32 offensive possessions. The fact that they lead at the half is attributable to their defense, and to making 2 pt. jumpers (5/8) rather than inside shots (4/7 on dunks, layups and tip-ins), which is usually not a sustainable strategy.

It wasn't, but not in the way you'd expect.

Georgetown was able to get more 2-pt shots from close in during the 2nd half, but many consisted of out-of-control drives: the Hoyas were 3/10 on dunks, layups and tip-ins in the 2nd half, and 2/5 on 2-pt jumpers. Coupled with more cold outside shooting (2/12 3FG, both made by Sapp), G'town became dependent upon getting to the FT line (17/20 FT), but couldn't make enough defensive stops to win the game.

INDIVIDUAL NET POINTS STATS

GU Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
Summers, DaJuan 54 17.6 64.1 11.3 50 105.3 10.5 +0.8
Monroe, Greg 56 7.2 180.1 13.0 55 98.5 10.8 +2.2
Wright, Chris 60 12.2 76.3 9.3 59 99.0 11.7 -2.4
Freeman, Austin 43 8.7 64.1 5.5 44 90.6 8.0 -2.4
Sapp, Jessie 57 8.2 97.0 8.0 57 87.2 9.9 -2.0
Mescheriakov, Nikita 4 0.1 200.0 0.1 5 120.0 1.2 -1.1
Clark, Jason 22 3.5 29.5 1.0 21 98.4 4.1 -3.1
Vaughn, Julian 9 1.2 200.0 2.5 9 77.6 1.4 +1.1
Wattad, Omar 20 5.0 85.3 4.3 20 77.3 3.1 +1.2
TOTALS 65 63.8 86.5 55.2 64 95.0 60.8 -5.6

Seton Hall Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
MITCHELL, Robert 64 13.4 133.3 17.9 65 94.2 12.2 +5.6
GARCIA, John 40 7.2 80.9 5.9 40 63.4 5.1 +0.8
HARVEY, Eugene 50 7.9 71.7 5.7 49 101.8 10.0 -4.3
HAZELL, Jeremy 59 23.1 90.5 20.9 60 77.4 9.3 +11.6
GAUSE, Paul 55 7.9 96.4 7.6 57 89.5 10.2 -2.6
THEODORE, Jordan 28 2.1 205.3 4.2 29 77.0 4.5 -0.2
DAVIS, Mike 3 0.0 - 0.0 5 200.0 2.0 -2.0
CAJUSTE, Matt 5 0.0 - 0.0 3 141.7 0.9 -0.9
WALTERS, Brandon 16 1.5 48.6 0.7 17 114.5 3.9 -3.2
TOTALS 64 63.0 99.7 62.8 65 89.2 58.0 +4.8

Jessie Sapp was modestly efficient in the game, and did so while using 14% of available possessions (8.2/57). He was also the most effective defensive starter for the Hoyas. Hopefully, this is a sign that he's coming out of his mid-season funk.

Greg Monroe (Player of the Game) was his usual efficient offensive self, although in suprisingly few possessions used (13%). This was the first time since the Savannah St. game that Monroe used less than 20% of the possessions he played; also, Greg finished with no assists in the game - he had had at least 1 assist in each half played since the game against FIU.

Julian Vaughn played well in limited minutes, and Omar Wattad game some serviceable relief.

And that's about it for the Hoyas.


Today's tip-of-the-cap goes to Robert "Stix" Mitchell, one of only three positive contributors for the Pirates. While J. Hazell got his through quantity (39% poss used!), Mitchell shot an efficient 8/11 on 2FG to produce 18 points for Seton Hall.


HD BOX SCORE

GU vs Seton Hall
01/25/09 2:00 p.m. at Newark, N.J. - Prudential Center
Final score: Seton Hall 65, GU 60

GU Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Summers, DaJuan 30:24 - 4 12/49 0- 2 1- 6 9-11 8/39 0/12 0/50 6/54 1/34 2/26 4/30 3
Monroe, Greg 33:00 - 5 17/53 6- 7 0- 0 5- 7 7/43 0/ 8 0/55 1/56 0/35 2/30 5/30 2
Wright, Chris 36:03 -11 11/51 2- 7 0- 3 7- 7 10/47 3/11 1/59 3/60 0/38 0/34 2/33 3
Freeman, Austin 25:27 - 9 4/36 1- 6 0- 3 2- 2 9/35 1/ 9 2/44 3/43 0/26 3/24 1/23 4
Sapp, Jessie 36:04 + 3 8/58 1- 3 2- 5 0- 0 8/48 4/14 0/57 3/57 0/37 2/31 7/36 3
Mescheriakov, Nikita 03:55 + 0 2/ 6 1- 1 0- 1 0- 0 2/ 8 0/ 2 0/ 5 0/ 4 0/ 3 0/ 6 0/ 2 0
Clark, Jason 13:52 - 3 0/16 0- 0 0- 1 0- 0 1/13 1/ 5 0/21 2/22 0/12 1/ 8 0/10 1
Vaughn, Julian 07:00 + 0 4/ 7 2- 2 0- 0 0- 0 2/ 9 0/ 1 0/ 9 0/ 9 0/ 6 0/ 5 1/ 7 2
Wattad, Omar 14:15 + 4 2/24 1- 2 0- 3 0- 0 5/18 1/ 6 1/20 1/20 0/14 3/11 1/14 4
TOTALS 40:00 60 14-30 3-22 23-27 52 10/17 4/64 20/65 1/41 17/33 23/37 22
. 0.467 0.136 0.852 0.588 0.062 0.308 0.024 0.515 0.622

Seton Hall Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
MITCHELL, Robert 40:00 + 5 20/65 8-11 0- 1 4- 6 12/54 3/15 0/65 2/64 2/30 4/37 3/35 2
GARCIA, John 24:43 +14 5/44 2- 5 0- 0 1- 1 5/39 2/15 1/40 3/40 1/14 2/25 4/16 5
HARVEY, Eugene 30:58 + 0 7/49 3- 6 0- 0 1- 2 6/40 2/14 0/49 3/50 0/23 0/28 2/28 1
HAZELL, Jeremy 37:20 + 6 23/61 5-11 0-10 13-17 21/51 1/16 3/60 2/59 0/29 3/36 4/34 2
GAUSE, Paul 33:50 - 3 6/51 3- 6 0- 1 0- 0 7/48 5/16 2/57 2/55 0/27 2/35 2/30 2
THEODORE, Jordan 17:52 +12 4/34 2- 2 0- 1 0- 0 3/23 1/10 1/29 0/28 0/11 1/12 0/13 0
DAVIS, Mike 02:02 - 9 0/ 1 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 0 0/ 0 0/ 5 0/ 3 0/ 3 0/ 1 0/ 3 5
CAJUSTE, Matt 03:42 + 2 0/ 6 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 4 0/ 2 0/ 3 0/ 5 0/ 4 0/ 2 0/ 6 0
WALTERS, Brandon 09:33 - 2 0/14 0- 0 0- 0 0- 1 0/11 0/ 4 0/17 0/16 1/ 9 1/ 9 0/10 3
TOTALS 40:00 65 23-41 0-13 19-27 54 14/23 7/65 12/64 4/30 14/37 16/33 20
. 0.561 0.000 0.704 0.609 0.108 0.188 0.133 0.378 0.485

Efficiency: Seton Hall 1.016, GU 0.923
eFG%: Seton Hall 0.426, GU 0.356
Substitutions: Seton Hall 24, GU 24

2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: Seton Hall 0-0, GU 0-0
Layups/Tips: Seton Hall 16-28, GU 7-17
Jumpers: Seton Hall 7-13, GU 7-13

Fast break pts: Seton Hall 14 (0.304), GU 0 (0.000)
Seconds per off. poss: Seton Hall 18.5, GU 18.9

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I mentioned at the top, I'm super busy these days and the updates of stats and Big East HD box scores are falling behind. I'll try to make a push to get caught up tonight, but things may be lagging for a week or so until I can get some free time.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Gasaway on the Hoyas

John Gasaway of Basketball Prospectus had a short post on Georgetown Friday, "Georgetown's Internal Bleeding."

Some highlights, annotated:
The Hoyas have now played a third of their conference slate. There’s plenty of season left to be played, of course, but in order to make something of that season GU will have to improve dramatically on defense.
I'd love to have a snarky rebuttal, but this is true. I've updated the season's Performance Charts through the West Virginia game, and the Hoyas have been consistently underwhelming on defense since the UConn game. That's six games in a row where the Hoyas have allowed more points than expected, based on venue and KenPom's season stats to date.
A month ago I remarked somewhat raffishly that Georgetown appeared to be inventing a new category: “outstanding defense without rebounds.” Well guess what. Turns out you need rebounds after all. In a conference with Seton Hall, the Hoyas can at least take solace in the fact that they will always be spared the indignity of being “last in defensive rebounding,” but the truth is their defensive rebounding is terrible.
For the season as a whole, Georgetown's defensive rebounding has been miserable at 61.7%, ranked 318/344 - worst amongst the BCS conference schools. Within conference play, Georgetown (56.9%) is just a fuzz better than Seton Hall (56.4%) which is worst. The comparison to SHU is particularly appropriate since the teams have 5 common opponents so far this season (UConn, NDU, Cuse, Provy and WVU). The only difference is that the Pirates have played Villanova (OR = 36.3%; 69/344) while G'town played Pitt (43.6%; 2/344).
There’s a sense at large that Thompson will right this talented ship and, who knows, that sense may be proven correct. But as of this moment Georgetown has been merely the tenth-best team in Big East play on a per-possession basis. Unthinkable on December 29, but true.
Here's where Gasaway is being a bit disingenuous - Georgetown may be tenth in efficiency margin [= points scored per 100 possessions - points allowed per 100 possessions], but they have played the hardest conference schedule to date, based on KenPom's ratings.

To look at this further, I've compiled the strength of schedule for all Big East teams for conference games played so far (through Saturday, Jan 24th), and plotted eff. margin against strength of schedule. Here, I'm using KenPom's Pythagorean rating (0-1), rather than his ranking (1 to 344) for the strength of schedule calc.



The blue line is a linear fit to the data. There is clearly a trend here - the harder a team's conference schedule so far, the worse their efficiency margin. If the fitted line is to be trusted - and I don't have any way of knowing if it should, beyond the fact that it is statistically significant at 95% - it implies that there are 6 top-tier teams in the Big East, once you account for the quality of opposition. Georgetown is one of them, along with Louisville, Pitt, Marquette, UConn and West Virginia.

One thing I'm not adjusting for here is home vs. road in evaluating strength of schedule, mostly because I'm not clear what the best weighting factor would be. It should be noted that Georgetown has played 6 conference games so far this season, with only 2 on the road.

A few other comments from looking at this chart:
  • Notre Dame is surprisingly (to me) below the line, implying that they are not a top-half team in the Big East.
  • Providence and South Florida are quietly hanging around in the second tier of Big East teams. The Friars aren't a big shock, as they were a darling pick to make the leap this year due to their experience; the Bulls may be reaping the rewards of Gus Gilchrist's eligibility.
  • The four worst teams are Rutgers, St. John's, DePaul and Cincinnati, in descending order. A few weeks ago, I had figured that Cincinnati was probably the 10th best team in the Big East, heading into conference play.
  • Seton Hall, today's opponent for the Hoyas, has played the 2nd hardest conference schedule to date - i.e. they may not be as bad as their current conference record indicates.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Seton Hall Preview

In the spirit of the somewhat ridiculous number of explanations and excuses for the rather sulfuric-smelling egg that the Hoyas laid versus a very good West Virginia team on Thursday, I'd like to take personal responsibility for the Hoyas' loss.

I did not post a preview. Obviously, the Hoyas were so distraught at the lack of attention that they felt no will to compete. I'm late today, but I won't let them down.

The Pirates:

.                    Offense         Defense

Adj. Efficiency 108.6 (66) 102.2 (201)
eFG% 48.6 (180) 48.9 (170)
Turnover % 17.5 (19) 20.8 (174)
Off Rebound % 33.6 (162) 37.7 (308)
FT Rate 35.4 (187) 47.1 (325)


My prediction: our offensive "transformation" is going to look pretty good. In our last two games, we've faced the 5th and 3rd ranked defenses in college basketball, so it isn't exactly a shock that the offense didn't look spectacular.

Seton Hall's defense isn't special. They have little height. They don't rebound well. They foul. They don't turn the ball over. They don't force a lot of bad shots.

If the game gets close, one key will be the Hoyas making any kind of effort on the offensive boards. In some games, the Hoyas have managed to offset their own poor defensive rebounding with some good offensive rebounding (the UConn game comes to mind). In others, like WVU, they almost give up on grabbing those extra possessions and that cripples the offense. Seton Hall provides opponents with a great chance for offensive rebounds. The Hoyas need to take it.

When the Hall does play good defense, it is because they force turnovers. They haven't been nearly as good as WVU or Duke at that this year, but the Hoyas are vulnerable. The Hoyas have been sloppy with the ball recently, and no one should be looking forward to a Jason Clark - Paul Gause matchup.

Offensively, the Hall isn't a good three point shooting team, but they are streaky, especially Jeremy Hazell, who is taking over 30% of the shots while he is on the floor. That's a level of usage similar to Luke Harangody, except Hazell is only as efficient once every few games. He's an extremely streaky shooter, and if he is hot, the Hoyas' suddenly awful perimeter defense could be a huge issue.

Like any small team, the thing the Hall tends to do well when they win is offensive rebound. It's not a shock at this point to see the Hoyas outrebounded by a smaller team. The Hall isn't Duke -- small but immensely talented -- or WVU -- small but talented and strong. But if the Hoyas play lethargic, they will get many more shots than the Hoyas.

The Hoyas have lost four of six, but to very good teams. The Hall has lost eight of nine and the first two of those were to IUPUI and James Madison (in their defense, the next six were in the Big East). The Hoyas are projected to win 86% of the time by Pomeroy.

That's not crazy. West Virginia and Duke neutralized the Hoyas by going small and challenging the Hoyas to take them down low -- and Greg Monroe and the Hoyas couldn't make them pay for going small either in the low post or by crashing the offensive boards. And by playing a smaller man on Monroe, they took away his quickness advantage versus bigs. Against better teams, the Hoyas need to learn to punish teams that go small.

But Seton Hall doesn't look like a team who can take advantage of that. They could go small and play someone like Stix Mitchell on him. But I don't think they are athletic enough, and as a result the Hoyas wll likely be able to score down low and offensive rebound.

Defensively, if the Hoyas can rotate properly if they help on defense and put up any fight on the boards, they should be able to control a Seton Hall team that gets almost nothing down low.

There is a blueprint for an upset. If the Hall shoots well, rebounds, and pesters the Hoyas into another turnover filled game, they can get their first Big East win.

That said, this game is very much what Thompson always says: it's about the Hoyas. If they rebound, protect the ball and put forth the effort on defense, this should be around a ten point win on the road.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Recap: WVU 75, Georgetown 58

The Hoyas were thoroughly routed tonight by a strong defensive effort by the Mountaineers tonight. Georgetown last held a lead at 15-14 with 10:16 left in the 1st half, but it was all West Virginia after that, with the visitors outscoring the Hoyas 61-43 the rest of the way.

Let's run the numbers:

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE

. Home Visitor
. GU West Virginia
. 1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 34 35 69

Effic. 76.0 89.7 83.2 90.6 123.4 107.6

eFG% 47.9 35.2 41.2 45.2 64.5 54.8
TO% 32.2 22.4 27.3 23.4 22.4 23.0
OR% 21.4 39.1 32.4 31.6 57.1 42.4
FT Rate 20.8 74.1 49.0 9.7 22.6 16.1

Assist Rate 36.4 44.4 40.0 50.0 44.4 46.7
Block Rate 15.0 0.0 7.7 17.6 11.1 14.3
Steal Rate 14.6 11.2 12.9 11.7 5.6 8.6

2FG% 58.8 44.4 51.4 40.0 73.7 56.4
3FG% 14.3 11.1 12.5 36.4 33.3 34.8
FT% 60.0 65.0 64.0 100.0 57.1 70.0
Neither team plays at a particularly fast pace this season, and the game was just a few possessions faster than expected.

There is an axiom that I trot out from time to time, and that is that nobody can stop the Georgetown offense when the team gets hot shooting from outside. While this is obviously a great simplification, and actually wasn't very strongly demonstrated last season, it does seem to hold true this year. The logical inverse of this statement (anyone can stop the Georgetown offense when the team goes cold from outside) was demonstrated tonight, as the Hoyas made only 2/16 3FG for the game, and ended with easily their least efficient offensive effort of the season - previously vs. Wichita St.

If you will forgive a chart in the middle of this recap (click image to enlarge):



I won't go into much detail here about offensive performance - if you are even a semi-regular visitor, I hope you check the team performance charts linked on the right - but it is simply the number of points scored minus expected points scored, based on Ken Pomeroy's stats. It can be thought of as a measure of offensive efficiency, adjusted for the quality of the opponent's defense. The red dots represent Hoyas games this season before tonight, and the blue dot is tonight's performance.

What makes this especially interesting is that G'town is scoring a lower percentage of their points on 3FG this season than any previous in the JTIII era.


Now that is not to say that there weren't other important factors in tonight's game:
  • the very high turnover rate in the 1st half
  • the poor defensive rebounding in the 2nd half
  • the high shooting efficiency allowed in the 2nd half

All in all, a forgettable effort by the Blue and Gray tonight.


INDIVIDUAL NET POINTS STATS

GU Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
Summers, DaJuan 65 12.7 87.2 11.1 64 116.0 14.8 -3.8
Wright, Chris 51 11.9 91.0 10.8 49 107.9 10.6 +0.2
Monroe, Greg 62 15.4 89.5 13.8 62 94.2 11.7 +2.1
Freeman, Austin 61 9.6 86.9 8.4 62 94.3 11.7 -3.3
Sapp, Jessie 34 2.3 140.0 3.2 35 95.6 6.7 -3.5
Mescheriakov, Nikita 4 0.0 - 0.0 3 133.3 0.8 -0.8
Clark, Jason 45 9.5 31.7 3.0 43 117.3 10.1 -7.1
Vaughn, Julian 8 4.3 16.0 0.7 7 178.3 2.5 -1.8
Sims, Henry 3 1.5 66.7 1.0 3 56.0 0.3 +0.7
Wattad, Omar 17 1.2 200.0 2.4 17 84.7 2.9 -0.5
TOTALS 70 68.4 79.4 54.4 69 104.5 72.1 -17.7

West Virginia Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
Butler, Da'Sean 65 17.4 118.6 20.7 66 83.7 11.0 +9.6
Ebanks, Devin 58 12.2 80.7 9.9 57 82.8 9.4 +0.4
Ruoff, Alex 64 9.7 141.2 13.7 65 80.1 10.4 +3.2
Bryant, Darryl 45 10.6 86.1 9.1 44 91.5 8.1 +1.0
Smith, Wellington 45 9.7 100.7 9.8 47 69.4 6.5 +3.3
Thoroughman, Cam 9 0.0 - 0.0 10 74.6 1.5 -1.5
Jones, Kevin 29 4.0 102.5 4.1 30 75.8 4.6 -0.4
Flowers, John 30 4.1 117.5 4.8 31 60.8 3.8 +1.1
TOTALS 69 67.7 106.3 72.0 70 79.0 55.3 +16.7

Sorry, no comments for individual players tonight (I'm running late), so just a few more bullet points:
  • The continuing disappearance of J. Sapp is starting to become the storyline of the season for me. Sapp actually played an efficient game at both ends tonight, but used only 7% of possessions played (2.3/34). As the only senior and one of only two upperclassmen in the rotation, this regression is a big problem.
  • The rest of the starters were all generally inefficient, albeit in different ways - D. Summers: 1/7 3FG, C. Wright: 3 TOs, G. Monroe: 4/10 2FG & 4 TOs, A. Freeman: 1/4 2FG, 0/2 3FG.
  • The bench, mostly J. Clark with some O. Wattad on the side, didn't provide much assistance. I should say that Wattad played well.
  • Dare I say . . . free Henry Sims?
I'm not giving a Player of the Game out tonight, since I don't have to if I don't want to. So there.

But I will give a tip-of-the-cap to D. Butler for leading all players in net points produced.

HD BOX SCORE

West Virginia vs GU
01/22/09 7:00 at Verizon Center
Final score: West Virginia 75, GU 58

West Virginia Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Butler, Da'Sean 37:52 +16 27/72 7- 9 4- 9 1- 1 18/60 0/18 0/66 4/65 0/34 2/33 6/36 2
Ebanks, Devin 33:32 + 7 9/57 4- 8 0- 1 1- 2 9/53 0/20 1/57 4/58 1/27 3/31 4/28 2
Ruoff, Alex 37:11 +18 10/73 2- 3 1- 7 3- 4 10/57 9/26 2/65 1/64 0/34 0/30 1/34 1
Bryant, Darryl 26:41 + 5 13/46 2- 5 3- 5 0- 0 10/42 2/14 0/44 4/45 0/26 0/23 5/19 4
Smith, Wellington 25:48 +14 10/47 5- 8 0- 1 0- 0 9/40 2/14 1/47 1/45 3/24 2/21 2/29 4
Thoroughman, Cam 06:16 + 7 0/15 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 8 0/ 5 0/10 0/ 9 0/ 6 0/ 4 1/ 8 3
Jones, Kevin 15:04 +13 4/38 1- 3 0- 0 2- 2 3/24 0/13 2/30 1/29 1/12 1/12 0/11 2
Flowers, John 17:36 + 5 2/27 1- 3 0- 0 0- 1 3/26 1/10 0/31 1/30 0/12 4/16 4/20 4
TOTALS 40:00 75 22-39 8-23 7-10 62 14/30 6/70 16/69 5/35 14/33 25/37 22
. 0.564 0.348 0.700 0.467 0.086 0.232 0.143 0.424 0.676

GU Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Summers, DaJuan 36:29 -17 12/52 3- 7 1- 7 3- 6 14/48 1/14 0/64 2/65 1/38 1/35 2/30 0
Wright, Chris 30:03 -11 13/45 5- 6 0- 2 3- 5 8/34 0/11 1/49 3/51 0/27 0/21 3/25 4
Monroe, Greg 36:15 - 9 11/54 4-10 0- 0 3- 6 10/48 4/15 2/62 4/62 2/37 4/35 4/34 3
Freeman, Austin 34:17 -25 9/44 1- 4 0- 2 7- 8 6/44 0/14 5/62 1/61 0/38 1/35 2/29 3
Sapp, Jessie 21:12 - 1 3/29 0- 0 1- 2 0- 0 2/27 2/10 0/35 0/34 0/20 1/17 1/19 3
Mescheriakov, Nikita 01:24 - 1 0/ 3 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 7 0/ 1 0/ 3 0/ 4 0/ 2 0/ 7 0/ 0 0
Clark, Jason 23:44 -21 4/33 2- 4 0- 2 0- 0 6/31 0/ 8 1/43 5/45 0/25 0/27 3/19 1
Vaughn, Julian 03:45 - 8 0/ 4 0- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/ 3 1/ 1 0/ 7 3/ 8 0/ 2 1/ 2 0/ 0 1
Sims, Henry 02:38 + 1 2/ 4 1- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/ 3 0/ 1 0/ 3 1/ 3 0/ 1 1/ 1 1/ 3 0
Wattad, Omar 10:13 + 7 4/22 2- 2 0- 1 0- 0 3/10 0/ 5 0/17 0/17 0/ 5 0/ 5 0/11 1
TOTALS 40:00 58 18-35 2-16 16-25 51 8/20 9/69 19/70 3/39 12/37 19/33 16
. 0.514 0.125 0.640 0.400 0.130 0.271 0.077 0.324 0.576


Efficiency: West Virginia 1.087, GU 0.829
eFG%: West Virginia 0.548, GU 0.412
Substitutions: West Virginia 27, GU 27

2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: West Virginia 5-5, GU 0-0
Layups/Tips: West Virginia 11-18, GU 15-26
Jumpers: West Virginia 6-16, GU 3-9

Fast break pts: West Virginia 6 (0.088), GU 2 (0.048)
Seconds per off. poss: West Virginia 18.7, GU 15.7

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Recap: Duke 76, Georgetown 67

I'll be perfectly honest here - I didn't get a chance to watch the game live, and my DVR seems to have buggered up recording the game, so I won't be able to watch a replay either.

So, for the most part, the numbers will have to speak for themselves. And with that, let's run the numbers:

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE

. Visitor Home
. Georgetown Duke
. 1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 31 34 66

Effic. 91.9 110.5 101.3 126.7 104.6 114.9

eFG% 48.2 65.2 55.9 66.7 45.2 55.2
TO% 25.3 17.4 21.2 15.8 20.3 18.1
OR% 35.3 15.4 26.7 16.7 42.1 32.3
FT Rate 10.7 65.2 35.3 14.8 29.0 22.4

Assist Rate 66.7 50.0 57.7 73.3 23.1 50.0
Block Rate 14.3 13.0 13.5 11.1 5.6 8.3
Steal Rate 9.5 14.5 12.1 6.3 17.4 12.1

2FG% 50.0 66.7 58.3 64.3 47.8 54.1
3FG% 30.0 40.0 33.3 46.2 25.0 38.1
FT% 66.7 53.3 55.6 100.0 88.9 92.3

Having perused HoyaTalk this evening, it appears that the bizarre technical (& 4th personal) foul on G. Monroe early in the second half is the story to most G'town partisans. But, since a) I didn't actually see the game and b) I write on a stat-focused blog, I'll leave that discussion to others. Instead, I'll try to take a dispassionate (clinical? sterile?) look at what the game stats tell us.

The games was played at a pace more to Georgetown's liking, especially in the 1st half, but Duke is not an exceptionally fast-paced team, so this is probably not much of the story.

What is striking to me, just from looking at the four factors from the tempo-free box, is that the underlying stats indicate a very close game, certainly closer than the ~10 point game that played out for most of the second half. G'town was a hair more accurate from the field (eFG%: 55.9 vs. 55.3) and more likely to go to the free throw line (FT Rate: 35.3 vs. 22.4), while committing a few more turnovers than the Blue Devils (TO%: 21.2 vs. 18.1) and being outrebounded (OR%: 26.7 vs. 32.3).

Moreover, and I won't bother to re-write the numbers here, the two halves appeared to be mirror images of each other, in that Georgetown shot poorly and turned the ball over while outrebounding Duke in the 1st half, while Duke shot poorly and turned the ball over while outrebounding the Hoyas in the 2nd half.

I do see two explanations for why the underlying stats belie the final score:
  1. The difference between eFG% for the game is so small as to be regarded as a wash, so the other factors will determine the game outcome - here Duke was significantly better at holding on to the ball and gathering their own misses, while G'town was only better at getting FTs (and remember that the four factors are ranked in order of importance).

  2. When the teams did get to the FT line, the Hoyas (mostly D. Summers) struggled (10/18) while the Blue Devils made theirs (12/13). Based on season average FT%, that was about a 5-6 point swing towards Duke.

INDIVIDUAL NET POINTS STATS

Georgetown Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
DaJuan Summers 61 14.1 119.1 16.8 62 99.5 12.3 +4.4
Greg Monroe 48 10.2 126.3 12.9 44 93.0 8.2 +4.7
Chris Wright 36 6.1 88.1 5.3 37 130.7 9.7 -4.3
Austin Freeman 55 11.6 121.9 14.1 52 108.2 11.3 +2.9
Jessie Sapp 32 6.7 21.7 1.4 31 122.9 7.6 -6.2
Jason Clark 43 9.3 79.4 7.4 44 97.5 8.6 -1.2
Julian Vaughn 9 1.1 207.8 2.3 11 184.4 4.1 -1.8
Henry Sims 10 1.0 0.0 0.0 14 135.2 3.8 -3.8
Omar Wattad 41 5.9 77.7 4.6 40 98.4 7.9 -3.3
TOTALS 67 65.9 98.3 64.8 67 109.5 73.4 -8.5

Duke Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
Kyle Singler 61 20.7 86.5 17.9 61 97.3 11.9 +6.1
David McClure 28 2.2 114.5 2.5 30 82.1 4.9 -2.4
Gerald Henderson 53 15.4 125.4 19.3 56 98.0 11.0 +8.3
Nolan Smith 53 5.3 134.7 7.2 55 103.4 11.4 -4.2
Jon Scheyer 62 9.3 140.8 13.0 63 86.5 10.9 +2.1
Greg Paulus 40 7.6 111.8 8.5 37 82.5 6.1 +2.4
Martynas Pocius 5 0.1 563.7 0.7 4 175.0 1.4 -0.7
Elliot Williams 5 0.4 200.0 0.9 4 175.0 1.4 -0.5
Miles Plumlee 15 3.4 83.2 2.8 13 65.4 1.7 +1.1
Lance Thomas 5 0.3 200.0 0.7 6 106.7 1.3 -0.6
Brian Zoubek 8 0.3 233.3 0.6 6 150.0 1.8 -1.2
TOTALS 67 65.1 113.9 74.2 67 95.1 63.7 +10.4

I'll skip and in-depth player comments tonight, since I'd prefer to have actually watched the game before making any individual judgements. Instead, just a few bullet points:
  • Monroe (Player of the Game), Summers and A. Freeman all played well offensively.
  • C. Wright had a poor shooting night drag his Off. Rating down.
  • J. Sapp probably wishes he had stayed in bed today.
  • Georgetown's bench scored as many points as Duke's today, but the Hoyas were much less efficient in doing so. In fact, Duke only had two players produce less than a point per possession today, although one (K. Singler) was their workhorse.
  • Does anyone know why B. Zoubek and L. Thomas played so little today?

Finally, Georgetown's offensive & defensive efficiencies:
  • When Greg Monroe was on the court: OEff = 1.19, DEff = 0.95
  • When Greg Monroe was off the court: OEff = 0.53, DEff = 1.48

HD BOX SCORE

Georgetown vs Duke
01-17-09 1:36 p.m. at Durham, N.C. - Cameron Indoor Stadium
Final score: Duke 76, Georgetown 67

Georgetown Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
DaJuan Summers 37:01 -14 21/58 5- 8 2- 4 5-10 12/47 0/16 4/62 2/61 0/31 1/29 6/25 1
Greg Monroe 28:04 +15 12/57 6- 7 0- 0 0- 0 7/37 4/17 1/44 4/48 2/24 2/17 4/25 4
Chris Wright 21:43 -14 3/31 1- 4 0- 2 1- 1 6/27 5/10 0/37 1/36 1/20 0/18 4/15 0
Austin Freeman 31:30 + 0 15/58 6-10 1- 3 0- 0 13/40 1/15 1/52 2/55 0/34 2/23 1/26 3
Jessie Sapp 19:15 -13 0/23 0- 1 0- 1 0- 1 2/23 2/ 9 0/31 3/32 0/17 1/16 1/12 2
Jason Clark 26:03 + 4 9/50 3- 4 1- 3 0- 0 7/36 2/16 1/44 3/43 0/24 0/20 3/24 4
Julian Vaughn 06:33 -15 2/ 7 0- 0 0- 0 2- 2 0/ 7 0/ 2 0/11 0/ 9 1/ 6 1/ 5 0/ 2 0
Henry Sims 06:05 -16 0/ 3 0- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/ 6 0/ 1 0/14 0/10 1/ 6 0/ 5 0/ 4 2
Omar Wattad 23:46 + 8 5/48 0- 1 1- 2 2- 4 3/32 1/18 1/40 1/41 0/23 0/17 1/22 3
TOTALS 40:00 67 21-36 5-15 10-18 51 15/26 8/67 16/67 5/37 8/30 21/31 19
. 0.583 0.333 0.556 0.577 0.119 0.239 0.135 0.267 0.677

Duke Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Kyle Singler 35:18 +11 15/72 6-13 1- 6 0- 0 19/53 1/19 0/61 4/61 1/31 6/28 10/26 4
David McClure 18:20 + 4 2/31 1- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/25 1/11 1/30 1/28 0/18 0/13 2/17 4
Gerald Henderson 33:36 + 5 23/61 7-10 3- 5 0- 0 15/49 3/13 2/56 3/53 2/31 1/27 3/26 1
Nolan Smith 31:42 - 2 9/56 2- 5 1- 1 2- 2 6/45 0/18 1/55 1/53 0/29 0/25 2/21 1
Jon Scheyer 37:38 + 9 11/69 1- 3 1- 4 6- 6 7/54 5/24 3/63 1/62 0/34 1/29 3/29 1
Greg Paulus 23:53 +13 10/48 1- 3 2- 5 2- 3 8/36 2/14 1/37 0/40 0/20 0/20 0/19 3
Martynas Pocius 02:22 + 0 0/ 7 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 4 1/ 2 0/ 4 0/ 5 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 1 0
Elliot Williams 02:22 + 0 2/ 7 1- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/ 4 0/ 1 0/ 4 0/ 5 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 1 0
Miles Plumlee 07:01 + 7 4/16 1- 1 0- 0 2- 2 1/ 9 0/ 5 0/13 2/15 0/ 6 0/ 3 0/ 6 3
Lance Thomas 03:19 - 2 0/ 4 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 5 0/ 2 0/ 6 0/ 5 0/ 4 1/ 3 1/ 2 0
Brian Zoubek 04:29 + 0 0/ 9 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 6 1/ 3 0/ 6 0/ 8 0/ 3 0/ 3 0/ 2 1
TOTALS 40:00 76 20-37 8-21 12-13 58 14/28 8/67 13/67 3/36 10/31 22/30 18
. 0.541 0.381 0.923 0.500 0.119 0.194 0.083 0.323 0.733

Efficiency: Duke 1.134, Georgetown 1.000
eFG%: Duke 0.552, Georgetown 0.559
Substitutions: Duke 20, Georgetown 33

2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: Duke 2-2, Georgetown 1-1
Layups/Tips: Duke 10-17, Georgetown 15-21
Jumpers: Duke 8-18, Georgetown 5-14

Fast break pts: Duke 6 (0.094), Georgetown 13 (0.228)
Seconds per off. poss: Duke 19.8, Georgetown 16.1

Friday, January 16, 2009

Duke Preview

So, what do the Blue Devils look like this year?

As usual, here are the current four factors for Duke:

.                    Offense         Defense

Adj. Efficiency 115.7 (18) 81.5 (2)

eFG% 52.4 (61) 43.0 (16)

Turnover % 20.0 (127) 24.3 (29)

Off Rebound % 41.2 (12) 30.5 (81)

FT Rate 45.6 (21) 29.5 (49)

Duke is Pomeroy's #1 ranked team, and the only predicted loss on Georgetown's remaining schedule.

So, it's not going to be easy. And especially not at Cameron and likely playing a bit of five on eight.

More importantly, this isn't the Duke team from 2006, despite what most Hoya fans seem to think. Duke will likely play almost exclusively man to man, as they did in 2006, but this team is much quicker and much more athletic than that team.

That Duke team featured mediocre defenders at the point guard, two guard and power forward, as well as a center who was considered strong down low but had no ability to defend on the perimeter.

That Duke team was a good defensive team in 2005-2006 because Duke always plays quality team defense and exerts consistent effort. But they had an overall weakness in team quickness that certain teams could exploit.

This Duke team is quicker. Nolan Smith has taken the reigns from Greg Paulus. Gerald Henderson is extremely athletic and Kyle Singler is going to be much more prepared to cover another combo forward than Josh McRoberts.


However, the Hoyas still have strong advantages against Duke.

The matchup of Greg Monroe versus Brian Zoubek is a particularly bad matchup for the Blue Devils. Because of this, expect Lance Thomas and possibly even Kyle Singler to play most of the center minutes.

The upside of this is Duke is likely going to play smaller than they usually do. Which is going to be helpful because Zoubek is the strongest per possession rebounder on a strong rebounding Duke team.

The downside is that even without Zoubek on the floor, Duke is an extremely strong rebounding team across the floor. Singler and Henderson use their athletic gifts to offset their slender builds and rebound very well for wings. Unlike Syracuse, Duke's guards will also get after rebounds, and the result is a team that rebounds at a level closer to Pitt than to Syracuse.

To pile on, Duke also forces turnovers and draws fouls.

And they haven't lost at home to a non-conference foe this millennium, I don't think. (I know that's a junk stat. But it is an impressive one.)

But enough doom and gloom. The keys to the game, which I suspect are getting rather repetitive:
  1. Rebound. Duke is much more a rebounding team than they are a three point shooting team. In fact, on the season, they don't shoot a much different percentage than the Hoyas. Scheyer is dangerous, and Henderson has been good in limited shots, but rebounding a bigger strength for the Blue Devils than shooting.
  2. Active cutting on offense. Like in 2006, use the Blue Devils' aggressiveness against them. Sitting back on our heels and passing around the perimeter will lead to those lazy turnovers we love to commit. Passing forward and driving forward will create opportunities.

Like every individual game, this will likely come down to who makes shots. But while our offensive gameplan to beat this Duke is similar to 2006 despite their quickness improvements, our defensive gameplan has to acknowledge their ability this year to get on the boards.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Syracuse Highlights, etc.

Just checking in to post some highlights from the Syracuse game - I believe this is the first highlight package I've put together this season, and I now remember why I don't to this very often anymore. The motivation sprung from this thread on HoyaTalk, which I've tried to stay faithful to, other than the order (call me old fashioned, but I used a linear storyline).

video

This clip can also be found on the archive page, and a higher res. version can be downloaded here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I've admittedly fallen a bit behind on updating stats on the right sidebar, both Georgetown and Big East HD box scores. I'll try to catch up this weekend, if I carve out some free time.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Recap: Georgetown 88, Syracuse 74

Coming into the game, we identified three important factors for today's game:
  • Rebound. Syracuse is mediocre overall, but it's still a huge issue.
  • Get the ball to Monroe. He tore apart Providence's zone. Let's see what he can do against Syracuse.
    • G. Monroe shot only 3/8 FG, but managed 6 assists to 3 turnovers (not bad)
  • Contain Johnny Flynn. Flynn wreaks havoc in the lane, draws defenders and fouls. He's simply their best player. But he, like the rest of the Orange, are turnover prone, so there is an opportunity there as well.
    • J. Flynn played a nice game tonight. While he had only 14 points on 14 FGA, he also recorded 9 assists to only 2 turnovers (not good)

But Georgetown shot 12/21 3FG against the nation's second best defense against threes, enervating Syracuse's vaunted zone defense, and the rest was history.

Let's run the numbers:

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE

. Home Visitor
. GU Syracuse
. 1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 36 31 68

Effic. 137.0 120.1 128.4 87.7 132.8 108.0

eFG% 73.3 66.7 70.4 43.5 61.7 52.5
TO% 27.4 6.3 17.5 24.7 19.0 21.9
OR% 63.6 8.3 34.8 40.9 56.2 47.4
FT Rate 30.0 37.5 33.3 35.5 40.0 37.7

Assist Rate 66.7 64.3 65.6 33.3 58.8 48.3
Block Rate 13.0 13.6 13.3 21.4 15.8 18.2
Steal Rate 11.0 9.5 10.2 16.4 0.0 8.8

2FG% 71.4 52.6 60.6 39.1 63.6 51.1
3FG% 50.0 80.0 57.1 37.5 37.5 37.5
FT% 66.7 66.7 66.7 45.5 41.7 43.5

The Orange (née Saltine Warriors) are one of the fastest-paced teams in college, preferring a pace greater than 72 possessions per game. And that pace is exactly what they got in the 1st half, with 36 possessions played. Unfortunately, Syracuse was also down 50-32 at this point, and struggled to maintain the uptempo in the Vesper half, as Georgetown methodically milked the shot clock to reduce possessions, thereby shorten the game.


The first half was a combination breakout for two of the Hoya's recent weaknesses: offensive rebounding and outside shooting. While allowing 8/16 3FG, Syracuse simultaneously lost control of their defensive glass, allowing Georgetown to rebound 7 of 11 available missed shots. Meanwhile, the Orange struggled shooting from in close (6/15 on dunks, layups and tip-ins), and both teams were a bit sloppy with the ball (SU: 10 TO, GU: 11 TO).


After Syracuse opened the second half 13-3 to close the lead to single digits (2 dunks by R. Jackson, a dunk and 2 FT by P. Harris and a 3FG by J. Flynn), the Hoyas responded over the next five minutes with a 14-4 run of their own to regain an 18 point lead, which never shrank below double-digits for the remainder of the game.

Georgetown was clobbered on the glass on both ends during the 2nd half, gathering only 7 of Syracuse's 16 available misses, while rebounding 1/12 on the offensive end. The Hoyas overcame this with more efficient outside shooting (4/5 3FG) and control of the ball (2 turnovers, no steals allowed).


INDIVIDUAL NET POINTS STATS

GU Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
Summers, DaJuan 60 17.7 104.1 18.4 60 106.0 12.7 +5.7
Wright, Chris 41 3.1 158.1 4.9 43 104.2 9.0 -4.0
Monroe, Greg 49 14.1 91.8 13.0 50 101.1 10.1 +2.9
Freeman, Austin 60 10.0 158.2 15.8 61 109.2 13.3 +2.5
Sapp, Jessie 35 5.3 93.9 5.0 34 100.8 6.9 -1.8
Mescheriakov, Nikita 3 0.5 300.0 1.5 3 100.0 0.6 +0.9
Clark, Jason 40 4.3 183.9 7.9 41 105.2 8.6 -0.7
Vaughn, Julian 18 6.6 178.1 11.7 18 92.0 3.3 +8.4
Sims, Henry 20 2.8 178.2 4.9 21 62.0 2.6 +2.3
Wattad, Omar 9 2.0 141.2 2.9 9 116.1 2.1 +0.8
TOTALS 67 66.4 129.5 86.0 68 101.8 69.2 +16.8

Syracuse Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
JACKSON, Rick 45 13.8 108.6 15.0 42 111.9 9.4 +5.6
RAUTINS, Andy 15 3.0 0.0 0.0 15 134.5 4.0 -4.0
FLYNN, Jonny 64 13.6 111.2 15.1 65 132.0 17.2 -2.0
HARRIS, Paul 61 10.9 139.6 15.2 61 118.8 14.5 +0.8
ONUAKU, Arinze 52 9.9 102.4 10.1 52 110.8 11.5 -1.4
PRESUTTI, Jake 1 0.0 - 0.0 0 131.3 0.0 +0.0
ONGENAET, Kristof 18 2.4 122.6 3.0 17 149.1 5.1 -2.1
DEVENDORF, Eric 60 12.7 111.3 14.2 60 131.1 15.7 -1.6
REESE, Brandon 1 0.0 - 0.0 0 131.3 0.0 +0.0
JOSEPH, Kris 23 2.0 0.0 0.0 23 133.0 6.1 -6.1
TOTALS 68 68.4 106.2 72.7 67 124.7 83.5 -10.9

D. Summers and A. Freeman led the starters in possessions played (60), and both gave strong positive contributions. Summers was the high possession user (17.7/60 = 30%) amongst the starters, and turned his into more than 18 points produced via adequate efficiency (104). He is penalized a bit for committing 4 turnovers during the game. Freeman was much more efficient (158) in getting his points, thanks in large part to his 4/5 3FG shooting; he had shot 1/10 3FG in the Hoyas previous four conference games, so this was a nice turnaround (or simply a regression towards the mean).

C. Wright and J. Sapp both played relatively passive games, using a combined 8.4 poss. in 76 poss. played. Wright was efficient on offense (no turnovers, 3/4 FG), while Sapp's offensive slump continues for yet another game. He is still making the hustle plays (3 S, 3 Off. Reb), but it would be nice to see Onions shake out of his funk.

G. Monroe may not have matched last game's statistics, but he lead the team with 6 assists and also had 2 blocks and 6 Def. Reb.


But today's recap must salute the much-maligned bench, which received contributions from all 5 of it's scholarship reserves (no, H. Thompson doesn't count).
  • J. Clark shot 3/3 2FG, 2/3 3FG to lead the bench in scoring
  • H. Sims turned in his second straight strong game, this time with 3 points, 2 assists and by far the most efficient defensive game. I haven't checked, but I wonder if he played quite a bit teamed with Monroe, giving Syracuse problems with their combined length.
  • O. Wattad made a three in the 2nd half to re-establish an 18 point lead for G'town, from which they were able to dictate the pace and control the game.
  • N. Mescheriakov lived up to his billing as the Belarusian Assassain with two made 3FGs in only 3 possessions played (all in the 1st half).
And today's Player of the Game is . . . Julian Vaughn! Errr, what? I thought my stats program had given up the ghost for sure, but I went back and looked at the play-by-play and it turns out that Mr. Vaughn had a knack for finding the open outside shooter, with 3 of his 4 assists on 3FG (Clark, Freeman and Wattad). He also made 2/3 2FG, added in one steal, one off. and one def. rebound, all in 18 possessions played. And that was enough to put him at the top of the list.


Today's H.P. tip-of-the-cap goes to R. Jackson, who managed 8/10 2FG shooting today (along with an ugly 1/8 FT) and 4 off. rebounds. Shades of Vernon Macklin?


Well, that's it for me - time to re-watch the 1st half.

HD BOX SCORE

Syracuse vs GU
01/14/09 7:00 at Verizon Center
Final score: GU 88, Syracuse 74

Syracuse Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
JACKSON, Rick 26:55 - 9 17/45 8-10 0- 0 1- 8 10/42 1/11 2/42 4/45 1/25 4/29 3/19 2
RAUTINS, Andy 09:09 -10 0/10 0- 1 0- 2 0- 0 3/15 0/ 4 0/15 1/15 1/ 5 0/14 1/ 8 0
FLYNN, Jonny 37:32 -21 14/67 4- 9 2- 5 0- 1 14/57 9/20 1/65 2/64 0/33 1/35 0/21 1
HARRIS, Paul 36:52 -13 15/66 5-10 0- 2 5- 6 12/56 1/21 2/61 1/61 1/31 5/36 6/23 2
ONUAKU, Arinze 29:58 - 9 6/55 3- 6 0- 0 0- 2 6/47 1/18 1/52 2/52 1/24 7/30 4/19 3
PRESUTTI, Jake 00:47 + 2 0/ 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 1 0/ 1 0/ 0 0/ 1 0/ 0 0/ 1 0/ 0 0
ONGENAET, Kristof 09:39 - 2 2/24 0- 0 0- 0 2- 2 0/16 1/ 8 0/17 1/18 0/ 4 1/10 0/ 2 3
DEVENDORF, Eric 35:14 - 8 20/70 3- 8 4- 7 2- 4 15/52 1/20 0/60 3/60 0/29 0/31 0/17 4
REESE, Brandon 00:47 + 2 0/ 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 1 0/ 1 0/ 0 0/ 1 0/ 0 0/ 1 0/ 0 0
JOSEPH, Kris 13:07 - 2 0/29 0- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/18 0/12 0/23 2/23 1/14 0/ 8 0/ 6 2
TOTALS 40:00 74 23-45 6-16 10-23 61 14/29 6/67 16/68 5/33 18/38 15/23 17
. 0.511 0.375 0.435 0.483 0.090 0.235 0.152 0.474 0.652

GU Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Summers, DaJuan 34:14 +10 21/75 5- 8 2- 5 5- 8 13/47 3/21 1/60 4/60 3/39 0/21 4/33 3
Wright, Chris 27:05 + 5 7/52 2- 2 1- 2 0- 0 4/36 1/16 1/43 0/41 0/30 0/19 1/30 3
Monroe, Greg 28:27 + 7 10/61 3- 8 0- 0 4- 4 8/42 6/19 0/50 3/49 2/37 1/21 6/30 3
Freeman, Austin 35:07 + 7 19/73 3- 5 4- 5 1- 2 10/48 3/20 0/61 2/60 0/45 1/22 2/36 1
Sapp, Jessie 19:06 - 1 2/39 1- 2 0- 2 0- 0 4/32 1/13 3/34 2/35 0/28 3/18 0/19 1
Mescheriakov, Nikita 01:57 + 5 6/ 8 0- 0 2- 2 0- 0 2/ 2 0/ 0 0/ 3 0/ 3 0/ 0 0/ 0 0/ 2 0
Clark, Jason 25:20 +14 12/60 3- 3 2- 3 0- 0 6/30 0/17 0/41 1/40 0/21 0/ 8 1/20 2
Vaughn, Julian 11:33 + 7 5/27 2- 3 0- 0 1- 2 3/12 4/ 8 1/18 1/18 0/ 8 1/ 2 1/ 9 3
Sims, Henry 11:21 +13 3/31 1- 2 0- 0 1- 2 2/14 2/10 1/21 0/20 1/13 1/ 2 2/13 1
Wattad, Omar 05:50 + 3 3/14 0- 0 1- 2 0- 0 2/ 7 1/ 4 0/ 9 0/ 9 0/ 4 0/ 2 1/ 3 0
TOTALS 40:00 88 20-33 12-21 12-18 54 21/32 7/68 13/67 6/45 8/23 20/38 17
. 0.606 0.571 0.667 0.656 0.103 0.194 0.133 0.348 0.526


Efficiency: GU 1.313, Syracuse 1.088
eFG%: GU 0.704, Syracuse 0.525
Substitutions: GU 28, Syracuse 23

2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: GU 3-3, Syracuse 6-7
Layups/Tips: GU 10-16, Syracuse 14-27
Jumpers: GU 7-14, Syracuse 3-11

Fast break pts: GU 4 (0.053), Syracuse 11 (0.172)
Seconds per off. poss: GU 20.7, Syracuse 15.4

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Syracuse Preview

Here are the current four factors for the Orange:
.                    Offense         Defense
Adj. Efficiency 111.7 (32) 91.7 (44)
eFG% 56.3 (8) 43.5 (25)
Turnover % 21.1 (190) 18.0 (308)
Off Rebound % 35.2 (104) 33.7 (186)
FT Rate 30.5 (40) 22.0 (5)


One number is immediately shocking: a team with Arinze Onuaku, Rick Jackson and Paul Harris being mediocre at rebounding? How is that possible?

Well, it isn't the fault of those guys:

Player               O Reb%          D Reb%
Onuaku 12.3% 17.3%
Jackson 14.7% 20.8%
Harris 10.4% 19.1%
Ongenaet 12.1% 20.2%


However, a funny thing is happening with the guards. Neither Rautins, Flynn nor Devendorf grabs more than 1.5% of offensive rebounding opportunities. This number is so low that this almost has to be a conscious decision by Boeheim to get his guards back on defense.

It will interesting to see if our guards can take advantage of this to grab a few extra defensive rebounds, especially since fast break points may be hard to come by.

The Hoyas also have another bit of hope on the defensive boards. The Hoyas have defensive rebounded at a 66% and a 68% rate the last two games. If this is a trend, they may be able to hold down a Syracuse team that could very well go Pitt on them and grab 60% of the possible offensive rebounds.

Syracuse also presents a difficult matchup for the Hoyas because of their strength and the fact that they play zone defense all but exclusively.
The former has manifested itself not only in the aforementioned rebounding issues, but also in bumping cutters and disrupting our offense.

And zone -- the Hoyas have consistently played better against man to man than zone since John Thompson has been here.

Zones do have inherent weaknesses. For one, it's easy to shoot over them. Unfortunately for the Hoyas, they are only shooting 33% from three. That's not going to beat Syracuse if the team tries to go over the zone.

Zones also weaken defensive rebounding. Georgetown, unfortunately, only grabs an average amount of offensive rebounds at best.

The last way to beat a zone is the same way you can beat any help defense, and that is with great interior passing. Just like a quarterback picks apart a zone defense in football, players are open in a zone, often close to the hoop. It's just getting the ball there that is the issue.

And here's where improvement in the Providence game comes into play. Led by Greg Monroe's eight assists on 23 made baskets while he was on the floor, Georgetown assisted on 69% of made baskets against mostly zone defense.

That kind of play will be absolutely necessary against Syracuse. The Hoyas cannot rely on shooting over the zone, and they certainly can't rely on second chances, so they are going to have to pick apart the zone's rotations.

Ken Pomeroy is predicting an eleven point victory for the Hoyas and an 85% chance of winning the game
, but I find that suspect. The matchups are not strong for the Hoyas -- zone defense and rebounding in particular.

So I dove into Syracuse's previous games, expecting them to be underrated by Pomeroy's model. They only have one loss, in a complete letdown game to Cleveland State, and I expected their worst games to be against weaker opponents. A team that doesn't come to play against weaker opponents but turns it on against better ones will be underrated by most statistical systems.

For Syracuse, though, it really isn't true. They are actually one of the most consistent teams in college basketball, according to Pomeroy, and they have plenty of blowouts versus lesser teams and close calls against good but inferior teams. In other words, they are no different than any other team in that respect.

Still, the Orange will come to play. When was the last time they collapsed against the Hoyas?

Keys to the game:

  • Rebound. Syracuse is mediocre overall, but it's still a huge issue.

  • Get the ball to Monroe. He tore apart Providence's zone. Let's see what he can do against Syracuse.

  • Contain Johnny Flynn. Flynn wreaks havoc in the lane, draws defenders and fouls. He's simply their best player. But he, like the rest of the Orange, are turnover prone, so there is an opportunity there as well.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Recap: Georgetown 82, Providence 75

I've had a very busy day today, but apparently Georgetown was able to pull out a win against Provy with a strong second half.

Let's run the number:

TEMPO-FREE BOX SCORE

. Home Visitor
. GU PC
. 1st Half 2nd Half Total 1st Half 2nd Half Total
Pace 29 43 73

Effic. 110.6 112.6 111.4 120.6 89.6 101.9

eFG% 55.8 61.1 58.5 55.0 45.6 50.0
TO% 23.5 25.3 24.4 20.1 18.4 19.0
OR% 53.8 37.5 44.8 41.2 25.0 31.7
FT Rate 23.1 85.2 54.7 16.7 38.2 28.1

Assist Rate 61.5 75.0 69.0 42.9 84.6 63.0
Block Rate 14.3 15.0 14.6 5.6 0.0 2.5
Steal Rate 10.1 11.5 10.9 6.7 11.5 9.5

2FG% 55.6 68.2 62.5 42.9 40.0 41.5
3FG% 37.5 20.0 30.8 55.6 35.7 43.5
FT% 66.7 69.6 69.0 60.0 61.5 61.1

The first thing I noticed is the dramatic difference in pace between the two halves: there were nearly 50% more possessions in the 2nd half. I went and looked at the play-by-play to see if the Friars were giving fouls with lots of time left in the Vesper half to extend the game (i.e. increase possessions), but I see only four fouls given in the last 1:00 of play. I do notice that offensive rebounds dropped quite a bit from 1st to 2nd half for both teams, so this may have contributed.

Providence had a strong offensive first half today, thanks to making 5/9 3FGs. Providence is not a particularly good outside shooting team (31% 3FG coming in), so their early marksmanship was likely a surprise to both teams. Meanwhile, the Hoyas countered by gathering more than half of their own available misses (7/13 OR), which lead to the second straight game with strong offensive rebounding overall.

The second half was most notable to G'town fans for a 6:41 stretch where the Hoyas outscored the Friars 21-2. For all but the 1st two points of that stretch, Georgetown ran a lineup of C. Wright (So), J. Clark (Fr), A. Freeman (So), H. Sims (Fr) and G. Monroe (Fr), and all five players scored at least 2 points during the run.

Providence didn't quit, but actually fought back to a single possession game (76-73, 1:18) before succumbing, but I'll again point out that hot outside shooting (4/6 3FG during that stretch) was the main engine that brought them, and the Friars missed their last 3FGA in the final minute.


INDIVIDUAL NET POINTS STATS

GU Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
Summers, DaJuan 46 9.3 112.5 10.5 45 129.2 11.6 -1.2
Wright, Chris 61 15.2 77.0 11.7 62 103.5 12.8 -1.1
Monroe, Greg 65 13.5 120.8 16.4 65 74.1 9.6 +6.7
Freeman, Austin 60 10.2 165.1 16.8 62 101.9 12.6 +4.2
Sapp, Jessie 47 10.6 90.8 9.6 44 81.0 7.1 +2.5
Clark, Jason 42 8.2 126.7 10.5 45 115.1 10.4 +0.1
Vaughn, Julian 7 0.0 - 0.0 7 163.1 2.3 -2.3
Sims, Henry 24 3.4 107.3 3.6 26 73.3 3.8 -0.2
Wattad, Omar 8 0.0 - 0.0 9 102.5 1.8 -1.8
TOTALS 72 70.4 112.2 79.1 73 98.9 72.2 +6.9

PC Off Poss Individ Def Individ
Player Poss Used ORtg Pts Prod Poss DRtg Pts Allow Net Pts
XAVIER, Jeff 51 6.8 103.4 7.1 54 107.8 11.6 -4.6
CURRY, Sharaud 63 9.0 117.6 10.6 61 106.6 13.0 -2.4
MCDERMOTT, Geoff 52 14.9 49.8 7.4 54 90.6 9.8 -2.4
EFEJUKU, Weyinmi 57 13.1 101.2 13.2 54 106.3 11.5 +1.7
KALE, Jonathan 25 1.6 205.1 3.3 29 105.1 6.1 -2.8
KELLOGG, Alex 1 0.0 - 0.0 1 300.0 0.6 -0.6
BROOKS, Marshon 44 12.7 118.2 15.0 43 104.4 9.0 +6.0
MCKENZIE, Brian 41 4.8 105.8 5.1 36 110.1 7.9 -2.8
HANKE, Randall 31 8.8 115.5 10.1 28 126.5 7.1 +3.0
TOTALS 73 71.7 100.1 71.8 72 106.4 76.6 -4.8

D. Summers again struggled to stay in the game with foul difficulties, and played only 46 possessions. Except for 3 turnovers, his offensive game was strong in all facets (2/4 2FG, 1/2 3FG, 5/6 FT, 2 OR). However, the play-by-play indicates that he struggled on the defensive end.

C. Wright's overall slump continued for the 3rd straight game, even as he seemed to regain his shooting touch from the field (5/7 2FG, 2/3 3FG). Unfortunately, he coupled that with 0/2 FT and 6 turnovers.

Fellow slumper A. Freeman had a strong game today, even as his outside shot still eludes him (0/2 3FG), by making 7/9 2FG, 4/6 FT, 3 OR and 0 TOs). Freeman was the most efficient offensive player for the Hoyas today.

J. Sapp was also a positive contributor (in limited possessions) today, but he did it not with efficiency but with quantity. Sapp had a high usage rate (10.6/47 = 22.5%) for the first time since the Maryland game (his only other >20% usage game). Mr. Sapp struggled from the floor (1/4 2FG, 0/2 3FG), but contributed 5 assists to 3 turnovers. He also played his signature strong defense today (5 DR, 3 S, 1 Bk).

And the Player of the Game is . . . Greg Monroe. His stat line is just remarkable, so I'll just reprint it here:
GU                      Min   +/-   Pts  2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A  FGA    A    Stl    TO   Blk    OR    DR   PF
Monroe, Greg 35:05 +12 13/76 5- 7 0- 0 3- 3 7/50 8/23 5/65 5/65 2/35 3/28 8/35 3
Reading through it, several thought come to mind:
  • He was strong both offensively (5/7 2FG, 3/3 FT, 8 A [!], 3 OR) and defensively (5 S [!], 2 Bk, 8 DR).
  • His 5 turnovers are a bit problematic, but should be viewed in the context that he serves as a (the?) primary distributor in the half-court offense.
  • Hoyas fans should just enjoy his performances while they can.
J. Clark and H. Sims were the main bodies off the bench today, and neither disappointed. Clark was his usually efficient self on offense, while his defense is still a bit of a work in progress - although to be fair, he often replaced J. Sapp today, who is G'town's best defensive guard. Sims played another strong game spelling Summers, although he continues to be passive on offense (3.4/24 = 14% usage); to be fair, as a freshman who just recently saw his playing time increase, that usage rate is likely appropriate (see J. Sapp's freshman year for an example).


Today's tip-of-the-cap goes to M. Brooks, who played a nice all-around game today and looks to be having a strong season (ORtg = 122.8) in somewhat limited minutes - I suppose W. Efejuku blocks him from starting?

HD BOX SCORE

PC vs GU
01/10/09 1:00 at Verizon Center
Final score: GU 82, PC 75

PC Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
XAVIER, Jeff 27:45 - 3 10/58 2- 2 2- 6 0- 0 8/44 1/17 0/54 1/51 0/32 0/27 0/25 3
CURRY, Sharaud 32:47 -11 6/57 0- 5 2- 4 0- 0 9/55 9/19 2/61 3/63 0/31 1/36 0/23 3
MCDERMOTT, Geoff 27:28 - 8 5/51 1- 8 0- 0 3- 6 8/41 2/18 2/54 3/52 1/34 2/25 6/24 4
EFEJUKU, Weyinmi 30:19 -10 13/54 4-10 1- 3 2- 2 13/51 2/14 3/54 2/57 0/31 3/35 1/23 1
KALE, Jonathan 16:27 - 8 4/25 2- 3 0- 0 0- 2 3/21 1/ 8 0/29 0/25 0/16 0/14 2/14 4
KELLOGG, Alex 00:54 - 3 0/ 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 1 0/ 0 0/ 1 0/ 1 0/ 0 0/ 1 0/ 0 0
BROOKS, Marshon 23:31 + 1 18/47 3- 5 2- 6 6- 8 11/40 2/10 0/43 1/44 0/20 1/29 3/18 3
MCKENZIE, Brian 22:10 + 2 9/41 0- 1 3- 4 0- 0 5/37 0/12 0/36 1/41 0/17 1/23 1/14 1
HANKE, Randall 18:39 + 5 10/42 5- 7 0- 0 0- 0 7/30 0/10 0/28 2/31 0/19 4/15 2/ 9 0
TOTALS 40:00 75 17-41 10-23 11-18 64 17/27 7/72 13/73 1/40 13/41 16/29 19
. 0.415 0.435 0.611 0.630 0.097 0.178 0.025 0.317 0.552

GU Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF
Summers, DaJuan 26:49 -10 12/47 2- 4 1- 2 5- 6 6/36 0/16 0/45 3/46 1/25 2/20 3/24 4
Wright, Chris 33:13 + 5 16/67 5- 7 2- 3 0- 2 10/44 3/18 0/62 6/61 0/36 1/24 3/34 3
Monroe, Greg 35:05 +12 13/76 5- 7 0- 0 3- 3 7/50 8/23 5/65 5/65 2/35 3/28 8/35 3
Freeman, Austin 33:11 +14 18/75 7- 9 0- 2 4- 6 11/45 2/20 0/62 0/60 0/32 3/24 4/35 2
Sapp, Jessie 24:10 + 2 8/46 1- 4 0- 2 6- 8 6/31 5/14 3/44 3/47 1/25 0/21 5/23 4
Clark, Jason 23:44 + 5 10/53 3- 4 1- 4 1- 2 8/31 2/13 0/45 1/42 1/26 2/18 2/26 0
Vaughn, Julian 04:31 - 5 0/ 6 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 3 0/ 1 0/ 7 0/ 7 0/ 5 0/ 2 0/ 5 1
Sims, Henry 13:38 +15 5/35 2- 5 0- 0 1- 2 5/20 0/10 0/26 0/24 1/13 0/ 9 2/16 3
Wattad, Omar 05:39 - 3 0/ 5 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 5 0/ 1 0/ 9 0/ 8 0/ 8 0/ 4 0/ 7 0
TOTALS 40:00 82 25-40 4-13 20-29 53 20/29 8/73 19/72 6/41 13/29 28/41 20
. 0.625 0.308 0.690 0.690 0.110 0.264 0.146 0.448 0.683

Efficiency: GU 1.139, PC 1.027
eFG%: GU 0.585, PC 0.500
Substitutions: GU 33, PC 48

2-pt Shot Selection:
Dunks: GU 5-5, PC 2-2
Layups/Tips: GU 16-25, PC 12-25
Jumpers: GU 4-10, PC 3-14

Fast break pts: GU 13 (0.210), PC 7 (0.109)
Seconds per off. poss: GU 17.3, PC 16.0