The Four Freshmen

I have been looking at the possession-based stats (Min%, Poss%, Shot%, eFG% and ORtg) I collected from Ken Pomeroy's Villanova Scouting Report during the course of the season. Pomeroy updated the possession-based stats for the players at roughly (very roughly mind you...) one week intervals from early December through the end of the season. I had looked at the player usage-efficiency on Villanova teams from 2004 through 2007 in a post from last October and wanted to follow that with another that looked at this year's team. Since I collected the data (more or less weekly) for all the Big East teams, I thought it would be another resource to draw on when considering the state of the conference going into next season. I was curious to see how the much discussed four Villanova freshmen ("true" freshmen Corey Fisher, Malcolm Grant and Corey Stokes, along with redshirt freshman Antonio Pena) who, as it turned out played for most of this season, would track as the team moved from the out of conference schedule, through the Big East regular season, and (though not always a given...) into the post season (the Big East Tournament and it turned out, the NCAAs).

During the Labor Day Canadian Tour reports had Malcolm Grant, an under recognized recruit who had prepped a year before joining the squad, as probably the most "big East ready" of the cohort. Corey Stokes, a sharpshooting wing, had a rough start in the first game (versus tournament host Carleton University), but had, by the end of the tour, righted the ship with several impressive outings. Stokes emerged, behind sophomore Scottie Reynolds and junior Dante Cunningham as the team's third scoring option, according to per game average for points scored. Both Corey Fisher and Antonio Pena had proven to be sufficiently productive to stake legitimate claims to turns in the rotation. I plotted their possession-based offensive ratings, as Pomeroy updated them on his Villanova Scouting Report during the season. A chart of their Offensive Ratings (ORtg) over the course of the season...

For Malcolm Grant the Canadian Tour was a good predictor. Alternately dubbed "Malky" and "Microwave" the freshman had a number of scintellating outings and established himself as a Nova Nation favorite. But (like Canada) his time on the court was limited by circumstances. With Scottie Reynolds and Corey Fisher ahead of him on the depth chart, Grant's playing time (and ORtg, as suggested by the chart above) peaked in mid December, in the midst of the out of conference part of the season. While speculation over "the proper mix" of guards on the floor mushroomed into an unexpected firestorm (about the time the team was hitting bottom in late January/early February) within the Nova Nation, Grant's PT dwindled. After appearing in 21 consecutive games, Grant saw the court in only 8 of the last 14 games, averaging about 4.5 minutes per game (or 8 in those 8 games in which he actually logged time...). Grant maintained "regular" status within the offense (even in the face of diminishing PT), taking about 21.5% of the available possessions and 22% of the shots when he was on the floor. His ORtg's gentle decline parallells the decline in his eFG%, from a high of 73.9% to start the season down to 53.4 at season's end. Grant did not appear in the Kansas game, and logged only 2 minutes in Villanova's win over Siena in the second round. Grant applied and received a release from his scholarship and transferred to Miami (Fla) in the off season.

The Canadian Tour also suggested Corey Stokes' path this past season. Similar to his performance over the Labor Day weekend, Stokes started out very slow, posting an underwhelming ORtg of 68.9 in the first of December. 100.0 is something of a dividing line, as it suggests that a player "scores" about one point per possession taken (rating is expressed as "per 100 possessions"). Since most (but not all...) teams post composite ORtgs of 100 or greater, an individual ORtg <100 suggests an inefficient offensive player. While many well regarded freshman post first year ORtgs in the 90s, at 68.9 Stokes was a very inefficient player. Stokes' Poss% and Shot% through 12/3 were 15.3% and 19.2% respectively, suggesting he was taking role player-level possessions, but regular player-level quantities of shots when he was playing. Though he was getting < 40% of the available minutes at his position, his inefficiency (when he was playing) was a drag on team performance. His offensive rating never returned to that level, throughout December and most of January it fluxuated from the mid 80s to the low 90s. While not obvious at the time, Stokes' week-over-week ORtgs began a steady improvement (no declines) from January 21 onward. He was finally getting it. His playing time through this period gradually increased from 38.2% to 48.5%, with a single week-over-week decline in early February. With the momentum of increased playing time and improving efficiency, Stokes crossed over the 100.0 barrier in early March (see chart above) and did not fall back below through season end. A most promising development was Stokes' ability to also build his poss% and shot% even as his ORtg increased. By season end Corey's Poss% and Shot% were 17.6% (between role player and regular) and 21.9% (regular) respectively. For an individual player to build his ORtg even has his role with the team is expanding suggests there even more room for growth, ie the player has not reached his optimum level of offensive efficiency. Kyle Lowry went from a 97.8/20.7/19.1 (ORtg/Poss%/Shot%) his freshman year to 113.4/22.1/17.8 (ORtg/Poss%/Shot%) his sophomore year. A similar jump (about 15%) in efficiency for Stokes next season would place him among the top 200 or so players in D1.

Antonio Pena's season was a bit more typical of a high major D1 freshman. After a very strong start, a 115.8 ORtg, based largely on an eFG% of 50.0% through 12/3, rising to 122.4 and 66.7 (ORtg & eFG% respectively), his numbers began a season-long decline, settling down to 95.4 and 47.5 (ORtg & eFG% respectively) by 4/3. Pangs of disappointment ought to be mitigated by knowing that Pena's Poss% and Shot% rose (along with his PT) even as his efficiencies declined. And that is the more frequent trend for D1 and NBA players, as their role in the offense increases, their efficiencies decline. Pena's percentage of the available minutes rose from 27.5 (12/16) to 48.4 (4/3), even as his Poss% also rose, from 18.7 to 21.5 and his Shot% rose from 13.9 to 18.8. Other teams discovered that Antonio Pena could put the ball in the bucket and began to give him more attention on defense.

As the NJ HS Player of the Year while point guard for the State Champion St. Patrick's Celts Corey Fisher might have been the most anticipated recruit of the young Wildcat cohort. His start indeed suggested the ink was true, posting an eFG% in the low 50s for much of December and January. His Poss% and Shot% stats suggested Fisher was assuming a starter/star level role in Villanova's offense. His 12/3 Poss% and Shot% numbers were 24.2 and 28.5 respectively, suggesting he would assume an offensive role second only to Reynolds as the season progressed. Unfortunately his scoring did not keep up with his possessions. While his minutes (percentage of minutes avilable) climbed from the high 40s in early December to the high 50s in early January, he maintained his Poss% (24%-26%) and Shot% (27%), even as his ORtg declined from 115 to 108. By mid-February his ORtg and eFG% had declined to 96 and 45 respectively, despite the fact that he maintained Poss% and Shot% at early January levels. He maintained a high level of involvement in the offense, even as he was becoming considerably less efficient. Fisher's slump mirrored the team's through that part of the season and given his major role in the offense, he had therefore, a role in the Wildcat's loss of momentum during that period. The staff began to cut his minutes, distributing them to other members of the rotation. The loss of time was approximately 7 minutes (24 to 17), but point production declined considerably, as Fisher's average for points scored per game dropped from 10.9 to 5.7. Fisher maintained his playing level for assists (2.0 per game for both periods) and defense (as measured by steals and rebounding), but cut back considerably on his shooting. As Corey F works to bring his contribution more in line with the team, I expect fans will see his Poss% and Shot% numbers decrease to regular/starter levels, which should (assuming he better recognizes his scoring opportunities and becomes more selective in his choice of shots...) improve his efficiencies (eFG and ORtg) considerably.

Post Game: Louisville -- Dissed?

So which is more insulting, having Rick Pitino clear his bench or having the broadcast network switch out at the second half media timeout (and never go back)? Members of the Nova Nation still pouring over the RPI and SOS might want to pause and take a look at CBS' ratings on Sunday afternoon. ESPN is about the game, CBS is about the ad revenue. Tim over at Nova News has produced a recap/analysis of the game, but he admits in his post, "Nova Pummeled by Louisville" that the lack of TV coverage hampered his efforts. Get over to read his comments however, as he does have something to say about the lineups and rotation (and CBS' coverage). Check in with the I Bleed Blue and White Blog and the Let's Go Nova Blog sometime today or tomorrow, as I am sure both will have some thoughts to share about the game and the state of the team. Fans who look to the Inquirer's Joe Juliano or the PDN's Mike Kern for and in depth report on the game (those missing pieces that CBS blacked out...) or more background on Scottie Reynold's and Corey Fisher's benching will be disappointed as both (Kern's piece is "Villanova's Hopes Fading With Loss to Louisville" and Juliano's article is "Villanova Falls Short Against Louisville") focus less on the blow-by-blow or the backstories associated with the game, and more on the team's bubble status (or lack thereof). If you want to learn about the missing 15.5 minutes you have to go to the game log which is stored with the box score over at Athletic Department website. This game log was produced by Louisville, by custom the host is responsible for producing the box score of each game. I have used the school site box scores this season and some variety among the schools on the depth, accuracy and promptness of those boxes. Louisville does not do a job, but the Cardinals game logs don't identify the substitutions for example. There is a definite pecking order when it comes to box scores produced by Big East schools. It might be worth a post at some future date, to point out the good ones and the...less good ones. The breakdown by halves...

Opponent	Louisville
	1st	2nd	Total
Pace	30.9	32.9	63.8
	Offense				Defense
	1st	2nd	Total		1st	2nd	Total
Rating	77.5	90.3	84.1		113.5	101.2	107.2
eFG%	50.0	41.1	45.0		50.0	60.0	54.0
TORate	25.8	18.1	21.8		13.0	33.7	23.6
OR%	0.0	31.6	18.8		31.6	37.5	34.3
FTA/FGA	9.1	39.3	26.0		20.0	80.0	44.0
FTM/FGA	9.1	25.0	18.0		16.7	45.0	28.0
ARate	55.6	45.5	50.0		50.0	63.6	56.5
Blk%	13.6	14.3	14.0		0.0	0.0	0.0
Stl%	12.9	9.0	10.9		6.5	12.3	9.5

The difference in first half ratings between the two squads was surprising (I expected Villanova's to be a bit higher), but the real surprise came when I compared the eFGs for that half. As you can tell from the green highlight in the table above, both converted the equivalent of 50% of their FGAs, yet there was nearly a 40 point difference in their ratings (as I knew from the box score an eleven point bulge in the Ville's favor). What accounted for the difference? The orange highlighted stats provide the answer. An old issue (turnovers) combined with an overlooked (in other recaps...) development, the offensive rebounding percentage. Nova had no offensive rebounds in the first half. They had zero second chance opportunities on their misses. I don't believe I have seen a number like that ever, not even against Pittsburgh or Georgetown. Oddly, this was the Cardinal's best day hands down, on the boards, especially in denying Villanova on the offensive glass. Even their efforts on their own offensive boards was above (their) average for the season. Coach Pitino had the Wildcat's number without a doubt. For those who did not see the game, Villanova's turnovers were largely generated by Louisville's press. What a thing of beauty by the way. For someone trying to dribble through or pass over/around that press it must have looked like chaos. I compliment the Cardinals on a very well executed strategy. Note that by the second half many of the defensive numbers have been "adjusted" to look very much like the familiar Villanova defense -- the higher eFG combined with more turnovers. The two halves provide a very good illustration of the connection between turnovers, rebounds, shooting and scoring. A second, milder, surprise about the game was the relatively low pace. Neither Villanova nor Louisville play a game at 64 possessions if they can help it. Note the pace for the first half was 30/31 (most likely the pace was 31 for each team in the first half...). That computes to a 61/62 possession game, more like the type of game Georgetown or DePaul might play. Other teams that play at that pace include Miami of Ohio (another Princeton Offense team...) of the MAC, though the Miami game had about 51 possessions per side. The Cards won that game literally on the last (or second to last) possession after trailing most of the game.

One of the questions from this season has been the rotation that seems to exclude one of Grant and Fisher from the floor at any one time. Both have seen (to varying degrees) floor time, but almost never simultaneously. As Coach Wright explained it he believes the defense suffers too much when both are playing. Since Fisher was benched over a promptness transgression, the fan had a opportunity to see how the 'Cats looked when Grant gets extensive minutes (this was the most Malcolm has played since logging 27 minutes (and scoring 22 points) in the first Pittsburgh game back in January. Malcolm's shooting numbers were very good (eFG -- 50.0, PPWS -- 1.11), but the 'Cats had to look for assists from Reynolds; Grant was #2 with 3.

Odds and Ends...
1. Jerry Smith, an sg who has been playing the wing for Louisville this season, recorded his second career double-double scoring 10 points and nabbing 10 rebounds. His first was against Miami (Fla) last season. 7 of those rebounds were defensive boards.
2. Dwayne Anderson and Dante Cunningham were relatively efficient scorers, but they were not the main scoring options on the floor at any point in time. Responsibility for scoring around the basket apparently went to Pena, who took nearly 26.7% of the shots when he was in the game (he played about 75.0% of the available minutes). Cunningham took about 12.0% of the shots, and Anderson took about 16% of the shots when he was in. Both Cunningham and Anderson did foul out.
3. Pena, Reynolds and Stokes took 50% of the FGAs, and had a collective eFG of 34.0 and a collective PPWS of 0.74, both numbers well below the average for the team in this game. Hand it to Coach Pitino in that he identified the players who were hottest at this point, and prepped his team to shut them down.
4. Referee Notes -- The crew (Jim Burr, John Higgins and Les Jones) was definitely from the "Let 'em Play" camp. While they called Villanova for a bit more than the average number of fouls for an away game, they were well within the standard deviation for road games this season (Villanova averages 22.8 fouls in road games; Burr/J. Higgins/Jones called 24).

Post Game: Pittsburgh

If you did not catch the game recap with player grades ("Villanova Edges #13 Pitt") over at Let's Go Nova or the two, more personal reactions ("Hell Yeah" and "View from the Student Section") over at I Bleed Blue and White, you should. They have done a wonderful job recounting individual and team exploits, efforts I would not dream of trying to match. I thought I would break down the box score a little though, and see how the team did with a few areas I and others have touched on several times this season. During the Nova Nation's celebration of the win a few fans noted that while much has been rightly made about freshman Malcolm Grant's heroics in energizing the offense during the second half, perhaps too little was made of junior Dante Cunningham's free throws with 10 seconds left that put Villanova ahead for the last time. Free throws (and fouls) throughout the second half, as the breakdown (below) demonstrates, had a significant impact on the course and outcome of the game. This was a "weird win", similar to a number of Villanova's victories over the past three seasons:

Opponent	Pittsburgh
	1st	2nd	Total
Pace	34.3	33.2	67.5
	Offense				Defense
	1st	2nd	Total		1st	2nd	Total
Rating	90.2	109.2	99.4		85.0	110.4	96.7
eFG%	38.7	39.3	39.0		44.4	55.4	50.0
TORate	15.0	16.1	15.5		39.7	26.8	33.8
OReb%	31.8	47.4	39.0		58.8	50.0	54.5
FTA/FGA	29.0	53.6	40.7		33.3	14.3	23.6
FTM/FGA	19.4	42.9	30.5		22.2	7.1	14.5
ARate	40.0	40.0	40.0		54.5	28.6	40.0
Blk%	9.7	14.3	11.9		0.0	3.6	1.8
Stl%	0.0	9.6	4.7		17.0	16.7	16.9

As the numbers suggest, neither team was particularly efficient (offensively) in the first half. Watching the game, I had the sense that this was devolving into a rock fight. Villanova's offensive efficiency, 90.2, was one of the poorer first half performances this season, but the Wildcats went into the locker room with a tie, largely because Pitt's offensive efficiency, 85.0, was even worse than the Wildcats. The play-by-play announcer tracked the Panther's extremely high turnover rate, largely by counting and comparing the mounting total to Pitt's yearly average. The TORate (highlighted in yellow above) reinforces the point. Pittsburgh ended nearly 4 in 10 1^st half possessions via a turnover and not with a field goal attempt or free throw. Pittsburgh was tied with Villanova at the half because they shot better than Villanova and rebounded their misses. Those two areas compensated for the horrific turnover rate. Villanova was tied with Pittsburgh at the half because they shot very poorly and did not rebound their misses effectively (one and done). Both teams made adjustments at the half, and Pitt came out with an even better eFG% in the second half, cut their turnovers and maintained (at least) parity on the offensive boards. Villanova's eFG% barely improved, but the 'Cats continued to take care of the ball and did a better job of rebounding, both offensively and defensively. The margin of victory however, came at the free throw line. The Wildcats hit the line at a rate slightly better than 1 per 2 FGAs. Villanova took 15 FTAs to Pittsburgh's 4. Dante's game ending free throws were a quiet symbol of the Wildcat's 2^nd half effort.

When looking at why a team wins a particular game I can usually look no farther than shooting percentages (2 & 3 point shooting percentages, eFG% and PPWS), Offensive and Defensive Ratings and maybe offensive rebounding. One team usually does those three better than the other, and that largely accounts for how that team won. I suggested the Pitt victory was weird earlier because the Wildcats won but did not out perform Pitt in those crucial areas. Villanova was able to (severely) limit Pitt's scoring opportunities by forcing turnovers (see Stl% under defense in addition to the turnover rates), while maximizing their own opportunities by not losing the ball. Given the loss of Levance Fields, coupled with Ramon's lingering injuries (and Wanamaker's lack of experience), this strategy makes even more sense. Villanova attacked the offensive and defensive glass in the second half and that in part translated into more trips to the line. Ultimately 28% of Villanova's scoring came from free throws. That is pretty high and characteristic of teams like Connecticut which are agressive and very skilled defensively. If Dante's free throws can be a thumbnail sketch of Villanova's winning efforts, it should be coupled with Ron Ramon's turnover in Pitt's last possession.