Oh Canada! Part 2: Team Defense

Villanova's team defense has fallen down a bit over the past two seasons. From a high ranking of #4 (per Ken Pomeroy's possession-based stats) in the 2004-05 season the Wildcat's defensive rating has drifted downward to #18 last season. The culprit (as many fans who watched the games know...) has been field goal defense, principally on the perimeter. Numbers for rebounding (OR% -- opponent's offensive rebounding rate) and turnovers (TORate) have been fair to good, but fouling (FTRate) has been weak -- the 'Cats have been known to foul a good deal, a byproduct of the aggressive style of defensive play. Like perimeter field goal defense, Villanova's defensive free throw rate (free throws per 100 field goal attempts) has regressed over the past 3 seasons. Last year's 42.0 earned the 'Cats a rank of #262 (out of 338 in D1). The overall stats look very good for the defense on this tour:

eFG%	TORate	OR%	FTRate	DRtg	PPWS
36.3	23.3	30.4	41.4	81.1	0.87

Of particular interest is the eFG%, which at 36.3, is extremely low (the Canadians weren't hitting), well below Connecticut's #1 defensive eFG% of 41.9 last season. The FTRate (41.4) appears to be a bit high, possibly reflecting the style of Canadian (international) officiating, but along with an uncharacteristically low DR% of 30.4, something to watch. Individual game breakdowns, given the different levels of competition and team composition, should provide better insight on some of these numbers:

Opponent	eFG%	TORate	OR%	FTRate	DRtg	PPWS
Carleton	34.6	27.3	20.0	53.8	73.9	0.94
Queens	32.5	23.6	26.8	15.0	63.5	0.67
Ottawa	39.4	22.7	33.3	71.2	96.1	1.03
Carleton All-Stars	38.3	20.0	36.6	34.4	88.6	0.83

Keeping all 4 Canadian teams' eFG% in the 30s is a good sign the shot defense might be back. That the Golden Gaels registered the lowest eFG% is not surprising. The percentages given by the two Carleton squads however are especially encouraging. The Wildcats were able to force a turnover rate of about 23.1 last season, so the overall exhibition result (22.8), while statistically insignificant, is not particularly good. This may rise as the rotation is settled. The opponent's OR% of 30.4 was an improvement over last year's 32.1, which was surprising given the larger front line offered by the 'Cats. The poorer showing against the Carleton All-Stars (36.6) however, raises concerns. Losing Sumpter and Sheridan, combined with less than dominating rebounding on this tour suggests this may be an area of concern. Ottawa's surprisingly high FTRate (71.2) is obviously a anomaly, something which might be said about their OR% and eFG% from that game as well. The higher paced game may have developed the characteristics of an AAU type game -- note the DRtg% of 96.1 for example. Not high as a result of a D1 game, but about 15.1% higher than the next nearest game (the Carleton All-Stars) and suggesting an inconsistency in the defensive effort game-to-game (note the Queens game). Is the higher pace responsible for the apparent degraded defense? The overall raw DRtg% of 81.1 may again be consistent with the level of the competition, but is nevertheless encouraging. Hopefully these numbers will serve as predictors for a strong defensive presence next season.

Oh Canada! Part 1: Team Offense

Villanova's 4 game 3 day sojourn to Ottawa afforded fans a taste of the team Coach Wright will take into next season. The extended exhibition tour gave me 2 - 3 more games to look over than I might see during the "regular" exhibition part of the season. While there is little doubt this was exhibition basketball, some of the numbers should encourage Wildcat fans.

Some background about the tour and competition. Villanova faced four opponents over the course of a three day tour. The 'Cats faced Carleton University, the five time CIS champion (the Canadian equivalent of the NCAA) on Saturday evening, September 1, Queens University at noon on Sunday September 2, the University of Ottawa a semifinalist in last year's CIS championship (defeated by Carleton) at 7pm (central time) on Sunday September 2 and a team of ex-Carleton players who have pursued pro careers in Europe and Australia (the Carleton All-Stars) on Monday September 3. The overall offensive (and pace) stats:

Raw
Pace	eFG%	TORate	OR%	FTRate	ORtg	PPWS
68.7	63.8	22.9	31.5	43.2	114.2	1.31

Those are very strong numbers, even for an exhibition series. The eFG% (field goal efficiency) is much higher than last season, suggesting the Wildcats, even against tougher competition, will most likely see a greater shooting accuracy than they have in a few years. The OR% appears to be right around where it has been historically under the Wright regime, while the team got to the line pretty consistently (FTRate), suggesting they showed an appropriate amount of aggression on the ball & backboards. The (raw) Offensive Rating (ORtg) is encouragingly high, even for an exhibition series. The lack of practice/preparation time, even with new players to integrate into the system did not depress the ORtg, which was better than last season (107.7) by about 5% has to be, with all caveats factored (competition, lack of prep, inexperienced players, no starters for one game, etc.) very encouraging. The overall numbers however, do mask a game-to-game variation which, if examined closely, suggests there are still a number of things to resolve. I have put together the pace and offensive and defensive efficiency statistics for each of the four games, and they appear below:

	Raw
Opponent	Pace	eFG%	TORate	OR%	FTRate	ORtg	PPWS
Carleton	62.3	43.3	16.1	22.7	64.4	98.0	1.04
Queens	67.7	54.5	19.2	40.6	41.1	107.8	1.09
Ottawa	74.9	82.1	26.7	33.3	28.6	137.5	1.62
Carleton All-Stars	70.0	73.8	28.6	21.4	42.9	110.0	1.52

The Wildcat's field goal efficiency caught my eye first. The 'Cats converted in the 48-49 range (48.8) last season. Pushing that number above 50 would be very encouraging. But the playing the toughest team first (Carleton) the 'Cats registered a rather disappointing 43.3. The efficiency for Ottawa game, 82.1, was the product of a 9-11 3 point shooting night, complements of Scottie Reynolds (5-5) and Corey Stokes (4-6). Not likely they will hit 81.2% of their 3s every night. But the eFG% for the trailing 3 games (Queens, Ottawa and the All-Stars) showed considerable improvement over the first game (Carleton U.). Maybe the 'Cats are indeed on their way. The eFG% (effective field goal percentage) against the all-pro All-Star squad, well into the mid 70s, was an excellent number considering the competition. Turnovers on the other hand, showed a downward trend. As the pace quickened the 'Cats lost more (and a higher percentage) of their possessions. This may well be due to the new players (more on individual performances in a later post) and therefore naturally correctable with more playing time. The offensive rebounding however is a bit more troubling, and may in some ways represent the dilemma the staff will face this season. Under Coach Wright Villanova has had a number of very good rebounding guards (Lowry and Foye stand out, but Ray, Nardi and Benn contributed on rebounding as well), but this squad's guard contingent (wings included) seemed less inclined to grab missed shots. The OR% versus the two Carleton squads in particular is bothersome. The Ravens are a well coached/schooled program headed up by Dave Smart, an assistant coach for the Canadian National Team. And Villanova's OR% against both of those squads hovered around 20, well below their tour average and well below their OR% from last season (39.1). The OR% from the Queens game is nearly the opposite of the 2 Carleton games, but consider that Ott, Pena and Drummond played significant minutes against the Golden Gaels, while the starting lineup sat for the entire game. That Drum, Ott and company were able to snag 41.1% of the Wildcat's own missed shots should not be a surprise. That it should be only marginally better than last season's ending OR% (and produced against a not very competitive university program) should raise some modest concerns at this point.

The average raw pace for D1 ball last season was about 67.5, while exhibition games tend to be in the 70 or so range. The Carleton game came in a bit below those two paces and while eyewitnesses reported that Carleton initiated the deliberate pace, I was curious to know if the Ravens played that slowly for two other American teams, the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) and the University of Alabama, who alos toured the Capital Region that weekend. The answer is no. The pace for the Illinois game was about 65.2, while the Ravens victory over Alabama took about 68.5 possessions. Clearly Villanova's game was the lowest paced of the three. If, as suggested by fans who were present to watch the game, the Ravens slowed the tempo, it might suggest a deliberate strategy to limit possessions as a means of increasing their chances for a win. Villanova's raw pace last season was 66.5, about 3 possessions lower than the overall (raw) possessions for the Tour.