Post Game: Albany -- At Last!

Villanova opened the 2008-09 season with an eighteen point win over the Great Danes of Albany University last night in the Pavilion on Villanova's campus. Tim over at the Nova News posted a preliminary recap of the game along with the news of the latest casualty in Villanova's war with the injury bug. The Wildcats face the Towson Tigers in their last home game of this football season. The Athletic Department posted their usual AP story about three hours after the game. The story, a servicable though vague recap of the score and major scorers, noted that Villanova won it's season opening game in the Pavilion for the eighteenth straight year. Joe Juliano's report of the game includes a good deal of detail and provides an accurate narrative of the major events at the Pavilion last night. And CBS Sportsline weighed in with a smaller article that took note of the high scorers and the Danes late game run (and Anderson's injury), but not much more. The four factors stats by half...

Opponent	Albany
	1st	2nd	Game
Pace	35.8	30.9	66.8
	Offense				Defense
	1st	2nd	Game		1st	2nd	Game
Rating	110.1	124.0	116.5		67.9	115.3	90.2
eFG%	62.1	59.1	60.8		39.6	59.3	50.0
TORate	22.0	19.6	20.9		34.0	25.6	30.1
OR%	28.6	33.3	30.8		21.1	47.4	34.2
FTA/FGA	24.1	63.6	41.2		29.2	40.7	35.3
FTM/FGA	13.8	54.5	31.4		20.8	14.8	17.6
ARate	70.6	54.5	64.3		37.5	64.3	54.5
Blk%	6.9	4.5	5.9		0.0	7.4	3.9
Stl%	11.0	13.1	11.9		14.2	9.6	12.0

Villanova's first half defense bore all the trademarks of the defense fans have come to recognize as "Villanova Defense" -- high turnover rate coupled with domination on the defensive boards. In truth however, it was something of a Mexican standoff. Villanova held the Danes' 3 big guns, transfer Will Harris, freshman Tony Raffa and sophomore bomber Tim Ambrose to a lackluster 4-12, the reason the Danes' eFG% was so low. In turn, the Danes locked down Scottie as the lead scorer for the Wildcats went 0-3. Scottie's shooting percentage was only half of the story -- note he took a total of 3 FGAs and did not get to the line. Scottie countered however, by dishing out 5 assists, and 'Cat forwards Antonio Pena and Dante Cunningham obliged by scoring 22 points on 10-14 shooting (and 2-4 from the line). Had Villanova sustained that defensive through the second half they would have held Albany to (about) 45 points for the game, just a bit more generous than Northwood. Like Scottie, the Great Danes' triple broke through with a 10-16 shooting effort, good for 23 points. The 'Cats however saw their other defensive elements break down as well -- the Danes were able to snag 40% of their missed shots (good for put backs & second chance attempts), while limiting turnovers to approximately ¼ of their possessions. The second half lapse can, most likely be traced to (over?) confidence. After all, Nova up 40-24 going into the locker room, then blew their lead out to 20 at the 10:56 mark of the second half, saw the Danes rally back to -11 (at 6:29), and then took it back out to the high teens. They spent three of their last 5 offensive possessions trying to set up senior reserve forward Frank Tchuisi for a layup or dunk. Tchuisi finished with 2 points on 1-4 shooting.

Notes & Observations
1. Scoring was fairly evenly distributed -- six Wildcats (Cunningham, Fisher, Pena, Redding, Reynolds and Stokes), including all five starters (Te, Fish, Tone, Scottie and Stokes), scored in double digits. While scoring and possessions were fairly evenly distributed among the six, points ranged from 10 to 13, with three scoring 13, distribution of shots was not. Reynolds (28.8) and Cunningham (23.5) served as the first two options on offense. Cunningham (and Pena) carried the offense in the first half, while Reynolds (along with, to a lesser degree, Redding and Tchuisi...) picked it up in the second half.
2. The abrupt drop in pace from the first to the second half caught my eye. It reminded me of the Drexel game back in 2006. The 'Cats lost that game as the referees facilitated a "Parade of the Dragons" (to the free throw line). Like the Drexel game, last night's game also featured a half-over-half increase of FTARate, but this time the 'Cats were the beneficiaries. Did the increase in fouls work to limit possessions? I looked fairly quickly through data from last season, and it appears there is a weak coorelation. Given that last night's game was not inside of double digits after 12:29 mark of the first half, possession-fouling was not a factor.
3. Corey Stokes & Reggie Redding had particularly efficient scoring nights. Stokes posted a 1.87 PPWS by mixing 2s and 3s with trips to the line. Redding's PPWS was 1.38, second among the double digit scorers. Cunningham & Reynolds, the focal points posted 1.25 and 1.07 respectively. Not a bad night at all.
4. The staff used a 10 man rotation, giving 8 of the 10 double digits minutes. Three players, Cunningham, Fisher and Reynolds, logged 30 minutes.
5. The Big East opened the season with an exclamation point, going 8-0 against OOC competition. The average margin of victory was 18.9(! -- Nova's margin was 18...), with the biggest bully goes to Marquette, who drubbed the Huskies of Houston Baptist (hmmm, where have I heard that name...), by a very inhospitable 31 point margin. Jim Calhoun's UConn Huskies, often criticized for running up the score on obscure opponents, was almost (but not quite) gracious to the Catamounts of Western Carolina, hammering them by only 26 points. Rutgers posted the slimest margin of victory, 2 points, in their win over Marist. The "conference of choice" was the Northeast Conference (NEC), which contributed

Ref Notes
The crew, Tim Clougherty, John Gaffney and Reggie Greenwood, monitored with a fairly light touch. The box can't say whether the players were well behaved, or the zebras were easy going. Compared to last season this had fewer than average number of fouls called. Looking at games from prior seasons in which these three (though not necessarily as a crew...) monitored, this one was pretty consistent with the number of fouls called (though maybe just a bit low for number of free throws). Nothing unusual.

Roster Notes
1. Senior Dwayne Anderson joins fellow senior Shane Clark on the sidelines with a fracture in his right foot. Anderson reportedly complained of pain recently, and moved awkwardly in Nova's exhibition against Northwood last weekend. The injury was identified during a doctor's visit to identify the source of the pain.Anderson becomes the second senior sidelined so far. The staff had indicated the injury is severe and and the prognosis for a return this season is uncertain.
2. Senior Shane Clark, rehabbing from surgery on his right knee, was on the bench in street clothes. He is expected to return in (late) December.
3. Senior Frank Tchuisi, who was DNP versus Northwood, logged 11 minutes last night.
4. Freshman forward/center Maurice Sutton dressed but was DNP last night. Rumors that he will red shirt seem credible given that Sutton was the only player not injured who sat last night.

Post Game: Cincinnati -- Gimme an O...

Try to catch the recap/evaluation, "Bearcats Claw Past Nova at the Let's Go Nova Blog, or the official recap, "Late Cincinnati 3-Pointer Dooms Wildcats" over at Villanova's Official Website. These appear to be the only partisan post games, as a strange quiet has descended on the Nova Nation this week. Maybe there are a few (like me...) befuddled Wildcat bloggers trying to figure out just what happened last Saturday in Cincinnati. Or maybe the available contingent of bloggers is depleted because the student body is on break. I decided to go ahead and break down the box score, and see if there is something beyond the usual finger pointing at work here. Aside from the usual defensive woes out at the three point line (the Bearcats went 4-9 in the second half) and unusual (but very understandable) rebounding breakdowns (on the offensive side in the first half, and the defensive side in the second half...see below), there were one or two other nuggets for each team going forward:

Opponent	Cincinnati
	1st	2nd	Total
Pace	34.3	33.5	67.8
	Offense				Defense
	1st	2nd	Total		1st	2nd	Total
Rating	94.7	99.2	96.9		92.1	113.1	102.6
eFG%	53.6	50.0	51.8		50.0	58.3	54.2
TORate	11.5	24.0	17.6		23.8	26.8	25.3
OR%	0.0	43.8	21.2		27.8	46.7	36.4
FTRate	21.4	32.1	26.8		58.3	66.7	62.5
FTMRate	10.7	17.9	14.3		29.2	41.7	35.4
ARate	35.7	33.3	34.6		40.0	50.0	45.5
Blk%	3.6	7.1	5.4		4.2	4.2	4.2
Stl%	2.9	15.0	8.8		11.9	17.9	14.9

After I had posted my preview and was looking around at the other blogs and messageboards I teased a Cincinnati factoid out of Ken Pomeroy's Cincinnati Game Plan page. If you use the link I have provided to go to the page and left click on the "Eff" column under Defense, you can see it yourself. There are only a few bright line variables when trying to analyze a team's performance, but Cincinnati has a pretty obvious one. In those games (I am excluding the Villanova and Notre Dame results as they were both post Saturday morning...) where Cincinnati gives up more than one point per possession they go 0-6 and conversely, in those games where they hold opponents to less than a point per possession they are (were...) 7-2. The two results since last Saturday merely emphasize the point. Villanova's offense generated 0.975 points per possession (66 points in 67 possessions...), while Notre Dame's offense generated 1.2 points per possession (91 points in 75 possessions). Cincinnati's offense is not going to consistently and efficiently generate points, so the Bearcat's fate will hang on their defense. This of course is muddled in a mediocre record that has, after stumbling out of the gate, circled 0.500 for most of the season. I felt very confident when I saw this, because there are very few nights when the Wildcat offense cannot put at least one point per possession on the board. As luck would have it Saturday was one of those nights. Why it happened is another, more complicated question. Looking at the individual team members using efficiency stats can be helpful...

Rounding up the usual suspects yields a very incomplete analysis that can support some misleading conclusions. Scottie, as most have noted, broke out of his slump in a very big way. But aside from scoring a lot of points (32 of them...), he did it very efficiently. His eFG for the game was a rather high 61.4, as compared to his season-long eFG of 51.2. His PPWS for the game was 1.22, again higher than his seasonal PPWS of 1.11. Shane Clark, Dwayne Anderson and Antonio Pena all had comparable statistics (eFGs -- Anderson 66.7 & 55.0; Clark 75.0, 57.5; Pena 71.4, 57.8). These players were efficient, but they get considerably fewer possessions (opportunities to score) than a number of other players (Cunningham, Fisher, Grant, Stokes). For Cunningham and Grant, the field goal efficiency (eFG) stats for this game are painful -- Cunningham was 0. His average was 53.1. Grant was also 0. His seasona-long eFG going in was 63.9. While with Grant (and Fisher, whose numbers respectively were 39.3 and 50.4) the inclination is to chalk the game up to freshman inconsistency, the case for Cunningham is puzzling. Bearcat head coach Mick Cronin had told the Cincinnati newspapers (and parctically anyone who would listen) that the Bearcat gameplan was to shut down Dante. Someone in Philadelphia was not paying attention. Cronin's plan worked. No Wildcat got an offensive rebound in the first half. Cunningham is a Top 200 rebounder on the offensive glass, per Ken Pomeroy's Villanova Scout Page. And gamelong, no one from the usually reliable stable of prolific shooters/scorers (Fisher, Grant, Redding, Cunningham) stepped up to join Reynolds (and Anderson, Clark, Pena) to put in the needed points. The question as to why Anderson, Clark or Pena did not provide the additional scoring is fairly obvious -- each has had, over the course of this season, a minor role in the offense. They are third/fourth options for scoring, consistent with Villanova's backcourt-heavy offense. The development this season has been the expanded roles for Cunningham (at 19-20% of the possessions and shots he is getting "starter-level" touches) and, when he is in the line up, Drummond.

Villanova Efficiency and Usage

While looking around over the weekend I checked into the Hoya Prospectus Blog and discovered he applied the analysis discussed recently by Ken Pomeroy over at The Basketball Prospectus to the Georgetown teams of the past 3 years. I decided to crunch the numbers for the Wildcats and see what I could come up with...

	2004-05			2005-06			2006-07
Name	Min%	Poss%	ORtg	Min%	Poss%	ORtg	Min%	Poss%	ORtg
Austin	23.3	12.5	98.1	--	--	--	--	--	--
Charles	10.7	16.9	95.0	--	--	--	--	--	--
Fraser	46.1	18.2	107.3	35.9	14.5	105.5	--	--	--
Lowry	43.3	20.7	97.8	72.7	22.1	113.4	--	--	--
Ray	77.3	24.5	113.4	77.1	26.5	112.2	--	--	--
Foye	79.9	26.1	110.1	86.1	29.5	113.6	--	--	--
Sumpter	72.4	23.0	117.7	--	--	--	73.9	27.1	113.2
Sheridan	64.8	11.8	109.7	69.8	12.8	102.7	64.4	12.2	107.9
Nardi	77.4	16.1	100.9	65.6	18.3	110.2	74.3	20.6	114.7
Cunningham	--	--	--	47.3	9.9	98.4	68.3	17.3	110.2
S Clark	--	--	--	21.5	12.2	104.0	60.1	16.3	106.8
Redding	--	--	--	--	--	--	33.6	14.2	86.5
Benn	--	--	--	--	--	--	19.8	14.7	94.0
Drummond	--	--	--	--	--	--	10.7	15.0	99.1
Anderson	--	--	--	--	--	--	16.0	20.1	109.7
Reynolds	--	--	--	--	--	--	74.1	27.7	107.0

Pomeroy provides individual possession-based stats going back to the 2004-05 season. Lowry was a freshman and Fraser, Foye, Ray and Sumpter were just beginning to get some (post recruiting class) national attention. I decided to add playing time (Min%) to the analysis. While Pomeroy suggests that playing time will not by and large, have an impact on ORtg and Poss% (growth/decline in Poss% is determined by the slope of the curve, not the amount of time on the court), a player receives more or less playing time based on (among a number of factors) how well he meets the staff's expectations for play at that position. The rapid growth (or decline) in playing time from one season to the next can suggest a significant change in the player/team relationship. The players above earned 10% or more of the PT at their position for the season listed. I have ordered them (roughly) in the years they played.

Pomeroy, in his latest article on the subject of player possession rates, ("Effective Usage: Putting Individual Efficiency in Context" over at Basketball Prospectus), used a loose classification system:

Superstars combine high efficiency and high usage. Outstanding role players provide high efficiency without high usage. Durant is an example of the former. He used 31.6% of Texas' possessions while he was on the floor. With five players on the floor, an average player will use 20% of his team's possessions. Hoops being a game where the team dynamic is so important to success, most players are clustered around the average usage. Roughly half of all players have a usage between 17% and 23%. Only a select few get over 25%, and only 16 players in the nation had a larger role in their team's offense than Durant did.
- Ken Pomeroy, "Effective Usage: Putting Individual Efficiency in Context", 10/10/07

Pomeroy uses 2 elements -- Poss% (percent of a team's possessions a player uses when on the floor) and ORtg (offensive efficiency) to identify the type of role any player might have with respect to his team. According to his "Individual Stats Primer" over at kenpom.com, looking at possession percentage only there are 4 types of players...

• go-to guy/star - Poss% > 25.0. By his observation few exceed 30.0
• regular/starter - Poss% is around 20.0 (give or take 2 - 3 points). Gets about 1 in 5 possessions, is sometimes called an "average" player (though obviously ORtg is not considered when using that designation).
• role player - Poss% is around 15.0 (give or take 2 points). The player has a limited role in the offense. Sometimes a specialized player?
• marginal player - Poss% is around 10.0 (give or take 3 or so points). Often a freshmen whose Min% >10.0, but has not quite integrated into the offense. Though not listed specifically (and rarely referred to in Pomeroy's writings) there are quite a few players tracked by Pomeroy (because they log > 10.0 of the minutes) who gain < 13.0 of the available possessions.

Pomeroy also wrote about expectations/development -- a player's Poss% (and therefore role within the offense) for the next year could be predicted to a degree of certainty, by the Poss% of the previous year. I decided to test Pomeroy's hypothesis, "Once a player demonstrates himself to be a role player, it's unlikely he'll ever be a go-to guy and, therefore, a superstar. It's not quite a law in college basketball, but players who are not very involved in the offense tend to stay that way. Any major changes in a player's usage are usually the result of filling the hole left by a departing possession eater." against the Wildcats.

A few items of interest caught my eye during review. First and foremost, Pomeroy's assertion is largely true. With a few exceptions, each player's Poss% the next year fell within the 5-95 percentile values (and most, predictably within the 25-75 percentile values). Notice Jason Fraser's Poss% decline from 2005 to 2006. The accumulation of injuries clearly began to take a toll on his minutes (they declined...) and his ability to operate within the offense. Mike Nardi's year-over-year increase (2005 - 2007) was strong and consistent. 2005 was a low point for Mike as his role vis a vis the team was being redefined to facilitate Kyle Lowry's integration into the offense. By 2007 Mike has picked up a good deal of the possessions left by Foye, Ray and Lowry. Note also the growth in Poss% for Curt Sumpter and Dante Cunningham last season. Both are actually slightly beyond the 95^th percentile projected by Pomeroy. But given the loss of Ray, Foye, Lowry (and Fraser...), the growth was not entirely shocking. That Curt lost some efficiency even as his Poss% increased is very common, and practically expected when the player is moving from "regular/starter" status to "go-to guy" status (which was indeed the way most looked to Sumpter last season). The Poss% & ORtg numbers for Bump are pretty much what Pomeroy would have predicted. Bump was not a big part of the offense in his sophomore year, there should have been no expectation that he would be his junior and (or) senior years either. Other observations from the data:

1. Those who criticize Villanova's lack of front court offense have some great data here to back their argument. Notice the Poss% for Marcus Austin & Chris Charles in 2005. While neither logged large amounts of minutes, neither did they consume large percentages of possessions when they were on the court. While one can argue that the lack of possessions (and playing time...) may have been due to their low ORtg (98.0 & 95.0 respectively), check all of the front court players, for 2005 and 2006 -- Fraser, Sheridan, Cunningham and Clark. None had more than "role player" status in the offense, despite some promising ORtgs (Clark in particular). The sole exception is Curtis Sumpter. His 2005 stats were very good, but while he played the #4 in Villanov's system, he was clearly a #3 at the next level.
2. The numbers affirm how special Randy Foye was to the team. While his Min% increased, so did his Poss% and his ORtg. The last part is especially difficult. Usually as a player moves from the "regular/starter" role to the "go-to guy" role he loses scoring efficiency (his ORtg takes a hit -- see Alan Ray's ORtg in 2006 & 2007). Foye increased his ORtg by 3.5% even as he increased his Poss% by 3.4%. Extremely unusual when Poss% reach that level. It suggests he had not yet found his optimum level.
3. Dante Cunningham's potential for growth this coming season is pretty good. His 5-95 percentile range is (approximately) 14.5 - 24 (per the charts in "Effective Usage: Putting Individual Efficiency in Context"). The large growth in his ORtg (98.4 - 110.2) even as his Min% and Poss% increased bode well for his continued development. While he will not attain "go-to guy" status in the offense, he is the best candidate (among the returning front court players) to establish himself as a "regular/starter" - type player in the offense.
4. The prospects for Shane Clark are almost as promising. Shane also increased his Poss% and ORtg even as his minutes increased. While the ORtg increase was not a eye-catching as Dante's, his "normal" growth expectation would put him at about 18.0 for Poss%; the 5 - 05 percentile projection yields a range of 14 - 23. The projection may be on the low side given that Shane's ORtg was declining at the end of the season, most likely due to his injury. He lost about 6% over the course of the last month of the season.
5. Scottie's prospects are most interesting. He finished last season with a Poss% (27.7) that suggested he was a borderline "star" - type player. The expectation for this season is that his Poss% may actually decline slightly, to about 25.5-26.0. Even the 25-75 range and the 5-95 range suggest little upward or downard movement (at most a range of 22-32). Should his Poss% decline, his ORtg will most likely increase. He will not be the sole/primary focus of the opponent's defense, and that should give him very good opportunities to score (and do it efficiently).

Oh Canada! Part 4: Player Efficiencies

A four game run may be bit light to look at (possession-based) efficiency statistics, but I decided to crunch the numbers and take a look. The offensive & scoring numbers look like this:

Player	Min%	Poss%	Shot%	ORtg	eFG%	PPWS	FTRate	FTMRate
D Anderson	32.5	20.6	18.6	134.3	70.8	1.50	58.3	50.0
S Clark	45.6	18.4	18.7	80.0	44.1	0.96	35.3	23.5
J Colenda	9.4	4.1	10.7	0.0	0.0	0.00	0.0	0.0
D Cunningham	49.4	25.0	24.4	104.4	50.0	1.15	70.8	54.2
C Drummond	43.1	18.1	11.7	111.0	60.0	1.22	170.0	100.0
C Fisher	51.3	21.0	10.8	114.0	77.3	1.63	118.2	100.0
M Grant	50.6	15.1	19.9	150.6	75.0	1.53	10.0	10.0
A Ott	18.1	25.6	30.5	59.6	40.9	0.70	36.4	0.0
A Pena	51.3	21.3	22.6	78.6	56.5	1.09	8.7	0.0
R Redding	37.5	16.5	17.4	101.7	46.2	0.93	15.4	7.7
S Reynolds	55.0	24.9	24.7	176.2	98.1	1.90	51.9	40.7
C Stokes	56.3	18.7	25.9	134.8	67.2	1.37	6.9	6.9

My offensive rating calculation biases in favor of assists (and against offensive rebounders...), so Grant, Fisher, Reynolds and Redding's ORtgs may be a little high while Cunningham, Pena, Drummond and Clark's may be a little low (compare their ORtgs & PPWSs to get a sense of the differences...). But for estimating and getting a general sense of their play, these numbers will suffice. A few quick impressions:

1. Drummond & Fisher got to the line a great deal relative to the number of FGAs they took (check their FTRates). Note they did not (comparatively speaking...) take a lot of shots when they were on the floor (in the range of 10% - 12%, definitely marginal -- less than even a role player), but the relatively high number of fouls suggests the Canadians had problems coping with their respective offensive games...that could be a good sign for the season.
2. Their (relatively low) FTRates (and rebounding percentages -- see below) suggest that Grant, Pena, Redding and Stokes are back court/wing players. On site spectators say Pena was playing a bit tentatively. Maybe that explains his lack of contact and free throw opportunities.
3. Eight players logged 40.0% or more of the available time at their positions. Two other (Redding and Anderson) logged >30.0% (but <40.0%) of the available time at their positions. I suspect those 10 will see time early in the season. The schedule running up to the Old Spice Classic is a little abbreviated -- Bloomsburg (exhibition), Stoney Brook and Bucknell -- so the fans may see 10 or more players in each of those games as the staff settles on a rotation.
4. Given the level of competition, PPWSs <1.0 (note those instances where the PPWS is <1.0 the field goal efficiency -- eFG% -- is also <50.0) should be a little disconcerting -- those men just did not shoot well. Clark's, Redding's and Ott's shooting problems did not jeopardize the team's chances for victories because each had a (comparatively) small role in the team's offense. Redding took "role player" level possessions and shots (<17.0 or so), while Clark was a borderline "regular". Ott consumed comparatively large proportions of both possessions and shots, but played relatively few minutes.

The rebounding and defensive efficiency stats:

Player	Min%	OR%	DR%	ARate	TORate
Dwayne Anderson	32.5	13.8	20.1	32.3	16.2
Shane Clark	45.6	9.9	17.5	8.6	21.6
Jason Colenda	9.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Dante Cunningham	49.4	15.9	10.3	3.0	12.1
Casiem Drummond	43.1	7.8	20.2	23.2	13.9
Corey Fisher	51.3	0.0	8.5	34.3	37.7
Malcolm Grant	50.6	2.2	4.3	37.3	18.7
Andy Ott	18.1	12.4	32.0	0.0	15.4
Antonio Pena	51.3	8.8	12.7	3.4	30.4
Reggie Redding	37.5	3.0	17.4	51.8	46.0
Scottie Reynolds	55.0	0.0	13.2	27.3	16.4
Corey Stokes	56.3	2.0	12.9	13.9	20.9

OR% and DR% represent the percentage of available offensive (OR%) and defensive (DR%) rebounds the player was able to collect while he was on the floor. For defensive rebounding 20.0 is a very good number (the average in the Big East last season among players with 40.0 or more of the minutes in their respective positions was around 14.0). For offensive rebounding 10.0 is a very good number (the average in the Big East last season among players with 40.0 or more of the minutes in their respective positions was around 6.0). Turnover rates (TORate) and assists (ARate) are per 100 possessions (to establish a comparative standard for all players). A few observations about the freshmen:

1. Corey Fisher had a typical freshman tour. He did a few things well (assists -- ARate was 34.3, shooting, getting to the line), a few things poorly (TORate was 37.7, no offensive rebounding) and somethings very tentatively (despite good shooting he took comparatively few shots relative to the number of possessions -- 10.8). The rate at which he got to the line suggests he gave his defenders a very difficult time.
2. Malcolm Grant had a very good tour. Those who suggested he appeared "more ready" at this point have a good deal of support in the numbers. His shooting was accurate (eFG, PPWS) and he was comfortable taking the shot (compare Grant's Shot% to Fisher's) when it was available. Grant also had a terrific ARate (37.3 -- according to Ken Pomeroy's Villanova Scout Page the best ARate in D1 last season was 47.0; Scottie, with a 30.6 was ranked 69^th), as did Redding (51.8!), Anderson (! 32.3) and Fisher.
3. Corey Stokes played well within the offense. Note his Poss% and Shot% are around 20.0, suggesting he functioned within the offense and took "his share" of the possessions/shots available. He shot the ball well (see his eFG & PPWS), though given the relatively few free throws to FGAs, it appears he took jumpers and most likely stayed out around the 3 point line, rather than putting the ball on the deck and penetrating, to score his points. His rebounding was less than I hoped and he might also work to limit turnovers. His shooting was terrific; had Reynolds not shot the lights out in Ottawa and the Raven's Nest, the talk around the 'Nova Nation would be Corey Stoke's shooting.
4. Antonio Pena had a pretty good tour. He was comfortable taking his his shots and possessions (see his Poss% and Shot%). His shot making was accurate, but the turnovers killed him (TORate was 30.4 -- he lost about 3 in 10 of his possessions).

Overall I suspect the staff had to be pleased with those performances. There is much to work on over the next 6 weeks, but there is an excellent talent-level with which to work. Among the returning players there were few surprises, Scottie shot out the lights in Ottawa; Dante pulled down offensive rebounds like Bump did while shooting very well; Shane Clark, hobbled by knee problems last season, showed some offense (though with a bit of rust) and rebounded well, suggesting he had regained his mobility. Of the other returning players:

1. Dwayne Anderson posted some strong numbers in the time he played. Granted about half of his PT was taken against Queens University (10 points & 10 rebounds in 25 minutes), he showed comparable stats in the other three games (13 points & 3 rebounds in 27 minutes). Anderson will face much stronger competition for playing time this season.
2. Reggie Redding's tour was, aside from his ARate (and defensive rebounding), largely a struggle. He continues from last season to struggle with his (see his eFG% & PPWS) shot. And his strong assist performance was largely negated by a high turnover rate. Reggie performed well In the structure offense the staff used in the Carleton University game (the first game of the tour). Redding dished out 5 assists (though shooting 0-4, 1-2, 1). In the less structured games against Ottawa and the Carleton All-Stars Redding rediscovered his shot (5-9, 0-0, 12), but had diffuculty involving the rest of the offense (4 assists to 5 turnovers & he fouled out versus the Carleton All-Stars).
3. Casiem Drummond showed a good deal of consistency in the middle. His shot dropped as he played within the offense. He rebounded well (could do a bit better on the offensive boards) and showed some assist capabilities (ARate was 23.2, strong for a front court player).

Of the ten players who played the most minutes in Canada, Drummond, Redding and Anderson received the fewest minutes. All three should be in the rotation at least through the early part of the season (the run-up to Orlando? through December?). Who remains in the rotation, and how much time he/they get after that may well determine the look of, and prospects for this season's team.

Oh Canada! Part 3: Player Summaries

I am posting the summary stats for each of the team members who saw minutes in Ottawa. The player stats (given the blog margins...) will be presented in three groups -- a general background (Games played, minutes), shooting (offense?) and a third table with rebounds (offensive, defensive and total), assists, turnovers, blocks, steals and personal fouls. Given the questions & discussions about the roles several players will have on this year's team, I was very curious to see how the minutes were allocated among the individual team members.

Player	Min	GP
Dwayne Anderson	52	4
Shane Clark	73	3
Jason Colenda	15	2
Dante Cunningham	79	3
Casiem Drummond	69	4
Corey Fisher	82	4
Malcolm Grant	81	4
Andy Ott	29	2
Antonio Pena	82	4
Reggie Redding	60	3
Scottie Reynolds	88	3
Corey Stokes	90	4

For those wondering about Scottie's minutes next season, know he logged an average of 29.3 minutes per game (mpg). He sat for the second game in the set (against the Queens Golden Gaels). The stats confirm what those fans who made the trip observed -- Fisher and Grant did log about the same number of minutes. Antonio Pena also logged minutes in the low 80s, no doubt the staff wanted to see these freshmen (redshirts and trues) as much as the average Villanova fan. The surprise is Corey Stokes. Honored by McDonalds as an HS All-American, invited to the U19 tryouts and generally recognized by the scouting services as the highest ranked HS baller in Villanova's entering class, nevertheless, most Nova fans had shown greater anticipation about Corey Fisher's debut as a Wildcat than Corey Stoke's. Stokes, despite what seemed to be first game jitters against Carleton (5 minutes, 2 fouls, no points on 0-2 shooting), put together three very nice efforts in the games that followed. And he in fact finished with the most minutes played out of the entire squad. He played practically the entire Queens game (38 minutes) and averaged about 28.3 mpg over the last 3 games -- almost as much as Scottie (see above). I was not surprised that Jason Colenda (the Wildcat's latest walk-on) logged only 15 minutes in two games, but I was surprised that Andy Ott, despite rumors of a few dings did see only 29 minutes in just two games. I understand the staff may have seen little need to risk further injury on an exhibition tour. Reggie pulled a solid 20 mpg for the 3 games in which he appeared. Like the other starters/significant returning players from last season, he was held out of the Queens University game to keep him fresh for the Ottawa game later that day. As for offense:

	Overall		3 Pt		2 Pt		Free Throw
Player	FM	FA	FM	FA	FM	FA	FM	FA	Pts
D Anderson	7	12	3	5	4	7	6	7	23
S Clark	7	17	1	5	6	12	4	6	19
J Colenda	0	2	0	1	0	1	0	0	0
D Cunningham	12	24	0	1	12	23	13	17	37
C Drummond	6	10	0	0	6	10	10	17	22
C Fisher	7	11	3	5	4	6	11	13	28
M Grant	13	20	4	8	9	12	2	2	32
A Ott	4	11	1	4	3	7	0	4	9
A Pena	13	23	0	2	13	21	0	2	26
R Redding	5	13	2	6	3	7	1	2	13
S Reynolds	20	27	13	16	7	11	11	14	64
C Stokes	13	29	13	27	0	2	2	2	41

That Scottie led all scorers is hardly shocking (though his average of 21.3 caught my eye). That the next two scorers were the freshman Stokes and Junior Dante Cunningham is a bit of a surprise. Cunningham appears to have picked up from his mid-season form, though he may have backslid a bit on his free throws. Stokes, a wing guard/forward who started slow, showed very good point production in the last three games. Malcolm Grant, the third guard brought in this year, showed a greater inclination to shoot than fellow freshman Fisher, and Grant also had a slightly higher accuracy (at least from inside the 3 point arc). Pena, Drummond and Clark's scoring numbers (all averaged about 5 - 7 ppg) suggest there may be more offense in the frontcourt than in prior seasons. If this tour is a predictor for next season, it appears that Scottie, working off the ball more than last season, will serve as a very effective first option on offense. Cunningham and Stokes (when they are available) will be effective 2^nd (inside) and 3^rd (outside) options. Grant, Fisher, Clark, Pena and Drum virtually guarantee that the Wildcats will have 4 - 5 realistic scoring options on the floor at any one time. As for the rebounding, steals, blocks, etc.:

Player	OR	DR	TR	Ast	TOv	PF	Blk	Stl
D Anderson	4	9	13	6	3	1	0	7
S Clark	4	11	15	2	5	6	1	2
J Colenda	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
D Cunningham	7	7	14	1	4	10	2	3
C Drummond	3	12	15	5	3	10	3	2
C Fisher	0	6	6	10	11	9	1	3
M Grant	1	3	4	8	4	7	0	3
A Ott	2	8	10	0	2	7	0	0
A Pena	4	9	13	1	9	9	1	6
R Redding	1	9	10	9	8	11	0	6
S Reynolds	0	10	10	10	6	6	0	7
C Stokes	1	10	11	4	6	5	0	1
Team	1	2	3		3

Frankly it is a bit disquieting that no one averaged a double-double against this competition. Given Cunningham's scoring he would have been the most likely candidate. But on average, he was outrebounded by both Shane Clark and (little used) Andy Ott. Overall rebounding stats were lower than I anticipated, Ott and Clark averaged about 5 rebounds per game while Cunningham had an even more anemic 4.7 average. The 'Cats have been effective at rebounding over the past 4 - 5 seasons, but the tour results suggest this may be an area that requite attention and additional work before the start of the season. A few other observations:

1. Dwayne Anderson had a very productive run with comparatively few minutes. Dwayne tied Scottie for most steals, though he did it in 3/5 the amount of time alloted for Scottie. Those steals were distributed across all 4 games (1-2-3-1), not concentrated against the relatively weaker Queens University squad. In addition to steals, he was 5^th for defensive rebounds, but showed a very good DR% (about 20%) for the amount of time he played. His distribution of 2 point to 3 point FGAs was fairly even, suggesting he is diversifying his game a bit more than last season. The question, given the amount of time he played, is whether this progress comes a bit late.
2. Andy Ott played very little, due at least initially, to a slight injury. Ott was one of the red shirted front court players that many have been anxious to see play this season. He was held out of 2 games and saw extensive time in only the Queens game. That the Queens game is the only one in which both he and walk-on Jason Colenda saw double digit minutes, Unless something happens in practice I suspect Ott will see only very occasional minutes this season.
3. Junior Frank Tschuisi was held out of all four games. He is rumored to have an injury.
4. Of all the 'Cats, Reggie Redding had the most uneven performance. His 5 assist, 3 steal, 2 rebound effort in the first game (against the Carleton Ravens) was marred by an 0-4 shooting night. He scored a single point on a 1-2 night at the line. He followed his 12 point (5-6; 2-2; 3-4) scoring outburst against the Ottawa GeeGees (which also included 5 rebounds, 3 assists and 2 steals) with an 0-3 0 point, 1 assist and 2 turnover effort against the Carleton All-Stars, cut short when he fouled out in 19 minutes of play.