World University Games Wrap Part 2 -- The Teams

Final Standings & Some Possession-Based Stats
After looking at the final standings Monday night and reading a few day-after reactions, I decided to go back and process the boxscores for the teams that made it through to the quarter final round. This tournament divided the pool of team (23 total) into four groups of six each, with the intent that the teams within each assigned group would play five games, round robin style, to determine which of the three "second round" groups each team will be assigned. The first eight (two from each group) will play for positions 1 - 8, the next eight (again, two from each group) play for positions 9 - 15, the bottom two from each group will play for ranks 17 - 24. The teams then play three additional rounds to determine place/classification. Unlike the round robin format of the preliminary round, the second round pits winners versus winners and losers versus losers. After a team dropped out of the competition (before the start of play), the five remaining teams in Group B played a four game round robin, then divided (with a single team sent into the last group ). The usual quota of paradoxes and quirks surface when Team USA competes in a tournament with this particular format...

		Record			Points/Poss.
Rnk	Team	W	L	Pct.	Off.	Def.	Diff.	Pace
1	Serbia	6	1	0.857	1.03	0.84	0.19	71.2
2	Canada	5	2	0.714	0.91	0.86	0.05	76.0
3	Lithuania	6	2	0.750	1.02	0.93	0.09	79.7
4	Russia	6	2	0.750	1.01	0.90	0.11	71.1
5	USA	7	1	0.875	1.15	0.90	0.25	82.9
6	Germany	6	2	0.750	1.03	1.01	0.02	70.8
7	Finland	4	4	0.500	0.79	1.15	-0.36	76.2
8	Romania	3	5	0.375	0.85	1.02	-0.17	76.9

In addition to the usual wins/losses/winning percentages, I treated the eight teams that made the quarterfinal (and subsequent classification) round as a mini-conference and tracked their offensive and defensive efficiency and Oliver's four factors (see below) for both offense and defense, along with pace, (that is, possessions per 40 minutes) only in the games they played among themselves. This was typically four games, (admittedly not a large sample) the three played in the medal rounds and the one game played each group's #1 seed played with that group's #2 seed as part of the preliminary, round robin phase. In FISU (and FIBA) tournaments, wins and losses (and winning percentage) do not necessarily track with the place finishes. And this World University Game Tournament was no exception. Some of the oddities persist for the USA teams selected to compete in FIBA/FISU international tournaments.

On Offense...
						FTA
Rnk	Team	eFG%	PPWS	OR%	TO%	FGA
1	Serbia	54.2	1.17	27.2	24.4	57.0
2	Canada	43.4	0.95	36.1	22.7	46.2
3	Lithuania	52.9	1.10	32.9	21.7	36.5
4	Russia	46.1	1.05	40.6	21.4	46.2
5	USA	51.4	1.11	42.5	20.5	42.1
6	Germany	53.6	1.16	35.4	25.6	42.1
7	Finland	37.3	0.83	28.8	20.2	24.5
8	Romania	46.1	0.97	33.4	28.8	25.5

Serbia, 2009 WUG Tournament winner repeated in Shenzhen, taking the gold in a run that also included a single loss. This time, the Serbs lost their second game (on August 14, 2011), a a three point, 67-70 affair with the Canadians, their Group B #2 seed. Group B had only five teams in their bracket, which explains why Team Serbia and Team Canada played eight, rather than nine, games in the tournament. After losing to Team Canada, the Serbs ran off two consecutive wins to finish secure the #1 seed in Group B, and then swept the three medal rounds games, facing Team Canada a second time, and winning 68-55, to secure the #1 rank in the tournament field, and the gold medal.

Team USA ran off five straight wins to sweep their Group D opponents, but (like their U19 compatriots in July's U19 World Championships) dropped a two point quarter final decision and finished with two wins to secure fifth place. Again, losing in the quarter finals made all the difference, as that play began the elimination phase of the tournament.

On Defense...
						FTA
Rnk	Team	eFG%	PPWS	OR%	TO%	FGA
1	Serbia	40.8	0.92	32.8	24.3	43.4
2	Canada	46.6	0.99	28.4	26.8	44.7
3	Lithuania	43.9	1.00	28.8	20.5	41.6
4	Russia	47.5	1.05	20.2	23.8	48.0
5	USA	49.3	1.05	30.7	24.4	28.9
6	Germany	48.7	1.02	36.0	20.9	29.6
7	Finland	59.4	1.22	41.5	23.8	33.3
8	Romania	48.3	1.05	40.7	21.4	37.7

Looking at Team USA's four factors, this American squad posted strong, but not dominate numbers relative to the four teams that finished above them in the rankings. Comparing the overall shooting efficiency, turnover rate, offensive rebound and free throw rate to those posted in the Lithuania game, suggests where the Americans had greater difficulty in dealing with the Group C #2 seed. The American squad posted a dismal 38.1% shot efficiency versus Lithuania, coupled with an offensive rebounding rate of 26.7%, both well off their offensive numbers for the other medal opponent games. The game and boxscores identified Darius Miller with three fiest half fouls, while the Greens, Draymond and JayMychal, along with Trevor Mbakwe had four apiece by the end of the game. Lacking the consistent inside presence afforded by Mbakwe and JayMychal Green, the Americans continued to attempt three point shots, even though they compiled an abysmal 0-14 conversion rate in the second half. Draymond Green picked up two first half fouls, while Mbakwe and JayMychal Green picked up three apiece in the second half. A decimated front court, coupled with moving the offense to the outside (30 of the 67 FGAs attempted -- 44.8% of the American's total FGAs -- was far beyond the usual 31% recorded for the tournament) translated into a lower shot conversion rate and far fewer offensive rebounds.

X's & O's or Jimmys & Joes (part 2)?
The analysis/commentary that followed the U19 World Championship 5th place finish focused on squad experience ("lacked it"), the selection and development process ("star-oriented" and "not long enough to build a team"). Common sense (ie common knowledge) can betray us sometimes, as the tables above suggests the problem was not lack of offensive/defensive efficiency (signs of team cohesion) or offense/defense lack of production. The successes of U16/U17 Coach Don Showalter and Olympic coach Mike Krzyzewski suggest, continuity of the squad may be a bit less important than continuity of the coaching staff. A table of the last four WUG teams built using the tryout approach.

	Head	Staff
Year	Coach	Expr.	Finish
2011	Painter	14	5
2009	Ryan	19	3
2005	Wright	20	1
2001	Dunn	22	3

The staff this time around was very talented, Matt Painter of Purude, assisted by Brad Stevens (Butler) and Cuonzo Martin (Missouri State, Tennessee), but also the least experienced (years of head coaching experience) of the decade. Painter's seven years (six at Purdue and one at Southern Illinois) is actually half of the staff's total. While the coaches do not take the shots nor grab the rebounds, they do design the game plans and prepare the team to play. Does the string of "one game lapses" in the U18, U19 and WUG tournaments suggest a "slide to mediocrity" as some have suggested, or problems with oppposition scouting and game planning?

FIBA U19 World Championship -- Wrapping Up

Final Standings & Some Possession-Based Stats
I had a few minutes to process the balance of the U19 WC box scores -- the tournament used 62 games to decide places #1 through #16. The usual quota of paradoxes and quirks surface when Team USA competes in a tournament with this particular format...

		Record			Points/Poss.
Rnk	Team	W	L	Pct.	Off.	Def.	Diff.	Pace
1	Lithuania	7	2	0.778	1.12	0.90	0.23	83.2
2	Serbia	6	3	0.667	1.04	0.98	0.05	74.7
3	Russia	5	4	0.556	1.07	1.04	0.04	73.0
4	Argentina	5	4	0.556	0.97	0.99	-0.01	71.5
5	USA	7	2	0.778	1.10	0.91	0.19	80.9
6	Australia	6	3	0.667	1.09	0.94	0.16	69.7
7	Poland	5	4	0.556	0.95	0.97	-0.02	76.3
8	Croatia	4	5	0.444	0.98	1.03	-0.05	80.0
9	Brazil	5	3	0.625	1.04	0.92	0.13	75.1
10	Latvia	3	5	0.375	0.95	1.00	-0.05	78.9
11	Canada	3	5	0.375	0.99	1.08	-0.09	85.2
12	Egypt	1	7	0.125	0.89	1.09	-0.20	86.4
13	China	2	3	0.400	1.03	0.97	0.06	81.6
14	Taiwan	1	4	0.200	0.84	1.08	-0.23	75.8
15	S. Korea	2	3	0.400	0.96	1.11	-0.16	83.2
16	Tuniaia	0	5	0.000	0.79	1.14	-0.35	75.7

In addition to the usual wins/losses/winning percentages, I tracked offensive and defensive efficiency (and Oliver's four factors...some references below) and pace (possessions per 40 minutes). In FIBA tournaments, wins and losses (and winning percentage) will not necessarily track with the place finishes. A 16 team field will typically have two phases of round robin play (as they narrow the field -- note that teams placing #9 - #16 played fewer games than those placing #1 - #8) followed by a series of games which eliminate half of the remaining field from gold medal consideration. Given the format, oddities abound...

Timing is Everything
Note that two teams finished with 7-2 records. Lithuania lost their first U19 Tournament game (to Croatia) and then their fifth game (to the USA). After losing the fifth game, they ran off three successive wins to find themselves in the finals facing Serbia, a team they had already beaten in their fourth game -- by 17. Team USA ran off five straight wins, lost (their) games #6 and #7, and could do no better than a fifth place finish. They had to beat the strongest team, Australia (according to the Medal Round seed), from the other half of the field to take fifth. Losing in the quarter finals made all the difference, as that play began the elimination phase of the tournament. Lithuania took a loss in each of the preliminary (round robin) rounds, the consequence of which was a #3 seed in the (Group F) bracket going into the quarter final round.

Location, Location, Location?!?
One of the more repeated comments from on site observers was the large and partisan crowds from Lithuania, one of the three former Baltic Republic members of the Soviet Union, which flooded into Latvia (another of the former Soviet Union Baltic Republics) to cheer on their team as the video below documents.

The giant playing for Canada (in white) by the way, is Huntington Prep's Sim Bhullar, an Xavier commitment for 2012-13.

That six of the 16 teams in the field hailed from Europe (with three, the host plus Lithuania and Russia from Eastern Europs) should not surprise, nor should the fact that five of the six teams advanced to the Quarter Final Round and that three advanced to the Semi Final Round. After all, of the last nine teams to medal in the last three U19 World Championships (the tournaments held in 2007 in Serbia, 2009 in New Zealand and 2011 in Latvia), seven have been European -- Serbia twice, the others were France, Croatia, Greece, Lithuania and Russia. The other two medalists? Team USA. Had the tournament been held in Cincinnati and Louisville there is no doubt Team USA would have medaled (the onus of winning a pressure game in a strange environment would have been on the Russians), but would they have beaten Lithuania? Maybe, maybe not.

X's & O's or Jimmys & Joes?
After digesting Luke Winn's breakdown of 17 players from six National Teams for Sports Illustrated, FIBA's interview with George Raveling, long-time AAU power broker, now Nike's Director for International Basketball, who was in Riga for the U19 Championships ("The world is catching up...") and well publicized snubs endured by USA Basketball of the 27 U19 invitees who declined invitations to tryout (Kentucky's three players may have attracted the most media notice, but they covered the other 24 or so bballers who also slighted USA Basketball), the progression to Andy Katz's tournament wrap/analysis of what went wrong ("lack of experience") is fairly painless. Common sense (ie common knowledge) can betray us sometimes, as the table at top suggests the problem was not lack of offensive/defensive efficiency (signs of team cohesion). The Croatia game had "trap game" written all over it. Coming at the end of the second preliminary round, and after an overtime win over Lithuania (a revenge win and the game which locked up the Group F top seed for Team USA) the American squad had locked up the #1 seed going into the Quarter Final Round.

The staff did not run through a practice on the off day between the Croatia and Russia games, a decision which no doubt played into the American's spotty three point defense (the Russians were 12-29 from beyond the arc). In both the Croatian and Russian games the Americans "lost" the first and second periods, an indication they were not prepared to play. And in both games, the staff turned to Jeremy Lamb to kick start the offense in the third period, a strategy the Russians had to know to expect. Though Lamb was named to the All Tournament Team, he was unable to carry the team in those two games. As the successes of U16/U17 coach Don Showalter and Olympic coach Mike Krzyzewski suggest, continuity of the squad may be a bit less important than continuity of the coaching staff, especially the Head Coach.

FIBA U19 World Championship -- USA Loses by 5 to Russia

USA 74 Russia 79
Down by 10, 30-40, at the half, Team USA launched a furious 11 point comeback in the third period to regain the lead, 53-52, going into the fourth period. Russia's #2 guard Dmitry Kulagin hit a two point jumper 23 seconds into the fourth period, and despite knotting the score twice (at 54 and again at 56) over the next minute and a quarter, the Americans never regained the lead, thus ending the defense of their 2009 U19 title with a five point loss. Connecticut's Jeremy Lamb and Russia's Dmitry Kulagin shared scoring honors by dropping 21 apiece. Kuligan shot 8-13 (5-6, 3-7) from the floor and 0-0 from the free throw line, while Lamb shot 9-22 (0-3, 9-19) from the floor and 3-4 from the charity stripe. Three Russians, 6-7 forwards Vladislav Trushkin (19 points) and Sergey Karasev (17 points) along with guard Alexander Varnakov (11 points), recorded double digit points while two Americans, Joe Jackson (13 points) and Meyers Leonard (11 points) also contributed double digit points in the American effort. Dmitry Kulagin recorded a double-double by leading all rebounders as well grabbing 12 misses. Tony Mitchell paced the Americans with seven.

Picking over the game boxscore to develop some possession-based stats for the game...

						FTA
	Poss.	Eff.	eFG%	OR%	TO%	FGA
USA	70.5	1.05	43.3	42.5	14.2	34.3
Russia		1.11	55.6	37.5	16.9	23.8

It Was the Defense...
Team USA's offense was good enough to get by today -- had they matched it with a strong defensive effort. Playing at a pace more to Russia's preference (a motion offense that set up perimater scoring), the Russians converted their possessions to points at a 1.11 rate. Converting their field goals at a53.6% (eFG%) rate throughout the tournament, the Americans "held them" to a disappointing 55.6% clip, the poorest American shot defense effort so far. While some may look to Team USA's lack of three point conversion -- they went 0-9 in the game -- perhaps more important was the relative ease with which the Russians converted their attempts, going 12-29 (41.4%, or a whopping 62.1% eFG%) from beyond the arc.

Bell Tones
Villanova's rising sophomore James Bell started his seventh tournament game, but logged just 10 minutes, all in the first half. Bell shot 0-2 (0-0, 0-2), scoring no points. He grabbed 3 rebounds (all defensive boards) and committed 3 personal fouls.

Who's Got Next?
With this defeat, Team USA is consigned to the Classification Rounds, and will play two more games, the first against Team Poland tomorrow, to determine where, between #5 and #8, the team will be ranked at the close of the tournament.

FIBA U19 2011 World Championship -- A Pause Before the Medal Rounds (part 2)

Sorting Out Group F Action
Having exacted revenge for their 33 point drubbing at the hands of Lithuania in a pre-tournament exhibition game, Team USA seemed to sleep walk through three periods of play versus Croatia to close out Group F play. Supporters might rationalize the loss as a meaningless game at the end of the preliminary phase, after all, the USA won the F1 seed the day before, a side benefit of their win over Lithuania. Were the Americans showing their vulnerability, simply exhaling or perhaps exacting a bit more revenge on the Lithuanians complements of FIBA's ranking system? Beating Team USA moved Croatia into a tie with Lithuania for the F2 seed. The Croatians held the tie-breaker, due to their 13 point win, 88-75, over Lithuania on June 30. Serbia earned the last seed in Group F with a decisive 21 point win over Canada. The Group F standings when the buzzer on the USA-Croatia signaled the end of group play...

Group F
	Record				Pts/Poss
	W	L	Pts	Seed	Off	Def	Diff
USA	5	1	11	F1	1.12	0.91	+0.21
Croatia	4	2	10	F2	1.01	0.99	+0.03
Lithuania	4	2	10	F3	1.12	0.89	+0.23
Serbia	4	2	10	F4	1.02	0.96	+0.07
Canada	2	4	8	F5	0.96	1.07	-0.12
Egypt	1	5	7	F6	0.87	1.09	-0.22

What the Possession-Based Metrics Tell Us
The four teams that will advance out of Group F are listed above as "F1" through "F4". The ranking of the six teams that advanced out of Group C & D play to Group F wer well defined (see "...Eighth Final Round Preview") -- unlike the Group E pool, it was clear that several teams performed well in Group C (or D) play (USA, Lithuania, Serbia), while others struggled even with some modest success (Egypt). Many of the same characteristics exhibited in initial group play continued through the Group F cross over games. And again, note the ranking of Croatia and Lithuania (and Serbia). Croatia appears to have benefited from timely wins (versus Lithuania and USA), but not been especially dominant across the board in their play in Group C and Group F. The USA and Lithuania continue to dominate group play, piling up large efficiency margins, comparable to Australia's over in Group E. Though Group F has it's own imbalance, it is less pronounced than Group E's, and there was no single dominant Group F team at the end of Eighth Final Round play. Though like Group E, there seems to be a gap between the teams at the top (USA/Lithuania at >+0.20) and those at the bottom (Egypt/Canada at <-0.10).

How Good is the USA? Lithuania? Croatia?
I compared only the games the four Group F teams played with each other. Granted six games is a small sample, but the games were played over a relatively short period of time, played on (generally...) neutral courts and in a round robin fashion -- every team played every other team in the sample. I came up with these results...

Group E Quarter Final Teams
	Record			Pts/Poss
	W	L	Pts	Off	Def	Diff
Croatia	2	1	5	1.06	1.02	+0.04
Lithuania	2	1	5	1.02	1.01	+0.01
USA	2	1	5	1.08	1.08	+0.01
Serbia	0	3	3	0.95	1.01	-0.06

The competitive gap among the four teams advancing out of Group F is much smaller than the one separating the teams out of Group E. Note the efficiency margin separating Croatia and Serbia (about 0.10) is less than half the margin separating Australia and Poland (0.24), and less than the margin separating Poland from the bottom two advancing teams out of Group E (0.11). I realized Team USA's three games within the mini-conference were all decided by two points, I did not realize the other three teams had somewhat similar results against each other (Croatia's win over Lithuana the exception). I had suggested earlier that Team USA and Team Lithuania may well play a rubber game to decide the match (up). If the four Group F teams are better than their Group E counterparts, that may well come to pass.

Quarter Final Games of Interest
All of them actually, the schedule...

Opponents (seed)		Start
Group E	Group E	Time (EDST)
Poland (E2)	Lithuania (F3)	7:30am
Russia (E4)	USA (F1)	9:45am
Australia (E1)	Serbia (F4)	noon
Argentina (E3)	Croatia (F2)	2:15pm

If the draw was indeed random, then the distribution should have placed (at least) one quality team on each side of the bracket. The barometer game will be the first of the round -- Poland-Lithuania. The Lithuanians have been able to pack the Latvian arenas in Liepaja and Riga with fans as loud as they are partisan. The Poles, however, ought to be able to bring a few fans for this game too, one of two other Eastern European countries still competing close enough to bring enough fans to neutralize the Lithuanian fan-base. Though backup Doyydas Redikas, starting in place of regular Vytenis Cizauska acquitted himself in both the USA and Egyptian games, getting a fully recovered (rolled ankle in the Serbia game July 5) Cizauska back will insure the Lithuanian team is at full strength. A big win by Poland would signal a long day for Group F teams. A big American win in the USA-Russia game (9:45am EDST) will prove little. Comparing Oliver's four factors for each team, the Russians can score, but have problems defending opponents' field goal attempts. And they foul way too often. The American team should be able to hold the Russian conversion rate down, negating Russia's strongest asset. A quick and aggressive-to-the-basket American team should have Team Russia back on their heels early. Though the Americans foul often, almost as much as the Russians, the Russians do not play aggressively enough to capitalize on that vulnerability.

Like the Russian-American game, the Australia-Serbia game will only be significant if it is close (or if it goes badly against the Aussies). The Croatia-Argentina game should go to the Croatians. The Argentine offense is limited, against the better teams in Group E they failed to convert field goals consistently, nor rebound enough to get themselves second chance opportunities. The Croatians concentrate on the defensive boards, so the Argentines will get few second chances. Croatia converts field goals proficiently and values the ball. Argentina does defend the three point line well, so if the Croatians go inside (they tend to favor the three point attempt), they should score often enough to put this one out of reach early. A Lithuanian loss early however, will focus my attention on this game to get a better sense of how weak the "F side" of the bracket actually was.

FIBA U19 2011 World Championship -- A Pause Before the Medal Rounds (part 1)

Sorting Out Group E & F Action
When the Argentines tagged the Brazilians with their second consecutive loss to close the last day of Preliminary Round 2 action, they had sprung the last surprise in group round games that seemed to have more surprises than "usual" outcomes. Team USA beat the powerful Lithuanian squad one day only to lose to Croatia the next. The Russian squad, once the powerhouse of Europe had to back into the Quarter final round by beating host Latvia and then hope (and pray?) that Argentina could beat Brazil, the only team they could tie with at the end of Group E play that would give them a spot in the medal rounds. Australia recovered from a Group A (first preliminary round) loss to host Latvia to sweep their next four opponents, and match Team USA's single loss performance through the two preliminary rounds. With both preliminary rounds (Group A & B play and Group E play) in the books, this is how the Group E side of the bracket sorted out...

Group E
	Record				Pts/Poss
	W	L	Pts	Seed	Off	Def	Diff
Australia	5	1	11	E1	1.08	0.86	+0.22
Poland	4	2	9	E2	1.00	0.94	+0.06
Argentina	4	2	9	E3	0.96	0.96	-0.01
Russia	3	3	7	E4	1.09	1.01	+0.07
Brazil	3	3	7	E5	1.04	0.92	+0.12
Latvia	2	4	8	E6	0.91	0.96	-0.05

A Few Adjustments to the Metrics
The four teams that will advance out of Group E are listed above as "E1" through "E4". The FIBA site is rife with basic and per capita stats. Standings through most of group play has ranked the teams by points, and when two or more are tied, the site ranks by the margin between "Points For" and "Points Against" -- a misleading stat as readers here know. I decided to control for possessions and compute an efficiency margin, much as I (and many others) have done for the NCAA's Division 1 conferences over the past several seasons, and a different picture emerges for Groups E & F. Though the six Group E teams were tied going into the second preliminary round, the cross over play between Group A and Group B teams has sorted the field out...with a few wrinkles.

The Mighty Emus
Tabbed here and elsewhere as a dark horse going into the tournament, Australia recovered from an early stumble to dominate the competition in Groups A and E. In taking the #1 seed out of Group E, they have managed to draw some attention in FIBA and in the MSM. Those who have followed Division 1 basketball, and especially those at St. Mary's, Vanderbilt and Saint Louis are already familiar with the talent pool Australia has developed over the past decade. Brazil's collapse, loss to Argentina (who managed to jump Russia in the standings in the process) and consignment to the #9 - #12 Classification Rounds is the yang to Australia's ying in Group E. Losing to Russia on Tuesday meant that Wednesday's game with Argentina would determine who earned the last spot in the Quarter final round. The difference column at far right emphasizes how well the Brazilians have performed throughout group play. Badly timed losses coupled with misfortune of losing to the one team Brazil would lose a tie-breaker suggests how well-intentioned procedures can have unintended consequences. As I put the efficiency differences and the four factors together for Groups E & F it was very clear there is a great disparity between the teams bound for the medal rounds and those consigned to the #13 - #16 Classification Rounds. If we assume the two brackets (Groups E & F) will produce a pool of reasonably competitive teams, how would the four Group E teams compare to each other if I only considered the games they played with each other? Treating the four teams as a mini-conference, I came up with these results...

Group E Quarter Final Teams
	Record			Pts/Poss
	W	L	Pts	Off	Def	Diff
Australia	3	0	6	1.08	0.84	+0.24
Poland	2	1	5	0.99	0.99	+0.00
Argentina	1	2	3	0.96	1.07	-0.11
Russia	0	3	3	1.03	1.15	-0.13

The results suggest that Argentina and Russia were not as competitive with the top two teams in the group, Australia and Poland, as the overall results would suggest. The mini-conference results reenforce Wednesday post game impressions that going into the Quarter Final round Australia is indeed the team to beat. How does Group E compare to Group F? I will take a similar look at Group F shortly. The standings are different from Group E.