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?

World University Games Wrap Part 1 -- The Players

Some Possession-Based Stats
I have been processing Team USA's boxscores throughout the tournament, but just got around to formatting the possession-based stats...

							FTA
	College	Min%	Poss%	Shot%	eFG%	PPWS.	FGA
Abromaitis	NDU	41.3	21.5	19.0	45.7	1.00	23.9
Denmon	Mizzou	43.5	23.5	20.0	45.1	1.02	39.2
Gibbs	Pitt	54.4	25.9	22.9	50.7	1.13	27.4
D Green	Mich St.	43.8	28.0	21.0	51.9	1.10	37.0
J Green	'Bama	39.7	32.7	23.6	70.9	1.42	65.5
Jardine	'Cuse	36.9	27.0	19.9	61.6	1.19	46.5
Jenkins	Vandy	50.0	28.1	29.0	55.3	1.18	17.6
Johnson	UCSB	48.8	20.8	15.7	48.9	1.10	37.8
Mangano	Yale	21.3	22.1	20.1	36.0	0.70	20.0
Mbakwe	Minn	49.1	28.3	16.0	60.9	1.24	132.6
McCallum	Detroit	25.0	20.2	19.8	53.4	1.15	17.2
Miller	Kentucky	46.3	17.6	12.5	54.4	1.13	38.2

The Min% suggest that Ashton Gibbs, John Jenkins, Trevor Mbakwe, Orlando Johnson and Darius Miller formed the nucleus of the squad. Those five started all but one of the tournament games -- not to mention the single exhibition game they played pre-tournament -- and Gibbs, Jenkins and Mbakwe got many of the touches (see Poss% above) when they were on the court. Coach Matt Painter employed something of a Bo Ryan platoon system with the result that none of the players logged more than 54% of the minutes at his position (Gibbs), and most logged between 39% and 49% of the available time. USA international teams, made up as they are of "all stars" invited to tryout and selected during the process, tend to use larger rotations (10, 11 sometimes more players -- see the distribution of Min%), but the academic teams these players are drawn from and the international teams they face rarely go beyond the first 7-9 players. Team USA's coaching staff played 11 of the 12 squad memebers in every game. The (single) player who did not appear in every game did log minutes in six of Team USA's eight tournament games, including the finale versus Germany (a tight three point win).

The team's offense went through (see Shot% above) Jenkins (no surprise), JayMychal Green, Gibbs (again no surprise) and Draymond Green, each of whom would be classified as a Significant or Major Contributor (in the Pomeroy classification system). It is notable that each not only took the shots when he was on the floor, but (check each player's eFG% and PPWS) each also shot efficiently (eFG% >50%) and used their opportunities to put points on the board (PPWS >1.00). Not every player had a terrific tournament offensively (see Rush the Court's "Notes on Player Performance" for names...), but the consolation is that those players had limited roles (<= 20% Shot%). If they weren't hitting, they stopped shooting. Overall Teams USA's offensive efficiency (game 6 versus Lithuania excepted) was outstanding, material for a part 2 post.

A look at the rebounding and several support stats (turnover rate, assist rate), affirms the notion that this WUG team was loaded with talent...

	Min%	OReb%	DReb%	TO%	Ast%
Abromaitis	41.3	9.2	16.0	12.2	0.9
Denmon	43.5	3.4	6.5	12.1	5.7
Gibbs	54.4	2.2	5.8	11.0	14.2
D Green	43.8	14.1	19.5	15.2	14.5
J Green	39.7	18.5	18.3	19.1	5.3
Jardine	36.9	4.0	7.7	21.7	11.5
Jenkins	50.0	2.3	6.9	4.4	7.0
Johnson	48.8	7.2	12.3	16.8	10.1
Mangano	21.3	6.2	14.5	9.9	1.7
Mbakwe	49.1	20.3	26.3	16.8	3.6
McCallum	25.0	2.6	4.7	6.1	9.9
Miller	46.3	7.0	12.3	22.8	5.3

Individual offensive rebounding rates for Mbakwe and the Greens, J. & D. in particular were Top 100 for Division 1. Mbakwe posted similarly dominant numbers on defensive boards as well. In all three players, the Greens and Tim Abormaitis posted "above average" defensive rebounding rates, while even several of the wings/guards (see Orlando Johnson, Darius Miller, Scoop Jardine and Jenkins) posted credible numbers under the opponent's boards. RTC may have been unhappy about assists, but consider that this team contended for a medal less than three weeks after their first tryout, it is difficult to see how the staff could have installed an overly involved offensive scheme.

Outstanding squad, outstanding offensive production...and a fifth place finish. What happened?

World University Games 2011 -- USA Beats Germany, Takes 5th Place

USA 86-83 Germany
Team USA earned it's sixth win of the World University Games tournament and secured fifth place with a three point win over Team Germany, 86-83 in Shenzhen University's Luohu Gym. A switch to Ashton Gibbs, John Jenkins, Orlando Johnson, Darius Miller and Trevor Mbakwe, the starting five used through much of the tournament, brought a slow start for the Americans. Though they built a four point lead (12-8) in the early moments of the first quarter, the Germans secured a narrow two point lead (21-19) by the end of the quarter, a lead they yielded -- temporarily -- six and a half minutes into the second quarter. Jenkins personal five point outburst gave the Americans a four point lead, but the Germans bounced back with a 7-2 run on field goals by guards Bastian Doreth (3 points) & Karsten Tadda (2 points) and forward Johannes Lischka (2 points) to take a one point lead, 41-40, into the intermission.

The lead see-sawed between the Germans and Americans until a Dray Green free throw put Team USA on top for good, 48-47 four and a half minutes into the third quarter. Though the margin varied from one to 12 points over the next 15 minutes, the Americans kept the Germans away and perserved an 86-83 score to secure fifth place. The score by quarters...

	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	Game
USA	19	21	24	22	86
Germany	21	20	20	22	83

German forward Johannes Simon Lischka scored a game-high 28 points on 11-20 (2-4, 9-16) shooting from the court and 4-7 from the line. The German back court trio of Doreth (12 points), Tadda (10 points) and Nicolai Simon (10 points) chipped in double digit points. Trevor Mbakwe's 21 points on 7-9 (0-0, 7-9) shooting from the field and 7-9 shooting from the line, paced the Americans. Jenkins (15 points), JayMychal Green (12 points) and Gibbs (11 points) all supported Mbakwe with 10 or more points. Mbakwe posted a game-high eight rebounds even as the Greens, J & D supported with six rebounds apiece. German forward Andreas Seiferth notched six rebounds to lead the German team.

The possession-based breakdown suggests this was hardly a defensive struggle...

						FTA
Team	Pace	Eff.	eFG%	TOV	OR%	FGA	Ast%	PPWS
Team USA	77.3	1.11	52.3	22.0	41.0	42.2	43.3	1.12
Team Germany		1.07	54.5	20.7	25.0	48.2	55.6	1.21

The offensive efficiency numbers, eFG%, turnover rate, and free throw rate (FTA/FGA) are all very close, but Germany "won" every one of those battles. The difference was rebounding. The Americans' offensive rebounding rate (41.0%) was decidedly better than the Germans (25.0%), and yielded Team USA with eight more (64 vs 58) field goal attempts. The additional field goal attempts gave the Americans three more made field goals than the Germans (the Germans got some -- but not all -- of those points back at the line).

Additional Reading
USA Basketball posted a game recap on their website, along with a box score and post game quotes.

World University Games 2011 -- USA Defeats Romania, Plays Germany for 5th Place

USA 94-73 Romania
A change in the starting five brought a change of fortunes at Shenzhen University Sunday as Team USA posted a 21 point win over fellow quarter final loser Team Romania, and advanced to a showdown with Team Germany for fifth place at the World University Games. Coach Matt Painter turned to Scoop Jardine and Marcus Denmon to man the back court. In the front court Painter decided to go with a three forward set that included Notre Dame's Tim Abromaitis, Draymond Green and JayMychal Green. The change paid dividends as the Americans jumped out to a 12-2 edge in the game's first five minutes. Though the Romanians staged a mini-rally to cut the USA lead to eight by the end of the quarter (20-12), the Americans never looked back, stretching the lead to 18, 47-29, by intermission. The Romanians conceded only three more points to the Americans through the second half, one in the third quarter to yield a 74-55 score, and two more in the fourth quarter, bringing the final tally to 94-73. The score by quarters...

	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	Game
USA	20	27	27	20	94
Romania	12	17	26	18	73

Romanian forward Titus Nicoara paced all scorers with 9-18 (2-4, 7-14) from the court and 2-2 from the line. He recorded a double-double with 10 rebounds (2-8-10) to go with his 22 points. Power forward Vlad Sorin Moldoveanu also logged a double-double, scoring 13 and grabbing 11 rebounds, while guard Rares Andrei Mandache chipped in 18 points. The American had four double digit scorers, paced by Draymond Green's 16 points on 7-10 (2-3, 5-7) shooting from the field. John Jenkins (12 points), JayMychal Green (11 points) and Tim Abromaitis (11 points) also posted more than 10 points. Tevor Mbakwe, J. Green and Abromaitis posted team-high eight rebounds apiece.

The possession-based breakdown suggests things are returning to "normal" for Team USA...

						FTA
Team	Pace	Eff.	eFG%	TOV	OR%	FGA	Ast%	PPWS
Team USA	81.4	1.16	52.0	19.7	46.2	25.3	29.7	1.12
Team Romania		0.90	47.1	25.8	35.9	17.6	34.5	0.99

The numbers fall back into the pattern Team USA set in games #1 through #5 -- pace in the low 80s, shooting efficiency in the mid-high 50's, offensive rebounding rate in the high 30's/low 40's, etc. The Romanians offered little defensive resistence, allowing the Americans to post an offensive efficiency above 1.10 points per possesion (ppp), with shooting leading the way, as the PPWS, back above 1.10 where it was for tournament games #1 through #5. Defensively, the Americans held Team Romania to a 0.90 ppp, largely because the Romanians did not shoot efficiently (see their eFG%, 47.1), taking 75% of their FGAs as two point attempts, the Romanians converted at a 45.1% rate. Combining high turnover rates (in Romania's case they lost 25.8% of their possessions, over 1-in-4) which limit scoring opportunities with a poor shot conversion rate doomed the Romanians.

Next
Team USA will face Team Germany, which lost to Serbia, 55-77, in the quarter final round and beat (Group D #2 seed) Finland, 84-63, Sunday, for fifth place in the tournament. The game will be played at 7:00 am (Eastern DST) in Shenzhen University's Luohu Gym on Monday (local day/time). The Americans and Germans share a common opponent -- Finland. The Germans beat the Finns by 21 on Sunday (local day); the Americans beat the Finns by 60 (no, not a typo), 124-64, in their fourth tournament game.

Further Reading
USA Basketball posted a game recap on their website, along with a box score and post game quotes.

World University Games 2011 -- USA Falls to Lithuania, Plays for 5th Place

USA 74-76 Lithuania
For the second time in less than two months a Lithuanian team eliminated an American team from medal consideration in an international tournament, as the Americans dropped a two point decision, 74-76, to that Baltic Republic in the World University Games held at Shenzhen University earlier today. Team USA took a 2-0 lead on an Ashton Gibbs jumper and remained on top through the first quarter. With Team USA nursing a 15-12 lead in the second quarter, the Lithuanians tied it up at 22 near the quarter's midpoint, but the Americans stretched it back out to five at the intermission, 42-37, on the strength of a 9-5 run in the last 1:49 of the period. Vanderbilt's John Jenkins went 3-3 from beyond the arc to provide all nine of Team USA's points in the last two minutes, salvaging what had been to that point a dismal 1-5 efficiency on three point attempts in the quarter.

The Lithuanians used the intermission to regroup, and came out swinging with a 7-0 run to open the third quarter, taking the lead, 44-42, for the first time in the game. Pressured for the first time in the tournament, the Americans dropped the third quarter by a 28-19 margin, shooting blanks from three point land (0-5), an uncharacteristicly anemic 4-8 from inside the arc and committing three turnovers. An 11-16 performance from the charity striped, coupled with six offensive rebounds kept Team USA in the game. Down by four going into the last quarter, Coach Painter's squad managed to tie once, at 74, in the last 1:55, but a foul by Draymond Green on guard Mantas Kadzevicius put the Lithuanians up by two, 76-74, in what became the final score. Five attempted field goals by the American squad (three 3FGAs & two @FGAs) in the last 1:25 failed to drop, sending Team USA to the Classification round to fight for fifth place. The score by quarters...

	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	Game
USA	15	27	19	13	74
Lithuania	12	25	28	11	76

Lithuanian wing Gediminas Orelik recorded a game-high 19 points on 6-10 (5-8, 1-2) shooting from the floor and 2-4 from the line. Three other Lithuanians, Marius Valukonis (11 points), Edgaras Stanionis (10 points) and Gediminas Zyle (10 points) scored double digit points.

Team USA was paced by John Jenkins' 17 points on 5-10 (4-9, 1-1) from the field and 3-3 from the line. Ashton Gibbs and JayMychal Green chipped in 16 points and 12 points respectively. Trevor Mbakwe led all rebounders with (4-6-10) 10, while Kadzevicius and Orelik paced the Lithuanians with six apiece.

The possession-based breakdown suggests this was a defensive struggle...

						FTA
Team	Pace	Eff.	eFG%	TOV	OR%	FGA	Ast%	PPWS
Team USA	87.9	0.84	38.1	26.2	26.7	46.3	47.8	0.91
Team Lithuania		0.87	54.2	27.3	35.6	35.6	67.9	1.10

The high pace could be attributed to the number of turnovers committed by both teams. Uncharacteristically, the USA team was, third quarter aside, unable to rebound their misses effectively (26.7%), which, combined with an out-of-character 30 three point attempts (44.8% of their FGAs; the USA averaged 19.4 3FGAs in their five previous tournament games), worked to diminish their eFG% to 38.1%, well below their tournament eFG% of 59.4% going into today's game.

Next
With the loss, Team USA will face Team Romania, the #2 seed out of Group A, who lost to Team Canada in quarter final play. The game will be played at 8:30 am (Eastern DST) in Shenzhen University's Luohu Gym.

Further Reading
USA Basketball posted a game recap on their website, along with a box score and post game quotes.

World University Games Preview -- USA & Lithuania

How They Got Here
With the end of group play yesterday the field reseeds for the next round of matches. The original 24 teams (23 actually arrived in Shenzhen to play) were divided into four groups of six teams and scheduled for a five game round robin with the other teams in their group. The two teams that finished with the worst records were supposed to play two classification round games to determine ranks #17 through #24, while the two teams that finished in the #3 & #4 positions play a two classification round games to determine ranks #9 through #16. Each groups #1 and #2 ranked teams will play three matches to determine the #1 through #8 order of finish.

Team USA swept their competition in Group D, going 5-0 for the first prelimnary round and taking the #1 seed. Team Lithuania was assigned to Group C, along with teams from Russia, Ukraine, Japan, New Zealand and the Philipines. The Lithuanians finished #2 with a record of 4-1, their only loss to Team Russia.

By the Numbers, Offense & Defense...
...Team Lithuania has averaged 79.7 possessions through five tournament games, about three possessions lower than the Americans (82.6), so this should not be a tug-of-war over pace. Though the sample is very small, the offensive and defensive efficiencies, along with the possession-based stats may be worth a look...

	Teams
Efficiency	Lith.	USA
Offense	1.07	1.33
Defense	0.91	0.87
Difference	+0.16	+0.46

Given the lack of crossover games to tie the field together, the differences can be deceptive. The efficiency margins however (when combined with four factors below) suggest that favoring the Americans in this game is probably justified. While Lithuania dropped their Group C final game against Russia (62-77), Team USA's closest Group D game was versus Israel (94-84). Russia finished Group C with the #1 seed, while Israel's 2-3 record sent that team to the #9-#16 classifications. The Lithuanians rely on two point field goals for their offense. About 67% of their FGAs are two's, and they count on two's for 60% of their points, the balance coming from three's (23%) or at the line (16%). Why the emphasis on two point FGAs? Maybe because they have problems converting three's. The Lithuanians have averaged a 30.2% conversion rate for three point attempts -- had they taken those points as two's, they would have had to hit at a 45.1% rate, well below their 58.2% conversion rate for two's. They did not take three's because they converted at a more efficient rate with two's.

A "Four Factors" comparison when Team Lithuania has the ball...

When Lithuania has the ball...
				FTA
	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FGA
Lithuanian O	54.1	20.5	38.7	33.4
American D	42.9	21.4	31.8	30.4

The key for Team Lithuania is efficient scoring by 6-6 wing Marius Valunkonis from Vytautas Magnus University and 6-10 Gediminus Zyle, a Euro-style forward out of Mykolas Romeris University. The two typically account for about 50+% of the shots when they are on the floor together. Should one or the other hit a dry spell, the Lithuanians need for a second group, generally headed by 6-7 forward/wing Gediminus Orelik (Kaunas University of Technology...Kaunas Tech?) and/or guard Ernestas Ezerskas (a teammate of Valunkonis at Vytautas Magnus University) to step in and fill the void. The Lithuanians have been a bit lax with the ball (see turnover rate), but give themselves a second chance on missed shots with strong offensive rebounding. Given the Americans have been strong on shutting down second chance opportunities, the battle under the Lithuanian's basket should become a strengh-on-strength matchup. The Americans have been strong at challenging for the ball (see their defensive turnover rate above); the two are fairly evenly matched on turnovers, so expect the Lithuanians to lose about one-in-five possessions; more than that and their offensive efficiency could be seriously diminshed; less than that, and the Americans could be in trouble defensively. The "Four Factors" look at Team USA's offense versus Lithuania's defense:

When the Americans have the ball...
				FTA
	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FGA
USA O	59.4	15.3	53.0	40.5
Lithuanian D	45.0	20.6	26.1	31.7

Though JayMychal Green has paced the team in the past two games, scoring opportunities have been nicely distributed throughout the rotation, with Ashton Gibbs, John Jenkins and Scoop Jardine all knocking down game-high numbers at least once in the tournament and exhibition games. All four, plus Trevor Mbakwe have scored more than 10 points in more than one game. A lot of shooter/scorers to cover and shut down. Like the Lithuanians, the Americans look inside the three point line for their scoring, taking 71.4% of their field goal attempts as two's. Unlike the Lithuanians however, the American squad has converted 41.2% of their attempts, comparable to a 61.8% two point conversion rate. The Americans can look to Jenkins (principally), Gibbs, Draymond Green and Darius Miller for efficient conversion of the attempt. They have been good enough at the two point attempt (54.5% conversion rate) to open up the outside for opportunities.

Finally...
...Assuming a pace for the game of about 80 possessions, the Americans (based on efficiency margins, see above) should win by double digits -- about 15 or so. There are, for Team USA a couple of wrinkles...

1. Team USA has yet to play a competitive, 40 minute game. Several Group D teams (Mexico, South Korea) were able to hang with Team USA for a quarter, sometimes a bit more. The Israelis led after a quarter, and were competitive to another quarter and a half (about 15 minutes, 25 minutes total). The lack of competition had Coach Matt Painter experiment with a different starting five and mix the rotation a bit, neither of which are particularly good when trying to develop game-to-game consistency.
2. The stakes grow immensely in the medal round(s). A single loss in the preliminary round will (almost...) never send a team to the Classification rounds, while a loss in the medal rounds will consign a team immediately to the classifications. Badly timed losses have historically plagued American squads in international tournaments. The quarter final round in particular is a trap game for USA teams. Whether the breakdown is lack of preparation from the staff or lack of understanding by the squad members is not clear, but American squads have a habit of finishing fifth in FIBA and FISU competition with a single loss.

This particular squad may dodge that bullet, as Gibbs, Denmon and JayMychal Green have played on international teams (in similar tournaments) during their college careers. Those three should understand the transition that takes place as the tournament shifts from the preliminary round ("group play") format to the type of single round elimination format used in the medal rounds.

World University Games 2011 -- USA Over Israel, Undefeated in Group D Play

USA 94-84 Israel
Team USA ended their Group D competition by defeating Israel 94-84, finishing with a 5-0 record. Team Israel gave Team USA it's best competition to date, outpointing the American by six in their second quarter -- the first quarter lost by Team USA in the competition -- taking a two point, 43-41 lead into half-time. Coach Matt Painter's squad responded with an explosive third quarter, outscoring the Israelis by 10, 29-19, to take an eight point lead, 70-62, into the last quarter. They added another two points to the margin to secure their sixth consecutive double-digit winning margin in the WUG Tournament.

Tied six times in the second and (first five minutes of...) the third quarter, the teams were not separated by more than four points through that 15 minute stretch. Team USA broke on top with an 8-2 run in the last 2:30 of the third quarter, fueled by buckets and free throws contributed by JayMychal Green (a field goal and two free throws), Marcus Denmon (a layup) and Tim Abromaitis (a layup). A Darius Miller jumper 15 seconds into the fourth quarter pushed the USA lead out to 10, and the Americans were not seriously challenged again. The score by quarters...

	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	Game
USA	27	14	29	24	94
Israel	23	20	19	22	84

Israeli forward Anton Shoutvin logged a game-high 20 points on 7-13 (0-1, 7-12) shooting from the floor and 6-9 from the line. For the second consecutive game Alabama's rising senior J Green led Team USA scorers with 16 points on 5-9 (0-0, 5-9) from the field and 6-9 from the line. Trevor Mbakwe recorded a double-double, scoring 12 points to go with a game-high 13 (5-8-13) rebounds. Two other squad members Denmon (13 points) and John Jenkins (12 points), scored more than 10 points. JayMychal Green collected seven carooms. The Israelis' Shoutvin grabbed a team-high eight rebounds.

The possession-based breakdown...

						FTA
Team	Pace	Eff.	eFG%	TOV	OR%	FGA	Ast%	PPWS
Team USA	81.6	1.13	55.6	19.6	44.2	35.2	22.2	1.13
Team Israel		1.03	51.7	24.5	29.7	46.7	37.9	1.15

Unlike the first five games (and a predictor of the games to come?) the USA coaching staff used 11 of the 12 players available, even as the playing time was the least evenly distributed of any prior game. The starters, Scoop Jardine, Jenkins, Orlando Johnson, Miller and Mbakwe played for a combined 49% of the available playing time, with four of the starters averaging 20.8 minutes.

Next
With the #1 seed in Group D, Team USA will meet #2 seed Lithuania from Group C in the quarter final rounds on Saturday at 3:30 am (Eastern DST) in Shenzhen University Main Gym.

Further Reading
USA Basketball posted a game recap on their website, along with a box score and post game quotes.

World University Games 2011 -- USA Overwhelms Finland

USA 124 Finland 64
Team USA secured the #1 seed coming out of Group D play as part of their continued domination of play in their pool. In the Shenzhen University Gym today they came within four points of doubling up Team Finland, 124-64. As Ray McCallum put it, "Before the game in film today, (Butler) coach (Brad) Stevens really stressed coming out strong from the get-go, being focused and playing hard. I thought that was what we did, and our walk-through this morning carried over to the game today...", as their 12 point lead (31-19) in the first quarter attested. The consistency and momentum continued into the second quarter, as Team USA padded their lead with another 13 points (32-19), taking a large 25 point half-time lead (63-38) into the intermission. Coach Matt Painter continued to employ a large rotation, using all 12 members of the squad with a relatively even distribution of playing time. No player drew more than 47.5% of the playing time (about 19 minutes) at his position, and fully eight players logged at least 40% of the playing time (at least 16 minutes) over the course of the game. Reeling from their 25 point first half deficit, the Finns sa the Americans nearly double their scoring margin by adding another 24 points to their lead with a 37-13 third quarter, pushing the score to 100-51. Team USA took their foot off the pedal in the fourth quarter and cruised home to a 124-64 win, a stunning 60 point margin of victory. With the game well in hand, USA Coach Matt Painter (Purdue) decided to experiment, "...We mixed up the line up a little bit tonight and swaped (sic) our point guards, Scoop (Jardine) and Ashton (Gibbs), just to get a different look and see how our guys would respond to it, and both groups played well..." The game starters, (Tim Abromaitis, the Greens -- Draymond & JayMychal -- Denmon and Gibbs) combined for 44% of the playing time, another indication of the large early scoring margin. The score by quarters...

	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	Game
USA	31	32	37	24	124
Finland	19	19	13	13	64

JayMychal Green paced all scorers with 21 points (in 15 minutes of play) on 6-7 (1-1, 5-6) from the field and 8-10 from the line. Four other Team USA squad members Trevor Mbakwe (14 points in 16 minutes), Ashton Gibbs (13 points in 18 minutes), John Jenkins (12 points in 16 minutes) and Marcus Denmon (10 points in 18 minutes) scored more than 10 points. Draymond Green gathered nine (5-4-9) rebounds as three other Americans (JayMychal Green, Mbakwe and Darius Miller) collected six apiece. Anti Kanervo paced the Finns with a 20 point performance on 8-13 (1-4, 7-9) from the field and 3-4 from the line. Roope Ahonen scored 10 points while two members of the Team Finland squad, Petri Heinonen and Carl Lindbom grabbed team-high four rebounds apiece.

The possession-based breakdown...

						FTA
Team	Pace	Eff.	eFG%	TOV	OR%	FGA	Ast%	PPWS
Team USA	82.6	1.50	63.3	14.5	62.9	54.7	48.8	1.31
Team Finland		0.77	41.4	24.2	35.9	14.3	38.5	0.86

Team USA logged their fourth consecutive game of < 80 possessions with an offensive efficiency of more than 1.13. In three of those games Team USA logged an offensive efficiency (points per possession scored) of 1.31, an impressive level of scoring efficiency powered by shot conversion efficiency (eFG% -- note their 60% rate versus Finland), offensive rebounding rate (50% or better in three of their four WUG matches) and ability to get to the line (see FTA/FGA above -- 54.7%) as a percentage of their field goal attempts. If Team USA misses their field goal attempts, odds are excellent (about 1-in-2) they will rebound the miss and/or get to the line (again, about 1-in-2). On the defensive side Team USA has successfully limited their opponents to an eFG% of <45%, forced turnovers at a close-to 25% rate in three of four games and kept their opponents from balancing the scoring deficit with trips to the line. The American squad is one of four among the 24 team field that remains undefeated.

Next
Team USA has secured a #1 seed going into the quarter final rounds, but still must face Team Israel on Thursday before taking on either Team Russia or Team Lithuania (for those following the U19 World Championships last month, sound familiar?) on Saturday. The USA faces off against Israel Thursday morning at 3:20 am Eastern Daylight Savings time in Shenzhen University Main Gym.

Further Reading
USA Basketball posted a game recap on their website, along with a box score and post game quotes.

World University Games 2011 -- USA Routs South Korea

USA 112 South Korea 68
Continuing their domination of Group D play, Team USA secured their third consecutive +30 point win over a Group D opponent Monday as they defeated South Korea 112-68 in the University of Shenzhen's Main Gym. In the most competitive first quarter so far, Team South Korea trailed by five, 24-19. As a hint of the coming board domination, Kentucky's Darius Miller took a shot inside the first 17 seconds of play and retrieved his own miss. His second attempt missed but Minnesota's Trevor Mbakwe grabbed the miss and was fouled. The Americans stretched their lead out to double digits on the strength of a 10-3 run to open the second quarter. Pittsburgh's Ashton Gibbs contributed two defensive rebounds and four points on two field goal conversions. Greg Mangano, Yale University's contribution to the USA front court added four points of his own on 2-3 shooting in the paint and two boards, one on defense and the other, on offense, which led to his put-back. The Americans withstood a 15-12 South Korea run, and used the last 1:32 of the first half to stage a 4-0 run of their own on a pair of two pointers to push their lead back out to 13, 55-42.

	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	Game
USA	24	31	26	31	112
South Korea	19	23	12	14	68

Pushing the lead out to 20, 68-48, in the first five minutes of the third quarter, Team USA broke the game open with a 13-6 run (81-54) to close out the third quarter. The Greens, Alabama's JayMychal Green and Michigan State's Draymond Green, were especially active, grabbing six rebounds (JayMychal -- 2, Draymond -- 4) and scoring 10 points (JayMychal -- 4, Draymond -- 6). Two made threes aside (Gibbs & Scoop Jardine) Team USA took two point attempts as they shifted back to inside and pushed their lead out to the final stretch (44 points).

The possession-based breakdown...

						FTA
Team	Pace	Eff.	eFG%	TOV	OR%	FGA	Ast%	PPWS
Team USA	82.1	1.36	59.1	12.2	56.1	31.7	31.1	1.19
South Korea		0.83	35.5	15.8	30.9	30.3	33.3	0.78

JayMychal Green scored a game-high 17 points on 7-10 (0-0, 7-10) shooting from the field and 3-5 from the line. Five other Americans, Jardine (16 points), Gibbs (14 points), Mbakwe (14 points), John Jenkins (12 points) and D. Green (12 points) all recorded double digit points. D. Green led all rebounders with 12 (6-6-12) caroms, recording a double-double in the process. Mbakwe's 11 rebounds also earned the forward from Minnesota a double-double. Mingoo Kim paced the South Koreans in both points scored (12) and rebounds (8).
Next
Team USA take Tuesday off and swings back into action Wednesday when they play Team Finland at 6:00 am Eastern time.

Further Reading
USA Basketball posted a game recap on their website.
The World University Games host posted the box score, along with the shot chart and play-by-play from the Shenzhen University website.

World University Games 2011 -- USA Hammers Hungary

USA 102 Hungary 53
The USA men's team upped their World University Games record to 2-0 with a dominant performance over Team Hungary Sunday in the University of Shenzhen's Main Gym. The final score, 102-53 hints at the gap between the two teams. Team USA had already doubled-up Team Hungary when John Jenkins hit his first of first of his record six three point field goals. Jenkins hit his second in the waning moments of the first quarter to stake the American squad to a 21-6 lead. Team USA stretched their lead to 39, 58-19 on a scorching 37-13 second quarter. The Americans outscored the Hungarians 26-6 in the third quarter, holding Team Hungary scoreless for the last five minutes of the period as they went on a 13-0 run. Jenkins hit the last of his six three point goals as the third quarter wound down, finishing the period with 20 points. Taking a 63 point lead into the last quarter, the Americans eased off as the Hungarians closed the final gap to 49, 102-53. The possession-based breakdown...

						FTA
Team	Pace	Eff.	eFG%	TOV	OR%	FGA	Ast%	PPWS
Team USA	73.6	1.39	54.3	10.9	45.9	52.9	50.0	1.16
Hungary		0.72	39.7	27.2	38.1	24.1	45.0	0.82

At 73.6 possessions, the pace was not "exhibition-high", but still above what one might expect from a Division 1 (NCAA) game (VMI & North Carolina excepted). Their 1.39 points per possession (ppp) nearly doubled Team Hungary's 0.72 ppp, unheard of in international and D1 basketball. The American dominated the offensive boards, if they did not convert on the first attempt, they were nearly assured to either get a second try (45.9% offensive rebound rate), or go to the line (53.9% FTA/FGA). The score by quarters...

	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	Game
USA	21	37	26	18	102
Hungary	6	13	6	28	53

Next
Team USA plays Team South Korea Monday at 3:30 am Eastern time.

Further Reading
USA Basketball posted a game recap on their website.
The official World Univesity Games website posted the box score at USA basketball, USA Basketball's game recap and play-by-play from the Shenzhen University website.

World University Games 2011 -- USA Downs Mexico

USA 108 Mexico 67
The USA men's team opened their play in Group D with a solid 41 point win over Team Mexico. The Mexicans stayed with USA through the first quarter as Mexico took a two point lead into the second 10 minute period. The Americans used the second quarter to overtake the Mexicans and establish a lead they would not yield, building a six point margin 43-37, which they took into the locker room at the half. Coming out of the half time break, the Americans used a 17-9 run, fueled by Draymond Green and John Jenkins, who scored four and five points respectively during the run. The Mexicans rallied briefly, but could get no closer than 12 through the end of the game. Team USA took a 21 point lead into the fourth quarter, and like the two preceding quarters, simply added another 20 points to their margin.

Pittsburgh's point guard Ashton Gibbs logged 25 minutes and scored a game-high 20 points on 7-12 (2-3, 5-9) shooting from the floor and a perfect 4-4 from the line. Four of his teammates Trevor Mbakwe (Minnesota -- 12 points), Marcus Denmon (Missouri -- 11 points), Orlando Johnson (UC Santa Barbara -- 10 points) and Draymond Green (Michigan State -- 10 points) each scored 10 or more points. Mbakwe made it a double-double as he also snagged a game-high 10 rebounds (7-3-10). Gabriel Giron paced Team Mexico with 13 points on 4-11 (0-2, 4-9) shooting from the floor and 5-7 from the line. The possession-based breakdown...

						FTA
Team	Pace	Eff.	eFG%	TOV	OR%	FGA	Ast%	PPWS
Team USA	82.3	1.26	52.4	14.0	54.2	45.1	42.1	1.08
Mexico		0.78	44.4	22.2	29.3	33.9	26.9	0.93

The pace, 82.3 possessions, has to be driving USA Coach Matt Painter crazy as his Boilermakers averaged a very middle-of-the-road (for Division 1) 67.1 possessions last season. The team handled it well, dominating the boards, forcing turnovers allowing Mexico to score on only 37.2% of their possessions. Team USA held Mexico to 0.78 points per possession (ppp), due in very large measure (see Mexico's eFG% and PPWS above) to an inability to convert their shots (and get to the line on a miss). Indeed Team Mexico converted 23-47 (0.489) on their two point attempts and 3-15 (0.200) on their three's. The score by quarters...

	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	Game
USA	22	21	31	34	108
Mexico	24	13	16	14	67

Next
Team USA plays Team Hungary in Shenzhen University's Main Gym Sunday at 3:30 am Eastern time.

Further Reading
USA Basketball posted a game recap on their website.
The official World Univesity Games website posted the official box score, a shot chart and play-by-play.

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 Defeats Australia For Fifth Place

USA 78 Australia 77
At the end of Group play last Wednesday it appeared as though Team USA and Team Australia would meet in the U19 Finals in Riga, Latvia. The two did meet in their last game Sunday, but the prize was fifth place, not the Gold. Trailing by three after the first period (21-24), Team USA was out scored by one (18-19) in the second period, going into the half down by four (39-43). The Americans turned it around in the third period, 21-16, and held off the Aussies in the fourth period (18 all) to preserve their edge and the win. #2 guard Hugh Greenword paced all scorers with 26 points on 10-23 (6-14, 4-9) shooting from the floor, going 0-2 from the line. Three other Emus, Mitchell Creek (11 points), Jackson Aldridge (11 points) and Anthony Dmric (10 points) logged double digit points in the losing effort. Tim Hardaway came off of the bench to pace Team USA with 21 points 8-16 (3-7, 5-9) shooting from the floor adding 2-3 from the line. Two other squad members, Doug McDermott (13 points) and Meyers Leonard (10 points) chipped in double-digit points. Mitchell Creek fell one rebound short of a double-double. Two other Australians, small forward Daniel Trist and Greenwood chipped in six rebounds apiece. Meyers Leonard paced the Americans with six rebounds, while four others (Jeremy Lamb, Patric Young, McDermott and Hardaway) grabbed five apiece.

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

						FTA
	Poss.	Eff.	eFG%	OR%	TO%	FGA
USA	71.6	1.09	46.7	42.6	11.2	25.3
Australia		1.08	47.9	38.6	14.0	21.1

Defense? Ah...No Actually
Playing at a pace more to Australia's liking, Team USA nevertheless won. Despite being outshot by the Emus, the Americans were able to find another way to win, an attribute that eluded this squad in their games against Croatia and Russia. When their shot failed, the Americans were able to squeak out the win by getting after their misses (see OR% above), limiting their turnovers (see TO%) and doing a better job at getting to the line (see FTA/FGA above).

Bell Tones
Villanova's wing James Bell scored four points on 2-5 (0-1, 2-4) shooting from the floor while shooting blanks, 0-3, from the line. Bell grabbed four (2-2-4) rebounds while gaining a steal in 13 minutes of play. Bell started all nine games in the tournament.

FIBA U19 World Championship -- USA Defeats Poland, Plays for Fifth Place

USA 84 Poland 47
Team USA built an eight point lead in the first period and never trailed as they beat Team Poland by 27, 84-47 to advance to the Fifth Place game today in Riga, Latvia. Returning to the form that carried the team handily through the U19 Tournament's first four games, the team had a different lead scorer today. Doug McDermott from Creighton shot 8-13 (2-4, 6-9) from the floor to go with a perfect day (1-1) from the line to pace all scorers with 19 points. Three other American, Patric Young (13 points), Meyers Leonard (12 points) and Jeremy Lamb (12 points) also logged double-digit points. Michal Michalak paced the Poles with 13 points scored on 5-13 (2-6, 3-7) shooting from the floor and 1-1 from the free throw line. Piotr Niedzwiedzki chipped in 10 points.

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

						FTA
	Poss.	Eff.	eFG%	OR%	TO%	FGA
USA	81.8	1.03	52.0	41.0	19.6	11.8
Poland		0.57	26.9	24.1	18.3	9.0

The Defense Was There Today...
Team USA's offense was less efficient that it was versus Russia, but the Poles could not capitalize. Team Poland has had problems with shot conversion in several games in this tournament, but 26.9% (eFG%) is the poorest outing of the Poles' eight games. Though Team USA's turnover rate and free throw rate were well off their average for this tournament, it did not, given Poland's offensive problems, hurt Team USA's chances for a win.

Bell Tones
Villanova's rising sophomore James Bell scored two points on 1-3 (0-1, 1-2) shooting from the floor. Bell did not get to the free throw line. He grabbed one rebound and was credited with a steal and blocked shot in 11 minutes of play.

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.