Showing posts with label team comparison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label team comparison. Show all posts

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Side by Side -- Pittsburgh versus Villanova (via Tennessee)


Common Opponents to Find Comparison Points
Billed in the pre-season as the "two to beat" for the Big East title, both Villanova and Pittsburgh dropped a game against Bruce Pearl's Tennessee Volunteers. The time frame is pretty tight -- about 16 days separated the two games, so the data should be comparable. Controlling for possessions, how did Villanova's and Pittsburgh's offense and defense stack up against Tennessee? And what can that tell us about each team? Looking at the four factors breakdown, the shooting efficiency and point distribution for offense and defense...

OpponentTennessee
NovaPitt
Pace71.971.1
LocationNeutralHome
Margin-10-8
Date26-Nov11-Dec
Offense Defense
NovaPittNovaPitt
Rating94.6108.5106.9116.7
eFG%38.650.947.263.5
TORate18.118.121.128.1
OR%34.939.443.944.0
FTA/FGA63.263.677.862.5
FTM/FGA42.140.046.345.8
ARate50.056.077.351.9
Blk%3.512.77.412.5
Stl%11.17.08.512.6
PPWS0.921.091.031.33
2FG%44.448.740.554.1
3FG%19.037.541.263.6
FT%66.762.959.573.3
%2FG47.148.739.548.2
%3FG17.623.127.625.3
%FT35.328.232.926.5


Controlling for...
No team had rotation-altering events -- no suspensions, nor major injuries. While both Tennessee and Villanova have had a some extra-program distractions, both were in the public domain prior to their scheduled game. Note that Tennessee played Villanova at Madison Square Garden while the Vols met the Panthers at the downtown arena in Pittsburgh. Neither Big East team enjoyed a true homecourt advantage, but location was hardly a push, advantage to Pitt.

Offense vs. Offense
If a top 10% offensive rating (adjusted per Ken Pomeroy) is considered elite, then count both Pitt and Villanova among the D1 elites. And that makes the offensive efficiencies posted by each team versus Tennessee all the more remarkable. I have to give Bruce Pearl this, he knows how to prepare his teams. He identified Villanova's heavy reliance on the Fisher/Wayns duo to jump start their offense, and promptly took that away (see the Tennessee-Villanova game flow at bottom). If the Wildcats' 94.6 rating (0.946 points per possession) is brutal, understand Pitt's own egg, 108.5 (or 1.085 ppp), comes from the #2 rated offense (adjusted) in D1, an offense that more typically generates about 122.8 points per 100 possessions. Both offenses were "off" by about 12%-17%. For Villanova, the Vols exposed their (over?) reliance on their back court duo to control the flow of the game and put enough points on the board to loosen up opposing defenses. Villanova's lack of offense was the game-turning element, extremely inefficient shot-to-point efficiency combined with their back court's inability to set the table for the team's other offensive elements. Pittsburgh could have survived an off night for their offense, if their defense had not collapsed.

Defense vs. Defense
Villanova maintained good shot defense versus Tennessee, the Vols were held to a <50 eFG%, as the 'Cats closed down the lane and held the Vols to 40% shooting inside the arc. Villanova allowed to many second chance opportunities and reverted to 2010's foul-prone form, putting the Vols on the line about three times for every four field goal attempts. Pittsburgh simply did not defend the shot well at all. The Vols torched the Panthers with an eFG% so high (63.5%) that it overwhelmed a turnover rate (28%) high enough that on most nights it would have cost the careless team the game. Not so on 12/11. The Vols also did an admirable job on their offensive boards (Villanova was better here than Pittsburgh by a very small margin), winning a game element that both Villanova and Pittsburgh expect to dominate. Pomeroy ranks Villanova's defense higher than Pitt's, #25 vs. #30, but like offense, both are in the upper 10% of D1 ball.

In the Flow...


[note -- Game Flows compliments of StatSheet.com]  In both games Tennessee jumped out to the lead about 3:30 to 5:00 into the first half, and their lead out steadily through until half time. While Villanova jumped back into the game with a strong second half run (they found the seams in the Vols' zone?), Pittsburgh seemed a step slower and actually lost ground, allowing the Vols to open a 20 point lead around the mid-point of that half. While the Panthers were able to close that margin to a more respectable -8 at the end, that Tennessee was able to maintain margins of double digits into the very last minute of the game suggests the Panther offense never found a counter to the Volunteer defense.

If the 'Cats and Panthers Played Today
At this point Pomeroy projects two wins for Pitt, a closer game at Villanova, with the return game accruing a larger winning margin to Pitt. A pace calculation based only the possession-rate from their Tennessee games suggests the two will play a very high-tempo game -- something in the range of 80 possessions. That won't happen, but do not minimize the importance of pace with respect to this match-up. Pitt's offense, especially shot conversion efficiency (eFG%) shows some sensitivity to pace. In games with higher than D1 average pace, Pitt's shot conversion efficiency (eFG%) tends to suffer. The Panthers normally convert at about a 53.1% eFG%. In the four games they played at a pace >70, the Panthers averaged an eFG% of 49.1%. Grabbing an early lead allows opponents to push the pace and keep the Panther offense off balance. Villanova struggles when they have to score on half court sets. Stop the guards and the Wildcats have to work to set up their other scorers. The Villanova roster contains a number of offensive options, but the guards have to take time to recognize the most appropriate option given the defense in front of them. Scoring early in the possession assures they will score often, and allow shot taking to follow in the offensive flow of the game.

Other Considerations
1. The two are slated to play a mirror series this season, with the first game coming in early February, to be featured on ESPN's GameDay series. While the game will be played in Villanova's on campus facility (the Pavilion), the all-day presence of television crews and support staff should be a massive distraction for the school of 6,500 undergraduates. Will it distract the host and blunt what should be a huge advantage? The mirror is scheduled, as the regular season closer, for the Peterson Event Center on Pitt's campus.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Side by Side -- Seton Hall versus Syracuse (via Cornell)

Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon...D1 Style
I think it was Ken Pomeroy who, by comparing selective game scores, was able to "comparatively reason" The Citadel to a National Championship several years ago. And that is the flaw in looking to game scores between teams A & B and teams B & C to determine if Team A is better than Team C. Oddly though, most comparative systems do variations on that same process (more sophisticated to be sure) in order to develop ranking systems. Can comparing the statistics of the Seton Hall-Cornell game and the Syracuse-Cornell tell us anything about Seton Hall and Syracuse (other than they both beat Cornell by double digits)? What if we controlled for possessions and looked at Oliver's Four Factors?


OpponentCornell
Seton HallSyracuse
Pace78.573.6
LocationHomeHome
Date14-Nov30-Nov
Offense Defense
Seton HallSyracuseSeton HallSyracuse
Rating117.1106.186.678.9
eFG%50.855.240.239.8
TORate19.127.219.119.0
OR%32.733.332.324.0
FTA/FGA46.236.244.325.4
FTM/FGA40.024.131.118.6
ARate60.765.559.175.0
Blk%9.24.98.66.8
Stl%15.316.58.25.4
PPWS1.161.150.920.88

Both Big East teams hosted the Big Red just over two weeks apart. Cornell's off guard, junior Chris Wroblewski, was DNP for the Pirate game, having sprained his ankle in an exhibition game in early November. Wroblewski did return in Cornell's next games (11/17, vs. Delaware) where the squad's projected high-scorer managed a (co)team-high 13 points versus the Blue Hens. Wroblewski, despite not playing in Cornell's first two game, leads the Big Red for points scored and average points per game. One minor surprise was the pace of the Hall game. 78-79 possessions is more an exhibition-level pace than one would typically see in a (non VMI or North Carolina) game. The Orange's pace was a bit high for Coach Boeheim teams, but not by much.

Offense vs. Offense
If SHU's offense appears more effective against this opponent, consider the Pirate squad has a season of team play under it's belt going into the Cornell game, and two of common practices (Keon Lawrence, Jeff Robinson and Herb Pope are transfers who sat in 2008-09), even if the coach, Kevin Willard, is new. Syracuse is attempting to forge a unit with a new point guard, Dion Waiters splitting time with returning players Brandon Triche and Scoop Jardine, while the Orange also have to work wing/forward C.J. Fair and freshman Fab Melo (who had a very good game) into a front court rotation that includes returners Rick Jackson, Kris Joseph and Baye Keita. I suspect the Syracuse offense, once the freshman are aclimated to D1 play, can register efficiencies higher than 107, and closer to SHU's 117. How much more "growth" can the Hall expect to do with the current roster?

Defense vs. Defense
Pomeroy calculates an adjusted offensive efficiency of 97.6 (0.98 points per possession) for Cornell, suggesting that both the Hall (0.87) and Syracuse (0.79) kept Cornell well below their expected point yield per possession. Seton Hall showed a defense more stingy than the 2010 edition, reflection no doubt, of their new coach's priorities and approach to the game. Cornell's success depends significantly on their ability to convert threes, an offensive strategy that Syracuse's 2-3 zone is designed to counter, and in the Cornell game it did. The Big Red took 29 three point attempts, and converted at a disappointingly low 24.1% rate.

If the Hall and Cuse Played Today
The game would probably be played for an absurdly high 84 possessions (not going to happen, though both squads can run), and result in a very close decision that surprisingly enough would favor Seton Hall slightly. The actual outcome, given the projected margin of victory, could well hinge on where the game was played. My preview identified Seton Hall as a third quartile team and Syracuse as a second quartile team. But what do I know?

Other Considerations
1. The two are slated to play a mirror series this season, with the first game coming January 8 at the Rock (Pomeroy currently projects that as a one point win for Syracuse) with the return engagement January 25 at the Carrier Dome (which Pomeroy projects as a nine point win for the Cuse).
2. Jeremy Hazell, who scored 28 points in 28 minutes when the teams met on 11/14, broke his wrist (non shooting arm) and will most likely not be cleared to play until early January. Chances he will miss the first game are slim, but he will be rusty.