FIBA U19 2011 World Championship -- Ouch...

Granted the Grames Don't Count, But...
The USA U19 men's team arrived in Lithuania on June 25 for the U19 FIBA tournament which opens play tomorrow (June 30). It is typical (and prudent) to enter a warmup tournament to continue preparation, and part of the plan, the U19 USA team entered the Youth Global Games Tournament, held in Lithuania. The Americans one of about eight U19 teams in the field drew two Lithuanian teams, the U20 and the U19 teams, as their opponents.

						FTA
	Poss.	Eff.	eFG%	OR%	TO%	FGA
USA	87.2	0.84	39.5	31.9	18.3	26.3
Lithuania U20		1.16	56.0	34.1	17.2	62.7

The U20 team has been together for a year longer than the U19 Lithuanian team (which has been together at least 11 monthes longer than the USA team...), but the results are nevertheless disappointing. American shooting was definitely off, especially three point shooting. Was the distance difference, 20 feet 9 inches to 22 feet the principal culpret? Maybe, but American teams have had to compete with the deeper line since (at least) 2008. Team USA is listed everywhere as the U19 Champion (from the 2009 tournament). A chance to knock of "the champ" may play into the Lithuanian mentality. A shame given these players were not rostered on the 2009 team. Shooting 35% from inside the arc was not even on par with the Lithuanians' three point conversion rate, 36%, meaning the Americans were in deep trouble from the onset. The box score indicated that the Lithuanians jumped on Team USA from the opening whistle, building a 32-8 lead going into the second (10 minute) period, where they padded that lead (-24) with another eight points. Down by 32 at the half, Team USA had few strategic options. Lithuania's U20 team converted 49.3% of their two's, yielding an overall eFG% of 56.0%, a very difficult conversion rate to overcome. Countering with an eFG% of 39.5% would be enough, on it's face, to lose, but Team USA was also dominated on the boards (OR% was 31.9 vs. 34.1) and could not compensate by getting to the line (see table above, 26.3% vs 62.7% -- the Americans were not especially aggressive in the low post?). The final deficit, -29 (101-72) was slightly better than the half. Would Team USA do better against their tournament counterparts? Ahhh no...

						FTA
	Poss.	Eff.	eFG%	OR%	TO%	FGA
USA	93.5	0.80	35.6	33.3	22.5	46.6
Lithuania U19		1.16	53.8	45.0	25.7	69.7

The net score was -33 (108-75), four points worse than the scoring net versus the Lithuanian U20 team. Though the Americans did not get rolled at the opening tip, losing the first period by 11, 34-23, they could not regain the ground in the second period. They yielded another 10 points in the second 10 minutes to take a -21 gap (38-59) into the locker room. But the third period proved even worse as Team USA ceded another 17 points to the Lithuanians before cutting into some of that -38 gap in the final 10 minutes. Compare the two possession-based breakdowns and note the similarities, especially in shooting and rebounding, considered the two more important elements in offensive and defensive efficiency (Eff. in the tables above). Small "victories" in the turnover rate versus Lithuania U19 and getting to the line more than against the U20 team. The Americans continue however, to foul far too much. As the box score indicates, the European teams are more inclined to hit their free throws (80%), fouling offers no advantage.

Team USA, with better athletes and higher skill levels, should do well against Egypt, their first opening game opponent, but Serbia, game two (on Friday), may, if Team USA does not get their shot conversion and rebounding in order, give Team USA another rude surprise. Coming so early in the tournament, a first loss will only increase the pressure on the young squad.

FIBA U19 2011 World Championship -- The Field is Set

16 Teams, Three Stages
The FIBA U19 World Championship field includes 16 teams (see Preliminary Pool below). FIBA will operate this tournament in three phases to determine the champion and set the finish for each participating team. ;

The pool for the preliminary round will include four groups (A, B, C & D) of four teams each:

Group A	Group B	Group C	Group D
Brazil	Argentina	Canada	China
Poland	Australia	Croatia	Egypt
Russia	Latvia	Lithuania	Serbia
Tunisia	Taiwan	South Korea	USA

The first preliminary round will have each group play three games, round robin style, with the other teams in the group. The top three teams from each group will be reorganized into two groups (E & F) of six teams each (Groups A & B will be assigned to Group E; Groups C & D will be assigned to Group F) for a second sequence of three games against the three teams from the other original group (A teams will play B teams; C teams will play D teams). The four teams not assigned to a second round group will play a two round classification sequence to determine places #13 - #16 in the tournament. The USA schedule for the first preliminary round is below; all first preliminary round games can be found at the USA Basketball and the FIBA World Cup sites. Team USA will play all three Group D games in Liepaja, Latvia...

		Est. Time
Date	Opponent	DST
06/30/11 Thurs	Egypt	9:00am
07/01/11 Fri.	Serbia	9:00am
07/02/11 Sat.	China	11:15am

Note start times are given in Eastern Daylight Savings time, approximately -7GMT from the time scheduled in Latvia.

From the second round of group play, the top four teams from Groups E & F (eight teams total) will advance to the medal round to play a quarterfinal game against an opponent from the other group (each group will be seeded for quarterfinal play). The winners will advance to the semi-finals, the losers will play a two round classification match for places #5 - #8. The last two teams from Groups E & F will advance to a two game classification round to determine places #9 - #12. Medal round quarterfinal winners will advance to a semi-final round, the semi-final winners to play for #1 and #2 place (gold and silver), while the semi-final losing teams play for places #3 and #4 (bronze and fourth place).

Sorting Out the Field in Groups C, D & F Play
A single loss in either of the two preliminary round robin phases would not, depending on the standing of the other teams in the group, doom Team USA to a classification round game in the third phase of the tournament. Since four teams will advance out of Group F, more than likely spots #3 and #4 (F3 and F4 in the medal round quarterfinal) will be settled on points and tie-breakers. A lower seed going into the quarterfinal medal round would not be fatal, but it would mean facing three (should Team USA continue to win...) of the most competitive teams in the field in the last three games. Team USA should advance out of Group D, the game with Serbia serving as an early indication of how the team will fare against the more competitive teams they will encounter in Group E (and medal round?) games. Canada, Croatia and Lithuana should advance out of Group C. Both Crotia and Canada advanced to the medal round(s) in the 2009 U19 tournament before falling to Team USA. The Team USA-Team Lithuania exhibition game being played today (Tuesday June 28) in Vilnius, Lithuania should give a hint on how that second round, Group F, matchup should go. Though Team Canada and Team Croatia should be capable of surprises, it is the games with Teams Lithuania and Serbia that will determine whether Team USA can advance to the medal rounds with a #1 or #2 Group F seed, or finish the tournament in a classification game.

Other Teams & Matchups of Interest
Group A teams that should advance to Group E include Poland, Russia and Brazil. Given the proximity of the tournament, expect both Poland and Russia (and Lithuania), along with host Latvia to enjoy a home court advantage against teams from outside the Baltic region. Poland and Russia in particular should be worth following, but Team Brazil, which finished strongly in the U18 competition last year (and returns the nucleus of that team) maybe the surprise candidate and advance to the medal round at the expense of one of the European teams. Out of Group B, expect Argentina, Australia and host Latvia to advance. How far can the hometown crowds carry Team Latvia? Over the past few years, Team Latvia has finished FIBA zone and world tournaments somewhere in the middle of the field...they may get to the Medal Round quarterfinals (beyond typical expectations), but most likely fight for a place in the #5-#10 standings. The older age classification teams for Argentina have done better in international competition than the younger teams. Matchups with the Poles and Russians (and Brazilians) in the Group E round should be a good barometer on how far the Argentines can go. Team Australia advanced by sweeping a very small field in the Oceania Zone, their games against Argentina and Latvia should provide a preview on how far the Emus can advance beyond Group E play.

FIBA U17 World Championship -- Team Efficiencies

Ranking the Field
FIBA published the final standings on the tournament Home Page, complete with each team's rank and record. International tournaments are played in two phases (similar but not identical to the recently concluded Soccer World Cup Tournament...) with a round robin tournament conducted among teams assigned to the same pool (or pod). At the conclusion of pool play the field is reassigned, with pool leaders assigned (and seeded) into a "Medal Group", and the bottom half of the pools assigned (and seeded) into a "Placement Group". Each group plays two or three more "elimination" rounds to determine placement and medals. This mixed approach can produce "Final Standings" in which a team's rank may not appear to be consistent with the team's record. Note the rankings/records for Germany and Argentina. That is not as unusual as it might seem. An badly timed loss in the quarter-final round can put an otherwise dominant team into the 5^th place game. I compiled the tournament's 46 box scores and computed the offensive and defensive efficiencies (and Oliver's four factors) and Pythagorean Winning Percentage for each of the 12 participating teams. Ordered by final rankings, I have included each team's won/loss record, winning percentages and Pythagorean Winning Percentage (PWP)...

	Record				Pythag.
Team	W	L	Pct.	Rnk	W Pct.
USA	8	0	1.000	1	0.989
Poland	7	1	0.875	2	0.882
Canada	5	3	0.625	3	0.588
Lithuania	5	3	0.625	4	0.528
Serbia	4	4	0.500	5	0.470
Australia	4	4	0.500	6	0.296
China	4	4	0.500	7	0.487
Germany	3	5	0.375	8	0.213
Argentina	3	4	0.429	9	0.595
Spain	2	5	0.286	10	0.503
Egypt	1	6	0.143	11	0.021
South Korea	0	7	0.000	12	0.138

Yes, Egypt beat South Korea to take 11^th place, another example of the ill-timed loss. Germany and Australia also seem misplaced when comparing records. The Argentines, consigned to the "Placement" (rather than "Medal") Group, lost their quarter-final game, 71-74, to Lithuania, plunging them into the lower half of the "Placement" bracket to finish out the tournament. Their PWP was helped no doubt by those last two opponents (South Korea and Spain). Australia's rank, record and PWP is a paradox. A review of Team Australia's schedule however, reveals they had the misfortune of meeting, and losing to, the #1, #2 and #3 ranked teams by a combined margin of -60 points. The Aussies cleared pool play with a 3-2 record and qualified for the lowest seed in the Medal rounds, which put them on track to face the #1 seed USA in the quarter-final round. The Americans beat Team Australia by 35 points, the worst beating the Aussies suffered in the tournament to be sure, but only the 4^th widest margin of victory for Team USA.

A Bird's Eye View of the Field

The separation of Teams USA and Poland from the rest of the field seems "too wide"? Consider the Poles went 7-0 against (among others) the #3, #4, #5 and #6 ranked teams, with an efficiency differential of 23.8 (points per 100 possessions). Team Poland's eFG% was 52.7% versus 40.5% for their opponents, as they averaged about 80 possessions per game. And Team USA beat them by 31 points, 111-80 (a defeat which by itself lowered their differential to +16.39 -- see below). A look at the offensive and defensive efficiencies, along with their differential, provides some insight...

Team	Effs (Pts/100 Poss)
	Off	Def	Diff
Argentina	95.1	92.0	3.12
Australia	88.7	95.7	-6.96
Canada	98.9	95.9	3.00
China	101.0	101.4	-0.47
Egypt	83.2	116.2	-33.02
Germany	82.1	92.0	-9.91
Lithuania	95.2	94.3	0.92
Poland	102.3	85.9	16.39
Serbia	93.9	94.9	-0.98
South Korea	92.7	108.7	-16.00
Spain	92.1	92.1	0.10
USA	118.4	80.3	38.09

Team China's downfall was defense, something of a contrast to rest of the field (Poles & Americans excepted). Bronze medalist Team Canada was just above "average" on offense (probably enough), and merely average on defense. Against this offensively challenged field however, that was enough. Team Germany had to be disappointed. Despite playing strong defense, the hosts were no better than lukewarm from the field, suffered a turnover rate of >26% (lost over a quarter of their possessions) in six of their eight games, and suffered a humiliating 36 point loss (79-33) to Poland in their third game of pool play. The Germans had played (eventual) bronze medalist Canada closely in the tournament's opening game, losing by only 2 points. They then beat Team Spain to draw to 1-1. Given the proximity of Hamburg, Germany (the host city), to Poland, I suspect the Germans did not enjoy a significant home court advantage. A pity, as I doubt Germany will host again for quite a few years.