Post Game: Clemson -- Experience Counts

The Nova Blogosphere has also made something of a comeback in the past 6 or so hours. Check out reactions from the bloggers over at I Bleed Blue and White, Let's Go Nova and Nova News when you get the chance -- and stop by Villanova's own "link central" at VUhoops.com for any news stories and other Villanova-related blog postings. Game in and game out, the guys over there have have done a great job creating an electronic record of Villanova's season. And the official Athletic Department site, as always, posted an AP story about the game, "Villanova Upends Fifth-Seeded Clemson, 75-69" to go with the official box score. The breakdown by halves...

Opponent	Clemson
	1st	2nd	Total
Pace	34.5	37.9	72.4
	Offense				Defense
	1st	2nd	Total		1st	2nd	Total
Rating	79.5	126.9	104.5		111.4	79.1	94.6
eFG%	46.3	76.5	58.0		60.9	28.6	45.8
TORate	29.5	23.8	26.5		17.1	21.1	19.2
OR%	25.0	12.5	20.8		18.8	33.3	27.9
FTA/FGA	7.4	158.8	65.9		0.0	82.1	38.3
FTM/FGA	7.4	129.4	54.5		0.0	50.0	23.3
ARate	36.4	36.4	36.4		37.5	42.9	39.1
Blk%	11.1	0.0	6.8		0.0	3.6	1.7
Stl%	11.8	10.6	11.1		5.7	10.5	8.2

For the first 14:56 of the game Clemson outscored Villanova 38-18. Over the next 25:04 Nova, in an adjustment reminiscent of another Tiger game (LSU), clamped on the defense and outscored Clemson 57-33. The Tiger's 2^nd half ORtg was almost a mirror image of the Wildcat's ORtg in the 1^st half (light red highlight). But each squad's best half ORtg was earned in very different ways. The Tigers posted 111.4 by hitting their shots (eFG% of 60.9) and limiting their turnovers (17.1). Oddly, Villanova owned the Clemson boards in that first half, but that did not seem to staunch the bleeding from the Tiger's scoring. More evidence that a high eFG% can minimize the need for offensive board domination. For Villanova the comeback was fueled by good shooting (eFG% of 76.5) and an element the 'Cats have not seen consistently since the Foye/Ray/Lowry teams, free throws (FTA/FGA was 158.8, but more importantly, they hit their shots when they got to the line -- FTM/FGA was 129.4). There was a good deal more drive and dish in the second half, as evidenced by Fisher's 10 (and Reynold's 5...) 2^nd half FTAs. As noted on Villanova's message board over at Rivals, the staff had the squad put on a 1-2-2 press, front their bigs and (and this is surprising since it was so unsuccessful early in the season) extend the perimeter defense to contest Clemson's 3 point shooters and cutoff passes from the perimeter to the low post. These adjustments, especially the perimeter extended, effectively denied Booker and Mays scoring opportunities, and shifted the responsibility for offense outside to Oglesby and KC Rivers. Those two, good shooters who will no doubt continue to develop as their college careers proceed, nevertheless struggled when they had to take contested shots. Oglesby and Rivers will definitely have better days ahead.

Odds and Ends...
1. Both Corey Stokes and Dwayne Anderson, two mainstays in the 'Cats late season revival, saw limited action. Dwayne played 55.0% of the minutes, took 24.8% of the shots when he was on the court, hitting at a 33.3 eFG%. His PPWS was an inefficient 0.67. Dwayne was hobbled by an ankle injury early in the week. Hopefully he will be back up to speed for Siena. The freshman saw limited minutes this time, logging in for just 30.0% of the available minutes. Normally Corey S. will take "headliner" level shots, but this time he was gone before he could warm up, taking a single FGA (7.6% of the shots when he was in), which he missed. He did contribute at the line, taking Dwayne's FTAs when the junior had to leave with leg cramps early in the second half. He was 4-4 from the line.
2. The offense went through Scottie, Fish (hopefully his slump is over) and Pena. They took about 75% of the shots between them when they were on the court (Reynolds 31.2, Fisher 26.9, Pena 31.5). Fisher and Reynolds were efficient (PPWS's were 1.33, 1.46 respectively and eFG%s were 50.0 and 75.0 respectively). Pena was a bit less efficient PPWS -- 1.01 and eFG% -- 44.4, but he provided the inside presence that kept the Tigers honest.
3. Shane Clark, another 'Cats whose effectiveness had tapered off last month had a quiet night on offense. But Shane managed to pull down 6 defensive boards, and was active on the defense throughout the second half (took 5 of his boards in that half). Shane also had a steal and 2 personal fouls while playing 16 minutes.
4. Scottie Reynolds scored his 1,000^th point of his Villanova career during the game. Congratulations on the achievement Scottie.
5. Referee Notes -- the crew consisted of DJ Carstensen, Tony Greene and Mark Reischlin. Carstensen is new, while Greene has done a number of Big East (Villanova) games and Reischlin has been on zebra crews in prior seasons. About 25 minutes into the game I wondered if they had forgotten their whistles (or at least forgotten how to use them...) as there were, between the two teams, only 2 FTAs in the first half (both Villanova). Villanova began to foul their bigs on break outs (rather than let them score uncontested...), which seems to have had an effect on the Tigers. From that point to the 2:55 mark, when Coach Wright was nailed with a technical, the officials called 20 total fouls, 11 on Clemson and 9 on Villanova. Overall, the fouls called on the Tigers was in the high range, while the number of free throws they took was about average for neutral court games. The 'Cats did get "on the high end" of free throw attempts, while on the lower end for fouls called. All however were within a standard deviation of the mean for neutral court games. This was Carstensen and Reischlin's first game this season. Villanova's record this season when Greene has a whistle is 2-1.

Hartford Post Game: Spurtability?

The Wildcats played what has been charitably described as "an uninspired" first half, taking a 44-41 lead into the lockeroom. Even 10 minutes into the second half the 'Cats were still "playing with their food". And then Bam! it was all over. Both Let's Go Nova and I Bleed Blue and White provide good narratives and descriptions of the game and players, so I will just look over the box score and point out one or two things. The numbers by half:

Opponent			Hartford
		1st	2nd		Game
Pace		37.6	39.2		76.8

	Offense				Defense
	1st	2nd	Game		1st	2nd	Game
Rating	115.1	142.9	129.6		110.7	81.6	95.3
eFG%	62.1	72.9	68.0		55.2	38.9	47.3
TO%	28.8	14.5	21.4		16.2	31.2	24.1
OR%	41.2	26.7	34.4		33.3	29.4	31.6
FTR%	37.9	25.7	31.3		65.5	51.9	58.9
FTMR%	27.6	22.9	25.0		31.0	48.1	39.3
ARate	--	--	61.1		--	--	65.2
Blk%	--	--	1.6		--	--	5.4
Stl%	--	--	7.5		--	--	11.4

The first to second half transition was, unlike the Temple game, very clear statistically. Nova's defensive eFG dropped from 55.2 to 38.9, reflected in the Hawks 10-28 field goal shooting (1-10 from the 3 point line). The 'Cats forced turnovers at a much higher rate after the break -- the Hawks lost nearly 1 in 3 possessions. And the Hawks gathered a lower percentage of their missed FGAs, again a sign that the Villanova players were working harder on defense. The designated catalyst for this game was junior Dwayne Anderson who played for 11 minutes, the critical 9 minutes in the second half (of the second half...). Anderson scored 8 points on 4-4 shooting, set up Scottie and Dante with assists, had 2 steals and 3 rebounds (1-2) in the space of those 9 minutes. In the last 21 possessions of the ball game the 'Cats scored 36 points for an ORtg of 157.1 (excellent) over that period, but most importantly, they held the Hawks to 11 points (DRtg of 52.4 -- even more impressive) over their last 21 possessions. For that spurt the team recorded a 47.6 Assist Rate and a 19.0 Stl%. All very impressive numbers. Now if they can do that for a game...

Odds and Ends...
Dante Cunningham scored his 2^nd double-double of the season as he put up 13 points (6-8, 0-0, 1-1) and 13 rebounds (7-6). His PPWS (points per weighted shot -- see side bar for an explanation) for the game was an excellent 1.53, raising his PPWS for the season to 1.10.
Casiem Drummond was DNP, tendonitis in his ankle. He should be back for the Columbia or La Salle game.
Five Wildcats scored in double digits, 9 in all scored at least 3 points. Nine Wildcats also recorded assists (they are getting it...) in probably the best indication that the Take 'em Offense is giving way to set plays and offensive schemes. The pace however, at 76+ suggests these guys are not slowing down.

Villanova Efficiency and Usage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh Canada! Part 4: Player Efficiencies

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

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

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

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

The rebounding and defensive efficiency stats:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh Canada! Part 3: Player Summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big East Freshmen: The 2007 All-Rookie Team

Beginning in late December of 2006 I extracted the weekly player data for Big East freshmen, sophomores and transfers from Ken Pomeroy's website. I wanted to monitor the progress of those specific groups of players. I had a number of questions about the freshmen in particular:

1. How would those players tabbed as elite (including the preseason ROY) actually fare during the season?
2. Who among the relatively unheralded players would emerge for honors?
3. From the numbers which players may be flying under the radar for next season?
4. Is freshman fatigue a measurable phenomena?

I was able to track a total of 39 BE freshmen on a weekly basis. Pomeroy posted the possession-based stats for players who earned at least 10% of the playing time for their position. The average Offensive Rating for those 39 "notable" Big East freshman was 99.6. It is not uncommon for freshmen to have offensive ratings in the 80s/90s. Kyle Lowry for example had a rating of 97.8 as a freshman and virtually exploded to 113.4 his sophomore year. The table below contains the eleven members of the All-Big East rookie team sorted in descending order by Offensive Rating (%ORtg). Reviewing the playing time (Min%) and Offensive Rating, one can build an argument for including these players. While a 14% increase in offensive efficiency (%ORtg) is not typical, note that among this group, even a modest growth of 6% - 8% would place most of these All-Rookies among the Top 200 in D1 ball...

Name	Coll	Min%	%ORtg	%Poss	%Shot	eFG%	PPWS	OR%	DR%	FRate	ARate	TORate
Harangody	NDU	51.4	112.0	27.5	29.8	45.9	1.04	14.8	18.2	39.3	12.1	12.1
Butler	WVU	57.6	107.1	22.5	24.3	55.0	1.13	6.9	12.0	28.5	9.4	15.2
Reynolds	Nova	74.1	107.0	27.7	26.5	47.6	1.09	1.5	10.0	49.0	30.6	22.3
Harvey	Hall	87.1	106.2	25.6	22.6	48.2	1.11	4.7	5.7	45.1	24.6	19.5
Sosa	L'Ville	62.6	104.4	24.9	25.4	49.2	1.07	2.0	7.3	38.5	22.2	18.7
Summers	GTown	65.7	101.8	22.0	21.9	49.2	1.09	8.5	9.5	40.5	8.0	23.8
Dyson	UConn	75.7	100.7	24.4	26.7	42.1	0.97	4.0	8.4	47.1	14.6	16.4
Jackson	NDU	69.6	100.0	19.6	15.3	44.8	0.98	4.5	8.4	53.5	26.7	24.6
Harris	Cuse	54.1	100.0	23.8	19.8	43.5	1.02	10.9	21.3	76.5	14.5	20.3
Vaughn	'Nati	81.7	99.5	26.4	28.6	45.1	0.96	3.0	10.1	21.9	25.0	17.1
Thabeet	UConn	61.2	96.2	15.0	11.0	55.4	1.10	10.1	16.8	95.0	3.0	24.5

Pomeroy provides explanations for each of the columns (except PPWS, which you can find at the Big Ten Wonk site) on his "Individual Stats Primer" page. The numbers shown confirm in most cases, the legitimacy of each player's selection to the All-Rookie Team, despite the fact that several were not household (the Big East household anyway) names at the beginning of the season.

• The Surprises (good ones) -- Luke Harangody, Da'Sean Butler, Scottie Reynolds, DeJuan Summers, Tory Jackson and Deonta Vaughn. Harangody, Butler, Summers, Jackson (especially) and Vaughn were certainly not tabbed in the preseason as candidates for post season honors. Reynolds was an MDAA, so the surprise here is that he took the ROY honors. A few remarks about several of the pleasant surprises:
  • Luke Harangody -- his offensive numbers are set up by his %OR (percentage of offensive rebounds). 14.8% is among the best in D1. His offensive rebounding set up a good many close in shots which fed his (see his line above) possessions (%Poss) and shots (%Shots). Virtually all of his FGAs were 2s, so his eFG% is probably also his FGM%, which means he hit almost ½ of his FGAs. Not bad. Note that both his OR% and DR% are comparable to Paul Harris & Hasheem Thabeet, 2 players who received a good deal more recognition (Ken Pomeroy excepted) for their defense than did Harangody. There have been quite a few posters who claim that Notre Dame does not play defense (I mean before the Winthrop game), but with their offense how much defense did they really need? The Irish frontcourt rotation of Kurz (starter), Harangody (starter), Hillesland and Zeller provided "Just Enough" defense to win, for most of the season. His %OR, TORate and %Shots are Top 100 level for D1, while his DR%, %ORtg and %Poss are Top 500. The kid is solid.
  • Da'Sean Butler is one of the two most surprising names on the All-Rookie team. While well regarded locally as a senior HS baller in Bloomfield, NJ, Butler was an "also..." on most WVU recruiting evaluations. That he as a freshman logged 57.6% of the minutes at his position (4) in Beilein's system (a coach with a penchant for redshirting freshmen) suggests he impressed JB, no easy task. I believe that playing time and the "role" nature of most positions in Beilein's system hurt Butler when ROY candidates were discussed. With a reputation for athleticism, Butler may get a chance to show a lot more as an individual in Bob Huggins' system.
  • Tory Jackson -- logged 38% of the minutes in the Irish back court before Kyle McAlarney was arrested for illegal drug possession at the start of the Big East season. Through the end of the season Jackson's minutes shot up to 69.6% because he was called on to replace McAlarney in Brey's system. After stepping back the first month (fairly common when playing time and the player's role within the team increases dramatically...), his numbers began to recover and by season's end (with a bad loss to Winthrop excepted) he was slightly ahead of his pre Big East season efficiencies (but with nearly twice the PT). McAlarney will re-enter Notre Dame next month, but I suspect Coach Brey will play both in Notre Dame's backcourt next season.
• The Surprises (bad ones) -- Jerome Dyson, Paul Harris and Hasheem Thabeet. Granted these players had good years by freshman standards. But much more was anticipated.
  • Paul Harris -- the near unanimous preseason ROY selection, based largely on his ability to lock down the player in front of him. He was far more likely to produce offensively from a steal and break away than off a set shot developed in a half court set. For a player who was going to a team noted for it's zone defense that ought to have been a warning sign. Ultimately, Harris started a single game (Colgate) and watched his minutes decline during the Big East regular season (from a 25.5 mpg in the OOC, to 18.6 in the Big East regular season) only to recover slightly in the BET and NIT. While definitely an asset when the ball was loose on the court -- his OR% is Top 500; his DR% is Top 100 -- his offensive production declined about 10% through the first month of the Big East regular season. He, like Lowry, compensated for a weak eFG% by getting to the line fairly regularly (FRate of 76.5 indicates that for every 4 FGAs he took 3 FTAs...).
  • If Hamady N'Diaye had Hasheem Thabeet's numbers Rutgers fans would be ecstatic. The Scarlet Knights would have played in the BET (no more, no less). But Husky fans expected more from their team. Thabeet went to Storrs with the reputation for shot blocking defense and inside scoring through athleticism. The defense part was correct, as Thabeet finished with 15.3 %Blk, (good for a #6 rank in D1) and Top 500 rankings for OR% and DR%. His offensive stats by contrast are a paradox: stats for field goal efficiency (eFG%) and ability to get to the free throw line (FRate) suggest he should have been more dominant on offense, but his %ORtg is a surprisingly low 96.2 (for every 100 possessions Thabeet scored 96 or so points). He struggled to convert free throws (0.513 FTM) and turned the ball over nearly 1 time in 4 when he had possession (24.5 TORate). Two areas to work on over the summer. Given that his role on offense did not expand over the course of the season, his %Poss and %Shot remained within 1% of their post OOC value throughout the Big East season, it was clear the staff and his teammates never regarded him as reliable option on offense.
• No Surprise At All (thankfully) -- Eugene Harvey and Edgar Sosa. Two New York City guards who helped their respective teams. Sosa, with more to surround him than Seton Hall's Harvey, provided a sure handle and reliable (but not offensively dominant) shot for the Cardinals. Seton Hall was decimated by graduations and transfers in the wake of the Orr-to-Gonzalez coaching changeover, but Gonzo will bring in complementary talent for Harvey.