#CatsInSpain -- Villanova 89-49 Spain Barcalona All-Stars Revisited

The Complete Stat Sheet
For those who wish to review the entire game, Villanova has provided a video feed of the game and a completed box score that actually provides a few more details than your typical collegiate box score. With the more complete box score we also learned that...
1. Computed possession for the game is 80 -- consistent with exhibition games. Pomeroy listed the average possession rate for Division 1 games in 2015-16 at about 69 possessions. Villanova's possession rate was 66.5 (below) the Division 1 average. Exhibitions due possibly to the difference in level of play/skill tend to be higher, as much as 25% higher than the team might play versus comparable competition in Division 1 games. Versus the Barcelona All-Stars, the possessions were 20% more than they typically took last season.
2. For those wondering about the level of competition or comparable play, the closest game from last season might Villanova's 91-54 win over Fairleigh Dickinson to open the 2015-16 season. The 'Cats and Green Knights played for 77 possessions apiece with the 'Cats winning by 37 points.
3. The offensive efficiency rate (points scored per possession) was 1.11, actually lower than last season's average of 1.23 (again, per Pomeroy). While a little surprising given the ease of the win, this can also be attributed to simple lack of practice and a four month layoff of play in game situations. Versus FDU for example, the 'Cats dominated the game throughout, but still scored at a 1.18 rate.
4. The defensive efficiency (points per possession at which the opponents scored) was 0.61, good news for the "defense first" advocates among the Villanova faithful. For those looking for comparisons, the defensive efficiency rate versus FDU was 0.60, so the defense appears to be pretty close to season opening level, an observation consistent with onsite accounts of the game.
5. The turnover rate for the 'Cats was 19.9, high by last season's standards (and very high compared to the FDU game). Where the breakdowns occured might help direct future practices. The 'Cats turned over the Barcelona All-Stars at a 26.1 rate, well above the defensive turnover rate last season (20.6), and the rate registered versus FDU (16.9).

For those wondering if the strong showing is confirmation that Villanova is well on its way to a second National Title, exhale please. These are exhibition games which rarely confirm a great team. They more frequently expose weaker teams rather than affirm stronger teams. Losing an exhibition game can identify areas where the team may struggle versus even stronger competition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Blog: Secondary Break

Chris DiSano over at College ChalkTalk has spun out a less structured version of his basketball gazette called Secondary Break. The blog has a handful (about 15 actually) of ongoing contributors, including frequent vbtn contributor Ray Floriani. Ray posted the second in his series about possession-based stats -- points per possession with both an explanation on how to calculate the stat and why that is more reliable than a per capita stat like average points per game, for identifying potent offenses.

As the name suggests, Secondary Break specializes in quick takes on "just behind the news cycle" topics ranging from player spotlights to team backgrounds, from stats and analysis to below-the-surface looks at recent news. A link for Secondary Break will go into the "Notable Blogs..." list at the left, and I intend to check in regularly with those guys.