The Value of Jerome Dyson

I intended to write a following post to the Eye Candy 02/14/09 post that reviewed Pittsburgh's offensive numbers. I reviewed the box score of Monday night's Connecticut-Pittsburgh game, wondering how dominant the Pitt offense was coming off of their weekend game with Cincinnati (possession-based stats below). The first number that caught my eye however was UConn's own offensive efficiency (ORtg) -- 97.4 was awfully low for the Huskies...the lowest this season possibly? Checking back through their previous games I realized they have registered an ORtg <100.0 in each of the last three games. Last night was not a fluke. Setting a baseline for Dyson & the Huskies, I have reproduced a portion of Ken Pomeroy's stats for the Connecticut team. The snapshot is a summary of the principle contributors on the Husky squad through Sunday Feb. 8, after the last full game Dyson played (versus Michigan on 2/7).

Player	%Min	ORtg	%Poss	%Shots	eFG%	Arate	TORate	%Stls
Jerome Dyson	75.5	107.2	25.0	26.2	45.5	20.6	16.5	3.6
A.J. Price	69.6	108.8	23.0	23.7	53.3	28.4	22.2	1.1
Jeff Adrien	84.2	116.6	20.6	21.2	53.0	8.9	13.2	1.1
Kemba Walker	58.6	109.6	20.5	17.6	53.4	20.8	24.3	2.5
Hasheem Thabeet	76.4	121.3	19.3	17.4	65.1	2.5	16.4	1.1
Stanley Robinson	31.1	100.9	17.5	17.2	49.3	13.0	22.1	2.0
Gavin Edwards	28.6	127.1	15.9	15.7	63.8	3.5	15.4	2.0
Craig Austrie	58.3	122.0	15.8	17.7	49.2	13.5	10.3	1.3

The table is sorted by Poss% and Shot%, clearly showing Dyson's leadership and role in the Husky offense. Using Pomeroy's classification system, Dyson is the only Husky classified as a "Major Contributor" -- a player who takes >=25% of the shots and possessions. While Dyson may be (may have been...) 3rd on the team for FGAs (behind Adrien and Thabeet) and 3FGAs (behind Price and Austrie), he also logged minutes marginally behind Adrien, Thabeet and Price. When calculated on possessions, and controlled for playing time, Dyson was clearly an extremely important part of Connecticut's offense. He was not the most efficient player offensively, but Major Contributors rarely are. They draw the opposing team's attention defensively, giving other members of the rotation relatively better opportunities. Note also he led the team in Stl% (steals based on possessions) by a fairly wide margin (again, controlled for minutes played). The impact of Dyson's loss is certainly suggested by Connecticut's offensive and defensive ratings in the 3 games he missed (note Dyson left the 2/11/09 Connecticut-Syracuse game having logged 5 minutes of PT, with no shots and a single steal).

	ORtg	DRtg
All thru 2/10/09	115.1	90.1
BE thru 2/2/09	113.6	90.9
Syracuse	91.2	70.9
Seton Hall	96.4	83.9
Pittsburgh	97.4	106.0

Dyson cannot bear the load for the squad's rather large drop in offensive efficiency (something on the order of 15-20%) for the past three games, but his injury certainly has had an impact on the team's rotation and offensive rhythm.

Who fills Dyson's role?
UConn's staff and the team will adjust over time, but who stepped in over the last three games? To date Coach Calhoun's Big East rotation has been (especially for him) very focused on a nucleus of 9 players (Dysona included), opening up to 10-11 when UConn has been able to control the game early. For the most competitive games Coach Calhoun has used 8-9 players, allocating 10 or more minutes to 7-8 of them. Dyson's absence has reduced that number by about one. Who has taken Dyson's minutes and possessions?

	Cuse			Hall			Pitt
	Min%	Poss%	Shot%	Min%	Poss%	Shot%	Min%	Poss%	Shot%
Price	82.5	29.2	30.3	87.5	20.3	21.5	90.0	26.0	29.6
Adrien	92.5	16.0	15.8	92.5	23.8	28.5	82.5	22.4	24.2
Walker	62.5	17.7	16.7	80.0	13.9	11.0	60.0	25.0	26.8
Thabeet	95.0	14.2	13.2	97.5	22.5	23.8	57.5	26.8	14.5
Robinson	65.0	21.9	22.4	50.0	13.0	14.0	87.5	11.2	11.4
Edwards	12.5	45.5	16.7	10.0	16.0	0.0	52.5	8.6	6.3
Austrie	72.5	20.4	28.7	82.5	17.5	22.3	67.5	18.5	22.2

Through this first set of games it appears as if AJ Price, Jeff Adrien, Stanley Robinson and Craig Austrie are spreading Dyson's time and offense around. Price's minutes (as a percentage of time available for that position) have increased dramatically, as have his possessions and shots versus Syracuse and Pittsburgh. Adrien's minutes, possessions and shots picked up in the Hall and Pitt games. Against the Hall, the matchups favored Adrien, while it appears to have been more need in the Pitt game. Thabeet picked up the offense versus the Hall; most appropriate considering the Pirates have a reputation as a guard-oriented squad (see Ray Floriani's post on the Thabeet - Garcia matchup as Ray goes into an indepth comparison of the two centers). I was surprised that Walker did not see more court time versus Syracuse and Seton Hall, two games where (I would have thought...) his speed would have been useful against those two (faster) squads. Walker did become more involved in the offense versus Pittsburgh, but like Adrien and Edwards, that may have been more a product of Thabeet's reduced time and offensive role. Going forward I suspect Stanley Robinson will be called on to step up a bit more. Robinson's time has increased as he has re-integrated after rejoining the team at the end of the fall semester.

If the Huskies are going to make a deep run into the NCAAs, they will need to replace Dyson's offense. Stepping up the defense against Syracuse and Seton Hall was a good sign, no doubt evidence of Thabeet's more active role coming with the increase in minutes. Pittsburgh however, exposed the need for UConn to find a way to more consistently put points on the board.

Eye Candy -- 2/14/09

Gimme a ahhh D?
I was looking over the box scores from the weekend and passed over the Pittsuburgh -- Cincinnati game in favor of other scores. Frankly 85-69 looks pretty typical for Pittsburgh; the comfortable margin of victory Panther fans are accustomed to this season. Something caught my eye though -- the number of field goal attempts (FGAs) taken by Pitt, 46, was a bit odd. 85 points scored on 46 FGAs? I decided to take a closer look...

							Rebs
	FGM	FGA	FTM	FTA	Pts	eFG%	Off	Tots	TOv	Eff.
Pittsburgh	31	46	18	29	85	72.8	8	27	6	1.455
Cincinnati	27	52	9	17	69	57.7	12	24	11	1.181

A quick calculation showed the teams played for about 58.4 possessions. 85 points in 58 (or so...) possessions yields 1.455 points per possession (ppp), or an offensive rating of 145.5 -- that might be the highest I have seen for an entire game in the Big East this season. Virtually the entire starting lineup (Tyrell Biggs, DeJuan Blair, Jermaine Dixon, Levance Fields and Sam Young) posted eFG%s between 70.0 (Biggs & Dixon) and 87.5 (Fields). Substitute guard Brad Wanamaker might have been the only Panther Cincinnati defended, as he (alone) registered an eFG% < 50.0 (33.3). Even Wanamaker posted a respectable PPWS of 1.12. The Panthers did it through teamwork, as Fields dished out 13 of the team's total 21 assists. Pitt posted an assist rate of 67.7 -- 2 in 3 FGMs came after a pass.

What Does a Team Have to Do to Win?!?
The Bearcats' offensive numbers were not too shaby either. 69 points on (about) 58 possessions yields a ppp of 1.181 -- an Offensive Rating of 118.1. Cincinnati's starting #2 guard, Larry Davis posted an outstanding eFG% of 92.9, the most efficient on either squad. Davis scored 13 points on 6-7 (1-2, 5-5), 0-1 shooting. The Bearcats rebounded 38.7% of their own misses, though they did not do as good a job on the defensive boards, allowing Pitt to rebound 40.0% of their misses. With a team PPWS of 1.15, an Offensive Rating of 118.1 ought to be good enough to win most games.

Guest Contributor Ray Floriani: SHU -- UConn & Thabeet

by Ray Floriani

NEWARK, NJ- Valentine’s Day at the Rock and a number of observers, NBA scouts primarily, had appreciable love for the game of Hasheem Thabeet. The UConn center narrowly missed a triple double as he scored 25 points, pulled down 20 rebounds and rejected 9 shots. The 7’3" Thabeet was a difference maker in a 62-54 victory over Seton Hall. The numbers:

	Poss.	Eff	eFG%	OR%	TO%
UConn	62	100	41	46	21
Hall	67	81	32	35	7

Thabeet’s block total probably was greater. He was credited for three at the half and courtside ‘neighbors’ Len Robbins of the Post and Dick Weiss (was yours truly in great company?) had Thabeet for more than four. Statisticians though, like officials, players and coaches do make mistakes. What the numbers can’t tell us is the number of shots Thabeet altered and the times Hall players rushed shots because they heard ’footsteps’ and thought he was nearby.

The efficiency numbers of Thabeet and his Seton Hall counterpart John Garcia, who did a great job (22 points 13 boards) on his end , were outstanding.

	Eff.	Eff/Min
Thabeet	47	1.21
Garcia	38	1.12

Efficiency over 100 is truly outstanding.

Jeremy Hazell struggled through a 14 point (5 of 22 shooting) afternoon. Hall coach Bobby Gonzalez said Hazell missed the prior two days of practice with a stiff neck. Gonzalez also emphasized the UCONN defense, not injury, was the main reason for Hazell’s tough afternoon.

During a media time out, I decided to calculate the percentage of two point shots rejected by the Huskies, in conference play, entering the Hall game.

	Opps.
	2FGA	Blocks	Blk%
UConn	516	93	18

* Thabeet had 54 of those blocks over the 12 Big East games prior to Saturday.

Quotes:
"The difference in the game was there were nine players and one Hasheem. You don’t always see a performance like that." - UCONN coach Jim Calhoun

"I’m not pushing him out the door but if I’m an NBA team he’s (Thabeet) the first pick in the draft...He’s like the liquid man from Terminator. You can’t kill him. I’ve never seen anybody like him. He changes the game, alters the game, dominates the game." - Seton Hall coach Bobby Gonzalez

West Virginia Post Game -- Ouch!

The Wildcats took to the road on Friday evening and played the Mountaineers of West Virginia University in the Coliseum, WVU's 12,000 seat arena. There is some good news (yes, there is...) and some bad news. First the good news:
1. Dwayne Anderson played just under 20 minutes. He wore a flexible brace while scoring 6 points and grabbing 6 rebounds. He should get nearly a week between games to rest the knee.
2. No one was injured during the play of this game.
3. Did I mention no one was injured?

And now the bad:
1. The loss was not unexpected, Pomeroy cast the 'Cats as dogs in Morgantown by a 5 point margin. No, it was that final margin, 21, and the way it happened that has me shaking my head.
2. West Virginia lacks a big dominant center. Like Villanova, they have a (seemingly endless) supply of 'tweeners -- players who fit somewhere between a guard and a center who man (based on skill set and dimensions) either the paint or the wing. Villanova ought to match up well with a team like that, but for reasons beyond me to this point, don't. Consistently don't match up well.
3. The host school provides the box score, and since West Virginia does not provide detailed boxscores, a complete split box (by halves) was not possible until Sunday...

Opponent	West Virginia
	1st	2nd	Game
Pace	37.4	35.4	72.8
	Offense				Defense
	1st	2nd	Game		1st	2nd	Game
Rating	90.9	107.5	99.0		139.1	115.9	127.8
eFG%	45.0	48.4	47.1		67.6	44.6	57.3
TORate	24.1	19.8	22.0		18.7	11.3	15.1
OR%	18.8	42.1	31.4		42.9	36.8	39.4
FTA/FGA	110.0	31.3	61.5		20.6	75.0	45.2
FTM/FGA	80.0	21.9	44.2		17.6	57.1	35.5
ARate	12.5	28.6	22.7		75.0	36.4	61.3
Blk%	15.0	9.4	11.5		0.0	0.0	0.0
Stl%	5.5	5.6	5.5		5.2	5.7	5.5
PPWS	1.12	1.03	1.07		1.39	1.08	1.24
2FG%	46.2	52.4	50.0		70.0	47.1	59.5
3FG%	28.6	27.3	27.8		42.9	27.3	36.0
FT%	72.7	70.0	71.9		85.7	76.2	78.6
%2FG	35.3	57.9	47.2		53.8	39.0	47.3
%3FG	17.6	23.7	20.8		34.6	22.0	29.0
%FT	47.1	18.4	31.9		11.5	39.0	23.7

Halftime Adjustments...
The 1st half started as a defensive tug-of-war -- the two teams scored a combined 10 points (7-3 WVU) through the first 6 minutes of the 1st half. Then Dante Cunningham sat with his second foul, and the two teams scored a combined 76 points over the next 16 minutes, as the Mountaineers broke the game open and took an 18 point lead (52-34) into the half-time. As a follow on to the keys to the game portion of the preview note the green & red highlighted sections in the table (above). The Wildcats needed to keep West Virginia's eFG% under 48.5; the 1st half was a disaster. While the 'Cats tightened up in the 2nd half they were playing from down (at least) 15 for most of that half.

The Mountaineers 2nd half shooting declined as the 'Cats got out and contested their open shooters, but the Wildcat's offense was not good enough to help them climb out of the hole they dug in the 1st half. Rebounding on both ends of the floor was disappointing. The 'Cats needed to control the 'Eers 2nd chance opportunities. And they did not. Nova's turnover rate, 23.0, was higher than their average 18.6, & consistent with a lower winning percentage at higher turnover rates. West Virginia's defense? Using the forced turnover calculation guest contributor Ray Floriani wrote about earlier this month, WVU's steals (4) divided by VU's turnovers (16) yields a forced turnover rate of 25%. While not a precise measure, it does suggest that Villanova's play may have lacked focus and urgency. Not particularly good characteristics this late in the season and against this type of opponent.

Notes
1. The Mountaineer's guard Da'Sean Butler (HS teammate of Casiem Drummond) had a career night, scoring scoring 43 points on 12-23 (6-13, 6-10) and 13-15 shooting. Butler took nearly 40% of WVU's shots when he was on the court, scoring in an efficient manner, as his eFG% of 65.2 (and PPWS of 1.43) suggest.
2. The Coreys combined for 29 points on 11-20 (3-8, 8-12) & 7-8 shooting. In an paradoxical turn, the shorter Corey (Fisher) scored his points on the inside, by repeatedly driving the lane and finishing at the line. The taller Corey (Stokes) was 3-6 from beyond the arc and 2-2 from the line.
3. Sitting Cunningham with fouls in the 1st half did not appear to alter the Wildcat's game plan. Fisher and Reynolds continued to attack the lane and draw fouls, as suggested by Nova's 110.0 FTA/FGA rate. The problem developed when the 'Eers did not foul as the 3FG% and 2FG% suggest. Kickouts to shooters on the wing did not translate into points. While I don't have a 1st half OR%, I suspect, from the gamelong OR% of 31.4, that the 'Cats were not getting many 2nd chance opportunities.
4. The Wildcat's offense went through Reynolds (30.2% of the available shots) and the two Coreys (Fisher -- 24.8; Stokes -- 26.5). Scottie, the focal point of WVU's defense, did not have an inside presence to divert attention, as both Anderson (20.2) and Clark (13.3, around his season-long Shot%, but too low given the circumstances of this game) did not make up Cunningham's numbers (typically around 27%), and Pena had only 2 FGAs (both misses) in 18 minutes of play.

Ref Notes
Pat Driscoll, Tony Greene and Frank Scagliotta, praised by the ESPN crew (Bob Wenzel & Mike Patrick) as among the best, called an unexceptional game (that's good). If West Virginia fans felt the home cookin' was not working for them, they were correct. The Mountaineers were whistled for 20 fouls, about the average for home teams when playing Villanova, and they got to the line for 28 FTAs, just a bit above average (given the scoring differential, I assume there were no change of possession fouls given by the 'Cats). Villanova was called for 24 fouls, just a few above average for away games this season, most likely the result of more aggressive defense while attempting comebacks. The 'Cats did benefit from quite a few FTAs (32 -- many in the 1st half), within the standard devieation, but very close to the upper boundary.

Roster Report
Senior Dwayne Anderson, diagnosed with a hyperextended left knee and bone bruise suffered during the Marquette game nevertheless started in Morgantown and played 19 minutes. Early speculation (and an announcement he would sit for the WVU game) now appears to have been pessimistic. The teams takes a 6 day break before playing Rutgers on Thursday.

Recaps/Analysis
The VUhoops.com team posted a more detailed than usual game recap called (appropriately enough) "The Butler Did it".
Chris over at IBBW posted a good recap with some cutting thoughts about several players.
Tim over at Nova News posted his recap/commentary ("Unlucky Night for #13 Villanova on Friday the 13th") yesterday.

A New Blog: The Wright Way

The latest addition to the Nova Blogosphere comes by way of The Wright Way Blog, published by Ryan C. The blog features a mix of team & recruiting news, combined with game previews and post game analysis. Welcome to the Nova Blogosphere The Wright Way!

Preview -- West Virginia

The Wildcats take to the road and travel to Morgantown, West Virginia to tackle the Mountaineers of West Virginia University. The 'Cats are hot, riding the crest of a 6 game winning streak that has carried them to a 20-4 season record, and 8-3 in the Big East. The 'Eers have been part of the post season conversation since the season's start, but a sub .500 record in conference would take them off of the NCAA's Dance Card. Currently they sport a 16-8 overall record, and 5-6 in the Big East, largely due to a slate of opponents that has included 2 games with Pitt (both losses), Connecticut, and road games against Louisville, Syracuse and Georgetown. The Wildcats would love to take the streak out at least one more. West Virginia would love to even their Big East tally & add a Top 10 win to their tournament resume...

Common Opponents, Good Wins, Bad Losses...
Villanova and West Virginia typicall move in different OOC circles, but come conference time, especially at this point in the season, have a few more common conference opponents:

	Nova		West Va
Opponent	W/L	Diff.	W/L	Diff.
Seton Hall	W (A)	OT +4	W (A)	+26
Connecticut	L (A)	-6	L (H)	-6
Marquette	L (A)	-7	L (A)	-22
Marquette	W (H)	+18
Providence	W (A)	+3	W (H)	+27
South Florida	W (A)	+9	W (H)	+3
Pittsburgh	W (H)	+10	L (H)	-12
Pittsburgh			L (A)	-11
St. John's	W (H)	+21	W (H)	+23
Syracuse	W (H)	+17	L (A)	-13
Louisville	L (H)	-1	L (A)	-6

West Virginia's best OOC win was Ohio State (Big Ten, 17-5, RPI #22). Aside from OSU, they have a 6 wins versus Top 100 RPI teams, giving them a record of 6-2 versus Top 100 OOC teams. Their two losses came at the hands of Kentucky (SEC, 17-7, RPI #64) and Davidson (Southern Conf, 19-4, RPI #49). As the table above shows, WVU has good (Top 100) wins from the conference schedule -- Providence (#62) and Seton Hall (#90). ...

Lineups, Rotations...
...Coach Huggins lost athletic junior pg Joe Mazzulla (6-2, 200lbs) for the season in the Davidson game (game #8 on their schedule), and had to saddle freshman Darryl "Truck" Bryant (6-2, 200lbs) with a good deal of responsibility early. The balance of the lineup has pretty much been set from the beginning of the season. Huggins will start senior Alex Ruoff (6-6, 220lbs) alongside Bryant in the back court, with a trio of 'tweener forwards, juniors Da'Sean Butler (6-7, 225lbs), Wellington Smith (6-7, 225lbs) and freshman Devin Ebanks (6-9, 205lbs), in the front court. Playing time for the starters has gone up since the beginning of Big East play as Coach Huggins has tightened his rotation. Huggins allocated about 66% of the PT to his starting lineup for OOC play; the starter's run increased to just over 70% at the start of Big East play, rising to nearly 75% going into Friday's game. He has also trimmed his rotation over time, from about 11.5 down to just over 10. As for the playing time, expect between 8 and 7 players to get > 10 minutes. If the game is close Coach Huggins will tend to the lower range of the rotation.

One of sophomore John Flowers (6-7, 195lbs) or freshman Kevin Jones (6-8, 220lbs) will be first off the bench. Each has garnered double digit minutes in the past 4 or so games. Next? Expect to see redshirt sophomore Cam Thoroughman (6-7, 225lbs), who has appeared in nearly every West Virginia game this season. The deeper region of the bench holds red shirt junior Josh Sowards (6-7, 205ls), JUCO junior center Dee Proby (6-10, 240lbs) and sophomore guard Will Thomas (6-5, 210lbs), who tend to see the court when matters have already been settled.

The Nova staff will have to shuffle the lineup now that Dwayne Anderson's bone bruise will sideline the senior for (at least?) one game. Continuing the trend of the past 3-4 games, senior forward Shane Clark and junior swing man Reggie Redding will most likely start alongside junior Scottie Reynolds and senior forward Dante Cunningham. Each is generally playing more minutes than they were last month. One of the Coreys, either Fisher or Stokes, will most likely get the call for the last spot. Given the impact he has had when he entered the Providence, Marquette and Syracuse games, I suspect it will be Fisher, though the staff, looking at West Virginia's length, may opt for Stokes. Antonio Pena will most likely have his minutes increased as well.

By the Numbers, Offense & Defense...
West Virginia plays for about 66.7 possessions, just a bit less than Villanova ('Cats adjusted pace is 68). This game will match WVU's #35 ranked offense against Villanova's #16 ranked defense, and Villanova's #23 offense against WVU's #6 ranked defense. A "Four Factors" comparison for when West Virginia has the ball...

When West Virginia has the ball...
				FTA
	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FGA
'Eer O	48.5	18.2	39.8	36.0
Wildcat D	45.5	21.8	30.1	38.9

WVU's offense is, according to Ken Pomeroy's Scouting Report, very typical for D1 teams -- they take about 1/3 of their FGAs from beyond the arc, and earn their points (by percentage) in a "very average" manner. Just over 1 in 4 points (27.4%) come from beyond the arc, about 1 in 5 (20.1%) from the charity stripe, the balance earned from 2s. And yet, per Ken Pomeroy's Scouting Report), they do it (quite) a bit better than the average D1 team, a paradox given the Mountaineer's very average shooting efficiency (eFG% ranked #183 -- see table above) & ability to get to the line. They convert about 48% of their 2s (ranked #185), but only 32.7% of their 3s (ranked #218) and 67% of their FTs (ranked #200), suggesting the WVU squad converts through persistence, rather than accuracy. They separate from the D1 pack through turnovers (they don't -- a carryover from the Beilein teams?) and offensive rebounding (they do, and very well). Grabbing those misses for 2nd chance opportunities can be very important for a team with very average at converting possessions into points. The Mountaineers' success at rebounding has been spotty though, good against most Big East opponents, but ineffective against Pittsburgh in their second game (about 11%, catastrophic for an average shooting team), Connecticut, Louisville and Syracuse. The 'Cats have been (with a few exceptions...) effective on the defensive boards, where even the guards are active. The WVU offense will go through 2 players, Bryant and Ruoff. One of those two has touched the ball before over 40% of WVU's FGMs. Both are ranked in Pomeroy's top 500 for assist rate. West Virginia limits turnovers because 3 of the 5 players most likely to take a shot (Butler, Ruoff and Jones) are also ranked in Pomeroy's top 500 as least likely to commit a turnover. The upper classmen, Ruoff and Butler, are the most efficient scorers on the squad, and they are 2 of the 3 players most likely to take a shot. Those two, along with the freshman Bryant, are also most likely to launch a 3. The "Four Factors" look at Villanova's offense versus WVU's defense:

When Villanova has the ball...
				FTA
	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FGA
Wildcat O	52.0	18.6	36.6	43.6
'Eer D	45.4	25.5	32.1	40.9

Want to Beat West Virginia? Then...
The most significant determinate for this matchup is, like most of the earlier matchups, shooting. And it is not close...
1. Challenge their shooting, close down the inside & make them shoot 3s. WVU is 12-0 when they post an eFG% of 48.5 or better. When held to Nova's defensive eFG% (44.5) or less, the 'Eers are 3-8. Having played 7 games (3 against Big East teams) where they shot an eFG% < 40, it is clear West Virginia is capable of having very cold shooting nights.
2. Hit your own shots. While eFG$s of 60.0 or higher (Nova's last 2 games) are outliers, the 'Cats have had only one game (Louisville) where their eFG% was less than 46.4. In games where opponents have converted at 45.5 or higher, the Mountaineers have gone 4-6.
3. Value the ball, don't turn it over. Nova's turnover rate is 18.6 -- WVU's record when their opponent's turnover rate is Nova's or less, is 2-4. The 'Cats are 11-1 when they make their 18.6 turnover rate or lower.

Finally...
...Both teams feature 'tweener front court players who will man the low post, while guards & swingmen roam the wing probing for weaknesses and defensive breakdowns. Villanova will put a third guard (Reggie Redding, Corey Stokes...) out on the wing, while West Virginia will counter with a taller, forward-type player (Ebanks, Butler...). That matchup may be critical for determining who controls the boards off of West Virginia's basket. Ruoff, Butler and Bryant are WVU's 1st three options on offense, with Ruoff and Butler, wing men, the most efficient scorers on the team. Both are in the 6-6/6-7 range, and will present matchup problems for the 6-4/6-5 guards Nova will most likely put on them. Forcing Bryant to take even more offensive responsibilities might work to depress WVU's conversion efficiency. While Villanova's last three games have also been the team's best offensive outings, the 'Cats up to that point had not shown an affinity for a higher tempo game. It will be intersting to see if which squad shows up to play Friday.

Pomeroy projects the game to be played for 67 possessions (well within both team's comfort zones) with the 'Eers taking a 5 point decision. The 'Cats have exceeded those projections in 7 of their last 8 games.

Interactive Tuesday? No Thanks

My 1st reaction to the text crawling across the top of my TV screen last Tuesday during the Villanova-Marquette game was "Why are they covering up the action up there...and when will it stop?"

Which program is better -- Marquette in the 1970s or Villanova in 1985? Are you kidding me (apples and oranges)? Cheesesteak or Brauts? These are the questions that fans of the two terrific, guard-oriented squads, want answered in the midst of their much anticipated return match (their first tilt went down to the last 3 possessions...)? The game I was watching may well decide who gets that last double bye spot in the Big East Tournament. Tuesday's game, a tug-of-war right down to the last 2 minutes of the second half, was marred by the distraction of scrolling text and the broadcast crew's preoccupation with viewer polls. I realized a number of Vilanova fans were annoyed with ESPN's production of this game, but it was not until the folks at Cracked Sidewalks alerted me that they were going to go on record with their displeasure of the coverage, that I realized Marquette fans too found the production lacking. Dan Hanner over at Just Another Basketball Blog has also given this "innovation" a thumbs down. My own letter to ESPN's ombudsman, Le Anne Schreiber...

Ms. Schreiber,

One of the things I have enjoyed about ESPN broadcasts of Big East Conference games, dating back to the early 1980s was your organization's commitment to delivering the game, complete with the play-by-play call, thoughtful commentary about the state of D1 basketball, and the conference, and solid analysis of game and why each team was winning or losing. The announcers were clearly fans who enjoyed watching the game, and who may well have bought tickets if they were not calling the play-by-play and providing color. I have favored ESPN's approach to broadcasting D1 basketball over other broadcasters, precisely because, it seemed to me, ESPN valued the viewership of the D1 fan, and shared a commitment to deliver as much of the game as possible to viewer. I watched ESPN2's February 1, 2009 broadcast of the Villanova -- Marquette game, aired at 7:30 here on the East Coast.

Please do not inflict "Interactive Tuesday" on another audience. I am a Villanova fan. I love Rollie Massimino. I do not want to see Coach Mass in a cut-away while the game is in progress. I do not think, had he known beforehand, Coach Mass would have wanted that either. Scrolling text messages across the top of the screen was annoying:

1. It took up valuable screen "real estate". Viewers are to some degree captives of the camera operator's "eye". Sometimes the viewer can catch a significant action at the edge of the screen. Cutting down on the viewable area reduces the chances of catching that peripheral, but sometimes significant action.
2. The motion of the text distracts the eye and disrupts concentration. I found myself reading an occasional message, not because I wanted to know the author's opinion, but because the scrolling motion caught my eye.

Running viewer polls during the broadcast was also distracting and annoying. I have no desire to vote in a poll during the game, nor am I interested in what other viewers think about cheesesteak or brauts, Cinderella teams or Big East POYs. I am not watching the game to learn about another viewer's opinion. I want to see the teams play. The stream of polls also forced the announcers to split their attention between calling the game and introducing polls and announcing results. While the announcers were "preparing" yet another poll the referees called a double technical. The announcing crew missed it and were clearly surprised and confused when they saw the referees signalling the call. No one manning the mikes seemed to know who the calls were against or why the calls were made. I have to believe that if they were exclusively committed to broadcasting the game they would have been able to explain the who, what, when, where and why of those technicals. My view of the game is restricted to the camera person's eye; I have to rely on those announcers to explain what happened "off camera".

Clearly conceived and implemented by those who love technology more than basketball, this is one "innovation" that should be discarded. Please use your influence to make this so. Quickly and completely.

Sincerely,
(greyCat)
http://vbtn.blogspot.com

Also annoyed by ESPN's production last Tuesday? Contact Ms. Schreiber at her feedback page and let her know how disappointed you were (be courteous please).