Penn |
Texas A&M |
|
|---|---|---|
| Record (Conf.) | 22-8 (13-1) |
25-6 (13-3) |
| Pomeroy | 102 |
5 |
| RPI | 89 |
17 |
| Sagarin | 111 |
9 |
| Tempo (Rank) | 68.1 poss / 40 mins (111) |
65.7 poss / 40 mins (214) |
Penn's offense vs. Texas A&M's defense |
||
|---|---|---|
Penn |
Texas A&M |
|
| Offensive efficiency (scored / 100 poss.) | 49 (109.0) |
n/a |
| Defensive efficiency (allowed / 100 poss.) | n/a |
3 (89.3) |
| Effective FG % (counts threes double) | 28 (54.3) |
2 (42.5) |
| Turnover % (per 100 poss.) | 109 (20.3) |
106 (22.2) |
| Offensive rebounding % (per 100 poss.) | 183 (33.1) |
36 (29.9) |
| Free throw rate (per 100 pos.) | 138 (25.9) |
204 (38.4) |
| 3-point FG % (accuracy) | 92 (36.7) |
6 (29.7) |
| 2-point FG % (accuracy) | 14 (54.0) |
5 (41.4) |
| Free throw % (accuracy) | 231 (67.0) |
245 (70.5) |
| Block % (per 100 poss.) | 134 (8.5) |
98 (9.9) |
| Steal % (per 100 poss.) | 212 (10.5) |
144 (10.2) |
| Ratio of threes to all FG attempts (%) | 252 (30.1) |
235 (36.2) |
| Ratio of assists to FGs made (%) | 20 (64.2) |
245 (58.2) |
Penn's defense vs. Texas A&M's offense |
||
|---|---|---|
Penn |
Texas A&M |
|
| Offensive efficiency (scored / 100 poss.) | n/a |
8 (115.0) |
| Defensive efficiency (allowed / 100 poss.) | 117 (98.8) |
n/a |
| Effective FG % (counts threes double) | 143 (49.5) |
5 (56.1) |
| Turnover % (per 100 poss.) | 56 (23.2) |
41 (18.5) |
| Offensive rebounding % (per 100 poss.) | 212 (34.3) |
153 (33.9) |
| Free throw rate (per 100 pos.) | 120 (34.4) |
57 (29.3) |
| 3-point FG % (accuracy) | 205 (35.2) |
3 (42.2) |
| 2-point FG % (accuracy) | 131 (47.9) |
30 (53.2) |
| Free throw % (accuracy) | 276 (71.2) |
70 (72.4) |
| Block % (per 100 poss.) | 191 (8.1) |
53 (7.2) |
| Steal % (per 100 poss.) | 24 (12.6) |
16 (7.5) |
| Ratio of threes to all FG attempts (%) | 98 (32.1) |
285 (28.6) |
| Ratio of assists to FGs made (%) | 120 (53.7) |
6 (66.7) |
After the jump, individuals of note and, yes, some analysis from me.
Penn
Mark Zoller
-- Field goal percentage: 32 (56.0)
-- Effective FG percentage: 37 (62.1)
-- Defensive rebounding percentage: 98 (21.0)
Ibrahim Jaaber
-- Percentage of possible minutes played: 14 (92.0)
-- Assists per game: 35 (5.3, tied with two others)
-- Steals per game: 4 (3.0)
-- Steal percentage: 19 (18)
Steve Danley
-- Free throw rate: 18 (84.1)
Texas A&M
Acie Law, IV
-- Assists per game: 38 (5.3, though not tied with Jaaber because of rounding decimals)
-- Assist rate: 39 (32.8 per 100 possessions)
Josh Carter
-- 3-point FG %: 1 (51.6%)
-- Offensive rating: 5 (132.9)
-- Effective FG %: 5 (55.8)
-- Turnover rate: 60 (12.2 per 100 possessions, which is to say 60th best in Division I)
Joseph Jones
-- Offensive rating: 61 (121.1)
Analysis
I've said already that I don't think Penn has any chance to win this game, and that I have Texas A&M in my Final Four. But if the Quakers want to make things respectable, or at least make the Aggies think a bit before the final buzzer sounds, there are a couple of things they can focus on.
First, get the Aggies in foul trouble, especially forward Joseph Jones and center Antanas Kavaliauskas. A&M's high free throw rate conceded combined with Steve Danley's ability to draw fouls means that there's at least a chance of this happening. Of course, Danley did that mostly against Ivy League and other smaller-conference opposition that didn't pose nearly the kind of physical challenge that one of the best teams in the Big 12 will bring.
Second, let the game be played at a slow tempo. There's no reason to think Penn will object to this, but both teams have very high assist-to-field-goals-made ratios. If Ibrahim Jaaber and Darren Smith can keep focus through long possessions, they might even be able to grab a few steals for fastbreaks, because the Aggies' turnover and steal percentages on offense are in the middle of the statistical pack.
The Penn player I'll pay the most attention to, though, is Mark Zoller. Yes, the duel between guards Ibrahim Jaaber and Acie Law, IV will be the star matchup and could be good theater, but for Penn to have a chance of being in this thing late I think Zoller has to be hitting threes early and rather often. Even though A&M's three-point defense is outstanding, that high ratio of threes to field goal attempts makes for a tiny ray of light shining through a door that is pretty close to shut.
There won't be many points to be had inside the Aggies' paint, so Penn's game plan is going to have to be similar to what they employed last year in the first half against Texas. In that game, the Quakers made six of 14 attempts from beyond the arc out of 25 total shots and took a 23-22 lead into the locker room at halftime.
