Duke vs Loyola
Duke vs Loyola
March 07, 2019
Q1Q2Q3Q4TotalDuke335112Loyola21047
Tale of the Tape
Stat CategoryDukeLoyolaGoals127Shots4322Shots on Goal2717Possessions4037Groundballs289Saves1015Save%59%56%Shooting Pct28%32%Faceoffs913Turnovers1215Turnover%30%41%
Well, it did not take very long for the sheen to come off Loyola’s hot start. A loss to cross-town rival Towson and now a drubbing in Durham will do that to a team.Two stats stand out the most in this one: turnovers and ground balls. Duke picked up 19 (19!!!) more ground balls than the Greyhounds. And that disparity helped them overcome a mild disadvantage at x to end up with a net positive turnover advantage. On the turnover side of the ledger, it was not good for Coach Toomey’s team; Loyola turned the ball over on 41% of their possessions.When Loyola was able to get a shot off, they actually shot better than Duke (32% vs 28%), but they just didn’t give themselves enough chances.
Advanced Metrics
Stat CategoryDukeLoyolaOff. Efficiency30.0%18.9%T.O.P.63%37%Possession Length54.935.1Time to First Shot40.230.7Shots/Possession1.070.59
You might be saying: well, Duke turned it over on 30% of their possessions, so is that really a big deal? Let’s break it down one layer deeper and look at the number of shots each team got per possession. Duke managed to get 1.07 shots off per possession, while Loyola was stuck down at .59. So even if the Duke offense wasn’t shooting as well as Loyola did, they had nearly twice as many chances on a per possession basis.And that also manifests itself in terms of the time-of-possession advantage. Duke controlled the ball for 63% of the game. That is going to take a toll on any defense. Duke, on average, forced Loyola to play 40 seconds of defense before they took their first shot, and then they did well enough in backing up those shots to get to the aforementioned 1.07 shots per possession. That is too tall of a task for any defense.And again, the Greyhounds offense was uncharacteristically flat. They ended the game with a 19% efficiency mark.
Let’s talk about Nakeie Montgomery
Stats: Nakeie MontgomeryQ1Q2Q3Q4TotalGoals30104Assists00000Shots31217Shots on Goal30216Shooting Pct100%0%50%0%57%Groundballs10001Turnovers00000EGA2.750.110.580.043.49
Brad Smith ended up as the top EGA guy for Duke, but of his 3.85 total EGA, 2.87 came in the 2nd half, after the game was out of reach.Contrast that with Montgomery’s line. He accumulated 3.49 EGA and 82% of that total came in the first half, courtesy of his 3 goals on 4 shots (and a GB). And much like the homerun is an easier way to generate runs than small-ball, he was able to generate instant offense with 2 unassisted goals.This was far and away his best game of the season, and on a night when Loyola did a pretty good job on Joe Robertson, Coach Danowski will be glad to have the production. A multi-headed offense is an extremely scary offense.
Q1Q2Q3Q4TotalDuke335112Loyola21047
Tale of the Tape
DukeLoyolaGoals127Shots4322Shots on Goal2717Possessions4037Groundballs289Saves1015Save%59%56%Shooting Pct28%32%Faceoffs913Turnovers1215Turnover%30%41%
Well, it did not take very long for the sheen to come off Loyola’s hot start. A loss to cross-town rival Towson and now a drubbing in Durham will do that to a team.Two stats stand out the most in this one: turnovers and ground balls. Duke picked up 19 (19!!!) more ground balls than the Greyhounds. And that disparity helped them overcome a mild disadvantage at x to end up with a net positive turnover advantage. On the turnover side of the ledger, it was not good for Coach Toomey’s team; Loyola turned the ball over on 41% of their possessions.When Loyola was able to get a shot off, they actually shot better than Duke (32% vs 28%), but they just didn’t give themselves enough chances.
Advanced metrics
DukeLoyolaOff. Efficiency30.0%18.9%T.O.P.63%37%Possession Length54.935.1Time to First Shot40.230.7Shots/Possession1.070.59
You might be saying: well, Duke turned it over on 30% of their possessions, so is that really a big deal? Let’s break it down one layer deeper and look at the number of shots each team got per possession. Duke managed to get 1.07 shots off per possession, while Loyola was stuck down at .59. So even if the Duke offense wasn’t shooting as well as Loyola did, they had nearly twice as many chances on a per possession basis.And that also manifests itself in terms of the time-of-possession advantage. Duke controlled the ball for 63% of the game. That is going to take a toll on any defense. Duke, on average, forced Loyola to play 40 seconds of defense before they took their first shot, and then they did well enough in backing up those shots to get to the aforementioned 1.07 shots per possession. That is too tall of a task for any defense.And again, the Greyhounds offense was uncharacteristically flat. They ended the game with a 19% efficiency mark.
Let’s talk about Nakeie Montgomery
Q1Q2Q3Q4TotalGoals30104Assists00000Shots31217Shots on Goal30216Shooting Pct100%0%50%0%57%Groundballs10001Turnovers00000EGA2.750.110.580.043.49
Brad Smith ended up as the top EGA guy for Duke, but of his 3.85 total EGA, 2.87 came in the 2nd half, after the game was out of reach.Contrast that with Montgomery’s line. He accumulated 3.49 EGA and 82% of that total came in the first half, courtesy of his 3 goals on 4 shots (and a GB). And much like the homerun is an easier way to generate runs than small-ball, he was able to generate instant offense with 2 unassisted goals.This was far and away his best game of the season, and on a night when Loyola did a pretty good job on Joe Robertson, Coach Danowski will be glad to have the production. A multi-headed offense is an extremely scary offense.