If you haven’t checked out Keith’s post on the game, do so. He has some good thoughts on Levance Fields’ impact this year.

The AP article seems to have generated some annoyance. Let me first point out the obvious, the writer doesn’t get to choose the title of the story. That is left to the editors, and usually at the papers who publish. So if you are pissed about the word “survive,” the ire is misdirected.

Coach Dixon said this about the game.

“Very good win against a very good team, well-coached and a tough athletic group. We just found ways to gut it out. I wouldn’t say we came out and shot the lights out. It wasn’t our prettiest game. It was tough and we battled through. We had guys in foul trouble. Aaron (Gray) and Carl (Krauser) played the whole game with their hands in their pockets. They adjusted and that’s a good thing. We played our usual rotation, playing a lot of guys and it benefited us a lot tonight. We’ll continue to do that. It’s the best thing for this group. So many guys made big plays.”

Nothing to disagree there. It wasn’t pretty. It was, though, the way Pitt wanted to play it. Pitt made Louisville expend a lot of energy at both ends.

Rick Pitino was hilarious at halftime. Some took his comments about the physical play as whining. It was some gamesmanship, and the truth is his team adjusted at the half to play hard. He understands that the Big East is this way.

“That was very physical game. We allowed them to push us around on the glass. This isn’t C-USA, which is a finesse league. This is a football league in a basketball league. This is a tough league. “

Maybe I’m being kind, but I take that sort of comment as a message to his own team, to “get used to it.”

“That was a real tough, physical basketball game. They hurt our zone with the high pick. We were totally prepared for it and didn’t execute it. It comes down to simple execution at the defensive end sometimes and we didn’t execute it. After playing unbelievable defense in the first half, we broke down def. in the 2nd half. It really hurt us in inopportune times. I’m proud of our guys. I thought they played with great heart and great effort. We just get beat by better teams.”

They did play a very solid defense, but Pitt keeps showing an unshakable confidence that they will come back. That they will prevail. We saw it against DePaul. It was there against Notre Dame, Wisconsin and South Carolina. It is infectious.

Pat Forde for ESPN.com (and he lives in Louisville and used to cover the team) was impressed by Pitt — even if most of Pittsburgh hasn’t noticed.

Three questions into his postgame news conference in Freedom Hall, Pittsburgh coach Jamie Dixon had a query of his own:

“What’s the Steelers score?”

The Steelers score was the only score that truly mattered in Pittsburgh on Sunday afternoon, which is too bad for the Panthers. Rarely, if ever, has an undefeated team’s road victory over a top-10 team been more obscured than this one.
…
But while Louisville was undeserving of its top-10 ranking, Pitt is richly deserving of inheriting it. This game afforded the Panthers the right to be taken seriously until someone rises up and beats them.

“We showed how tough we are,” said freshman guard Levance Fields, who fearlessly stuck five big jumpers and scored 13 points off the bench. “We have mental, physical toughness, guys that just want to win. We want to keep going on and on.”

That toughness trait keeps going on and on in the Pittsburgh program. Give the Panthers credit for this much: The rugged, no-frills, defense-and-rebounding grinder approach implemented by Ben Howland has continued unbroken (and un-beautified) under Dixon.

As for the game itself, here’s the advanced numbers.

Pitt
Poss 63.4 Pace Moderate
O-Rating 96.2 D-Rating 89.9 (Eff. Margin +6.3)
eFG% 44.3 PPWS 0.95
A/TO 1.3 TO Rate 18.9% A/B 75.0%
Floor Pct 50.8% FT Prod 26.4

Louisville
Poss 66.6 Pace Moderate
O-Rating 85.6 D-Rating 91.7 (Eff. Margin -6.0)
eFG% 47.9 PPWS 1.01
A/TO 0.6 TO Rate 25.5% A/B 52.6%
Floor Pct 40.0% FT Prod 22.9

Going into the game, Pitt’s possessions in a game (FGA – OR + TO + .475*FTA) was 67.8 and Louisville was 68.7. So, I was minorly annoyed when the announcers talked about how Louisville liked to run more. They really don’t. They like to try and get up court quickly, to set the plays. They don’t run like it’s track meet to take a lot of shots. The way a team like Memphis, UConn or Washington does.

On the Offense and Defense Efficiency Ratings, Pitt wasn’t too far off its average (85.4) on defense but lower on the offense (110.2). Lousiville did a good job on stopping Pitt’s offense, but could not overcome Pitt’s defense. This comes through when you see that Louisville was held significantly below it’s usual offensive efficiency (106.9). Louisville played about it’s normal defense (90.7).

Both teams stress defense first and it showed. Both teams, even with the effective field goal percentage (which weights the 3-point shot), weren’t too far apart on shooting. What made the difference was that Pitt outrebounded on the offensive glass, had more free throws and 4 fewer turnovers.

I continue to be impressed by Pitt’s assist ratio. 15 assists on 20 baskets. That’s just outstanding.

The bench production was huge, once more.