Ohio State Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: I was plenty nervous going into this year (in general) and this game (in particular). You only learn so much about your team before Christmas. But, what a great start to the big ten season.

Basketball has its ups and downs. This was an up. Let’s enjoy it.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW had a good offensive day, a great defensive day, and our best defensive rebounding performance of the year to seal a 22 point blowout.

Pace: The game was a deliberate 59 possessions. That makes it the 11 fewest possessions of the year.

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Most definitely defense, but offense was good too.

OSU scored at .73 PPP. For the year we had been giving up .89. So, they actually scored the third fewest points of the year against us. Only Cal Poly (.65) and Oakland (.68 – yes, we did play a team named Oakland way back when) scored fewer points.

On offense, UW scored 1.10 PPP. We have been averaging 1.15, so scoring was down somewhat. But, 1.10 is more than our in conference scoring rate last year, which was best in conference.

Shooting: UW dominated in all phases of the offense – Outside the arc, inside the arc, and at the line. UW took more threes than usual (48% compared to our usual 35% of FGA's) and hit them.

eFG%: OSU had an eFG% of 37%. Yikes! Going into the game, OSU was at 60.3%, #3 in the nation. Didn’t see that one coming …

Meanwhile, UW cruised to 58% eFG%, better than the 54% we had experienced this year.

3 pt shooting: OSU took 13 3’s and made 4 for 31%. They had been hitting at a stunning 42%, or #22 in the nation.

Meanwhile, UW took 21 and hit 10 for 48%. UW scored a plus 18 points beyond the arc.

2pt shooting: Inside the arc, OSU did not fare much better. OSU was 10 of 30 for 33%. OSU had been hitting an eye-popping 60%, or #2 in the nation. Didn’t see that one coming.

UW took 6 fewer shots (instead they launched 3’s productively) and scored one more basket. UW was 11 of 24 for 46%. UW was actually better from deep than inside today (48% to 46%).

So, UW gained another 2 points from inside.

1pt shooting: UW’s FT defense was great! OSU scored 11 on 19 FTA’s (58%), while UW was a sterling 13 of 16 for 81%. UW picked up our final 2 point advantage at the line.

Lauderdale, Buford, Simmons and Sarikopoulous were a combined 1-6. Sarikopoulous may have set a record for the world’s ugliest FTA in D1 history.

Rebounding: UW had our best defensive rebounding day of the year and worst offensive rebounding day of the year. But, as you know from reading the John Gassaway essay on rebounding, controlling the defensive boards is mission #1. That makes it a good rebounding day.

UW Defensive end: There were 32 rebounding opportunities and OSU only got 4. Wow! UW snarfed up 88% of OSU’s misses. Going into the game we were leading the nation giving up only 24.7% offensive rebounds to our opponents. We should improve that number.

UW Offensive End: UW’s offensive end had 27 opportunities and UW got 6 or 22%. We typically get 33%, which is on the national average. So, that was a rather poor offensive rebounding day, but we had a net advantage given our effectiveness on the other end of the court.

Turnovers: Not much news on turnovers. OSU had 12 TO’s (20%) to UW’s 11 (19%). UW typically turns it over at 16%, which is excellent (#9 nationally) while OSU is also good at 17% (#24 nationally). UW had one extra productive possession, which does not seem like a big deal when you win by 22. But, with a closer game, it matters.

Fouls: Both teams were whistled for 16 fouls. This is our average and 5 fewer than our opponents usually get. This translated into 19 FTA’s for OSU and 16 for UW. We shot better and got one extra point from the line.

The day lost 6 on the “We make more free throws than our opponent attempts” scoreboard. We are now at:

Opp Att. 227

UW Made 207

Difference -20

Playing time: Bo went 8 deep (10 or more minutes). JBO lead the way, again, with 36 minutes. Hughes had 34. Leuer only played 18 (yet we won in blowout – go figure). Evans had 20, Taylor 26 and Wilson played 13.

Notable Performances: Hughes had the best offensive line of the day – 16 points on 10 shots, 3-5 from deep, 3-4 from the line, 7 rebounds. His only blemish was 3 TO’s. Trevon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Leuer got 11 only 5 shots, 1-1 from deep, 4-4 from the line. He also had 3 TO’s.

Taylor had another great day. He scored 12 on 7 shots, 2-4 from deep, 4-5 from the line, and no turnovers. Jordan, I salute you!

JBo and Diebler were locked in an intergalactic matter/antimatter mutual destruction wrestling match. They played the about the same minutes (40 to 36), scored the same (8 points apiece), and had similar shooting days (Diebler 2-7, 1-5 from deep to JBo’s 3-9, 2-7 from deep). Diebler had 3 TO’s and JBo had none. JBo outrebounded Diebler 4-2. JBo added yet another block. Go, JBo. I salute you!

Wilson scored 5 on 2 shots, 1-1 from deep and 2-2 from the line and chipped in 4 rebounds. He was tagged for 1 turnover. But, a quality outing against a quality opponent.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Diebler doesn't reach double digits. Diebler is a great 3-point shooter, but last season he was chased very well by J-Bo and Taylor, and I think that happens again, preventing Diebler from having a solid game. Hit. Diebler had 8 Good call!

2. Leuer scores more than 19. Leuer is a dominant force in the paint and his go-to move of the turnaround fadeaway is unblockable, even by Dallas Lauderdale. Miss. Leuer had 11, but he only played 18 minutes.

3. Badgers attempt more than 15 free throws. Wisconsin gets to the line a lot and OSU doesn't send their opponents to the line. Something's gotta give. Hit. UW tried 16 and made 13.

4. Badgers hold OSU to 54% or less inside the arc. OSU is the second best 2-point shooting team in the country, but Wisconsin is the 42nd best defending it. I think defense wins out on this one. Major hit. OSU hit only 33% from inside the arc. Who saw that coming?

Shetown’s Prediction: The Badgers win their 5th straight, cracking the Bucknuts 67-58 in 62 possessions. Hit. UW did even better 65 to 43 on 59 possessions.

Closing Thoughts: Bo adds to his legend. Not that many years ago beating a top 15 team was a rarity. Now we take it for granted that we will win at home and perhaps sneak one out on the road. We need not lose sight of Bo’s accomplishments.

I expect a whole different game on January 16 when we go to Columbus. That game will be the fourth road game in the next 5 games.

I really don’t think I need an answer to this, but it comes up when we lose, so why not bring it up when we win: Does UW have superior “athletes” to OSU or is athleticism overrated?

Ohio State Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: It’s that time of the year again! The Big Ten basketball season has begun! Wisconsin tips it off with a visit from the Buckeyes of Ohio State. Ohio State is 10-2 with good victories over Florida State and, according to Pomeroy, California. Their losses were to North Carolina on a neutral court and at Butler. Since losing Evan Turner, they have scored 1.13 PPP and given up 0.92 PPP against a good Butler team (34th Pomeroy), a below average Cleveland State team (181st), and 2 terrible Presbyterian and Delaware State teams (319th and 317th respectively). Comparatively, Wisconsin has averages of 1.20 PPP and 0.87 PPP against similar competition (#24 Marquette, #159 UW-M, #264 IPFW, and #327 Grambling).


What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #17 and OSU #22. He makes Wisconsin a 5-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #11 and OSU #18. He predicts a 67-62 Badger victory in 61 possessions and gives the Badgers a 69% chance of winning.

Note to critics: Sagarin and Pomeroy are unable to objectively calculate OSU’s abilities with Evan Turner out, so they don’t.


Ohio State Probable Rotation:
*G – 6’1” SR P.J. Hill (4.8 PPG, 1.7 APG, 1.5 RPG, 85% 2PT, 92% FT)
*G – 6’6” JR Jon Diebler (14.4 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 2.1 APG, 1.1 SPG, 48% 3PT, 91% FT)
*G – 6’5” SO William Buford (12.6 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 3.7 APG, 1.0 SPG)
*F – 6’5” JR David Lighty (14.4 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 3.1 APG, 61% 2PT)
*F – 6’8” JR Dallas Lauderdale (8.5 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 3.2 BPG, 84% 2PT)
G – 6’2” SR Jeremie Simmons (9.3 PPG, 1.5 APG, 1.0 RPG, 51% 3PT, 73% 2PT)
F – 6’9” SR Kyle Madsen (2.5 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 57% 2PT)

G – 6’4” SR Mark Titus (Club Trillion Founder, averages a rounded 3 Tril in 5 games)

This season they have played at a pace of 68 possessions per game, similar to Marquette. They play mostly man-to-man defense but throw in some zone once in a while too. Their defense puts up a ton of glamour stats, with a bunch of forced turnovers, steals, and blocks.

They return everyone from last season’s rotation except for B.J. “I want to grow a porn ‘stache but I have the facial hair growing capabilities of a high school freshman” Mullens, who took his amazing catch, turn, and dunk abilities to the NBA. On a related note, have I ever mentioned how I think it’s ridiculously stupid that the NBA places more value on athleticism and potential over actual skill?


Key Players:

David Lighty – Lighty is the second most aggressive offensive player on the team. He shoots about as often as Ryan Evans. His offensive rating is 109. That’s made due to his great 2-point shooting (61%) but hurt by his 57% free throw shooting. He takes okay care of the ball turning it over 19%. He’s a decent defensive rebounder and pretty good at stealing the ball on D.

William Buford – Buford is the most aggressive offensive player on the team with Turner out. He shoots nearly as often as Leuer and Hughes. Unlike those two though, he only has an above average offensive rating of 104.8. He shoots 41% from 2 and 36% from 3. He also takes great care of the ball, turning it over only 14% of his possessions.

Dallas Lauderdale – While Dallas isn’t much of a threat on offense, taking only 12% of the shots while he’s on the floor (133.4 offensive rating), similar to Jarmusz, he is a force defensively. He blocks 15.2% of all 2-point attempts (6th best in the country) when he’s on the court but averages only 3.7 fouls per 40 minutes. He’s also a very gifted offensive rebounder.


What Ohio State is really good at:

1. Shooting 2s and 3s. OSU is 23rd in the nation at 3s (41.1%) and 2nd in 2s (59.7%).

2. Getting a hand in the face of shooters and altering or blocking shots. The Bucks block one of their opponents’ every six 2-point attempts (14th) and give up 32.1% shooting behind the arc (96th) and 42.3% inside (38th).

3. Pump Faking. They are 10th in the nation at avoiding blocks, with a rate of about 1 block for every 20 2-pointers they attempt.

4. Taking Care of the Ball. They are 24th in the nation with a rate of 17%.

5. Forcing Turnovers. The Buckeyes are 44th in the nation, forcing a rate of 24.1%.

6. Rebounding Defensively. Unlike last season, they are grabbing a great 69.9%, good for 85th.

7. Not sending opponents to the line. They are 22nd in the nation, sending an opponent to the line 26 times for every 100 shot attempts.


What Ohio State is really bad at:

1. Shooting free throws. The Nuts shoot 66.1% from the line, 235th in the nation.

2. Defending free throws. Gone are the glory days of when Terence Dials, Je’Kel Foster, Ron Lewis, and Jamal Butler intimidating opponents into shooting a meager 67%… OSU is giving up 71% at the line, good for 261st. Clearly both of these teams need to recruit more guys capable of better pysche-outs like “Steve Perry” and “I hear your sister’s going out with SQUEAK!”.


Relative efficiency:

When OSU has the ball: OSU has scored an awful 1.15 PPP in their first 12 games, while UW has given up a great 0.90 in their first 12.

When UW has the ball: OSU gave up an average 0.90 in their first 12 games, while UW has scored a great 1.17 in their first 12.


Pace: OSU has played at 68 possessions per game so far in their first 12 games compared to UW’s 64 in their first 12 games.


My expectations:

1. Diebler doesn’t reach double digits. Diebler is a great 3-point shooter, but last season he was chased very well by J-Bo and Taylor, and I think that happens again, preventing Diebler from having a solid game.

2. Leuer scores more than 19. Leuer is a dominant force in the paint and his go-to move of the turnaround fadeaway is unblockable, even by Dallas Lauderdale.

3. Badgers attempt more than 15 free throws. Wisconsin gets to the line a lot and OSU doesn’t send their opponents to the line. Something’s gotta give.

4. Badgers hold OSU to 54% or less inside the arc. OSU is the second best 2-point shooting team in the country, but Wisconsin is the 42nd best defending it. I think defense wins out on this one.


My Prediction: The Badgers win their 5th straight, cracking the Bucknuts 67-58 in 62 possessions.

UIC Box Score Observations (by Turumon)

Opening Comments: UW easily handled UIC 79 to 43. The main reason was poor competition. But, UW had a superior rebounding day.

Breadtree cited an article earlier from John Gassaway (the former BigTen Wonk). Link. I encourage you to read this if you have not done so. He does a good job of laying out the problem of looking at raw rebounding numbers and discussing coaching strategy.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW had its best rebounding day of the year, second best offensive day and second best defensive day to lead to a rout.

Pace: The game was a deliberate 59 possessions, making it the second lowest this year (exceeded only by Milwaukee’s 57). The game could have been speeded up by fouling more and turning the ball over more, but the teams decided to play with fewer mistakes. Remember that when you see more possessions – you often see sloppy play.

Efficiency: UW put up 79 points. That would appear to be a good scoring day for UW. Knowing that there were only 59 possessions, you can see it was a very good day indeed.

UIC scored at .73PPP, the third lowest for our opponents this year (exceeded by Fort Wayne and Cal Poly). Obviously, we need to play some tougher competition to see how good our defense really is.

On the other end, UW scored at 1.34 PPP, our second best of the year (behind Cal Poly’s 1.38).

Shooting: UW took 41% of FG opportunities from beyond the arc (our norm is 34%). But, the pickings were easy. Life is good when the three’s are dropping.

eFG%: UIC shot at 39% compared to UW’s 62%. Our opponents typically shoot at 44% and we have been hitting at 54%.

3 pt shooting: UW invested an extra 9 possessions in three point shots. They turned out to be good investments.

UIC tried 14 and made 3, or 21%. UW tried 9 more (23 attempts) and made 8 more. UW was 11 for 23 or 48% and picked up 24 points from deep.

I recognize that UIC is a weak opponent, but I wonder how many zones we will see this year (also, look at rebounding numbers)?

2pt shooting: Inside the arc, UIC tried 36 shots and UW 33. But, despite taking 3 fewer attempts, UW scored 3 extra baskets. UIC made 15 (42%) while UW made 18 (55%). UW picked up another 6 points inside.

1pt shooting: UW won both the quantity and quality awards from the line. UIC was 4-6 for 67% and UW 10-14 for 71%. UW picked up our final 6 points at the line.

Rebounding: UW won the rebounding battle on both ends of the floor decisively.

UW Defensive end: There were 33 rebounding opportunities and UW successfully defended the glass getting 27 and leaving 6 for UIC. UW held UIC to 18%, which is excellent. The national average is 33% and UW is typically an excellent 26%.

UW Offensive End: UW crashed the boards and grabbed 50% of the offensive rebounding opportunities. Yikes! There were 26 chances and UW got 13. That was our best performance of the year.

Turnovers: UIC had 12 TO’s, or 20% of possessions. UW had 9 or 15%, which is slightly better than our typically excellent 16%. That gave UW an extra 3 possessions from turnovers. When you win by 36, 3 extra possessions do not seem like much. In a close game, they are critical.

Fouls: UIC had only 17 fouls, four fewer than our opponent’s typical 21. UW had only 11, which is better than our typical 16.

Playing time: Bo played 9 players 10 or more minutes. Besides the starters, Taylor 21, Evans 16, Wilson 16, and Bruesewitz 13. Nankivil only played 14.

Notable Performances: Needless to say, there were many good offensive performances and I will only mention a few. Leuer was Leuer, which means he was excellent. He scored 17 on 8 FGA’s, 4-4 from the line, 7 rebounds. If he is half as effective in B10 play, he will be fantastic.

Evans made some shots today. Ryan was 5-7, 5 rebounds, and scored 10. Great job!

Bohannon found his stroke, and then some. He scored 15 on 8 shots, 5-6 from deep, grabbed a couple of boards, and blocked yet another shot. JBO is becoming the Bill Russell of B10 guards. JBO, my people will probably question why we scheduled UIC when we meet at the campfire, but you will get many a mention as well the way you knocked down those threes.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions:

1. Badgers dominate the glass, grabbing 75% or more of the defensive rebounding opportunities and 35% or more of the offensive. UIC is a terrible rebounding team and UW isn’t. Plain and simple. Hit. UW dominated both ends grabbing 82% on defense, 50% on offense.

2. Neely and Kreps combine for 20 points or less. Both of them are not efficient offensively and having the likes of Trevon Hughes and Jordan Taylor guarding them will make them even less effective. Miss. They scored 24 but needed 27 shots to do it.

3. UIC attempts less than 10 free throws. They normally don’t get to the line much, and the Badgers are better than average at not sending teams to the line. Add it together, and I think they have a legit shot at making the “make more than opponents’ attempt” become true again after this game. Hit. They shot only 6. Nice gutsy prediction that came home.

4. Trevon Hughes scores more than 15. From what I can tell, their guards are bad, and Pop always makes bad guards look horrible. Narrow Miss. Pop got 12 on 9 FGA’s. But then Hughes only played 22 minutes. Factor in JBO (15) and Taylor (11) and it is clear that your point was correct.

5. The Badgers turn it over less than 15% of the time. UIC forces a lot of turnovers, but I doubt it affects the Badgers at all. Major miss. They turned it over 15%. Next time be sure to say 15% or less J

Shetown’s Prediction: The Badgers win their 4th straight, drowning the Flames 78-49 in 65 possessions. Hit. 79-43 in 59 possessions. Good guess.

Closing Thoughts: I have come to believe that D1 basketball needs to reduce the number of teams (conferences). There are too many buy games. If there were 1/3 fewer conferences, the big teams would have to play each other and leave home once in awhile.

The problem is that you learn so little about your team. Is our defense good? Is our offense good? To answer these questions, one needs to exclude buy games.

It is tempting to draw conclusions based upon this game, but they are likely unwarranted due to the competition. From here on out, we are playing with real bullets and everything will be much tougher, obviously.

We now are entering my favorite time in the sporting calendar.

Illinois-Chicago Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: Happy Holidays, whether it be Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus, what have you! After a close but somewhat comfortable win against UW-Milwaukee, the Badgers are set to take on the Flames of Illinois-Chicago. The Flames are 3-7, projected to go 8-20, although only have a 40% chance or better in 3 of their remaining 18 games. Our game is not one of them. According to Ken Pomeroy, they are only a bit better than IPFW, Cal Poly, and Grambling. It’s a quintessential buy game.


What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #17 and UIC #256. He makes Wisconsin a 24-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #20 and UIC #248. He predicts a 76-52 Badger victory in 64 possessions and gives the Badgers a 99% chance of winning.


Illinois-Chicago Probable Rotation:
*G – 6’0” JR Robo Kreps (15.1 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 2.1 APG, 1.1 SPG, 85% FT)
*G – 6’1” SO Zavion Neely (14.2 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 1.9 SPG, 1.7 APG)
*G – 6’4” SR Spencer Stewart (3.8 PPG, 6.2 APG, 3.0 RPG)
*F – 6’7” SR Jeremy Buttell (9.8 PPG, 6.4 RPG, 56.7% 2PT)
*F – 6’7” JR Brad Birton (5.4 PPG, 5.6 RPG, 1.4 SPG)
C – 6’11” JR K.C. Robbins (4.1 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 8.8 fouls per 40 min)
G – 6’3” SR Chris Buchanan (3.6 PPG, 1.2 RPG)
C – 6’9” FR Louis Green (0.9 PPG, 2.0 RPG)
G – 5’10” FR Corey Gray (1.8 PPG)

This season they have played at a pace of 68 possessions per game, similar to Marquette. They play a mix of defenses, forcing quite a few turnovers. Their rotation is an enigma from game to game, as 5 players average between 6 and 10 minutes, and only 1 of those 5 have played in all 10 of their games.


Key Players:

Robo Kreps – Robo is the most aggressive shot taker on the team, attempting shots as often as Hughes and Leuer. However, he’s not a great shooter. He’s a great free throw shooter, but he’s a below average 31.6% from 3 and a poor 38% inside the arc. He does have a decent turnover rate at 15.4%, all adding up for a below average 95.6 offensive rating. He’s a pretty good defensive rebounder for a guard too.

Zavion Neely – Neely is the second most aggressive shooter on the team. He is also not a very talented shooter. He shoots 46% from 2 and 19% from 3. He turns it over an okay 18.6% of the time, altogether for an offensive rating of 91.2. He goes to the free throw 5 times for every 11 field goal attempts.

Jeremy Buttell – Buttell is not a very aggressive offensive player, but he’s the only player on the team with an offensive rating above Kreps, at 116.2. He’s an okay rebounder, around the same level as Hughes and Bohannon. He shoots 57% from 2, 32% from 3, and 72% from the line.


What Illinois-Chicago is really good at:

1. Forcing turnovers. The Flames are 81st in the nation at forcing turnovers, 23%. Nearly half of those turnovers are forced via steals, as IUC is 104th in steals at 10.9%.

2. Defending 3-pointers. Their opponents’ shoot 31.3% from 3-point range, 81st in the nation.


What Illinois-Chicago is really bad at:

1. Blocking shots. UIC block only 5.2% of their opponents’ 2s, good for 303rd in the nation.

2. Shooting 2s and 3s. They are 314th at shooting 3s, at 28.3%, and 290th at 2s, shooting 43.1%.

3. Rebounding. The Flames only grab 30.2% of their offensive rebounding opportunities (253rd) and give up 37.6% on the defensive end (308th).

4. Pump Faking. UIC are 241st at avoiding getting their 2s blocked, having one blocked about every 9 attempted.

5. Getting to the foul line. The Flames attempt only 3 free throws every 10 field goal attempts, 305th in the nation.


Relative efficiency:

When UIC has the ball: UIC has scored an awful 0.90 PPP in their first 10 games, while UW has given up a great 0.93 in their first 11.

When UW has the ball: UIC gave up an average 1.00 in their first 10 games, while UW has scored a great 1.13 in their first 11.


Pace: UIC has played at 68 possessions per game so far in their first 10 games compared to UW’s 64 in their first 11 games.


My expectations:

1. Badgers dominate the glass, grabbing 75% or more of the defensive rebounding opportunities and 35% or more of the offensive. UIC is a terrible rebounding team and UW isn’t. Plain and simple.

2. Neely and Kreps combine for 20 points or less. Both of them are not efficient offensively and having the likes of Trevon Hughes and Jordan Taylor guarding them will make them even less effective.

3. UIC attempts less than 10 free throws. They normally don’t get to the line much, and the Badgers are better than average at not sending teams to the line. Add it together, and I think they have a legit shot at making the “make more than opponents’ attempt” become true again after this game.

4. Trevon Hughes scores more than 15. From what I can tell, their guards are bad, and Pop always makes bad guards look horrible.

5. The Badgers turn it over less than 15% of the time. UIC forces a lot of turnovers, but I doubt it affects the Badgers at all.


My Prediction: The Badgers win their 4th straight, drowning the Flames 78-49 in 65 possessions.

UW-Milwaukee Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: The Badgers were a bit sluggish as might be expected coming off of finals and having a lackluster crowd due to the holidays and weather. As you may have noticed I'm doing thise instead of turumon. He's enjoying the holidays but will make a triumphant return.

Pace: The game was a snail's pace 57 possessions, which is 8 below our season average.

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Most definitely the offense.

When UW-M had the ball, they scored at 1.02 PPP.

When UW had the ball, we scored at 1.19 PPP.

Shooting:

eFG%: UW-M was a respectable 52% while UW was an okay 49%. So how did the Badgers come out on top comfortably with a one shot difference in field goal attempts?

UW typically holds opponents to 44% and score at 53%.

3 pt shooting: UW-M was a good 6/15 or 40% from deep. UW typically holds opponents to 32%. Meanwhile, UW was a bad 4/16 for 25%, well below our average of 36%. UW-M picked up 6 points outside the arc.

2pt shooting: UW-M tried 35 shots inside the arc. They made 17 or 49%. UW tried 35 shots inside the arc too, connecting on 19 or 54%. UW picked up 4 points inside the arc.

1pt shooting: Our free throw defense was outstanding for once. UW-M hit 6 of 12 for 50%. Meanwhile, UW was a sizzling 18 of 20 for 90%. This was the game, as UW picked up 12 points at the line.

Rebounding: UW won the raw rebounding battle 31 to 25.

UW Defensive end: There were 28 rebounding opportunities and UW got 22 or gave up 21%. For the year, our opponents have grabbed 26%. Score a major win for UW.

UW Offensive End: There were 28 rebounding opportunities on UW’s offensive end. UW grabbed 9 or 32%, right at our average for the season.

Turnovers: UW-M coughed up 7 turnovers for a great 12% TO Rate. Ouch. Our opponents typically are at 20%.

Meanwhile, UW, not to be out done, had 6 for 11%. This is better than our typically excellent 17%. Should have been 5, but Trevon inbounded the ball to a UW-M to end the game.

Fouls: UW-M had 22 and UW 13. The norms are 22 for our opponents and 17 for UW.

Playing time: Bo played 6 players 10 or more minutes, with Jordan Taylor getting 32 minutes. Ryan Evans played 8 minutes and Mike Bruesewitz had 4.

Notable Performances: Jon Leuer scored 25 points on 11 of 14 shooting, with 6 boards and 2 blocks. Campfires... turumon's people...

Jordan Taylor and Keaton Nankivil both scored 14 apiece very efficiently.

Grading My Predictions

1. Badgers assert the inside game taking more than 40 2s and shooting them at 54% or better Foul tip. I got the shooting percentage right, but they only took 35.

2. J-BO stays hot, scoring 13 or more and hitting 45% or better from 3. Miss. He scored 4 points on 1 of 4 from 3.

3. Badgers hold the Panthers to 43% or less shooting inside the arc. Miss. UW-M hit 49%.

Score: The Badgers win 83-59 in 67 possessions. Miss. UW wins 68-58 in 57 possessions.

The “We make more FT than our opponents attempt” Scoreboard

A critical part of the Badger drinking game, that has been lost for a year and a half, is UW making more FT than our opponents attempt. Here is the latest:

Opponents

FTM 150

FTA 202

% 74%

UW

FTM 184

FTA 252

% 73%

Opponents Attempted: 202, UW Made: 184, Deficit: 18

Closing Thoughts: This game went as most expected, with Wisconsin leading but never really breaking it open. Up next are the Flames of IUC. Should be a barnburner, pun intended. Until next time, have a wonderful holiday season and for those of you in the many bad weather areas, have safe travels.

UW-Milwaukee Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: The Badgers will shake off the rust of a week off and final exams with a match-up with the Panthers of UW-Milwaukee. After a thorough destruction of Cal Poly, I expect the Badgers to be a bit tight but win comfortably.


Forums to Visit:

UWM Freak


What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #15 and Milwaukee #168. He makes Wisconsin an 18-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #14 and Milwaukee #186. He predicts a 77-56 Badger victory in 63 possessions and gives the Badgers a 98% chance of winning.


UW-M Probable Rotation:
*G – 6’1” SR Ricky Franklin (14.6 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 3.6 APG, 1.3 SPG, 64.9% 2PT)
*G – 6’2” JR Jerard Ajami (2.8 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 1.3 APG)
*G – 6’3” JR Deonte Roberts (7.8 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 1.7 APG, 48.4% 2PT)
*F – 6’7” SR James Eayrs (13.3 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 1.4 APG, 47.6% 2PT)
*F – 6’8” SO Tony Meier (6.8 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 69% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’3” FR Lonnie Boga (6.9 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 50% 2PT, 50% 3PT)
F – 6’6” SR Jason Averkamp (3.6 PP, 3.2 RPG)
G – 6’0” FR Patrick Souter (3.9 PPG, 1.5 RPG, 46.9% 2PT)
G – 6’0” FR Ja’Rob McCallum (6.6 PPG, 2.1 RPG, 50% 3PT)
F – 6’7” JR Anthony Hill (5.1 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 1.0 APG)

This season they have played at a pace of 68 possessions per game, similar to Marquette. They play man-to-man defense, not forcing many turnovers or blocking many shots.


Key Players:

Ricky Franklin – Franklin is the second most aggressive offensive player for UW-M, taking shots about as often as Hughes did last season. He also has an offensive rating comparable to Hughes, as he sits at 108.7, about 2 below Pop. He shoots a below average 31% from 3, a great 65% from 2, and 75% from the stripe (and getting there often, about 3 times per 7 FGAs). He takes about an equal balance of 2s and 3s and is a decent defensive rebounder for a guard.

James Eayrs – Eayrs is the most aggressive offensive player on the team, shooting about as often as Hughes and Leuer. Unfortunately for UW-M, his offensive rating is only 102.3, or comparable to Lazar Hayward. He is an inside-outside threat, as he has shot 57 threes (28.1%) to go with 82 twos (47.6%). He’s a decent free throw shooter at 77% and gets there somewhat often, taking nearly 1 free throw per 3 field goal attempts. He takes great care of the ball (15% TO rate) and is a decent rebounder on both ends.


What UW-M is really good at:

1. Free throw shooting. The Panthers are 100th in the nation at shooting freebies, knocking down 70.9%.

2. Pump faking. Their opponents’ block only 1 of out 13 of the Panthers' 2-pointers, good for 81st in the nation.

3. Defensive rebounding. Milwaukee grabs 74.7% of all misses on the defensive end, good for 4th in the nation.


What UW-M is really bad at:

1. Blocking shots. Rob Jeter’s bunch block only 5.1% of their opponents’ 2-pointers, good for 308th in the nation.

2. Free throw defense. Both of the UW’s need to recruit better distracters and taunters for free throws. UW-M gives up 72.4%, not nearly as bad as UW, but still 288th.

3. Defending inside the arc. The Panthers are 244th in defending 2-pointers, giving up a bad 50.1%.


Relative efficiency:

When UW-M has the ball: UW-M has scored an average 1.02 PPP in their first 7 games, while UW has given up a good 0.92 in their first 10.

When UW has the ball: UW-M gave up an okay 0.99 in their first 7 games, while UW has scored a great 1.13 in their first 10.


Pace: UW-M has played at 68 possessions per game so far in their first 7 games compared to UW’s 65 in their first 10 games.


My Predictions:

1. Badgers assert their inside game, shooting more than 40 2-pointers at a clip above 54%. The Badgers have much stronger inside play, and will force the issue in this part of the game.

2. Bohannon continues his hot shooting, knocking down more 45% of his threes and scores at least 13. With a week of rest and the confidence of coming off a 4/6 from triple performance, J-Bo keeps rolling.

3. Badgers hold the Panthers to 43% or less shooting inside the arc. They have been shooting below average inside the arc and I like the Badgers to continue that.



My Score: The Badgers dominate from start to finish, handing the Panthers an 83-59 loss in 67 possessions.

Cal Poly Post-Game News Articles

Badger Herald #1
Badger Herald #2
madison.com #1
madison.com #2
uwbadgers.com #1
uwbadgers.com #2
uwbadgers.com #3
gopoly.com
sanluisobispo.com

Cal Poly Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: It was a fine day at the Kohl health spa for the Badger’s offense. See Link for box score.

Summarizing the game in a few words: Think up a phase of the game and UW was superior (except, or course, FT defense).

Pace: The game was a traditional 65 possessions, which is on our average for the year.

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Both, in major doses.

When Cal Poly had the ball, they scored at .65 PPP. That was best this year beating Oakland’s .68 PPP.

When UW had the ball, we scored at 1.38 PPP, the best this year. The previous best was 1.27 versus Grambling.

Shooting: Wow. It is amazing how many points you can score when the opponent chooses not to guard you at the arc and cannot guard you inside the arc.

eFG%: Cal Poly was held to 40% while UW stroked baskets at a stunning 74%. Yikes!

UW typically holds opponents to 44% and score at 53%.

3 pt shooting: Cal Poly was a respectable 4/14 or 29% from deep. UW typically holds opponents to 32%. Meanwhile, UW was a stunning 13/24 for 54%, besting our average of 36%. This makes a eFG% of 81% outside the arc. UW picked up 27 points outside the arc.

2pt shooting: Since outside the arc was not working real well, Cal Poly tried 33 shots inside the arc. They made 13 or 39%. UW tried only 27 shots inside the arc, fewest of the year. But, UW made 18 or 67%. We usually get 53%. UW picked up another 10 points inside the arc.

1pt shooting: Our free throw defense was abysmal again. Cal Poly hit 4 of 5 for 80%. Meanwhile, UW was 15 of 19 for 72%.

This problem with free throw defense must be laid at the feet of the students. They need to come up with a new strategy. Perhaps next week after finals are over, they could get to work on that.

Rebounding: UW won the raw rebounding battle 29 to 22.

UW Defensive end: There were 29 rebounding opportunities and UW got 24 or gave up 17%. For the year, our opponents have grabbed 26%. Score a major win for UW.

Given how poorly Cal Poly shot, I thought there would be more than 7 extra rebounding opportunities. To understand, see the turnovers.

UW Offensive End: There were only 22 rebounding opportunities on UW’s offensive end. UW grabbed 5 or 23%. Our norm is 32% this year, which is about the national average but higher than previous years.

Turnovers: Cal Poly coughed up 22 turnovers for an incredible 34% TO Rate. Ouch. Our opponents typically are at 20%.

Meanwhile, UW had 9 for 14%. This is better than our typically excellent 17%. That puts us up +19 for the year (+13 here and +6 against MU).

Fouls: Cal Poly had 19 and UW 12. The norms are 22 for our opponents and 17 for UW.

Playing time: Bo played 8 players 10 or more minutes but no one played more than 27 (once more, JBO lead the way with 27 minutes). Rob Wilson got 18 and Ian Markolf took off the red shirt.

Notable Performances: There are more good performances than I feel like listing. Here are some one liners:

• Hughes 20 points on 10 shots, 4-5 from deep, 6 boards, 0 TO’s, 4 steals
• JBO 4-5 from deep, 12 points three boards
• Leuer missed his third straight dub dub my scoring 15 on 10 shots, 8 rebounds
• Evans scored 8 on 2-3 FGA, 4-6 from the line
• Taylor got 9 on 2-5 from the floor, 4-4 from the line
• Keaton scored 12 on 4-6 from the floor, 2-4 from deep, 2-2 from the line, 6 boards in 23 minutes

When my people gather around the campfire, we will wonder why we bothered to play this game.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Badgers hold onto the ball, getting the ball stolen only 8% or less. Cal Poly’s pressure has forced many steals, but I think Wisconsin’s veteran guards nullify that strength. Hit. Cal Poly had 2 steals for 3%.

2. Jon Leuer continues to dominate, scoring 20 or more points if he plays long enough. Cal Poly doesn’t have the front line to stop him. Miss, sort of. He did not play enough. He got 15 in 23 minutes.

4. Badgers hold the Mustangs to 40% or less shooting inside the arc. They have been shooting about average inside the arc but I like the Badgers to shut them down inside. Hit. That was a very aggressive estimate. Cal Poly was at 39%.

5. The Badgers don’t give up a free throw rate above 35. Cal Poly gets to the line a ton, but I think Wisconsin is much more disciplined defensively than their previous opponents. Hit. They took 5 FTA and 47 FGA (33 twos, 14 threes). That put them at 10%.

6. The student section defends the free throw line better, holding them to 66% or less. The student section needs to improve on their 11th worst in the nation and I think a below average free throw shooting Cal Poly team that played South Dakota State less than 24 hours before their date at Wisconsin is ripe for bad free throw shooting. Major miss. Cal Poly as at 80%. This must be stopped.

Score: The Badgers keep rolling, downing the Mustangs 81-54 in 65 possessions. Hit. UW wins 90-42 in 65 possessions.

The “We make more FT than our opponents attempt” Scoreboard

A critical part of the Badger drinking game, that has been lost for a year and a half, is UW making more FT than our opponents attempt. Here is the latest:

Opponents

FTM 144

FTA 190

% 76%

UW

FTM 166

FTA 232

% 72%

Opponents Attempted: 190, UW Made: 166, Deficit: 24

Closing Thoughts: Did you hear that Jeronne Maymon quit are Marquette?

I understand that UW sold 17,000 plus tickets but I wonder if the team would have advanced farther if they simply had a practice. The money is nice, but it would be great to get a more competitive opponent. I know there are difficulties trying to schedule, but this game was hardly worth playing.

Bruce Benson

Cal Poly Pre-Game News Articles

madison.com
gopoly.com

Wow, I can't find anything else.

Players Plus/Minus Overall Through 8 Games (sans UW-GB)

Trevon Hughes = +72
Keaton Nankivil = +60
Jordan Taylor = +59
Jon Leuer = +57
Jason Bohannon = +55
Ryan Evans = +48
Jared Berggren = +44
Rob Wilson = +28
Tim Jarmusz = +25
Dan Fahey = 0
Mike Bruesewitz = -3
Brett Valentyn = -3
J.P. Gavinski = -4
Wquinton Smith = -5

Evaluation: Hughes is where everyone thought he'd be. I'm kinda surprised by Keaton and Jordan being #2 and #3. I would've figured Jon would be closer to Pop too. The most shocking are probably Berggren's ridiculous number considering his low amount of playing time and Tim's low number. I know Tim is what you would call selective on offense, I figured he'd still be up there with J-Bo and Evans.

Very Belated Plus/Minuses From Previous Games (Nuclear Badger)

IPFW Game
Jon Leuer = +29
Trevon Hughes = +27
Jason Bohannon = +20
Keaton Nankivil = +18
Jared Berggren = +16
Jordan Taylor = +15
Trevon Hughes = +14
Ryan Evans = +8
Tim Jarmusz = +3
Rob Wilson = -2

Oakland Game
Trevon Hughes = +18
Ryan Evans = +13
Jon Leuer = +12
Keaton Nankivil = +12
Jordan Taylor = +12
Jared Berggren = +8
Rob Wilson = +6
Tim Jarmusz = +3
Jason Bohannon = +2
Mike Bruesewitz = -5

Arizona Game
Jason Bohannon = +11
Keaton Nankivil = +10
Jon Leuer = +6
Rob Wilson = +3
Ryan Evans = +3
Trevon Hughes = +2
Tim Jarmusz = -1
Jared Berggren = -1
Mike Bruesewitz = -5
Jordan Taylor = -8

Gonzaga Game
Rob Wilson = +1
Mike Bruesewitz = -3
Jon Leuer = -4
Keaton Nankivil = -8
Ryan Evans = -8
Trevon Hughes = -9
Jordan Taylor = -9
Tim Jarmusz = -9
Jason Bohannon = -16

Maryland Game
Mike Bruesewitz = +13
Trevon Hughes = +8
Keaton Nankivil = +7
Rob Wilson = +7
Ryan Evans = +5
Jared Berggren = +4
Jordan Taylor = +3
Jason Bohannon = +2
Tim Jarmusz = -1
Jon Leuer = -3

Duke Game
Trevon Hughes = +9
Tim Jarmusz = +9
Keaton Nankivil = +2
Jordan Taylor = +1
Jared Berggren = +1
Jason Bohannon = 0
Ryan Evans = 0
Mike Bruesewitz = 0
Jon Leuer = -2

Grambling State
Jason Bohannon = +36
Jordan Taylor = +31
Trevon Hughes = +26
Keaton Nankivil = +19
Ryan Evans = +18
Rob Wilson = +15
Jared Berggren = +15
Jon Leuer = +12
Tim Jarmusz = +8
Dan Fahey = 0
Mike Bruesewitz = -3
J.P. Gavinski = -4
Brett Valentyn = -4
Wquinton Smith = -4

Marquette Game
Jordan Taylor = +14
Tim Jarmusz = +13
Ryan Evans = +9
Jon Leuer = +7
Trevon Hughes = +4
Keaton Nankivil = 0
Jason Bohannon = 0
Rob Wilson = -2


Whew. Nuclear does a great job with these. I just did the Grambling one, my god, that's time consuming.

Jeronne Maymon Leaves Marquette

Normally I wouldn't post something about other teams, but this event could affect UW recruiting in the future.

Jeronne Maymon, a Marquette freshman forward, announced that he was leaving the team effective immediately yesterday. He had been averaging 4 points and 4.2 boards in about 16 minutes coming off the bench. Early reports indicate that he is leaving due to broken promises made by head coach Buzz Williams, including 25-30 minutes per game, a starting spot, being a key part of the offense, and being able to play small forward and maybe some shooting guard. However, Maymon was, as previously stated, receiving less than 15 minutes of playing time most games, came off the bench, as involved in the offense as a Tim Jarmusz, and playing center for most of the time, with probably no playing time at the 2 or 3 at all. More news should come out tomorrow from a press conference with Jeronne and his father Tim. Where ever J-May lands (early speculation is Tennessee), I wish him the best of luck.

Now, what does this have to do with Wisconsin, other than taking schadenfreude over Marquette's woes? There's two big things...

1. This is the more fun one to speculate about, but not very likely to happen... Vander Blue comes back to the University of Wisconsin. When he decided to commit to Marquette, he said, "Jeronne being there was a big plus. We have been playing together since third grade. We are more than friends, it is a brotherly love with us. Some kids would get jealous of the way we worked together, but we both want to be successful and we will always push each other. I know we will always have each other’s support and love. He told me he would take me under his wing, and he also told me it wouldn’t be a cake walk. He said there would be good days and bad, and that there would be breakdowns, but that we would fight through everything together.”

Now Jeronne no longer being there might not being a good enough factor to leave Marquette, but what Jeronne tells him about Coach Williams breaking promises might. Blue was quoted saying, "Coach Williams told me you can't just put a number on someone. He said players have to play, so it might be at the 1, at the 2, or even against a smaller lineup the 3." Given Marquette's current roster for the next season, I really doubt Vander sees any time at the 1 and not much at the 2. Marquette has had a 3 or 4 guard line-up for nearly a decade, and unless Buzz changes his recruiting priorities, tall 1s/short 2s like Vander are going to be stuck at the small forward spot, much like Maymon being stuck at the center despite being a 3/4. That isn't conducive to Vander getting the NBA as a point guard. Meanwhile, Bo Ryan would have him play mostly 1, and some 2 mixed in, maybe the 3 occasionally if he goes to the 3-guard line-up that he's been successful with so far this season.

2. That leads me to the bigger and significantly more likely outcome from this... Wisconsin having an edge in recruiting head to head with Marquette. Any kid in Wisconsin being recruited by the two schools will likely second guess any promises made by Buzz Williams due to his broken ones with Jeronne. In the back of their head, they'll question if Buzz is just saying whatever it takes to get the kid to commit to his program. Conversely, Bo has a no frills attitude, refusing to make any promises regarding to playing time, starting spots, etc. I really think the Maymons are going to hurt Marquette's recruiting ability in the Midwest. Which is good for Wisconsin.

Marquette Game Plus/Minus

And late breaking news, Jeronne Maymon has left the Marquette basketball program. More on this and it's implications tomorrow.

Cal Poly Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: After rebounding well against the Gold of Marquette, Wisconsin faces the Missed Extra Points of Cal Poly. Cal Poly is 2-5 on the season, with their only victories at home. Wisconsin may overlook this game with finals starting the next day, but luckily Cal Poly will be coming of off a game the night before in South Dakota, so they’ll be a bit tired and may not have prepared as much for the game as they’d like. All in all, it should be an easy victory for the Badgers.


Forums to Visit:

Forum

What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #27 and Cal Poly #236. He makes Wisconsin a 21-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #36 and Cal Poly #226. He predicts a 78-57 Badger victory in 62 possessions and gives the Badgers a 97% chance of winning.


Cal Poly Probable Rotation:
*G – 6’0” FR Kyle Odister (8.6 PPG, 1.9 APG, 1.4 SPG, 52.2% 3PT)
*G – 6’2” SR Lorenze Keeler (12.3 PPG, 1.6 RPG, 1.4 APG)
*G – 6’4” JR Shawn Lewis (9.1 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 2.3 APG, 1.0 BPG)
*F – 6’5” SO Jordan Lewis (8.0 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 59% 2PT)
*C – 6’8” SO Will Donahue (11.7 PPG, 8.3 RPG, 1.1 APG, 66.7% 2PT)
F – 6’5” SO David Hanson (6.3 PPG, 3.4 RPG, 1.1 APG, 56.5% 2PT)
G – 5’11” SO Justin Brown (6.1 PPG, 1.0 APG, 1.0 SPG, 50% 3PT)
G – 6’6” SR Charles Anderson (3.3 PPG, 1.9 RPG)
F – 6’6” JR Will Taylor (5.0 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 9.8 fouls per 40 min)

This season they have played at a pace of 69 possessions per game, similar to Marquette. They play man-to-man defense, not forcing many turnovers ,or blocking many shots, but get a lot of steals. They are returning 59.8% of their minutes, 51.2% of their rebounding, and 52.9% of their scoring from last season’s 7-21 team.


Key Players:

Shawn Lewis – Shawn Lewis is the most likely person to end a possession that plays more than 13 minutes per game. This is great for Wisconsin, as he has a terrible offensive rating of 83.9, due to his poor shooting ability. He has shot 6.7% from 3 (1 of 15), 41.3% inside the arc, and an average 69.7% from the line. He makes up for this inadequacy by getting to the charity stripe very often, attempting about 7 free throws to every 13 field goal attempts.
He’s a decent defensive rebounder, grabbing 14.4% of all opportunities when he’s on the court (similar to Nankivil). He also is about average at turning the ball over, coughing it up 20.0% of possessions that he ends.

Lorenzo Keeler – Keeler is a scorer who can’t shoot well. He’s hitting a poor 40.6% inside the arc and 25% outside of it, but a great 83.7% from the line. Unfortunately, he takes advantage of his strength. Taking nearly 2 free throws for every 3 shot attempts. He also is pretty good at taking care of the ball, turning it over only 18.1% of his possessions. All this adds up to a slightly below average offensive rating of 97.5. He is a very poor rebounding, especially on offense.

Will Donahue – This is a rather odd player to me. He’s a center, yet he plays the most minutes on the team. He’s an extremely efficient scorer, yet he is the least aggressive starter on offense. He’s an outstanding defensive rebounder, yet he’s terrible on the offensive end, especially by comparison. His offensive rating is a ridiculous 123.5. Luckily, he is very passive on offense, only taking up 16.6% of his team’s possessions while on the court. He shoots a great 66.7% from 2 and gets about 9 free throws every 13 field goal attempts (shoots only 54.5% though). He also doesn’t turn the ball over, only coughing it up once every 9 personal possessions. Lastly, he rebounds 26.2% of all defensive rebounding opportunities, a rate better than Butch and Krabbenhoft at their best.


What Cal Poly is really good at:

1. Not turning the ball over. The Mustangs are 36th in the nation at taking care of the ball, turning it over only 17.6% of the time. Wisconsin is at 17.1%.

2. Pump faking. Their opponents’ block only 1 of out 16 of the Mustang’s 2-pointers, good for 42nd in the nation. Wisconsin gets 1 out of 13 of their 2-pointers blocked.

3. Getting to the free throw line. Cal Poly gets to the free throw line once every two shots attempted, good for 23rd in the nation. Wisconsin is 67th with 4 for every 9 shots attempted.

4. Stealing the ball. The Mustangs get a steal almost once every 7 defensive possessions, good for 14th in the nation. Oddly enough, they are pretty bad at forcing turnovers overall though, since 73% of the turnovers they force are said steals. Comparatively, Wisconsin’s forced turnovers are 46% steals.
What Cal Poly is really bad at:

1. Blocking shots. The Horses block only 6.9% of their opponents’ 2-pointers, only good for 250th in the nation.

2. Dribbling and passing. Even though they don’t turn it over a lot, they get their pockets picked often. Nearly one of every 9 offensive possessions end in a steal, good for 248th. Those steals make up 62% of their turnovers.

3. Defending inside the arc. The Mustangs are 319th in defending 2-pointers, giving up a miserable 55.1%.

4. Defending outside the arc. The Mustangs are 277th in defending 3’s, giving a bad 37.6%.

5. Keeping their opponent’s off the foul line. Remember how great Cal Poly is at getting to the charity stripe? Their opponents are better. Their opponents get 9 free throw attempts to every 17 field goal attempts, good for 327th from Cal Poly’s perspective.

6. Forcing turnovers. Even though they force a ton of steals, they don’t force a ton overall. They get a little less than one turnover every 5 defensive possessions (19.6%), good for 240th. Wisconsin is 286th by forcing a turnover 18.1% of the time.

7. Shooting 3’s. They shoot 31.5% from 3, good for 232nd.


Relative efficiency:

When Cal Poly has the ball: Cal Poly has scored an average 1.02 PPP in their first 7 games, while UW has given up a good 0.95 in their first 9.

When UW has the ball: Cal Poly gave up a horrible 1.13 in their first 7 games, while UW has scored a great 1.10 in their first 9.


Pace: Cal Poly has played at 69 possessions per game so far in their first 7 games compared to UW’s 64 in their first 9 games.

My Predictions:

1. Badgers hold onto the ball, getting the ball stolen only 8% or less. Cal Poly’s pressure has forced many steals, but I think Wisconsin’s veteran guards nullify that strength.

2. Jon Leuer continues to dominate, scoring 20 or more points if he plays long enough. Cal Poly doesn’t have the front line to stop him.

4. Badgers hold the Mustangs to 40% or less shooting inside the arc. They have been shooting about average inside the arc but I like the Badgers to shut them down inside.

5. The Badgers don’t give up a free throw rate above 35. Cal Poly gets to the line a ton, but I think Wisconsin is much more disciplined defensively than their previous opponents.

6. The student section defends the free throw line better, holding them to 66% or less. The student section needs to improve on their 11th worst in the nation and I think a below average free throw shooting Cal Poly team that played South Dakota State less than 24 hours before their date at Wisconsin is ripe for bad free throw shooting.

Score: The Badgers keep rolling, downing the Mustangs 81-54 in 65 possessions.

Marquette Post-Game News Articles

madison.com #1
madison.com #2
madison.com #3
jsonline.com #1
jsonline.com #2
jsonline.com #3
jsonline.com #4
jsonline.com #5
jsonline.com #6
uwbadgers.com #1
uwbadgers.com #2
uwbadgers.com #3
uwbadgers.com #4
gomarquette.com

Marquette Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: That was a nice rebound from the GB game. MU hung around and made the game competitive, but UW held the lead the whole game and did what they had to.

Leuer and Hayward each had similar double doubles. Leuer was 24/12 and Hayward was 21/12. So, they had about the same day, right? Read on in Grading Shetown for details.

Summarizing the game in a few words: The two teams scored 49 points from the floor, but UW took 6 extra possessions from turnovers and got 9 extra points from the line.

Pace: The game had 63 Possessions. Wow, MU plays boring basketball (sarcasm alert).

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Chalk this one up to the defense (or poor MU offense – take your pick). UW scored at 1.14 PPP, which is on our average and actually good for playing against good competition.

Our defense held MU to 1.00. While higher than our usual .85 PPP, it was good enough.

Shooting: MU won from deep, UW won inside the arc, and UW won from the line.

eFG%: MU hit at 48% to UW’s 47%. Score one for MU’s marksmanship from deep.

3 pt shooting: MU invested 8 extra shots from deep and it was a good investment. MU hit 7/18 for 38% compared to 3/10, 30% for UW. UW lost 12 points from beyond the arc.

2pt shooting: UW got the twelve points back inside the arc. MU was 14/33 for 42% while UW was 20/42 or 48%. So, things were even steven from the floor.

1pt shooting: MU was 14/21 or 68% from the line while UW was 23/33 for 70%. Obviously, fans were taking note of our poor free throw defense and successfully put the whammy on MU free throw shooters. Bo, the fans should get a game ball.

But, it was not quality but quantity that won from the line. UW took 12 extra shots and made 9 of them. Those nine points were the difference in the game.

Rebounding: MU had two extra offensive rebounds otherwise rebounding was a push.

UW Defensive end: There were 32 rebounding opportunities and UW got 20, leaving MU with 12 or 38%. UW usually holds opponents to 26%, so this was a real victory for MU.

UW Offensive End: On UW’s offensive end, UW got 10 of 30 for 33%, MU 20 or 67%. That is the national average but high for UW.

Turnovers: This was a key to the game.

MU had 13 for 21% while UW lost 7 for 11%. Given that UW had 18 TO’s against UW-GB and both UWGB and MU were guard heavy teams, this was something of a surprise.

UW took those extra 6 possessions and used them for 1 extra field goal attempt and 12 extra free throw attempts (I know, this does not compute exactly). Those 12 FTA’s provided the 9 point margin.

Fouls: MU fouled 27 times compared to UW’s 18. We need GoMarquette to come over and give his expert analysis on this one.

Playing time: Bo shorted his bench to a late-season like 7 players with Wilson getting 3 minutes. Leuer got 38 minutes and Bohannon 34. Jarmusz chipped in 26 while effectively defending Butler.

Notable Performances: What can you say about Leuer? He had his second straight dub dub getting 24 and 12. Jon knocked down 24 on 14 shots, 1-1 from deep, and 5-7 from the line. Throw in 3 blocks and one steal and you get the player of the game. Jon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Hughes had 13, but needed 11 shots to do it. He was 7-12 from the line. Taylor had 13 on 11 shots, which is big improvement over the GB game. Jarmusz had a nice line getting 5 points on 1-1 from the floor, 3-4 from the line and grabbed 4 boards and 0 turnovers.

For MU, Hayward had a mixed day. He was as prolific as usual, but also as efficient as usual – which will need to improve if MU is going to win more, IMHO. He had a 21-12 dub dub but needed 21 shots from the floor to get there (missing 13). He also contributed 3 TO;s, and TO’s doomed MU.

DJ-O also had a mixed day. He scored 13 and hit 3 cold-blooded treys. But, he also contributed 5 turnovers. Ouch.

Acker scored 6 on 5 shots but added 5 boards, which is remarkable for his height.

Butler scored 8 on 6 shots, had 4 boards and 2 TO’s. I was very concerned about Butler but he was successfully contained.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions:

1. Badgers hold onto the ball, turning it over 16% or less. Marquette’s pressure has forced many turnovers, but I think Wisconsin’s veteran guards nullify that strength, especially after Bo’s drills today and tomorrow. Major hit. UW had 7 for 11%. The plus 6 TO margin was critical.

2. Jon Leuer scores 18 points or more. Marquette just does not have an answer for Jon on defense. Major hit. He got 24 and MU did not have an answer. His efficiency was through the roof at 1.6 PPP. FYI, Hayward had .88 PPP.

3. Jimmy Butler and Lazar Hayward score 27 points or less combined. Butler and Hayward are usually match-up problems for teams, but Wisconsin should be able to keep them in check with Jarmusz, Evans, Bruesewitz, Nankivil, and Leuer. Near Miss. They scored 29 points, but they needed 27 shots to get them.

4. Badgers hold the Eagles to 33% or less shooting outside the arc. They have been shooting well behind the arc lately but I like the Badgers to cool them off like most teams they have played. Miss. MU was a productive 38% from deep, which makes for aeFG% of 55%.

5. The Badgers grab 72% or more of the defensive rebounding opportunities. Marquette is pretty good at getting offensive rebounds (34.6%) but the Badgers are just dominant on the defensive glass. I think the Badgers win this battle. Miss. We got 67%, but it was a critical problem because we almost matched them on the other end.

Shetown’s Prediction: The Badgers regroup to make Curly and his Stooges have a sad trip back home on I-94, winning 73-60 in a 63-possession game. Hit. 72-63 in 63 possessions.

Closing Thoughts: By the associative property of basketball, UW-GB is better than UW, GB, Duke, Arizona, and Maryland.

Marquette Pre-Game News Articles

Daily Cardinal
Badger Herald
madison.com #1
madison.com #2
jsonline.com #1
jsonline.com #2
jsonline.com #3
uwbadgers.com
gomarquette.com

Marquette Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: After the debacle in the Resch Center, the Badgers will try to rebound against the Hilltopp-… Golden Avalan-… Blue and Gol-… Warri-… Golden Eag-… I mean Gold of Marquette. MU, per usual, is a guard heavy, big man devoid team that likes to run and pressure the ball. Hopefully this one turns out more like the Maryland game rather than the Green Bay game.

Forums to Visit:

MU Scoop

Scout


What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #16 and Marquette #39. He makes Wisconsin a 7-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #37 and Marquette #43. He predicts a 67-63 Badger victory in 63 possessions and gives the Badgers a 66% chance of winning.

Marquette Probable Rotation:
*G – 6’0” SR David Cubillan (6.2 PPG, 3.1 APG, 2.2 RPG)
*G – 6’3” JR Dwight Buycks (6.7 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 3.6 APG, 1.7 SPG)
*F – 6’6” JR Jimmy Butler (16.7 PPG, 7.8 RPG, 1.9 SPG, 1.8 APG, 1.0 BPG)
*F – 6’7” JR Joe Fulce (2.4 PPG, 3.4 RPG)
*F – 6’6” SR Lazar Hayward (18.3 PPG, 6.4 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.4 SPG)
G – 6’2” SO Darius Johnson-Odom (12.1 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 2.0 APG)
G – 5’8” SR Maurice Acker (8.7 PPG, 3.7 APG, 2.3 SPG, 1.2 RPG)
F – 6’6” FR Jeronne Maymon (4.0 PPG, 4.1 RPG)

This season they have played at a pace of 69 possessions per game, similar to last season. They play the grab-and-clutch man-to-man defense that Wisconsin has struggled with in the past, specializing in forcing turnovers via steals, but gives up quite a few assists due to that aggressive, overplaying style. However, only one player in their rotation average more than 5 fouls per 40 minutes, Jeronne Maymon at 6.7. If they struggle against Wisconsin’s bigs, they may switch to a zone. They are returning 40% of their minutes, 49% of their rebounding, and 34% of their scoring from last season.


Key Players:

Jimmy Butler – Butler is a talented 6’6” forward with great length. He primarily scores off of offensive rebounds and finishing at the rim off the dribble. He has knocked down 70% of his threes, but has only attempted 10. He shoots an astounding 61.8% from inside the arc, rarely turns the ball over (9% of his possessions), and is 34th in free throw rate, taking 4 free throws for every 5 field goal attempts. This all adds up to the 14th best offensive efficiency in the nation, 139.6. He is also a very gifted rebounder, especially for his size, grabbing 11.5% of all rebounding opportunities on offense and 18.2% of opportunities on defense.

Darius Johnson-Odom – Johnson-Odom is a white hot shooting three-point threat for Marquette. He has a great offensive rating of 119.0 due to his ridiculous 21 of 38 from distance, for 55.3%. He turns it over more than Butler and Hayward at 19.4%, but is still pretty decent at taking care of the ball.

Lazar Hayward – Hayward is a trigger-happy 6’6” forward who takes the second highest percentage of his team’s shots in the nation, taking 40.4% of Marquette’s shots while he’s on the court. Luckily for Marquette, he’s pretty efficient with a rating of 104.0. He gets this rating by virtue of his sub-par three-point shooting (10 of 40), 51% from 2, 82% from the charity stripe, and not turning it over too often (14.6%). He is a decent offensive rebounder at 7.9% of all opportunities, and great on the defensive end (20.7%).


What Marquette is really good at:

1. Shooting the ball. MU shoots 39.8% from 3, 51.4% from 2, and 70.7% from 1. Good for 42nd, 66th, and 116th respectively.

2. Not turning the ball over. The Golden Avalanche turn it over only 18.2% of their possessions, good for 56th in the country. Wisconsin is 43rd at 17.8%.

3. Not sending opponents to the line. Their opponents’ attempt about 6 free throws for every 21 shot attempts. It’s similar to last season’s Iowa team and 43rd.

4. Rebounding defensively. The Gold grab 71.8% of their opponents’ misses, similar to last season’s Penn State team and 38th in the nation.

5. Defending the 3. MU’s opponents’ shoot 30.6% from beyond the arc for 78th in the nation. Wisconsin currently gives up 31.8%.

6. Forcing Turnovers. The Hilltoppers force their opponents to turn the ball over 25.4% of their possessions and they are via steal on 15.6% of their possessions. They are 30th and 7th respectively in those categories.


What Marquette is really bad at:

1. Blocking shots. The Blue and Gold block only 7.4% of their opponents’ 2-pointers, only good for 217th in the nation.


Relative efficiency:

When Marquette has the ball: MU has scored a good 1.13 PPP in their first 9 games, while UW has given up 0.95 in their first 8.

When UW has the ball: MU gave up a very good 0.90 in their first 9 games, while UW has scored a good 1.10 in their first 8.


Pace: Marquette has played at 69 possessions per game so far in their first 9 games compared to UW’s 64 in their first 8 games.


My expectations:

1. Badgers hold onto the ball, turning it over 16% or less. Marquette’s pressure has forced many turnovers, but I think Wisconsin’s veteran guards nullify that strength, especially after Bo’s drills today and tomorrow.

2. Jon Leuer scores 18 points or more. Marquette just does not have an answer for Jon on defense.

3. Jimmy Butler and Lazar Hayward score 27 points or less combined. Butler and Hayward are usually match-up problems for teams, but Wisconsin should be able to keep them in check with Jarmusz, Evans, Bruesewitz, Nankivil, and Leuer.

4. Badgers hold the Eagles to 33% or less shooting outside the arc. They have been shooting well behind the arc lately but I like the Badgers to cool them off like most teams they have played.

5. The Badgers grab 72% or more of the defensive rebounding opportunities. Marquette is pretty good at getting offensive rebounds (34.6%) but the Badgers are just dominant on the defensive glass. I think the Badgers win this battle.


My Prediction: The Badgers regroup to make Curly and his Stooges have a sad trip back home on I-94, winning 73-60 in a 63-possession game.

UW-Green Bay Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: Congratulations on a game well played by GB. They deserved a great victory.

The game had a lot of parallels to our Duke game, but in reverse. Big win against a ranked team on the home court. Upsets are what make basketball fun. It can be hard to swallow when you are the team getting upset, but that is part of the process.

I am glad we went up and played them. I wish we would have won, but no sense in ducking an opponent because there is a chance of losing an away game, like some BCS schools do. Bo learned something about his team that will pay dividends later, I hope.

Just like I said after the Duke game, “you are not as good as your best win or as bad as your worst loss.” This may not be our worst loss. There is a lot of time left to play.

Summarizing the game in a few words: GB was awarded 8 extra possessions from turnovers and found 4 extra points, largely through superior marksmanship beyond the arc.

Pace: The game played out at 75 possessions. That included an extra 5 minutes of playing time. Without the OT, it would have been around 67 possessions.

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense that lost the game? Our defense sucked.

UW gave up 1.17 PPP. The 1.17 is more than Duke (1.11) or Gonzaga (1.14).

On offense, UW scored 1.12 PPP. We had been scoring at 1.10, so that was on par. The national average is .97.

Shooting: GB scorched the nets, particularly outside the arc. UW could not make enough free throws to offset GB superior marksmanship.

eFG%: GB shot an at 56% Yikes! That is worst of the year. We usually give up 43%.

UW’s hit a healthy 52%. That should win most games. Factor in our +5 offensive rebound advantage and we did pretty well.

3 pt shooting: UW took one extra three attempt and ended up losing 6 points behind the arc.

GB hit a stunning 9 of 18 for 50%. Our opponents had been laboring at 32%.

UW hit a pedestrian 37% going 7 of 19. While that is actually better than our typical 33%, it pales compared to GB.

2pt shooting: Both teams were comparably efficient inside the arc but GB got up more shots. GB was 19 of 40 for 48% while UW was 17 of 34 for 50%. GB added 4 more points inside the arc to give them a +10 from the field.

1pt shooting: UW was effective at getting to the line. GB was 23 of 30 for 77% while UW was 29 of 40 for 73%. UW got to multiply their somewhat smaller 73% by a larger number and gained 6 points from the line.

Rebounding: UW had a victory on the boards.

UW Defensive end: There were 35 rebounding opportunities and UW protected the glass well grabbing 26 leaving GB 9 or 26%. That is good, and on par with UW’s superior defensive rebounding skills.

UW Offensive End: There were 37 rebounding opportunities and UW snared 14 or 38%. That is very good, particularly for UW who prefers to play team defense than risk breakaway points while crashing the offensive boards.

UW had +5 offensive rebounds (14 to 9) which helps the efficiency. An offensive rebound has the effect or undoing a missed shot.

Turnovers: This is the story of the game. One cannot give 8 extra possessions to a team that scores 1.17 PPP and expect to win. Whatever gains occurred through crashing the boards were “thrown away” (literally) with turnovers.

GB had 10 or 13% which is very good. UW had 18 or 24% turnover rate, which is below average nationally and way below average for UW. We typically are around 16%. Yikes!!!!

As an FYI, this game erased our yearlong turnover advantage. We were a plus 8 on the year and are now ever-Steven. Ugh.

Fouls: GB fouled 26 times to UW’s 22. Those 4 extra fouls resulted in 10 extra FTA and 6 extra points.

Playing time: Bo went 7 deep with a guard heavy line up. Keaton played only 15. JBo lead the team again with 43.

GB played 8 players with 10 or more minutes.

Notable Performances: Leuer found easy pickin’s in this one. Jon had a 26-10 dub dub. He scored 26 on 12 shots (8-12 FG’s, 9-12 FT’s) blocked two but contributed to the TO parade with two. Jon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Hughes had a weird day. The good news: 28 points. The bad news: he missed 11 FGA’s, 5 FTS’s, and 3 TO’s.

Jordan Taylor had a forgettable day going 0-6 from the field and committing 3 TO’s. The good news was he hit 3-4 FTA’s and grabbed 4 boards.

Tim Jarmusz shot well scoring 9 on 6 shots, 3-4 from deep. But, he uncharacteristically had 4 TO’s.

For GB, Perine scored 22 but needed 19 shots to do it. By my estimation, UW could have survived the onslaught on Perine, Cotton and Fletcher. Those guys went 6-15 (40%) from beyond the arc and 14 of 33 (42%) inside the arc. The killer was Evans and Barkley going 3-3 from deep.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions:

1. Badgers hold the Phoenix to 38% or less from behind the arc. With Wisconsin's great perimeter defense, they hold down GB's amazing outside shooting. Miss. I criticized this prediction as not being too aggressive. Little did I know. GB hit 50% from deep.

2. Badgers shut down their offensive rebounding, holding them to grabbing 28% or less of their opportunities. The Phoenix grab quite a offensive rebounding but the Badgers put an end to that in this game. Hit. They got 26%.

3. Pop and Jordan hold Fletcher to less than 14 points. Pop and Jordan are great defenders and have a size advantage, adding up to shutting Fletcher down. Miss. Besides fletchers 18, Perine got 22 and Cotton 15.

4. Badgers shoot better than 52% inside the arc. Green Bay has been hot shooting inside the arc this season but I like the Badgers to cool them off. Slight miss. UW hit 50%. One more basket would have helped.

My Prediction: Badgers keeping rolling, defeating the Phoenix 72-60 in a 64-possession game. Miss. 88-84 in an overtime aided 75 possessions.

Closing Thoughts: What happens before Christmas is ancient history come January. This may turn out to be a bad loss, I don’t know. My guess is GB will have a successful year in the Horizon and challenge Butler for the crown.

My concern is GB provided the blueprint for how to beat UW. Go small and press the guards. Make Hughes try to beat you one on 5. This is precisely what MU will attempt on Saturday. UW must make some quick fixes.

My congratulations to Green Bay on a job well done.

UW-Green Bay Post-Game News Articles

Badger Herald
madison.com #1
madison.com #2
madison.com #3
uwbadgers.com #1
uwbadgers.com #2
greenbayphoenix.com
Green Bay Press Gazette

UW-Green Bay Pre-Game News Articles

Badger Herald
Daily Cardinal
madison.com #1
madison.com #2
madison.com #3
uwbadgers.com #1
uwbadgers.com #2
uwbadgers.com #3
Green Bay Press Gazette
greenbayphoenix.com


On an unrelated note, congratulations to fellow Sheboygan North alum Kayla Tetschlag for receiving Horizon League Player of the Week honors.

UW-Green Bay Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: The Badgers next opponent, after their thorough destruction of Grambling, is fellow UW System school UW-Green Bay. The Phoenix return a veteran backcourt like the Badgers, but their frontcourt is new and not as talented as last season’s. But that’s not to say this game will be a cakewalk. Their 3 starting guards average 45 of the team’s 74 points and the game is at home for the Phoenix.


What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin has UW ranked #8 and UW-Green Bay #91. He has Wisconsin as a 5-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy has Wisconsin ranked #38 and UW-Green Bay #103. He predicts a 69-65 victory for the Badgers in 62 or 63 possessions. He gives Wisconsin an 67% chance of winning.


UW-Green Bay Probable Rotation:
*G – 5’10” JR Rahmon Fletcher (17.2 PPG, 3.4 APG, 2.2 RPG, 52% 2PT, 37% 3PT)
*G – 6’1” SR Troy Cotton (14.9 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 1.1 APG, 47% 3PT)
*G – 6’3” JR Bryquis Perine (12.8 PPG, 5.1 APG, 2.9 RPG, 55% 3PT)
*F – 6’7” FR Matt Smith (3.3 PPG, 2.4 RPG)
*F – 6’9” SR Randy Berry 7.1 PPG, 6.9 RPG, 65% 2PT)
F – 6’5” SR Cordero Barkley (6.7 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 1.1 APG)
G – 6’0” FR Seth Evans (6.4 PPG, 1.8 APG, 57% 3PT)
F – 6’9” SR Pat Nelson (2.3 PPG, 3.6 RPG)
G – 6’3” FR Rian Pearson (5.1 PPG, 2.1 RPG, 1.0 APG, 0/1 3PT)
F – 6’8” JR Greg LeSage (1.1 PPG, 1.8 RPG)

This season they have played at a pace of 66 possessions per game, similar to last season’s Michigan State team. Their defensive footprint on Ken Pom is inconclusive from their low amount of turnovers caused, high frequency of 3 point shooting by their opponent, and low frequency to send players to the line.

They are returning 56% of their minutes, 55% of their rebounding, and 47% of their scoring from last season and 2 starters. They start a true freshman, and have two come off the bench.


Key Players:

Rahmon Fletcher – When Fletcher is on the court, there’s a 1 in 3 chance that the possession will end with him. He is only of the most aggressive players in the country (24th in possessions, 17th in shots) but luckily for Green Bay, he’s pretty efficient with an offensive rating of 109.3. He does it but shooting 37% from 3, 52% from inside the arc, and taking okay care of the ball (17.5% turnover rate). He’s also a decent passer, with an assist percentage of 29.2%.

Troy Cotton – Nine games into the season, Troy Cotton is the 45th most efficient player in the nation offensively with a rating of 133.3. He accomplishes this by shooting a hot 47% from 3 and taking many of them and not turning the ball over much (13%). He also rebounds really well defensively for a guard his size, grabbing 10.3% of the opportunities when he’s on the court.

Randy Berry – Berry isn’t a very aggressive offensive player, as he takes less than his fair share of shots and possessions (11.2% and 14.8% respectively), but he’s efficient when he does with a rating of 129.6. He shoots 68% from inside the arc and takes good care of the ball (only 15.2% turning over). He is a very gifted rebounder, getting 16.4% of all opportunities on offense and 17.2% of opportunities on defense.


What UW-Green Bay is really good at:

1. Shooting 3s. The Phoenix are 5th in the nation at 3-point shooting, knocking down 45% of their triples.

2. Shooting free throws. They shoot 73.2% from the line, good for 66th.

3. Not sending opponents to the line. Their opponents’ attempt 6 free throws for every 19 shot attempts. It’s similar to last season’s Iowa team.

4. Rebounding offensively. The Phoenix grab 34.7% of their misses, which is similar to last season’s Marquette team.

5. Defending the 3. GB’s opponents’ shoot 31.1% from beyond the arc for 101st in the nation. Wisconsin currently gives up 28.3%.


What UW-Green Bay is really bad at:

1. Getting to the free throw line. They take about 3 free throws for every 11 field attempts, good for 326th in the nation. Comparatively, Wisconsin takes 4 every 11, which is slightly below above.

2. Rebounding defensively. They grab 65.6% of their opponents’ misses, similar to last season’s OSU team and 210th in the nation.

3. Blocking shots. Green Bay blocks one out of every 17 two-point field goals their opponents’ attempt. This is similar to last season’s Indiana team.


Relative efficiency:

When UW-Green Bay has the ball: UW-Green Bay has scored a good 1.08 PPP in their first 9 games, while UW has given up 0.91 in their first 8.

When UW has the ball: The Phoenix gave up an above average 0.97 in their first 9 games, while UW has scored a good 1.09 in their first 8.


Pace: Green Bay has played at 66 possessions per game so far in their first 9 games compared to UW’s 64 in their first 8 games.


My expectations:

1. Badgers hold the Phoenix to 38% or less from behind the arc. With Wisconsin's great perimeter defense, they hold down GB's great outside shooting.

2. Badgers shut down their offensive rebounding, holding them to grabbing 28% or less of their opportunities. The Phoenix grab quite a offensive rebounding but the Badgers put an end to that in this game.

3. Pop and Jordan hold Fletcher to less than 14 points. Pop and Jordan are great defenders and have a size advantage, adding up to shutting Fletcher down.

4. Badgers shoot better than 52% inside the arc. Green Bay has been hot shooting inside the arc this season but I like the Badgers to cool them off.


My Prediction: Badgers keeping rolling, defeating the Phoenix 72-60 in a 64-possession game.

Grambling Post-Game News Articles

madison.com #1
madison.com #2
madison.com #3
madison.com #4
uwbadgers.com #1
uwbadgers.com #2
uwbadgers.com #3
uwbadgers.com #4
thenewsstar.com

Grambling State Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: It was probably a good thing to have a laugher after the intensity of the Duke game. A game like this kills the strength of schedule, but ours was so high, no permanent damage will occur.

For a look at why it is important to follow Ken Pomeroy's principles if you wish to understand basketball well, check out the rebounding numbers below.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW had its best offensive day and third best defensive day against the worst team of the year. Don’t draw many conclusions.

Pace: The game featured 62 possessions.

Efficiency: If you did not understand the possessions, you might think UW had a good scoring day to get to 79 points. Knowing there were only 62 possessions, you can see UW had a great scoring day. UW pumped in points at a rate of 1.27 per possession. Anything above 1.00 is decent. Our previous best this year was 1.20 against IPFW.

On defense, UW put the screws to Grambling holding them to .74 PPP. UW achieved .68 against Oakland and .74 against IPFW.

Shooting: Yikes! UW shot lights out and Grambling shot like the lights were out.

eFG%: Grambling bottomed out at 31.8% UW stoked 66.7%. Wow.

3 pt shooting: Grambling was 3/11 for 27%. UW hit 6/12 for 50%. Plus 9 points for UW.

2pt shooting: If you are not hitting outside, why not move in and try that? Grambling hit 30% inside the arc going 13/44. UW was a stunning 21/33 or 64%. UW scored +16 inside the arc.

1pt shooting: Grambling won the quality battle hitting 79 % to UW’s 68%. UW won the quantity battle taking 14 more shots – 28 and hitting 8 more19 to Grambling’s 11. UW scored +8 from the line.

Rebounding: UW out rebounded Grambling 37 to 27. So, UW had a much better day rebounding, right? Well… read on.

UW Defensive end: UW defended the glass well getting 31 of 42 rebounding opportunities, or 74% thus holding Grambling to 26%. Regular readers know anything under 33% is better than average and UW is typically excellent at protecting the boards. UW has averaged 74% defensive rebounds, or have given up 26% offensive rebounds for the year, about where we were last year.

UW Offensive End: Due to UW’s sharpshooting, there were only 22 rebounding opportunities on UW’s end and UW grabbed 6 or 27%. So on both end, the defense was comparably efficient with each side defending the glass well.

How can it be that UW had 10 extra boards yet rebounding was a draw? Because Grambling clanked so many shots, UW ran up the numbers getting the same % of a larger number on defense. That is something not reported in the paper. You have to do the calculations.

Turnovers: UW was its typically efficient self coughing up only 10 turnovers, or 16%. Anything below 21% is better than average. But, as is often the case, this did not result in an advantage – Grambling only had 11 or 18% turnover rate. So, UW only had one extra possession via turnovers.

Fouls: Grambling fouled 23 times to UW’s 13. That is a very low Tucker/Taylor-team-like total. UW has averaged 16 and our opponents 20.

Playing time: Bo had a chance to empty the bench going 9 deep with double digit minutes. JBo once again had the most minutes – but only 31 this game. Hughes played 27 and Taylor 25. Rob Wilson got to see 19. Evans and Berggren got into double figures. JP Gavinski saw some action, but Markolf did not.

Notable Performances: Trevon pumped in 20 on 11 FGA’s, 6-7 from the line, 7 rebounds, but had 4 TO’s. Bohannon, Leuer and Taylor all had 11. JBo got his deep shot working and hit 3-4 three pointers. Jordan Taylor had a good offensive day scoring 11 on 6 shots, 7 rebounds, and no turnovers. Jordan, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Shetown’s Grade: Shetown stepped out on a limb and made these predictions:

1. Badgers force the inside game, with Leuer and Nankivil combining for more than 25 points. With Grambling’s extreme lack of size, I like Wisconsin’s bigs scoring opportunities. Almost. Last time Shetown said “more than 25” and they scored 25 and being as hard-hearted as I am, I called it a miss. So, the kinder/gentler side of me is saying “almost.” Leuer and Nankivil scored 18. But, between the two, they barely played a full game logging 43 minutes. Bruesewitz had 2 and Berggren 5 bring the bigs up to 25. So, the pressure was on Gavinski to put them over the top. No such luck. The bigs missed by 1 point. If only you had said 25 or more.

2. Badgers protect the ball, turning it over less than 17% of the time. Grambling has forced some turnovers, but I think the Badgers are too disciplined for it to be a factor. Hit. UW turned it over 16% of the time.

3. The guards post up a bunch in the offense and score on post moves. As previously stated, they are tiny, so tiny that Hughes, Bohannon, Wilson, Evans, Jarmusz, and Taylor should be able to abuse their guards in the post. Incomplete. I did not see the game and do not know if they were successful or not. Help here … Shetown's Edit: Hit. Pop, J-Bo, and Jordan all posted up and scored inside.

4. Badgers rain threes, shooting better than 40% from 3. The team is on a hot streak from 3, and play a team that isn’t good at defending them. Hit. UW drains 50%.

5. Due to #1 and #3, Wisconsin attempts more than 28 free throws. If Wisconsin plays their average pace and Grambling sends them to the line as often as they have others, Wisconsin should attempt 33 FTs. Nearly a hit. Why didn’t you say 28 or more?

My Prediction: Badgers continue their winning ways, and cruise to an easy 83-44 win in 70 possessions. Hit. 79 – 46 in 62 possessions.

Closing Thoughts: Badgers did what they needed to do to put down a really poor opponent.

Just think how much better it would be if broadcasters reported "the best offense" and the "best defense" by Points per 100 Possessions instead of points per game. Just think how much better it would be if they reported offensive rebounding percentage instead of total rebounds. When will they learn?