Duke Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: With the victory over the Terps of Maryland, Wisconsin is now 3-0 against the ACC in the past year… and the Badgers are looking to stay undefeated against the Blue Devils of Duke University. The last time these two teams met, it wasn’t pretty. Wisconsin mustered a lowly 58 points in a 24 point beatdown at Cameron Indoor. The one bright spot was a relatively unheralded freshman forward, Jon Leuer, led UW in scoring with 12 and showed flashes of future potential. As for Duke, they are big and long this season. But don’t let their size and extreme whiteness fool you. They are very athletic, especially Nolan Smith and Miles Plumlee. And then there’s Kyle Singler, a Robbie Hummel clone that’s more talented off the dribble. Sorry to Duke fans, but I've always found this frame capture hilarious.


Forums to Visit:
Duke Basketball Report (Independent)
Devil's Den (Scout)
Devil's Illustrated (Rivals)

Duke Probable Rotation:
*G – 6’2” JR Nolan Smith (18.5 PPG, 3.5 APG, 3.8 RPG)
*G – 6’5” SR Jon Scheyer (16.8 PPG, 5.2 APG, 3.2 RPG, 87% FT, 10.3:1 A/TO)
*F – 6’8” JR Kyle Singler (15.3 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 2.7 APG, 1.0 BPG, 41% 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Lance Thomas (6.8 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 1.2 APG, 48% 2PT)
*F – 6’10” SO Miles Plumlee (9.0 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 1.8 BPG, 56% 2PT)
G – 6’4” FR Andre Dawkins (10.8 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 1.2 APG, 50% 3PT)
C – 7’1” SR Brian Zoubek (6.3 PPG, 8.7 RPG, 1.2 APG, 57% 2PT)
F – 6’10” FR Ryan Kelly (3.7 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 1.0 APG, 1.0 BPG, 50% 2PT)
F – 6’7” SO Olek Czyz (3.0 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 1.0 APG, 75% 2PT)

Last season they played at a pace of 68 possessions per game, very close to last season’s Marquette and UW-M teams. They will play a high pressure man-to-man defense, but have gotten many steals or forced turnovers this season.

They are returning 60.2% of their minutes, 67.1% of their rebounding, and 64.1% of their scoring from last season. They return 5 upperclassmen in their rotation. They start a sophomore and have a bench full of two freshman, one sophomore, and a senior.

There have been rumors that Mason Plumlee, Miles’ brother, could play on Wednesday coming back from injury. Apparently he is supposed to be better than Miles, and if that’s the case, it’s not good news for us. I choose to believe/hope for the more conservative estimates that put his return closer to Christmas than Thanksgiving.


Key Players:
Nolan Smith – Duke’s most athletic player in the backcourt, Smith specializes in aggressively driving to the hoop. He excels in the transition game and is a tough defender. But with that aggressiveness, he has a 94.1 offensive rating and turns it over 15.2% of his possessions.

Jon Scheyer – Scheyer is the senior leader. He has great vision and passing skills, and is a rather deadly shooter at 44% from 3 and 88% from the line. He also is phenomenal at taking care of the ball. He turns it over a ridiculous 3.7% of the time. He has an offensive rating of 123.4.

Kyle Singler – Singler is a guy who will potentially cause some trouble for our defense. He’s a great inside-outside player… better on the perimeter than Leuer, but probably not as good in the paint. He’s only got an offensive rating of 100.0, but had one of 111.3 last season.

Miles Plumlee – Just like Nankivil and Leuer, this guy’s whiteness deceives people into thinking he’s not that athletic. Our bigs have an equal on Duke’s side in Plumlee. He doesn’t have as versatile a game as Nankivil or Leuer, as he doesn’t have 3-point range, but he is an extremely talented post player and rebounder. He has an offensive rating of 131.9 but does have a bit of a turnover problem, coughing it up 22% of the time.


What Duke is really good at:

1. Shooting the rock. They were 35% from 3, 50% from 2, and 73% from the line last season, combining for the 106th best eFG% in the nation, 50.5%. This season they have increased three, with 41% from 3, 78% from the line, 53% eFG, and 2-point shooting has dipped slightly to 49%.

2. Defending the Paint. So far this season, their opponents have shot 38.3% (15th) from inside the arc and the Blue Devils have blocked 12.3% (64th) of their opponent’s 2-pointers.

3. Not turning it over. They have turned it over only 15.5%, good for 16th, and somewhat better than Wisconsin’s 18.3%.

4. Offensive Rebounding. With Duke’s increased size, they have increased their offensive rebounding ability to 41.3%, good for 21st, and similar to, but not quite as good as, Michigan State.

5. Defending the 3. They have allowed a measly 27.2% from behind the arc this season. To compare, Wisconsin has allowed 25.4% this season.


What Duke is really bad at:

1. Getting to the line. They attempt one free throw for every three field goal attempts (33.2). For comparison’s sake, this is a little bit worse than Wisconsin (33.8).

2. Stealing the ball. Last season, Duke stole the ball 12.1% of their opponent’s possessions, good for 36th in the nation, but this season they have fallen to 8.6%, for 223rd. I would likely attribute this to Duke’s decided change in style of play. They are much, much bigger than last season, and likely will defend the paint and block shots more this season instead of getting steals and pressing a bunch.


Relative efficiency:

When Duke has the ball: Duke has scored a great 1.20 PPP in their first 6 games, while UW has given up 0.90 in their first 5 games.

When UW has the ball: Duke has given up a great 0.83 in their first 6 games, while UW scored 1.04 in their first 5 games.


Pace: Duke played at 70 possessions in their first 6 games compared to UW’s 65 in their first 5 games.


My expectations:

1. The Badgers grab 67% or more of the rebounding opportunities on defense. Duke has been rebounding 41% of their misses. However I think they have had this success due to smaller, less disciplined opponents. This stops against Wisconsin.

2. Leuer and Nankivil combine for more than 25 points and 10 free throw attempts. Duke’s 3 main post players, Plumlee, Thomas, and Zoubek, all average more than 5.6 fouls per 40 minutes. Zoubek is at an astounding 9.5! For comparison’s sake, the foul happy freshman version of Jordan Taylor averaged 6.1. None of them have 3-point range, so they may feel more uncomfortable guarding Keaton and Jon on the perimeter, leading to a few more fouls than normal.

3. The Badgers hold Duke to less than 35% from three-point range. Wisconsin gives up 25.4% from 3 and Duke shoots 40.8%. Something’s gotta give, and I think Wisconsin wins the battle with great close-outs and hands in the face.

4. The Badgers slow down Duke's transition game, holding them to less than 4 fast break points. This season Duke is averaging 8 points per game in fast break points and they rung up the Badgers for 17 the last time they faced each other in 2007.

My Prediction: The Devils make the Badgers blue, 77-70 in a 68-possession game. Let's hope I'm wrong.

Comparing This Season's Defense Through the First 5 Games with Last Season's

Raw PPP Allowed
2009 = 0.904
2008 = 0.932

Points Allowed Per Game
2009 = 58.4
2008 = 57.4

2FG%
2009 = 43.6%
2008 = 44.3%

3FG%
2009 = 25.4%
2008 = 38.5%

Free Throw Rate
2009 = 40.8
2008 = 26.8

Defensive Rebounding
2009 = 74.8%
2008 = 74.2%

Steal Rate
2009 = 8.7%
2008 = 7.7%

Block Rate
2009 = 13.8%
2008 = 12.6%

Turnover Rate
2009 = 18.6%
2008 = 22.2%

What does it all mean? The increase of free throw rate suggests that the team is fouling way too much and is having some trouble defending the paint. The guards are lock-down on the perimeter and close-out very well. Rebounding is immaculate per usual. Lastly, they have slightly up-ticked the glamor stats of blocks and steals, but haven't forced as many turnovers. Although many of the numbers are similar, I would say the improvements are going to be lasting as they have faced better competition than they did last season, and the free throw rate should drop the further they get away from the Gonzaga and Arizona games.

Comparing This Season's Offense in the First 5 Games with Last Season's First 5 Games

Points Per Game
2009 = 67.4
2008 = 65.8

Raw Offensive PPP
2009 = 1.04
2008 = 1.04

Raw Tempo
2009 = 64.6
2008 = 61.6

2FG%
2009 = 52.0%
2008 = 46.9%

3FG%
2009 = 29.2%
2008 = 39.5%

FT%
2009 = 72.0%
2008 = 71.2%

Free Throw Rate
2009 = 33.8%
2008 = 44.0% (37.7 if outlier Iona is removed, 34 FTAs to 48 FGAs in a foul-happy game)

% of Points in the Paint
2009 = 37.9%
2008 = 37.3%

Scoring Distribution (1PT - 2PT - 3PT)
2009 = 19.9 - 55.2 - 24.9
2008 = 23.4 - 46.3 - 30.3

Offensive Rebounding
2009 = 32.2%
2008 = 32.9%

Turnover Rate
2009 = 18.3%
2008 = 22.5%

3-Point Field Goals Attempts Rate
2009 = 34.9%
2008 = 34.1%

Second Chance Points %
2009 = 16%
2008 = 12.8%

Fast Break Points %
2009 = 5.9%
2008 = 3.6%

Bench Scoring
2009 - 23.4%
2008 - 27.9% (21.6% if extreme outlier SIU-E, 40 of 88 points, is removed)



So what does all this mean?

The points per possession is exactly the same.

It seems like Keaton Nankivil has single-handedly increased second chance scoring a bit with his offensive rebounding prowess.

People's eyes aren't fooling them, they are playing at a faster pace and scoring more on fast breaks.

Bench scoring is down, but I think that's attributed to 4 starters scoring over 8 points a game this season so far, and the fact that Jon Leuer was still coming off the bench at that time last season.

Despite not much of a change in 3-point field goal attempts, how often they go to the free throw line is down. This suggests a multitude of things, but I'm guessing that it's because they haven't had as many foul situations at the end of the game (Only Arizona in 2009, and Iona, Long Beach State, and San Diego in 2008).

Oddly enough, one concern voiced by many this season has been turnovers. Last season's team coughed it up more at this point in the season, and finished with a rate of 16%, good for a measly 5th in the nation. Needless to say, I'm not too concerned about this.

One nice development is the improved 2-point shooting. This was a relative weakpoint for the team last season and it's good to see Keaton and Jon's work in the off-season has paid off.


Overall, I like what I'm seeing. I would argue that this season's team has faced much tougher defense in their first 5 games, and has fared just as well as last season's, despite some icy 3-point shooting that should come around given our shooters' histories. I wish the box scores this season allowed me to do plus/minus on the individual players, but alas, that isn't possible. Here are their raw offensive ratings though...

Trevon Hughes = 91.0 in 78 possessions, 16.7% turnover rate
Jon Leuer = 116.9 in 69 possessions, 10.1% turnover rate
Jason Bohannon = 109.8 in 51 possessions, 15.7% turnover rate
Keaton Nankivil = 110.5 in 38 possessions, 18.4% turnover rate
Jordan Taylor = 86.8 in 38 possessions, 10.5% turnover rate
Ryan Evans = 82.6 in 23 possessions, 21.7% turnover rate
Tim Jarmusz = 111.1 in 18 possessions, 38.9% turnover rate
Rob Wilson = 140.0 in 10 possessions, 30.0% turnover rate
Jared Berggren = 71.4 in 7 possessions, 28.6% turnover rate
Mike Bruesewitz = 133.3 in 6 possessions, 50.0% turnover rate

Jon and Keaton are cleaning up, even with their combined 2 of 21 from 3... just think of when those 3s start falling a bit more. For being a starter and known for his heady play, Timmy J has been turning it over quite a bit and still doesn't really assert himself on the offensive end, as two of our bench players have more possessions than him (with a lower rate of turnovers). Taylor's number isn't very pretty, but if he made a few more freebies (only 6/13), he'd be right up there with J-Bo. The one surprise to me is Trevon's sub-100 rating. I guess a few of those ill-advised 3s and drives to the hoop did it.

Maryland Post-Game News Articles

madison.com #1
madison.com #2
madison.com #3
jsonline.com

Maryland Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: What a great win. Come tournament time, we can cite this win against an ACC team on neutral territory, to go with the AZ win.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW knocked down 10 of 22 threes and 16 of 20 free throws to overcome a sloppy 23% turnover performance.

Pace: The game was 65 possessions, which is average for this year, and 5 more than our average last year.

Efficiency: UW gave up 1.06 PPP, which is not good. We should hold opponents under 1.00. But, UW scorched the nets at 1.20 PPP, which is excellent, particularly against a ranked ACC team (formerly ranked as of the next poll I assume).

Shooting: UW dropped their threes and free throws, which won the game.

eFG%: Maryland hit a nice 53% eFG%, but UW smoked them with 58.5%.

3 pt shooting: UW took more 3’s than their opponent, again, but this time the results were much different than against the Zag’s. UW invested 9 extra possessions in 3 point shooting. They were rewarded with 5 extra baskets, or a plus 15 points from beyond the arc. Maryland was a nice 5/13, or 38%. UW was a red hot 10 of 22 or 45%.

2pt shooting: Both teams were comparably efficient from inside. Maryland hit 22 of 43 for 51%, while UW was 16 of 31 for 52%. In quality, it was a draw. In quantity, Maryland got back 12 of the 15 points they lost outside the arc.

1pt shooting: UW took 3 extra shots – 20 to UM’s 17, but made 6 more. UW was a very good 16 of 20 for 80% while Maryland was an off 10 of 17 for 59%.

Rebounding: UW defended the glass well and attacked the offensive boards effectively.

UW Defensive end: On UW’s defensive end, there were 31 rebounding opportunities and UW grabbed 22 (Maryland got 9) or 71% of the caroms. The boggy is 67% defensive, 33% offensive. UW typically does much better holding opponents to 26% last year (with Krabbenhoft and Landry). So, this was a fairly average performance, which is good.

UW Offensive End: UW beat the average and grabbed 37% of the boards, getting 11 of 30. UW typically is willing to sacrifice rebounding opportunities for defense, but the picking were ripe and plentiful.

Turnovers: Ugh. UW puked up 15, or 23%. That is waaaaay too many. UW last year was around 16%, which is one of the best in the nation.

Maryland had 9 for 14% of possessions. The -6 turnover margin is troublesome. But, the rebounding and three point shooting overcame this problem, this time.

Fouls: UM had 20 to UW’s 18. UW took the two extra fouls and parlayed them into 3 extra shots.

BTW, our opponents have attempted 104 FT’s and we have only made 67. We are a long way from claiming the “we make more FT than our opponents take mantra.

Playing time: Bo went 8 deep, with Taylor, Bruesewitz, and Evans getting double digit minutes. Wilson (3) and Berggren (2) saw action.

Notable Performances: JBO was back to his effective self, and then some. He only took 7 shots from the floor (cue the “JBO cannot create his own shot …” BS) but scored 20 points by hitting 6-6 from the line and 4-5 from deep. He added three boards and yet another block. JBo, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. JBo is making a strong play for being my new favorite player, replacing the recently departed Joe Krabbenhoft.

Tim Jarmusz must have avoided reading the thread about how he was a recruiting mistake. He was his usual efficient self scoring 5 on 3 shots and grabbing 4 boards while playing half the game. TJ, I salute you.

Hughes did a very good job on Vasquez. Vasquez hit some threes late, true, but Hughes helped neutralize Vasquez’s performance by scoring 14 on 17 shots. Vasquez hurt his team with 5 turnovers. Ouch. Hughes had 3 TO’s.

Leuer had 16 on 11 shots and had 7 boards. Nice.

Grading Shetown’s predictions:

1. Badgers force the inside game, with Leuer and Nankivil combining for more than 25 points. With Maryland’s lack of size, I like Wisconsin’s bigs scoring opportunities. Close. Leuer and Nankivil score 23.

2. Badgers protect the ball, turning it over less than 20% of the time. Maryland has forced many turnovers, but I think the Badgers are too disciplined for it to be a factor. Major Miss. UW puked up 15 TO’s and 23%.

3. Jarmusz, Evans, Breusewitz, and maybe Hughes hold Vasquez to less than 13 points. General Greivis has been struggling shooting the ball this season and I think his woes continue against the Badgers. Miss, sort of. Vasquez scored 18, but he was not decisive.

4. Badgers hold the Terps to below 45% shooting inside the arc. Maryland has been hot shooting inside the arc this season but I like the Badgers to cool them off. Miss. The Terps hit 51%.

5. Bohannon and Jarmusz break the ice and connect on more than 35% of their 3’s. Am I the only one that finds it sad that this is a ballsy call on my part? They gotta start falling sometime. Major hit. JBo goes 4-5, TJ hits 1 or 2 for a combined 5-7.

My Prediction: Badgers regroup to make the Turtles unhappy together, 72-58 in a 64-possession game. Hit. UW wins 78 -69 in 65.

Closing Thoughts: Bo does it again. He finds a way to out execute the opponent.

Gonzaga Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: Thanks to Shetown for covering for the Arizona game while I was hopelessly wondering the north woods.

I will not draw conclusions based upon a November game.

I will not draw conclusions based upon a November game.

I will not draw conclusions based upon a November games …

Summarizing the game in a few words: While UW was launching 3’s and missing them, the Zags were going to the line and making them.

Pace: The game had 65 possessions, which is the high side of normal for UW (last year we played at 60). That is pretty low considering the Zag’s propensity for running (compared to MSU on the radio). Last year, Gonzaga averaged 68.2 possessions, somewhat above the D1 average of 66.5.

Efficiency: Zag’s scored at a1.14 PPP. Ugh. Last year we kept teams to .95 overall. UW scored at .94 PPP.

Was it good Zag defense or bad UW offense? Was it good Zag offense or bad UW defense? The numbers do not say. When you play good teams, bad things can happen.

Shooting: Neither team shot well from beyond the arc, both were good inside the arc, and Gonzaga was decisive at the line.

eFG%: Zag’s had a 50.0 eFG% to UW’s 43.2%. This is directly related to UW taking a greater percentage of 3’s and missing them.

3 pt shooting: UW invested 13 more shots in threes than Gonzaga. What did they get for this investment? 6 points. Zag’s were a lowly 3-11 or 27% from deep while UW was an even worse 5-24 or 21%. UW’s eFG% from deep was 31% while the Zag’s were a nearly respectable 41%. At this rate, neither team should be launching 3’s. On the other hand, 5 of those misses go in and we win the game (I know, that is a big stretch).

2pt shooting: Gonzaga took 7 extra shots from inside the arc. What did they get for that investment? An extra 8 points, or slightly over 1 PPP. Zag’s were 22-42 or 52% while UW was 18 -35 for a similar 51%. Both teams were comparably efficient within the arc, but the Zag’s won in quantity.

1pt shooting: The Zag’s won the game at the line. They hit a blistering 21 or 25 for 84%. UW was 10-14 for 71%, which is not bad. So, Gonzaga had both a quality and quantity edge at the line. Gonzaga had an estimated 12 possessions end at the line. They scored 21 points or 1.75 PPP from the line.

Rebounding: The rebound wars were a draw, which surprised me because the game did not start out that way.

UW Defensive end: There were 29 rebounding opportunities and UW got 21, or 72%, thus holding the Zag’s to 28% offensive rebounding. That is good.

UW Offensive End: Because of UW’s brick laying ability from deep, there were more misses at UW’s offensive end of the floor. Of the 40 misses, UW got 10 and the Bulldogs 30. UW had 25% offensive rebounds, which is on par for what UW should expect.

Turnovers: First, the good news. UW turned the ball over only 9 times for a sparkling 14% TO ratio. Fantastic, especially when playing a team that likes force TO’s like the Zags.

The bad news is that, yet again, UW did not take advantage of the low TO rate. Gonzaga actually bettered UW with only 8 TO’, or 12%. When it was all said and done, the Zag’s had a +1 TO margin.

Fouls: Fouling was not the issue it was in the AZ game. Gonzaga had 18 to UW’s 19. But, the Zag’s translated those fouls into 25 FTA’s and held UW to only 14. This, along with their superior marksmanship, was the game.

Playing time: Bo played 7 players 10 or more minutes (Bruesewitz being one of them). Evans had 8 and Wilson 7.

Notable Performances: Offensively, Taylor was an ultraefficient 19 points on 10 shots from the floor (added 3 FT’s). He hit 2-3 from deep. Jordan, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

JBO had 8 rebounds.

Leuer scored 18 on 17 shots and added 5 boards (1 TO).

How Shetown did in his predictions:

1. Both teams protect their defensive glass. Arizona and UW will not allow more than 33% of the misses on defense to be grabbed by the offensive team. Hit. UW held the Zag’s to 25%.

2. Leuer, Nankivil, Berggren, and Evans hold their bigs in check. Sacre, Harris, and Olynyk to combine for less than 23 points. Miss. They scored 27, but not too far off.

3. Hughes has another big game, scoring at least 12 points. Hughes is significantly quicker than Goodson, Bouldin, and Vilarino, leading to him attacking the rim at will, racking up lay-ups, assists, and free throw attempts. Miss. Hughes scored 10 points on only 8 shots. He had 0 turnovers. BTW, Boldin, Goodson and Vilarino combined for 27.

4. The Badgers score on the Zags inside, shooting better than 44% from 2-land. I like our bigs and guards to shoot better than the average team against the Bulldogs interior defense. Hit. UW scored at a 51% clip on shots inside the arc. But, we invested too many shots in the deep ball, which did not drop.

Closing Thoughts: UW did the things we often do - protect the ball, protect the glass but could not overcome poor shooting.

It is still November. One loss to a good team on a neutral court is not a big deal. I think of this game as a missed opportunity, not a bad loss. All teams are trying to find themselves at this point. JBO hits a few shots and this is a different game. Oh well, that is why you play them.

The We Make for Free Throw than the Other Team Attempts scoreboard:

UW needs to make 37 unanswered FT’s to be able to make this claim. At this point, we are closer to the reverse.

Opponents

FGM 67

FGA 87

% 77%

UW

FGM 51

FGA 73

% 70%

Gonzaga Post-Game News Articles

madison.com
uwbadgers.com
spokesman.com
gozags.com

Gonzaga Pre-Game News Articles

madison.com
uwbadgers.com
gozags.com

Arizona Post-Game News Articles

Daily Cardinal
madison.com #1
madison.com #2
uwbadgers.com #1
uwbadgers.com #2
Arizona Daily Wildcat
arizonawildcats.com
azcentral.com

Maryland Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: After the forgettable performance against Gonzaga, who’s next? Wisconsin can leave Lahaina with a 3rd place to their name if they can defeat the Terrapins of Maryland. Luckily for Wisconsin, the size that hurt them so much against Gonzaga does not exist in Maryland’s rotation. They have a 6’9” guy, 6’8” guy, and 6’7” guy in the paint. And although I’m not certain, I don’t believe the Turtles are anywhere close to as athletic as Arizona’s small frontcourt or possess mutant ninja skills they can use to their advantage. This should bode well for the Badgers.


Maryland Probable Rotation:
*G – 6’4” SO Sean Mosley (13.8 PPG, 5.0 RPG, 4.0 APG)
*G – 6’4” SR Eric Hayes (11.2 PPG, 3.2 APG, 50% 3FG)
*G – 6’6” SR Greivis Vasquez (9.8 PPG, 6.0 APG, 4.2 RPG, 30% FG)
*F – 6’7” SR Landon Milbourne (13.4 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 60% FG)
*F – 6’9” FR Jordan Williams (7.8 PPG, 8.0 RPG, 1.0 BPG)
F – 6’8” FR James Padgett (7.8 PPG, 5.8 RPG)
G/F – 6’6” JR Cliff Tucker (6.4 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 1.0 APG)
G – 6’2” JR Adrian Bowie (3.6 PPG, 3.0 APG, 1.6 SPG)

This season they have played at a pace of 71 possessions per game, similar to last season’s Syracuse team. Their defensive footprint on Ken Pom is inconclusive from their high amount of turnovers caused, high frequency of 3 point shooting by their opponent, and low frequency to send players to the line. I didn’t pay too close of attention to the Cincy game of theirs, so I can’t recall what they were running.

They are returning 84% of their minutes, 82% of their rebounding, and 86% of their scoring from last season and 4 starters. They start a true freshman, and have one come off the bench. This team is more experienced than Wisconsin with 3 seniors and 2 juniors in the rotation.


Key Players: Greivis Vasquez – Vasquez is the leading scorer from last season. Despite being a below average shooter (33% from 3, 45% from 2), he uses up the most possessions on the team at 28%. That’s similar to Brian Butch in 2007-2008. He’s a a similar clip of usage this season, but is shooting a horrible 30% from the field. Let’s hope that continues.

Sean Mosley – Mosley is only a sophomore, but he’s got a great offensive rating going this season, 131.5! For a comparison, that is about the same as Jon Leuer’s performance against Gonzaga. He also has a great assist to turnover rate of 3.3. He’s currently shooting 77% from the line and an astounding 62.2% from 2 (especially great because he’s a guard).

Landon Milbourne – Last season Milbourne had a good offensive rating of 108.7. He didn’t turn the ball over much, shot 50% inside the arc and 77% from the line. He also is a talented offensive rebounder, comparable to Nankivil last season. So far he has been shooting 60% inside the arc and 78% from the line.


What Maryland is really good at:

1. Shooting 2's. Maryland is 87th in the nation at shooting deuces, at 51.7%.

2. Not turning it over. They have turned it over only 16% of the time, good for 32nd. Wisconsin turns it over 17%.

3. Forcing turnovers. The Terps are 10th in the nation at forcing turnovers, at 29.3%. Wisconsin has forced 19%.

4. Defending the paint. Maryland is 12th in the nation at holding opponents to 36.1% inside the arc. This may be the product of competition though, as Cincy shot a sizzling 23/44 (52.3%) inside the arc against them.


What Maryland is really bad at:

1. Offensive Rebounding. They grab 32% of their misses, good for 196th.

2. Getting to the free throw line. They take 7 free throws for every 23 field goal attempts. That’s good for 275th in the nation.

3. Shooting 3's. The Terps are shooting 31.1% from 3, good for 218th. Not to be outdone, the Badgers clock in at 316th with their lovely 24.3%.

4. Free Throw Shooting. They are 220th in the nation at free throw percentage at 66.3%.


Relative efficiency:

When Maryland has the ball: Maryland has scored an above average 1.07 PPP in their first 5 games, while UW has given up 0.86 in their first 4.

When UW has the ball: Maryland gave up an awesome 0.76 in their first 5 games, while UW has scored an average 1.01 in their first 4.


Pace: Maryland has played at 71 possessions per game so far in their first 5 games compared to UW’s 65 in their first 4 games.


My expectations:

1. Badgers force the inside game, with Leuer and Nankivil combining for more than 25 points. With Maryland’s lack of size, I like Wisconsin’s bigs scoring opportunities.

2. Badgers protect the ball, turning it over less than 20% of the time. Maryland has forced many turnovers, but I think the Badgers are too disciplined for it to be a factor.

3. Jarmusz, Evans, Breusewitz, and maybe Hughes hold Vasquez to less than 13 points. General Greivis has been struggling shooting the ball this season and I think his woes continue against the Badgers.

4. Badgers hold the Terps to below 45% shooting inside the arc. Maryland has been hot shooting inside the arc this season but I like the Badgers to cool them off.

5. Bohannon and Jarmusz break the ice and connect on more than 35% of their 3’s. Am I the only one that finds it sad that this is a ballsy call on my part? They gotta start falling sometime.


My Prediction: Badgers regroup to make the Turtles unhappy together, 72-58 in a 64-possession game.

Gonzaga Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: With the nail-biter against Arizona over, who’s next?... the towering Bulldogs of Gonzaga. Gonzaga will easily be the biggest team Wisconsin faces this season, making MSU look small. This game, along with the Duke and Arizona games, will be litmus test games to see where this team is at. They’ve passed the test against the ultra-athletic team, now they have the ultra-big team. This is not to say Gonzaga is not beatable, as Colorado showed in the first game of the tournament. Colorado has a Princeton offense that is very similar to the Swing, only devoid of a post presence. Gonzaga struggled with it until they aggressively asserted their size advantage. Luckily for us, Nankivil, Leuer, and Berggren are all better post defenders than anyone Colorado had, and Ryan Evans probably is too.

Sorry if this one isn't as in-depth or seems rushed. I wanted to churn this one out before I went to bed so I didn't have to try to finish it in the morning before work.

Forums to Visit:

GU Nation (Scout)
GU Boards Independent


Gonzaga Probable Rotation:
*G – 5’11” SO Demetri Goodson (3.8 PPG, 1.6 APG, 1.3 RPG)
*G – 6’5” SR Matt Bouldin (13.6 PPG, 4.1 RPG, 3.4 APG, 1.5 SPG, 42% 3FG)
*G – 6’5” JR Steven Gray (9.1 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 2.1 APG, 1 SPG)
*F – 6’8” FR Elias Harris (14.3 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 1.3 SPG in first 3 games)
*C – 7’0” RS SO Robert Sacre (16.3 PPG, 7 RPG, 1.7 BPG in first 3 games)
F – 6’11” FR Kelly Olynyk (4.0 PPG, 3.3 RPG in first 3 games)
G – 6’0” FR G.J. Vilarino (4.7 PPG in first 3 games)
C – 7’5” SR Will Foster (2.1 RPG, 1.0 PPG)
G – 6’4” RS FR Grant Gibbs (3.5 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 1.0 APG in first 3 games)
F – 6’5” FR Manny Arop (3.7 RPG in first 3 games)

Last season they played at a pace of 68 possessions per game, very close to last season’s Marquette and UW-M teams. I’m certain they will play man-to-man defense, with strong defensive rebounding, but not many steals or forced turnovers, a la Wisconsin. If they are struggling in the man-to-man, they may switch to zone like they did against Colorado.

They are returning 39.1% of their minutes, 36.7% of their rebounding, and 35.2% of their scoring from last season. They return a lowly 4 upperclassmen, one of which is not in their rotation. They start a true freshman, sophomore, and redshirt sophomore, and their bench has 3 freshmen and 1 redshirt freshman.


Key Players:

Matt Bouldin – Bouldin is the senior leader for the team. The mop-headed 6’5” guard is ridiculously efficient offensively, with a 119.3 rating last season. He got it by shooting 42% from 3, 54% from 2, 74% from the line, and not turning it over much.

Steven Gray – Another big guard for the Zags was even more efficient than Bouldin last season, with a rating of 120.3. He did it by never turning it over (11.4%, or 68th best), and shooting a great 58% from 2. Together, he and Bouldin may be the best guard combo we see all season.

Robert Sacre – Sacre is a force inside. He is big and shoots well, 64% from the field and 72% from the line. He also doesn’t turn it over, averaging just 1 turnover per game so far.


What Gonzaga is really good at:

1. Shooting the rock. They were 39% from 3, 53% from 2, and 72% from the line last season, combining for the 6th best eFG% in the nation, 55.2%. This season they have dipped by a tenth of a percent in their effective FG% so far.

2. Getting to the line. So far this season, Gonzaga has had 53 free throw attempts to every 100 field goal attempts, good for 31st.

3. Protecting the Defensive Glass. They have allowed a stingy 26.3% this season (48th) and 31.1% last season (100th).

4. Forcing bad or contested shots. This season and last, Gonzaga has been near the top at defensive 2-point shooting percentage at just under 40%. They were the best last season and 47th this season so far.

5. Not turning it over. They were right up there with us last season in protecting the ball (16.1%). This season they are at 19.7%.


What Gonzaga is really bad at:

1. Offensive Rebounding. They don’t attack the glass, grabbing only 31.6% of their misses this season (207th) and the same last season (222nd).

2. Defending the 3. Last season, Gonzaga allowed a bad 35% from 3 (231st) and 35.7% this season (212nd).

3. Free Throw Shooting. So far this season, Gonzaga is shooting a below average 65% from the line (239th). Last season they were 72%.


Relative efficiency:

When Gonzaga has the ball: Gonzaga scored a great 1.18 PPP last season and 1.09 in their first 3 games, while UW gave up 0.77 in the first 3 games and 0.95 last season.

When UW has the ball: Gonzaga gave up a great 0.91 last season and 0.88 in their first 3 games, while UW scored 1.03 in their first 3 games and 1.14 last season.


Pace: Gonzaga played at 68 possessions per game last season and 78 in their first 3 games compared to UW’s 64 in their first 2 games and 60 last season.


My expectations:

1. Both teams protect their defensive glass. Arizona and UW will not allow more than 33% of the misses on defense to be grabbed by the offensive team.

2. Leuer, Nankivil, Berggren, and Evans hold their bigs in check. Sacre, Harris, and Olynyk to combine for less than 23 points.

3. Hughes has another big game, scoring at least 12 points. Hughes is significantly quicker than Goodson, Bouldin, and Vilarino, leading to him attacking the rim at will, racking up lay-ups, assists, and free throw attempts.

4. The Badgers score on the Zags inside, shooting better than 44% from 2-land. I like our bigs and guards to shoot better than the average team against the Bulldogs interior defense.

My Prediction: I’m not sure why, but I’m liking the Badgers in a heartbreaker for the Zags, 70-67 in a 66-possession game.

Arizona Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: What an ugly game. 55 fouls, 66 free throws and absolutely no flow to the game at all for either team. I generally don't like to make complaints about refs, but it was bad... for both teams.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW’s offense wasn't flowing after the first 9 minutes, but the defense did just enough for the win.

Pace: The game was a zippy 68 possessions.

Efficiency: Arizona scored at a bad 0.90 PPP. UW scored at a below average (for D1) 0.96 PPP.

Shooting: Neither team shot well. Arizona shot a bad 39.8% eFG and Wisconsin barely surpassed them with a 40.7%.

3 pt shooting: The Badgers chose to launch 7 extra three’s and made 1 of them. Arizona made 3 of 11 for 27% and UW 4-18 for 22%. Quantity trumped quality. Edge = UW +3.

2pt shooting: The Wildcats were also bad inside. They hit only 13/33 for 39% to UW’s 18/41, or 44%. UW made 5 on their 8 extra shots. Edge = UW +10.

1pt shooting: Both teams were getting to the line due to the fouls, but UW wasn't hitting. Arizona was 26/37 for 70%, while UW was 17/29 for 59%. Edge = Arizona +9.

Rebounding: UW rebounded about as normal as they usually do.

UW Defensive End: There were 33 rebounding opportunities on UW’s defensive end and UW grabbed 26 to Arizona’s 7, or UW got 79% to Arizona’s 21%. This is about normal for UW and near the top in the nation. As mentioned many times, UW was one of the best defensive rebounding team in the nation last year (thanks Joe and Marcus).

UW Offensive End: There were more rebounding opportunities on the other end, 40, and UW snarfed up 11 or 28%. That is slightly below normal for UW. Last year we were slightly below the national average of 33% (31%).

Turnovers: UW forced Arizona into a 18% turnover rate, which is normal by UW’s standards. The Wildcats puked it up 12 times. UW threw away the ball a mere 8 times, or 12% (last year we averaged 16%). So, we did well.

Fouls: Both teams fouled greatly. Arizona had 30 and UW 25. These converted into 37 attempts by Arizona and 29 by UW. Since Arizona made 26, we can't say with great pride that we made more FT’s than Arizona attempted. Arizona's Kyle Fogg, Solomon Hill, and Lamont "MoMo" Jones fouled out, as did UW's Jon Leuer.

Playing time: Bo went 10 deep with Breusewitz getting 22 minutes, Taylor 21, Evans 13, Wilson 10, and Berggren 9. The foul trouble for Leuer and Nankivil held them to 10 and 17 minutes respectively, opening up all those minutes for the bench.

Notable Performances: Trevon Hughes led the Badgers with 24 points on 7-19 shooting, 8-14 from the line, and 2-6 from 3, along with 7 rebounds, 4 steals, 3 assists, and 2 blocks and a smart, timely steal on off of Nankivil's missed free throw with 5 seconds left. Trevon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of turomon's people.

Keaton Nankivil scored 12 points on 5-9 shooting, with 8 rebounds, 5 of the offensive variety, and an assist and a block... in a mere 17 minutes. None of the 5 offensive boards was more timely than his dunk with authority off of a Hughes miss late, giving Wisconsin a 61-58 lead. Keaton... tales... exploits... turomon's people...

My Predictions:

1. Both teams protect their defensive glass. Arizona and UW will not allow more than 33% of the misses on defense to be grabbed by the offensive team. Hit. UW gave up 21% offensive rebounds to Arizona and Arizona gave up 28% to UW.

2. Leuer and Nankivil combine for more than 22 points. I’m still liking this Badger duo to continue their dominance in the paint against this undersized Arizona team. Miss. Keaton lived up to his half of the bargain, but the foul trouble that plagued both of them took it's toll on Jon, as he had only 4 points in 10 foul-ridden minutes.

3. Badgers fluster the Wildcats into more than a 20% turnover rate. They averaged 20.1% in the first 2 games, and I think the much better Badger defense (compared to Northern Arizona and Rice) frustrates the young Wildcats into mental errors. Miss. UW came up just short, at 18%.

4. Badgers in a tight one, 65-58 in a 64-possession game. Hit! UW wins 65-61 in a 68 possession game. If it wasn't for a 25 footer from Jamelle Horne, I would've nailed the score perfectly. Go figure the game I decide to lowball the possessions they play the pace I expect them to.

Closing Thoughts: This was a relatively ugly game with all the fouls and really hurt our frontcourt. But the good thing about it was, the freshman received a baptism by fire, playing BIG minutes in a tight game with a great opponent. I'm just happy they survived and advanced so to speak. On to Gonzaga... hopefully the refs are better because Gonzaga will absolutely destroy us inside if Jon and Keaton get in trouble again.

Arizona Pre-Game News Articles

Badger Herald
madison.com #1
madison.com #2
madison.com #3
madison.com #4
madison.com #5
madison.com #6
uwbadgers.com #1
uwbadgers.com #2
uwbadgers.com #3
Arizona Daily Wildcat
azcentral.com
arizonawildcats.com #1
arizonawildcats.com #2





I leave you with a photo my dad took of a Maui sunset on our vacation there in 2008.

Arizona Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: With Oakland downed, who’s next? None other than the Wildcats of Arizona… who are awaiting the Badgers in a gym just off of Maui’s Honoapiilani Highway. While this isn’t a star-studded team coached by Lute Olsen, this team is very dangerous to Wisconsin. It is tiny and ultra-athletic. Wisconsin will have a height advantage at most positions, but will be either even or at a disadvantage athletically. Due to too small of a sample size with Miller at the helm and too different of playing style between last year’s Arizona and this year’s, I’m gonna mainly use offensive stats from last year’s Arizona team and defensive stats from last year’s Xavier team for this analysis. I may mess around with numbers to try and incorporate Arizona’s players and Miller’s strategies. Also, Miller has stated the starting line-up is subject to change. I’ll just go with the most recent one.

Forums to Visit:
Wildcat Scoop (Scout)
Go AZ Cats (Rivals)
Point Guard U (Independent)


Arizona Probable Rotation:
*G – 5’10” SR Nic Wise (15.7 PPG, 4.6 APG, 2.5 RPG, 1.5 SPG, 41.5% 3FG last season)
*G – 6’0” FR Lamont Jones (8 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 2.5 SPG in first 2 games)
*F – 6’6” FR Solomon Hill (14.5 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 2 APG, 55% FG in first 2 games)
*F – 6’6” JR Jamelle Horne (6.8 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 1.3 APG last season)
*F – 6’7” FR Derrick Williams (9 PPG, 5 RPG, 2 APG, 1.5 BPG in first 2 games)
G – 6’3” SO Brendon Lavender (5 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 1 SPG in first 2 games)
G – 6’3” SO Kyle Fogg (6.1 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 1.7 APG, 38.3% 3FG)
C – 6’10” FR Kyryl Natyazhko (3.5 PPG, 5.5 RPG in first 2 games)

Last season they played at a pace of 67 possessions per game, very close to last season’s Indiana and Purdue teams, as did new coach Sean Miller’s Xavier team. I’m certain they will play man-to-man defense, with strong defensive rebounding, but not many steals or forced turnovers, a la Wisconsin.

They are returning 52.1% of their minutes, 40.5% of their rebounding, and 42.3% of their scoring from last season. They return a whopping 2 upperclassmen, senior Nic Wise and junior Jamelle Horne. The rest of their rotation consists of 4 true freshman and 2 sophomores, one of which only played mop-up time.

Key Players: Nic Wise – Arizona’s senior leader by default. He declared for the draft in April but withdrew in June. He also seems to have a beef with Bo Ryan since he was cut from the World University Games team that Bo coached, so he said that’s an extra motivator for him in this game. Last season, he had a great 112.6 offensive rating. He achieved this by shooting similar numbers to Jerel McNeal (11% better from the line and 1.5% better from 3) and turned it over slightly more often than Krabby did last season.

Solomon Hill – He is one of the top ranked players of the freshman class, and Hill is proving it on the court. The diaper dandy is putting up 14 and 5 with an efficiency matching Wise’s. It should be interesting to see how he and the other underclassmen react to a defense like Wisconsin in their first neutral/road game of the season.

Jamelle Horne – He’s Arizona’s Jamelle Cornley. He had similar stats but isn’t as aggressive in looking for his own shot and is a better defender in the post. As I said previously, this Zona team is very undersized, case in point, 6’6” Horne and 6’7” Williams will be the ones matching up with the likes of Leuer, Nankivil, and Berggren.

What Arizona is really good at:

1. Rebounding Defensively. So far this season, Arizona has grabbed 29.5% of all rebounding opportunities on their defensive end and Miller’s Xavier team grabbed 27.8% last season.

2. Not sending opponents to the line. So far, Arizona’s opponents have attempted a ratio of 23 FTs to 100 attempted shots. For comparison, Wisconsin’s is 24.5. Xavier was good at this last season also.

3. Defensive Effective FG%. So far, Arizona has given up a paltry 38.5%. Wisconsin’s at 33.3% and Xavier was 7th at it last season. We’ll see if this was just a product of competition.


What Arizona is really bad at:

1. Rebounding Offensively. So far this season, the Wildcats have grabbed only 29.7% of their misses. I’m not sure of this is just small sample size or lack of actual players’ size, because Xavier was one of the best at it last season.

2. Getting to the free throw line. They attempt 32 FTs for every 100 FGs so far, which is slightly worse than Wisconsin did last season. Xavier was one of the best at this last season, but Arizona may not have the right skills in the right places for it to become a strength.

Relative efficiency: Arizona was entirely an offensive team last season, hoping to outscore everyone they played, but Miller will incorporate some tough man-to-man defense for better consistency.
When Arizona has the ball: They scored a superb 1.18 PPP last season and 1.03 in their first two games, while UW gave up 0.71 in the first two games and 0.95 last season.
When UW has the ball: They gave up an average 1.00 last season (Xavier, a superb 0.89) and 0.80 in their first two games, while UW scored 1.07 in their first two games and 1.14 last season.


Pace: Arizona played at 67 possessions per game last season and 75 in their first two games compared to UW’s 62 in their first two and 60 last season.


My expectations:

1. Both teams protect their defensive glass. Arizona and UW will not allow more than 33% of the misses on defense to be grabbed by the offensive team.

2. Leuer and Nankivil combine for more than 22 points. I’m still liking this Badger duo to continue their dominance in the paint against this undersized Arizona team.

3. Badgers fluster the Wildcats into more than a 20% turnover rate. They averaged 20.1% in the first 2 games, and I think the much better Badger defense (compared to Northern Arizona and Rice) frustrates the young Wildcats into mental errors.


My prediction: Badgers in a tight one, 65-58 in a 64-possession game.

Oakland Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: Well I've got nothing going on right now and turomon hasn't posted the box score observations on BM's board yet, so I'll fill in to get it to my blog and this board quicker.

UW had some really ugly moments offensively this game, but the defense was beautiful. Hughes, Leuer, and Nankivil did well offensively, with Nankivil continuing his one-upping of Will Hudson in this game just like in high school, but the rest of the team had a pretty forgettable game on offense. J-Bo was an icy 3-10 and Evans did a reverse of how he usually scores... he was 2-6, missing his short range scoops and lay-ups and making his 2 15-18 foot jumpers.


Summarizing the game in a few words: UW played suffocating defense and sub-par offensively leading to an easy 58-42 win.


Pace: The game was a normal, for UW, 62 possessions.


Efficiency: UW put up a bad 0.94 PPP but held Oakland to an embarrassing 0.68 PPP.


Shooting: UW achieved a below average 44.3 eFG% and held Oakland to a lowly 30.0%. We outscored IPFW inside and at the line and tied around the arc.

3 pt shooting: UW hoisted 5 less threes than Oakland but made the same amount. UW was a poor 3-14 for 21% while Oakland hit only 3-19 for 16%. Edge - Even.

2pt shooting: UW took a few more shots inside than Oakland - 39 to 36. But, they made 7 more. UW hit an okay 49% inside going 19-39. Oakland was 12-36 for 33%. UW picked up an additional 14 points inside.

1pt shooting: Both teams were comparably efficient at the line. Oakland hit 90% (9 of 10) while UW was 85% (11/13). UW got an extra 2 points on the line and my favorite stat has returned, they made more free throws than their opponent attempted.


Rebounding: Protecting the glass will be something I plan on watching a lot this year. Can Leuer, Nankivil, Berggren, Jarmusz and company approach the effectiveness of Landry and Krabbenhoft?

UW Defensive end: There were 39 rebounding opportunities on UW's defensive side and UW grabbed 26 for 66%. Exactly average. Or, Oakland grabbed 33% of their misses. Last year we allowed the opposition 26.4% of the misses, which was #4 nationally… Hence, the concern about losing Landry and Krabbenhoft.

UW Offensive End: There were only 32 rebounding opportunities (see UW's better shooting percentages for an insight) and UW plucked 13 for 41%. Normally, UW would concede the offensive glass to play defense. Last year we gathered 32%, which was below average for D1 teams. Offensive rebounding, to some degree, is a strategy decision.


Turnovers: Oakland had 16 TO's for 26% while UW had 15 TO's for 24%. Last year we averaged 16%, which was #5 nationally. There was that forgettable stretch where we lost it about 6 times in a row in the second half. Ugh. As they say, Bo has some "teaching moments." We will watch this all year.


Fouls: Oakland had 14 to UW's 12. UW ended up with 3 extra free throws.


Playing time: Bo played 7 players 10 or minutes with Berggren and Wilson getting 6 and Bruesewitz getting 2. No redshirt for Bruiser.


Notable Performances:

Nankivil was on fire today. He was 5-8 from the floor with 2 dunks and a triple, 2-2 from the line, grabbed 9 boards (3 offensive), blocked 4 shots, and stole 2 balls. Keaton, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of turomon's people.

Hughes had a decent 15 points on 4-9 shots, 6-6 from the line, grabbed 7 boards, dished 4 assists, and had a block and a steal. Leuer knocked down 12 on 11 shots and had 3 steals and 2 blocks. Hughes and Leuer, people, campfires …


My Predictions: I had 2 hits, 1 miss, and fouled off 1.

1. Badgers shut down their offensive rebounding. Wisconsin is too tall, athletic, and fundamentally sound compared to Oakland to give up more than 28% of the rebounding opportunities on that end of the floor. Miss. Oakland got 33%.

2. Badgers smother the Grizzlies in the paint defensively. Jones, Wright, and Cushingberry will knock down some triples, but Benson, Hudson, and Nelson are held in check, scoring less than 30 points combined. Hit! Benson, Hudson, and Nelson were held to 20 points on 8-24 shooting.

3. They continue to pound the ball inside to Leuer, Nankivil, Evans, Jarmusz, and Berggren. Oakland's interior defense can block a lot of shots against smaller teams but gets pushed around easily…Wisconsin is bigger in height and strength. I figure Oakland will desperately switch to a 1-3-1 if this happens. Hit! Leuer and Nankivil were UW's 2nd and 3rd leading scorers and Oakland did desperately switch to a zone in the second half, and J-Bo promptly hit a 3 on the first possession they faced said zone.

4. Badgers roll, 77-58 in a 68-possession game. Foul tip. My margin of victory was very close, but I was way off in points and a bit off on possessions. I gave the offenses too much credit.


Closing Thoughts: I realize it's a very small sample size, but this could be Bo Ryan's best defensive team. They have enough athleticism on the perimeter to stick with teams they previously probably couldn't due to J-Bo's increased quickness, Taylor's improvement in not fouling, Jarmusz's improved lateral quickness, and the emergence of Evans as the 6th man. Inside, Leuer, Nankivil, and Evans are very talented on-ball and off, and have had a knack for blocking or altering shots quite a bit. Through these 2 games, the team has blocked 18 shots, or 27.1% of opponent's possessions. They've also held their opponents to a lowly 19% from 3 and 36% from 2. And unlike last season, this game was a relative blowout, despite a poor offensive night for the team.

With that said, bring on Sean Miller's Arizona Wildcats.

Oakland Post-Game News Articles

Daily Cardinal
Badger Herald #1
Badger Herald #2
madison.com #1
madison.com #2
MJS Blog
uwbadgers.com #1
uwbadgers.com #2
uwbadgers.com #3
uwbadgers.com #4
ougrizzlies.com #1
ougrizzlies.com #2
ougrizzlies.com #3

Oakland Pre-Game News Articles

Daily Cardinal
Badger Herald
Oakland Post
OU Athletics
Buckingham U Blogger
madison.com #1
madison.com #2
uwbadgers.com

Wisconsin Offers Traevon Jackson!

Wisconsin has reportedly offered 6'2" combo guard Traevon Jackson. Jackson is son of OSU great Jim Jackson and hails from Westerville, Ohio. He's a lefty that is more of a slasher than a shooter currently, but has an expanding perimeter range. This past season he averaged 14 points, 6 rebounds, and 4 assists and shot above 30% from behind the arc.

Jackson has said that he he has 4 criteria for choosing a school... 1) great academics, 2) great player development to help him reach the next level, 3) a winning program, and (unfortunately for UW) 4) a place where he can make an immediate impact aka early playing time. He currently has offers from Akron, Miami (Ohio), Ohio, Cleveland State, and Arizona State. He's also garnering interest from Notre Dame, Butler, and Wichita State.

Rivals Profile
Scout Profile
ESPN Profile
Recruiting Planet Thread
Free Article on RedHawk Insider

Oakland Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: With IPFW done and vanquished, who’s next? None other than the Grizzlies of Oakland University. Oakland is the preseason favorite to win the Summit League, the same conference that IPFW was picked to finish 7th in. They lost their first game of the season, 77-81 to Eastern Michigan on their home court, but they shot uncharacteristically poor from the 3-point line and the free throw line. They also gave up a below average 1.05 PPP on defense. Despite that, the Badgers are in for a tough opponent with the Grizzlies, preparing them well for their trip to the Lahaina Civic Center in Maui. If we have a Winthrop small-school takes us to OT type game this season, this will be it.


Oakland Probable Rotation:
*G – 5’11” SR Johnathon Jones (13.3 PPG, 8.1 APG, 2.8 RPG, 1.4 SPG)
*G – 6’2” JR Larry Wright (9.1 PPG, 1.3 RPG, 40% 3FG at St. John’s in 07-08)
*F – 6’5” SR Derick Nelson (17.3 PPG, 7.4 RPG, 1.7 SPG in 07-08, Med RS in 08-09)
*F – 6’9” JR Will Hudson (7.4 PPG, 4.6 RPG, 68.2% FG)
*C – 6’11” JR Keith Benson (14.3 PPG, 7.8 RPG, 2.4 BPG, 62.2% FG)
G – 6’3” SO Blake Cushingberry (6.3 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 1.2 APG, 1.0 SPG)
G/F – 6’6” SO Drew Maynard (7.1 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 1.0 APG)
C – 7’0” SO Illja Milutinovic (1.9 PPG, 1.2 RPG, 54.2% FG)
F – 6’4” FR Drew Valentine (15.5 PPG, 11.9 RPG as HS junior)

Last season they played at a pace of 66 possessions per game, very close to last season’s Indiana and Purdue teams. The Grizzlies play a mix of man-to-man and zone defense and don’t force many turnovers or steals, but they do block a lot of shots. Grizzly fans aren’t very sure how their defense is going to play, but from what I was told, it sounds like they may start out in man-to-man and likely switch to zone if Keaton, Jon, Jared, Tim, Ryan, and Rob are killing them in the paint.

They are returning 68.3% of their minutes, 74.1% of their rebounding, and 66.1% of their scoring from last season. This is a bit flawed though, as All-Conference player Derick Nelson played 17 minutes last season before taking a medical redshirt for a broken foot. He averaged 17 and 7 the season before.


Key Players: Johnathon Jones – Jones, like Trevon, is the senior leader on his team. Last season, he led the country in assists per game. He also was effective shooting the ball as well, with an offensive rating of 106.8. He is also a proficient free throw shooter at 77% and shares Bohannon’s ability to not foul. He had 23 points, 9 assists, and 3 steals in their first game on 9-14 shooting (2-3 from the arc, 3-3 from the line).

Keith Benson – Benson was a force on both ends of the court. He was the 14th most efficient scorer in the nation with a rating of 126.3! How he accomplished this amazing feat was shooting a ridiculous 62.2 eFG%, attempting a set of free throws for every 3 shots from the field (68th in nation), and never turning the ball over (27th in the nation). Combine Jason Bohannon’s inability to turn it over, Tim Jarmusz’s shooting percentages, and Tyler Hansbrough’s ability to get to the free throw, and the result is this 6’11” post threat from Oakland. Did I also mention he rebounded defensively as well as Krabbenhoft did and blocked shots more often than Minnesota’s Damien Johnson, Ralph Sampson, or Colton Iverson? Ugh. Keaton, Jon, and Jared have their work cut out for themselves. Luckily, he can get in foul trouble easily, as he averaged 4.6 fouls per 40 minutes, and according to Grizzly fans, he can get pushed around in the post pretty easily. In their first game, he had 15 points, 13 rebounds, and 8 blocks on 5-10 from the field and 5-8 from the line.

Will Hudson – Another extremely efficient offensive player with a rating of 120.1. Hudson has an even better eFG% than Benson, 68.2. He was not an aggressive offensive player though, shooting as often as Joe Krabbenhoft did. Apparently he is a weak link defensively. In their first game, he had 2 points and 8 boards in 20 minutes (4 fouls).

Derick Nelson – The season before his medical redshirt, Nelson had an offensive rating of 104.1. He is technically the team’s leading returning scorer and got to the free throw line about as often as Benson. He’s their best defender. In their first game, he had 20 and 12 (8 off rebs), but shot 9-20, 1-2 from 3, and a horrendous 1-9 from the line.


What Oakland is really good at:

1. Shooting in general. Last season the Grizzlies were 18th in the nation at eFG% at 54.2. They were 16th at shooting 2’s, 62nd at shooting 3’s, and 137th at shooting the freebies. They shot 51% from 2, 18% from 3, and 45% from the line in their first game… an eFG% of 44.2%.

2. Blocking shots. Last season, OU was 30th at blocking shots, sending one into the rafters once every 8 possessions on defense. They blocked 10 shots in 77 possessions, right in line with last season.

3. Not sending their opponents to the line. Last season they were 19th at not commit bonus or shooting fouls. Opponents shot 2 free throw for every 7 shot attempts they had. Not so in their first game, but that’s likely due to playing from behind much of the game.

4. Not turning over the ball. They turned it over 19% of their possessions, good for 88th. The Badgers were at 16% and 4th. They lost 2 of their better ball-handlers and their worst, and add Larry Wright, who turned it over less than 10% of the time during his sophomore year at St. John’s. In their first game, they turned it over 7 times, for an outstanding 9.1%.

5. Offensive rebounding. They grabbed 35.4% of all rebounds on their offensive end, good for 82nd. For comparison, that’s about half-way between Minnesota and Marquette’s numbers for last season. In their first game, they grabbed 17, or 36%.


What Oakland is really bad at:

1. Rebounding defensively. They are a poor 258th at rebounding on D, or grab 63.3% of their opponent’s misses. UW grabbed 73.7%, or 4th, last season. They grabbed 77% in their first game.

2. Forcing turnovers. Oakland generally forced less than turnovers than they had themselves, making them 284th, at 18.5% of possessions. UW was at 19.3% last season. They forced 9 in their first game, or 11.7%.

3. Defending threes. They allowed their opponent’s to shoot 37.3% from 3 last season, good for 315th. In their first game, their opponents hit 6-15, for 40%.


Relative efficiency: As you can probably tell from what they are good and bad at, Oakland is great on offense and below average on defense.

When Oakland has the ball: They scored a great 1.13 PPP last season and 1.00 in their first game, while UW gave up 0.73 in the first game, 0.68 PPP in the exhibition games, and 0.95 last season.

When UW has the ball: They gave up a bad 1.06 last season and 1.05 in their first game, while UW scored 1.19 against IPFW, 1.15 in the exhibition games and 1.14 last season.


Pace: Oakland played at 66 possessions per game last season and 77 in their first game compared to UW’s 63 against IPFW, 74 in the exhibition games and 60 last season.


My expectations:

1. Badgers shut down their offensive rebounding. Wisconsin is too tall, athletic, and fundamentally sound compared to Oakland to give up more than 28% of the rebounding opportunities on that end of the floor.

2. Badgers smother the Grizzlies in the paint defensively. Jones, Wright, and Cushingberry will knock down some triples, but Benson, Hudson, and Nelson are held in check, scoring less than 30 points combined.

3. They continue to pound the ball inside to Leuer, Nankivil, Evans, Jarmusz, and Berggren. Oakland’s interior defense can block a lot of shots against smaller teams but gets pushed around easily…Wisconsin is bigger in height and strength. I figure Oakland will desperately switch to a 1-3-1 if this happens.


My prediction: Badgers roll, 77-58 in a 68 possession game. Bold, but I think our bigs hold Benson, Hudson, and Nelson in check.

IPFW Box Score Observations (by turumon)

Opening Comments: I will not jump to conclusions based upon one game against an inferior team. I will not jump to conclusions based upon one game against an inferior team. I will not jump to conclusions based upon one game against an inferior team. …

Mastodons are slow moving and extinct.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW shot the lights out inside the arc and played great D.

Pace: The game was a normal, for UW, 63 possessions.

Efficiency: UW put up a stellar 1.19 PPP and held IPFW to a miserly .73 PPP.

Shooting: UW achieved a stunning 63.3 eFG% and held IPFW to a lowly 37.2%. We outscored IPFW inside, outside and at the line.

3 pt shooting: UW hoisted 5 more threes than IPFW and made 3 more shots. UW was a so-so 6/18 for 33% while IPFW hit only 3/13 for 23%. That gave UW an extra 9 points from beyond the arc.

2pt shooting: Surprisingly, IPFW took more shots inside than UW – 34 to 31. But, quality trumped quantity big time. UW hit a stunning 71% inside going 22/31. Yikes! IPFW was 13/34 for 38%. UW picked up an additional 18 points inside.

1pt shooting: Both teams were comparably efficient at the line. IPFW hit 73% (11 of 15) while UW was 76% (13/17). UW got an extra 2 points on the line.

Rebounding: [Edit: I goofed up the rebounding. It should now be fixed.] Protecting the glass will be something I plan on watching a lot this year. Can Leuer, Nankivil, Berggren, Jarmusz and company approach the effectiveness of Landry and Krabbenhoft?

UW Defensive end: There were 32 rebounding opportunities on UW’s defensive side and UW grabbed 26 for 81%. Anything above 66% is better than average for NCAA D1. Or, IPFW grabbed 19% of their misses. Last year we allowed the opposition 26.4% of the misses, which was #4 nationally. Hence, the concern about losing Landry and Krabbenhoft.

UW Offensive End: There were only 23 rebounding opportunities (see UW’s shooting percentages for an insight) and UW plucked 7 for 30%. Normally, UW would concede the offensive glass to play defense. Last year we gathered 32%, which was below average for D1 teams. Offensive rebounding, to some degree, is a strategy decision.

Turnovers: IPFW had 14 TO's for 22% while UW had 13 TO's for 21%. Last year we averaged 16%, which was #5 nationally. There was that forgettable stretch where we lost it about 6 times in a row in the second half. Ugh. As they say, Bo has some “teaching moments.” We will watch this all year.

Fouls: IPFW had 20 to UW’s 16. UW ended up with 2 extra free throws.

Playing time: Bo played 8 players 10 or minutes with Berggren getting 9 and Smith logging a pleasing 6. Good job, W'QS.

Notable Performances: Everyone who took a shot from the floor scored at least as many points as FGA’s.

Leuer was on fire today. He was 8-10 from the floor, 3-3 from the line, grabbed 6 boards (including a great long-armed snatch under IPFW’s basket), and blocked 4 shots. John, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Jarmusz was a tidy 9 points on 7 shots with 4 boards. JBO knocked down 12 on only 7 shots and had 3 blocks. JBO, people, campfires …

Shetown’s Predictions: Shetown had 3 hits, no misses, and fouled off 2.

1. Defending the three. The one thing IPFW is good at is shooting treys. Last season, Wisconsin’s opponents shot 32.6% from 3, good for 72nd worst in the country. Hit. IPFW hit 23%.

2. Defensive Rebounding. With the likelihood of long rebounds off of missed 3 bombs, the Badgers need to secure the boards against a poor offensive rebounding team and try to convert transition opportunities against this poor defensive team. Hit. IPFW got 6 of 25 for 24%. That is about average for our opponents last year, but UW was one of the best in the nation at protecting the glass. This is a good start, but obviously the level of competition has something to do with this.

3. Pound the ball inside. With IPFW’s best post defender suspended, Leuer, Nankivil, and Berggren should be able to have a field day in the paint. Major Hit. UW hit a shocking 71% inside the arc and outscored IPFW by 18 points.

4. Going inside will also lead to making that magical “make more free throws than their opponents take” stat come back to life after a 308 day hiatus. Not quite. UW made 13, IPFW tried 15.

5. I think UW accomplishes my keys to the game leading to the Badgers freezing the Mastodons 82-60 in a 71-possession game. Sort of. The game was 75-46 with 63 possessions. UW’s defense outperformed Shetown’s expectations. He predicted .85PPP buit UW achieved .73. Good job, team.

Closing Thoughts:

I normally do not look at blocks and assists. Who cares? But, one cannot help but notice UW had 11 blocks (to IPFW’s 0). Amazing.

As for assists, I still do not care.

Mrs. Turomon paused the TV and showed me that Andy North was present in the crowd (Thank God for HDTV or we would not have seen him). That got us at least a sip of our favorite beverage. For those who actually read this far and do not know the game, an Andy North sighting is a major part of our Badger drinking game).

I commented to Mrs. T that I need to pick a new favorite player since Joe Krabbenhoft is gone. This is a stressful thing for me to do. I want to get it right. Imagine the pressure on the poor guy who gets the honor. She recommended that I wait awhile before picking a favorite player, which makes a lot of sense. My instincts lean towards Jarmusz, but Leuer made me pause tonight. JBO is great - I really like his defense and his offensive efficiency is through the roof. Hughes does the dirty work. There are so many to choose from.

I really like the way the team appears to be unflappable. In particular, Hughes and JBO have the same demeanor all game every game no matter the opponent. I am not one who believes that basketball players should get fired up. Fired up players are mistake prone players, IMHO. I like to see steady high level performers (e.g. Mike Wilkinson, Marcus, …).

UW Offers George Marshall!

Last night after the IPFW game, Wisconsin offer prospect George Marshall of Brooks College Prep High School in Illinois. Marshall is a 5'11" point guard with great floor leadership, court vision, and ability to hit shots with range and accuracy. He was quoted as saying, "I went to their game today against IPFW, and after the game I talked with Howard Moore, and he talked about academics and their expectations on the court. Then I talked to head coach Bo Ryan, and he said how he likes my game, and how they would like to have me. They then offered me a scholarship. It means a lot to pick up a Big Ten offer, especially from a winning program like Wisconsin, and a coach like Bo Ryan."

Marshall also has offers from DePaul, Baylor, Illinois State, Xavier, and Ohio.

Rivals Profile
Scout Profile
ESPN Profile
Recruiting Planet Thread

IPFW Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: It’s here! The start of another Wisconsin Badger basketball season is upon us! Get ready for Bo clapping for blocking fouls, Andy North popping up on screen, stories of Leuer growing 8 inches, Erin Andrews, and probably references to Kid N Play and Will Smith in regards to Ryan Evans’ hair. Who’s ready for Bo’s Badgers to prove pundits wrong yet again? I know I am!

Also, if you guys want me to add any other kind of information to my pre-games let me know and I can try to integrate it for the next ones.


What the expert nerds say:

Sagarin doesn’t have any data to predict this game.

Ken Pomeroy doesn’t have any stats to work with either.


IPFW Probable Rotation:
*G – 6’0” Ben Botts (11.3 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 1.6 APG, 42% 3PT, 92% FT)
*G – 6’2” Nick Daniels (8.4 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 1.6 APG, 47% 3FG)
*G – 6’3” Zach Plackemeier (7.7 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 2.2 APG, 45% 3PT)
*F – 6’5” John Peckinpaugh (1.8 PPG, 1.6 RPG)
*C – 6’10” Trey McCorkle (3.2 PPG, 1.4 RPG, 1.0 SPG)
G/F – 6’7” Aaron Ritchie (2.3 PPG, 1.8 RPG)
G – 6’1” Jeremy Mixon (3.8 PPG, 1.3 RPG)
F – 6’5” Antwone Snead (9.7 PPG, 8.5 RPG at Lamar CC)
F – 6’8” Oleg Kovalev (9.1 PPG, 5 RPG at Cloud CC)
G – 6’4” Eli Lee (25.5 PPG, 5 RPG at Progressive Christian Academy)

Leading shot blocker (single season record at school) and 2nd returning scorer Deilvez Yearby, a 6’6” senior forward, has been suspended from this game due to a violation of team rules. He was Summit League 6th Man of the Year last season and would have been a starter in this game.

Last season they played at a pace of 67 possessions per game, very close to last season’s Indiana and Purdue teams. However, it looks like they will try to become more run-n-gun this season according to some of Coach Dane Fife’s twitter posts in the past few weeks (https://twitter.com/CoachDaneFife). The Mastodons play man-to-man defense, and similar to the Badgers, don’t force many turnovers, steals, or blocks.


Key Players: Junior guard Ben Botts is the leading returning scorer, and did it with an efficient 106.9 offensive rating. He accomplished that rating with shooting 42% from 3, 91% from the line, and was the second least likely player to turn the ball over on the team. Nearly half of all his shot attempts were from behind the arc last season, similar to Trevon Hughes. Despite his great free throw shooting, he didn’t get to the line much, only attempting 71 last season. He is also only 1 of 2 returning players with an assist-to-turnover ratio above 1.0.

Another key player for the ‘Dons is Zach Plackemeier. The 6’3” junior guard was the most efficient offensive player last season with more than 50 possessions to his name. He scored almost 8 points per game with an offensive rating of 107.7. It was achieved with a stellar 44.9% from 3, 80% from the line, and 83 assists to 46 turnovers.

6’0” senior guard Nick Daniels is the lead sniper on a team full of 3-point shooters. He shot an amazing 47.4% from beyond the arc. Luckily, he doesn’t excel at anything else on offense, turning it over a quarter of the time he ends a possession and shoots a lower percentage inside the arc than outside.

Lastly, I’m kinda blind towards how the Jucos and prep school kid will mix in since I couldn’t much info on preseason expectations and such. Peckinpaugh was my best guess for the starting line-up sub due to his position and playing time last season. It could easily be Snead or Kovalev too. I also saw on the Fort Worth newspaper that Fife wanted to move the suspended Yearby to small forward to get in another big so they could improve rebounding. So 1 of the 3 guards might be dropped from starter status as well. We’ll see on Sunday at 5.

What IPFW is really good at:

1. Shooting treys. The Mastodons take after their head coach, former Indiana guard Dane Fife, at being good 3-ball shooters. Last season they were 3rd in the nation at 40.8%, and the returning players combine for 42.8%. Oddly enough, they were well below D-1 average at attempts (239th/344), with only 30.3% of their shots coming from behind the line.


What IPFW is really bad at:

1. Rebounding offensively. Last season they grabbed 26.1% of boards when they were on offense, good for bottom 20 of all D-1.

2. Defense. Their defense gave up a poor 1.05 PPP last season (245th). They also gave up an eFG% of 51.5% (280th), only forced a turnover on 18.8% of opponent’s possessions (264th), gave up 52.1% from 2-point land (315th), and forced a steal on only 8.8% of opponent’s possessions (333rd).

3. Offense. The ‘Dons scored 0.99 PPP last season, good for 210th in the country. The Badgers should be happy if Jeremy Mixon and John Peckinpaugh are taking a lot of shots on Sunday, as they had Alex Legion and Jordan Taylor-esque offensive efficiency ratings last season. They also won’t have much of an inside presence unless one of the Jucos makes an impact or Peckinpaugh and/or McCorkle made serious leaps in ability and confidence.




Relative efficiency: As noted above, IPFW has very bad defense and pretty bad offense.

When IPFW has the ball: They scored a bad 0.99 PPP last season, while UW gave up 0.68 PPP in the exhibition games and 0.95 last season.

When UW has the ball: They gave up a bad 1.05 last season, while UW scored 1.15 in the exhibition games and 1.14 last season.


Pace: IPFW played at 67 possessions per game last season compared to UW’s 74 in the exhibition games and 60 last season. As previously mentioned Coach Dane Fife has hinted at a quicker pace in twitter posts, and Wisconsin players and coaches have done the same.

Keys to the Game:

1. Defending the three. The one thing IPFW is good at is shooting treys. Last season, Wisconsin’s opponents shot 32.6% from 3, good for 72nd worst in the country. Hopefully with the additions of a healthy Tim Jarmusz, Rob Wilson, and Ryan Evans, UW can improve upon this with quicker close-outs.

2. Defensive Rebounding. With the likelihood of long rebounds off of missed 3 bombs, the Badgers need to secure the boards against a poor offensive rebounding team and try to convert transition opportunities against this poor defensive team.

3. Pounding the ball inside. With IPFW’s best post defender suspended, Leuer, Nankivil, and Berggren should be able to have a field day. No one on the ‘Dons roster can match-up with Leuer or Nankivil. If Fife has them pack the paint, Jon and Keaton can just kick out to an open Bohannon, Jarmusz, Hughes, or Wilson. This will also lead to making that magical “make more free throws than their opponents take” stat come back to life after a 308 day hiatus.


My expectations: I think UW accomplishes my keys to the game leading to the Badgers freezing the Mastodons 82-60 in a 71-possession game.