Coppin State Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: Here’s the final tune-up before the start of the Big Ten conference games. It was a long 10 days off, especially since I had 4 finals in the past 4 days, but thankfully it’s over. The opponent is Coppin State, who is 4-4 with victories over Maryland-BC, Lincoln-PA, Navy, and West Virginia Tech. They played UConn on Monday and lost 76-64. To be fair, Ken Pom stats aren’t big fans of UConn right now, ranking them 37^th overall, while Notre Dame is 36^th and Marquette is 42^nd.

What the expert nerds say: Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 30-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy predicts a 75-46 Badger victory in 59 possessions with a 0.3% chance of an upset.

Coppin State Likely Rotation (FYI, Red = Bad, Blue = Average, Green = Good):

Position	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %
* G	5'11"	Tony Gallo	27.8	12.5	2.4	1.9	1.2	0.0	100.8	23.4	17.5	71.4%	35.3%	38.6%	56.4%	4.49	0.4	8.7	14.5	0.0	2.5
* G	6'4"	Michael Harper	31.9	15.8	3.8	1.4	1.8	0.4	105.6	23.1	15.5	81.3%	50.0%	38.6%	41.5%	1.51	1.6	10.9	10.6	1.2	3.1
* F	6'6"	Akeem Ellis	33.1	11.0	6.1	2.6	0.8	0.1	88.9	21.8	19.8	44.8%	45.0%	29.5%	52.4%	3.45	4.3	15.4	16.6	0.4	1.2
* F	6'6"	Antonio Williams	24.6	7.4	6.1	0.9	0.4	0.5	111.4	16.0	20.0	60.0%	62.5%	0.0%	7.0%	3.49	11.6	14.7	7.6	2.1	0.8
* F	6'8"	Branden Doughty	22.5	4.6	3.8	0.8	0.6	0.6	86.2	14.3	13.3	14.3%	41.9%	0.0%	2.3%	1.59	6.3	11.3	6.7	2.9	1.5
G	6'0"	Vince Goldsberry	24.8	7.8	2.3	3.8	1.2	0.3	102.2	20.7	20.3	72.0%	38.5%	30.0%	27.8%	6.94	3.4	6.5	30.4	1.4	2.6
C	6'8"	Ceslovas Kucinskas	16.4	3.5	3.6	0.1	0.8	0.4	97.8	13.1	23.3	69.2%	44.4%	33.3%	14.3%	6.19	8.7	14.7	1.4	2.4	2.6
F	6'5"	Michael Murray	13.6	3.1	2.1	0.3	0.4	0.1	73.5	18.7	19.7	50.0%	33.3%	25.0%	12.9%	0.65	7.6	9.0	4.3	1.1	1.8
G	6'4"	Collin Johnson	9.7	2.7	1.2	0.0	0.8	0.3	92.7	15.8	25.0	80.0%	33.3%	28.6%	70.0%	10.00	3.5	9.2	0.0	3.6	4.9
G	6'6"	Mike Simpson	7.5	2.2	1.0	0.4	0.4	0.0	63.9	25.7	40.7	33.3%	33.3%	36.4%	64.7%	3.53	3.4	10.7	10.1	0.0	2.8

Wisconsin Rotation:

Position	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %
* G	6'1"	Jordan Taylor	33.8	15.1	4.0	4.6	0.7	0.1	127.3	23.8	11.2	86.7%	46.3%	39.5%	34.4%	3.60	3.3	11.1	28.3	0.2	1.4
* G	6'3"	Josh Gasser	26.7	7.0	4.1	2.2	0.5	0.1	117.7	16.3	16.6	88.0%	58.8%	18.5%	44.3%	4.10	7.2	11.6	14.3	0.3	1.3
* F	6'6"	Mike Breusewitz	23.5	6.0	3.5	0.9	0.3	0.1	123.6	13.1	21.5	77.8%	61.5%	45.0%	43.5%	1.96	8.2	9.9	7.2	0.4	0.7
* F	6'10"	Jon Leuer	32.2	19.9	7.5	2.3	0.8	1.9	129.6	27.9	11.4	79.2%	52.0%	50.0%	32.9%	3.16	7.0	21.6	17.1	6.6	1.6
* F	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	22.7	8.0	4.8	1.0	0.8	1.6	126.8	17.6	16.6	100.0%	59.1%	43.5%	34.3%	0.90	12.4	13.6	9.0	8.0	2.4
G/F	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	19.5	3.0	2.1	1.1	0.7	0.0	123.3	9.3	6.6	60.0%	50.0%	28.6%	82.4%	1.47	4.6	8.5	9.6	0.0	2.4
G/F	6'6"	Ryan Evans	14.1	4.2	3.4	1.2	0.1	0.5	86.6	26.2	22.9	76.2%	31.3%	0.0%	4.0%	4.20	9.6	19.6	15.6	3.5	0.4
F/C	6'10"	Jared Berggren	8.6	4.0	1.4	0.7	0.1	0.1	104.1	26.0	36.6	66.7%	71.4%	44.4%	39.1%	2.61	6.4	14.2	17.3	1.4	0.8
G/F	6'4"	Rob Wilson	7.2	2.1	1.7	0.6	0.1	0.0	111.2	18.4	16.6	50.0%	64.3%	0.0%	22.2%	1.11	9.5	18.7	15.5	0.0	1.0
G	5'10"	Wquinton Smith	7.9	0.7	1.0	0.8	0.0	0.0	90.7	13.1	21.4	40.0%	33.3%	0.0%	33.3%	5.56	12.2	3.4	16.3	0.0	0.0
G	6'1"	Ben Brust	4.1	0.8	0.7	0.0	0.1	0.0	67.4	18.0	20.0	#DIV/0!	33.3%	16.7%	50.0%	0.00	6.7	13.1	0.0	0.0	1.8
G	6'4"	Brett Valentyn	4.6	1.5	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.0	128.6	12.5	28.5	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	44.4%	100.0%	0.00	0.0	9.9	5.0	0.0	0.0

What Coppin State is really good at:

1. Taking care of the ball. This season, they have averaged only 2 turnovers per 11 possessions, which is good for 59th in the nation.

What Coppin State is really bad at:

1. Rebounding. They have only grabbed 29.7% of the offensive rebounding opportunities (264^th) and 62.1% of the defensive rebounding opportunities (314^th).

2. Getting to the free throw line. They only attempt 7 free throws for every 25 field goal attempts, which is 323^rd in the nation.

3. Shooting. They shoot 31.9% from three (237^th), 42.9 inside the arc (284^th), and 64.1% from the line (276^th).

4. Pump-faking and blocking shots themselves. They get 3 of every 25 two-pointer they attempt blocked (297^th) and they only block 2 of every 29 two-pointers their opponents attempt (262^nd).

Relative Efficiency:

When Coppin State has the ball: They have scored a bad 0.96 PPP this season, while UW has given up a great 0.90 this season.

When UW has the ball: They have given up an average 1.00 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.19 this season.

Pace: Coppin State has played at 71 possessions per game to UW’s 60.

My expectations:

1. Badgers establish a strong post game with more than 30 points in the paint. The Badgers dominate the paint.

2. A Non-Jordan, -Jon, and –Keaton score in double figures. With a week and a half off, someone explodes offensively.

3. Badgers grab more than 42% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end and 80% on the defensive. They suck at rebounding.

The Badgers down the Eagles after struggling a bit early, winning 78-60 in 65 possessions.

UW-GB Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: UW avenged last year’s loss with a 70-56 win at the kohl Center.

UW survived a possible “trap game” after a tough road win at MU only two days ago.

Summarizing the game in a few words: In a game or role reversals compared to most of our recent games, UW had more turnovers, rebounded worse, and gave up points inside the arc, but won because of superior long range marksmanship and a large disparity of free throw attempts (and makes).

Pace: The game had 57 possessions. That is less than UW’s usual 60.

Efficiency: UW scored well again. UW put up an excellent 1.23 PPP. GB scored .98, considerably more than our opponent’s typical .90 PPP.

Shooting: UW dominated from deep, but GB canceled that out inside. UW dominated at the FT line, which was the difference in the game.

eFG%: UW sizzled with a fine 60% eFG%. GB was at 44%, close to our opponent’s typical 43%.

3 pt shooting: This was the major story of the game. GB hit 4 of 15, 27%, the worst any team has done against us this year. Meanwhile, UW was red hot stroking 10 of 17 for 59%. Yikes! UW outscored GB by 18 from beyond the arc.

2pt shooting: GB hit 19 of 42 shots for 45%. UW tried 16 fewer shots inside the arc – 26 – and made but 11 for 42%. GB got back 16 points inside giving UW only a plus two from the field despite the hot shooting from three.

GB outscored UW in the paint 26 to 18 and from mid range 12 to 4.

1pt shooting: UW cleaned up from the line. GB was 6 of 7 for 86%. UW went to the line 22 times and made a sparkling 18 for an excellent 82%. That provide UW with 12 points from the line, which was most of the game’s 14 point spread.

The “We Make More Free Throws Than Our Opponents Attempt” Scoreboard

UW Makes: 139 Opponent Attempts: 163 Difference: -24

UW got back 11 in this game. Maybe we can get this back?

Floor Location:

Location UW Opp

Arc 43% 21%

Mid Range 6% 21%

Paint 26% 46%

FT Line 26% 11%

UW has been scoring 32% of our points from deep, so the pickings were good.

Rebounding: GB had narrow victories protecting their glass and attacking the other end. Look carefully at these numbers. You will note why it is important to break apart offensive and defensive rebounds. In raw numbers, GB won by 8. But, the results were nearly a wash.

UW Defensive end: When GB shot, 34 rebounding opportunities presented themselves. Of these, GB got 12 offensive rebounds or 35%. That is a good day for an opponent of UW.

UW Offensive End: UW shot 14 fewer FGA’s, and made a higher percentage of shots from the floor (49% to 40% for GB), therefore 8 fewer opportunities existed – 26. UW got 8 or a healthy 31%. If you make your shots, fewer rebounds exist. So, despite having 8 fewer total rebounds, the results were about the same with GB having only a slight advantage.

GB had 15 second chance points compared to UW’s 10.

Turnovers: UW had 11 turnovers or a 19% turnover rate. GB did slightly better having 10 for 18%. However, UW did a better job of capitalizing off turnovers. UW scored 18 points off GB TO’s compared to GB’s 10.

Opportunity Index: GB won the OI. They had 4 extra offensive rebounds and one fewer turnover. However, UW ended up winning the scoring battle by scoring +8 off turnovers and -5 second chance points for a net +3.

Fouls: GB fouled 22 to UW’s 11. These fouls turned into 22 UW FTA’s compared to GB’s 7 FTA’s and a net 11 points for UW.

Playing time: Bo went only 6 deep with the starters getting double figures and Jarmusz 18, Smith played 9.

GB played 8 ten or more minutes.

Notable Performances: Leuer had his usual great line. Jon scored 22 on only 12 shots, 7-8 from the line. He added 8 boards. Jon has handled the pressure of being designate my favorite player admirably. Jon, I salute you.

Bruesewitz and Nankivil were ultra efficient. Mike scored 18 on only 6 FGA’s, 4-5 from the line and four boards. Keaton scored 16 on 6 shots, 4-5 from deep, 2-2 from the line. Keaton and Mike, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. Fear the ‘fro.

Taylor scored 10 but needed ten shots and 3-4 from the line. He had 3 turnovers, as did Josh Gasser. After the minutes he played at Marquette and 37 today, Jordan, you deserve a rest.

For GB, Alec Brown had 18 on 8-11 shooting. Jarvis Williams had ten boards.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Badgers have an eFG% of better than 60%. Green Bay averages giving up 58.1% in this category. Hit. UW was at 60.47%. I had to expand the cell to see if it was rounded up or rounded down. Lucky for Shetown, it was rounded down.

2. Someone not named Jon, Jordan, or Keaton scores in double figures. It seems like it has been a while since this happened. Hit. A guy named Mike knocked down 18.

3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end and 80% of the opportunities on defense. Total domination on the boards coming. Miss and Miss. UW got 31% on offense and 65% on defense.

The Badgers win big over the Phoenix, 81-52 in 60 possessions. Hit. The game was somewhat tighter than expected. UW won 70 to 56 in 58.

Closing Thoughts: We now have a ten day break while the players take their finals. Bo has another strong team that should compete very well in an ultra tough B10. Sagarin has the B10 as the toughest conference. Link.

UW-Green Bay Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: While we’re flying high off the defeat of Marquette on Saturday, we’ve got a quick turn around facing UW-Green Bay on Monday. This is the final game of the Wisconsin State Tournament with Wisconsin having a lock on at least a share of the title, and an outright championship with a win Monday night. This is the last game before a nine-day hiatus for finals. Since I too have finals and don’t really have a better way to announce, I’d like to take this opportunity to say that I am currently working on a pre-game analysis for the Rose Bowl. Unfortunately without a Ken Pom of sorts for college football, I’m doing all the work so it’s taking a while. But I hope to compare the match-ups of each teams’ units and at least minimize the effect that scheduling and style has on the team’s abilities if I’m not able to completely neutralize it.

Forums: UWGBPhoenix

What the expert nerds say: Ken Pom predicts a 75-54 Badger victory in 59 possessions, with a 2% chance of upset.

Sagarin predicts the game as a 21-point Badger victory.

UW-Green Bay Likely Rotation

*G – 5’10” SR Rahmon Fletcher (17.0 PPG, 3.1 APG, 2.3 RPG, 2.0 SPG, 112.9 OR, 27% Poss, 29% Shot, 18% TO, 2.4 FTR, 22% of FGAs are 3PT)

*G – 6’2” JR Steve Baker (8.7 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 2.2 APG, 114.1 OR, 16% Poss, 15% Shot, 19% TO, 2.9 FTR, 25% of FGAs are 3PT)

*G – 6’3” SR Bryquis Perine (12.8 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 2.6 APG, 96.8 OR, 25% Poss, 20% Shot, 24% TO, 3.2 FTR, 20% of FGAs are 3PT)

*F – 6’6” FR Daniel Turner (6.1 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 96.2 OR, 20% Poss, 17% Shot, 19% TO, 6.3 FTR, 15% of FGAs are 3PT)

*C – 7’0” FR Alec Brown (6.8 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 1.5 BPG, 93.7 OR, 21% Poss, 20% Shot, 19% TO, 4.7 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)

G – 6’0” SO Seth Evans (4.2 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 1.5 APG, 93.0 OR, 13% Poss, 12% Shot, 30% TO, 2.3 FTR, 67% of FGAs are 3PT)

F – 6’5” SO Troy Snyder (6.0 PPG, 4.6 RPG, 110.3 OR, 18% Poss, 20% Shot, 15% TO, 2.5 FTR, 24% of FGAs are 3PT)

F – 6’8” SR Greg LeSage (2.8 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 106.6 OR, 12% Poss, 11% Shot, 18% TO, 5.2 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)

F – 6’9” FR Clayton Heuer (1.8 PPG, 97.6 OR, 20% Poss, 24% Shot, 24% TO, 0.0 FTR, 61% of FGAs are 3PT)

PLAYER TRAITS

THREE-POINT SHOOTING

Jeff Jordan (<28%)

Clayton Heuer = 18%

Trevon Hughes (35-38%)

Rahmon Fletcher = 37%

Bryquis Perine = 36%

Clayton Hanson (+38%)

Steve Baker = 41%

TWO-POINT SHOOTING

Kevin Gullikson (<43%)

Daniel Turner = 38%

Alec Brown = 37%

Marcus Landry (50-54%)

Seth Evans = 54%

Troy Snyder = 54%

Rahmon Fletcher = 52%

Bryquis Perine = 50%

Mike Wilkinson (+54%)

Clayton Heuer = 86%

FREE THROW SHOOTING

Alando Tucker (<65%)

Daniel Turner = 52%

Troy Snyder = 46%

Kam Taylor (75-82%)

Seth Evans = 78%

Alec Brown = 76%

Jason Bohannon (+82%)

Rahmon Fletcher = 84%

DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING

Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)

Troy Snyder = 18%

Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)

None

OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING

Brian Butch (9-12%)

Greg LaSage = 10%

Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)

Daniel Turner = 14%

Troy Snyder = 13%

STEALING

Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)

Rahmon Fletcher = 3.8%

Mike Kelley (+4.4%)

None

BLOCKING

Brian Butch (3-7%)

Clayton Heuer = 4.4%

Troy Snyder = 3.2%

Greg Stiemsma (+7%)

Alec Brown = 8.2%

ASSISTS

Devin Harris (20-25%)

Rahmon Fletcher = 24%

Jordan Taylor (25-30%)

None

Demetri McCamey (+30%)

None

POSSESSION USAGE

Jason Chappell (<15%)

Steve Baker = 15%

Seth Evans = 13%

Greg LaSage = 12%

Brian Butch (24-28%)

Rahmon Fletcher = 27%

Bryquis Perine = 25%

Alando Tucker (+28%)

None

What UW-Green Bay is really good at:

1. Offensive Rebounding. They are 21st in offensive rebounding (39.6%).

3. Taking care of the ball. They turn the ball over six times every 31 possessions, 95th fewest in the nation.

3. Forcing turnovers. They force three turnovers every 13 possessions, or 85^th in the country.

4. Free throw shooting. They make 70.7% of their freebies, 105^th best in the nation.

What UW-Green Bay is really bad at:

1. Contesting shots. This season, their opponents have shot 44.6% (341^st) in the nation from 3, and 54.7% inside the arc (320^th).

2. Shooting inside the arc. This season, they have shot 43.4% inside the arc, which is 274^th in the nation.

3. Defensive Rebounding. They’ve only grabbed 65.4% of all the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end, good for 232^nd in the nation.

4. Getting to the line and keeping opponents away from it. They only get one FTA per 3 FGAs (273^rd) but allow 5 FTAs per 9 FGAs for their opponents (334^th).

Relative Efficiency:

When UW-Green Bay has the ball: They have scored an above average 1.03 PPP this season, while UW has given up a great 0.89 this season.

When UW has the ball: They have given up a bad 1.05 PPP this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.18 this season.

Pace: UW-Green Bay has played at 67 possessions per game to UW’s 60.

My expectations:

1. Badgers have an eFG% of better than 60%. Green Bay averages giving up 58.1% in this category.

2. Someone not named Jon, Jordan, or Keaton scores in double figures. It seems like it has been a while since this happened.

3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end and 80% of the opportunities on defense. Total domination on the boards coming.

The Badgers win big over the Phoenix, 81-52 in 60 possessions.

Gold Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: UW withstood a late charge to defeat Marquette 69-64 in Milwaukee. UW had been scoring 71 points per game and giving up 54.

Was it this year that UW was finally going to decline and MU rise up now that Hughes and Bohannon are gone? No, wait, that was last year after Landry and Krabbenhoft. Or was it the year before when Butch, Flowers and Steimsma left? No, it is next year without Leuer and Nankivil. Yeah, that’s the ticket …

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW had 5 extra offensive rebounds, which helped get a 12 point advantage on second chance points, to drive home the win.

Pace: The game had 58 possessions. UW averages 60 possessions. This relatively low possession count was undoubtedly due to UW grabbing many offensive rebounds and killing the clock late in the second half.

Efficiency: Was it good offense or good defense? Absolutely good offense and not-so-good defense. UW scored 1.19 PPP, slightly better than our early-season-lesser-opponent-inflated 1.18 PPP. MU scored 1.10 PPP, more than the .89 PPP we have been giving up and too many to expect to win a lot of games.

Shooting: UW won because we shot a higher quantity of shots, not more accurately. UW got up ten more threes and one more two point shot. These extra shots from the floor lead to UW scoring 10 extra points from the floor. MU shot 8 more free throws, but they were not enough.

eFG%: Both teams shot well. MU had an eFG% of 52% and UW 51%. UW has been at 52% and our opponents 43%.

3 pt shooting: MU hit 44% to UW’s 32%. But, UW took 10 more shots, made two more, and scored 6 extra points beyond the arc.

2pt shooting: Both teams were comparably efficient inside the arc. MU was 18 of 37 for 49%. UW tried one more shot, 38, and made two more, 20 for 53%. That got UW 4 more points.

1pt shooting: MU got to the line 22 times and made 16 for 73%. UW shot only 14 and made 11 for 79%. MU got 5 back at the line, which was not enough.

The “We Make More Free Throws Than Our Opponents Attempt” Scoreboard

UW Makes: 121 Opponent Attempts: 156 Difference: -35

I think we can kiss this one goodbye. We will need a different Badger Drinking Game regular.

Floor Location:

Location UW Opp

Arc 26% 19%

Mid Range 12% 3%

Paint 46% 53%

FT Line 16% 25%

Apparently, MU is not big on midrange shooting.

Rebounding: Neither team protected their defensive glass well. MU did a worst job.

UW Defensive end: MU picked up 37% of their misses. That is extraordinarily high percentage for a UW opponent. The national average is 33% and we are typically closer to 26% surrendered to our opponents. MU had 9 second chance points.

UW Offensive End: When UW shot and missed, UW got 45% of their misses. That is simply outstanding. UW picked up 21 second chance points.

Turnovers: Each team had 10 turnovers, or 17%. No advantage gained either way. But, MU scored 12 points off turnovers to UW’s 10.

Opportunity Index: UW had a plus a plus 5 OI. UW had 5 extra offensive rebounds that netted UW 21 second chance points, 12 more than MU. Each team had 10 turnovers, but MU scored an extra two points off of turnovers.

Fouls: UW fouled 19 times to MU’s 17. But, MU got to the line more effectively getting 22 FTA’s to UW’s 14.

Playing time: UW went 8 deep, with the starters all getting 22 or more and Evans (15), Jarmusz (12) and Wilson getting (16). Berggren had 9.

Buzz played 7 ten or more. Strangely, two starters –Otule (8) and Smith (6) did not crack double digits. Perhaps an MU fan can explain Buzz’s strategy. Were these bad matchups, did they play poorly, or does Buzz just like to start these guys?

Notable Performances: Taylor had a great line. He scored 21 on 5-8 from the floor, 2-5 from deep, and 9-11 from the line. He played 32 minutes and only had one turnover. Jordan, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Leuer had a good, not great, line. He scored 17 on 15 FGA’s and added 6 boards, two offensive. He was tagged with 3 turnovers. Good job, Jon.

Keaton had another highly efficient day. KN scored 12 on 7 FGA’s, 2-3 from deep and 5 boards, 2 offensive. Keaton, my people are still talking about the last few games around the fire …

Rob Wilson played 16 turnover-free minutes. He scored 3 including an important FT late. Rob, keep coming on … my people have a warm spot for you.

Brett Valentyn had a classic “trillion”. A trillion, coined by Badger Great Scott Roth, I believe, had one minute played and all zeros after that. Smith nearly matched him with two minutes played and all zeros.

Jared Berggren scored 8 in nine minutes. I bet MU was wondering who this guy is and why can he score on so many post moves. My people are planning on lighting many a fire in your honor in the future.

For MU, Buycks scored 13 on only 8 shots. Buycks has not traditionally been a highly effective player. Butler had 15, but needed 14 shots to get there. He has traditionally been a highly efficient player, but not so much in this one.

DJO had 8, but was 1-9 from the floor.

Reggie Smith had no points and 3 turnovers in 6 minutes. I think I now know why he got such little playing time.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Badgers turnover the ball over less than 19% of the time. Marquette’s pressure defense won’t force the Badgers into a ton of turnovers. Hit. 17%.

2. Jon Leuer scores more than 25 points. I don’t think MU can stop him. Miss. He got 17.

3. Badgers grab more than 36% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end and 74% of the opportunities on defense. The Badgers prevail as victors on the boards. Hit and miss. UW got a whopping 45% of their offensive misses but could only corral 63% of their misses.

The Badgers pull out the victory over the Gold 70-66 in 65 possessions. Close. 69-64 in 58.

Closing Thoughts: Bragging rights are right where they belong. My goal is for UW to win 70% or more of this series. We will need a few more wins in the BC to make that happen while holding serve at the Herb Garden.

It will be interesting to see where these two teams end up in their conferences. MU had a horribly unbalanced team for several years (guard heavy). So long, in fact, that we now consider it normal. If MU stumbles in their conference, this will not end up being a “very good win,” or not a signature win for sure. If they make the big dance, the win will look better.

Gold Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: Well here it is! The Super Bowl of the season for Marquette and those guys to the East from Wisconsin. Just kidding. The Gold and the Badgers come into the game with identical 7-2 records, with Marquette coming off a 26-point victory over TAMU-CC, and Wisconsin coming off a 21-point win over UW-Milwaukee. The Hilltoppers may be short a few guys, as Joe Fulce has a knee injury that he sustained against TAMU-CC, and Dwight Buycks has an ankle injury that prevented him from playing in that same game.

Forums: Scout MU Scoop

What the expert nerds say: Ken Pom predicts a 63-62 Badger victory in 61 possessions, with a 47% chance of upset.

Sagarin predicts the game as a pick-em (technically Marquette as a 0.32-point favorite).

Gold Likely Rotation

*G – 6’2” JR Darius Johnson-Odom (14.1 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 2.2 APG, 1.1 SPG, 105.8 OR, 24% Poss, 27% Shot, 14% TO, 4.6 FTR, 43% of FGAs are 3PT)

*G – 6’0” FR Reggie Smith (1.6 PPG, 1.9 APG, 1.6 RPG, 1.3 SPG, 71.6 OR, 20% Poss, 10% Shot, 45% TO, 7.5 FTR, 50% of FGAs are 3PT)

*G – 6’4” FR Vander Blue (9.4 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 2.7 APG, 1.9 SPG, 89.6 OR, 20% Poss, 20% Shot, 24% TO, 3.2 FTR, 20% of FGAs are 3PT)

*G/F – 6’7” SR Jimmy Butler (15.4 PPG, 6.4 RPG, 2.0 APG, 1.4 SPG, 113.5 OR, 23% Poss, 24% Shot, 12% TO, 6.1 FTR, 13% of FGAs are 3PT)

*F – 6’11” SO Chris Otule (6.4 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 1.9 BPG, 83.3 OR, 15% Poss, 18% Shot, 16% TO, 3.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)

G – 6’3” SR Dwight Buycks (9.9 PPG, 4.6 APG, 3.9 RPG, 1.3 SPG, 105.8 OR, 20% Poss, 20% Shot, 24% TO, 2.2 FTR, 39% of FGAs are 3PT)

F – 6’6” JR Jae Crowder (11.6 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 1.7 SPG, 1.0 APG, 125.8 OR, 19% Poss, 22% Shot, 6% TO, 4.4 FTR, 25% of FGAs are 3PT)

G – 6’1” SO Junior Cadougan (2.8 PPG, 3.6 APG, 1.8 RPG, 84.9 OR, 13% Poss, 7% Shot, 36% TO, 8.1 FTR, 25% of FGAs are 3PT)

F – 6’7” SR Joe Fulce (4.6 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 154.9 OR, 15% Poss, 16% Shot, 8% TO, 5.0 FTR, 10% of FGAs are 3PT)

F – 6’8” FR Davante Gardner (8.3 PPG, 3.1 RPG, 123.3 OR, 30% Poss, 33% Shot, 12% TO, 5.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)

F – 6’7” SO Erik Williams (2.9 PPG, 1.6 RPG, 107.9 OR, 17% Poss, 18% Shot, 26% TO, 3.1 FTR, 8% of FGAs are 3PT)

PLAYER TRAITS

THREE-POINT SHOOTING

Jeff Jordan (<28%)

Jimmy Butler = 25%

Vander Blue = 25%

Reggie Smith = 25%

Junior Cadougan = 25%

Erik Williams = 0%

Joe Fulce = 0%

Trevon Hughes (35-38%)

Dwight Buycks = 36%

Clayton Hanson (+38%)

Jae Crowder = 40%

TWO-POINT SHOOTING

Kevin Gullikson (<43%)

Junior Cadougan = 42%

Marcus Landry (50-54%)

Dwight Buycks = 54%

Mike Wilkinson (+54%)

Chris Otule = 83%

Joe Fulce = 78%

Reggie Smith = 75%

Erik Williams = 67%

Davante Gardner = 62%

FREE THROW SHOOTING

Alando Tucker (<65%)

Vander Blue = 58%

Jae Crowder = 56%

Junior Cadougan = 54%

Chris Otule = 40%

Reggie Smith = 33%

Kam Taylor (75-82%)

Darius Johnson-Odom = 78%

Jimmy Butler = 78%

Jason Bohannon (+82%)

Joe Fulce = 100%

Erik Williams = 100%

DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING

Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)

Chris Otule = 17%

Erik Williams = 17%

Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)

Joe Fulce = 30%

Jae Crowder = 20%

OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING

Brian Butch (9-12%)

Jae Crowder = 10%

Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)

Davante Gardner = 20%

Joe Fulce = 14%

STEALING

Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)

Jae Crowder = 4.3%

Reggie Smith = 3.9%

Vander Blue = 3.7%

Mike Kelley (+4.4%)

None

BLOCKING

Brian Butch (3-7%)

Davante Gardner = 5%

Reggie Smith = 3.6%

Greg Stiemsma (+7%)

Chris Otule = 14.3%

ASSISTS

Devin Harris (20-25%)

Junior Cadougan = 25%

Reggie Smith = 22%

Jordan Taylor (25-30%)

Dwight Buycks = 28%

Demetri McCamey (+30%)

None

POSSESSION USAGE

Jason Chappell (<15%)

Joe Fulce = 15%

Chris Otule = 15%

Junior Cadougan = 13%

Brian Butch (24-28%)

Darius Johnson-Odom = 24%

Alando Tucker (+28%)

Davante Gardner = 30%

SPECIAL: WHERE ARE THEY NOW???

D.J. Newbill: Southern Mississippi

Youssoupha Mbao: Marshall

Patrick Hazel: Boston University

Brett Roseboro: St. Bonaventure

Jeronne Maymon: Tennessee

Scott Christopherson: Iowa State

What Marquette is really good at:

1. Rebounding. They are 69^th in offensive rebounding (36.2%) and 83^rd in defensive (70.3%).

3. Taking care of the ball. They turn the ball over three times every 16 possessions, 68^th fewest in the nation.

3. Getting to the charity stripe. They attempt 4 FTs for almost every 9 FGAs, which is 74th in the nation.

4. Forcing TOs. They force one turnover every four possessions (53^rd).

5. Keeping opponents off the line. Their opponents attempt 2 FTAs per 9 FGAs, which is 3^rd in the nation.

6. Two-point shooting. They shoot 56.4% inside the arc, which is 12^th in the nation.

7. Defending inside the arc. They surrender 43.3% inside the arc, good for 67^th.

8. Hiring coaches that are comedic Gold. Example 1, Example 2.

What Marquette is really bad at:

1. Three-point defense. This season, the Gold’s opponents’ have shot a hot 38.7% from deep, which is 49th highest in the country.

2. Three-point shooting. This season, the Hilltoppers have shot a poor 30.7% from deep, which is 260th in the country.

3. Picking a nickname and sticking with it. The school has changed its nickname six times in the past 97 years and even had different sports teams go by different nicknames at the same time.

4. Having proper instruments in their pep band. For some reason they think winds instruments are worth having in a pep band… and they prominently feature an instrument that doubles as a Fisher Price toy.

5. Choosing a mascot. Marquette has a rich tradition of epically bad mascots. They range from the horribly racist to the downright dumb. Then there are the theoretical ones that could have been if they stuck with the name Gold.

6. Playing the right guys in their rotation. Just looking over the Pomeroy individual stats makes me really question Curly’s distribution of minutes. Why Reggie Smith even plays is mind-boggling to me. He’s got the players and the talent to do it, so why he doesn’t slow down the pace a bit and play a 2-guard offense doesn’t make sense. His best offensive players are Fulce, Otule, Gardner, and Crowder. Only one of those four get more than 14 minutes a game. Oh well, I hope it’s what does them in against us.

7. Fielding a football team. Apparently the players favored being in the dance program... And would rather perform zoophilia (SFW and legal, FYI) on the sidelines.

Relative Efficiency:

When Marquette has the ball: They have scored a great 1.13 PPP this season, while UW has given up a great 0.87 this season.

When UW has the ball: They have given up a great 0.91 PPP this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.17 this season.

Pace: Marquette has played at 73 possessions per game to UW’s 61.

My expectations:

1. Badgers turnover the ball over less than 19% of the time. Marquette’s pressure defense won’t force the Badgers into a ton of turnovers.

2. Jon Leuer scores more than 25 points. I don’t think MU can stop him.

3. Badgers grab more than 36% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end and 74% of the opportunities on defense. The Badgers prevail as victors on the boards.

The Badgers pull out the victory over the Gold 70-66 in 65 possessions.

UW-M Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: UW strolled to a 61-40 victory over UW-Milwaukee. This is the same UWM team that lost by three to Marquette, or is it?

I was able to go to the game and the game was on BTN. If they are going to put the game on ESPN3, they should call or email me and ask whether I have tickets or not. If not, move it to BTN. If I have tickets, then they can put it on ESPN3 if they must. It is the right thing to do.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW played outstanding defense, dominated both boards, and scored inside the arc well enough to get a blow out win, despite an unusually high number of turnovers.

Pace: The game had 58 possessions.

Efficiency: Was it good offense or good defense? Definitely good defense – or bad UWM offense (stats can’t tell the difference).

UW scored 1.05 PPP. That is less than our yearly average of 1.17 (after 9 games). But, the defense posted .69 PPP, which is outstanding (second only to Manhattan’s .63 PPP).

KenPom (Link) has us #15 in the nation on offense (he adjusts for strength of schedule in his offensive rating). Our defense is now giving up .87 PPP for the year. Pomroy has us #16 in the nation.

Shooting: UW destroyed UWM offensively and defensively inside the arc.

eFG%: UW was a so-so 51% while our defense held UWM to 35%, which is excellent defense by UW (or poor marksmanship by UWM – take your pick).

3 pt shooting: UWM had superior quality, UW superior quantity. UWM was 3 of 7 for a great 43%. UW was 5 of 15 for 33%. UW scored an extra 6 points from deep, but needed 8 shots to get them, not a good bargain.

2pt shooting: UWM could not hit inside the arc. They were 9 of 32 for 28%. I do not recall seeing a team shoot that poorly inside the arc. If you hit 43% outside the arc and 28% inside the arc, you have something haywire going on.

UW was 18 of 35 for 51%. While good, it is only average for UW this year. We have done better in 4 of 9 games.

UW gained 18 points inside the arc. We outscored them 18-8 in the paint.

1pt shooting: At the line, UWM won in quantity but UW in quality. UWM got to the 21 times and made only 13 for 62%. UW got there but 12 times and made 10 (83%).

UW’s free throw accuracy has been outstanding this year. UW is fourth in the nation hitting 79.7% of our free throws. That’s the good news. The bad news is we are not getting there very often. UW‘s FTA/FGA ratio is only 27, #327 in the nation.

The “We Make More Free Throws Than Our Opponents Attempt” Scoreboard

UW Makes: 110 Opponent Attempts: 134 Difference: -24

Despite the blow out win, we went backwards 11 on this metric. Unless something changes quickly, this will not be worth tracking.

Floor Location:

Location UW Opp.

Arc 25% 23%

Mid Range 30% 25%

Paint 30% 20%

FT Line 16% 33%

For the year, UW is getting 31% from the arc, 16% midrange, 35% from the paint, and 17% from the line. So, in this game, we scored more midrange and less from the arc and paint on a percentage basis.

Rebounding: UW pressed our height advantage on both ends of the floor for a resounding rebounding edge.

UW Defensive end: UWM had 31 rebounding opportunities on their misses, and UW got 26, thus holding UWM to 16%. That is outstanding.

UW Offensive End: UW’s misses created 25 rebounding opportunities and UW picked up 11 or 44%. That, too, is outstanding.

Turnovers: What can you say? Ugh. UWM gave it up 15 times or 26%. UW puked it up 13 times or 22%. Most of those were traveling calls, as I recall (I wish the game recap would say the type of turnover, but, alas, it does not). This is a blemish on an otherwise good effort by UW. That is 15 empty trips with 0 PPP’s.

UW took UWM’s turnovers and scored 19 points to Milwaukee’s 6 from UW giveaways.

Opportunity Index: UW was a plus 8 on the OI. UW had 6 extra offensive rebounds and two extra possessions from turnovers. They used these to score 21 points (+13 off turnovers and +8 second chance points).

Fouls: UW fouled 17 times to UWM’s 15. At half time, UWM had 9 and UW 5. So, in the second half of a blow out win, UW out-fouled the opponent 12 to 6. I am sure Bo is wondering why.

Playing time: Bo went 7 deep with the starters and Evans (17) and Jarmusz (19) getting 10 or more. Smith played 9 and Berggren 9.

Jeter played 8 ten or more.

Notable Performances: Leuer scored 20 points in a variety of ways (one three ball, a collection of drives and midrange moves and moves in the paint) to go with 7 boards and two turnovers. At his point, I have officially declared Leuer to be my favorite player for this year. I love his overall game. Plus, he has that unflappable demeanor that makes me think he can handle the added pressure that comes with being my favorite player. Jon, keep up the good work.

Keaton Nankivil had a great box score line. He scored 10 on 5-6 FGA’s, no FTA’s and added 9 boards, 3 offensive. He blocked 3 shots and held Anthony Hill to 0-8 shooting (along with others). His efficiency numbers should skyrocket with a day like this. Keaton, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Jared Berggren had a forgettable day. He played but 9 minutes and scored no points. He picked up 5 fouls (including the strange intentional foul) and had four turnovers. Jared, better days are ahead. Hang in there …

Taylor had 14 with one turnover in 36 minutes of work. His protecting the ball is amazing. Bo must love this guy.

For UWM, McCallum scored 12 on 12 FGA’s and was tagged with 2 turnovers. McCallum appeared to be a forward in their offense, despite being considerably shorter than Jordan Taylor. He seemed to have a larger defender on his most of the game.

Hill scored only 3, and was 0-8 from the line. Nankivil’s defense was more than he could take.

Tony Meier scored 10 on 3-4 FGA’s, 2-2 from deep and 2-2 from the line. That is fine marksmanship.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Badgers shoot better than 40% outside the arc. I think Tim, Josh, and Keaton get back on track from the arc, with Jon, Mike, and Jordan keep on keeping on. Miss. UW was 5-15, 33%.

2. Josh Gasser explodes for more than 12 points. He has cooled off considerably since his 21-point performance in the season opener. I like him to take advantage of the bad 3-point D and smaller front court challenging his drives. Miss. Gasser got 8

3. Badgers grab more than 38% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end and 74% of the opportunities on defense. I scaled these back a bit. Hit and hit. UW was a robust 44% on their offensive side and 84% on the defensive end. Job well done.

4. The Badgers get back the “make more free throws than their opponents attempt” stat back for the season. If I recall correctly, it’s currently at -13, and I think they can get half of that back at +6 or better. Miss. We lost another 11.

The Badgers edge the Panthers 65-52 in 58 possessions. Hit. 61-40 in 58 possessions.

Closing Thoughts: UW’s offense was spotty but the defense was stellar.

Now it is on to Marquette. This is UW’s one big chance for a notable non conference win this year. That, and the bragging rights that go with it.

I expect W’Q to be a pivotal player against MU. He will probably need to come in and lock down on one of MU’s guards if Bo must go with a smaller line up.

UW looks to me like the usual UW team: tough defense, efficient offense. Sure, people will complain about dry spells, certain players not shooting enough, others shooting too much. But, all teams experience those same problems.

UW-M Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: Tomorrow night the annual intra-state tournament of the Wisconsin D-1 basketball teams start for the Badgers, as they take on the UW-M Panthers, then Marquette on Saturday, and then finish it with UW-Green Bay on Monday. The Panthers enter the contest with a 4-5 record coming off an 82-59 home loss to an undefeated Cleveland State team. In their bout with Marquette the Saturday after Thanksgiving, the Panthers went on a late 9-0 run to pull with 2 points of Marquette, but it wasn’t enough as the Gold were victorious in a 75-72 decision.

Forums: UW-M Freak

What the expert nerds say: Ken Pom predicts a 76-54 Badger victory in 63 possessions, with a 2% chance of upset.

Sagarin predicts a 19-point Badger victory.

Milwaukee Likely Rotation (First 6 Games Statistics)

*G – 6’3” JR Kaylon Williams (7.1 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.1 SPG, 81.5 OR, 19% Poss, 16% Shot, 27% TO, 5.9 FTR, 29% of FGAs are 3PT)

*G – 6’0” SO Ja’Rob McCallum (7.8 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 91.2 OR, 20% Poss, 26% Shot, 15% TO, 1.4 FTR, 51% of FGAs are 3PT)

*G – 6’3” SR Tone Boyle (12.4 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 1.2 APG, 112.3 OR, 18% Poss, 25% Shot, 7% TO, 2.3 FTR, 53% of FGAs are 3PT)

*F – 6’8” JR Tony Meier (9.1 PPG, 5.3 RPG, 1.2 APG, 115.4 OR, 18% Poss, 18% Shot, 17% TO, 4.0 FTR, 55% of FGAs are 3PT)

*F – 6’7” SR Anthony Hill (14.9 PPG, 7.6 RPG, 1.8 APG, 103.7 OR, 28% Poss, 26% Shot, 19% TO, 5.6 FTR, 1% of FGAs are 3PT)

G – 6’3” SO Lonnie Boga (5.8 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 1.1 APG, 99.2 OR, 18% Poss, 19% Shot, 17% TO, 2.8 FTR, 30% of FGAs are 3PT)

F – 6’9” FR Kyle Kelm (3.7 PPG, 3.7 RPG, 80.4 OR, 17% Poss, 15% Shot, 23% TO, 5.6 FTR, 38% of FGAs are 3PT)

G – 6’3” JR Ryan Allen (6.1 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 1.1 SPG, 87.9 OR, 25% Poss, 21% Shot, 28% TO, 5.6 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)

PLAYER TRAITS

THREE-POINT SHOOTING

Jeff Jordan (<28%)

Kyle Kelm = 25%

Kaylon Williams = 18%

Anthony Hill = 0%

Trevon Hughes (35-38%)

Lonnie Boga = 36%

Clayton Hanson (+38%)

Tone Boyle = 39%

TWO-POINT SHOOTING

Kevin Gullikson (<43%)

Kaylon Williams = 41%

Tone Boyle = 40%

Kyle Kelm = 35%

Marcus Landry (50-54%)

None

Mike Wilkinson (+54%)

Tony Meier = 62%

Anthony Hill = 55%

FREE THROW SHOOTING

Alando Tucker (<65%)

Anthony Hill = 60%

Kaylon Williams = 60%

Kyle Kelm = 56%

Ja’Rob McCallum = 50%

Lonnie Boga = 39%

Kam Taylor (75-82%)

None

Jason Bohannon (+82%)

None

DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING

Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)

Anthony Hill = 19%

Lonnie Boga = 17%

Kyle Kelm = 17%

Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)

None

OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING

Brian Butch (9-12%)

Anthony Hill = 11%

Tony Meier = 10%

Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)

None

STEALING

Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)

Ryan Allen = 4.1%

Mike Kelley (+4.4%)

None

BLOCKING

Brian Butch (3-7%)

Tony Meier = 4%

Anthony Hill = 3.4%

Greg Stiemsma (+7%)

None

ASSISTS

Devin Harris (20-25%)

Kaylon Williams = 25%

Jordan Taylor (25-30%)

None

Demetri McCamey (+30%)

None

POSSESSION USAGE

Jason Chappell (<15%)

None

Brian Butch (24-28%)

Anthony Hill = 28%

Ryan Allen = 25%

Alando Tucker (+28%)

None

What Milwaukee is really good at:

1. Defensive rebounding. They are 17^th in defensive rebounding (73.6%).

3. Taking care of the ball. They turn the ball over once every five possessions, 112^th fewest in the nation.

3. Getting to the charity stripe. They attempt 4 FTs for almost every 9 FGAs, which is 92nd in the nation.

What Milwaukee is really bad at:

1. Three-point defense. This season, their opponents’ have shot a hot 38.5% from deep, which is 56th highest in the country.

2. Forcing turnovers. They force a measly 4 turnovers every 21 possessions, good for 260^th in the nation.

3. Shooting free throws. They only hit 59% of their freebies, which is 328th in the nation.

4. Blocking shots. They only block 4 out of every 59 two-pointers their opponents attempt (253rd).

Relative Efficiency:

When UW-M has the ball: They have scored an average 0.99 PPP this season, while UW has given up a great 0.89 this season.

When UW has the ball: They have given up a below average 1.03 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.19 this season.

Pace: UW-M has played at 71 possessions per game to UW’s 61.

My expectations:

1. Badgers shoot better than 40% outside the arc. I think Tim, Josh, and Keaton get back on track from the arc, with Jon, Mike, and Jordan keep on keeping on.

2. Josh Gasser explodes for more than 12 points. He has cooled off considerably since his 21-point performance in the season opener. I like him to take advantage of the bad 3-point D and smaller front court challenging his drives.

3. Badgers grab more than 38% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end and 74% of the opportunities on defense. I scaled these back a bit.

4. The Badgers get back the “make more free throws than their opponents attempt” stat back for the season. If I recall correctly, it’s currently at -13, and I think they can get half of that back at +6 or better.

The Badgers edge the Panthers 65-52 in 58 possessions.

South Dakota Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: UW beat South Dakota by 15, 76 to 61. Once more, I was not able to see the game because of ESPN3. I would have thought we were done with those games, but no such luck. I am developing a real hatred for ESPN3. Why not put these games on BTN?

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW scored well and prevented SD from scoring from the field well, but curiously allowed SD to shoot 14 FTA’s (making 12) despite only committing 7 fouls.

Pace: The game had 63 possessions.

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? UW’s offense was very good scoring1.21 PPP (Our average is at 1.18 not factoring for strength of schedule). However, the defense was not up to snuff allowing .97 PPP. We have been allowing an average of .87, so that is quite a bit more than average and not to be expected from a lesser opponent.

Shooting: UW shot well from the floor and did okay from the line. UW was able to dominate inside the arc and inside the paint. SD shot okay from three point range, poorly inside the arc, and well at the line.

eFG%: SD had an eFG% of 45%, the fourth best of our 8 opponents. We have been allowing 43% from our opponents. Meanwhile, UW hit at 55%, slightly better than the 52% we have registered this year.

3 pt shooting: Both teams hit 39% of their threes. That is good shooting. UW tried 13 extra attempts (31 to SD’s 18) and made 12 to DS’s 7. That gave UW a plus 15 points beyond the arc.

2pt shooting: SD was ineffective inside the arc. They hit a slightly lower percentage than outside the arc. SD tried 37 shots and made 14 for 38%.

UW tried 4 fewer shots and made 3 more shots inside the arc. UW was 17 of 33 for 52%. That gave UW an extra 6 points inside the arc to go with their 15 outside the arc for an extra 21 points from the floor.

UW outscored SD 26 to 12 in the paint.

1pt shooting: SD cleaned up at the line. SD was 12 of 14 for a robust 86%. UW did fine, 6 of 9 for 67%. SD was able to get back 6 of the 21 points they lost from the floor at the line, not enough to tip the balances.

The “We Make More Free Throws Than Our Opponents Attempt” Scoreboard

UW Makes: 100 Opponent Attempts: 113 Difference: -13

UW lost ground in this regard. SD tried 14 and UW made 6. Let’s pick it up, boys.

Floor Location:

Location UW Opp

Arc 47% 34%

Mid Range 11% 26%

Paint 34% 20%

FT Line 8% 20%

UW has been getting 34% of our points from deep, so the pickings were good from deep (see Leuer’s performance). The low FT% is somewhat troubling, however.

Rebounding: UW did okay defending their glass but very well attacking on offense.

UW Defensive end: SD got 30% of their misses (10 of 33). Regular readers will remember the national average is 33% but UW typically excels by allowing their opponents closer to 26%.

UW Offensive End: UW continued to do well on the offensive glass. UW picked up 37% of their misses (14 of 38). This continues a trend this year of crashing the glass which is different than past years. It will be interesting to see if this continues against better competition.

Turnovers: UW won the turnover battle 12 to 9. In percentages, UW was at 14% and SD 19%. While 9 turnovers seems like a lot and Bo probably blew a fuse (Evans had 3 in 6 minutes), it is a good showing. Both teams had 16 points off of turnovers.

Opportunity Index: UW won the OI by +7. UW was plus 4 on offensive rebounds and plus 3 on turnovers. From a scoring perspective, UW and SD each had 16 off turnovers and UW was plus one in second chance points (8 to 7). So, UW did not make particularly good use of their extra opportunities, if the box score is to be believed.

Fouls: UW had about half the fouls as SD (13 to 7) but SD got to the line for 14 FTA’s and UW had only 9. That is an oddity. SD ended up fouling 6 times more but outscored UW at the line by 6. Weird.

Playing time: Bo used an odd substitution pattern. Only five players played 10 or more minutes. In other games against lesser competition, Bo has gone 8 or 9 deep. Leuer, Bruesewitz, and Taylor all played more than 30 minutes with Gasser right behind at 28. Nankivil only played 7. Why? Was he hurt? Match ups? Since I did not see the game, I don’t know.

Jarmusz played 27. Evans played only 6 minutes, but was able to turn it over 3 times in the short time period. Rob Wilson played 7. Brust got 6 and W’Q 3.

For SD, 8 played 10 or more minutes.

Notable Performances: Leuer had a great line, again. He scored 29 on 21 FGA (3 FTA’s) and picked up 9 boards. He was a great 6-11 from deep. With two offensive boards and one TO, Jon scored 29 points while using 21 (or maybe 22) possessions. He blocked 4 shots. Jon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Taylor scored 20 on 16 FGA’s and 4 FTA’s. He had 11 rebounds, four offensive and 9 assists to just miss a triple double. He had but one turnover in 39 minutes of work. Jordan, people, campfires, …

Keaton, as mentioned before, only played 7 minutes and was a forgettable 0-3 with one board.

Jarmusz and Gasser were a combined 2-9 from deep.

For SD, Westbrook scored 18 but needed 16 FGA’s and 4 FTA’s to get there. Add in 3 turnovers and his day was perhaps not as great as it might first appear.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Badgers shoot better than 57% inside the arc. The Badgers are much bigger and the stats would suggest that the Coyotes play super tight defense on the perimeter trying for steals and harassing shooters, but giving up easy drives to the hoop from being over-extended. Miss. UW was at 52%.

2. Josh Gasser explodes for more than 12 points. He has averaged a lowly 1.5 PPG in the past two games after 11.0 PPG through the first five. I like the aforementioned over-extended defense leading to some great driving opportunities for him. Miss. Gasser got 5.

3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end and 78% of the opportunities on defense. South Dakota is a terrible rebounding team and the Badgers aren’t. Miss. UW was at 37%.

4. The Badgers get back the “make more free throws than their opponents attempt” stat back for the season. If I recall correctly, it’s currently at -5, so I like them to be at least +6 on the night. Miss. We lost 8 to go to a minus 13.

The Badgers destroy the Coyotes 90-57 in 67 possessions. Hit, sort of. You predicted a 33 point win and it was 15 and used 5 fewer possessions.

Closing Thoughts: Leuer is really playing well. He can light up lesser competition. I hope he keeps it up come Big Ten time.

We must remember it is still early. There is almost a month before the B10 season starts. Bo has time to implement some improvements.

UW has a lot going for it right now. We have one of the better offenses in the nation, one of the better defenses, and a very good efficiency margin. Link. UW might have problems, but so do other teams.

UW is very good at avoiding turnovers, offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds, holding opponents to poor shooting averages, and keeping our opponents off the line.

South Dakota Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: After that thrashing, the Badgers have another one on tap with the South Dakota Coyotes. If some of the names in their rotation are familiar, it’s because they’ve got some Wisconsin prep stars on their roster. Freshman Steve Tecker led Division 3 Northwestern to State last season and sophomore Jake Thomas led D-3 Racine St. Cats to the state title in 2009. Junior Charlie Westbrook attended Milwaukee Riverside and is a juco recruit from Iowa Western for South Dakota. The Coyotes enter the game at 3-4, with double-digit victories over South Dakota-School of Mines, Louisiana-Monroe, and Wyoming, and losses to Nebraska, Illinois State, Jacksonville State, and Marquette, an 82-69 decision.

Forums: Go Yotes

What the expert nerds say: Ken Pom predicts a 83-54 Badger victory in 65 possessions, with a 1% chance of upset.

Sagarin predicts a 26-point Badger victory.

South Dakota Likely Rotation (First 6 Games Statistics)

*G – 6’0” SR Kendall Cutler (5.7 PPG, 4.6 APG, 2.4 RPG, 1.7 SPG, 87.2 OR, 20% Poss, 12% Shot, 35% TO, 6.3 FTR, 3% of FGAs are 3PT)

*G – 6’1” JR Louie Krogman (15.0 PPG, 3.5 APG, 1.8 RPG, 1.3 SPG, 117.6 OR, 23% Poss, 27% Shot, 10% TO, 2.1 FTR, 53% of FGAs are 3PT)

*G – 6’4” JR Charlie Westbrook (15.9 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 1.4 SPG, 1.3 APG, 104.6 OR, 25% Poss, 28% Shot, 22% TO, 2.3 FTR, 28% of FGAs are 3PT)

*F – 6’8” JR Ricardo Andreotti (5.0 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 87.8 OR, 18% Poss, 18% Shot, 26% TO, 1.8 FTR, 6% of FGAs are 3PT)

*C – 6’9” FR Trevor Gruis (5.7 PPG, 5.7 RPG, 107.9 OR, 15% Poss, 13% Shot, 18% TO, 5.7 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)

G – 6’3” SO Jake Thomas (10.6 PPG, 3.4 RPG, 2.1 APG, 1.1 SPG, 91.2 OR, 21% Poss, 24% Shot, 18% TO, 2.2 FTR, 80% of FGAs are 3PT)

G – 6’5” FR Steve Tecker (4.6 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 1.1 APG, 116.7 OR, 14% Poss, 15% Shot, 17% TO, 1.5 FTR, 27% of FGAs are 3PT)

G – 6’1” SO Jordan Boots (6.0 PPG, 114.4 OR, 18% Poss, 19% Shot, 23% TO, 2.6 FTR, 78% of FGAs are 3PT)

G – 6’4” SR Mitchell Bouie (4.6 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 85.9 OR, 23% Poss, 23% Shot, 27% TO, 2.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)

PLAYER TRAITS

THREE-POINT SHOOTING

Jeff Jordan (<28%)

Steve Tecker = 14%

Ricardo Andreotti = 0%

Kendall Cutler = 0%

Trevon Hughes (35-38%)

None

Clayton Hanson (+38%)

Jordan Boots = 57%

Charlie Westbrook = 46%

Louie Krogman = 45%

TWO-POINT SHOOTING

Kevin Gullikson (<43%)

Jake Thomas = 20%

Jordan Boots = 17%

Marcus Landry (50-54%)

Trevor Gruis = 54%

Ricardo Andreotti = 50%

Mike Wilkinson (+54%)

Steve Tecker = 68%

Charlie Westbrook = 60%

FREE THROW SHOOTING

Alando Tucker (<65%)

Trevor Gruis = 63%

Charlie Westbrook = 61%

Louie Krogman = 60%

Jordan Boots = 57%

Ricardo Andreotti = 50%

Mitchell Bouie = 50%

Kam Taylor (75-82%)

Steve Tecker = 75%

Jason Bohannon (+82%)

Jake Thomas = 88%

DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING

Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)

Steve Tecker = 19%

Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)

Trevor Gruis = 23%

OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING

Brian Butch (9-12%)

Trevor Gruis = 10%

Mitchell Bouie = 10%

Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)

Ricardo Andreotti = 12%

STEALING

Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)

Kendall Cutler = 3.7%

Mike Kelley (+4.4%)

None

BLOCKING

Brian Butch (3-7%)

None

Greg Stiemsma (+7%)

None

ASSISTS

Devin Harris (20-25%)

Louie Krogman = 25%

Jordan Taylor (25-30%)

None

Demetri McCamey (+30%)

Kendall Cutler = 31%

POSSESSION USAGE

Jason Chappell (<15%)

Trevor Gruis = 15%

Steve Tecker = 14%

Brian Butch (24-28%)

Charlie Westbrook = 25%

Alando Tucker (+28%)

None

What South Dakota is really good at:

1. Three-point defense. This season, their opponents’ have shot a measly 27% from deep, which is 27^th lowest in the country.

2. Stealing the ball. They average stealing the ball from their opponent 3 times every 26 possessions, which is 73^rd in the country.

3. Defending free throws. Their opponents have shot 65.4% from the line, which is 113^th worst in the country.

What South Dakota is really bad at:

1. Two-point defense. They have allowed their opponents to shoot 54.1% inside the arc, which is 304^th in the nation.

2. Rebounding. They are 286^th in offensive rebounding (27.4%) and 235th in defensive (65.2%).

3. Getting to the charity stripe and making the shots when they get there. They only attempt 3 FTs for every 11 FGAs, which is 322^nd in the nation.

4. Pump-faking and blocking shots themselves. They have gotten 3 of every 26 2-pointers attempted blocked (256^th) while they only block 3 out of every 86 two-pointers themselves (330^th).

Relative Efficiency:

When South Dakota has the ball: They have scored an average 0.99 PPP this season, while UW has given up a great 0.88 this season.

When UW has the ball: They have given up an average 1.02 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.19 this season.

Pace: South Dakota has played at 70 possessions per game to UW’s 60.

My expectations:

1. Badgers shoot better than 57% inside the arc. The Badgers are much bigger and the stats would suggest that the Coyotes play super tight defense on the perimeter trying for steals and harassing shooters, but giving up easy drives to the hoop from being over-extended.

2. Josh Gasser explodes for more than 12 points. He has averaged a lowly 1.5 PPG in the past two games after 11.0 PPG through the first five. I like the aforementioned over-extended defense leading to some great driving opportunities for him.

3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end and 78% of the opportunities on defense. South Dakota is a terrible rebounding team and the Badgers aren’t.

4. The Badgers get back the “make more free throws than their opponents attempt” stat back for the season. If I recall correctly, it’s currently at -5, so I like them to be at least +6 on the night.

The Badgers destroy the Coyotes 90-57 in 67 possessions.

NC State Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: UW thumped a young and overmatched North Carolina State team 87-48.



In Shetown’s prediction thread, many Wolf Pack fans came over and suggested their young team was in deep trouble playing an experienced UW team in a hostile place. They were right. I appreciated the insights that their fan base brought to board (in stark contrast to what is happening over on the football board). However, I feel a need to make a bad pun such as: “What’s for dinner? Road kill and hushed puppies”, but I do not want to disrespect the well meaning and insightful NCS fans that visited our board. But, that does not mean I should try to stop you…



UW has discovered the key to winning for the rest of the season. Simply do the following:



* Hit 55% of your three attempts, or better
* Turn the ball over no more than 10% of the time
* Grab offensive rebounds at a 45% clip, or better
* Hit at least 77% of your free throws
* Hold your opponents to 32% shooting inside the arc, or less



Our strategy is now set.



Summarizing the game in a few words: UW dominated all phases of the game, but the most stunning was the 55% success rate from beyond the arc.



Pace: The game had 62 possessions by my estimation. FYI … I calculate the possessions for both teams and average them and then round. In this case, NCS had 63.2 possessions and UW 60.4. Since fractions are not possible and there cannot be more than one possession difference between the two teams, typically, our formula failed this time. But, 62 seems like a good number and I am sticking with it.



If you are wondering, possessions are estimated as: FGA + .475*FTA – Off Reb + Turnovers.



Efficiency: Was it good offense or good defense for UW? Both, in big measures. UW scored a stunning 1.40 PPP. Yikes! Meanwhile, NCS clanked their way to .77PPP. That puts UW at 1.18 PPP for the year on offense and .88 PPP on defense. These are raw numbers that do not reflect strength of schedule.



Shooting: UW outshot NCS in both quantity and quality at the arc, inside the arc, and at the line.



eFG%: UW had a ridiculous 60% eFG%. Meanwhile, NCS struggled at 35%.



3 pt shooting: UW drained threes at an amazing 55% rate. UW was 11 for 20. NCS took 13 threes and made but 4 or 32%, which is close to the national average. UW outscored NCS by 21 outside the arc.



2pt shooting: NCS shot more or less the same percentage inside the arc as outside the arc. NCS was 14 of 44 for 32%. UW shot a respectable 17 of 36 or 47%, which was our fourth best in seven games. UW picked up another 6 points inside the arc.



1pt shooting: UW cleaned up at the line as well. UW made 77% (20 – 26) while NCS was at 62% (8 – 13). That put UW up by 12 at the line.



The “We Make More Free Throws Than Our Opponents Attempt” Scoreboard



UW Makes: 94 Opponent Attempts: 99 Difference: -5



We need to pick it up at the line to get our old favorite beer drinking game line back.



Floor Location:



As you know, I a trying to track where points come on the floor to see if there are any insights to be learned. Here it is for this game:



Location UW Opp

Arc 38% 25%

Mid Range 14% 4%

Paint 25% 36%

FT Line 23% 19%



NCS actually outscored UW in the paint 26 to 22.



Rebounding: UW did not dominate the defensive glass like usual, but crashed the boards with a vengeance on offense.



UW Defensive End: UW did a relatively poor job defending the defensive glass. NCS got 32% of their misses (13 of 40), near the national average of 33%, but far more than UW’s typical 26% of last year.



UW Offensive End: UW had a great day on the offensive glass. UW grabbed 45% of our misses (14 of 31). So, after an off day against ND, UW is back on a torrid offensive rebounding streak.



Turnovers: Once again, UW won the TO battle. NCS had 13, for 21%. That is on the national average, but high for a UW opponent since UW plays position and not a denying defense.



UW had but 6 turnovers, or 10%. Low turnovers have been a Bo hallmark. This game was excellent. UW had a plus 7 turnover margin, something an inexperienced team playing in a hostile environment cannot afford.



Opportunity Index: UW had a plus 8 OI. UW was plus one in offensive rebounds and plus 7 on turnovers. All this resulted in UW scoring plus 9 in points off turnovers (UW 18, NCS 9) and plus 9 in second chance points (19 to 10).



Fouls: NCS had 21 fouls to UW’s 11. Those extra 10 fouls lead to 13 extra free throw attempts and 12 extra points from the line for UW.



Playing time: Bo played 9 ten or more minutes. All the starters got at least 20 minutes (and not more than 29). Smith got 16, Evans 18, Jarmusz 16 and Berggren 12. There was a JP Gavinski sighting.



NCS played 9 10 or more minutes as well.



Notable Performances: Leuer had a 22 -11 dub dub. He only needed 11 FGA’s and 8 FTA’s to get there. He missed four shots from the floor, but picked up 3 offensive rebounds. His only blemishes were two turnovers. Jon, I salute you.



Taylor scored 21 on 12 shots and 4 FTA’s. He had 3 boards and but one TO in 29 minutes. Excellent work.



Jared Berggren scored 12 on 4-5 shooting from the floor, 3-3 from deep, 1-2 from the line and chipped in 3 boards in 12 minutes of work. Jared, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.



Bruesewitz scored 9 on 3 FGA’s and no FTA’s. I will leave it to the reader to deduce where the shots came from. Mike, I salute you.



For NCS, Scott Wood was a thorn in UW’s side scoring 13 on 10 FGA’s. He displayed excellent catch and shoot skills coming around screens.



Grading Shetown’s Predictions



1. The Badgers re-establish their dominance on the offensive boards, grabbing at least 40%. The Badgers are good at them and NCSU is terrible at stopping them. Hit. UW got 45%. That was an aggressive prediction that came home





2. The bench, Gasser, and Bruesewitz score at least 49% of the team’s points. I think the friendly confines help the role players find their stroke again. FYI, they currently score 44.1% of the points. Miss. Taylor, Nankivil and Leuer scored 50 of 87.





3. The Badgers get their 3-point shooting ability back, and shoot better than 35%. The team shot 42% in the Kohl Center and 17% in Orlando. I think the Kohl Center shooting returns. Major Hit. UW popped at a stunning 55%.





The Badgers take out their disappointment from Orlando on the Wolfpack, Cesar Milan-ing them 75-62 in 64 possessions. Hit, sort of. UW won 87 to 48 in 62 possessions. You did not give UW enough credit and NCS too much, but you erred in the right direction.



Closing Thoughts: In retrospect, the powers to be would have been wise to have UW play Maryland and NCS play PSU. Those would have made more engaging competition.



It is amazing how much better shooting was in the Kohl center (and against NCS). There is no place like home.



I really like the ACC/B10 challenge. It makes for an engaging few days of TV. I find myself cheering for our fellow B10 teams when I might not otherwise. But most importantly, we get to schedule some good games. Otherwise, the temptation is to bring in a team for a buy game that is not engaging. I hope they keep the challenge going. If not, I hope they do it against another conference. I wish they would do it with two conferences each year.

Notre Dame Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: UW lost to Notre Dame 58 – 51 in a game of runs. ND got the last one that counted. It would have been a fine end to a glorious weekend, but no such luck.



Summarizing the game in a few words: ND had 21 extra free throw attempts that they parlayed into 16 extra points from the line to overcome miserable shooting from the floor from both teams.



Pace: The game featured 56 possessions. As regular readers know, I do not consider pace to have good or bad qualities, but must be understood to put the rest of the analysis in perspective.



Efficiency: Was it an offensive or defensive problem? Both, but mostly defense. ND scored 1.04 PPP while UW scored .94. UW historically holds opponents closer to .90 PPP and scores 1.15 PPP or so. We shall see what happens this year. UW can wins most games giving up 1.04 PPP. We will not win very many scoring .94 PPP.



Shooting: Neither team shot well from the floor, but ND cleaned up at the line.



eFG%: Neither team shot well. UW outshot ND from the floor 41% to 40%. Both are poor numbers.



3 pt shooting: ND hit 29% of their threes and UW 30%. While neither is a good number, 30% is better than I expected. UW launched far more threes – 23 to 14. With those 9 extra shots, UW made 3 extra deep balls to gain 9 points from the arc.



2pt shooting: Both teams had identical, and miserable, 2 point stats. Each team was 13 of 34 for 38%. Ugh.



1pt shooting: Free throws are the story of the game. ND was a robust 20 of 25, 80% while UW was a perfect, but puny, 4-4. ND got 21 extra attempts and scored 16 extra points. At least one of their misses ended in an offensive rebound and a put back.



This shows why it is so important to get to the line. 25 FTA is estimated at 12 possessions (less the offensive rebound, which I will ignore for now). Those twelve possessions netted 20 points, or 1.67 PPP. Meanwhile, UW used 9 possessions to launch threes and score 9 points doing so.



ND had nine possessions that ended in turnovers, which, obviously, got them 0 PPP. When they hoisted threes, they scored 12 on 14 shot attempts (some had offensive rebounds), and scored 26 on 34 two point attempts (again, less some offensive rebounds).



Bottom line, your PPP go up when you shoot free throws.



Rebounding: ND had a good day on the offensive glass and successfully protected their defensive glass.



UW Defensive end: When ND shot, they got 13 of their 35 misses, or 37%. That is way more than UW’s pace last year of 26%, one of the best in the nation.



UW Offensive End: When UW shot, and missed (which was a regular occurrence), UW got 6 of 36 misses or but 17%. Before this game, our low water mark was 31% against Manhattan. The year is still young. We shall see where we end up on the offensive boards, but we can say this game was a setback.



Scoring distribution:



Here is where the scoring came from:



Locations UW ND

Arc 41% 21%

Mid Range 24% 10%

Paint 27% 34%

Line 8% 34%



Turnovers: The one place where UW shined was turnovers. ND had 9, or 16% TO rate. That is good, better than the 21% national average.



UW bettered that with only 4 turnovers for 7% rate. That gave UW an extra 5 productive possessions. The paper reported that ND scored 3 points off turnovers and UW gathered 15.



Opportunity Index: UW lost the opportunity index for the first time this year with a minus 2. ND had plus 7 offensive rebounds and UW plus five turnovers.



ND took their extra offensive rebounds and scored 14 second chance points while UW had plus 12 in points off turnovers. So, ND took their two extra opportunities and scored two extra points.



Fouls: UW fouled 22 times to ND’s 8. Those 14 extra fouls lead to 16 points, which was the difference in the game.



Playing time: Bo went 7 deep with Jarmusz getting 21 and Evans 16 off the bench. Bruesewitz played only 16 minutes as a starter after getting 4 fouls. Wilson had 9 minutes. Berggren got 6. Leuer and Taylor had 38 minutes each.



Notable Performances: Leuer scored 19 on 16 FGA’s, added 5 boards, and had two turnovers.



Taylor scored 14 but needed 19 shots to get there. He had only one turnover and four rebounds.



Keaton got 9 on 7 shots with 4 rebounds and no turnovers. Keaton, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.



Taylor and Gasser fouled out. Bruesewitz had four fouls.



ND had four players score between 10 and 12 points. No one shot particularly well from the floor, but they all shot well at the line and cleaned up the boards successfully.



Grading Shetown’s Predictions



1. Badgers establish a strong post game with more than 30 points in the paint. The Badgers ruin the Irish's sparkling interior defensive stats. Miss. UW had but 14 points in the paint.



2. The Badgers knock down less than 3 threes. Come on reverse psychology. Miss, they got 7 but needed 23 tries to get there. You wanted to miss, right?



3. Badgers grab more than 36% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. Let it ride against a great rebounding team. Miss. UW stunk up the place with 17%. Ugh.



4. The Badgers hold Abromaitis to less than 12 points. We’re got the defenders at the 3 spot to slow this guy. Hit. He had 10 and needed 11 shots and 4 FTA’s to get there. He did add 9 boards. But, Bruesewitz and Jarmusz did a good job on him.



Badgers eat their Lucky Charms, downing ND 74-68 in 66 possessions. Miss. 58-51 in 56 possessions.





Closing Thoughts: It will be interesting to see how good of a team ND turns out to be. Perhaps losing Harangody was addition by subtraction? They seem to play a completely different type of ball than in the past. They did not play much defense last year, if my memory serves me right. They seemed to beat UW at our own game – deliberate offense, defense, and free throws.



While disappointing, it is still early. If UW takes care of NC State Wednesday, all will be fine again.



Bo has the piece-parts available to him to make the adjustments and corrections needed, I would think. Come Big Ten time, we should be ready to go. It will take awhile before we get ranked, but that’s okay if we are ranked come March.