Purdue 2.0 Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: I’m kinda glad I wasn’t able to watch this game. I got in my car leaving work with 6 seconds left in the game and listened to rest. I assumed that they would be down by double digits most of the game and make a futile comeback to make it a respectable final score. As you may notice, I’m not turumon, as he scored himself some tickets to the game.



Summarizing the game in a few words: It was a tightly contested game swaying back and forth with Purdue putting on a run with Hughes on the bench from which the Badgers couldn’t quite recover. Hughes had a chance to make yet another game-winner with 1 second left, but it didn’t fall for him this time.



Pace: The game had 58 possessions.



Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? The cause for this loss was the offense, namely free throw shooting, as the Badgers scored a PPP of .98 while allowing Purdue to score 1.03. On a normal offensive night, UW would win this one. But it’s a credit to Purdue’s defense.



Shooting: UW got more shots from the floor, 50 to 49, but was outscored by one from the floor.



eFG%: Purdue hit an eFG% of 51%. On the other end, UW hit 49%.



3-pt shooting: Purdue was a good 2 of 5 or 40% from the arc. Meanwhile, UW made 7 extra deep shots, and launched 22 more to get those extra 7 shots. UW ended up going 9 of 23 or 39%. UW picked up 21 points outside the arc.



2-pt shooting: Inside, Purdue was a good 22 of 44 for 50%. UW took fewer shots, 27, made fewer, 11, and hit a lower percentage – 41%. Due to Purdue’s superior quantity and quality inside the arc, they outscored UW by 22 inside the arc.



1-pt shooting: Purdue was a comparatively excellent 10 of 15 for 66%. UW was a stunningly bad 8 of 14 for 57%. Those 2 points from the line for Purdue make the difference.



Rebounding: Purdue outrebounded UW in raw numbers 37 to 25. Ugh. Purdue did great on the offensive end and very good on their defensive end.



UW Defensive End: There were 29 rebounding opportunities on UW’s defensive end and Purdue got 11 or 38%. That is more than the 24% we typically give up and it is more than the national average of 33%. So, I would call that a major victory for Purdue.



UW Offensive End: On the other end, Wisconsin clanked enough shots to get 33 rebound opportunities and UW only got 7 or 21%. That is not good at all. We should be pushing 30% or better.



Turnovers: PSU had 13 or 22% turnover rate while UW had 9 or 15%. That gave UW a +4 turnover margin.



Opportunity Index: UW had a +4 turnover and -4 offensive rebounds for a neutral Opportunity Index.


Fouls: Both teams had 16. In conference, we have been averaging 15.8 and our opponents 17.2.



Playing time: Bo went 7 deep. Trevon, Keaton, Jordan, and Jason all got over 33. Rob Wilson played 23, Jarmusz played 19, and Evans played 11. Berggren had 3 and Bruesewitz 2.



Purdue played only 8 ten or more minutes.



Notable Performances:



Taylor scored 13 on 12 shots, 5-6 from the line, 3 rebounds, and 5 assists. He had one turnover and two steals. Jordan, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of turumon’s people.


Keaton Nankivil scored 25 on 14 shots, 7-8 from the deep, and 6 boards, 3 steals, and 1 block. Unfortunately, he also had 4 turnovers. Keaton… people, fires…



Mike Bruesewitz joins the ranks of the Trillion Man March with his stat-less 2 minutes.



Grading My Predictions



1. The Badgers break their icy streak from 3, nailing 35% or better from 3. I just think they are due for a decent outing from the arc. Hit! They shot 39%.



2. Bohannon nets more than 11. To go with #1, J-Bo lights it up from trey. Miss. Who knew Nankivil would be the one making all the triples?



3. Wisconsin grabs more than 75% of the rebounding opportunities on defense. Last time Wisconsin grabbed an awesome 85% and have rebounded even better defensively without Leuer. Miss. Wisconsin only got 62%.



4. Purdue shoots worse than 29% from 3. Purdue is bad at shooting them and Wisconsin is good at defending them. Miss. Purdue is learning to avoid their weakness, only attempting 5 threes, making 2 of them.



5. Jordan Taylor scores more than 14. He continues his great performance from the PSU game. Miss. He got 13, so I was off by 2.





My Prediction: The Badgers drop one, losing a 67-63 game in 60 possessions. Hit, but I wish it wasn’t right.



Closing Thoughts: I don't want to assume too much from a two-game sample size, but I like that Keaton has seemingly regained that aggressiveness on the offensive end of the court that he had in the early non-conference season but faded in December. It's very encouraging that they were a shot away from winning this game considering their performances in the previous 4 games. The real test comes on Groundhog's Day against Moving Screen University.

Purdue 2.0 Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: Up until I see our draws in the NCAA Tournament, this will be the game I deem us least likely to win all season. Without the inside-outside presence of Jon Leuer, I don’t like our chances in West Lafayette, or many places outside of Madison.


What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #11 and Purdue #10. He makes Purdue a 4-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #6 and Purdue #9. He predicts a 64-62 Boiler victory in 63 possessions and gives the Badgers a 62% chance of winning.


Purdue Probable Rotation:
*G – 6’3” SR Chris Kramer (6.4 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 2.9 APG, 1.6 SPG, 57% 2PT, 78.8% FT, 121.2 OR, 13% Poss, 10% Shot, 18% TO, 1% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 10% 3FGA/FGA)
*G – 6’4” SR Keaton Grant (5.9 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 2.1 APG, 57% 2PT, 80% FT, 100.4 OR, 18% Poss, 18% Shot, 17% TO, 6% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 49% 3FGA/FGA)
*G – 6’4” JR E’Twaun Moore (17.5 PPG, 3.4 RPG, 2.6 APG, 1.5 SPG, 56% 2PT, 108.8 OR, 27% Poss, 30% Shot, 16% TO, 4% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 29% 3FGA/FGA)
*F – 6’8” JR Robbie Hummel (16.1 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 2.1 APG, 1.2 SPG, 1.1 BPG, 54% 2PT, 91% FT, 124.7 OR, 23% Poss, 26% Shot, 9% TO, 6% OffReb, 22% DefReb, 41% 3FGA/FGA)
*F/C – 6’10” JR JaJuan Johnson (14.2 PPG, 7.1 RPG, 2.0 BPG, 54% 2PT, 110.6 OR, 25% Poss, 23% Shot, 16% TO, 12% OffReb, 17% DefReb, 2% 3FGA/FGA)
F – 6’5” FR Kelsey Barlow (4.1 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 1.8 APG, 52% 2PT, 88.5 OR, 19% Poss, 15% Shot, 31% TO, 7% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 6% 3FGA/FGA)
G – 6’5” FR D.J. Byrd (2.6 PPG, 80.8 OR, 19% Poss, 19% Shot, 18% TO, 5% OffReb, 5% DefReb, 66% 3FGA/FGA)
G – 6’3” SO Ryne Smith (3.7 PPG, 1.3 RPG, 1.1 APG, 50% 2PT, 100% FT, 107.6 OR, 13% Poss, 16% Shot, 17% TO, 4% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 82% 3FGA/FGA)
F – 6’8” FR Patrick Bade (2.1 PPG, 2.1 RPG, 78.5 OR, 20% Poss, 18% Shot, 26% TO, 10% OffReb, 21% DefReb, 5% 3FGA/FGA)
G – 6’2” SO John Hart (2.7 PPG, 106.4 OR, 29% Poss, 30% Shot, 14% TO, 3% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 46% 3FGA/FGA)

Key:
OR = offensive rating, or personal points per possession
Poss = possession usage
Shot = share of shots taken
TO = percentage of personal possessions ending in turnover
OffReb = % of offensive rebounding opportunities grabbed by player (anything in double digits is good)
DefReb = % of defensive rebounding opportunities grabbed by player (anything above 15% is good for forwards/center, double digits for guards)

Note: If I don’t list a player’s 2PT%, it’s not above 50%, if I don’t list 3PT%, it’s not above 40%, and if I don’t list FT%, it’s not above 75%


What Purdue is really good at:

1. Shooting 2s. Purdue is 35th in 2-point shooting percentage (52.4%). This is 3rd in the Big Ten.

2. Defending the paint. They give up 41.9% shooting inside the arc (17th) and block nearly 1 in every 8 2-pointers (42nd, or 12.7%). These are both second and third in the Big Ten.

3. Forcing turnovers. They are 18th in the nation forcing turnovers (24.9%), which is second in the Big Ten.

4. Taking care of the ball. They are 10th in the nation at it, only once in every 6 possessions (16.5%). This is second in the Big Ten.


What Purdue is really bad at:

1. Shooting 3s. They shoot 30.7% from beyond the arc. That puts them at 287th in the nation and 10th in the Big Ten.

2. Defending 3s. They give up 36.9% from beyond the arc, good for 282nd in the nation and last in the Big Ten.

3. Keeping opponents off the line. They allow their opponents to attempt 4 free throws per 10 shot attempts (41.4%), good for 248th and 10th in the Big Ten.


Relative efficiency:

When Purdue has the ball: Purdue has scored a great 1.14 PPP in their first 19 games, while UW has given up a great 0.86 in their first 20.

When UW has the ball: Purdue gave up a good 0.88 in their first 19 games, while UW has scored a great 1.14 in their first 20.


Pace: Purdue has played at 70 possessions per game so far in their first 19 games compared to UW’s 62 in their first 20 games.


My expectations:

1. The Badgers break their icy streak from 3, nailing 35% or better from 3. I just think they are due for a decent outing from the arc.

2. Bohannon nets more than 11. To go with #1, J-Bo lights it up from trey.

3. Wisconsin grabs more than 75% of the rebounding opportunities on defense. Last time Wisconsin grabbed an awesome 85% and have rebounded even better defensively without Leuer.

4. Purdue shoots worse than 29% from 3. Purdue is bad at shooting them and Wisconsin is good at defending them.

5. Jordan Taylor scores more than 14. He continues his great performance from the PSU game.


My Prediction: The Badgers drop one, losing a 67-63 game in 60 possessions.

After Four Games Sans Leuer...

With Leuer
Possessions per 40 Minutes: 63
Offensive PPP: 1.125
Offensive Turnover Rate: 15.9%
Offensive 2-Point Shooting: 51.9% (280/540)
Offensive 3-Point Shooting: 35.6% (108/303)
Offensive Free Throw Rate: 39.5
Offensive 3FGA/FGA: 35.9%
Off Reb Rate: 30.6%

Defensive PPP: 0.906
Defensive Turnover Rate: 19.2%
Defensive 2-Point Shooting: 42.3% (249/588)
Defensive 3-Point Shooting: 31.8% (69/217)
Defensive Free Throw Rate: 37.3
Defensive 3FGA/FGA: 27%
Def Reb Rate: 75.9%



Without Leuer
Possessions per 40 Minutes: 56
Offensive PPP: 1.089
Offensive Turnover Rate: 13.4%
Offensive 2-Point Shooting: 51.4% (53/103)
Offensive 3-Point Shooting: 27.5% (30/109)
Offensive Free Throw Rate: 27.4
Offensive 3FGA/FGA: 51.4%
Off Reb Rate: 25%

Defensive PPP: 1.022
Defensive Turnover Rate: 20.5%
Defensive 2-Point Shooting: 47.2% (67/142)
Defensive 3-Point Shooting: 40.4% (21/52)
Defensive Free Throw Rate: 24.2
Defensive 3FGA/FGA: 26.8%
Def Reb Rate: 74.6%


The PPPs changed quite a bit, but I think we can chalk that up to better competition. But there have been some drastic changes. Three point shooting and the free throws to shot attempts ratio has fallen greatly. Their tempo has slowed to a crawl. And even though Jon was the opposite of turnover prone, they have really cut back on turnovers... maybe due to Taylor's increased time at the point, as he isn't as aggressive in risk-taking as Pop.

Oddly, the opponents have shot less free throws, haven't been able to grab more offensive rebounds, and shoot about the same amount of threes. Their shooting ability has increased quite a bit too.

PSU 2.0 Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: Was there any doubt?

I tip my cap to PSU for a job well done (well, almost). They adopted NU’s student’s admonition and made shots.

I saw the game from the top row of the corner of the Kohl Center. But, from that odd angle, it appeared to me that UW had good shots and did not make them. PSU had good shots and made them. Sometimes basketball is all about making shots. Nothing more. UW waited to make their shots and barely got the job done.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW’s performance picked up late and was barely able to tie the game and then continue their productive scoring into OT. PSU’s turnovers were killers.

Pace: The game had 69 possessions. Then again, the game also had 5 extra minutes. I took a look at the game log and believe there were 10 possessions in the OT. So, that gives us 59 for regulation.

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? This might take some untangling. UW ended the game with a very good 1.14 PPP (average 1.10 overall, 1.03 in conference). UW gave up 1.03 PPP, more than our usual .91 overall, .93 in conference. So, overall, UW had a better than average offensive game and worse than usual defensive game (or, PSU had a good offensive game and bad defensive game, or some combination of the two).

At the end of the game, UW ended up scoring 79 points in 69 possessions, or a very good 1.14 PPP. But, they also scored 19 points on 10 possessions in OT. So, UW scored 60 in 59 during regulation, or 1.02, I believe.

Shooting: UW got more shots from the floor, 60 to 56, but was outscored by three from the floor. UW made up the difference and then some at the line.

eFG%: PSU had the best shooting day of the year against UW. They hit an eFG% of 58%. Ugh. Life is good when your shots are going down. On the other end, UW hit 52%, our ninth best of the year. We had only been shooting 47% in conference.

3 pt shooting: PSU was an excellent 7 of 15 or 47% from the arc. That was the fourth best against us this year (GB, MSU and OSU 2.0 all had 50% against us).

Meanwhile, UW made 3 extra deep shots, 10, but launched 18 more to get those extra 3 shots. UW ended up going 10 of 33 or 30%.

UW picked up 9 points outside the arc.

2pt shooting: Inside, PSU was an excellent 22 of 41 for 54%. UW took fewer shots, 27, made fewer, 16, but hit a higher percentage – 59%. That was our fourth best performance inside the arc this year (IPFW 71%, Cal Poly 67%, Grambling 64%). Due to PSU superior quantity inside the arc, they outscored UW by 12 inside the arc.

1pt shooting: PSU was an excellent 6 of 8 for 75%. UW was a stunning 17 of 19 for 89%. Those 11 points from the line overcame PSU superior shooting to win the game. UW shot 10-11 in OT when the chips were down.

Rebounding: PSU outrebounded UW in raw numbers 38 to 24. Ugh. PSU did okay on the offensive end and very good on their defensive end.

UW Defensive end: There were 30 rebounding opportunities on UW’s defensive end and PSU got 8 or 30%. While that is more than the 24% we typically give up, it is less than the national average of 33%. So, I would call that a minor victory for PSU.

UW Offensive End: On the other end, PSU clanked enough shots to get 38 rebound opportunities and UW only got 5 or 14%. That is not good at all. We should be pushing 30% or better.

Turnovers: This was a major factor in the game. PSU had 18 or 26% turnover rate while UW had a microscopic 5 or 7%. That gave UW a +13 turnover margin. Yeah.

Opportunity Index: UW had a +13 turnover and minus 3 offensive rebounds for a sturdy +10 Opportunity Index. That was critical to overcoming PSU’s superior shooting.

Fouls: PSU had 17 to UW’s 12. In conference, we have been averaging 16.3 and our opponents 17.4. The more important result was a plus 11 FTA’s and +11 points from the line.

Playing time: Bo went 6 deep. Trevon, Keaton and Jason all got over 40. Rob Wilson played 36, Jarmusz played 13. Evans had 6 and Bruesewitz 4.

PSU also played only 6 ten or more minutes.

Notable Performances:

Taylor scored 20 on 14 shots, 3-8 from deep, 5-6 from the line, 3 rebounds, and 6 assists. The 3-8 from deep was not so hot, but it was the order that they came in that is memorable. He got hot in the nick of time. He had zero turnovers. Jordan, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Hughes had another nice line. He score 22 on 17 shots, 3-10 from deep, a perfect 5-5 from the line, five boards, and no turnovers.

Keaton Nankivil scored 17 on 9 shots, 7-9 from the field, and 7 boards.

JBO scored 13 on 12 shots, 3-10 from deep, 2-2 from the line, five rebounds, and two more blocks. Please join me in a graffiti campaign “Air JBo lives.”

Trevon, Keaton, JBo, people, fires, … I salute you.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Battle doesn’t reach 15. Hughes has always been able to bully him into a bad game. Miss. Battle scored 28 on 23 shots and one trip to the line, an offensive board, and 3 turnovers. So, he scored 28 on 26 possessions. So, he was certainly contained, but not stopped.

2. Hughes scores more than 15. Hughes can bully Battle on the other side of the ball. Hit. Hughes scored 22 on 17 FGA’s, 2 trips to the line (one was a +1 on a made basket), no offensive boards and no TO’s. Or, he scored 22 on 19 possessions.

3. Badgers attempt more than 15 free throws. Hughes and Taylor drive to the rim and draw a bunch of fouls, garnering throws early and often. Hit. They tried 19 and made 17.

4. Jason Bohannon lights up PSU, scoring more than 13. He seems to play more assertively off the dribble in the Kohl. Miss. Why don’t you say 13 or more. You keep getting ripped on that.

My Prediction: The Badgers win again, beating the Lions 65-52 in 56 possessions. Hit, but for the wrong reasons. Won 79 – 71, 69 possessions, plus one OT. It was 60-60 in 59 possessions in regulation.

Closing Thoughts: At this late date, I have finally landed on JBo as my favorite player. This was a tough decision to be sure. But, his shot blocking has fascinated me. He is a shot blocking machine. Go JBo. He is a very good defender, a strong rebounder and a strong all around player. Being my favorite player is a major responsibility. Carry the burden well and go forth and conquer.

As a side note, I almost lost Mrs. Turomon today. She is a good woman, has a strong back, good teeth, and many good years left in her. But, games like this may drive her to an early grave. I was surprise she survived the Dick Bennett years. Those teams played every game, good or bad opponents, down to the wire. Today’s game pushed the limit. I would strongly prefer that the Badger’s blow out a few teams to get her back to earth.

Penn State Pre-Game Analysis #2

Opening Thoughts: On Sunday the Badgers take on the Nittany Lions from Penn State. It should be a win, but maybe not as easily sans Leuer.


What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #13 and Penn State #159. He makes Wisconsin a 18-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #6 and Penn State #108. He predicts a 66-50 Badger victory in 57 possessions and gives the Badgers a 96% chance of winning.

Note: Sagarin and Pomeroy are unable to objectively calculate UW’s abilities with Jon Leuer out, so they don’t.


Penn State Rotation:
*G – 6’0” JR Talor Battle (18.6 PPG, 5.4 RPG, 3.6 APG, 1.1 SPG, 106.4 OR, 29% Poss, 30% Shot, 14% TO, 3% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 45% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” SO Chris Babb (7.7 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 2.1 APG, 82% FT, 113.2 OR, 17% Poss, 20% Shot, 12% TO, 4% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 79% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’7” JR David Jackson (8.0 PPG, 4.6 RPG, 1.3 APG, 53% 2PT, 76% FT, 117.1 OR, 15% Poss, 15% Shot, 13% TO, 7% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 26% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” JR Jeff Brooks (7.6 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 1.2 APG, 1.9 SPG, 55% 2PT, 79% FT, 101.9 OR, 18% Poss, 19% Shot, 20% TO, 5% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 21% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’10” JR Andrew Jones (5.8 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 1.3 SPG, 1.0 APG, 57% 2PT, 98.5 OR, 15% Poss, 14% Shot, 21% TO, 8% OffReb, 16% DefReb, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)

G – 6’1” FR Tim Frazier (6.3 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 2.6 APG, 42% 3PT, 95.3 OR, 22% Poss, 17% Shot, 25% TO, 3% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 23% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’6” FR Bill Edwards (5.4 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 1.3 APG, 65% 2PT, 79.9 OR, 26% Poss, 24% Shot, 28% TO, 6% OffReb, 20% DefReb, 39% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’10” JR Andrew Ott (4.1 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 57% 2PT, 114.0 OR, 18% Poss, 15% Shot, 17% TO, 13% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’5” SO Cammeron Woodyard (2.2 PPG, 1.0 RPG, 81.8 OR, 16% Poss, 20% Shot, 14% TO, 4% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 74% of FGAs are 3PT)

Key:
OR = offensive rating, or personal points per possession
Poss = possession usage
Shot = share of shots taken
TO = percentage of personal possessions ending in turnover
OffReb = % of offensive rebounding opportunities grabbed by player (anything in double digits is good)
DefReb = % of defensive rebounding opportunities grabbed by player (anything above 15% is good for forwards/center, double digits for guards)

Note: If I don’t list a player’s 2PT%, it’s not above 50%, if I don’t list 3PT%, it’s not above 40%, and if I don’t list FT%, it’s not above 75%


What Penn State is really good at:

1. Defensive Rebounding. PSU is 4th in the nation at it, grabbing 73.8%. That’s 2nd in the Big Ten.

2. Not sending opponents to the line. They are 8th in the nation at keeping opponents away from the line, with opponents taking 1 free throw for every 4 shot attempts. They are first in the Big Ten.


What Penn State is really bad at:

1. Defending threes. PSU gives up 36.5% from deep, good for 269th and 10th in the Big Ten.

2. Forcing turnovers. They are 311th in forcing TO’s at 17.8%, which is last in the Big Ten.

3. Blocking shots. They are 329th in blocking opponents’ two-pointers, getting one in 20 attempts. They are 10th in the Big Ten.


Relative efficiency:

When PSU has the ball: PSU has scored an above average 1.04 PPP in their first 18 games, while UW has given up a great 0.85 in their first 19.

When UW has the ball: PSU gave up an above average 0.98 in their first 18 games, while UW has scored a great 1.14 in their first 19.


Pace: PSU has played at 64 possessions per game so far in their first 18 games compared to UW’s 62 in their first 13 games.


My expectations:

1. Battle doesn’t reach 15. Hughes has always been able to bully him into a bad game.

2. Hughes scores more than 15. Hughes can bully Battle on the other side of the ball.

3. Badgers attempt more than 15 free throws. Hughes and Taylor drive to the rim and draw a bunch of fouls, garnering throws early and often.

4. Jason Bohannon lights up PSU, scoring more than 13. He seems to play more assertively off the dribble in the Kohl.


My Prediction: The Badgers win again, beating the Lions 65-52 in 56 possessions.

Michigan Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: UW won a hard fought, and frustrating, 54-48 game against Michigan. UW denied UM of a much needed resume building road win over a top 25 team.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW shot very poorly but did enough other things well to win (defense, rebounds, turnovers).

Pace: The game had 58 possessions (Wisconsin took the first 8 off so it seemed like ever fewer). UW averages 62 for the year, 58 in conference. It was the fourth fewest of the year.

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Definitely defense. Michigan scored .83 PPP. UW is used to allowing .91 PPP, .90 PPP in conference.

On offense, UW scored .93 PPP. That was our fourth lowest of the year. We average 1.10, 1.02 in conference. So, either Michigan played great defense, UW poor offense, or some combination of the two.

Shooting: UW bombed away with poor results. UW took 45% of FGA’s outside the arc, which has been the post-Leuer-injury pattern.

UW won despite pathetic three point shooting, UM shoot poorly inside the arc despite Sims going off.

eFG%: UM shot 43% eFG%. That is poor, but normal for UW opponents. We have been giving up 44% for the year, 45% in conference.

UW was engaged in a brick-fest of biblical proportions. UW was at 37.7%, our worst of the year (Next worst – MSU 38.2%). That is some poor shooting. Somehow, UW won anyway. How?

3 pt shooting: Michigan was so-so, UW was terrible. Michigan hit 6-19, for a respectable 32%. UW invested an additional 5 shots from deep and ended up scoring 2 fewer shots. Ugh. UW hit a miserably low 17% of their deep shots. Michigan outscored UW beyond the arc by 6 points.

2pt shooting: Inside the arc, UM hit 39% and UW 48%. UM was 11 of 28 while UW was 14 of 29. UW got back the 6 points they lost outside the arc inside.

1pt shooting: The game was decided at the line. UM shot a good 8-11. In a rare display of UW making more FT than their opponents attempt, UW was 14-17, 82%. UW made enough free throws down the line to ice the game.

Rebounding: Both teams successfully protected their defensive glass. For UW, that is condition normal. For UM, that is a victory.

UW Defensive end: UW ruled the defense glass, again, giving up 6 of 30 rebounding opportunities or 20%. Regular readers know UW has a best-in-the-nation 24% opponent offensive rebounding rate. That was protected again this game.

UW Offensive End: On the other end of the floor, UM grabbed 28 of the possible 37 rebounding opportunities, leaving UW 9 or 24%. Protecting the defensive boards is an issue for the zone-playing Wolverines, but they did a nice job of protecting the glass.

Turnovers: UM had 12 turnovers. Since the game had so few possessions, those 12 TO’s ended up being 21% of their possessions. That is the 5^th highest total by a UW opponent this year. UW typically does not put much emphasis on creating turnovers. They put a lot of emphasis on preventing TO’s. How did they do?

Excellently. UW had 5 TO’s, or 9% of their possessions end in turnovers.

Opportunity Index: As a you saw it here first feature, the opportunity index went UW’s way today. UW was +3 on offensive rebounds and +7 on turnovers for a +10 opportunity index. I think that goes a long ways to explaining how UW won despite shooting so poorly. Ten extra opportunities in a 58 possession game is huge.

Fouls: UM had 18 and UW 12. We have been fouling at 16.3 for the season, 16.9 in conference. Those 6 extra fouls resulted in 6 extra FTA’s, which was the difference in the game.

Playing time: Bo went 7 deep (10 or more minutes). JBo played all 40, again. Hughes had 38 minutes. Evans played 11 and, of course, Wilson had a coming out party of sorts and logged 18 productive minutes.

Notable Performances: What can you say about Rob Wilson? How about this, 4-6 shooting, 4-4 from the line, 3 rebounds, and no turnovers. Rob, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. As a side note, I think one of Bo’s strengths is that he uses young players in situations that are favorable to them. Wilson flourished on offense yet did not have a defensive matchup that he could not handle.

Hughes had another nice line. Hughes scored 20 on 15, 2-6 from deep, 4-5 from the line, 7 rebounds and one lonely turnover.

Jarmusz was 0-2 from deep, but negated those shots with 2 offensive rebounds and 7 rebounds in all, no turnovers. But his real value was holding Manny Harris to 4-14 shooting and 11 points (with 3 TO’s).

Between Nankivil, Taylor, Bohannon, Jarmusz, and Bruesewitz, UW was 1-15 from deep. Ugh.

Sims had a nice line. He scored 23 points on 14 shots, grabbed 13 rebounds, but also had 3 turnovers. Harris took the same number of shots – 14 – but scored 11.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Manny Harris scores less than 16. I don’t have a legitimate reason for this. Just a feeling. Hit. Harris got 11 thanks largely to Jarmusz’s tough defense. I hope this help answers why Jarmusz gets his playing time, but I doubt it will mute the criticsm.

2. Jason Bohannon scores more than 14. I like his chances against a zone. Major Miss. JBo got 3 despite 7 shots. He also got no blocks, but Jarmusz picked up the slack and got one.

3. Badgers grab 35% or more of the offensive rebounding opportunities. Michigan’s zone defense makes them a bad defensive rebounding team. Miss. UW got a pedestrian 24%, which was our 4^th worst of the year.

4. Badgers hold Michigan to 25% or less outside the arc. This is Wisconsin’s strength against Michigan’s weakness. Miss. Michigan shot 32%.

My Prediction: The Badgers win 70-63 in 65 possessions. Hit, but for the wrong reasons. UW won 54-48 in 57 possessions.

Closing Thoughts: How can UW shoot so poorly and still win? For these reasons:

1. UW had a terrific defensive day, particularly Jarmusz limiting Manny Harris. Although UM shot better, not much better.
2. UW had 7 fewer turnovers than UM. That gave us extra shots on basket (in combination with the offensive rebounds, 6 extra FGA’s, 6 extra FTA’s).
3. UW protected the defensive glass so well that we had a positive offensive rebound margin vis-à-vis Michigan despite UM also defending the glass effectively.
4. UW got to the line where our PPP was very high (17 points on 8 or 9 trips)

Not very sexy, but effective.

Next up – Penn State on Sunday.

Michigan Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: On Wednesday the Badgers return home for a two-game stand, first facing the Wolverines of Michigan. If I accidentally missed converting an OSU to Michigan, forgive me for it being late.


What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #10 and Michigan #90. He makes Wisconsin a 14-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #6 and Michigan #64. He predicts a 65-52 Badger victory in 58 possessions and gives the Badgers a 92% chance of winning.

Note: Sagarin and Pomeroy are unable to objectively calculate UW’s abilities with Jon Leuer out, so they don’t.


Michigan Rotation:
*G – 6’3” SO Laval Lucas-Perry (6.4 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 2.0 APG, 99.3 OR, 16% Poss, 15% Shot, 22% TO, 3% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 68% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’3” SO Stu Douglass (6.7 PPG, 2.1 RPG, 2.6 APG, 1.0 SPG, 77% FT, 101.4 OR, 15% Poss, 17% Shot, 14% TO, 1% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 76% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” SO Zack Novak (7.4 PPG, 4.6 RPG, 1.6 APG, 1.3 SPG, 62% 2PT, 106.8 OR, 13% Poss, 15% Shot, 12% TO, 5% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 67% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” JR Manny Harris (19.8 PPG, 6.8 RPG, 4.6 APG, 1.9 SPG, 54% 2PT, 79% FT, 112.6 OR, 30% Poss, 28% Shot, 16% TO, 8% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 34% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR DeShawn Sims (17.4 PPG, 7.1 RPG, 1.3 SPG, 1.0 APG, 57% 2PT, 77% FT, 114.1 OR, 25% Poss, 30% Shot, 10% TO, 10% OffReb, 17% DefReb, 19% of FGAs are 3PT)

G – 6’4” FR Darius Morris (4.4 PPG, 2.8 APG, 2.2 RPG, 50% 2PT, 85.5 OR, 16% Poss, 12% Shot, 31% TO, 2% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 30% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’10” SR Zack Gibson (4.1 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 65% 2PT, 118.4 OR, 21% Poss, 20% Shot, 14% TO, 13% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 22% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’4” FR Matt Vogrich (2.1 PPG, 41% 3PT, 92.1 OR, 19% Poss, 21% Shot, 24% TO, 5% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 69% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’6” JR Anthony Wright (1.3 PPG, 1.1 RPG, 81.8 OR, 17% Poss, 18% Shot, 20% TO, 6% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 58% of FGAs are 3PT)

Key:
OR = offensive rating, or personal points per possession
Poss = possession usage
Shot = share of shots taken
TO = percentage of personal possessions ending in turnover
OffReb = % of offensive rebounding opportunities grabbed by player (anything in double digits is good)
DefReb = % of defensive rebounding opportunities grabbed by player (anything above 15% is good for forwards/center, double digits for guards)

Note: If I don’t list a player’s 2PT%, it’s not above 50%, if I don’t list 3PT%, it’s not above 40%, and if I don’t list FT%, it’s not above 75%


What Michigan is really good at:

1. Shooting 2s. Michigan is 35th inside the arc (52.4%). This ranks them third in the Big Ten.

2. Not sending opponents to the line. Their opponents only attempt 3 free throws for every 11 field goal attempts. This ranks 2nd in the Big Ten.

3. Taking Care of the ball. They are 20th in the nation at avoiding turnovers, with a rate of 17.1%. This is third in the Big Ten.

4. Forcing Turnovers. The Wolverines are 38th in the nation, forcing a rate of 23.9%. They are 3rd in the Big Ten.


What Michigan is really bad at:

1. Getting to the line. They attempt only 2 free throws to every 7 shot attempts. This is 10th in the Big Ten and 328th in the nation.

2. Shooting threes. They shoot 29.1% from beyond the arc, 315th in the nation and 11th in the Big Ten.


Relative efficiency:

When Michigan has the ball: Michigan has scored an good 1.07 PPP in their first 17 games, while UW has given up a great 0.86 in their first 18.

When UW has the ball: Michigan gave up a good 0.93 in their first 17 games, while UW has scored a great 1.15 in their first 18.


Pace: Michigan has played at 65 possessions per game so far in their first 17 games compared to UW’s 62 in their first 18 games.


My expectations:

1. Manny Harris scores less than 16. I don’t have a legitimate reason for this. Just a feeling.

2. Jason Bohannon scores more than 14. I like his chances against a zone.

3. Badgers grab 35% or more of the offensive rebounding opportunities. Michigan’s zone defense makes them a bad defensive rebounding team.

4. Badgers hold Michigan to 25% or less outside the arc. This is Wisconsin’s strength against Michigan’s weakness.


My Prediction: The Badgers win 70-63 in 65 possessions.

OSU 2.0 Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: UW lost 60 to 51 in what Shetown called OSU2.0. Rematches are always difficult, especially when played on the other guy’s court. Add that they got their best player back and UW lost their best player, things were definitely different.

I was hopeful but realistic. OSU played a steady game and drove home a well-earned victory. A tip of the cap to Matta and the Buckeyes.

Summarizing the game in a few words: OSU was efficient inside the arc, outside the arc, and at the line plus they forced an abnormal number of turnovers to win the game.

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? UW did poorly at both (or OSU was good at both, take your pick). OSU scored 1.07 PPP and UW scored .91 PPP.

1.07 for the opponent was the fourth most PPP we have given up this year (Zags, Duke, GB), and the most in conference (second most was NU – another non-Leuer game).

On offense, our .91 was our second to worst of the year behind only MSU. That was good enough to win 3 conference games and 5 non conference games, but not nearly enough to beat a good team

Pace: The game had 56 possessions. Only NU’s 50 had fewer this year.

Shooting: Without Leuer, UW bombed away from deep but needed an extraordinary effort to win, which they did not get.

eFG%: OSU was at 55% and UW 50%. OSU’s 55% was the second highest of the year (GB hit 56%). We typically hold our opponents to 44%, 45% in conference. We score at 52%, 48% in conference,

3 pt shooting: OSU won the quality, UW the quantity battle outside the arc. OSU took only 6 shots from deep and nailed 3 for 50%, the best percentage this year for an opponent. Meanwhile, UW put up and additional 20 shots (26 in total) and made 6 more for a respectable 35%. UW outscored OSU by 18 outside the arc.

2pt shooting: OSU won the quantity and quality battle inside the arc. OSU was 21 of 40 for 53%. That is the best percentage for an opponent this year. UW was 10 of 21 for a respectable 48%. OSU got back the 18 they gave up outside the arc plus another 4 inside the arc.

1pt shooting: OSU was 9-12 for 75% while UW was 4-5 for 80%. OSU picked up 5 more at the line.

Rebounding: Both teams had comparable efforts protecting their defensive glass.

UW Defensive end: There were 25 rebounding opportunities and UW got 18 leaving OSU 6 or 24%. That is on our nation leading 24% average. Good job defending the glass without the big guy.

UW Offensive End: There were 29 rebounding opportunities and UW got 8 or 28%. That is below the national average of 33% but respectable for UW.

Turnovers: I expected turnovers to be a major factor in the game. Evan Turner has been averaging over 5 turnovers per 40 minutes played. They were a major factor, just not in UW’s favor. OSU had 11 for 20% rate and UW had 14 for 25% TO rate. That is our worst performance of the year. Ugh.

Opportunity Index: OK, loyal readers, here is our second ever Opportunity Index. UW was +2 on offensive rebounds and -3 on turnovers giving UW a -1 Offensive Index. So, assuming that an offensive rebound cancels out a turnover, OSU had one extra possession. The 25% TO rate made for too many empty possessions.

Fouls: OSU had 16 and UW 17. In conference, we have out-fouled our opponents slightly 17.7 to 17.3 per game.

Playing time: Bo pulled a switcheroo from the NU game strategy and played 8 players ten or more minutes. Evans got 13, Bruesewitz 10 and Wilson 11. Berggren chipped in 6.

Notable Performances: The big scorers for UW were Hughes and Bohannon. Hughes got 18 on 16 shots, 4-9 from deep, 3 rebounds and 3 TO’s. JBo got 10 on 6 shots from the floor – all threes – and made 2, 4-4 from the line, and 2 boards, but was tagged with two turnovers. JBo continued his remarkable shot blocking display by smothering a three ball from Diebler. Air JBo lives!

Jarmusz had a nice line scoring 6 on 4 shots and grabbed 6 rebounds. Keaton Nankivil scored 9 on 7 shots and also grabbed 6 rebounds.

The thing that dragged down the PPP was the turnovers. Nankivil and Hughes each had 3, Taylor and Evans 2 each, and Jarmusz, Taylor, Bruesewitz had one to go along with one team turnover (shot clock violation I believe).

For OSU, Lighty had a nice line scoring 18 on 10 shots. He exposed weakness in Wilson’s defense. Lighty scored 1.38 PPP.

Buford was 3-12 from the floor, but grabbed 12 boards.

Turner scored 15 on 13 shots, 1-2 from the line, one rebound, and was tagged with 5 turnovers – almost half the team’s total. Turner scored a remarkably low .79 PPP (15 points, 13 FGA, 1 FT trip, 5 turnovers). Turner played 26 minutes. I would like to chart his shots. I bet all his made shots were at the rim. I think the best way to play him is to dare him to shoot over you. They may also fail, but it seems it is worth a try.

Last time I got positive feedback for the line, “JBo and Diebler were locked in an intergalactic matter/antimatter mutual destruction wrestling match.” How to top such a line? JBo had a slightly better day. Jbo had more points (10-8), took one more shot (6-5), they each made all their free throws, JBO got more rebounds (2-0), and each had 2 turnovers. But, JBo blocked Diebler’s shot which give JBo bragging rights.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

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

2. Jordan Taylor scores more than 14. Ohio State doesn’t have the perimeter defenders to stay in front of both Pop and Jordan, and I think they put priority on Trevon. Miss. Taylor had an off day scoring 6 on 11 shots including 0-5 from deep. If Taylor scored 14, it might have been a different ball game.

3. Badgers grab 80% or more of the defensive rebounding opportunities. I’ll give this one a go again against a bad/disinterested offensive rebounding team. Near Miss. UW got 76% which is still very good.

4. Badgers hold OSU to 49% or less inside the arc. OSU is the 5th best 2-point shooting team in the country, but Wisconsin is the 21st best defending it. I think defense wins out on this one. Near Miss. OSU was at 51%.

My Prediction: The Badgers win again, cracking the Bucknuts 67-65 in 64 possessions. Miss. UW lost 60-51 in 56 possessions.

Closing Thoughts: This was an opportunity lost. A win would have been a signature win, but a loss does not hurt too much.

Up next home games with Michigan Wednesday and Penn State Sunday. I fully expect wins in both games. That would put us at 6-2, barring a calamity, going into Purdue and MSU again.

Ohio State Pre-Game Analysis #2

Opening Thoughts: On tap for Saturday is OSU 2.0. This time the roles are reversed. Ohio State is the home team and Wisconsin is the team missing a star player from the rotation. Although I may be biased, I think Wisconsin is not as hurt by the lack of a Jon Leuer as much as OSU was without Turner. It has changed Wisconsin’s dynamic and strategy on offense, but I think they can adapt better than OSU could. I’ve tweaked the set-up of the analysis due to some suggestions and eliminated the key players feature since you can pretty much figure them out from the statistics provided and you’re more familiar with Big Ten players anyway.


What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #11 and OSU #37. He makes Ohio State a 1-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #4 and OSU #20. He predicts a 62-61 Badger victory in 60 possessions and gives the Badgers a 55% chance of winning.

Note: Sagarin and Pomeroy are unable to objectively calculate UW’s abilities with Jon Leuer out, so they don’t.


Ohio State Probable Rotation:
*F – 6’7” JR Evan Turner (18.8 PPG, 10.2 RPG, 5.6 APG, 1.5 SPG, 1.1 BPG, 61% 2PT, 114.4 OR, 33% Poss, 29% Shot, 23% TO, 12% OffReb, 28% DefReb, 9% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’6” JR Jon Diebler (13.6 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.4 SPG, 45% 3PT, 83% FT, 128.6 OR, 16% Poss, 19% Shot, 1% TO, 1% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 80% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” SO William Buford (13.7 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.1 SPG, 101.3 OR, 26% Poss, 29% Shot, 15% TO, 5% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 31% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’5” JR David Lighty (13.1 PPG, 5.0 RPG, 2.9 APG, 1.9 SPG, 61% 2PT, 105.2 OR, 23% Poss, 21% Shot, 21% TO, 6% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 35% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” JR Dallas Lauderdale (7.0 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 2.5 BPG, 71% 2PT, 113.4 OR, 15% Poss, 12% Shot, 18% TO, 10% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 0% of FGAs are 3PT, 13% BLK)

G – 6’1” SR P.J. Hill (4.7 PPG, 1.8 APG, 1.8 RPG, 53% 2PT, 92% FT, 122.8 OR, 14% Poss, 12% Shot, 20% TO, 2% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 60% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’2” SR Jeremie Simmons (7.6 PPG, 1.2 APG, 1.1 RPG, 43% 3PT, 65% 2PT, 75% FT, 114.4 OR, 19% Poss, 22% Shot, 11% TO, 1% OffReb, 7% DefReb, 64% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” SR Kyle Madsen (2.1 PPG, 1.9 RPG, 53% 2PT, 114.4 OR, 12% Poss, 10% Shot, 28% TO, 8% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)

Key:
OR = offensive rating, or personal points per possession
Poss = possession usage
Shot = share of shots taken
TO = percentage of personal possessions ending in turnover
OffReb = % of offensive rebounding opportunities grabbed by player (anything in double digits is good)
DefReb = % of defensive rebounding opportunities grabbed by player (anything above 15% is good for forwards/center, double digits for guards)

Note: If I don’t list a player’s 2PT%, it’s not above 50%, if I don’t list 3PT%, it’s not above 40%, and if I don’t list FT%, it’s not above 75%


What Ohio State is really good at:

1. Shooting 2s and 3s. OSU is 33rd in the nation at 3s (39.4%) and 5th in 2s (55.9%). This ranks them first in the Big Ten at both categories.

2. Defending the paint. The Nuts block one of their opponents’ every seven 2-point attempts (23rd) and give up only 44% inside (58th). This ranks 2nd and 4th respectively in the Big Ten.

3. Pump Faking. They are 19th in the nation at avoiding blocks, with a rate of about 1 block for every 18 2-pointers they attempt. This is third in the Big Ten.

4. Forcing Turnovers. The Buckeyes are 39th in the nation, forcing a rate of 23.8%. They are 3rd in the Big Ten.


What Ohio State is really bad at:

1. Shooting free throws. The Nuts shoot 66.9% from the line, 221st in the nation and 10th in the Big Ten.

2. Defending free throws. OSU is giving up 71.7% at the line, good for 289th and dead last in the Big Ten.


Relative efficiency:

When OSU has the ball: OSU has scored an great 1.14 PPP in their first 17 games, while UW has given up a great 0.86 in their first 17.

When UW has the ball: OSU gave up a great 0.91 in their first 17 games, while UW has scored a great 1.16 in their first 17.


Pace: OSU has played at 67 possessions per game so far in their first 17 games compared to UW’s 62 in their first 17 games.


My expectations:

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

2. Jordan Taylor scores more than 14. Ohio State doesn’t have the perimeter defenders to stay in front of both Pop and Jordan, and I think they put priority on Trevon.

3. Badgers grab 80% or more of the defensive rebounding opportunities. I’ll give this one a go again against a bad/disinterested offensive rebounding team.

4. Badgers hold OSU to 49% or less inside the arc. OSU is the 5th best 2-point shooting team in the country, but Wisconsin is the 21st best defending it. I think defense wins out on this one.


My Prediction: The Badgers win again, cracking the Bucknuts 67-65 in 64 possessions.

Northwestern Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: What a great win. It was a system win, IMHO. They kept on doing their thing until it finally worked.

This game demonstrates why one must do the tempo free stats thing to really understand what happened. Many would look at the final score and say UW won by squashing NU on defense. Read on.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW clanked threes, but got enough offensive rebounds to put up an excellent PPP and win the game.

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Definitely offense, despite the low score and poor shooting. Huh? Read on …

NU scored 1.0 PPP. That is more than the .90 UW has given up this year and the .88 UW has given up in conference.

UW scored 1.20 PPP. This is better than our season average of 1.12 PPP and conference 1.05.

Pace: The game had 50 possessions. This was done to keep the math simple. Fifty is the fewest of the year and the second fewest since 2004. The Delaware St game in 2007 had 49. Does that mean UW shot less than normal? No. There were as many shots as usual. See the offensive rebounding numbers and turnovers for your answer.

Shooting: UW invested the same number of shots from inside and beyond the arc. They should have stayed inside the arc. For NU, it was more or less a brickfest inside the arc and at the free throw line.

eFG%: NU outshot UW 46 to 45%. Our opponents had been shooting 44% overall, 43% in conference. So, that was actually a pretty good day compared to our average. Meanwhile, UW has been shooting at eFG% of 53% for the year, 48% in conference. That makes it an off day shooting. Why did we score such a high PPP if our shooting was so poor? See the rebound and turnover numbers.

3 pt shooting: NU took 12 threes and made 5 for a very good 42%. UW took an additional 14 shots from deep and only got 2 extra baskets. Ugh. UW was 7 of 26 for 27%. UW took 50% of our FGA’s from deep, our most this year. We average 37% overall and 43% in conference. UW picked up 6 beyond the arc.

2pt shooting: NU was 13 of 33, 39% inside the arc. That is poor shooting. UW hit 13 of 26, 50%. It was a draw inside the line.

1pt shooting: UW sent enough of our old people to the game to stare down the NU free throw shooters an unnerved them into 56% free throw percent (9/16). Meanwhile, the ineffective NU students were unable to contain our free throw shooters. UW was 13 of 17 for 76%. UW picked up an additional 4 at the line.

Rebounding: Herein lies the story of the game. UW protected the defensive glass and excelled on the offensive glass (Thank you, Mike Bruesewitz).

UW Defensive end: There were 32 rebounding opportunities and UW got 23, or 72% leaving NU 28%. That is actually worse than our nation-leading 76% defensive rebounding percentage, but better than the national average of 33%. It is worth keeping an eye on this number. How will we do without Leuer defending the glass?

UW Offensive End: When UW shot, there were 3 extra rebounding opportunities (35) and UW grabbed 15 or 43%. Bruesewitz had 4 offensive boards in 6 minutes of work. That gave UW a +6 offensive rebound advantage.

Turnovers: First the good news: UW had only 5 TO’s or 10%. That is fantastic. NU gets lots of TO’s in their 1-3-1 zone. NU has forced 22% TO’s for the year. UW’s senior guards were able to avoid coughing up the ball.

For the bad news, UW did not press this advantage very much. NU only had 6 for 12%. So, UW had a net +1 turnover advantage.

Opportunity index: This is a new feature I will try to see if it helps or not. If an offensive rebound is of the same value as a turnover – an anti turnover – then one can combine them into some type of stat. So, UW had +7 opportunities - +6 offensive rebound margin and +1 turnovers. Make sense?

Fouls: NU ad 17 and UW 15 fouls. In conference, UW averages 18 and our opponents 18. The two extra fouls resulted in 1 extra free throw.

Playing time: The UW surgical staff shorted our rotation on Tuesday. Bo went with 5 players getting double digit minutes. Of the usual suspects, all get at least 32 minutes. Hughes and Bohannon played all 40. Bruesewitz had 9 minutes, Evans 6 and Wilson 3.

Notable Performances: JBO had the best offensive line scoring 19 on 12 shots, was only 1-5 from deep, but 4-4 from the line, 5 rebounds, and no turnovers. Jason, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people, particularly the first half.

Trevon benefitted by having his best play at the end of the game when everyone remembers it. Since I look at the box score and it does not take into account timing, JBO edged out Trevon on player of the game. Trevon scored 16, but needed 15 shots to do it. He nailed 4-10 threes, with 3 coming late to save the day. He added 7 rebounds. Good job, Trevon.

Taylor had an off day shooting scoring 10, going 3-11, 1-5 from deep and adding 5 rebounds. RacineRed, this ones for you: Taylor had 7 assists and no turnovers.

Bruesewitz added 4 rebounds, all offensive, in 9 minutes of action. That will get a mention at the fire.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions. Shetown whiffed on his predictions but got the Badger win right.

1. Ryan Evans gets his first start of the season and becomes the first freshman since Alando Tucker to do so. Miss. Taylor started.

2. Dr. J reaches double figures for the first time this season. Tim’s gonna be called on for more offense and what better way than to knock down some open triples against a zone? Miss. Tim scored 3. But, he had two other threes that I thought were going in plus he missed a FTA. Ugh. Tim, keep it going, your baskets will come.

3. Badgers grab more than 80% of all boards on the defensive end. More Mike Bruesewitz = more rebounding. Miss. Got 72%,

4. Wisconsin shoots better than 38% from distance. With my prediction of Tim shooting well, the zone defense of Northwestern, and Leuer’s post presence being gone, I like the Badgers to be knocking down treys early and often. Miss. UW was a miserable 26%.

5. Shurna scores 12 or less. Ryan Evans is just the type of defender to make Shurna’s life miserable with his good length and quickness. Miss. Shurna got 15

My Prediction: The Badgers keep doing what they’re doing, winning 65-57 in 61 possessions. Hit. UW 60-50 in 50 possessions. You were off on the possessions by 11 so, in the name of tempo free stats, you were off on the final score by a comparable margin. But, the win thing is the only part that matters.

Closing Thoughts: This was a resume building game. We are now +2 on road games.

I was hoping UW could win one of the two this week. If UW can go to OSU and sneak out a win, this team is definitely competing for the B10 title.

I was surprised that NU came out and played man defense as much as they did. Granted, it was the softest man defense I had seen in a long time.

Northwestern Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Comments: Losing Leuer sucks, but now we get to see what some of our bench players can do with some extra playing time. Unfortunately their first test is at a house of horrors of sorts for Wisconsin, Welsh-Ryan in Evanston when they take on the Wildcats of Nerdwestern. During Bo’s tenure, the Badgers haven’t been overly successful in that oversized high school gym, dropping some head-scratchers to usually overmatched Wildcat teams. We’ll see what happens tomorrow night.


What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #12 and Northwestern #70. He makes Wisconsin a 6-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #6 and Northwestern #73. He predicts a 63-57 Badger victory in 60 possessions and gives the Badgers a 77% chance of winning.


Northwestern Probable Rotation:
*G – 5’10” JR Michael Thompson (14.7 PPG, 4.5 APG, 2.3 RPG, 1.3 SPG, 41.3% 3PT, 19.3% Poss, 20.6% Shot)
*G – 6’4” SR Jeremy Nash (8.3 PPG, 3.7 RPG, 3.0 APG, 1.7 SPG, 15.3% Poss, 15% Shot)
*G – 6’5” FR Drew Crawford (10.7 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 1.6 APG, 68.1% 2PT, 19.4% Poss, 22.4% Shot)
*F – 6’8” SO John Shurna (17.5 PPG, 7.3 RPG, 2.7 APG, 55.2% 2PT, 27% Poss, 29.7% Shot)
*F – 6’11” SO Luka Mirkovic (7.1 PPG, 5.6 RPG, 2.3 APG, 1.5 BPG, 19.4% Poss, 17.2% Shot)
G – 6’3” FR Alex Marcotullio (6.9 PPG, 1.7 RPG, 1.4 SPG, 1.4 APG, 18.4% Poss, 22.9% Shot)
C – 7’0” SO Kyle Rowley (2.3 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 21% Poss, 13.8% Shot)

Note: Poss% = percentage of total possessions used by player when they are on the court
Shot% = percentage of total shots taken by player when they are on the court


They play a mixture of defenses, mostly zones. They are great at blocking shots and forcing turnovers and average at preventing opponents from getting to the free throw line. As would happen against a mostly zone team, they give up a high number of 3 point shots and assists every game.

As usual, they play a Princeton offense, taking the 3rd most 3s in the nation (a hair under 1 of every 2 shots is a 3) and don’t have many players create their own shot, as evident from their 2nd leading assist rate in the nation. They also are very average at getting to the free throw line.


Key Players:

John Shurna – He’s a poor man’s Robbie Hummel. Which is no insult to him, as he’s a great player. His offensive rating is a good 109.4, made up of a great turnover rate (13.3%), great 2-point shooting (55%), and a servicable 3-point percentage (31%). He’s also a decent defensive rebounder.

Michael Thompson – Thompson has the second best offensive rating of all in the rotation, 117.0, and 4th most aggressive in taking shots. He has a ridiculously great turnover rate, especially for a point guard, of 12.9%. His shooting is okay, as he shoots a great 41% from 3, but he is actually worse at 2-pointers by a tenth of a percent.

Drew Crawford – This guy seems like the next star for Northwestern. He doesn’t do anything extremely well yet, but he’s going to be annoyingly bothersome for opposing fans for the next 4 seasons. He has the highest offensive rating at 117.9 via a good turnover rate (15.6%), 68% from 2, and 39% from 3. He is also a pretty good rebounder on both sides of the ball.


What Northwestern is really good at:

1. Shooting. Northwestern is 99th in 2-point shooting percentage (50.1%), 115th in 3-point (35.9%), and 128th in free throws (70.1%).

2. Defending 3s. They give up 29.4% shooting outside the arc (30th).

3. Forcing turnovers. They are 98th in the nation forcing turnovers (22.5%), along with being 103rd at steals, about one every 9 possessions (11%).

4. Defensive Rebounding. They grab 68.5% on defense (115th).

5. Blocking. They are 45th in the nation, blocking one 2-pointer for every 8 2-point attempts (12.7%).

6. Taking care of the ball. They are 23rd in the nation at it, only once in every 6 possessions (17.1%).


What Northwestern is really bad at:

1. Offensive Rebounding. They grab 30.7% of all offensive rebounding opportunities, good for 246th.


Relative efficiency:

When Northwestern has the ball: Northwestern has scored a good 1.07 PPP in their first 15 games, while UW has given up a great 0.90 in their first 16.

When UW has the ball: Northwestern gave up a great 0.92 in their first 15 games, while UW has scored a great 1.12 in their first 16.


Pace: Northwestern has played at 65 possessions per game so far in their first 15 games compared to UW’s 63 in their first 16 games.


My expectations:

1. Ryan Evans gets his first start of the season and becomes the first freshman since Alando Tucker to do so.

2. Dr. J reaches double figures for the first time this season. Tim’s gonna be called on for more offense and what better way than to knock down some open triples against a zone?

3. Badgers grab more than 80% of all boards on the defensive end. More Mike Bruesewitz = more rebounding.

4. Wisconsin shoots better than 38% from distance. With my prediction of Tim shooting well, the zone defense of Northwestern, and Leuer’s post presence being gone, I like the Badgers to be knocking down treys early and often.

5. Shurna scores 12 or less. Ryan Evans is just the type of defender to make Shurna’s life miserable with his good length and quickness.


My Prediction: The Badgers keep doing what they’re doing, winning 65-57 in 61 possessions.

Leuer Out with Broken Wrist Indefinitely

madison.com link

Next man in as Bret Bielema would say. So it's up to Keaton Nankivil, Ryan Evans, Mike Bruesewitz, and Jared Berggren to step up their games.

Purdue Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: All’s well after a win against a top competitor. PU was ranked #4 and deserved their ranking. UW should move up a notch or two.

Against MSU, Taylor would drive to the rim effectively. He continued that against PU and punished PU for the pressure they exerted. Taylor has the size and strength to take his defender inside and finish (he took Kory Lucious to the hole Wednesday in particular, and a bunch of different PU guards today). That is a great asset.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW won the turnover battle, protected their defensive glass, and hit more free throws to win the game.

Pace: The game had 68 possessions. For the year we have averaged 63 and in conference 61. The possession count was increase when PU when into foul mode the last 90 seconds.

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Mostly good defense (or poor PU offense, take your pick). PU had been scoring at 1.15 PPP but UW held them to .97 PPP. Meanwhile, UW scored at 1.07 PPP, lower than the 1.12 PPP we had been averaging for the year, but not bad. We now have been scoring at 1.02 in conference and holding our opponents to .89 PPP.

Shooting: PU had a two point advantage from the floor, UW had a 9 point advantage from the line.

eFG%: PU outshot UW from the field with an eFG% of 50%, while UW was at 46%. Our opponents had been at 44% for the year and 42% in conference. UW had been at 52% for the year and 49% in conference.

3 pt shooting: UW took an extra 9 three point attempts (19 to 10) but only made an extra 2 (5 to 3). PU hit 30% and UW somewhat less at 26%. Because of the extra quantity, UW gained 6 points beyond the arc.

2pt shooting: Inside the arc, PU took 6 extra shots and made 4 more. PU was 22 of 43 for 51% while UW was 18 of 37 for 49%. PU got the six points back they lost at the arc and added two more.

1pt shooting: Here lies the story of the game. PU was a very bad 54% from the line compared to UW’s 81%. Since UW tried 3 extra FTA’s, that translated into UW making 9 extra free throws (UW was 22 of 27, 81% compared to PU’s 13 of 24, 54%). Those 9 free throws won the game.

Rebounding: Both teams did well on their defensive boards, but UW did very well.

UW Defensive end: There were 34 rebounding opportunities and UW retained 29 leaving PU 5, or 15%. The national average is 33% and UW typically allows a nation leading 24%. So, in short, UW ruled their defensive glass.

UW Offensive End: UW grabbed 10 offensive rebounds. Yeah! Our last 3 games we grabbed 6,5, and 5. There were 37 rebound opportunities and UW got 27%. While that is only decent, it is a big improvement over the 15% we had the last few games.

Turnovers: PU had 10 and UW 8. PU had 15% of their possessions end in turnovers while UW kept it to 12%. UW has been at 16%, which is one of the best in the nation.

Fouls: Both teams fouled a lot. PU had 25 and UW 20. For the year, UW averages 17 and our opponents 20. In conference, UW has been outfouling our opponents – UW has been whistled for 18.5 to our opponents 17.8.

All this translated into UW 3 extra free throws and make an extra 9.

Playing time: UW played 8 ten or more minutes. That is an oddity for Bo. Keaton only played 10 due to serious foul trouble. JBO played all 40, which is another oddity. Evans to 17 and Wilson 13. Taylor played 29.

Notable Performances: This was a guard dominated game.

Jordan Taylor had a great line scoring 23 on 11 FGA’s. He was 7-11 from the floor, 1-3 from deep, 8-11 from the line, two boards and two TO’s. Jordan, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. I think we might light up a special fire just in your name.

Trevon rebounded from a terrible shooting game against MSU to torch PU with 14 points on flawless shooting: 1-1 from inside, 2-2 from deep, 6-6 from the line. He added 5 rebounds and two memorable turnovers (Kramer ripped it out of his hands and the long pass out of bounds at the end of the game). Trevon, people, campfires, …

Jason Bohannon did his thing. No, not the fine shooting scoring 20 on 10 FGA’s, 2-5 from deep, 6-6 from the line. No, it was not the 3 clutch rebounds. JBo’s thing is his shot blocking. He added 3 to his impressive run. JBo, same as Taylor and Hughes.

Bruesewitz grabbed 5 boards in 6 minutes. He added an important free throw.

Leuer met his match with Hummel and Johnson. Jon was 2-15 from the floor (ugh) and scored only 4. The good news was he chipped in 10 rebounds. Hummel scored 13 on 13 shots (2-9 inside, 1-4 from deep with the one being a desperation 3 late), 6-6 from the line, and 7 boards.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Hummel doesn’t reach 13 points. Wisconsin finally has multiple defenders capable of shutting him down. Miss. If only you would have said, “Does not score more than 13,” then I could have given you a hit. But he misses a lot of shots.

2. Bohannon nets more than 11. Purdue collapsing on Leuer and Nankivil in the paint will give some great looks to J-Bo on his home court. Major hit. JBO was great today (see notable performances) nailing 20 on only 10 FGA’s.

3. Badgers hold Purdue to 48% or less inside the arc. Purdue is the 38th best 2-point shooting team in the country, but Wisconsin is the 21st best defending it. I think defense wins out on this one. Miss, barely. PU hit 51% inside. Nankivil being in foul trouble did not help.

4. Wisconsin grabs more than 72% of the rebounding opportunities on defense. Purdue is good at offensive rebounding, but Wisconsin relatively shut-down a much better MSU team. Major hit. UW had 85%.

5. Purdue shoots worse than 29% from 3. Purdue is bad at shooting them and Wisconsin is good at defending them. Hopefully Kramer doesn’t pull another clutch one out of his ass again this time around at the Kohl. Miss, barely. PU hit 30%.

My Prediction: The Badgers break the losing streak to the not-so-baby Boilers, squeaking out a 67-63 in 64 possessions. Hit. 73-66 in 68.

Closing Thoughts: Nothing like beating a top ten team to warm your heart on a cold January day.

I thought this was going to be a low scoring game when UW was stuck on 10 for about 9 minutes in the first half. But, things turned around.

I question Painter’s decision to go into foul mode with 1:30 left down 5. That allowed UW to put it away late, IMHO. UW did a great job of hitting free throws and that put it away.

UW has road games with NU this Wednesday and OSU on Saturday. We have had a tough time in Evanston in both football and basketball. I would be happy to get one win in the next two. If we win two, we should compete for the conference title.

Neither team played zone today. So, no need to chart how we did against the zone. We should see a lot of it against NU. Anyone want to volunteer to see our PPP against their zone?

BTW, I am disappointed no one took the bait on the question of what is more valuable, an offensive rebound or a turnover. My take is that they are roughly equal, but a turnover is more decisive and somewhat more preferable (an offensive rebound may or may not end up in points, a turnover definitely does not result in points).

Purdue Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: Well, things aren’t getting any easier Saturday, with the Boilermakers of Purdue coming to town. Hopefully we can get a better result than Wednesday night. I think it all hinges on three-point shooting.


What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #12 and Purdue #4. He makes Wisconsin a 4-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #5 and Purdue #6. He predicts a 63-59 Badger victory in 62 possessions and gives the Badgers a 66% chance of winning.


Purdue Probable Rotation:
*G – 6’3” SR Chris Kramer (6.9 PPG, 3.1 RPG, 3.0 APG, 1.9 SPG, 59.2% 2PT, 12.3% Poss, 9.6% Shot)
*G – 6’4” SR Keaton Grant (6.6 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 2.1 APG, 54.3% 2PT, 18.3% Poss, 19.4% Shot)
*G – 6’4” JR E’Twaun Moore (16.4 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 2.7 APG, 1.4 SPG, 54.2% 2PT, 26.8% Poss, 30.7% Shot)
*F – 6’8” JR Robbie Hummel (15.3 PPG, 6.9 RPG, 1.7 APG, 1.3 SPG, 1.0 BPG, 57.3% 2PT, 90.2% FT, 22.9% Poss, 25.2% Shot)
*F/C – 6’10” JR JaJuan Johnson (14.7 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 2.2 BPG, 1.1 SPG, 55.3% 2PT, 25.4% Poss, 24.2% Shot)
F – 6’5” FR Kelsey Barlow (3.6 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 1.9 APG, 19.3% Poss, 14.6% Shot)
G – 6’5” FR D.J. Byrd (3.5 PPG, 1.1 RPG, 19.1% Poss, 18.4% Shot)
G – 6’3” SO Ryne Smith (4.9 PPG, 1.7 RPG, 1.2 APG, only 10 2-pt attempts, 14.6% Poss, 16.2% Shot)
F – 6’8” FR Patrick Bade (2.8 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 21.5% Poss, 19.7% Shot)
G – 6’0” FR Mark Wohlford (2.3 PPG, 9.2% Poss, 9.0% Shot)

Note: Poss% = percentage of total possessions used by player when they are on the court
Shot% = percentage of total shots taken by player when they are on the court


This season they have played at a pace of 70 possessions per game, similar to Gonzaga and Illinois. They play clutch and grab man-to-man defense getting a lot of glamour defensive statistics.


Key Players:

E’Twaun Moore – Moore is their most aggressive offensive player and leading scorer. He has an offensive rating of 109.4 due to a great turnover rate of 14.1%, shoots 54% of 2-pointers, 33% of 3-pointers, and 76% of free throws.

JaJuan Johnson – Their inside presence on both sides of the ball. He scores a great 116.1 offensive rating due to shooting 55% inside the arc, shooting 73% from the line, taking 5 free throws for every 9 field goal attempts, and doesn’t turn it over much (13.6%). He grabs 13.5% of all offensive rebounding opportunities and 16.2% of all defensive. Lastly, he blocks 8.2% of all 2-pointers attempted when he’s on the court, yet only fouls 2.8 times per 40 minutes.

Robbie Hummel – He has a great 122.7 offensive rating due to 57% 2-point shooting, 90% free throw shooting, and a great turnover rate of 9.5%. He’s a great defensive rebounder, grabbing 20.8% of all opportunities on defense. He’s a great inside-outside threat, basically a poor man’s Kyle Singler (Purdue fans, it’s a joke due to Duke fans being offended by my description of Singler as a Hummel clone with better driving ability).

Chris Kramer – Offensively, he’s barely there. He shoots less often than Tim Jarmusz, yet I’d venture a guess the Purdue fanbase doesn’t criticize the guy as much as Wisconsin does towards TJ. He is efficient, scoring an offensive rating of 124.5, via shooting a good deal of free throws (71.4 rate) and hitting them (80%), hitting almost 60% of his 2-pointers, and turns it over 16.5% of the time. He is 1-fer from 3. However, his real value is on defense. I certainly won’t miss him after this season. He is a very Kelley-esque player… tenacious, physical, scrappy. Let’s just say I’m not expecting a great game out of Hughes or Taylor due to his abilities on defense.


What Purdue is really good at:

1. Shooting 2s. Purdue is 38th in 2-point shooting percentage (52.5%).

2. Defending the paint. They give up 39.9% shooting inside the arc (10th) and block nearly 1 in every 7 2-pointers (29th, or 14%).

3. Forcing turnovers. They are 11th in the nation forcing turnovers (26.4%), along with being 51st at steals, nearly one every 8 possessions (12.1%).

4. Rebounding. They grab 35.1% of the rebounding opportunities on offense (105th) and 69% on defense (101st).

5. Pump faking. They are 28th in the nation, only getting blocked once for every 17 2-point attempts (6%).

6. Taking care of the ball. They are 17th in the nation at it, only once in every 6 possessions (16.6%).


What Purdue is really bad at:

1. Shooting 3s. They shoot 31.4% from beyond the arc. That puts them at 255th in the nation.

2. Defending 3s. They give up 37% from beyond the arc, good for 272nd in the nation.

3. Keeping opponents off the line. They allow their opponents to attempt 4 free throws per 10 shot attempts (40.8%), good for 242nd.


Relative efficiency:

When Purdue has the ball: Purdue has scored a great 1.12 PPP in their first 14 games, while UW has given up a great 0.90 in their first 15.

When UW has the ball: Purdue gave up a good 0.92 in their first 14 games, while UW has scored a great 1.12 in their first 15.


Pace: Purdue has played at 70 possessions per game so far in their first 14 games compared to UW’s 63 in their first 15 games.


My expectations:

1. Hummel doesn’t reach 13 points. Wisconsin finally has multiple defenders capable of shutting him down.

2. Bohannon nets more than 11. Purdue collapsing on Leuer and Nankivil in the paint will give some great looks to J-Bo on his home court.

3. Badgers hold Purdue to 48% or less inside the arc. Purdue is the 38th best 2-point shooting team in the country, but Wisconsin is the 21st best defending it. I think defense wins out on this one.

4. Wisconsin grabs more than 72% of the rebounding opportunities on defense. Purdue is good at offensive rebounding, but Wisconsin relatively shut-down a much better MSU team.

5. Purdue shoots worse than 29% from 3. Purdue is bad at shooting them and Wisconsin is good at defending them. Hopefully Kramer doesn’t pull another clutch one out of his ass again this time around at the Kohl.


My Prediction: The Badgers break the losing streak to the not-so-baby Boilers, squeaking out a 67-63 in 64 possessions.

Michigan State Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: This game was an opportunity lost. Losing to MSU on the road will not hurt our rankings very much, but we missed out on an opportunity for a signature win (think Texas and Michael Flowers).

Summarizing the game in a few words: Both teams shot poorly, but while UW was bricking threes, MSU was pressing hard inside causing UW to foul and MSU prevailed at the line.

Pace: The game was played at 60 possessions. We have been at 63 overall and 59 in our 3 conference games. MSU plays at 70.

Efficiency: Was it poor offense or poor defense? Poor UW offense, obviously (or good MSU defense).

MSU scored .90 PPP, which is great UW defense (or poor MSU offense – take your pick).

UW scored .78 PPP. Believe it or not, that would have beaten OSU and 5 of our non conference opponents. But, it is not good enough to beat MSU in their house.

Shooting: What a bizarre shooting day. MSU was bad and UW worse. The difference was shot distributions and quantity of free throws.

eFG%: Both teams stunk up the place. MSU was at 40% and UW an even worst 38%. Our opponents have been shooting at only 39% in the 3 conference games. UW for the year is at 53% and 50% in conference (including this brickfest).

3 pt shooting: MSU only took 4 deep shots and made two for 50%. UW launched 23 and only made 5 for 22%. Ugh. UW picked up 9 additional points outside the arc, but needed 19 shots to get those 9 points.

2pt shooting: MSU took 10 more shots inside the arc than UW, 38 to 28, and made 2 more baskets. So, UW hit 12 of 28 for 43% inside while MSU was 14 of 38 for 37%. MSU netted (pun intended) +4 inside. From the floor, UW outscored them by 5.

1pt shooting: Here lies the story of the game. MSU made a living at the line, at least in quantity. MSU shot 30 FTA and made 20 for 67%. Meanwhile, UW hit the same percentage (67%) but only took 12. The 18 free throws provided 12 extra points.

This demonstrates the relative efficiency of free throws. Even after hitting a pedestrian 67%, MSU gets 1.34 PPP.

Rebounding: MSU strength was offensive rebounding. That collided with UW’s strength, defensive rebounding. Who won?

UW Defensive end: There were 32 rebounding opportunities and UW got 21, leaving MSU 11, or 34%. That is close to the national average, way below MSU’s typically excellent 42%, which is #9 nationally. It is way above UW’s nation leading 25%. So, they split the difference. I call that a draw.

UW Offensive End: There were 36 rebounding opportunities and UW only got 6, or 17%. MSU clearly dominated their defensive glass, which is not a surprise.

Turnovers: I predicted UW would enjoy a 3-5 turnover advantage. That came true. MSU had 14, or 23% while UW had 10, or 17%. I think 4 of those happened with the first 6 possessions. Unfortunately, UW took those extra possessions and used them to clank three pointers.

From a personal standpoint, it would drive me nuts if I was an MSU fan watching them turn the ball over so much. Izzo tolerates this in the name of up tempo easy baskets. It ultimately works for them.

Fouls: UW had 21 fouls to MSU’s 15. That is reverse of our usual where our opponents have 20 and we have 16. But, those 6 extra fouls resulted in 28 additional free throws. MSU attacked the basket hard and UW fouled as a defense of last resort. That was a big part of the game and why MSU won.

Playing time: UW had 6 players in double digit minutes. Keaton Nankivil only played 15. Ryan Evans had 8. Leuer avoided serous foul trouble and played 36. JBO lead the way, per usual, with 38. Taylor played a starter-like 34.

Meanwhile, MSU played eight 10 or more minutes.

Notable Performances: Jon Leuer put up first team all conference-like numbers going 9-19, 3-6 from deep, 7 boards, and 21 points. Jon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people, and we need some really big fires this time of year.

In my mind I match Jordan Taylor and Korie Lucious up. They were from the same class and one went to MSU, one to Wisconsin. In this game, Taylor got 34 minutes and Lucious 16. Taylor scored 7 on 2-6 shooting, 3-4 free throws, one rebound, and two TO’s. Lucious was did not score, took one shot, and grabbed 3 boards in limited playing time. He had one TO. Those of you who like assists will be happy to hear that Lucious had 3 and Taylor 2 (That is the first time since I have been doing these summaries that I have mentioned assists. I do not know how to feel about that).

In the other big match up, neither Hughes nor Lucas did anything to impress voters for the first team all conference point guard. Hughes scored 7 with his 13 shots and missed both FTA’s. He added 4 rebounds. Lucas was also 3-13 from the field but hit 4-4 free throws. He had 3 rebounds and 3 TO’s. I would call that a draw that both lost, if that is possible.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Lucas doesn't reach 13 points. I like Hughes and Taylor to rattle him into a bad game. . Hit, but the reverse was true as well.

2. Leuer scores more than 15. He's been in a funk lately and I think he breaks out for a big game against the small MSU frontline. Hit. Leuer had 21, which was fantastic in a grinder-like game this one turned out to be.

3. Badgers hold MSU to 50% or less inside the arc. MSU is the seventh best 2-point shooting team in the country, but Wisconsin is the 32nd best defending it. I think defense wins out on this one. Hit. MSU shot only 37%. But they did nearly equal damage to our offense allowing us only 43%.

Shetown’s Prediction: The Badgers make Izzo cry again, squeaking out a 69-62 in 65 possessions. Miss. 54-47 MSU in 60 possessions. You hit all three of your predictions yet we still lost the game. Go figure …

Closing Thoughts: MSU did to UW what we used to do to our opponents. UW bombed away from deep while they killed us at the line. The “we made more free throws than our opponents attempt” is dead and gone for the year. We need to make up 52. It could happen, but we need something systemic to change.

UW had +4 turnovers while MSU had +5 offensive rebounds. So, class, your assignment for this week is to write an essay expressing which is more valuable, an offensive rebound or a turnover.

All will be right with the world after a big UW win versus PU. Go Bucky!

Michigan State Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: The Badgers easily handled Penn State, so their next opponent are the Crying Izzos of Michigan State. This won’t be an easy task for the Badgers, but I think they have a reasonable chance of pulling this one out. A nice little statistical tidbit about the UW offense is that as of Tuesday morning, Wisconsin is in the top 91 of all D-1 teams in all but 2 statistic categories tracked by Ken Pomeroy. The other two are free throw rate (106th) and offensive rebounding (217th). They also are no longer in the bottom 100 of free throw defense.


What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #11 and MSU #20. He makes Michigan State a 1 or 2-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #4 and MSU #19. He predicts a 67-66 Badger victory in 63 possessions and gives the Badgers a 55% chance of winning.


Michigan State Probable Rotation:
*G – 6’1” JR Kalin Lucas (16.1 PPG, 4.1 APG, 1.9 RPG, 1.2 SPG, 55.5% 2PT, 40% 3PT)
*G – 6’3” JR Chris Allen (10.5 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 2.3 APG, 38.1% 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Raymar Morgan (10.6 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 2.5 APG, 1.2 SPG, 52.7% 2PT)
*F – 6’6” SO Draymond Green (11.1 PPG, 7.9 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.6 SPG, 63.7% 2PT)
*F – 6’8” SO Delvon Roe (7.5 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 1.3 BPG, 61.9% 2PT)
G – 6’4” JR Durrell Summers (11.4 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 50% 2PT, 90% FT)
G – 5’11” SO Korie Lucious (6.1 PPG, 4.1 APG)

5-8 Min per Game (11-14 games played)
F – 6’10” FR Garrick Sherman (2.6 PPG, 2.1 RPG)
F – 6’8” FR Derrick Nix (2.6 PPG, 2.6 RPG)
F – 6’5” SO Austin Thornton (1.5 PPG, 1.1 RPG)
F – 6’6” SR Isaiah Dahlman (2.1 PPG)


This season they have played at a pace of 71 possessions per game, similar to Gonzaga and Illinois. They play mostly man-to-man defense.

They lost Goran Suton, Travis Walton, Marquise Gray, and Idong Ibok. They return 68% of their minutes, 75% of their scoring, and 67% of their rebounding.


Key Players:

Kalin Lucas – Kalin Lucas is great double-threat point guard. He shoots 56% inside the arc, 40% outside the arc, and 78% from the line. He takes more than twice as many shots inside the arc than outside and takes about 4 free throws per 10 field goal attempts. He’s average at turning it over and a great assist man, all of this adding up for an offensive rating of 116.2.

Draymond Green and Delvon Roe– I grouped these two together because of their great similarities. Both take less than their fair share of shot usage (18.4 and 13.3%) and have great offensive ratings (124.0 and 113.7) due to outstanding 2-point shooting. Lastly, they are both ridiculously talented rebounders. Green grabs 10.2% on offense and 24.7% on defense. Roe grabs 14.1 on offense and 20.0 on defense. Their defensive numbers are in Butch and Krabbenhoft range and their offensive is better than Butch during his junior and senior seasons.


What Michigan State is really good at:

1. Shooting 2s. MSU is 7th in 2-point shooting percentage (56.1%).

2. Getting a hand in the face of shooters and altering shots. They give up 32.1% shooting behind the arc (103rd) and 43.9% inside (62nd).

3. Pump Faking. They are 8th in the nation at avoiding blocks, with a rate a bit less than 1 block for every 20 2-pointers they attempt.

4. Rebounding. Per usual, they are 8th in the nation at offensive rebounding, grabbing 42.1% of the opportunities, and 57th on defense, grabbing 70.6%.

5. Not sending opponents to the line. They are 70th in the nation, sending an opponent to the line 4 times for every 13 shot attempts.


What Michigan State is really bad at:

1. Forcing turnovers. They force a turnover just a hair less than one in five. That puts them at 223rd in the nation.


Relative efficiency:

When MSU has the ball: MSU has scored a great 1.15 PPP in their first 14 games, while UW has given up a great 0.92 in their first 14.

When UW has the ball: MSU gave up a good 0.94 in their first 14 games, while UW has scored a great 1.18 in their first 14.


Pace: MSU has played at 71 possessions per game so far in their first 12 games compared to UW’s 61 in their first 14 games.


My expectations:

1. Lucas doesn’t reach 13 points. I like Hughes and Taylor to rattle him into a bad game.

2. Leuer scores more than 15. He’s been in a funk lately and I think he breaks out for a big game against the small MSU frontline.

3. Badgers hold MSU to 50% or less inside the arc. MSU is the seventh best 2-point shooting team in the country, but Wisconsin is the 32nd best defending it. I think defense wins out on this one.


My Prediction: The Badgers make Izzo cry again, squeaking out a 69-62 in 65 possessions.

Penn State Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: UW did what they had to do – beat PSU on the road. All road games are hard, and this one must be cherished, however workmanlike it was. A 17 point road win in B10 play is a major accomplishment.

Summarizing the game in a few words: The defense never rests; UW took advantage of very poor PSU free throw shooting and smothered them on defense to score a beautiful 17 point win on the road.

Pace: The game was 57 possessions, tied for fewest of the year with the Milwaukee game. We are typically around 62 possessions.

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Equal doses of each.

UW scored at 1.10 PPP. That is below our average of 1.15, but not bad for a conference game, particularly on the road. It equals our output against OSU.

PSU scored at .81 PPP. We had been giving up .89 PPP, so that was an improvement on our already great defensive efforts for the year.

Shooting: If PSU shoots this poorly in their own building, what do they do on the road? PSU clanked them beyond the arc, inside the arc, and reallllllly clanked them at the line.

eFG%: PSU had an eFG% of 41%. That is below our opponent’s usual 44%. UW hummed along at 55%, slightly above our typically good 54%.

3 pt shooting: Both teams took 19 3pt FGA’s. PSU hit 5 for 26% and UW 8 for 42%. UW added 9 points from beyond the arc.

2pt shooting: UW took one extra try inside the arc – 30 to PSU’s 29 – and made 3 more, 15 to PSU’s 12. UW hit 50% to PSU’s 41%. UW picked up another 6 points inside.

1pt shooting: PSU launched 19 FTA’s to UW’s 12. What did they get for their extra 7 shots? -2 points. UW outscored them 9-7 from the line. What are the odds of the home team shooting 37% from the line? Our free throw defense has been abysmal this year, but we needed PSU’s fans to hex their own team.

By the way, UW lost another 10 in the “we make more free throws than our opponents attempt” scorecard. As of now, our Opponents have attempted 246, we have made 216 leaving us 30 behind. I think this can be put to bed.

Rebounding: UW did its typically great job on defense and had its worst offensive rebounding day of the year, but won by 17 anyway.

UW Defensive end: There were 38 rebounding opportunities and UW got 29 leaving PSU 9, or 24%. That is on our nation-leading average. So, UW did job #1: protect the defensive glass effectively.

UW Offensive End: There were 7 fewer rebounding opportunities – 31 – and UW grabbed but 5 or 16%. That was our lowest offensive rebounding percentage of the year. But, since we held them in check on the other end, it was a good day for UW.

Turnovers: UW won the TO battle.

UW had 3 fewer empty possessions. PSU had 10 TO’s (18%, our opponents average 19%) while UW had 7 (12%, our average is 16%). Three extra possessions is a big advantage, obviously.

Fouls: PSU had 15 and UW 17. Our opponents average 20 and we average 16, so we fouled a little more and they fouled less than average.

Playing time: Bo went 8 deep (10 or more minutes). Hughes played 37 and JBo 36. Jarmusz chipped in 32 and Keaton 31.

Taylor and Hughes played less than usual due to foul trouble. Leuer played 14 and Taylor 17. Wilson got 12.

Notable Performances: The story of this game was the Hughes versus Battle battle. Hughes scored 18 to Battle’s 15. Hughes needed fewer FGA (14 to 16), was better from deep (Hughes 3-5; Battle 2-7), and Hughes bettered him at the line (Hughes 4-5; Battle 1-2). Hughes grabbed 5 rebounds to Battles 4. Both had 5 turnovers – ugh. So, in the end, Hughes negated their star player and actually outperformed him, marginally. Trevon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people (but we might conveniently forget about the 5 TO’s).

JBO had the deep shot working. He was 3-5 from long and scored 11 on 7 FGA’s. He chipped in 5 boards as well.

Keaton Nankivil scored 6 on 6 shots, and added 11 rebounds.

Ryan Evans had another nice day scoring 10 on 3-5 FGA’s, 4-6 from the line.

For PSU, besides Battle, the only other player of note was Jackson, who had a nice line going 4-7 from the floor, 1-1 from threeland, and 4-7 from the line.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Battle doesn’t reach 17. Hughes has always been able to bully him into a bad game. Hit. Battle got 15. Yeah, Trevon.

2. Leuer scores more than 19. Leuer is a dominant force in the paint. Miss. Leuer took the day off with 3 fouls and lots of bench time. But, the team went to other options and won anyway.

3. Badgers attempt more than 15 free throws. Wisconsin gets to the line a lot and PSU doesn’t send their opponents to the line. Something’s gotta give. Miss. UW only had 12, but hit 9.

4. Jason Bohannon lights up PSU, making more than 2 threes. Just cuz. Hit. He was 3-5.

My Prediction: The Badgers win their 6th straight, beating the kittens 69-58 in 62 possessions. Hit, but better than predicted. UW wins 63-46 in 57 possessions.

Closing Thoughts: Last year, the team took a step backwards defensively, IMHO. But, they were strong on the glass with Landry and Krabbenhoft protecting the glass like bulldogs badgers. This year, the defense is even better – so far – and the defensive rebounding is no longer my concern – in fact, it is an asset. Score another one for Bo and his teaching skills and system.

We will learn a lot about this team the next two games. So far, they have exceeded my expectations. Whether we win two, split, or lose two, try to keep a level head.

Penn State Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: Coming off that impressive win, it’s hard not to be excited about this team. Up next for them are the Nittany Lions of Penn State in Happy Valley.


What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #15 and PSU #121. He makes Wisconsin a 6-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #6 and PSU #82. He predicts a 65-58 Badger victory in 59 possessions and gives the Badgers an 80% chance of winning.


Penn State Probable Rotation:
*G – 6’0” JR Talor Battle (19.1 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 3.5 APG, 1.0 SPG, 50.5% 2PT)
*G – 6’5” SO Chris Babb (7.6 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 2.2 APG, 82% FT)
*F – 6’7” JR David Jackson (8.0 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 1.3 APG, 52% 2PT, 42% 3PT, 80% FT)
*F – 6’8” JR Jeff Brooks (8.1 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 1.5 APG, 55% 2PT)
*F – 6’10” JR Andrew Jones (7.2 PPG, 5.7 RPG, 52% 2PT)
G – 6’1” FR Tim Frazier (7.6 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 3.1 APG, 1.2 SPG, 42% 3PT)
F – 6’6” FR Bill Edwards (7.0 PPG, 4.4 RPG)
G – 6’5” SO Cammeron Woodyard (2.2 PPG)

This season they have played at a pace of 65 possessions per game. They play a variety of defenses, not specializing in any.

They have lost key players Jamelle Cornley, Stanley Pringle, and Danny Morrissey to graduation.


Key Player:

Talor Battle – He’s the most aggressive offensive player, taking 30% of the shots when he’s on the court. His offensive rating is a great 109.5. He shoots 51% from 2, doesn’t turn the ball over (13.4%), gets to the line a bunch (4 FTAs to 10 FGAs), and is a great rebounder, especially for a point guard (16% defensive).


What Penn State is really good at:

1. Defensive Rebounding. PSU is 11th in the nation at it, grabbing 75.7%. Wisconsin is #1.

2. Not sending opponents to the line. They are 10th in the nation at keeping opponents away from the line, with opponents taking 1 free throw for every 4 shot attempts.

3. Pump Faking. Only 7.5% of their 2-point attempts are blocked, good for 84th.

4. Taking Care of the Ball. They are 36th in the nation with a rate of 17.7%. They are also 29th at not getting the ball stolen from themselves.

5. Defending the paint. The Lions are 60th in the nation, holding their opponents to 43.5%


What Penn State is really bad at:

1. Defending threes. PSU gives up 35.9% from deep, good for 235th.

2. Forcing turnovers. They are 298th in forcing TO’s at 18.1%, and 302nd in steals at 7.7%.


Relative efficiency:

When PSU has the ball: PSU has scored a good 1.08 PPP in their first 13 games, while UW has given up a great 0.91 in their first 13.

When UW has the ball: PSU gave up a good 0.94 in their first 13 games, while UW has scored a great 1.16 in their first 13.


Pace: PSU has played at 65 possessions per game so far in their first 13 games compared to UW’s 63 in their first 13 games.


My expectations:

1. Battle doesn’t reach 17. Hughes has always been able to bully him into a bad game.

2. Leuer scores more than 19. Leuer is a dominant force in the paint.

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

4. Jason Bohannon lights up PSU, making more than 2 threes. Just cuz.


My Prediction: The Badgers win their 6th straight, beating the kittens 69-58 in 62 possessions.