Thursday, January 21, 2010

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 5th 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 4th 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment