Opening Comments: Last game against IU I suggested the Hoosiers do not have a B10 quality defense. They have not learned to play D in the last 12 days.
It is hard to imagine that this team beat Pittsburg, Minnesota and gave PU a run in Bloomington. They simply cannot protect the ball or shoot it well. I keep hearing about the rebuilding job Crean has in front of him, but he certainly does not have the talent on his roster after two years to get it done. I know Creek is likely a star, but who else?
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW had a great shooting day while IU kicked the ball around and then bricked their shots.
Pace: The game had 65 possessions, our 5 most of the season and third most in conference behind PU and PSU (which had an OT).
Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Both, but mostly defense.
Indiana scored at .71 PPP. That is very poor. It is by far the worst in conference (or should I say our best defense?). Second place goes all the way back to the PSU road game January 3. Our conference opponent’s PPP is now at .96 PPP (it had taken a beating with the Minnesota and NU games). Only Oakland and Cal Poly had more anemic offensive performances than IU.
UW lit them up with 1.20 PPP, our 8th best of the year. By the way, this same offensive efficiency would have nosed out NU last week (65 to 63) and would not have been enough to beat Minnesota (Minnesota would have won 68 to 64).
Shooting: UW won the quality battles in all phases of shooting against the defenseless Hoosier. UW took only 21% of their FGA’s from beyond the arc, our second fewest of the year.
eFG%: UW had a great day shooting. Our eFG% was 62% to IU’s 35%. In conference we had been shooting at 51% and holding our opponents to 47%. Holding IU to 35% was our best in conference, with MSU’s 39% now second best.
3 pt shooting: IU was a perfect 0-5 from the arc. UW was a staggering 8-11, 73% from deep. Yikes! That is far and away our best shooting from deep and our best defense from deep (obviously). UW outscored them by 24 points at the arc.
2pt shooting: IU was also inept from inside the arc. They scored 18 times on 46 chances, 39% shooting. UW got 21 on 42 chances, 50%. UW picked up another 6 inside the arc.
1pt shooting: IU completed their trifecta of incompetence by shooting a bricklaiden 10-20 from the line, 50%. UW was a robust 12-15, 80%. We would have lost the quantity battle by even more if not for IU’s generosity of coughing up technicals and giving JBO 6 extra FTA’s.
Rebounding: Indiana did well on the offensive glass, UW did well on their offensive glass. IU was slightly better.
This is where the raw numbers need to be analyzed. IU outrebounded UW by 13 (38 to 25) yet the boards were more or less a draw. How can that be?
UW Defensive end: Due to IU’s ineffective shooting, there were plenty of offensive rebounding opportunities for IU. IU bricked enough shots to have 38 rebounding chances and they got 14, or 37% of their misses. That gave them extra chances to miss more shots.
UW Offensive End: UW shot better and had fewer rebounding chances – 25 compared to IU’s 38. UW grabbed 8 of their misses, 6 fewer than IU’s 14 offensive rebounds. But, with the 8 being divided by a smaller number, the percentages were about the same – IU 37%, UW 32%.
Turnovers: IU had 18 for 28%. UW had an unusually bumbling day giving it up 14 or 22%, our fourth worst of the year and third worst in conference, with at OSU being the worst at 25%. So, UW had an advantage, but not as big of an advantage as might be expected.
Opportunity Index: Believe it or not the OI went IU’s way. UW was a -2 (minus 6 offensive rebounds, plus 4 turnovers).
Quantity and Quality: IU had a narrow victory in quantity and was slaughtered in quality.
IU took two fewer FGA’s (53 to 51) but got to the line more (10 to 5) to give IU more trips with shot attempts. The quality was heavily in UW’s favor: eFG% +17 and FT% +30.
Fouls: IU fouled 17 times and UW 18. IU ended up taking 20 FTA’s and UW only 12, 6 of which were thanks to technicals.
Playing time: Leuer started in Jarmusz’s spot and played 26 minutes. Besides the starters, Wilson got 17, Jarmusz 15 and Evans 11.
Crean (and his replacement) played 8 ten or more minutes and one (Moore) 8 minutes. They were looking for someone who could defend and shoot, but found none.
Notable Performances: This could be a long list …
Hughes got 17 on 9 shots, Keaton scored 14 on 7 shots, Leuer 13 on 14 shots (7 boards and 4 blocks), Taylor 13 on 11 shots and JBo 11 on but 4 (but 5-6 shooting technicals). Starters, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
Jarmusz got 5 on one shot from the floor, two from the line and added two boards. Brusewitz only played 8 minutes yet got 3 boards.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Jason Bohannon knocks down more than 3 treys. He has been on fire for the last few weeks and Indiana will let it continue. Miss. JBo did not try a three.
2. Jon Leuer scores 19 points or more. He refinds his stride from pre-injury against a terrible defense. Miss. Jon scored 13, but added 7 boards and 4 blocks.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. They’ve been on a roll at threes lately and I think it continues. Major hit. They hit a sizzling 8-11, 73 % outpacing IU’s 50% from the free throw line, in their own gym.
4. The Badgers grab more than 34% of the rebounding opportunities on offense and more than 75% on defense. Indiana is a terrible rebounding team. Miss. Close on the badger rebounding (32%) and IU did well getting 37% or we only got 63%, not 75% of the defensive boards.
Shetown’s Prediction: The Badgers win 70-56 in 64 possessions, making Tom think that he should have stayed at the office and tanned instead of coming to the game. Hit. UW 78 to 46 in 65.
Closing Thoughts: I wonder if IU is glad they gave Crean a two year extension before he coached his first game? I think he has 8 more years on his contract. I wonder how the IU faithful are going to react to their performance. That should be fun to watch.
Now, on to the home game with Iowa, a blowout loser to NU. Let me think, Iowa will have to beat UW on our home court on senior day. Good luck.
Let’s not forget that this was a B10 road win. All road wins are good wins, even against a poor IU team.
I never read the board until after this has been posted, so if it has been discussed, my apologies. When Crean grabbed two technicals, it reminded me of the time Kevin O’Neal got kicked out of a game in Madison that they had all but lost. To me, his message was, “We lost the game, but the ref’s were at fault.” It took the focus away from the real issue – your team sucks and our team is better than yours. I assume Crean’s explosion was pent up anger over a 3-12 season.
I wonder how much house Creaning he will do with this team. They only lose Dumas. Shetown will need a GPS system to track where these guys end up next year.
This is a good Badger team that has been great fun to watch. We are lucky to have Bo as our coach.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Indiana 2.0 Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: Tomorrow night, the Badgers take on the Hoosiers of Indiana and head coach Tannin’ Cream. Indiana comes into the game with a record of 9-17 and 3-11 in the Big Ten. They are riding an 8-game losing streak and coming off an 81-58 drubbing at the hands of Minnesota.
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #12 and Indiana #163. He makes Wisconsin a 20-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #11 and Indiana #151. He predicts a 68-56 Badger victory in 60 possessions and gives the Badgers a 90% chance of winning.
Indiana Rotation:
*G – 6’0” FR Jordan Hulls (6.0 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 1.7 APG, 79% FT, 39% 3PT, 112.0 OR, 13% Poss, 15% Shot, 18% TO, 3% OffReb, 7% DefReb, 2.7 FTR, 75% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” JR Jeremiah Rivers (6.2 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.4 SPG, 81.3 OR, 18% Poss, 14% Shot, 31% TO, 3% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 5.9 FTR, 4% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” SO Verdell Jones (14.6 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 3.3 APG, 1.0 SPG, 75% FT, 97.6 OR, 28% Poss, 28% Shot, 18% TO, 3% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 4.8 FTR, 21% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” FR Christian Watford (12.3 PPG, 5.9 RPG, 80% FT, 92.9 OR, 26% Poss, 28% Shot, 19% TO, 8% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 4.3 FTR, 14% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” SO Tom Pritchard (4.6 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 60% 2PT, 97.6 OR, 13% Poss, 11% Shot, 23% TO, 9% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 5.5 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’2” SR Devan Dumes (7.2 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 1.2 APG, 1.0 SPG, 89.9 OR, 24% Poss, 27% Shot, 22% TO, 3% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 3.3 FTR, 60% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” FR Derek Elston (4.9 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 39% 3PT, 93.9 OR, 21% Poss, 23% Shot, 21% TO, 12% OffReb, 17% DefReb, 3.0 FTR, 17% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” FR Bobby Capobianco (2.0 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 36% 3PT, 92.4 OR, 14% Poss, 13% Shot, 21% TO, 12% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 3.4 FTR, 16% 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 (21% is average)
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)
FTR = # of free throws taken per 10 field goal attempts (3.76 is average)
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 33%, and if I don’t list FT%, it’s not above 75%
Where Are They Now? (Transfers Since Tom Crean Came To Indiana)
Nick Williams = Ole Miss
Malik Story = Nevada
Armon Bassett = Ohio
DeAndre Thomas = Robert Morris
Jamarcus Ellis = Oklahoma City University
Eli Holman = Detroit
Jordan Crawford = Xavier
Brandon McGee = Auburn
What Indiana is really good at:
1. Getting to the FT line. They get 4 FTAs per 10 FGAs in conference games. This ranks 1st in the Big Ten.
2. Tanning. With making reservations at hotels with spas during away games and having a tanning bed for his home or office included in his contract, Tannin’ Tom can stay his favorite shade of orange throughout the season.
What Indiana is really bad at:
1. Protecting the ball. They turn the ball over on 22.1% of their possessions, which is 10th in the Big Ten.
2. Pump faking. They get 13% of their two-pointers blocked, which is worst in the Big Ten.
4. Shooting. They shoot 39% from the field, which is worst in the conference.
5. Keeping opponents off the charity stripe. Their Big Ten opponents attempt more than 4 free throws per 9 FGAs, which is 10th in the Big Ten.
6. Defensive Rebounding. They grab 64% of the rebounding opportunities on defense, which is good for last in the conference.
Relative efficiency:
When Indiana has the ball: Indiana has scored the league worst 0.94 PPP in their first 14 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league second-best 0.97 in their first 15.
When UW has the ball: Indiana has the second worst defensive PPP at 1.11 in their 14 Big Ten games, while UW has scored the league best 1.08 in their 15 Big Ten games.
Pace: Indiana has played at 65 possessions per game so far in their 14 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in their 15 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Indiana Good Wins = (N) Pitt, Minnesota
Indiana Bad Losses = (N) Boston University, (N) George Mason, Loyola MD, Iowa
UW Good Wins = (N) Maryland, Duke, Marquette, OSU, Purdue, MSU
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB
My expectations:
1. Jason Bohannon knocks down more than 3 treys. He has been on fire for the last few weeks and Indiana will let it continue.
2. Jon Leuer scores 19 points or more. He refinds his stride from pre-injury against a terrible defense.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. They’ve been on a roll at threes lately and I think it continues.
4. The Badgers grab more than 34% of the rebounding opportunities on offense and more than 75% on defense. Indiana is a terrible rebounding team.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 70-56 in 64 possessions, making Tom think that he should have stayed at the office and tanned instead of coming to the game.
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #12 and Indiana #163. He makes Wisconsin a 20-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #11 and Indiana #151. He predicts a 68-56 Badger victory in 60 possessions and gives the Badgers a 90% chance of winning.
Indiana Rotation:
*G – 6’0” FR Jordan Hulls (6.0 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 1.7 APG, 79% FT, 39% 3PT, 112.0 OR, 13% Poss, 15% Shot, 18% TO, 3% OffReb, 7% DefReb, 2.7 FTR, 75% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” JR Jeremiah Rivers (6.2 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.4 SPG, 81.3 OR, 18% Poss, 14% Shot, 31% TO, 3% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 5.9 FTR, 4% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” SO Verdell Jones (14.6 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 3.3 APG, 1.0 SPG, 75% FT, 97.6 OR, 28% Poss, 28% Shot, 18% TO, 3% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 4.8 FTR, 21% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” FR Christian Watford (12.3 PPG, 5.9 RPG, 80% FT, 92.9 OR, 26% Poss, 28% Shot, 19% TO, 8% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 4.3 FTR, 14% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” SO Tom Pritchard (4.6 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 60% 2PT, 97.6 OR, 13% Poss, 11% Shot, 23% TO, 9% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 5.5 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’2” SR Devan Dumes (7.2 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 1.2 APG, 1.0 SPG, 89.9 OR, 24% Poss, 27% Shot, 22% TO, 3% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 3.3 FTR, 60% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” FR Derek Elston (4.9 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 39% 3PT, 93.9 OR, 21% Poss, 23% Shot, 21% TO, 12% OffReb, 17% DefReb, 3.0 FTR, 17% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” FR Bobby Capobianco (2.0 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 36% 3PT, 92.4 OR, 14% Poss, 13% Shot, 21% TO, 12% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 3.4 FTR, 16% 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 (21% is average)
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)
FTR = # of free throws taken per 10 field goal attempts (3.76 is average)
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 33%, and if I don’t list FT%, it’s not above 75%
Where Are They Now? (Transfers Since Tom Crean Came To Indiana)
Nick Williams = Ole Miss
Malik Story = Nevada
Armon Bassett = Ohio
DeAndre Thomas = Robert Morris
Jamarcus Ellis = Oklahoma City University
Eli Holman = Detroit
Jordan Crawford = Xavier
Brandon McGee = Auburn
What Indiana is really good at:
1. Getting to the FT line. They get 4 FTAs per 10 FGAs in conference games. This ranks 1st in the Big Ten.
2. Tanning. With making reservations at hotels with spas during away games and having a tanning bed for his home or office included in his contract, Tannin’ Tom can stay his favorite shade of orange throughout the season.
What Indiana is really bad at:
1. Protecting the ball. They turn the ball over on 22.1% of their possessions, which is 10th in the Big Ten.
2. Pump faking. They get 13% of their two-pointers blocked, which is worst in the Big Ten.
4. Shooting. They shoot 39% from the field, which is worst in the conference.
5. Keeping opponents off the charity stripe. Their Big Ten opponents attempt more than 4 free throws per 9 FGAs, which is 10th in the Big Ten.
6. Defensive Rebounding. They grab 64% of the rebounding opportunities on defense, which is good for last in the conference.
Relative efficiency:
When Indiana has the ball: Indiana has scored the league worst 0.94 PPP in their first 14 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league second-best 0.97 in their first 15.
When UW has the ball: Indiana has the second worst defensive PPP at 1.11 in their 14 Big Ten games, while UW has scored the league best 1.08 in their 15 Big Ten games.
Pace: Indiana has played at 65 possessions per game so far in their 14 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in their 15 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Indiana Good Wins = (N) Pitt, Minnesota
Indiana Bad Losses = (N) Boston University, (N) George Mason, Loyola MD, Iowa
UW Good Wins = (N) Maryland, Duke, Marquette, OSU, Purdue, MSU
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB
My expectations:
1. Jason Bohannon knocks down more than 3 treys. He has been on fire for the last few weeks and Indiana will let it continue.
2. Jon Leuer scores 19 points or more. He refinds his stride from pre-injury against a terrible defense.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. They’ve been on a roll at threes lately and I think it continues.
4. The Badgers grab more than 34% of the rebounding opportunities on offense and more than 75% on defense. Indiana is a terrible rebounding team.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 70-56 in 64 possessions, making Tom think that he should have stayed at the office and tanned instead of coming to the game.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Northwestern Box Score Observations
Opening Comments: Whew. That was scary.
I would have had a completely different feeling if this game was played with the two halves swapped. Then, UW would have finished on a high note after a bad start. Now, we are left to wonder.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW shot lights-out in the first half and hung on to win after a sluggish second half while NU hummed along.
Pace: The game played out at 54 possessions. In conference, we have been at 58.
Efficiency: Was it good offense or good defense? We played superior offense in the first half and poor defense throughout the game. NU was comparably efficient both halves. The difference in the game was NU’s defense in the second half (or UW’s lack of offense – I think it was mostly NU’s defense).
NU scored a very efficient 1.17 PPP. Excellent. UW has now been giving our opponents .98 PPP. NU hit 1.12 PPP in the first half, 1.21 in the second half. These last two games have been defensive disasters.
The good news: UW scored 1.30 PPP. How did that happen? Because in the first half we hit 43 on 26 possession – a smoking 1.65 PPP. Yikes. In the second half we were a substandard 27 points on 28 possessions, .97 PPP.
Shooting: text
eFG%: NU hit an eFG% of 55%. Very good (we tend to give our opponents 48% in conference play). UW did even better hitting 60%.
3 pt shooting: UW launched 20 hitting 7, or 35%. NU took 7 fewer, 13, and hit 3 fewer, 4, for 31%. So, UW won the quantity and quality battle beyond the arc. Plus 9 for UW.
2pt shooting: Inside, NU was a very good 17 of 29 for 59%. UW took 10 fewer shots, 19, but hit only 4 fewer – 12. So, UW actually hit a better percentage – 68% to 59%. NU got back 8 points inside the arc.
1pt shooting: NU put up 22 FTA’s and hit 17 for 77%. UW took 29 attempts and hit 23 for 79%. UW picked up 6 points at the line.
Rebounding: UW had a decided rebounding advantage on both ends of the court.
UW Defensive end: There were only 21 rebounding opportunities and UW got 17 to NU’s 4. UW held NU to only 19% offensive rebounds. UW is typically excellent at around 26%, less than the national average of 33%. So, 19% is excellent, but not unusual for UW.
UW Offensive End: There were only 20 rebounding opportunities and UW got 8 or 40%. That is very good for UW and a key to our victory.
Turnovers: UW is one of the best in the nation at avoiding TO’s, and we did a good job today giving up 9 or 17%. But, NU did even better giving it up only 6 times or 11%. In the first half, NU had 4 and UW 3. So, when NU went mostly zone in the second half, they increased their turnovers to 6 and only offered it up to UW twice. That is a good way to get back into this thing.
Opportunity Index: UW had a plus one OI based upon a +4 offensive rebounds but a -3 TO’s margin.
Quantity / Quality: The quantity was about equal (OI +1 for UW). NU took 3 extra FGA’s but 7 fewer FTA’s – with is 3 or 4 trips to the line.
So, from a quantity perspective, it was a draw.
But, UW won the quantity battle. We hit a better eFG% (60% to 55%) and better FT% (79% to 77%). Those few percentages made the difference.
Fouls: NU had 21 and UW 19. That is more fouling than would normally be expected from either team.
Playing time: UW played 7 ten or more minutes with Leuer getting 22 and Bruesewitz 14. Wilson chipped in a quiet 8 minutes. JBo played the whole game again. He effectively hid behind the big guys during the timeouts.
Notable Performances: JBo had yet another good line. He scored 17 on 9 FGA’s, 2-2 from the line, snatched three defensive boards, but was tagged for 2 TO’s. JBo, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. He has been on fire lately.
Taylor dropped 16 on only 9 shots, 6-7 FTA’s, two boards, but uncharacteristically picked up 4 TO’s.
Hughes scored 13 on 8 FGA’s, 5-6 from the line, five boards, and 3 unfortunate TO’s.
Leuer got back into it with 22 minutes off the bench. He scored 11 on 5 FGA’s, but missed 3 of 8 FTA’s. he grabbed 3 rebounds, 2 offensive, and most importantly had 3 critical blocks. My people have missed talking about you around the fire and hope you can get your old mojo back against Indiana.
For NU, Shurna was terrific. He scored 26 on 9-17 shooting, 7-9 FT’s, 4 boards and 2 TO’s. He scored every way possible including some tough dribble drives. If he came to UW there would be multipage threads about how Bo can’t recruit athletes … John, I salute you, which is hard for me to do for an opponent.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Shurna scores less than 15. We’ve got the defenders to disrupt his flow. Miss – big time. He got 26. Ouch.
2. Wisconsin attempts 59% or more of their shots inside the arc. Bo and the players will make an intense effort to get in the paint and re-integrate Leuer. Miss. UW took 51%, fifth most of the year.
3. To go with #2, Wisconsin attempts more than 14 free throws. The last time they did was January 24th, with the assistance of overtime. Hit. A critical aspect of the win was UW making 23 of 29 FTA’s.
4. Leuer scores in double figures. He becomes more assertive in the post and is more comfortable shooting on the home court. Hit. He got 11 much needed points in 22 minutes. UW has had good luck in the past with UW big men killing NU’s. Leuer had a nice game, but was not dominating. That will come against IU on Thursday.
My Prediction: The Badgers take out their frustration on the Nerds, winning 68-50 in 56 possessions. Hit. Remarkably close. UW 70 to 62. It was a nail biter that seemed closer than 7.
Closing Thoughts: It seems strange that UW had dribble-drive issues with NU but contained such studs as Manny Harris and Evan Turner. I did not see that coming.
UW is not 10-5 in conference. That is a nice record. If we win the next two we are 12-5 going into Illinois. I trust Bo to figure out what the deal is and get the team peaking come tournament time.
I would have had a completely different feeling if this game was played with the two halves swapped. Then, UW would have finished on a high note after a bad start. Now, we are left to wonder.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW shot lights-out in the first half and hung on to win after a sluggish second half while NU hummed along.
Pace: The game played out at 54 possessions. In conference, we have been at 58.
Efficiency: Was it good offense or good defense? We played superior offense in the first half and poor defense throughout the game. NU was comparably efficient both halves. The difference in the game was NU’s defense in the second half (or UW’s lack of offense – I think it was mostly NU’s defense).
NU scored a very efficient 1.17 PPP. Excellent. UW has now been giving our opponents .98 PPP. NU hit 1.12 PPP in the first half, 1.21 in the second half. These last two games have been defensive disasters.
The good news: UW scored 1.30 PPP. How did that happen? Because in the first half we hit 43 on 26 possession – a smoking 1.65 PPP. Yikes. In the second half we were a substandard 27 points on 28 possessions, .97 PPP.
Shooting: text
eFG%: NU hit an eFG% of 55%. Very good (we tend to give our opponents 48% in conference play). UW did even better hitting 60%.
3 pt shooting: UW launched 20 hitting 7, or 35%. NU took 7 fewer, 13, and hit 3 fewer, 4, for 31%. So, UW won the quantity and quality battle beyond the arc. Plus 9 for UW.
2pt shooting: Inside, NU was a very good 17 of 29 for 59%. UW took 10 fewer shots, 19, but hit only 4 fewer – 12. So, UW actually hit a better percentage – 68% to 59%. NU got back 8 points inside the arc.
1pt shooting: NU put up 22 FTA’s and hit 17 for 77%. UW took 29 attempts and hit 23 for 79%. UW picked up 6 points at the line.
Rebounding: UW had a decided rebounding advantage on both ends of the court.
UW Defensive end: There were only 21 rebounding opportunities and UW got 17 to NU’s 4. UW held NU to only 19% offensive rebounds. UW is typically excellent at around 26%, less than the national average of 33%. So, 19% is excellent, but not unusual for UW.
UW Offensive End: There were only 20 rebounding opportunities and UW got 8 or 40%. That is very good for UW and a key to our victory.
Turnovers: UW is one of the best in the nation at avoiding TO’s, and we did a good job today giving up 9 or 17%. But, NU did even better giving it up only 6 times or 11%. In the first half, NU had 4 and UW 3. So, when NU went mostly zone in the second half, they increased their turnovers to 6 and only offered it up to UW twice. That is a good way to get back into this thing.
Opportunity Index: UW had a plus one OI based upon a +4 offensive rebounds but a -3 TO’s margin.
Quantity / Quality: The quantity was about equal (OI +1 for UW). NU took 3 extra FGA’s but 7 fewer FTA’s – with is 3 or 4 trips to the line.
So, from a quantity perspective, it was a draw.
But, UW won the quantity battle. We hit a better eFG% (60% to 55%) and better FT% (79% to 77%). Those few percentages made the difference.
Fouls: NU had 21 and UW 19. That is more fouling than would normally be expected from either team.
Playing time: UW played 7 ten or more minutes with Leuer getting 22 and Bruesewitz 14. Wilson chipped in a quiet 8 minutes. JBo played the whole game again. He effectively hid behind the big guys during the timeouts.
Notable Performances: JBo had yet another good line. He scored 17 on 9 FGA’s, 2-2 from the line, snatched three defensive boards, but was tagged for 2 TO’s. JBo, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. He has been on fire lately.
Taylor dropped 16 on only 9 shots, 6-7 FTA’s, two boards, but uncharacteristically picked up 4 TO’s.
Hughes scored 13 on 8 FGA’s, 5-6 from the line, five boards, and 3 unfortunate TO’s.
Leuer got back into it with 22 minutes off the bench. He scored 11 on 5 FGA’s, but missed 3 of 8 FTA’s. he grabbed 3 rebounds, 2 offensive, and most importantly had 3 critical blocks. My people have missed talking about you around the fire and hope you can get your old mojo back against Indiana.
For NU, Shurna was terrific. He scored 26 on 9-17 shooting, 7-9 FT’s, 4 boards and 2 TO’s. He scored every way possible including some tough dribble drives. If he came to UW there would be multipage threads about how Bo can’t recruit athletes … John, I salute you, which is hard for me to do for an opponent.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Shurna scores less than 15. We’ve got the defenders to disrupt his flow. Miss – big time. He got 26. Ouch.
2. Wisconsin attempts 59% or more of their shots inside the arc. Bo and the players will make an intense effort to get in the paint and re-integrate Leuer. Miss. UW took 51%, fifth most of the year.
3. To go with #2, Wisconsin attempts more than 14 free throws. The last time they did was January 24th, with the assistance of overtime. Hit. A critical aspect of the win was UW making 23 of 29 FTA’s.
4. Leuer scores in double figures. He becomes more assertive in the post and is more comfortable shooting on the home court. Hit. He got 11 much needed points in 22 minutes. UW has had good luck in the past with UW big men killing NU’s. Leuer had a nice game, but was not dominating. That will come against IU on Thursday.
My Prediction: The Badgers take out their frustration on the Nerds, winning 68-50 in 56 possessions. Hit. Remarkably close. UW 70 to 62. It was a nail biter that seemed closer than 7.
Closing Thoughts: It seems strange that UW had dribble-drive issues with NU but contained such studs as Manny Harris and Evan Turner. I did not see that coming.
UW is not 10-5 in conference. That is a nice record. If we win the next two we are 12-5 going into Illinois. I trust Bo to figure out what the deal is and get the team peaking come tournament time.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Northwestern 2.0 Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Comments: How appropriate it would be that the next team on the schedule are the Wildcats of Nerdwestern. I was just thinking that Minnesota is becoming what Northwestern used to be in the not-so-distant past… that thorn in Wisconsin’s side. A team that Wisconsin is more skilled and arguably talented than that they just can’t seem to figure out how to beat on the road. Northwestern comes into the game game at 17-9, 6-8 in the Big Ten, and losers of 2 of their last 3 games, including a home loss to previously winless (in the Big Ten) Penn State on Wednesday.
What the Expert Wildcats Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #13 and Northwestern #75. He makes Wisconsin a 13-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #7 and Northwestern #76. He predicts a 67-54 Badger victory in 57 possessions and gives the Badgers a 91% chance of winning.
Nerdwestern Rotation:
*G – 5’10” JR Juice Thompson (13.5 PPG, 1.8 RPG, 4.2 APG, 1.0 SPG, 82% FT, 40% 3PT, 55% 2PT, 114.2 OR, 19% Poss, 20% Shot, 15% TO, 1% OffReb, 4% DefReb, 3.4 FTR, 58% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’4” SR Jeremy Nash (9.1 PPG, 4.1 RPG, 3.0 APG, 1.7 SPG, 81% FT, 107.0 OR, 16% Poss, 16% Shot, 15% TO, 3% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 3.9 FTR, 54% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” FR Drew Crawford (11.1 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 1.9 APG, 38% 3PT, 58% 2PT, 111.0 OR, 21% Poss, 22% Shot, 16% TO, 7% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 3.3 FTR, 54% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SO John Shurna (17.8 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 2.6 APG, 1.0 BPG, 78% FT, 35% 3PT, 54% 2PT, 111.9 OR, 25% Poss, 29% Shot, 13% TO, 6% OffReb, 16% DefReb, 2.7 FTR, 47% of FGAs are 3PT)
*C – 6’11” SO Luka Mirkovic (7.8 PPG, 6.0 RPG, 2.5 APG, 36% 3PT, 105.1 OR, 20% Poss, 18% Shot, 17% TO, 9% OffReb, 20% DefReb, 4.9 FTR, 14% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’3” FR Alex Marcotullio (4.8 PPG, 1.3 RPG, 36% 3PT, 50% 2PT, 104.3 OR, 23% Poss, 18% Shot, 15% TO, 2% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 1.8 FTR, 85% of FGAs are 3PT)
C – 7’0” SO Kyle Rowley (2.0 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 75.9 OR, 20% Poss, 12% Shot, 33% TO, 10% OffReb, 20% DefReb, 9.2 FTR, 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 (21% is average)
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)
FTR = # of free throws taken per 10 field goal attempts (3.76 is average)
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 33%, and if I don’t list FT%, it’s not above 75%
What Northwestern is really good at:
1. Shooting 3s. Northwestern is second in 3-point percentage in conference games, at 37.3%.
2. Taking care of the ball. They are 2nd in the conference at it (we’re first), only once in every 6 possessions (15.7 %).
3. Pump faking. They are third best in the conference at avoiding blocked shots with 1 every 20 two-point attempts.
What Northwestern is really bad at:
1. Rebounding. They grab only 27.7% of the rebounding opportunities on offense and only 67.1% of them on the defensive side in conference games, which are second and third worst respectively.
2. Keeping opponents off the free throw line and defending those freebies. They are second worst in the conference at sending opponents to the line, giving up about 2 FTAs per 5 FGAs. They also are the worst free throw defenders in the conference at 78%.
Relative efficiency:
When Northwestern has the ball: Northwestern has scored a league leading 1.08 PPP in their 14 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a second best 0.96 in their 14.
When UW has the ball: Northwestern has given up a league worst 1.12 PPP in their 14 games, while UW has scored a league-runner up 1.07 in their 14.
Pace: Northwestern has played at 64 possessions per game so far in their Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in theirs.
My expectations:
1. Shurna scores less than 15. We’ve got the defenders to disrupt his flow.
2. Wisconsin attempts 59% or more of their shots inside the arc. Bo and the players will make an intense effort to get in the paint and re-integrate Leuer.
3. To go with #2, Wisconsin attempts more than 14 free throws. The last time they did was January 24th, with the assistance of overtime.
My Prediction: The Badgers take out their frustration on the Nerds, winning 68-50 in 56 possessions.
What the Expert Wildcats Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #13 and Northwestern #75. He makes Wisconsin a 13-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #7 and Northwestern #76. He predicts a 67-54 Badger victory in 57 possessions and gives the Badgers a 91% chance of winning.
Nerdwestern Rotation:
*G – 5’10” JR Juice Thompson (13.5 PPG, 1.8 RPG, 4.2 APG, 1.0 SPG, 82% FT, 40% 3PT, 55% 2PT, 114.2 OR, 19% Poss, 20% Shot, 15% TO, 1% OffReb, 4% DefReb, 3.4 FTR, 58% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’4” SR Jeremy Nash (9.1 PPG, 4.1 RPG, 3.0 APG, 1.7 SPG, 81% FT, 107.0 OR, 16% Poss, 16% Shot, 15% TO, 3% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 3.9 FTR, 54% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” FR Drew Crawford (11.1 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 1.9 APG, 38% 3PT, 58% 2PT, 111.0 OR, 21% Poss, 22% Shot, 16% TO, 7% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 3.3 FTR, 54% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SO John Shurna (17.8 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 2.6 APG, 1.0 BPG, 78% FT, 35% 3PT, 54% 2PT, 111.9 OR, 25% Poss, 29% Shot, 13% TO, 6% OffReb, 16% DefReb, 2.7 FTR, 47% of FGAs are 3PT)
*C – 6’11” SO Luka Mirkovic (7.8 PPG, 6.0 RPG, 2.5 APG, 36% 3PT, 105.1 OR, 20% Poss, 18% Shot, 17% TO, 9% OffReb, 20% DefReb, 4.9 FTR, 14% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’3” FR Alex Marcotullio (4.8 PPG, 1.3 RPG, 36% 3PT, 50% 2PT, 104.3 OR, 23% Poss, 18% Shot, 15% TO, 2% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 1.8 FTR, 85% of FGAs are 3PT)
C – 7’0” SO Kyle Rowley (2.0 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 75.9 OR, 20% Poss, 12% Shot, 33% TO, 10% OffReb, 20% DefReb, 9.2 FTR, 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 (21% is average)
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)
FTR = # of free throws taken per 10 field goal attempts (3.76 is average)
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 33%, and if I don’t list FT%, it’s not above 75%
What Northwestern is really good at:
1. Shooting 3s. Northwestern is second in 3-point percentage in conference games, at 37.3%.
2. Taking care of the ball. They are 2nd in the conference at it (we’re first), only once in every 6 possessions (15.7 %).
3. Pump faking. They are third best in the conference at avoiding blocked shots with 1 every 20 two-point attempts.
What Northwestern is really bad at:
1. Rebounding. They grab only 27.7% of the rebounding opportunities on offense and only 67.1% of them on the defensive side in conference games, which are second and third worst respectively.
2. Keeping opponents off the free throw line and defending those freebies. They are second worst in the conference at sending opponents to the line, giving up about 2 FTAs per 5 FGAs. They also are the worst free throw defenders in the conference at 78%.
Relative efficiency:
When Northwestern has the ball: Northwestern has scored a league leading 1.08 PPP in their 14 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a second best 0.96 in their 14.
When UW has the ball: Northwestern has given up a league worst 1.12 PPP in their 14 games, while UW has scored a league-runner up 1.07 in their 14.
Pace: Northwestern has played at 64 possessions per game so far in their Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in theirs.
My expectations:
1. Shurna scores less than 15. We’ve got the defenders to disrupt his flow.
2. Wisconsin attempts 59% or more of their shots inside the arc. Bo and the players will make an intense effort to get in the paint and re-integrate Leuer.
3. To go with #2, Wisconsin attempts more than 14 free throws. The last time they did was January 24th, with the assistance of overtime.
My Prediction: The Badgers take out their frustration on the Nerds, winning 68-50 in 56 possessions.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Minnesota Box Score Observations
Opening Comments: Ugh. That was ugly. UM 68, UW 52.
This was an opportunity lost. Our chances of sharing the B10 title are gone. But, good times are still ahead.
This game points out the variability of sports. There is variability in sports, or they would not be interesting. There was little about that game that could have been predicted, yet it happened nonetheless. All the numbers that follow are intended to help describe what happened, but in no way can the numbers replace the joy or sorrow of the game itself. Games should come with a safe harbor statement - past performance is not a guarentee of future performance.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW took more shots, particularly threes - UM made more shots - particularly free throws.
Pace: The game had only 52 possessions. Going into the game, UW was at 58, fewest and UM 66, most in conference. So, Minnesota was able to play at our pace and win anyway. Good shooting will do that.
Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? A complete collapse on defense that defies rational expectations, and our offense was none too good either.
UW is #1 in conference with 1.08 PPP on offense and #1 holding opponents to only .94 PPP on defense.
UM scores at 1.03 PPP but bleeds at 1.07 PPP, #8 in conference. So, Minnesota’s offense has been so-so and their defense certifiably bad.
So, what happens, UM holds the badgers to 1.0 PPP and score 1.31, our worst defensive performance of the year. Go figure.
Scoring 1.0 PPP is usually good enough for us to win. Giving up 1.31 PPP will almost never win. The defense collapsed.
Shooting: Minnesota went inside and ruled. They only took 21% of their shots from deep, compared to UW’s 42%. All that inside play got them to the line an extra 23 times, where PPP are easy to find. That formula worked to perfection.
eFG%: UM hit at 54% and UW at only 42%.
UW has been shooting 50.6% in conference play, #5 but holding opponents to 47.6%, #3 in conference.
Minnesota has been hitting a robust 51.6%, #3, and giving up a pathetic 52.7%, #10.
3 pt shooting: UM only took 9 deep shots and made 5 (56%). UW took 30 and made 11 (37%). Those 21 extra shots netted 6 extra baskets or 18 points.
Minnesota leads the conference hitting 39% of their deep shots. But, they also are worst in the league allowing their opponents to hit 40.2%. It is hard to imagine that 3Pt% is a net negative after seeing the 39.0% offensive mark.
UW hits 34.2%, #4 and gives up 34.8%, #4. Three point shooting as more or less a wash with UW.
2pt shooting: UM put up 33 shots and made 15 for 45%. UW put up 26 and made but 7 for 27%. Let me repeat that – we made 7 shots inside the arc. Seven. Ugh. What is there to say? Minnesota outscored us by 16 inside.
1pt shooting: While UW was launching threes, UM was at the line dropping 23 of 28 free throws (82%). UW made only 5 of 7, 71%. UM outscored us by 18 at the line.
Rebounding: It was a draw on UW’s offensive end and UM crushed us on the defensive end. So much for our nation-leading defensive rebounding prowess.
UW Defensive end: With Minnesota sharp shooting, there were not a lot of rebounding opportunities – 26. UW only got 14 to UM’s 12. That gave them a whopping 46% offensive rebounding percentage. Yikes!
That is unprecedented. UW has the second best defensive rebounding in conference allowing their opponents only 26% of their misses. But, offensive rebounding is a strength for UM getting 32.9% of their misses. This is a strength on strength situation.
UW Offensive End: When UW shot, there were 17 more rebounding opportunities than at the other end. UW beat UM in quantity – 14 offensive rebounds to UM’s 12, but not percentage (33%). UW is dead last in getting offensive rebounds grabbing only 26%. Minnesota tends to give opponents a bunch, 32.8%, #8 in conference. So, UW did about what would be expected on our offensive glass.
Turnovers: UW won the turnover battle big time. UM had 11 or 21% while UW had only 5 for 10%. That is the only good news of the day.
UW is #1 in conference at protecting the ball giving it up only 14% of the time. Minnesota presses their opponents into almost 21% TO’s. third best in conference.
On the other end, Minnesota gives it up 20.8%, eighth most in conference and UW has done remarkably well getting their opponents to give it up 20.7%, #4 in conference. UW has been getting a good TO margin this year.
Opportunity Index: UW had a plus 8 in opportunities. UW had 2 more offensive rebounds and 6 fewer turnovers. But, this points out the problem with OI. You can run up your total by missing a bunch of shots and being only average at rebounding.
Looking at the same numbers from a shot perspective, UW put up 59 FGA’s to UM 42 (+17) but had fewer trips to the line (UW 3, UM 13 – or UW -10). That gave UW a +7 shots that ended possessions. The difference in the two calculations is probably Bo’s technical.
Quantity and Quality: UW clearly won the quantity battle (+7 or +8 depending how you look at it). Minnesota clearly won the quality battle: eFG% +12%, FT +11%.
The game was a clear case of quality trumping quantity.
Fouls: UW out fouled UM 25 to 11. That is largely due to late game fouling to try to extend the game (it extended the losing margin).
Playing time: Bo went 7 deep with Leuer getting 26 and Bruesewitz a surprising 20. Evans played 3 and Wilson 1.
Notable Performances: My people will not be discussing this one at the campfire. It will be erased from our collective memories as soon as possible.
JBo had a nice line scoring 18 on 12 possessions, 2-2 from the line, no turnovers and 2 boards, one offensive. That gave him 18 points on 12 possessions (1.5 PPP). This reinforces my decision to make him my favorite player.
Hughes scored 19 but needed 17 shots, 0-1 from the line, 2 rebounds (one offensive) and 2 turnovers. So, he scored 19 on 19 possessions.
Bruesewitz got 4 rebounds, 3 offensive, in 20 minutes. He also got 5 fouls.
For UM, Hoffarber scored 16 on 5-8 from the floor, 4-4 from the line, grabbed a surprising 9 boards, 2 offensive and had 2 turnovers. That gave him 16 points on 10 possessions thus besting JBo’s excellent 1.5 PPP with 1.8 PPP.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Blake Hoffarber scores 8 or less. J-Bo and Jordan shut down Diebler, so the Hoff shouldn’t be any more difficult of an assignment. Miss. He got 16. What can you say, they guy was on fire.
2. Jon Leuer and Keaton Nankivil score 20 or more. I think Jon makes a big splash in his first game back and Keaton takes advantage of the Minnesota’s twin towers being uncomfortable on the perimeter. Miss. They got a combined 9 We could have used 20.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. J-Bo is on a hot streak, hitting 14 of his last 24, and is Minnesota is bad at defending treys. Miss. We hit 37%. Not bad, but not 40 either.
4. Jordan Taylor scores more than 9 and dishes more than 4 assists. He shows Tubby why he shouldn’t have let him out of the state. Miss. Taylor scored 5 but had 6 assists.
Shetown’s Prediction: The Badgers win 62-52 in 55 possessions, putting the residents of Gopherhole on suicide watch. Miss. Right score, wrong team. 68 to 52 in 52 possessions.
Closing Thoughts: Oh, well. You are not as good as your best win or as bad as your worst loss. This will stick with us until the NU game is in the bank. That game cannot come quickly enough.
This was an opportunity lost. Our chances of sharing the B10 title are gone. But, good times are still ahead.
This game points out the variability of sports. There is variability in sports, or they would not be interesting. There was little about that game that could have been predicted, yet it happened nonetheless. All the numbers that follow are intended to help describe what happened, but in no way can the numbers replace the joy or sorrow of the game itself. Games should come with a safe harbor statement - past performance is not a guarentee of future performance.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW took more shots, particularly threes - UM made more shots - particularly free throws.
Pace: The game had only 52 possessions. Going into the game, UW was at 58, fewest and UM 66, most in conference. So, Minnesota was able to play at our pace and win anyway. Good shooting will do that.
Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? A complete collapse on defense that defies rational expectations, and our offense was none too good either.
UW is #1 in conference with 1.08 PPP on offense and #1 holding opponents to only .94 PPP on defense.
UM scores at 1.03 PPP but bleeds at 1.07 PPP, #8 in conference. So, Minnesota’s offense has been so-so and their defense certifiably bad.
So, what happens, UM holds the badgers to 1.0 PPP and score 1.31, our worst defensive performance of the year. Go figure.
Scoring 1.0 PPP is usually good enough for us to win. Giving up 1.31 PPP will almost never win. The defense collapsed.
Shooting: Minnesota went inside and ruled. They only took 21% of their shots from deep, compared to UW’s 42%. All that inside play got them to the line an extra 23 times, where PPP are easy to find. That formula worked to perfection.
eFG%: UM hit at 54% and UW at only 42%.
UW has been shooting 50.6% in conference play, #5 but holding opponents to 47.6%, #3 in conference.
Minnesota has been hitting a robust 51.6%, #3, and giving up a pathetic 52.7%, #10.
3 pt shooting: UM only took 9 deep shots and made 5 (56%). UW took 30 and made 11 (37%). Those 21 extra shots netted 6 extra baskets or 18 points.
Minnesota leads the conference hitting 39% of their deep shots. But, they also are worst in the league allowing their opponents to hit 40.2%. It is hard to imagine that 3Pt% is a net negative after seeing the 39.0% offensive mark.
UW hits 34.2%, #4 and gives up 34.8%, #4. Three point shooting as more or less a wash with UW.
2pt shooting: UM put up 33 shots and made 15 for 45%. UW put up 26 and made but 7 for 27%. Let me repeat that – we made 7 shots inside the arc. Seven. Ugh. What is there to say? Minnesota outscored us by 16 inside.
1pt shooting: While UW was launching threes, UM was at the line dropping 23 of 28 free throws (82%). UW made only 5 of 7, 71%. UM outscored us by 18 at the line.
Rebounding: It was a draw on UW’s offensive end and UM crushed us on the defensive end. So much for our nation-leading defensive rebounding prowess.
UW Defensive end: With Minnesota sharp shooting, there were not a lot of rebounding opportunities – 26. UW only got 14 to UM’s 12. That gave them a whopping 46% offensive rebounding percentage. Yikes!
That is unprecedented. UW has the second best defensive rebounding in conference allowing their opponents only 26% of their misses. But, offensive rebounding is a strength for UM getting 32.9% of their misses. This is a strength on strength situation.
UW Offensive End: When UW shot, there were 17 more rebounding opportunities than at the other end. UW beat UM in quantity – 14 offensive rebounds to UM’s 12, but not percentage (33%). UW is dead last in getting offensive rebounds grabbing only 26%. Minnesota tends to give opponents a bunch, 32.8%, #8 in conference. So, UW did about what would be expected on our offensive glass.
Turnovers: UW won the turnover battle big time. UM had 11 or 21% while UW had only 5 for 10%. That is the only good news of the day.
UW is #1 in conference at protecting the ball giving it up only 14% of the time. Minnesota presses their opponents into almost 21% TO’s. third best in conference.
On the other end, Minnesota gives it up 20.8%, eighth most in conference and UW has done remarkably well getting their opponents to give it up 20.7%, #4 in conference. UW has been getting a good TO margin this year.
Opportunity Index: UW had a plus 8 in opportunities. UW had 2 more offensive rebounds and 6 fewer turnovers. But, this points out the problem with OI. You can run up your total by missing a bunch of shots and being only average at rebounding.
Looking at the same numbers from a shot perspective, UW put up 59 FGA’s to UM 42 (+17) but had fewer trips to the line (UW 3, UM 13 – or UW -10). That gave UW a +7 shots that ended possessions. The difference in the two calculations is probably Bo’s technical.
Quantity and Quality: UW clearly won the quantity battle (+7 or +8 depending how you look at it). Minnesota clearly won the quality battle: eFG% +12%, FT +11%.
The game was a clear case of quality trumping quantity.
Fouls: UW out fouled UM 25 to 11. That is largely due to late game fouling to try to extend the game (it extended the losing margin).
Playing time: Bo went 7 deep with Leuer getting 26 and Bruesewitz a surprising 20. Evans played 3 and Wilson 1.
Notable Performances: My people will not be discussing this one at the campfire. It will be erased from our collective memories as soon as possible.
JBo had a nice line scoring 18 on 12 possessions, 2-2 from the line, no turnovers and 2 boards, one offensive. That gave him 18 points on 12 possessions (1.5 PPP). This reinforces my decision to make him my favorite player.
Hughes scored 19 but needed 17 shots, 0-1 from the line, 2 rebounds (one offensive) and 2 turnovers. So, he scored 19 on 19 possessions.
Bruesewitz got 4 rebounds, 3 offensive, in 20 minutes. He also got 5 fouls.
For UM, Hoffarber scored 16 on 5-8 from the floor, 4-4 from the line, grabbed a surprising 9 boards, 2 offensive and had 2 turnovers. That gave him 16 points on 10 possessions thus besting JBo’s excellent 1.5 PPP with 1.8 PPP.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Blake Hoffarber scores 8 or less. J-Bo and Jordan shut down Diebler, so the Hoff shouldn’t be any more difficult of an assignment. Miss. He got 16. What can you say, they guy was on fire.
2. Jon Leuer and Keaton Nankivil score 20 or more. I think Jon makes a big splash in his first game back and Keaton takes advantage of the Minnesota’s twin towers being uncomfortable on the perimeter. Miss. They got a combined 9 We could have used 20.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. J-Bo is on a hot streak, hitting 14 of his last 24, and is Minnesota is bad at defending treys. Miss. We hit 37%. Not bad, but not 40 either.
4. Jordan Taylor scores more than 9 and dishes more than 4 assists. He shows Tubby why he shouldn’t have let him out of the state. Miss. Taylor scored 5 but had 6 assists.
Shetown’s Prediction: The Badgers win 62-52 in 55 possessions, putting the residents of Gopherhole on suicide watch. Miss. Right score, wrong team. 68 to 52 in 52 possessions.
Closing Thoughts: Oh, well. You are not as good as your best win or as bad as your worst loss. This will stick with us until the NU game is in the bank. That game cannot come quickly enough.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Wisconsin Offers Mycheal Henry and Marshall Plumlee
This past weekend, Bo Ryan offered 6'5" forward Mycheal Henry of the 2011 class a scholarship and, at some point in time that seemingly wasn't very publicized, they offered 6'11" center Marshall Plumlee, also of the 2011 class. This makes them the 7th and 8th offers of this recruiting class and the 3rd forward and first center offered respectively.
Mycheal Henry is a 6'5" combo forward from Chicago, IL (Orr HS) who has greatly expanded his game in the past season. As a sophomore, Henry was mostly an inconsistent inside player with loads of potential. But over the summer and throughout this season, he has vastly improved his game, becoming a great shooting threat from the perimeter and continuously improving his driving skills and ball-handling ability. He is very athletic and uses that to his advantage underneath, playing like a young Alando Tucker in almost enjoying the contact near the rim. He finished the season averaging 24.1 points (14 games), 9.2 rebounds (9 games), and 4.7 blocks (3 games) per game. He currently has offers from Illinois State, Fairfield, Nevada, Saint Louis, and Baylor, and garnering interest from Georgetown, among other majors.
Marshall Plumlee is a 6'11" center out of Arden Christ School in North Carolina. Marshall is the younger brother to Miles and Mason of Duke fame, but not build quite like them. He's not as athletic as them, so he is more of a finesse center than a high-flying power forward. The best Badger comparison would be Brian Butch without the three-point range yet. He has great footwork, post moves, and a consistent mid-range jumper. Currently he stands at 200 pounds and doesn't have great foot speed laterally, so I can't see him projecting to be very versatile position wise. He is also a great passer and smart defensively. He has offers from Michigan, Virginia, Purdue, Indiana, Florida, Minnesota, and garnering interest from North Carolina and Duke (some places claim he has an offer, others don't). Apparently we are the odds on favorite if Duke doesn't give him a hard offer to join his brothers.
Mycheal Henry is a 6'5" combo forward from Chicago, IL (Orr HS) who has greatly expanded his game in the past season. As a sophomore, Henry was mostly an inconsistent inside player with loads of potential. But over the summer and throughout this season, he has vastly improved his game, becoming a great shooting threat from the perimeter and continuously improving his driving skills and ball-handling ability. He is very athletic and uses that to his advantage underneath, playing like a young Alando Tucker in almost enjoying the contact near the rim. He finished the season averaging 24.1 points (14 games), 9.2 rebounds (9 games), and 4.7 blocks (3 games) per game. He currently has offers from Illinois State, Fairfield, Nevada, Saint Louis, and Baylor, and garnering interest from Georgetown, among other majors.
Marshall Plumlee is a 6'11" center out of Arden Christ School in North Carolina. Marshall is the younger brother to Miles and Mason of Duke fame, but not build quite like them. He's not as athletic as them, so he is more of a finesse center than a high-flying power forward. The best Badger comparison would be Brian Butch without the three-point range yet. He has great footwork, post moves, and a consistent mid-range jumper. Currently he stands at 200 pounds and doesn't have great foot speed laterally, so I can't see him projecting to be very versatile position wise. He is also a great passer and smart defensively. He has offers from Michigan, Virginia, Purdue, Indiana, Florida, Minnesota, and garnering interest from North Carolina and Duke (some places claim he has an offer, others don't). Apparently we are the odds on favorite if Duke doesn't give him a hard offer to join his brothers.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Minnesota Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: Here’s Jonnny! Just in time to make his last visit to his home state, Jon Leuer started practicing on Monday and despite Bo’s usual statement about him having to work his way back into the rotation, Jon sounds like he’s planning on playing. On the schedule is the Golden Squirrels of Minnesota, who are coming into the game with a 14-10 record and riding a 2-game losing streak and have lost 6 of their last 8. I’m not sure which makes me happier, a Badger victory or a Gopher loss that all but ensures they don’t make a post-season tournament of any value.
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #11 and Minnesota #63. He makes Wisconsin a 1-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #3 and Minnesota #44. He predicts a 63-60 Badger victory in 62 possessions and gives the Badgers a 65% chance of winning.
Minnesota Rotation:
*G – 6’0” SR Lawrence Westbrook (13.4 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 2.0 APG, 1.0 SPG, 79% FT, 42% 3PT, 55% 2PT, 105.0 OR, 24% Poss, 28% Shot, 21% TO, 2% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 2.0 FTR, 38% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’3” SO Devoe Joseph (8.5 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 3.0 APG, 1.5 SPG, 98.6 OR, 23% Poss, 24% Shot, 20% TO, 5% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 2.4 FTR, 46% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’4” JR Blake Hoffarber (11.6 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 2.0 APG, 49% 3PT, 81% FT, 60% 2PT, 98.2 OR, 15% Poss, 20% Shot, 10% TO, 4% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 1.4 FTR, 77% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’7” SR Damian Johnson (10.0 PPG, 4.1 RPG, 2.1 APG, 2.1 SPG, 2.0 BPG, 57% 2PT, 114.1 OR, 20% Poss, 20% Shot, 16% TO, 7% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 4.1 FTR, 12% of FGAs are 3PT)
*C – 6’11” SO Ralph Sampson (8.2 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 1.8 APG, 52% 2PT, 107.8 OR, 18% Poss, 17% Shot, 17% TO, 9% OffReb, 19% DefReb, 5.4 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’8” JR Paul Carter (6.7 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 51% 2PT, 99.7 OR, 23% Poss, 22% Shot, 20% TO, 8% OffReb, 18% DefReb, 3.2 FTR, 16% of FGAs are 3PT)
C – 6’10” SO Colton Iverson (4.0 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 74% 2PT, 81.7 OR, 20% Poss, 16% Shot, 26% TO, 10% OffReb, 22% DefReb, 6.1 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’7” FR Rodney Williams (5.0 PPG, 1.7 RPG, 115.2 OR, 14% Poss, 18% Shot, 16% TO, 7% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 3.6 FTR, 36% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’3” FR Justin Cobbs (2.3 PPG, 1.2 RPG, 84% FT, 86.8 OR, 16% Poss, 14% Shot, 27% TO, 1% OffReb, 7% DefReb, 3.8 FTR, 30% 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 (21% is average)
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)
FTR = # of free throws taken per 10 field goal attempts (3.76 is average)
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%
Where Are They Now? (Players Missing From Minnesota’s 24-0 1-seed roster)
Al Nolen = Busy Trying to Get A Hold of Jan Gangelhoff
Royce White = Awaiting Trial
Trevor Mbakwe = Awaiting Trial
What Minnesota is really good at:
1. Forcing Turnovers. They force slightly more than one turnover per 5 possessions in Big Ten play, good for 3rd with Wisconsin nipping at their heels at 4th.
2. Offensive Rebounding. They grab 1 of every 3 rebounding opportunities on the offensive end, good for 3rd in Big Ten play.
3. Shooting 3s. They are 1st in Big Ten play at shooting triples, at a clip of 39% and make about 7 each game.
4. Blocking Shots. They are 1st in Big Ten play, blocking about 1 of every 11 2-point attempts by their opponents.
What Minnesota is really bad at:
1. Protecting the ball. They turn the ball over on 20.8% of their possessions in Big Ten play, which is 9th in the Big Ten.
2. Free throwing shooting. The Goofers shoot 69% from the line in conference play, which is second last in the Big Ten.
3. Defending the three. They allow Big Ten opponents to shoot 40.2% from beyond the arc, which is the worst in the conference.
Relative efficiency:
When Minnesota has the ball: Minnesota has scored the 6th best 1.03 PPP in their first 12 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league leading 0.94 in their first 13.
When UW has the ball: Minnesota has the fourth worst defensive PPP at 1.07 in their 12 Big Ten games, while UW has scored the fourth best 1.08 in their 13 Big Ten games.
Pace: Minnesota has played at 66 possessions per game so far in their 12 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in their 13 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Minnesota Good Wins = (N) Butler, Ohio State
Minnesota Bad Losses = @Indiana
UW Good Wins = (N) Maryland, Duke, Marquette, OSU, Purdue, MSU
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB
My expectations:
1. Blake Hoffarber scores 8 or less. J-Bo and Jordan shut down Diebler, so the Hoff shouldn’t be any more difficult of an assignment.
2. Jon Leuer and Keaton Nankivil score 20 or more. I think Jon makes a big splash in his first game back and Keaton takes advantage of the Minnesota’s twin towers being uncomfortable on the perimeter.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. J-Bo is on a hot streak, hitting 14 of his last 24, and is Minnesota is bad at defending treys.
4. Jordan Taylor scores more than 9 and dishes more than 4 assists. He shows Tubby why he shouldn’t have let him out of the state.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 62-52 in 55 possessions, putting the residents of Gopherhole on suicide watch.
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #11 and Minnesota #63. He makes Wisconsin a 1-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #3 and Minnesota #44. He predicts a 63-60 Badger victory in 62 possessions and gives the Badgers a 65% chance of winning.
Minnesota Rotation:
*G – 6’0” SR Lawrence Westbrook (13.4 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 2.0 APG, 1.0 SPG, 79% FT, 42% 3PT, 55% 2PT, 105.0 OR, 24% Poss, 28% Shot, 21% TO, 2% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 2.0 FTR, 38% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’3” SO Devoe Joseph (8.5 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 3.0 APG, 1.5 SPG, 98.6 OR, 23% Poss, 24% Shot, 20% TO, 5% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 2.4 FTR, 46% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’4” JR Blake Hoffarber (11.6 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 2.0 APG, 49% 3PT, 81% FT, 60% 2PT, 98.2 OR, 15% Poss, 20% Shot, 10% TO, 4% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 1.4 FTR, 77% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’7” SR Damian Johnson (10.0 PPG, 4.1 RPG, 2.1 APG, 2.1 SPG, 2.0 BPG, 57% 2PT, 114.1 OR, 20% Poss, 20% Shot, 16% TO, 7% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 4.1 FTR, 12% of FGAs are 3PT)
*C – 6’11” SO Ralph Sampson (8.2 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 1.8 APG, 52% 2PT, 107.8 OR, 18% Poss, 17% Shot, 17% TO, 9% OffReb, 19% DefReb, 5.4 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’8” JR Paul Carter (6.7 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 51% 2PT, 99.7 OR, 23% Poss, 22% Shot, 20% TO, 8% OffReb, 18% DefReb, 3.2 FTR, 16% of FGAs are 3PT)
C – 6’10” SO Colton Iverson (4.0 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 74% 2PT, 81.7 OR, 20% Poss, 16% Shot, 26% TO, 10% OffReb, 22% DefReb, 6.1 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’7” FR Rodney Williams (5.0 PPG, 1.7 RPG, 115.2 OR, 14% Poss, 18% Shot, 16% TO, 7% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 3.6 FTR, 36% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’3” FR Justin Cobbs (2.3 PPG, 1.2 RPG, 84% FT, 86.8 OR, 16% Poss, 14% Shot, 27% TO, 1% OffReb, 7% DefReb, 3.8 FTR, 30% 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 (21% is average)
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)
FTR = # of free throws taken per 10 field goal attempts (3.76 is average)
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%
Where Are They Now? (Players Missing From Minnesota’s 24-0 1-seed roster)
Al Nolen = Busy Trying to Get A Hold of Jan Gangelhoff
Royce White = Awaiting Trial
Trevor Mbakwe = Awaiting Trial
What Minnesota is really good at:
1. Forcing Turnovers. They force slightly more than one turnover per 5 possessions in Big Ten play, good for 3rd with Wisconsin nipping at their heels at 4th.
2. Offensive Rebounding. They grab 1 of every 3 rebounding opportunities on the offensive end, good for 3rd in Big Ten play.
3. Shooting 3s. They are 1st in Big Ten play at shooting triples, at a clip of 39% and make about 7 each game.
4. Blocking Shots. They are 1st in Big Ten play, blocking about 1 of every 11 2-point attempts by their opponents.
What Minnesota is really bad at:
1. Protecting the ball. They turn the ball over on 20.8% of their possessions in Big Ten play, which is 9th in the Big Ten.
2. Free throwing shooting. The Goofers shoot 69% from the line in conference play, which is second last in the Big Ten.
3. Defending the three. They allow Big Ten opponents to shoot 40.2% from beyond the arc, which is the worst in the conference.
Relative efficiency:
When Minnesota has the ball: Minnesota has scored the 6th best 1.03 PPP in their first 12 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league leading 0.94 in their first 13.
When UW has the ball: Minnesota has the fourth worst defensive PPP at 1.07 in their 12 Big Ten games, while UW has scored the fourth best 1.08 in their 13 Big Ten games.
Pace: Minnesota has played at 66 possessions per game so far in their 12 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in their 13 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Minnesota Good Wins = (N) Butler, Ohio State
Minnesota Bad Losses = @Indiana
UW Good Wins = (N) Maryland, Duke, Marquette, OSU, Purdue, MSU
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB
My expectations:
1. Blake Hoffarber scores 8 or less. J-Bo and Jordan shut down Diebler, so the Hoff shouldn’t be any more difficult of an assignment.
2. Jon Leuer and Keaton Nankivil score 20 or more. I think Jon makes a big splash in his first game back and Keaton takes advantage of the Minnesota’s twin towers being uncomfortable on the perimeter.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. J-Bo is on a hot streak, hitting 14 of his last 24, and is Minnesota is bad at defending treys.
4. Jordan Taylor scores more than 9 and dishes more than 4 assists. He shows Tubby why he shouldn’t have let him out of the state.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 62-52 in 55 possessions, putting the residents of Gopherhole on suicide watch.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Indiana Box Score Observations
Opening Comments: UW cruised to a decisive 83-55 win against an IU team that considers defense to be an optional pursuit, apparently. JBo lit them up for 30, but most everyone else had productive games as well.
I have been toying with the idea that the game is basically one of quantity and quality. If you get more shots, you win the quantity battle. If you make a better percentage, you win the quality battle. Last week against Illinois, we won the quantity battle and lost the quality battle by such a large margin we lost the game.
I am adding a section called Quantity and Quality. Let me know what you think and how it could be improved. It really is an extension of the opportunity index we worked up earlier.
Summarizing the game in a few words: IU gave UW 18 more chances to score and UW took them and made 28 more points.
Pace: The game featured 63 possessions, our 8th most of the year and 3rd most in conference (PU had 69, PSU 68 in OT). There were a lot of wide open looks. When you consider the number of possessions extended with offensive rebounds (15 for UW, 8 for IU), the game was pretty zippy.
Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? A major dose of both. UW scored at an incredible 1.32 PPP. Yikes! That was best in conference and third best for the year (in such company as Cal Poly – 1.38, UIC – 1.34, and ahead of Grambling St – 1.27.) To say IU does not have a B10 quality defense would be a conservative statement, I would think.
Meanwhile, IU shot well, but could not get shots up (21 TO’s) and posted a .87 PPP. I think it would have been worse except the last few minutes of the game got a little ragged and IU got some points.
Shooting: It is well documented that UW is a POT (perimeter oriented team) without Leuer. In this game, UW put up 40% our out shots from deep, 15th most out of 25 games. In conference we have been at 46%.
eFG%: IU hit a very good 51% eFG%. UW hit 59% eFG%.
3 pt shooting: The good news for IU was they hit 57% of their threes, the best for an opponent this year. The bad news was they only took 7, making 4. Meanwhile, made 10 of 25, or 40%. UW outscored IU by 18 at the arc.
2pt shooting: Inside the arc, IU was 16 of 36 for 44%. UW stroked 22 of 38 for 58%. So, UW took two more shots inside and scored 12 more points. That gave UW a +30 from the floor. Yikes!
1pt shooting: IU took 5 extra FTA’s, 16 to UW’s 11, and made 2 more - 11 to 9. So, IU got two points back at the line, not enough given the 30 they bled from the floor.
Rebounding: IU did pretty well getting offensive rebounds – UW was outstanding.
UW Defensive end: On UW’s defensive end, 26 rebounding opportunities resulted in 18 UW defensive boards and IU getting 8 offensive, or 31%. That is more than our usual 26%, but not bad.
UW Offensive End: IU clanked enough shots to give UW 7 more rebounding opportunities than IU got on their offensive end. UW took advantage and grabbed a stunning 15 offensive rebounds compared to IU’s 18 defensive boards. Given that IU got two of those on missed 1-and-1 free throw opportunities, UW got nearly as many misses as IU on UW’s missed FGA’s (IU 16 to UW 15). That is amazing for UW. They smelled blood in the water and went for it.
Turnovers: Turnovers separated the teams. IU had 21 of 33% of their possessions. Double yikes!! That must drive the IU faithful nuts.
UW had 10 for 16%, excellent as usual.
Opportunity Index: UW was +7 on offensive rebounds and +11 on turnovers for an OI of +18. That is stunning. No wonder this was a blow out.
Quantity and Quality: This is a new feature. I figure that basketball is about scoring and there are two ways to get it done: quantity (Take more shots) and quality (make more shots).
The Opportunity index helps describe the quantity. UW had 18 possessions to work with compared to IU (remember, we consider an offensive rebound an “anti turnover”). So, UW easily won the quantity battle. From a shot perspective, this is borne out. UW took 20 more FGA’s but had 3 (or 2? – IU took 5 extra free throws) fewer trips to the line.
Last game Illinois took fewer shots but made a bunch more (less quantity, more quality). This game, UW had a better eFG% (59 to 51), better FT% (82% to 69%), so we had superior quality possessions.
UW won both the quantity and quality aspects of the offense.
Fouls: IU fouled 18 times to UW’s 17. But, IU ended up shooting more FTA’s 16 to 11. Shetown, do you know if the ref’s checked the right garbage can for those unmarked bills?
Playing time: Bo played 8 ten minutes or more. Besides the starters, Evans got 14, Bruesewitz 18 and Wilson 17.
Crean also played 8 double digit minutes looking for a solution. None were to come.
Notable Performances: What can you say about JBo? He had yet another great game since being anointed my favorite player. He scored 30 on 16 FGA’s, 7-11 from deep, 1-2 from the line, 3 boards, and one TO. But, he also made my prediction come true and blocked a shot. JBO, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
Hughes scored 16 on 11 shots and Taylor got 11 on 13 shots (but negated two misses with offensive rebounds),
So, our three primary guards – JBO, Taylor and Hughes, were a combined 21 of 39 FGA’s, 10/21 from deep, 5/6 from the line, 6 boards – two offensive, scored 57 and had 5 TO’s. That comes to 57 points on 45 possessions for 1.27.
Bruesewitz played 18 minutes and grabbed an eye-popping 6 offensive rebounds, 7 total. The bad news was he had 4 fouls, so we cannot extrapolate those numbers to 40 minutes. But, a fine job none the less. Mike, you will be talked about around our fires for years to come.
For IU, Watford scored 15 on 12 shots, 7-8 from the line, three boards (one offensive) and was tagged for 3 TO’s. That gave him 15 points on 21 possessions .71 PPP. But, I would guess the announcers would simply focus on the 15 points.
In a similar manner, Jones scored in double figures – 11 – but needed 17 possessions to get there for .65 PPP.
I mentioned in Shetown’s pregame analysis that I thought Rivers would be better off if he switched to decaf. In this game, he scored 4 points but consumed 5 possessions or .8 PPP.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
My expectations:
1. Indiana takes 10 or less free throws. The money we stash in the third trash can left of the Nicholas-Johnson Pavilion rigs it for us again. Miss. They tried 16. Which trash can was it?
2. Jordan Taylor and Keaton Nankivil combine for 30 points or more. They make up for their previous performances with great afternoons against the Hoosiers. Miss, they got 20. But JBo and JP Gavinski combined for 30.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. They’ve been on a roll at threes lately with the exception of the desperation attempts at the end of the Illinois game, and I think it continues. Miss. They shot 40%. This was your weekly narrow miss. You truly have developed this into a fine art.
Shetown’s Prediction: The Badgers win 72-51 in 61 possessions, making Tom think that he should have stayed at the hotel and tanned instead of coming to the game. Hit. They cruise in at 83 to 55 in 63 possession, and Crean made a mad dash for the tanning salon.
Closing Thoughts: Last game I told them to make shots. They did. I wonder if that had anything to do with the quality of the competition?
Thursday’s game with Minnesota will be very big. If we win, we should win the subsequent games with NU at home, Iowa at home and Indiana on the road. That will make the showdown with Illinois that much more interesting.
Bo has done a fantastic job with this team. If Leuer can come back for Thursday’s game, that would be even better. He is one of our most efficient players.
I have been toying with the idea that the game is basically one of quantity and quality. If you get more shots, you win the quantity battle. If you make a better percentage, you win the quality battle. Last week against Illinois, we won the quantity battle and lost the quality battle by such a large margin we lost the game.
I am adding a section called Quantity and Quality. Let me know what you think and how it could be improved. It really is an extension of the opportunity index we worked up earlier.
Summarizing the game in a few words: IU gave UW 18 more chances to score and UW took them and made 28 more points.
Pace: The game featured 63 possessions, our 8th most of the year and 3rd most in conference (PU had 69, PSU 68 in OT). There were a lot of wide open looks. When you consider the number of possessions extended with offensive rebounds (15 for UW, 8 for IU), the game was pretty zippy.
Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? A major dose of both. UW scored at an incredible 1.32 PPP. Yikes! That was best in conference and third best for the year (in such company as Cal Poly – 1.38, UIC – 1.34, and ahead of Grambling St – 1.27.) To say IU does not have a B10 quality defense would be a conservative statement, I would think.
Meanwhile, IU shot well, but could not get shots up (21 TO’s) and posted a .87 PPP. I think it would have been worse except the last few minutes of the game got a little ragged and IU got some points.
Shooting: It is well documented that UW is a POT (perimeter oriented team) without Leuer. In this game, UW put up 40% our out shots from deep, 15th most out of 25 games. In conference we have been at 46%.
eFG%: IU hit a very good 51% eFG%. UW hit 59% eFG%.
3 pt shooting: The good news for IU was they hit 57% of their threes, the best for an opponent this year. The bad news was they only took 7, making 4. Meanwhile, made 10 of 25, or 40%. UW outscored IU by 18 at the arc.
2pt shooting: Inside the arc, IU was 16 of 36 for 44%. UW stroked 22 of 38 for 58%. So, UW took two more shots inside and scored 12 more points. That gave UW a +30 from the floor. Yikes!
1pt shooting: IU took 5 extra FTA’s, 16 to UW’s 11, and made 2 more - 11 to 9. So, IU got two points back at the line, not enough given the 30 they bled from the floor.
Rebounding: IU did pretty well getting offensive rebounds – UW was outstanding.
UW Defensive end: On UW’s defensive end, 26 rebounding opportunities resulted in 18 UW defensive boards and IU getting 8 offensive, or 31%. That is more than our usual 26%, but not bad.
UW Offensive End: IU clanked enough shots to give UW 7 more rebounding opportunities than IU got on their offensive end. UW took advantage and grabbed a stunning 15 offensive rebounds compared to IU’s 18 defensive boards. Given that IU got two of those on missed 1-and-1 free throw opportunities, UW got nearly as many misses as IU on UW’s missed FGA’s (IU 16 to UW 15). That is amazing for UW. They smelled blood in the water and went for it.
Turnovers: Turnovers separated the teams. IU had 21 of 33% of their possessions. Double yikes!! That must drive the IU faithful nuts.
UW had 10 for 16%, excellent as usual.
Opportunity Index: UW was +7 on offensive rebounds and +11 on turnovers for an OI of +18. That is stunning. No wonder this was a blow out.
Quantity and Quality: This is a new feature. I figure that basketball is about scoring and there are two ways to get it done: quantity (Take more shots) and quality (make more shots).
The Opportunity index helps describe the quantity. UW had 18 possessions to work with compared to IU (remember, we consider an offensive rebound an “anti turnover”). So, UW easily won the quantity battle. From a shot perspective, this is borne out. UW took 20 more FGA’s but had 3 (or 2? – IU took 5 extra free throws) fewer trips to the line.
Last game Illinois took fewer shots but made a bunch more (less quantity, more quality). This game, UW had a better eFG% (59 to 51), better FT% (82% to 69%), so we had superior quality possessions.
UW won both the quantity and quality aspects of the offense.
Fouls: IU fouled 18 times to UW’s 17. But, IU ended up shooting more FTA’s 16 to 11. Shetown, do you know if the ref’s checked the right garbage can for those unmarked bills?
Playing time: Bo played 8 ten minutes or more. Besides the starters, Evans got 14, Bruesewitz 18 and Wilson 17.
Crean also played 8 double digit minutes looking for a solution. None were to come.
Notable Performances: What can you say about JBo? He had yet another great game since being anointed my favorite player. He scored 30 on 16 FGA’s, 7-11 from deep, 1-2 from the line, 3 boards, and one TO. But, he also made my prediction come true and blocked a shot. JBO, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
Hughes scored 16 on 11 shots and Taylor got 11 on 13 shots (but negated two misses with offensive rebounds),
So, our three primary guards – JBO, Taylor and Hughes, were a combined 21 of 39 FGA’s, 10/21 from deep, 5/6 from the line, 6 boards – two offensive, scored 57 and had 5 TO’s. That comes to 57 points on 45 possessions for 1.27.
Bruesewitz played 18 minutes and grabbed an eye-popping 6 offensive rebounds, 7 total. The bad news was he had 4 fouls, so we cannot extrapolate those numbers to 40 minutes. But, a fine job none the less. Mike, you will be talked about around our fires for years to come.
For IU, Watford scored 15 on 12 shots, 7-8 from the line, three boards (one offensive) and was tagged for 3 TO’s. That gave him 15 points on 21 possessions .71 PPP. But, I would guess the announcers would simply focus on the 15 points.
In a similar manner, Jones scored in double figures – 11 – but needed 17 possessions to get there for .65 PPP.
I mentioned in Shetown’s pregame analysis that I thought Rivers would be better off if he switched to decaf. In this game, he scored 4 points but consumed 5 possessions or .8 PPP.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
My expectations:
1. Indiana takes 10 or less free throws. The money we stash in the third trash can left of the Nicholas-Johnson Pavilion rigs it for us again. Miss. They tried 16. Which trash can was it?
2. Jordan Taylor and Keaton Nankivil combine for 30 points or more. They make up for their previous performances with great afternoons against the Hoosiers. Miss, they got 20. But JBo and JP Gavinski combined for 30.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. They’ve been on a roll at threes lately with the exception of the desperation attempts at the end of the Illinois game, and I think it continues. Miss. They shot 40%. This was your weekly narrow miss. You truly have developed this into a fine art.
Shetown’s Prediction: The Badgers win 72-51 in 61 possessions, making Tom think that he should have stayed at the hotel and tanned instead of coming to the game. Hit. They cruise in at 83 to 55 in 63 possession, and Crean made a mad dash for the tanning salon.
Closing Thoughts: Last game I told them to make shots. They did. I wonder if that had anything to do with the quality of the competition?
Thursday’s game with Minnesota will be very big. If we win, we should win the subsequent games with NU at home, Iowa at home and Indiana on the road. That will make the showdown with Illinois that much more interesting.
Bo has done a fantastic job with this team. If Leuer can come back for Thursday’s game, that would be even better. He is one of our most efficient players.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Indiana Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: Tomorrow afternoon, the Badgers take on the Hoosiers of Indiana and head coach Tannin’ Cream. Indiana comes into the game with a record of 9-14 and 3-8 in the Big Ten. They are riding a 5-game losing streak and coming off a 69-52 drubbing at the hands of Ohio State.
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #12 and Indiana #163. He makes Wisconsin a 20-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #5 and Indiana #132. He predicts a 71-53 Badger victory in 62 possessions and gives the Badgers a 97% chance of winning.
Note: Sagarin and Pomeroy are unable to objectively calculate UW’s abilities with Jon Leuer out, so they don’t. However Pomeroy weighs his numbers towards more recent games so he is a bit more accurate in that regard, and Wisconsin has climbed in Pomeroy’s rankings since Jon has been out.
Indiana Rotation:
*G – 6’0” FR Jordan Hulls (6.0 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 1.7 APG, 1.5 SPG, 79% FT, 112.9 OR, 13% Poss, 14% Shot, 18% TO, 4% OffReb, 6% DefReb, 2.7 FTR, 75% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” JR Jeremiah Rivers (6.3 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.5 SPG, 81.0 OR, 19% Poss, 14% Shot, 30% TO, 3% OffReb, 16% DefReb, 5.9 FTR, 4% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” SO Verdell Jones (14.7 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 3.3 APG, 1.0 SPG, 98.2 OR, 28% Poss, 29% Shot, 17% TO, 3% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 4.8 FTR, 21% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” FR Christian Watford (12.5 PPG, 5.9 RPG, 81% FT, 94.6 OR, 26% Poss, 27% Shot, 19% TO, 8% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 4.3 FTR, 14% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” SO Tom Pritchard (5.0 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 62% 2PT, 102.4 OR, 13% Poss, 11% Shot, 24% TO, 9% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 5.5 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’2” SR Devan Dumes (6.7 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 1.1 APG, 1.0 SPG, 88.7 OR, 23% Poss, 25% Shot, 24% TO, 3% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 3.3 FTR, 60% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” FR Derek Elston (5.2 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 95.5 OR, 22% Poss, 23% Shot, 20% TO, 12% OffReb, 18% DefReb, 3.0 FTR, 17% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” FR Bobby Capobianco (1.9 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 90.5 OR, 14% Poss, 14% Shot, 19% TO, 12% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 3.4 FTR, 16% 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 (21% is average)
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)
FTR = # of free throws taken per 10 field goal attempts (3.76 is average)
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%
Where Are They Now? (Transfers Since Tom Crean Came To Indiana)
Nick Williams = Ole Miss
Malik Story = Nevada
Armon Bassett = Ohio
DeAndre Thomas = Robert Morris
Jamarcus Ellis = Oklahoma City University
Eli Holman = Detroit
Jordan Crawford = Xavier
Brandon McGee = Auburn
What Indiana is really good at:
1. Getting to the FT line. They get slightly more than 5 FTAs per 12 FGAs. This ranks 1st in the Big Ten and 75th in the nation.
2. Tanning. With making reservations at hotels with spas during away games and having a tanning bed for his home or office included in his contract, Tannin’ Tom can stay his favorite shade of orange throughout the season.
What Indiana is really bad at:
1. Protecting the ball. They turn the ball over on 21.7% of their possessions, which is 10th in the Big Ten and 232nd overall.
2. Pump faking. They get 13% of their two-pointers blocked, which is worst in the Big Ten and 334th in the nation.
3. Free throwing shooting. The Hoosiers shoot 67.4% from the line, which is last in the Big Ten and 219th in the nation.
4. Two-point shooting. They shoot 45.2% from inside the arc, which is worst in the conference and 256th overall.
5. Keeping opponents off the charity stripe. Their opponents attempt more than 4 free throws per 9 FGAs, which is worst in the Big Ten and 282nd overall.
6. Defensive Rebounding. They grab 65.3% of the rebounding opportunities on defense, which is good for last in the conference and 248th overall.
Relative efficiency:
When Indiana has the ball: Indiana has scored the league worst 0.94 PPP in their first 11 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league leading 0.94 in their first 12.
When UW has the ball: Indiana has the third worst defensive PPP at 1.07 in their 11 Big Ten games, while UW has scored the fourth best 1.06 in their 12 Big Ten games.
Pace: Indiana has played at 66 possessions per game so far in their 11 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in their 12 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Indiana Good Wins = (N) Pitt, Minnesota
Indiana Bad Losses = (N) Boston University, (N) George Mason, Loyola MD, Iowa
UW Good Wins = (N) Maryland, Duke, Marquette, OSU, Purdue, MSU
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB
My expectations:
1. Indiana takes 10 or less free throws. The money we stash in the third trash can left of the Nicholas-Johnson Pavilion rigs it for us again.
2. Jordan Taylor and Keaton Nankivil combine for 30 points or more. They make up for their previous performances with great afternoons against the Hoosiers.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. They’ve been on a roll at threes lately with the exception of the desperation attempts at the end of the Illinois game, and I think it continues.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 72-51 in 61 possessions, making Tom think that he should have stayed at the hotel and tanned instead of coming to the game.
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #12 and Indiana #163. He makes Wisconsin a 20-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #5 and Indiana #132. He predicts a 71-53 Badger victory in 62 possessions and gives the Badgers a 97% chance of winning.
Note: Sagarin and Pomeroy are unable to objectively calculate UW’s abilities with Jon Leuer out, so they don’t. However Pomeroy weighs his numbers towards more recent games so he is a bit more accurate in that regard, and Wisconsin has climbed in Pomeroy’s rankings since Jon has been out.
Indiana Rotation:
*G – 6’0” FR Jordan Hulls (6.0 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 1.7 APG, 1.5 SPG, 79% FT, 112.9 OR, 13% Poss, 14% Shot, 18% TO, 4% OffReb, 6% DefReb, 2.7 FTR, 75% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” JR Jeremiah Rivers (6.3 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.5 SPG, 81.0 OR, 19% Poss, 14% Shot, 30% TO, 3% OffReb, 16% DefReb, 5.9 FTR, 4% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” SO Verdell Jones (14.7 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 3.3 APG, 1.0 SPG, 98.2 OR, 28% Poss, 29% Shot, 17% TO, 3% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 4.8 FTR, 21% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” FR Christian Watford (12.5 PPG, 5.9 RPG, 81% FT, 94.6 OR, 26% Poss, 27% Shot, 19% TO, 8% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 4.3 FTR, 14% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” SO Tom Pritchard (5.0 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 62% 2PT, 102.4 OR, 13% Poss, 11% Shot, 24% TO, 9% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 5.5 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’2” SR Devan Dumes (6.7 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 1.1 APG, 1.0 SPG, 88.7 OR, 23% Poss, 25% Shot, 24% TO, 3% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 3.3 FTR, 60% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” FR Derek Elston (5.2 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 95.5 OR, 22% Poss, 23% Shot, 20% TO, 12% OffReb, 18% DefReb, 3.0 FTR, 17% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” FR Bobby Capobianco (1.9 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 90.5 OR, 14% Poss, 14% Shot, 19% TO, 12% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 3.4 FTR, 16% 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 (21% is average)
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)
FTR = # of free throws taken per 10 field goal attempts (3.76 is average)
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%
Where Are They Now? (Transfers Since Tom Crean Came To Indiana)
Nick Williams = Ole Miss
Malik Story = Nevada
Armon Bassett = Ohio
DeAndre Thomas = Robert Morris
Jamarcus Ellis = Oklahoma City University
Eli Holman = Detroit
Jordan Crawford = Xavier
Brandon McGee = Auburn
What Indiana is really good at:
1. Getting to the FT line. They get slightly more than 5 FTAs per 12 FGAs. This ranks 1st in the Big Ten and 75th in the nation.
2. Tanning. With making reservations at hotels with spas during away games and having a tanning bed for his home or office included in his contract, Tannin’ Tom can stay his favorite shade of orange throughout the season.
What Indiana is really bad at:
1. Protecting the ball. They turn the ball over on 21.7% of their possessions, which is 10th in the Big Ten and 232nd overall.
2. Pump faking. They get 13% of their two-pointers blocked, which is worst in the Big Ten and 334th in the nation.
3. Free throwing shooting. The Hoosiers shoot 67.4% from the line, which is last in the Big Ten and 219th in the nation.
4. Two-point shooting. They shoot 45.2% from inside the arc, which is worst in the conference and 256th overall.
5. Keeping opponents off the charity stripe. Their opponents attempt more than 4 free throws per 9 FGAs, which is worst in the Big Ten and 282nd overall.
6. Defensive Rebounding. They grab 65.3% of the rebounding opportunities on defense, which is good for last in the conference and 248th overall.
Relative efficiency:
When Indiana has the ball: Indiana has scored the league worst 0.94 PPP in their first 11 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league leading 0.94 in their first 12.
When UW has the ball: Indiana has the third worst defensive PPP at 1.07 in their 11 Big Ten games, while UW has scored the fourth best 1.06 in their 12 Big Ten games.
Pace: Indiana has played at 66 possessions per game so far in their 11 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in their 12 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Indiana Good Wins = (N) Pitt, Minnesota
Indiana Bad Losses = (N) Boston University, (N) George Mason, Loyola MD, Iowa
UW Good Wins = (N) Maryland, Duke, Marquette, OSU, Purdue, MSU
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB
My expectations:
1. Indiana takes 10 or less free throws. The money we stash in the third trash can left of the Nicholas-Johnson Pavilion rigs it for us again.
2. Jordan Taylor and Keaton Nankivil combine for 30 points or more. They make up for their previous performances with great afternoons against the Hoosiers.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. They’ve been on a roll at threes lately with the exception of the desperation attempts at the end of the Illinois game, and I think it continues.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 72-51 in 61 possessions, making Tom think that he should have stayed at the hotel and tanned instead of coming to the game.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Illinois Box Score Observations
Opening Comments: Congratulations to Illinois on a difficult but hard earned victory. They were losing 24-13 with 6:38 in the first half and then the shots started to drop. I believe they scored 20 points on their last 9 possessions of the half.
On Bo’s weekly TV show he mentioned (I paraphrase), “we try to get the points per possession we need.” So, to those who have resisted getting on the points per possession bandwagon, our coaching are all over the concept.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW got up more shots, Illinois made more shots.
Pace: The game had 56 possessions. UW has been playing at 58 possessions per game in conference play, fewest in the B10. Illinois has been at 68, tied for most in conference.
Efficiency: Was it good offense or good defense? Mostly poor UW defense, or good Illinois offense, take your pick, although our offense was below expectations.
Illinois scored 1.13 PPP. Illinois has been scoring at 1.04 PPP, #6 while UW has been giving up .93 PPP, #1 in conference. So, Illinois scored much better than might be expected.
UW scored 1.0 PPP. UW has been #4 in the league scoring 1.06 PPP. Illinois has been bleeding at .99 PPP, #4 in conference.
Shooting: UW paid the price for being a perimeter oriented team. We outscored them from the arc, gave it back inside the arc, and then lost it at the line. Perimeter oriented teams simply do not get to the line much.
eFG%: Illinois stroked it at a good 58%, second best of the year against us (PSU hit slightly better than 58%). On the other end, UW hit 46%, not nearly enough.
Illinois and UW have been pretty similar in shooting this year. Illinois has an eFG% of 50.6%(#5 in conference) while UW has 50.2% (#6).
3 pt shooting: UW was 11 of 29, or 38%. Illinois was 4 of 11 for 36%. So, UW picked up 21 points at the arc.
In conference, UW has been hitting at 33.3% while Illinois has been at 36.7% (#4).
2pt shooting: Illinois rocked inside the arc. They hit 20 of 24 for 59%. UW was a lowly 9 of 27 for 33%, our worst performance of the year inside the arc. Illinois made up the 21 points they gave up outside the arc and one scoring an extra 22 points inside the arc.
1pt shooting: At the line, Illinois was 11 of 15 while UW was a mere 5 of 9 or 56%. That gave Illinois a plus 6 from the line.
Rebounding: Rebounding was more or less a draw, despite Illinois winning the raw rebounding total 38 to 24. Both teams effectively defended the defensive glass. How can that be? UW clanked so many shots that Illinois was able to run up the raw numbers. Read on.
UW Defensive end: There were only 24 rebounding opportunities and Wisconsin got 7 or 29%.
UW allows opponents 25% of their rebounding opportunities, second fewest in league play (behind PSU’s 23%). Illinois has been crashing the offensive glass at 29%, good for #8 in conference and well below the national average of 33%.
UW Offensive End: With UW’s lousy shooting, there were an extra 14 opportunities and UW got 10 or 26%.
UW has been getting 25% of their misses in league play, worst in the league. Illinois defends the glass giving opponents 32% of their misses, an average number and #6 in conference.
Turnovers: UW enjoyed a substantial advantage in turnovers. Illinois had 10 for 18% while UW had only 6 or 11%. That gave UW a +4 rebounding margin.
On UW’s offensive end, UW has been giving up turnovers at a rate of 14%, #1 in conference. Illinois’ offense gives it up at 18%. So, 6 for 11% was better than expected.
On UW’s defensive end, UW does a decent job of forcing turnovers getting their opponents to cough it up 20% of the time, #6 in conference. When Illinois has the ball, they protect the ball fairly well and give it up at 18%, #4 in conference. Illinois having 18% was right on schedule.
Opportunity Index: UW was plus 4 on turnovers and plus 3 on offensive rebounds giving an Opportunity Index of +7.
UW took 11 more FGA’s and 6 fewer FTA’s, 3 fewer trips, giving UW 8 more possessions that ended with a shot. That is a big advantage in a 56 possession game, if you make your shots.
Here is a look at the team Opportunity Index in B10 play before the game:
Team | Offensive Rebound Margin | Turnover Margin | Opportunity Index |
Ohio State | 1.1 | 2.7 | 3.8 |
Wisconsin | 0.3 | 3.3 | 3.6 |
Michigan | -0.3 | 1 | 0.7 |
Northwestern | -0.6 | 1 | 0.4 |
Minnesota | -0.9 | 0.9 | 0 |
Purdue | -2.3 | 2.2 | -0.1 |
Michigan State | 2.8 | -3.2 | -0.4 |
Penn State | 2.8 | -3.4 | -0.6 |
Indiana | -0.2 | -0.5 | -0.7 |
Iowa | -0.2 | -3 | -3.2 |
Illinois | -2.7 | -0.6 | -3.3 |
Fouls: Both teams got whistled for 15.
UW has been fouling at 15.8/game (#3 in conference) and getting their opponents to foul at 16.5 (#7).
Playing time: Bo shortened the bench to 6 players with 10 or more minutes. All the starters played more than 30.
Bruce Weber played 7 ten or more.
Notable Performances: JBo had a nice line scoring 15 on 10 FGA’s, no free throws, and 6 boards. He had two turnovers. That was 15 on 12 possessions or 1.25 PPP. Ever since I anointed him my favorite player he has performed admirably. JBo, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
Jarmusz got 5 on 3 shots, one trip to the line, 3 boards and no turnovers.
Taylor and Hughes combined for 20 points, but needed 25 FGA’s to get there. They had 4 TO’s between them, which was negated by 4 offensive rebounds, 6 total. That gave them a combined .8 PPP.
Wilson got 7 on 4 shots, but was an uncharacteristic 2-5 from the line.
Keaton scored 9 on 14 shots, six boards (3 offensive), and no turnovers.
For Illinois, it was all about McCamey and Tisdale, and their pick and roll/pop play. McC scored 27 on 17 shots, chipped in two boards, but had 5 turnovers. That gave him 27 on 22 possessions or 1.22 PPP.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Illinois takes 9 or less free throws. As a primarily jump shooting team and the Badgers not fouling ways, Illinois shouldn’t get to the line much. Miss. Illinois made 11 on 15 tries.
2. Trevon Hughes and Jordan Taylor combine for 26 points or more. McCamey and Richardson are great offensive players, but are suspect on defense against dribble penetration. Miss. They combined for 20. That was not enough.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. They’ve been on a roll at threes lately, and I think it continues despite Illinois’ great defense. Miss. They were at 38%. They hit 55% in the first half and then cooled off to 28% in the second.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 68-58 in 61 possessions. Miss. UW scored 56 to Illinois’s 63 in 56 possessions.
Closing Thoughts: Make shots.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Illinois Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: Another game, another 18 point win. Something tells me Illinois won’t be as easy as the brothers Michigan. The Illini are coming into the game at 16-8 and riding a 4-game winning streak, including a 5 point win over the Lucas-less Spartans with College Gameday on campus.
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #9 and Illinois #62. He makes Wisconsin a 12-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #4 and Illinois #54. He predicts a 68-56 Badger victory in 61 possessions and gives the Badgers a 90% chance of winning.
Note: Sagarin and Pomeroy are unable to objectively calculate UW’s abilities with Jon Leuer out, so they don’t. However Pomeroy weighs his numbers towards more recent games so he is a bit more accurate in that regard.
Illinois Rotation:
*G – 6’3” JR Demetri McCamey (15.1 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 6.2 APG, 1.5 SPG, 55% 2PT, 108.6 OR, 26% Poss, 22% Shot, 22% TO, 2% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 4.5 FTR, 36% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’3” FR D.J. Richardson (11.1 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 2.7 APG, 44% 3PT, 78% FT, 109.6 OR, 18% Poss, 19% Shot, 19% TO, 2% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 3.4 FTR, 53% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’4” FR Brandon Paul (8.6 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 1.4 APG, 1.0 SPG, 96.6 OR, 26% Poss, 29% Shot, 15% TO, 7% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 3.0 FTR, 45% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” JR Mike Davis (10.5 PPG, 8.7 RPG, 1.1 APG, 102.3 OR, 19% Poss, 22% Shot, 12% TO, 9% OffReb, 24% DefReb, 2.2 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
*C – 7’1” JR Mike Tisdale (11.9 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 1.8 BPG, 58% 2PT, 83% FT, 117.7 OR, 20% Poss, 20% Shot, 16% TO, 9% OffReb, 17% DefReb, 4.6 FTR, 0.6% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” JR Bill Cole (4.0 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 1.1 APG, 63% 2PT, 119.5 OR, 11% Poss, 12% Shot, 14% TO, 7% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 2.1 FTR, 56% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’1” JR Jeff Jordan (1.8 PPG, 1.7 RPG, 2.2 APG, 93.2 OR, 11% Poss, 7% Shot, 33% TO, 3% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 1.6 FTR, 16% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’7” SR Dominique Keller (6.0 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 53% 2PT, 101.0 OR, 23% Poss, 26% Shot, 17% TO, 7% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 2.1 FTR, 22% 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 (21% is average)
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)
FTR = # of free throws taken per 10 field goal attempts (3.76 is average)
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 Illinois is really good at:
1. Pump faking. They get slightly less than 1 in 20 two-point attempts. This ranks 1st in the Big Ten and 1st in the nation.
2. Defending beyond the arc. Their opponents are the 18th worst in the nation in 3-point percentage at 29.5%. This is 1st in the Big Ten.
3. Blocking shots. The Illini are 58th in the nation, blocking two out of every 17 of their opponents’ two-point attempts. They are 3rd in the Big Ten.
What Illinois is really bad at:
1. Getting to the line. They attempt only 4 free throws to every 13 shot attempts. This is 9th in the Big Ten and 313rd in the nation.
2. Forcing turnovers. They only force 5 turnovers every 26 possessions, good for 240th in the nation and 9th in the Big Ten.
Relative efficiency:
When Illinois has the ball: Illinois has scored the league median 1.04 PPP in their first 11 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league leading 0.93 in their first 11.
When UW has the ball: Illinois has the fourth best defensive PPP at 0.99 in their 11 Big Ten games, while UW has scored the third best 1.06 in their 11 Big Ten games.
Pace: Illinois has played at 67 possessions per game so far in their 11 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in their 11 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Illinois Good Wins = @Clemson, Vanderbilt, MSU
Illinois Bad Losses = (N) Utah, (N) Bradley
UW Good Wins = (N) Maryland, Duke, Marquette, OSU, Purdue, MSU
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB
My expectations:
1. Illinois takes 9 or less free throws. As a primarily jump shooting team and the Badgers not fouling ways, Illinois shouldn’t get to the line much.
2. Trevon Hughes and Jordan Taylor combine for 26 points or more. McCamey and Richardson are great offensive players, but are suspect on defense against dribble penetration.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. They’ve been on a roll at threes lately, and I think it continues despite Illinois’ great defense.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 68-58 in 61 possessions.
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #9 and Illinois #62. He makes Wisconsin a 12-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #4 and Illinois #54. He predicts a 68-56 Badger victory in 61 possessions and gives the Badgers a 90% chance of winning.
Note: Sagarin and Pomeroy are unable to objectively calculate UW’s abilities with Jon Leuer out, so they don’t. However Pomeroy weighs his numbers towards more recent games so he is a bit more accurate in that regard.
Illinois Rotation:
*G – 6’3” JR Demetri McCamey (15.1 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 6.2 APG, 1.5 SPG, 55% 2PT, 108.6 OR, 26% Poss, 22% Shot, 22% TO, 2% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 4.5 FTR, 36% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’3” FR D.J. Richardson (11.1 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 2.7 APG, 44% 3PT, 78% FT, 109.6 OR, 18% Poss, 19% Shot, 19% TO, 2% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 3.4 FTR, 53% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’4” FR Brandon Paul (8.6 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 1.4 APG, 1.0 SPG, 96.6 OR, 26% Poss, 29% Shot, 15% TO, 7% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 3.0 FTR, 45% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” JR Mike Davis (10.5 PPG, 8.7 RPG, 1.1 APG, 102.3 OR, 19% Poss, 22% Shot, 12% TO, 9% OffReb, 24% DefReb, 2.2 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
*C – 7’1” JR Mike Tisdale (11.9 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 1.8 BPG, 58% 2PT, 83% FT, 117.7 OR, 20% Poss, 20% Shot, 16% TO, 9% OffReb, 17% DefReb, 4.6 FTR, 0.6% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” JR Bill Cole (4.0 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 1.1 APG, 63% 2PT, 119.5 OR, 11% Poss, 12% Shot, 14% TO, 7% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 2.1 FTR, 56% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’1” JR Jeff Jordan (1.8 PPG, 1.7 RPG, 2.2 APG, 93.2 OR, 11% Poss, 7% Shot, 33% TO, 3% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 1.6 FTR, 16% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’7” SR Dominique Keller (6.0 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 53% 2PT, 101.0 OR, 23% Poss, 26% Shot, 17% TO, 7% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 2.1 FTR, 22% 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 (21% is average)
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)
FTR = # of free throws taken per 10 field goal attempts (3.76 is average)
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 Illinois is really good at:
1. Pump faking. They get slightly less than 1 in 20 two-point attempts. This ranks 1st in the Big Ten and 1st in the nation.
2. Defending beyond the arc. Their opponents are the 18th worst in the nation in 3-point percentage at 29.5%. This is 1st in the Big Ten.
3. Blocking shots. The Illini are 58th in the nation, blocking two out of every 17 of their opponents’ two-point attempts. They are 3rd in the Big Ten.
What Illinois is really bad at:
1. Getting to the line. They attempt only 4 free throws to every 13 shot attempts. This is 9th in the Big Ten and 313rd in the nation.
2. Forcing turnovers. They only force 5 turnovers every 26 possessions, good for 240th in the nation and 9th in the Big Ten.
Relative efficiency:
When Illinois has the ball: Illinois has scored the league median 1.04 PPP in their first 11 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league leading 0.93 in their first 11.
When UW has the ball: Illinois has the fourth best defensive PPP at 0.99 in their 11 Big Ten games, while UW has scored the third best 1.06 in their 11 Big Ten games.
Pace: Illinois has played at 67 possessions per game so far in their 11 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in their 11 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Illinois Good Wins = @Clemson, Vanderbilt, MSU
Illinois Bad Losses = (N) Utah, (N) Bradley
UW Good Wins = (N) Maryland, Duke, Marquette, OSU, Purdue, MSU
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB
My expectations:
1. Illinois takes 9 or less free throws. As a primarily jump shooting team and the Badgers not fouling ways, Illinois shouldn’t get to the line much.
2. Trevon Hughes and Jordan Taylor combine for 26 points or more. McCamey and Richardson are great offensive players, but are suspect on defense against dribble penetration.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. They’ve been on a roll at threes lately, and I think it continues despite Illinois’ great defense.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 68-58 in 61 possessions.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Michigan 2.0 Box Score Observations
Opening Comments: Yet another great resume building win for UW. I guess you can look at it after the fact and say they easily outmatched a dispirited UM team. But, all road wins are great wins and winning 66-44 – by 18 – on their floor is a big win indeed. Doing it on national TV gets style points.
UW’s guards destroyed UM (see notable performances below). Being a perimeter oriented team is not a bad deal when your shots are going down.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW shot lights-out from deep and buried UM.
Pace: The game had 50 possessions, our fewest of the year (tied with @NU).
If you look at Pomeroy’s stats (Link), note that everything has a ranking and a color code to show good versus bad, except pace. You might have a personal preference for the pace you like to watch, but there is no sense of good or bad from a statistical sense. It is simply a descriptor necessary to add context to the game. Try to avoid using words like "better" or "improve" when referring to pace.
Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? It was a major dose of both.
When UM had the ball, they scored at .88 PPP. They average 1.00 in B10 play (#6). UW has given up .93 in B10 play (#1). It was our third best in conference (.81 @PSU, home with Michigan .83).
UW scored a fantastic 1.24 PPP. That matched our output against MSU to cap a great offensive week. We have averaged 1.05 (#4 in conference) and UM tends to bleed at .98 PPP (#6). That is a great offensive day any way you cut it.
Here is a look at the efficiency margins for conference games only (not counting this weekend):
Efficency Margin
Wis 0.12
MSU 0.10
OSU 0.09
PU 0.08
Illini 0.05
Mich 0.02
Minn (0.04)
NU (0.06)
Ind (0.10)
Iowa (0.13)
PSU (0.15)
Shooting: Both teams hit about the same percentage inside the arc and at the line, but UW killed from the arc.
eFG%: UW had a stunning 67%, our second best of the year. UW, in conference, has been shooting at 48.8 eFG% (#7). UM defense has been giving up 48.2.
On the other end, UM had an eFG% of 46%. UW gives their opponents 46.2, #3 in conference. UM hits 48.2%, #6.
3 pt shooting: UM hit 2-11 for 18%. That is really bad, particularly for a typically perimeter oriented team. Although, they normally don’t shoot well hitting 29%. In this game, UM only took 28% of their shots from deep, less than their typical 44% (#11 in nation).
Meanwhile, UW was lights-out from deep. UW hit 11 of 21 for 52% from deep. So, UW invested 10 extra shots from deep and was rewarded with 9 extra baskets or 27 point advantage from deep. Yikes!
2pt shooting: UM was a tough 15 of 28 inside the arc. UW took 8 fewer shots (20) and made 4 fewer (11) giving UM an extra 8 points inside the arc. UW and UM had similar shooting percentages (UW-55%; UM-54%).
1pt shooting: Neither team shot well from the line. UM was 8-14 for 57%. UW 7-12 for 58%.
Rebounding: UW ruled the boards on both sides.
UW Defensive end: When Michigan shot, there were 25 rebounding opportunities and UW got 21 (84%) leaving UM only 4 (16%). That is defensive board domination. In conference play, UW has been grabbing 76% of the misses, which is #1 in conference. UM gets 68%, which is #7.
UW Offensive End: When UW shot, there were 23 rebounding opportunities and UW got 8, or 35%. That is a good day by UW standards. UW gets 24%, worst in conference.
UW had a plus four offensive rebound advantage.
Turnovers: Michigan won the turnover battle 8 to 11.
UW had four shot clock violations. I guess when you win by 18, it is no big deal. UW has been averaging 7.9 per game in conference. That is #1, and by a wide margin. The next best is NU at 10.1.
UM beat their average by 4. UM has been averaging 12.0, which is #4 in conference. UW has actually been pretty good in conference generating 11.9 TO’s/game (#6). Normally, we do not get many and do not offer many turnovers. So, a +4 average is most welcomed.
Opportunity Index: UW had a plus 1 OI. The interesting thing was we got it the wrong way – Plus 4 offensive rebounds and minus 3 turnovers. We usually get more turnovers and fewer offensive rebounds. Oh well …
UW took 2 more FGA’s and had 2 fewer FTA, which translates to 1 trip to the line. So, combining the two concepts, UW had one extra possession that ended on a shot and that was due to offensive rebounds. Make sense?
Fouls: UW picked up 14 fouls and UM 11. In conference, we had been averaging 16 (#4 in conference) and our opponents 17 (#6). The odd thing was that there were only three fouls in the first half – 2 for UW, one for UM. Fouling is not the advantage it was a few years ago (Tucker/Taylor years).
Playing time: Bo went 7 deep with Wilson getting 20 and Evans getting 16. Nankivil played only 25 due to foul trouble that came on fast in the second half.
Meanwhile, Michigan played only 5 ten or more minutes.
Notable Performances: I am feeling good about picking Jason Bohannon as my favorite player. He came up big the second game in a row scoring 18 on 11 shots, four rebounds, 5 assists and one turnover. JBO scored 18 on 12 possessions for 1.5 PPP. JBo, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
Trevon got 14 on only 6 shots, four boards, but missed 4 free throws and had one turnover. Hughes had 1.4 PPP.
The third guard had a nice day – Taylor scored 13 on 6 FGA’s, 2-4 from the line, 6 rebounds including two offensive, and an uncharacteristic 2 turnovers. That gave Taylor 1.63 PPP.
Adding the three starting guards together, they scored 45 points on 23 FGA’s, 5 trips to the line, two offensive rebounds, 4 turnovers giving them 45 on 30 possessions for 1.5 PPP.
Keaton scored 9 on 8 shots and had 5 boards in 25 minutes.
Sims got 18 points on 15 FGA’s, two one trip to the line, got two offensive boards and two turnovers giving hit 18 on 16 possessions. That is 1.13 PPP.
Harris scored 11 on 11 shots, two trips to the line, and two turnovers giving his 11 on 13 possessions or .85PPP. Jarmusz and Wilson did a fine job on Harris.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Manny Harris scores less than 15. Timmy J and Ryan team up to frustrate Harris into a shooting night similar to his last 4 contests against the Badgers, in which he has shot a net-scorching 24.5% from the field. Hit. Harris got 11. Wilson spent some time guarding him effectively.
2. Trevon Hughes scores more than 16. He has been an assassin against Michigan lately, scoring 20, 19, and 16 in his past three games against them. Miss. Hughes got 14. When I saw this prediction I figured the Basketball Gods would give him exactly 16 just to keep your record of near misses going.
3. Badgers grab 78% or more of the defensive rebounding opportunities. Michigan doesn’t focus on offensive rebounding and Wisconsin is 3rd in the nation in defensive rebounding. Hit. UW did even better getting 84%/
4. Badgers hold Michigan to 45% or less inside the arc. This is Wisconsin’s strength and Michigan is too perimeter-oriented. Miss. UM got 54% inside.
Note: I don’t rephrase what I write because I mean what number I write. If I rephrased it, I would change the number accordingly. I just tend to be off by a hair.
Shetown’s Prediction: The Badgers win 63-54 in 60 possessions. Hit. You got the UW part right (62 actually), but UM only got 44. And, they only had 50 possessions.
Closing Thoughts: UW is going to have to play well to beat a resurgent Illinois team on Tuesday. I was torn who to cheer for with MSU and Illinois. My head said Illinois but I have a hard time doing that. Anyway, a win against Illinois will put them firmly in the rear view mirror.
UW keeps finding was to get to done without Leuer. I bet teams get back to the locker room and wonder how they lost by 18 to these guys. But, Bo finds a way. He truly is a hall of fame coach.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
George Marshall Commits to the Badgers!
Well, it's two weeks late, but Chicago Brooks College Prep point guard George Marshall has committed to Wisconsin! He is the second verbal commit to the Badger 2011 class, along with forward Devon Hodges.Marshall is considered one of the top 3 or 4 point guards in his class within the state of Illinois. The strengths in his game currently are his midrange shooting, handle, and defense. He is inconsistent from the arc and has trouble finishing among the trees, but is working on improving those areas. He is a decent athlete and long for his height, with a very coach-able personality and has a decent basketball IQ. He has been compared to Jordan Taylor with better shooting skills at the same time in their development. If that holds true, Wisconsin is set at the point guard position for until 2015! Also, apparently his father is around 6'4", and given his baby-face, he may not be done growing either. Now hopefully we can just land Markus Crider, Traevon Jackson, or the longshot Chasson Randle.
Michigan 2.0 Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: Saturday, Wisconsin will complete it’s round-robin with the state of Michigan when they visit the dump of a basketball venue known as the Crisler Arena. In their previous meeting this season, the Badgers had to finish the game on a 24-9 run to win 54-48. Head Coach John Beilein has not been victorious against the Badgers in his tenure at Michigan. Michigan has had some troubles this season, as they started the season ranked and ran out to a 3-0 record, but they followed that up with a 3 game losing streak. They currently sit at 11-11 (4-6) and will be hard-pressed to make the NIT. Hate to gloat, but I did question the reasoning behind their ranking and didn’t think they’d improve much, if at all.What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #11 and Michigan #94. He makes Wisconsin a 5-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #5 and Michigan #73. He predicts a 58-53 Badger victory in 57 possessions and gives the Badgers a 74% chance of winning.
Note: Sagarin and Pomeroy are unable to objectively calculate UW’s abilities with Jon Leuer out, so they don’t. However Pomeroy weighs his numbers towards more recent games so he is a bit more accurate in that regard.
Michigan Rotation:
*G – 6’3” SO Laval Lucas-Perry (5.9 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 2.0 APG, 97.9 OR, 15% Poss, 14% Shot, 22% TO, 3% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 2.8 FTR, 68% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’3” SO Stu Douglass (6.9 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 2.7 APG, 1.0 SPG, 81% FT, 96.3 OR, 16% Poss, 17% Shot, 17% TO, 1% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 1.4 FTR, 76% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” SO Zack Novak (7.4 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 1.6 APG, 1.0 SPG, 55% 2PT, 105.5 OR, 14% Poss, 16% Shot, 12% TO, 6% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 1.6 FTR, 67% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” JR Manny Harris (18.7 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 4.2 APG, 1.9 SPG, 52% 2PT, 79% FT, 109.4 OR, 30% Poss, 28% Shot, 16% TO, 7% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 4.4 FTR, 36% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR DeShawn Sims (17.0 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 1.2 SPG, 1.0 APG, 54% 2PT, 111.6 OR, 27% Poss, 31% Shot, 10% TO, 10% OffReb, 18% DefReb, 2.4 FTR, 18% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’4” FR Darius Morris (4.2 PPG, 2.5 APG, 1.7 RPG, 83.0 OR, 15% Poss, 12% Shot, 30% TO, 2% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 3.4 FTR, 32% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’10” SR Zack Gibson (3.6 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 64% 2PT, 77% FT, 114.6 OR, 21% Poss, 19% Shot, 16% TO, 14% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 5.0 FTR, 19% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’4” FR Matt Vogrich (2.1 PPG, 41% 3PT, 91.2 OR, 17% Poss, 19% Shot, 24% TO, 4% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 0.8 FTR, 65% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’6” JR Anthony Wright (1.6 PPG, 1.2 RPG, 80.0 OR, 16% Poss, 17% Shot, 20% TO, 6% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 1.1 FTR, 65% 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 (21% is average)
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)
FTR = # of free throws taken per 10 field goal attempts (3.76 is average)
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. Not sending opponents to the line. Their opponents only attempt 4 free throws for every 15 field goal attempts. This ranks 1st in the Big Ten and 11th in the nation.
2. Taking Care of the ball. They are 20th in the nation at avoiding turnovers, with a rate of 17.2%. This is 3rd in the Big Ten.
3. Forcing Turnovers. The Wolverines are 38th in the nation, forcing a rate of 23.9%. They are 3rd in the Big Ten.
4. Defending the 3 ball. They allow opponents to shoot only 30.5% from beyond the arc. This is 3rd in the Big Ten and 37th in the nation.
5. Shooting free throws. They are 61st in the nation and 3rd in the Big Ten, shooting 72.5% from the charity stripe. Unfortunately for them, they don’t get there much.
6. Getting steals. They get a steal once every 9 defensive possessions, good for 77th in the nation and 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 29.2% from beyond the arc, 325th in the nation and dead last in the Big Ten.
3. Defending inside the arc. They allow opponents to shoot 50.4% from 2. That is good for 276th in the nation and 10th in the Big Ten. They also only block 2 two-point attempts out of 29, which is 271st in the nation and 9th in the Big Ten.
4. Defensive Rebounding. The Wolverines grab 66.3% of all rebounding opportunities, which is 205th in the nation and 10th in the Big Ten.
Relative Efficiency:
When Michigan has the ball: Michigan has scored a slightly below average 1.00 PPP in their first 10 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league leading 0.93 in their first 10.
When UW has the ball: Michigan has given up an slightly above average 0.98 in their 10 Big Ten games, while UW has scored an above average 1.05 in their 10 Big Ten games.
Pace: Michigan has played at 61 possessions per game so far in their 10 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 59 in their 10 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
UM Good Wins = OSU, UConn
UM Bad Losses = @ Utah, @ Indiana
UW Good Wins = (N) Maryland, Duke, Marquette, OSU, Purdue, MSU
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB
My Expectations:
1. Manny Harris scores less than 15. Timmy J and Ryan team up to frustrate Harris into a shooting night similar to his last 4 contests against the Badgers, in which he has shot a net-scorching 24.5% from the field.
2. Trevon Hughes scores more than 16. He has been an assassin against Michigan lately, scoring 20, 19, and 16 in his past three games against them.
3. Badgers grab 78% or more of the defensive rebounding opportunities. Michigan doesn’t focus on offensive rebounding and Wisconsin is 3rd in the nation in defensive rebounding.
4. Badgers hold Michigan to 45% or less inside the arc. This is Wisconsin’s strength and Michigan is too perimeter-oriented.
Note: I don’t rephrase what I write because I mean what number I write. If I rephrased it, I would change the number accordingly. I just tend to be off by a hair.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 63-54 in 60 possessions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)