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.

No comments:

Post a Comment