Opening Comments: Ugh. I am not here to tell you why this happened but what happened. In short, we played a good game offensively which would have won almost any game this year, but we got blown out by a superior offense.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW shot 10 extra three pointers and missed them all. Cornell shot 15 extra two point shots and made 9 for the winning margin.
Pace: The game was played at a moderate 60 possessions, at least moderate by UW’s standards. We have been at 60 overall, 58 in conference.
Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Clearly a complete and total defensive breakdown (or fantastic offense by Cornell, take your pick). Cornell scored at 1.45 PPP. Yikes!!!! We had been allowing .94. Where did that come from?
That was our worst defensive performance of the year, by a lot. At Minnesota we gave up 1.31 PPP and then you have to go down to 1.17 against Northwestern and Gonzaga.
To those of you who always look to offense and wonder why we did not outscore the opposition (Why doesn’t Jarmusz score more, what happened to JBO …), our best offensive performance of the year was Cal Poly where we put up 1.38. So, we would have lost on our best offensive day of the year.
UW scored 1.15 PPP, our 16th best of the year out of 33 games. That would have won all but four games this year. I hope that convinces anyone who does not yet believe that we did well on offense but our defense collapsed.
Shooting: UW shot very well. Cornell was off the top of the charts.
eFG%: Cornell hit an eFG% of 69%, the best for an opponent all year. We had been giving up 46%. That is a killer. Cornell did not miss.
UW hit a very good 59%, better than our typically good 52%. So, yes, we had a good day shooting the ball.
3 pt shooting: Cornell hit 8 of 15, 53% for the 4th best this year by an opponent. Meanwhile, UW hit 8 of 25 for 32%, which is not good but only slightly below our average of 36%. UW invested an additional 10 shots and got no more points from deep. Scoring outside the arc was a draw with each team getting 24 points from deep.
2pt shooting: Cornell and UW had similar efficiencies within the arc (Cornell hit 64% while UW was slightly better 67%), but Cornell put up 39 shots to UW’s 24. Those 15 extra shots got Cornell 18 points, the winning margin.
1pt shooting: It was more or less a draw from the free throw line. Cornell tried 16 and made 13 (81%) while UW tried one more (17) and also made 13 (76%).
If you combine the rebounding and the shooting numbers things get even better for Cornell. They were 33-54 from the floor, or they missed only 19 shots from the floor and but 3 free throws. They got 9 offensive rebounds, which have the effect of negating a missed shot. So, assuming all Cornell’s offensive rebounds were on missed field goals, they were 33 of 45 from the floor, 73%. That is stunning.
Rebounding: Cornell dominated the offensive glass and did a good job of protecting their defensive glass.
UW Defensive end: There were 22 rebounding opportunities and Cornell got 9, or 41%. That is our second worst job of the year protecting the glass. Regular readers will remember that the national average for offensive rebounding is 33% and UW is a national leader allowing 25%. This was yet another area where UW had a collapse.
UW Offensive End: There were 28 opportunities and UW got 8 or 29%. That is pretty average for us (18th out of 32 games).
Turnovers: UW lost the turnover battle by two – 10 to 8. Cornell turned it over 13% of the time and UW 17%. Seventeen percent is slightly higher than our normal 15%, but not bad.
Opportunity Index: Cornell won the OI by 3. They had one extra offensive rebound and two extra turnovers go their way. Amazingly, -3 was our 3rd worst OI performance of the year. Our opponents won the OI only 8 times this year in 33 games. We have dominated that stat.
Fouls: Cornell fouled just 14 times, (5th fewest by an opponent) and UW 16, our average. UW ended up with one extra FTA.
Playing time: UW went 7 deep, but Keaton was not one of them. He only played 5 minutes, picking up 4 fouls in that time. Evans got 27 and Jarmusz 17. Wilson got 8, Berggren 5 and Bruesewitz chipped in one.
Notable Performances: No one had a good day defensively, which the most notable this about the day’s performances.
On offense , Leuer was a sparkling 8-12 from the floor, 2-3 from deep, 5-8 from the line, four boards and no TO’s which all added up to 23 points (23 points, 15 possessions for 1.53 PPP). He could have been playing for Cornell with numbers like that. Jon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
JBo snapped out of his slump hitting 18 points on 15 FGA’s, one trip to the line, one board and one turnover. JBo, thanks for the memories, my people salute you for a career well done.
Trevon went out on one of his lesser offensive days. His scoring was good getting 10 points on 8 FGA’s, one trip to the line, and 3 boards. But, he had butterfingers losing 6 turnovers. When you lose by 18, six turnovers were not decisive. My people salute you as well and give you a hearty cheer for the great work and enjoyment your have brought us.
For Cornell, well, they all did well. My people salute you too, reluctantly.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Jason Bohannon breaks through his shooting slump and worst outing of the year (0 pts), scoring at least 12 points. He’s only netted 10% (2/20) in the past 3 games and will return to his previous hot streak (61% and 17.4 PPG in 8 games). Hit. JBo drops 18, although his deep ball was only 2 of 10.
2. Cornell shoots below 38% from beyond the arc. I think “the live by the 3, die by the 3” team dies against Wisconsin for once in the tournament. Miss. Try 53%.
3. Leuer continues his hot streak, notching at least 15 points. He is just unstoppable inside 10 feet right now. Hit. Leuer was a trooper getting 23 from all over the floor.
4. Badgers grab more than 75% of all rebounding opportunities on the defensive end. After giving up some costly offensive boards to Wofford, Wisconsin refocuses their rebounding efforts against Cornell. Miss, barely. We got 71%. It was the other end of the floor that was a problem.
My Prediction: The Badger pull it out, 61-57 in 55 possessions in another heart palpitation-inducing finish. Miss. Cornell 87 UW 69 in 60.
Closing Thoughts: Cornell was unstoppable. I will be interested to see how they do against Kentucky. It should be a hoot.
It has been a good ride for UW. Too bad it had to end this way. As I have repeated this week, the fun things about tournament time are the upsets. It is best when you are doing the upsetting, but sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you. Buck up and enjoy the good memories from a good year.
I am assuming it is the few loyal readers that made it this far. To you, I say thanks for reading. I hope we have been able to improve our understanding of the game through this form of analysis. To you who do not appreciate or agree this form of analysis is helpful, well, I doubt you are reading this. But, I respect your opinion. Some people would rather trust their eyes and not be bothered by numbers. Good luck to you too.
Let’s not lose sight of what Bo accomplished this year. He lost Krabbenhoft and Landry and still put out a great team that darn near won the B10. He had a great defensive rebounding team without those two, which I was surprised to see. We should have a good team next year as well. Bruesewitz, Berggren, Evans, Wilson and others will pick up the load and fill in the cogs in the machine. Bo, my people salute you.
And thanks to all who pointed out those annoying typos and screw ups. i salute you!
Monday, March 22, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Wofford Box Score Observations
Opening Comments: Whew.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW parlayed a very low turnover rate into extra shots, particularly FTA’s, to eke out a 4 point win.
Pace: The game had 56 possessions. That is fewer than our normal 60, 58 in B10 play.
Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Definitely defense. Wofford scored .88 PPP compared to UW’s .95. In our 32 games, that was our 7th worst offensive performance (we usually are at 1.12, 1.09 in B10 play).
Holding Wofford to .88 was our 12th best defensive performance, however. We have been giving up .94 PPP, so it was only slightly better than our typically excellent defense.
Shooting: UW won because of quantity, not quality shooting. Both teams made 20 FG’s but UW needed 54 shots to get there, while Wofford used 48 shots to get their 20 makes. UW got the winning margin from the line.
UW took 9 of our 54 shots from deep, or 17%. That was the lowest percent of the year. We have been averaging 39% of our FGA’s from deep.
eFG%: Wofford outshot UW 45% to 38%. Ugh. That was our 3rd worst shooting day of the year. Wofford’s 45% is just below our usual 46% shooting by our opponents.
3 pt shooting: Neither team launched many threes. Wofford was 3 of 7 (43%) while UW was 1 of 9 for a miserable 11%. Wofford outscored UW by 6 from deep.
2pt shooting: Wofford hit 17 of 41 for 41% while UW took 4 more shots (45) and hit 2 more (19) for a plus 4 inside the line.
Wofford outscored UW by two from the field.
1pt shooting: UW won the game at the line. Wofford was an incredibly bad 6 of 13 (46%) while UW was a simply bad 12 of 19 (63%). Those 6 extra points from the line were enough to win the game.
Rebounding: Wofford won the raw rebounding battle 37 to 30. They had a good offensive rebounding day and it was more of less a draw on their defensive end.
UW Defensive end: There were 31 rebounding opportunities and UW got 20 leaving Wofford 11 or 35%. That is poor performance by UW’s standard (27th worst job of protecting the glass in 32 games).
UW Offensive End: UW bricked more shots than Wofford. There were 36 rebounding opportunities (5 more that the other end) and UW got 10 or 28%. That is more or less a draw.
Turnovers: Turnovers were a critical stat. UW had 4 turnovers or a microscopic 7% of possessions while Wofford had 11 or 20% of their possessions end with no shot. Those plus 7 turnovers resulted in more floor shots, and most importantly, more free throw attempts.
Opportunity Index: UW had a plus 6 OI (minus 1 on offensive rebounds, plus 7 on TO’s). UW ended up with 6 extra FTA’s and got 6 extra points from the line.
Fouls: There was not much fouling and the fouling that did occur was about the same for both teams. UW had 14 and Wofford 15. We typically have 16 and our opponents 18.
Playing time: Bo continues to shorten his bench, not surprisingly, and played 6 ten or more minutes with Evans getting 10, Jarmusz 8 and Bruesewitz 8. JBo and Jordan each played the whole game. Leuer played just a little less than 40. Keaton played but 17.
Notable Performances: Scoring was confined to 5 players with Leuer (20), Hughes (19) and Taylor (9) getting all but 5 of the teams 53 points. Leuer got his 20 on 16 FGA’s, 4-4 clutch FT’s, and two TO’s along with one offensive rebound. So, he got his 20 on 19 possessions. Hughes was more efficient getting his 19 on 13 FGA’s, 6-7 from the line, 2 offensive boards, and but one TO giving him 19 on 15 personal possessions. Trevon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
JBo got the collar going 0-4 but chipped in 6 rebounds and no turnovers.
Diggs got hot for awhile and then cooled off for a rather unspectacular 13 points. He took 12 FGA’s and had 5 turnovers, more than all the Badger’s combined. That gave him 13 points on 17 possessions or a rather poor .76 PPP.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Jon Leuer scores 15 or more points. Wofford may be athletic enough in the front court to stay with Leuer and Nankivil on perimeter, but Jon can just shoot over the top of them all day in the paint. Hit. Leuer got 20 and he got them by shooting over the bad guys.
2. Jordan Taylor scores 15 or more points. The Terriers will put their best perimeter defenders on Trevon and Jason, leaving him with a defender he can likely abuse. Miss. Taylor got 9. They did control Bohannon, however.
3. Wisconsin blocks at least 6 shots as a team. The Terriers love to attack the hoop and don’t have the size to do it with multiple rejections each game. Wisconsin is a much better shot blocking team, with Leuer, Nankivil, Evans, Hughes… and Bohannon, than your average SoCon team. Miss. UW had no blocks. Air JBo has been grounded recently. Fly, JBo, fly …
4. The Badgers hit better than 35% from three-point land. My guess is that with Leuer eating up Wofford inside, they start trying to double down on him, giving the rest of the team open looks from outside that they should knock down. Miss. One of nine is a pathetic 11%.
My Prediction: The Badgers dominate the paint, beating the Terriers 64-50 in a 56-possession game. Hit. Right possessions, right on Wofford , but low on UW. UW won 53 to 49 in 45.
Closing Thoughts: The great thing about March Madness is the upsets. It is not so fun when your team is getting upset. But, it is all part of the package.
Both the B10 and BE have 4 teams left.
Cornell demonstrates the difficulty the Committee has in trying to seed teams. Until today, Cornell had not played a top 100 team since January 6 (they lost to Kansas by 5 on the road). How good is such a team? I guess we will find out Sunday. If our shooting does not improve, we could have a big problem. Keep those turnovers coming.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW parlayed a very low turnover rate into extra shots, particularly FTA’s, to eke out a 4 point win.
Pace: The game had 56 possessions. That is fewer than our normal 60, 58 in B10 play.
Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Definitely defense. Wofford scored .88 PPP compared to UW’s .95. In our 32 games, that was our 7th worst offensive performance (we usually are at 1.12, 1.09 in B10 play).
Holding Wofford to .88 was our 12th best defensive performance, however. We have been giving up .94 PPP, so it was only slightly better than our typically excellent defense.
Shooting: UW won because of quantity, not quality shooting. Both teams made 20 FG’s but UW needed 54 shots to get there, while Wofford used 48 shots to get their 20 makes. UW got the winning margin from the line.
UW took 9 of our 54 shots from deep, or 17%. That was the lowest percent of the year. We have been averaging 39% of our FGA’s from deep.
eFG%: Wofford outshot UW 45% to 38%. Ugh. That was our 3rd worst shooting day of the year. Wofford’s 45% is just below our usual 46% shooting by our opponents.
3 pt shooting: Neither team launched many threes. Wofford was 3 of 7 (43%) while UW was 1 of 9 for a miserable 11%. Wofford outscored UW by 6 from deep.
2pt shooting: Wofford hit 17 of 41 for 41% while UW took 4 more shots (45) and hit 2 more (19) for a plus 4 inside the line.
Wofford outscored UW by two from the field.
1pt shooting: UW won the game at the line. Wofford was an incredibly bad 6 of 13 (46%) while UW was a simply bad 12 of 19 (63%). Those 6 extra points from the line were enough to win the game.
Rebounding: Wofford won the raw rebounding battle 37 to 30. They had a good offensive rebounding day and it was more of less a draw on their defensive end.
UW Defensive end: There were 31 rebounding opportunities and UW got 20 leaving Wofford 11 or 35%. That is poor performance by UW’s standard (27th worst job of protecting the glass in 32 games).
UW Offensive End: UW bricked more shots than Wofford. There were 36 rebounding opportunities (5 more that the other end) and UW got 10 or 28%. That is more or less a draw.
Turnovers: Turnovers were a critical stat. UW had 4 turnovers or a microscopic 7% of possessions while Wofford had 11 or 20% of their possessions end with no shot. Those plus 7 turnovers resulted in more floor shots, and most importantly, more free throw attempts.
Opportunity Index: UW had a plus 6 OI (minus 1 on offensive rebounds, plus 7 on TO’s). UW ended up with 6 extra FTA’s and got 6 extra points from the line.
Fouls: There was not much fouling and the fouling that did occur was about the same for both teams. UW had 14 and Wofford 15. We typically have 16 and our opponents 18.
Playing time: Bo continues to shorten his bench, not surprisingly, and played 6 ten or more minutes with Evans getting 10, Jarmusz 8 and Bruesewitz 8. JBo and Jordan each played the whole game. Leuer played just a little less than 40. Keaton played but 17.
Notable Performances: Scoring was confined to 5 players with Leuer (20), Hughes (19) and Taylor (9) getting all but 5 of the teams 53 points. Leuer got his 20 on 16 FGA’s, 4-4 clutch FT’s, and two TO’s along with one offensive rebound. So, he got his 20 on 19 possessions. Hughes was more efficient getting his 19 on 13 FGA’s, 6-7 from the line, 2 offensive boards, and but one TO giving him 19 on 15 personal possessions. Trevon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
JBo got the collar going 0-4 but chipped in 6 rebounds and no turnovers.
Diggs got hot for awhile and then cooled off for a rather unspectacular 13 points. He took 12 FGA’s and had 5 turnovers, more than all the Badger’s combined. That gave him 13 points on 17 possessions or a rather poor .76 PPP.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Jon Leuer scores 15 or more points. Wofford may be athletic enough in the front court to stay with Leuer and Nankivil on perimeter, but Jon can just shoot over the top of them all day in the paint. Hit. Leuer got 20 and he got them by shooting over the bad guys.
2. Jordan Taylor scores 15 or more points. The Terriers will put their best perimeter defenders on Trevon and Jason, leaving him with a defender he can likely abuse. Miss. Taylor got 9. They did control Bohannon, however.
3. Wisconsin blocks at least 6 shots as a team. The Terriers love to attack the hoop and don’t have the size to do it with multiple rejections each game. Wisconsin is a much better shot blocking team, with Leuer, Nankivil, Evans, Hughes… and Bohannon, than your average SoCon team. Miss. UW had no blocks. Air JBo has been grounded recently. Fly, JBo, fly …
4. The Badgers hit better than 35% from three-point land. My guess is that with Leuer eating up Wofford inside, they start trying to double down on him, giving the rest of the team open looks from outside that they should knock down. Miss. One of nine is a pathetic 11%.
My Prediction: The Badgers dominate the paint, beating the Terriers 64-50 in a 56-possession game. Hit. Right possessions, right on Wofford , but low on UW. UW won 53 to 49 in 45.
Closing Thoughts: The great thing about March Madness is the upsets. It is not so fun when your team is getting upset. But, it is all part of the package.
Both the B10 and BE have 4 teams left.
Cornell demonstrates the difficulty the Committee has in trying to seed teams. Until today, Cornell had not played a top 100 team since January 6 (they lost to Kansas by 5 on the road). How good is such a team? I guess we will find out Sunday. If our shooting does not improve, we could have a big problem. Keep those turnovers coming.
Cornell Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: Survive and advance. That’s all that matters and with the hot streak that Wofford started the second half with, I’m just glad we were able to advance. Next up is the #12 seed Cornell. The Big Red of Cornell are the Ivy League champions and come into the game with a record of 28-4. They are on an 8-game winning streak, including their 78-65 victory over #5 seed Temple on Friday.
Forums to Visit: Cornell
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #11 and Cornell #39. He makes Wisconsin a 8-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #3 and Cornell #58. He predicts a 67-59 Badger victory in 56 possessions and gives the Badgers an 82% chance of winning.
Cornell Rotation (Key Players in Italics):
*G – 5’11” SR Louis Dale (12.2 PPG, 4.9 APG, 2.9 RPG, 1.4 SPG, 51% 2PT, 40% 3PT, 85% FT, 115.2 OR, 25% Poss, 24% Shot, 19% TO, 3% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 2.2 FTR, 42% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’0” SO Chris Wroblewski (8.9 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 3.2 APG, 54% 2PT, 45% 3PT, 87% FT, 113.1 OR, 18% Poss, 24% Shot, 23% TO, 1% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 3.1 FTR, 56% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’7” SR Ryan Wittman (17.6 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.1 SPG, 84% FT, 54% 2PT, 43% 3PT, 117.4 OR, 23% Poss, 28% Shot, 14% TO, 2% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 2.0 FTR, 59% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’7” SR Jon Jaques (6.9 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 1.0 SPG, 58% 2PT, 47% 3PT, 79% FT, 123.7 OR, 18% Poss, 20% Shot, 18% TO, 7% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 1.8 FTR, 64% of FGAs are 3PT)
*C – 7’0” SR Jeff Foote (12.4 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 2.3 APG, 1.9 BPG, 63% 2PT, 111.8 OR, 25% Poss, 21% Shot, 21% TO, 11% OffReb, 26% DefReb, 5.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’4” SR Geoff Reeves (5.2 PPG, 1.2 RPG, 1.0 APG, 59% 2PT, 45% 3PT, 87% FT, 128.7 OR, 13% Poss, 15% Shot, 15% TO, 4% OffReb, 4% DefReb, 1.3 FTR, 73% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’5” JR Adam Wire (1.9 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 55% 2PT, 118.6 OR, 12% Poss, 8% Shot, 20% TO, 11% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 7.5 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” SR Mark Coury (2.4 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 55% 2PT, 118.4 OR, 13% Poss, 13% Shot, 14% TO, 10% OffReb, 18% DefReb, 2.0 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
Key:
OR = offensive rating, or personal points per possession (100.8 is average)
Poss = possession usage when on the court
Shot = share of shots taken when on the court
TO = percentage of personal possessions ending in turnover (20.4% 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 (3.77 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%
Style Profile:
Offense – Offensively, they are heavily reliant on three-point shooting, with 39.1% of their scoring coming from beyond the arc. That is 5th in the nation (FYI, we are 28th at 34%). Their offense involves a lot of isolation, 2-man games, and drive and kicks. Their 3 primary shot takers are the point guard Dale, small forward Wittmann, and center Foote. All three are very efficient scorers, as is the rest of the team. How much their offensive success is due to the extremely weak schedule (Cornell’s opponent’s average Pomeroy rank is 203, whereas Wisconsin’s is 93), I don’t know.
Defense – Defensively, Cornell is mostly a man-to-man team, with a bit of 1-3-1 and 2-3 zone thrown in and occasionally a 2-1-2 token press. They give up about 35% from 3 and 45% from inside the arc. They also allow opponents to attempt almost 4 free throw attempts to every 10 field goal attempts. In terms of turnovers, they force about 3 in every 14 possessions, with a little more than half coming from steals. They don’t normally double the post and their center Foote is uncomfortable defensively around the perimeter, so I expect we may see a lot of zone to negate Leuer’s versatility and Hughes’ and Taylor’s driving ability.
*New Feature* Player Plus/Minus Per Game (Wish I’d found this earlier)
Ryan Wittmann = +12.2
Louis Dale = +10.6
Jeff Foote = +10.1
Chris Wroblewski = +10.0
Jon Jacques = +9.6
Geoff Reeves = +3.4
Mark Coury = -0.1
Adam Wire = -0.4
What Cornell is really good at:
1. Shooting threes. The Big Red at the best three-point shooting team in the nation, knocking down 43.7% from deep.
2. Shooting free throws. Cornell shoots 73.4% from the line, which is good for 34th in the country.
3. Defensive rebounding. Cornell grabs 69.9% of all of their opponents’ misses, good for 64th overall.
What Cornell is really bad at:
1. Getting to the line. Luckily, despite being very good free throw shooters, the Chewing Gum are 21st worst at getting FTAs, attempting only a bit more than 2 for every 7 field goal attempts.
Relative Efficiency:
When Cornell has the ball: Cornell has scored 1.152 PPP (1.152 adjusted) in their first 32 games, while UW has given up 0.928 (0.873 adjusted) in their first 32.
When UW has the ball: Cornell has given up 0.966 (0.993 adjusted) in their 32 games, while UW has scored the 1.112 (1.157 adjusted) in their 32 games.
Pace: Cornell has played at 65 possessions per game and UW’s has played at 60.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Cornell Good Wins = N Temple (25)
Cornell Bad Losses = @ Penn (300)
UW Good Wins = N Maryland (10), Duke (1), Marquette (30), OSU (6), Purdue (13), MSU (26)
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB (142)
My Expectations:
1. Jason Bohannon breaks through his shooting slump and worst outing of the year (0 pts), scoring at least 12 points. He’s only netted 10% (2/20) in the past 3 games and will return to his previous hot streak (61% and 17.4 PPG in 8 games).
2. Cornell shoots below 38% from beyond the arc. I think “the live by the 3, die by the 3” team dies against Wisconsin for once in the tournament.
3. Leuer continues his hot streak, notching at least 15 points. He is just unstoppable inside 10 feet right now.
4. Badgers grab more than 75% of all rebounding opportunities on the defensive end. After giving up some costly offensive boards to Wofford, Wisconsin refocuses their rebounding efforts against Cornell.
My Prediction: The Badger pull it out, 61-57 in 55 possessions in another heart palpitation-inducing finish.
Forums to Visit: Cornell
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #11 and Cornell #39. He makes Wisconsin a 8-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #3 and Cornell #58. He predicts a 67-59 Badger victory in 56 possessions and gives the Badgers an 82% chance of winning.
Cornell Rotation (Key Players in Italics):
*G – 5’11” SR Louis Dale (12.2 PPG, 4.9 APG, 2.9 RPG, 1.4 SPG, 51% 2PT, 40% 3PT, 85% FT, 115.2 OR, 25% Poss, 24% Shot, 19% TO, 3% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 2.2 FTR, 42% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’0” SO Chris Wroblewski (8.9 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 3.2 APG, 54% 2PT, 45% 3PT, 87% FT, 113.1 OR, 18% Poss, 24% Shot, 23% TO, 1% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 3.1 FTR, 56% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’7” SR Ryan Wittman (17.6 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.1 SPG, 84% FT, 54% 2PT, 43% 3PT, 117.4 OR, 23% Poss, 28% Shot, 14% TO, 2% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 2.0 FTR, 59% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’7” SR Jon Jaques (6.9 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 1.0 SPG, 58% 2PT, 47% 3PT, 79% FT, 123.7 OR, 18% Poss, 20% Shot, 18% TO, 7% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 1.8 FTR, 64% of FGAs are 3PT)
*C – 7’0” SR Jeff Foote (12.4 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 2.3 APG, 1.9 BPG, 63% 2PT, 111.8 OR, 25% Poss, 21% Shot, 21% TO, 11% OffReb, 26% DefReb, 5.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’4” SR Geoff Reeves (5.2 PPG, 1.2 RPG, 1.0 APG, 59% 2PT, 45% 3PT, 87% FT, 128.7 OR, 13% Poss, 15% Shot, 15% TO, 4% OffReb, 4% DefReb, 1.3 FTR, 73% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’5” JR Adam Wire (1.9 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 55% 2PT, 118.6 OR, 12% Poss, 8% Shot, 20% TO, 11% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 7.5 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” SR Mark Coury (2.4 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 55% 2PT, 118.4 OR, 13% Poss, 13% Shot, 14% TO, 10% OffReb, 18% DefReb, 2.0 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
Key:
OR = offensive rating, or personal points per possession (100.8 is average)
Poss = possession usage when on the court
Shot = share of shots taken when on the court
TO = percentage of personal possessions ending in turnover (20.4% 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 (3.77 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%
Style Profile:
Offense – Offensively, they are heavily reliant on three-point shooting, with 39.1% of their scoring coming from beyond the arc. That is 5th in the nation (FYI, we are 28th at 34%). Their offense involves a lot of isolation, 2-man games, and drive and kicks. Their 3 primary shot takers are the point guard Dale, small forward Wittmann, and center Foote. All three are very efficient scorers, as is the rest of the team. How much their offensive success is due to the extremely weak schedule (Cornell’s opponent’s average Pomeroy rank is 203, whereas Wisconsin’s is 93), I don’t know.
Defense – Defensively, Cornell is mostly a man-to-man team, with a bit of 1-3-1 and 2-3 zone thrown in and occasionally a 2-1-2 token press. They give up about 35% from 3 and 45% from inside the arc. They also allow opponents to attempt almost 4 free throw attempts to every 10 field goal attempts. In terms of turnovers, they force about 3 in every 14 possessions, with a little more than half coming from steals. They don’t normally double the post and their center Foote is uncomfortable defensively around the perimeter, so I expect we may see a lot of zone to negate Leuer’s versatility and Hughes’ and Taylor’s driving ability.
*New Feature* Player Plus/Minus Per Game (Wish I’d found this earlier)
Ryan Wittmann = +12.2
Louis Dale = +10.6
Jeff Foote = +10.1
Chris Wroblewski = +10.0
Jon Jacques = +9.6
Geoff Reeves = +3.4
Mark Coury = -0.1
Adam Wire = -0.4
What Cornell is really good at:
1. Shooting threes. The Big Red at the best three-point shooting team in the nation, knocking down 43.7% from deep.
2. Shooting free throws. Cornell shoots 73.4% from the line, which is good for 34th in the country.
3. Defensive rebounding. Cornell grabs 69.9% of all of their opponents’ misses, good for 64th overall.
What Cornell is really bad at:
1. Getting to the line. Luckily, despite being very good free throw shooters, the Chewing Gum are 21st worst at getting FTAs, attempting only a bit more than 2 for every 7 field goal attempts.
Relative Efficiency:
When Cornell has the ball: Cornell has scored 1.152 PPP (1.152 adjusted) in their first 32 games, while UW has given up 0.928 (0.873 adjusted) in their first 32.
When UW has the ball: Cornell has given up 0.966 (0.993 adjusted) in their 32 games, while UW has scored the 1.112 (1.157 adjusted) in their 32 games.
Pace: Cornell has played at 65 possessions per game and UW’s has played at 60.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Cornell Good Wins = N Temple (25)
Cornell Bad Losses = @ Penn (300)
UW Good Wins = N Maryland (10), Duke (1), Marquette (30), OSU (6), Purdue (13), MSU (26)
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB (142)
My Expectations:
1. Jason Bohannon breaks through his shooting slump and worst outing of the year (0 pts), scoring at least 12 points. He’s only netted 10% (2/20) in the past 3 games and will return to his previous hot streak (61% and 17.4 PPG in 8 games).
2. Cornell shoots below 38% from beyond the arc. I think “the live by the 3, die by the 3” team dies against Wisconsin for once in the tournament.
3. Leuer continues his hot streak, notching at least 15 points. He is just unstoppable inside 10 feet right now.
4. Badgers grab more than 75% of all rebounding opportunities on the defensive end. After giving up some costly offensive boards to Wofford, Wisconsin refocuses their rebounding efforts against Cornell.
My Prediction: The Badger pull it out, 61-57 in 55 possessions in another heart palpitation-inducing finish.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Wofford Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: It’s that time of year again! Call me crazy, but I think this team has the most potential to reach a Final Four in Bo’s tenure with the variety of scoring options. And I feel like they laid their egg of the season against Illinois and still were in striking distance at the end. Regardless, first things first. The Badgers find themselves as a 4 seed in the East region, with a first round opponent in Jacksonville called the Terriers, hailing from Wofford. Where the hell is Wofford? Haha, just kidding Terrier fans, I know you are in Spartanburg, SC… because I wanted to know the answer during this past football season. The Terriers are 26-9, riding a 13-game winning streak, have won 19 of their last 20, and 22 of their last 24. They are the Southern Conference regular season and tournament champions.
Forums to Visit: Terrier Fans
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #14 and Wofford #82. He makes Wisconsin a 13-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #3 and Wofford #87. He predicts a 63-52 Badger victory in 58 possessions and gives the Badgers a 90% chance of winning.
Wofford Rotation:
*G – 6’0” SO Brad Loesing (6.0 PPG, 3.0 APG, 1.6 RPG, 33% 3PT, 75% FT, 101.9 OR, 15% Poss, 14% Shot, 22% TO, 2% OffReb, 5% DefReb, 3.6 FTR, 38% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’1” SR Junior Salters (7.7 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 1.4 APG, 37% 3PT, 100.8 OR, 18% Poss, 24% Shot, 12% TO, 2% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 1.3 FTR, 72% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’2” SR Jamar Diggs (9.4 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 2.6 APG, 76% FT, 37% 3PT, 101.6 OR, 23% Poss, 20% Shot, 21% TO, 2% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 7.4 FTR, 27% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” JR Tim Johnson (6.1 PPG, 7.9 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.0 SPG, 89.6 OR, 23% Poss, 20% Shot, 20% TO, 11% OffReb, 29% DefReb, 5.0 FTR, 0.5% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’6” JR Noah Dahlman (16.8 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 58% 2PT, 122.6 OR, 26% Poss, 29% Shot, 9% TO, 14% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 4.9 FTR, 0.3% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’1” JR Cameron Rundles (6.6 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 1.4 APG, 103.2 OR, 19% Poss, 17% Shot, 17% TO, 3% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 7.1 FTR, 45% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’8” SR Corey Godzinski (3.7 PPG, 1.9 RPG, 55% 2PT, 87% FT, 104.4 OR, 16% Poss, 21% Shot, 9% TO, 3% OffReb, 14% DefReb, 2.1 FTR, 56% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 5’10” SO Jason Dawson (2.9 PPG, 1.2 RPG, 1.2 APG, 86.1 OR, 16% Poss, 14% Shot, 32% TO, 1% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 1.9 FTR, 72% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’6” JR Terry Martin (4.5 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 53% 2PT, 111.0 OR, 20% Poss, 19% Shot, 17% TO, 11% OffReb, 18% DefReb, 6.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’5” SO Kevin Giltner (3.6 PPG, 59% 2PT, 77% FT, 101.1 OR, 16% Poss, 18% Shot, 25% TO, 3% OffReb, 6% DefReb, 1.9 FTR, 68% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’5” FR Nathan Parker (2.1 PPG, 1.6 RPG, 82.0 OR, 26% Poss, 24% Shot, 30% TO, 11% OffReb, 21% DefReb, 3.0 FTR, 6% of FGAs are 3PT)
Key:
OR = offensive rating, or personal points per possession
Poss = possession usage when on the court
Shot = share of shots taken when on the court
TO = percentage of personal possessions ending in turnover (20.4% 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 (3.78 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%
Style Profile:
Offense – Their offense is predicated around 6’6” big man Noah Dahlman. He shoots about as often as Trevon Hughes and Jon Leuer. It also seems that their abundance of guards like to drive to the lane constantly as they attempt the 40th most free throws and attempt only 31% of their shots behind the 3-point line (201st most). Senior guard Junior Salters is their 3-point specialist, attempting 181 treys. The next most frequent 3-ball shooter is junior guard Cameron Rundle, with 72 attempts. Junior guard Jamar Diggs and sophomore guard Brad Loesing are their primary drivers on offense, as they are the only guards on the roster to attempt more than 88 two-pointers and have significantly higher assist rates than anyone else on the team. Diggs is freakishly good at getting to the free throw line, getting more than 7 freebie attempts for every 10 field goal attempts. One thing not going for them is their efficiency. Dahlman and Terry Martin have great individual offensive efficiencies, but the rest of the team is average or worse. Essentially, they are like having Jon Leuer and Jordan Taylor on the court with a bunch of Tim Jarmuszes, Mike Bruesewitzes, and Ryan Evanses efficiency-wise.
Defense - The Terriers play mostly man-to-man defense, forcing about 2 turnovers every 9 possessions. Of those turnovers forced, a little less than half of them are steals. Their opponents have the 6th lowest assist to made field goals rates and take a bit less than a third of their shots from behind the arc (lowest 33%). This suggests that they play higher pressure defense and jump on passing lanes, getting steals, preventing assists and 3-point attempts. This is also corroborated by the fact that they usually play 10 men deep and occasionally 11, 7 of which are listed as guards. They are height challenged, as they have only 1 player over 6’6”, 6’8” guard Corey Godzinski, who seems to be a Bill Cole (of Illinois) that can’t make threes although he takes a lot of them (23% on 62 attempts).
Key Players:
Noah Dahlman – Noah is the younger brother of MSU alum Isaiah, and is the inside presence for the Terriers. He has one of the best offensive efficiency rating in the nation, with a ridiculous 122.6. This is done by shooting 58% inside the arc, 70% from the line, and turning it over at the same rate as Jon Leuer (8.8%). He isn’t a shot-blocking threat or good defensive rebounder (nearly the same rate as J Bo for both), but is an elite offensive rebounder, grabbing nearly one in every 7 rebounding opportunities on that side of the floor. Luckily for us, he’s undersized at 6’6” and isn’t a threat from the perimeter, being 0 for 3 from deep on the season.
Jamar Diggs – Diggs is kind of like Wofford’s Trevon Hughes. They shoot similar percentages (TH better from the field, Diggs better from the line), draw similar amounts of fouls, and dish out a similar rate of assists. Where they diverge is interesting. Diggs turns the ball over 50% more often than Trevon and attempts 70% less threes, which lead to a lower offensive rating for him (101.6 to TH’s 107.8), but, as previously stated, he gets to the free throw line nearly twice as often as Hughes. A full 38.3% of his points come from the line… the closest team to that mark is at 27.7%.
Tim Johnson – Johnson isn’t listed as a key player due to his offense. He has an efficiency rating of 89.6, which is a smudge better than Ryan Evans. He shoots a dreadful 38% from the free throw line and 44% from the field (0/1 from 3). What he is good at, which is a ridiculous understatement, is rebounding. Despite only being 6’5”, he is the 3rd best defensive rebounder in the country, grabbing 29.2% of all of their opponents’ missed shots. He also isn’t too shabby on the offensive end, grabbing 11.3% of Wofford’s missed shots (for comparison, Keaton is at 10.1%).
What Wofford is really good at:
1. Getting to the line. The Terriers are 40th in the nation at getting to the charity stripe, taking 9 freebies per 20 field goal attempts.
2. Defending the arc. Their opponents’ shoot 30.9% from three, which is the 40th worst in the country.
3. Defensive rebounding. Due in large part to Tim Johnson, Wofford is the 38th best defensive rebounding team in the country, grabbing 29.2% of all their opponents’ misses.
4. Avoiding steals. Although they aren’t quite in the top fifth of all teams at taking care of the ball, they are at not getting their pockets picked. Wofford gives up a steal about once every 13 possessions, 16th least often in the country.
What Wofford is really bad at:
1. Blocking shots. Due to their lack of height, Wofford blocks just 1 in every 17 two-pointers their opponents attempt, which is the 34th worst in the nation.
2. Avoiding blocks. Also due to their lack of height and will to attack the rim, the Terriers get the ball sent back in their face almost once for every nine two-pointers they attempt. Only 76 teams are embarrassed more often.
Relative Efficiency:
When Wofford has the ball: Wofford has scored 1.058 PPP (1.028 adjusted) in their first 34 games, while UW has given up 0.93 (0.873 adjusted) in their first 31.
When UW has the ball: Wofford has give up 0.934 (0.931 adjusted) in their 34 games, while UW has scored the 1.117 (1.165 adjusted) in their 31 games.
Pace: Wofford has played at 66 possessions per game and UW’s has played at 60.
Top 100 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Wofford Good Wins = @ Georgia (82), South Carolina (88)
Wofford Bad Losses = @ Bradley (120), @ Western Carolina (173), Appalachian State (131), @ College of Charleston (159)
UW Good Wins = (N) Arizona (86), (N) Maryland (10), Duke (1), Marquette (28), OSU (4), @ PSU (92), Purdue (13), @ Northwestern (77), Michigan (60), PSU (92), MSU (24), Michigan (60), Northwestern (77), @ Illinois (52)
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB (155)
Note: I changed it to top 100 since Wofford didn’t have any top 50 wins.
My expectations:
1. Jon Leuer scores 15 or more points. Wofford may be athletic enough in the front court to stay with Leuer and Nankivil on perimeter, but Jon can just shoot over the top of them all day in the paint.
2. Jordan Taylor scores 15 or more points. The Terriers will put their best perimeter defenders on Trevon and Jason, leaving him with a defender he can likely abuse.
3. Wisconsin blocks at least 6 shots as a team. The Terriers love to attack the hoop and don’t have the size to do it with multiple rejections each game. Wisconsin is a much better shot blocking team, with Leuer, Nankivil, Evans, Hughes… and Bohannon, than your average SoCon team.
4. The Badgers hit better than 35% from three-point land. My guess is that with Leuer eating up Wofford inside, they start trying to double down on him, giving the rest of the team open looks from outside that they should knock down.
My Prediction: The Badgers dominate the paint, beating the Terriers 64-50 in a 56-possession game.
Forums to Visit: Terrier Fans
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #14 and Wofford #82. He makes Wisconsin a 13-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #3 and Wofford #87. He predicts a 63-52 Badger victory in 58 possessions and gives the Badgers a 90% chance of winning.
Wofford Rotation:
*G – 6’0” SO Brad Loesing (6.0 PPG, 3.0 APG, 1.6 RPG, 33% 3PT, 75% FT, 101.9 OR, 15% Poss, 14% Shot, 22% TO, 2% OffReb, 5% DefReb, 3.6 FTR, 38% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’1” SR Junior Salters (7.7 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 1.4 APG, 37% 3PT, 100.8 OR, 18% Poss, 24% Shot, 12% TO, 2% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 1.3 FTR, 72% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’2” SR Jamar Diggs (9.4 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 2.6 APG, 76% FT, 37% 3PT, 101.6 OR, 23% Poss, 20% Shot, 21% TO, 2% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 7.4 FTR, 27% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” JR Tim Johnson (6.1 PPG, 7.9 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.0 SPG, 89.6 OR, 23% Poss, 20% Shot, 20% TO, 11% OffReb, 29% DefReb, 5.0 FTR, 0.5% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’6” JR Noah Dahlman (16.8 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 58% 2PT, 122.6 OR, 26% Poss, 29% Shot, 9% TO, 14% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 4.9 FTR, 0.3% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’1” JR Cameron Rundles (6.6 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 1.4 APG, 103.2 OR, 19% Poss, 17% Shot, 17% TO, 3% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 7.1 FTR, 45% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’8” SR Corey Godzinski (3.7 PPG, 1.9 RPG, 55% 2PT, 87% FT, 104.4 OR, 16% Poss, 21% Shot, 9% TO, 3% OffReb, 14% DefReb, 2.1 FTR, 56% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 5’10” SO Jason Dawson (2.9 PPG, 1.2 RPG, 1.2 APG, 86.1 OR, 16% Poss, 14% Shot, 32% TO, 1% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 1.9 FTR, 72% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’6” JR Terry Martin (4.5 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 53% 2PT, 111.0 OR, 20% Poss, 19% Shot, 17% TO, 11% OffReb, 18% DefReb, 6.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’5” SO Kevin Giltner (3.6 PPG, 59% 2PT, 77% FT, 101.1 OR, 16% Poss, 18% Shot, 25% TO, 3% OffReb, 6% DefReb, 1.9 FTR, 68% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’5” FR Nathan Parker (2.1 PPG, 1.6 RPG, 82.0 OR, 26% Poss, 24% Shot, 30% TO, 11% OffReb, 21% DefReb, 3.0 FTR, 6% of FGAs are 3PT)
Key:
OR = offensive rating, or personal points per possession
Poss = possession usage when on the court
Shot = share of shots taken when on the court
TO = percentage of personal possessions ending in turnover (20.4% 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 (3.78 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%
Style Profile:
Offense – Their offense is predicated around 6’6” big man Noah Dahlman. He shoots about as often as Trevon Hughes and Jon Leuer. It also seems that their abundance of guards like to drive to the lane constantly as they attempt the 40th most free throws and attempt only 31% of their shots behind the 3-point line (201st most). Senior guard Junior Salters is their 3-point specialist, attempting 181 treys. The next most frequent 3-ball shooter is junior guard Cameron Rundle, with 72 attempts. Junior guard Jamar Diggs and sophomore guard Brad Loesing are their primary drivers on offense, as they are the only guards on the roster to attempt more than 88 two-pointers and have significantly higher assist rates than anyone else on the team. Diggs is freakishly good at getting to the free throw line, getting more than 7 freebie attempts for every 10 field goal attempts. One thing not going for them is their efficiency. Dahlman and Terry Martin have great individual offensive efficiencies, but the rest of the team is average or worse. Essentially, they are like having Jon Leuer and Jordan Taylor on the court with a bunch of Tim Jarmuszes, Mike Bruesewitzes, and Ryan Evanses efficiency-wise.
Defense - The Terriers play mostly man-to-man defense, forcing about 2 turnovers every 9 possessions. Of those turnovers forced, a little less than half of them are steals. Their opponents have the 6th lowest assist to made field goals rates and take a bit less than a third of their shots from behind the arc (lowest 33%). This suggests that they play higher pressure defense and jump on passing lanes, getting steals, preventing assists and 3-point attempts. This is also corroborated by the fact that they usually play 10 men deep and occasionally 11, 7 of which are listed as guards. They are height challenged, as they have only 1 player over 6’6”, 6’8” guard Corey Godzinski, who seems to be a Bill Cole (of Illinois) that can’t make threes although he takes a lot of them (23% on 62 attempts).
Key Players:
Noah Dahlman – Noah is the younger brother of MSU alum Isaiah, and is the inside presence for the Terriers. He has one of the best offensive efficiency rating in the nation, with a ridiculous 122.6. This is done by shooting 58% inside the arc, 70% from the line, and turning it over at the same rate as Jon Leuer (8.8%). He isn’t a shot-blocking threat or good defensive rebounder (nearly the same rate as J Bo for both), but is an elite offensive rebounder, grabbing nearly one in every 7 rebounding opportunities on that side of the floor. Luckily for us, he’s undersized at 6’6” and isn’t a threat from the perimeter, being 0 for 3 from deep on the season.
Jamar Diggs – Diggs is kind of like Wofford’s Trevon Hughes. They shoot similar percentages (TH better from the field, Diggs better from the line), draw similar amounts of fouls, and dish out a similar rate of assists. Where they diverge is interesting. Diggs turns the ball over 50% more often than Trevon and attempts 70% less threes, which lead to a lower offensive rating for him (101.6 to TH’s 107.8), but, as previously stated, he gets to the free throw line nearly twice as often as Hughes. A full 38.3% of his points come from the line… the closest team to that mark is at 27.7%.
Tim Johnson – Johnson isn’t listed as a key player due to his offense. He has an efficiency rating of 89.6, which is a smudge better than Ryan Evans. He shoots a dreadful 38% from the free throw line and 44% from the field (0/1 from 3). What he is good at, which is a ridiculous understatement, is rebounding. Despite only being 6’5”, he is the 3rd best defensive rebounder in the country, grabbing 29.2% of all of their opponents’ missed shots. He also isn’t too shabby on the offensive end, grabbing 11.3% of Wofford’s missed shots (for comparison, Keaton is at 10.1%).
What Wofford is really good at:
1. Getting to the line. The Terriers are 40th in the nation at getting to the charity stripe, taking 9 freebies per 20 field goal attempts.
2. Defending the arc. Their opponents’ shoot 30.9% from three, which is the 40th worst in the country.
3. Defensive rebounding. Due in large part to Tim Johnson, Wofford is the 38th best defensive rebounding team in the country, grabbing 29.2% of all their opponents’ misses.
4. Avoiding steals. Although they aren’t quite in the top fifth of all teams at taking care of the ball, they are at not getting their pockets picked. Wofford gives up a steal about once every 13 possessions, 16th least often in the country.
What Wofford is really bad at:
1. Blocking shots. Due to their lack of height, Wofford blocks just 1 in every 17 two-pointers their opponents attempt, which is the 34th worst in the nation.
2. Avoiding blocks. Also due to their lack of height and will to attack the rim, the Terriers get the ball sent back in their face almost once for every nine two-pointers they attempt. Only 76 teams are embarrassed more often.
Relative Efficiency:
When Wofford has the ball: Wofford has scored 1.058 PPP (1.028 adjusted) in their first 34 games, while UW has given up 0.93 (0.873 adjusted) in their first 31.
When UW has the ball: Wofford has give up 0.934 (0.931 adjusted) in their 34 games, while UW has scored the 1.117 (1.165 adjusted) in their 31 games.
Pace: Wofford has played at 66 possessions per game and UW’s has played at 60.
Top 100 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Wofford Good Wins = @ Georgia (82), South Carolina (88)
Wofford Bad Losses = @ Bradley (120), @ Western Carolina (173), Appalachian State (131), @ College of Charleston (159)
UW Good Wins = (N) Arizona (86), (N) Maryland (10), Duke (1), Marquette (28), OSU (4), @ PSU (92), Purdue (13), @ Northwestern (77), Michigan (60), PSU (92), MSU (24), Michigan (60), Northwestern (77), @ Illinois (52)
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB (155)
Note: I changed it to top 100 since Wofford didn’t have any top 50 wins.
My expectations:
1. Jon Leuer scores 15 or more points. Wofford may be athletic enough in the front court to stay with Leuer and Nankivil on perimeter, but Jon can just shoot over the top of them all day in the paint.
2. Jordan Taylor scores 15 or more points. The Terriers will put their best perimeter defenders on Trevon and Jason, leaving him with a defender he can likely abuse.
3. Wisconsin blocks at least 6 shots as a team. The Terriers love to attack the hoop and don’t have the size to do it with multiple rejections each game. Wisconsin is a much better shot blocking team, with Leuer, Nankivil, Evans, Hughes… and Bohannon, than your average SoCon team.
4. The Badgers hit better than 35% from three-point land. My guess is that with Leuer eating up Wofford inside, they start trying to double down on him, giving the rest of the team open looks from outside that they should knock down.
My Prediction: The Badgers dominate the paint, beating the Terriers 64-50 in a 56-possession game.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Illinois BTT Edition Box Score Observations
Opening Comments: That was one weird game. If you really want to understand what happened, look at the shooting inside the arc, rebounding, and turnover sections. UW got three shots at the basket for every two that UI took and still lost.
Box Score
Bottom line: Poor shooting loses games even if you do everything else well.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW had a staggering 23 extra field goal attempts and scored two fewer points from the floor than UI.
Pace: The game had 63 possessions. UW has been at 60 overall, 58 in conference. Given that UW went into foul mode to extend the game (and it worked!), the game was pretty normal until the last minute or two.
Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Both teams had good defense and miserable offenses. UW’s offense was more miserable than UI’s.
UI scored .92 PPP and UW scored .86 PPP. That was our second worst offensive showing of the year (at MSU we were at .78 PPP). Our defense was good enough to win every game this year except two: At MSU (.78) and at OSU (.91).
Shooting: Shooting was a game of quantity and quality. UI shot better in all phases, but failed to get as many shots up because they turned the ball over at a high rate and got offensive rebounds at a low rate. UW took their extra opportunities and clanked them.
eFG%: UI’s eFG% was 60%, the best for an opponent this year. UW shot 37%, the worst for an opponent this year. Why didn’t we lose by 30? See the opportunity index.
3 pt shooting: UI hit 6 of 10 for (you do the math). UW was 10 of 29 for 34%, thanks to a late surge in shooting. UW outscored UI by 12 at the arc.
2pt shooting: UI hit 15 of 30 for (you do the math). UW was 8 of 34 for 24%. Let me repeat that: 8 made shots, 24% inside the arc. Ugh. What more can you say. UI got back 14 points inside.
1pt shooting: Both teams were comparably miserable from the line. UI was 10 of 17, 59% while UW was 8 of 14, 57%.
Rebounding: This takes some explaining. UI outrebounded UW by 7, 40 to 33. But, UW outrebounded UI on their respective offensive glass 11 to 2. So, what gives? In the end, UI did a good job defending their defensive glass and UW dominated their defensive glass.
UW Defensive end: Due to UI’s bumbling ways with the ball and excellent marksmanship, there were only 24 rebounding opportunities and UI got but 2, or 8%. That is the best job we have done all year protecting the glass.
UW Offensive End: Due to UW’s superior ball handling at more aggressive offensive rebounding (better than UI), there were 49 rebounding opportunities and UW got 11, or 22%. That is very good defensive rebounding for UI. So, despite getting more offensive rebounds 11-2, UW actually did not do a good job on the offensive glass. Of the 31 games played, that was our 26th best effort.
Turnovers: UW won the battle of the turnovers by a wide margin. UI had 17 for 27% and UW 5 for 8%. That was our second best job of the year avoiding TO’s (best was Michigan’s 7% due to more possessions in the game). Amazingly, UW has had but 5 turnovers 8 times this year. Amazing!
Opportunity Index: This game is making me question the value of the OI. UW had a +21 OI, our best of the year, yet we lost the game. What sense does that make? UW was plus 12 on TO’s and plus 9 on offensive rebounds.
Looking at it from a shot perspective, UW had +23 FGA’s and -2 trips to the line.
The moral of the story is bad shooting will overcome doing everything else right.
Fouls: UW had 18 and UI 16. UW picked some up in foul mode late in the game.
Playing time: Besides the starters, Evans had 13 minutes and Jarmusz 9. JBo played all 40 again.
Weber had a similar strategy playing only one substitute, Paul, more than 10 minutes (he played 13 also).
Notable Performances: What is notable is the lack of offensive performers this game. Not one player hit 50% of their FGA’s except Bruesewitz who was 1-2. The player with the best personal PPP was Nankivil who was 2-6, 5 points, but had 3 offensive rebounds and no TO’s giving him 5 points on 3 possessions. That is the best.
Leuer scored 14 but needed 13 FGA’s and 3 trips to the line (was a forgettable 2-5), no offensive boards and one turnover. So, Jon scored 14 on 17 possessions.
When we meet at the campfire, the offensive part of this game will be removed from our collective memories and we will regale in the excellent defense.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Trevon Hughes and Jason Bohannon combine for 26 points or more. McCamey and Richardson are great offensive players, but are suspect on defense against dribble penetration and J-Bo heats back up. Miss. They did combine for 26 FGA’s. The bad news is they made only 5. They scored 19.
2. Jon Leuer gets a double-double. His offensive production has been great but this game he finally gets aggressive on the boards. Miss. He got 14 points but only seven boards.
3. The Badger keep McCamey and Tisdale from reach a combined 26 points. I just think the team will have those two figured out this time. Miss. They scored 34 on 25 FGA’s (3-5 from the line).
My Prediction: The Badgers win 69-58 in 55 possessions. Bring on OSU. Miss. 58 to 54 in 64 possessions. Bring on a week’s rest.
Closing Thoughts: Some days you get the bear and some days the bear gets you.
Sometimes basketball is as simple as making shots. UW had plenty of good shots they did not make, particularly right next to the basket. Some of that was good UI defense, but much of it was poor marksmanship.
I hope we got that out of our system.
Box Score
Bottom line: Poor shooting loses games even if you do everything else well.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW had a staggering 23 extra field goal attempts and scored two fewer points from the floor than UI.
Pace: The game had 63 possessions. UW has been at 60 overall, 58 in conference. Given that UW went into foul mode to extend the game (and it worked!), the game was pretty normal until the last minute or two.
Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Both teams had good defense and miserable offenses. UW’s offense was more miserable than UI’s.
UI scored .92 PPP and UW scored .86 PPP. That was our second worst offensive showing of the year (at MSU we were at .78 PPP). Our defense was good enough to win every game this year except two: At MSU (.78) and at OSU (.91).
Shooting: Shooting was a game of quantity and quality. UI shot better in all phases, but failed to get as many shots up because they turned the ball over at a high rate and got offensive rebounds at a low rate. UW took their extra opportunities and clanked them.
eFG%: UI’s eFG% was 60%, the best for an opponent this year. UW shot 37%, the worst for an opponent this year. Why didn’t we lose by 30? See the opportunity index.
3 pt shooting: UI hit 6 of 10 for (you do the math). UW was 10 of 29 for 34%, thanks to a late surge in shooting. UW outscored UI by 12 at the arc.
2pt shooting: UI hit 15 of 30 for (you do the math). UW was 8 of 34 for 24%. Let me repeat that: 8 made shots, 24% inside the arc. Ugh. What more can you say. UI got back 14 points inside.
1pt shooting: Both teams were comparably miserable from the line. UI was 10 of 17, 59% while UW was 8 of 14, 57%.
Rebounding: This takes some explaining. UI outrebounded UW by 7, 40 to 33. But, UW outrebounded UI on their respective offensive glass 11 to 2. So, what gives? In the end, UI did a good job defending their defensive glass and UW dominated their defensive glass.
UW Defensive end: Due to UI’s bumbling ways with the ball and excellent marksmanship, there were only 24 rebounding opportunities and UI got but 2, or 8%. That is the best job we have done all year protecting the glass.
UW Offensive End: Due to UW’s superior ball handling at more aggressive offensive rebounding (better than UI), there were 49 rebounding opportunities and UW got 11, or 22%. That is very good defensive rebounding for UI. So, despite getting more offensive rebounds 11-2, UW actually did not do a good job on the offensive glass. Of the 31 games played, that was our 26th best effort.
Turnovers: UW won the battle of the turnovers by a wide margin. UI had 17 for 27% and UW 5 for 8%. That was our second best job of the year avoiding TO’s (best was Michigan’s 7% due to more possessions in the game). Amazingly, UW has had but 5 turnovers 8 times this year. Amazing!
Opportunity Index: This game is making me question the value of the OI. UW had a +21 OI, our best of the year, yet we lost the game. What sense does that make? UW was plus 12 on TO’s and plus 9 on offensive rebounds.
Looking at it from a shot perspective, UW had +23 FGA’s and -2 trips to the line.
The moral of the story is bad shooting will overcome doing everything else right.
Fouls: UW had 18 and UI 16. UW picked some up in foul mode late in the game.
Playing time: Besides the starters, Evans had 13 minutes and Jarmusz 9. JBo played all 40 again.
Weber had a similar strategy playing only one substitute, Paul, more than 10 minutes (he played 13 also).
Notable Performances: What is notable is the lack of offensive performers this game. Not one player hit 50% of their FGA’s except Bruesewitz who was 1-2. The player with the best personal PPP was Nankivil who was 2-6, 5 points, but had 3 offensive rebounds and no TO’s giving him 5 points on 3 possessions. That is the best.
Leuer scored 14 but needed 13 FGA’s and 3 trips to the line (was a forgettable 2-5), no offensive boards and one turnover. So, Jon scored 14 on 17 possessions.
When we meet at the campfire, the offensive part of this game will be removed from our collective memories and we will regale in the excellent defense.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Trevon Hughes and Jason Bohannon combine for 26 points or more. McCamey and Richardson are great offensive players, but are suspect on defense against dribble penetration and J-Bo heats back up. Miss. They did combine for 26 FGA’s. The bad news is they made only 5. They scored 19.
2. Jon Leuer gets a double-double. His offensive production has been great but this game he finally gets aggressive on the boards. Miss. He got 14 points but only seven boards.
3. The Badger keep McCamey and Tisdale from reach a combined 26 points. I just think the team will have those two figured out this time. Miss. They scored 34 on 25 FGA’s (3-5 from the line).
My Prediction: The Badgers win 69-58 in 55 possessions. Bring on OSU. Miss. 58 to 54 in 64 possessions. Bring on a week’s rest.
Closing Thoughts: Some days you get the bear and some days the bear gets you.
Sometimes basketball is as simple as making shots. UW had plenty of good shots they did not make, particularly right next to the basket. Some of that was good UI defense, but much of it was poor marksmanship.
I hope we got that out of our system.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Illinois 3.0 Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: There’s a lot on the line for the Illini Friday afternoon. If they lose, they are likely going to the NIT. The Badgers are only really playing for seed. They could sink to 6 or rise to a 4 or maybe even 3 if they keep rolling.
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #11 and Illinois #60. He makes Wisconsin an 8-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #3 and Illinois #56. He predicts a 65-57 Badger victory in 60 possessions and gives the Badgers an 84% chance of winning.
Illinois Rotation:
*G – 6’3” JR Demetri McCamey (14.9 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 6.8 APG, 1.2 SPG, 54% 2PT, 36% 3PT, 107.5 OR, 26% Poss, 23% Shot, 22% TO, 1% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 3.9 FTR, 39% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’3” FR D.J. Richardson (10.3 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 2.1 APG, 39% 3PT, 78% FT, 104.4 OR, 18% Poss, 19% Shot, 18% TO, 2% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 2.9 FTR, 56% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” JR Bill Cole (4.6 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 1.1 APG, 59% 2PT, 39% 3PT, 118.1 OR, 11% Poss, 12% Shot, 15% TO, 6% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 2.1 FTR, 63% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” JR Mike Davis (10.3 PPG, 8.8 RPG, 97.3 OR, 19% Poss, 22% Shot, 13% TO, 8% OffReb, 23% DefReb, 1.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
*C – 7’1” JR Mike Tisdale (11.6 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 1.6 BPG, 57% 2PT, 84% FT, 116.8 OR, 19% Poss, 19% Shot, 16% TO, 9% OffReb, 16% DefReb, 3.9 FTR, 0.8% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’4” FR Brandon Paul (8.1 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 1.3 APG, 91.9 OR, 28% Poss, 30% Shot, 14% TO, 8% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 2.9 FTR, 47% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’1” JR Jeff Jordan (1.4 PPG, 1.5 RPG, 1.8 APG, 90.5 OR, 11% Poss, 8% Shot, 31% TO, 4% OffReb, 7% DefReb, 1.7 FTR, 15% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’7” SR Dominique Keller (4.7 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 52% 2PT, 96.4 OR, 22% Poss, 25% Shot, 17% TO, 7% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 2.1 FTR, 24% 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 Illinois is really good at:
1. Avoiding the paint. They get blocked slightly less than 1 in 32 two-point attempts. This ranks 1st in the Big Ten.
2. Defending beyond the arc. They allow only 33.1%, third best 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. They are also 7th in percentage when they get there, hitting 70.9%.
2. Forcing turnovers. They only force 1 turnovers every 6 possessions, second worst in the Big Ten.
Relative efficiency:
When Illinois has the ball: Illinois has scored the third worst 1.00 PPP in their first 18 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league leading 0.94 in their first 18.
When UW has the ball: Illinois has the fifth best defensive PPP at 1.01 in their 18 Big Ten games, while UW has scored the conference best 1.11 in their 18 Big Ten games.
Pace: Illinois has played at 65 possessions per game in their 18 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in their 18 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Illinois Good Wins = @Clemson, Vanderbilt, MSU, @Wisconsin
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. Trevon Hughes and Jason Bohannon combine for 26 points or more. McCamey and Richardson are great offensive players, but are suspect on defense against dribble penetration and J-Bo heats back up.
2. Jon Leuer gets a double-double. His offensive production has been great but this game he finally gets aggressive on the boards.
3. The Badger keep McCamey and Tisdale from reach a combined 26 points. I just think the team will have those two figured out this time.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 69-58 in 55 possessions. Bring on OSU.
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #11 and Illinois #60. He makes Wisconsin an 8-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #3 and Illinois #56. He predicts a 65-57 Badger victory in 60 possessions and gives the Badgers an 84% chance of winning.
Illinois Rotation:
*G – 6’3” JR Demetri McCamey (14.9 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 6.8 APG, 1.2 SPG, 54% 2PT, 36% 3PT, 107.5 OR, 26% Poss, 23% Shot, 22% TO, 1% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 3.9 FTR, 39% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’3” FR D.J. Richardson (10.3 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 2.1 APG, 39% 3PT, 78% FT, 104.4 OR, 18% Poss, 19% Shot, 18% TO, 2% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 2.9 FTR, 56% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” JR Bill Cole (4.6 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 1.1 APG, 59% 2PT, 39% 3PT, 118.1 OR, 11% Poss, 12% Shot, 15% TO, 6% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 2.1 FTR, 63% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” JR Mike Davis (10.3 PPG, 8.8 RPG, 97.3 OR, 19% Poss, 22% Shot, 13% TO, 8% OffReb, 23% DefReb, 1.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
*C – 7’1” JR Mike Tisdale (11.6 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 1.6 BPG, 57% 2PT, 84% FT, 116.8 OR, 19% Poss, 19% Shot, 16% TO, 9% OffReb, 16% DefReb, 3.9 FTR, 0.8% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’4” FR Brandon Paul (8.1 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 1.3 APG, 91.9 OR, 28% Poss, 30% Shot, 14% TO, 8% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 2.9 FTR, 47% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’1” JR Jeff Jordan (1.4 PPG, 1.5 RPG, 1.8 APG, 90.5 OR, 11% Poss, 8% Shot, 31% TO, 4% OffReb, 7% DefReb, 1.7 FTR, 15% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’7” SR Dominique Keller (4.7 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 52% 2PT, 96.4 OR, 22% Poss, 25% Shot, 17% TO, 7% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 2.1 FTR, 24% 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 Illinois is really good at:
1. Avoiding the paint. They get blocked slightly less than 1 in 32 two-point attempts. This ranks 1st in the Big Ten.
2. Defending beyond the arc. They allow only 33.1%, third best 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. They are also 7th in percentage when they get there, hitting 70.9%.
2. Forcing turnovers. They only force 1 turnovers every 6 possessions, second worst in the Big Ten.
Relative efficiency:
When Illinois has the ball: Illinois has scored the third worst 1.00 PPP in their first 18 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league leading 0.94 in their first 18.
When UW has the ball: Illinois has the fifth best defensive PPP at 1.01 in their 18 Big Ten games, while UW has scored the conference best 1.11 in their 18 Big Ten games.
Pace: Illinois has played at 65 possessions per game in their 18 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in their 18 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Illinois Good Wins = @Clemson, Vanderbilt, MSU, @Wisconsin
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. Trevon Hughes and Jason Bohannon combine for 26 points or more. McCamey and Richardson are great offensive players, but are suspect on defense against dribble penetration and J-Bo heats back up.
2. Jon Leuer gets a double-double. His offensive production has been great but this game he finally gets aggressive on the boards.
3. The Badger keep McCamey and Tisdale from reach a combined 26 points. I just think the team will have those two figured out this time.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 69-58 in 55 possessions. Bring on OSU.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Illinois 2.0 Box Score Observations
Opening Comments: This was a very satisfying 15 point road win against a quality B10 opponent (72-57). Bo does it again. His legend grows.
I wonder what teams think after losses to UW? They probably wonder why they lose. UW has the same guys doing the same thing over and over with only occasional wrinkles. UW is easy to prepare for and hard to shut down.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW put up more FGA’s (both inside and outside the arc) thanks to excellent offensive rebounding and low turnovers and was able to overcome a superior UI free throw shooting performance for a blow out road win.
Pace: The game had 58 possessions, average for UW. It was the 18th most of our 30 games. We average 60 overall and 58 in conference.
Efficiency: Was it good offense or good defense. Both. UW smoked them with a great 1.24 PPP, sixth best for the year and third in conference (behind Indiana 1.32 and NU 1.30). On defense, we held them to just under 1 PPP, they came in at .98 PPP. For a Big Ten road game, I think that is great.
Shooting: Shooting was a tale of two halves based upon UI’s change in strategy. In the first half, UI launched 25 FGA’s and two FTA’s. Having decided, apparently they were settling for too many jumpers, they attacked the basket more in the second half. In the second half, they put up 5 fewer FGA’s and 21 more FTA’s. Of the 20 FGA’s they tried, 10 were threes. UI’s excellent free throw shooting could not overcome their lack of quantity or quality shooting inside or outside the arc.
eFG%: UI’s eFG% was a dismal 41%. UW had been holding their opponents to 47%. So, that was a good showing for UW’s defense, or poor marksmanship by UI. Meanwhile, UW shot at 48%, less than our typical 51% but not bad.
3 pt shooting: UI dropped 5 of 16 treys for 31%. UW shot 2 more and made two more. UW was 7-18 for 39%. UW picked up 6 points at the arc.
2pt shooting: UI’s big problem was inside the arc. UI hit 11 of 29 for 38%. UW invested 15 more shots inside, 44, and hit a better percentage, 43% or 19 made shots. That gave UW a plus 8 baskets made or 16 extra points inside. These sixteen, coupled with the 6 beyond the arc, gave UW a plus 22 from the floor.
1pt shooting: UI shined from the line. They hit 20 of 23 for 87%. Excellent. UW was only 13 of 20, 65%. Ugh. So, UW gave back 7 at the line to get to the final margin of 15.
Rebounding: UW controlled their defensive glass and dominated their offensive glass.
UW Defensive end: There were 31 rebounding opportunities and UW got 23 or 74% which is excellent – but average for our excellent rebounding team.
UW Offensive End: With UI’s poor shooting, there were 39 rebounding opportunities (8 more) and UW got 17 or 44%. That was our third best offensive rebounding total for the year (at IU we got 45%, UIC 50%). So much for UI leveraging their height advantage on the boards. UW had 17 offensive rebound and UI 8, so UW had a plus 9 rebounding advantage.
Turnovers: Both teams protected the ball well. UI was an excellent 14% TO rate (they had 8) while UW was an even better (lower) 9% (5 for the game). That is simply outstanding.
Opportunity Index: UW ended up with a plus 12 Opportunity Index (Plus 8 offensive rebounds and plus 4 turnovers).
Looking at it from a shot perspective, UI had 45 FGA’s and an estimated 11 trips to the line (23 FTA) or 56 shots. UW had 62 FGA’s and an estimated 9 trips to the line (20 FTA’s) or 71. So, the 15 shots are different than the +12 OI, and I would need to do a shot-by-shot audit to figure out the difference. One is undoubtedly the intentional foul. Anyway, UW benefitted from fewer TO’s and more offensive rebounds to get more shots up.
Fouls: UW had 19 to UI’s 18. The interesting thing was there were only 6 fouls on UW and 4 on UI in the first half. The second half became a foul fest.
Playing time: Bo continues to shorten his bench, as is common this time of year. JBO and Taylor played the whole game. Keaton played 36. Leuer (26) and Hughes (22) played less with foul trouble. Evans got 17 and Jarmusz 11. Wilson chipped in 7.
For UI, besides the starters, Paul got 21 and Keller 12.
Notable Performances: Offensively, the day belonged to Leuer and Taylor. Leuer got 20 on 13 FGA’s and 4-6 FTA’s. He had one TO. Taylor also had 20 taking 17 FGA’s and 1-2 from the line. Taylor played 40 minutes without a turnover. Amazing. Jordan and Jon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
Hughes had a 14-11 dub dub. He scored 14 on 12 shots and had 11 rebounds including 7 offensive. Not bad for 22 minutes of work. Those are Bill Russell-like rebounding numbers. Trevon had no turnovers, either. Keaton chipped in 9 and 7 boards, 5 offensive. Trevon and Keaton, you too will get a mention at the fire.
For UI, the scorers did their damage from the line. Tisdale was 8-8 and McCamey 7-8. McCamey ended up with 11 points and Tisdale 16. McCamey had 3 TO’s and Tisdale 2.
Cole had a nice day dropping 4-6 threes from the heavens and ending up with 14 points.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Illinois takes 11 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. That was their strength going 20-23 for 87%. In the second half they abandoned the jump shot and attacked the basket. The free throws followed.
2. Trevon Hughes and Jason Bohannon combine for 26 points or more. McCamey and Richardson are great offensive players, but are suspect on defense against dribble penetration. Miss. Hughes did his part getting 14 but JBo only dropped in 4 for a combined 18.
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. Near miss. UW was at 39%, making this the close call of the day.
4. Jon Leuer gets a double-double. I don’t have a justification for this, just a feeling. Miss. Leuer got 20 points and 4 boards. But, Hughes got a dub dub.
The Badgers win 63-56 in 57 possessions. Despite the Big Ten telling the refs to let the Illini win to get more teams in the NCAA tournament, the Badgers prevail. Hit. You were good on the possessions and Illinois’ points but underestimated UW’s by 9. UW won 72-57, 58 possessions. B10 has not learned the proper technique of leaving money in garbage cans in white unmarked envelopes.
Closing Thoughts: Whew. What a great year. It is too bad we are stuck in 4th place. A 13-5 record should have done better. Here is what 5 losses would do for a team in past years in conference:
09 – second
08 – fourth
07 – third (16 game schedule)
06 – second (16 game schedule)
05 - third (16 game schedule)
04 – fourth (16 game schedule)
It is now official: JBo does miss more free throws than Tim Doyle has found hairs out of place.
It will be interesting to see how the two coaches prepare for their BTT match up. What will Webber do to slow Leuer?
It will be interesting what happens to UI in the NCAA’s. They hit the B10 conference starting line in the hole having lost to Utah and Bradley on neutral courts. Ouch. They had a good win beating Clemson to partially offset the two bad losses. They also lost to Georgia, Missouri, and the Zags. Normally 10-8 in conference would get you in, but I am not at all sure. I think they may be in trouble and the B10 could be a four team conference after such a promising start. There is sadistic pleasure in peeing on their cornflakes, so to speak.
As for UW, each big win can move us up a seed (or maybe every two good wins). Personally, I want to win one BTT game for sure. After that, it matters not so much.
I wonder what teams think after losses to UW? They probably wonder why they lose. UW has the same guys doing the same thing over and over with only occasional wrinkles. UW is easy to prepare for and hard to shut down.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW put up more FGA’s (both inside and outside the arc) thanks to excellent offensive rebounding and low turnovers and was able to overcome a superior UI free throw shooting performance for a blow out road win.
Pace: The game had 58 possessions, average for UW. It was the 18th most of our 30 games. We average 60 overall and 58 in conference.
Efficiency: Was it good offense or good defense. Both. UW smoked them with a great 1.24 PPP, sixth best for the year and third in conference (behind Indiana 1.32 and NU 1.30). On defense, we held them to just under 1 PPP, they came in at .98 PPP. For a Big Ten road game, I think that is great.
Shooting: Shooting was a tale of two halves based upon UI’s change in strategy. In the first half, UI launched 25 FGA’s and two FTA’s. Having decided, apparently they were settling for too many jumpers, they attacked the basket more in the second half. In the second half, they put up 5 fewer FGA’s and 21 more FTA’s. Of the 20 FGA’s they tried, 10 were threes. UI’s excellent free throw shooting could not overcome their lack of quantity or quality shooting inside or outside the arc.
eFG%: UI’s eFG% was a dismal 41%. UW had been holding their opponents to 47%. So, that was a good showing for UW’s defense, or poor marksmanship by UI. Meanwhile, UW shot at 48%, less than our typical 51% but not bad.
3 pt shooting: UI dropped 5 of 16 treys for 31%. UW shot 2 more and made two more. UW was 7-18 for 39%. UW picked up 6 points at the arc.
2pt shooting: UI’s big problem was inside the arc. UI hit 11 of 29 for 38%. UW invested 15 more shots inside, 44, and hit a better percentage, 43% or 19 made shots. That gave UW a plus 8 baskets made or 16 extra points inside. These sixteen, coupled with the 6 beyond the arc, gave UW a plus 22 from the floor.
1pt shooting: UI shined from the line. They hit 20 of 23 for 87%. Excellent. UW was only 13 of 20, 65%. Ugh. So, UW gave back 7 at the line to get to the final margin of 15.
Rebounding: UW controlled their defensive glass and dominated their offensive glass.
UW Defensive end: There were 31 rebounding opportunities and UW got 23 or 74% which is excellent – but average for our excellent rebounding team.
UW Offensive End: With UI’s poor shooting, there were 39 rebounding opportunities (8 more) and UW got 17 or 44%. That was our third best offensive rebounding total for the year (at IU we got 45%, UIC 50%). So much for UI leveraging their height advantage on the boards. UW had 17 offensive rebound and UI 8, so UW had a plus 9 rebounding advantage.
Turnovers: Both teams protected the ball well. UI was an excellent 14% TO rate (they had 8) while UW was an even better (lower) 9% (5 for the game). That is simply outstanding.
Opportunity Index: UW ended up with a plus 12 Opportunity Index (Plus 8 offensive rebounds and plus 4 turnovers).
Looking at it from a shot perspective, UI had 45 FGA’s and an estimated 11 trips to the line (23 FTA) or 56 shots. UW had 62 FGA’s and an estimated 9 trips to the line (20 FTA’s) or 71. So, the 15 shots are different than the +12 OI, and I would need to do a shot-by-shot audit to figure out the difference. One is undoubtedly the intentional foul. Anyway, UW benefitted from fewer TO’s and more offensive rebounds to get more shots up.
Fouls: UW had 19 to UI’s 18. The interesting thing was there were only 6 fouls on UW and 4 on UI in the first half. The second half became a foul fest.
Playing time: Bo continues to shorten his bench, as is common this time of year. JBO and Taylor played the whole game. Keaton played 36. Leuer (26) and Hughes (22) played less with foul trouble. Evans got 17 and Jarmusz 11. Wilson chipped in 7.
For UI, besides the starters, Paul got 21 and Keller 12.
Notable Performances: Offensively, the day belonged to Leuer and Taylor. Leuer got 20 on 13 FGA’s and 4-6 FTA’s. He had one TO. Taylor also had 20 taking 17 FGA’s and 1-2 from the line. Taylor played 40 minutes without a turnover. Amazing. Jordan and Jon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
Hughes had a 14-11 dub dub. He scored 14 on 12 shots and had 11 rebounds including 7 offensive. Not bad for 22 minutes of work. Those are Bill Russell-like rebounding numbers. Trevon had no turnovers, either. Keaton chipped in 9 and 7 boards, 5 offensive. Trevon and Keaton, you too will get a mention at the fire.
For UI, the scorers did their damage from the line. Tisdale was 8-8 and McCamey 7-8. McCamey ended up with 11 points and Tisdale 16. McCamey had 3 TO’s and Tisdale 2.
Cole had a nice day dropping 4-6 threes from the heavens and ending up with 14 points.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Illinois takes 11 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. That was their strength going 20-23 for 87%. In the second half they abandoned the jump shot and attacked the basket. The free throws followed.
2. Trevon Hughes and Jason Bohannon combine for 26 points or more. McCamey and Richardson are great offensive players, but are suspect on defense against dribble penetration. Miss. Hughes did his part getting 14 but JBo only dropped in 4 for a combined 18.
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. Near miss. UW was at 39%, making this the close call of the day.
4. Jon Leuer gets a double-double. I don’t have a justification for this, just a feeling. Miss. Leuer got 20 points and 4 boards. But, Hughes got a dub dub.
The Badgers win 63-56 in 57 possessions. Despite the Big Ten telling the refs to let the Illini win to get more teams in the NCAA tournament, the Badgers prevail. Hit. You were good on the possessions and Illinois’ points but underestimated UW’s by 9. UW won 72-57, 58 possessions. B10 has not learned the proper technique of leaving money in garbage cans in white unmarked envelopes.
Closing Thoughts: Whew. What a great year. It is too bad we are stuck in 4th place. A 13-5 record should have done better. Here is what 5 losses would do for a team in past years in conference:
09 – second
08 – fourth
07 – third (16 game schedule)
06 – second (16 game schedule)
05 - third (16 game schedule)
04 – fourth (16 game schedule)
It is now official: JBo does miss more free throws than Tim Doyle has found hairs out of place.
It will be interesting to see how the two coaches prepare for their BTT match up. What will Webber do to slow Leuer?
It will be interesting what happens to UI in the NCAA’s. They hit the B10 conference starting line in the hole having lost to Utah and Bradley on neutral courts. Ouch. They had a good win beating Clemson to partially offset the two bad losses. They also lost to Georgia, Missouri, and the Zags. Normally 10-8 in conference would get you in, but I am not at all sure. I think they may be in trouble and the B10 could be a four team conference after such a promising start. There is sadistic pleasure in peeing on their cornflakes, so to speak.
As for UW, each big win can move us up a seed (or maybe every two good wins). Personally, I want to win one BTT game for sure. After that, it matters not so much.
Illinois 2.0 Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: There’s a lot on the line for the Illini Sunday afternoon. Barring a Big Ten tournament championship, this is a must win to have a shot at the NCAA tournament. The Badgers are only really playing for seed. They could sink to 6 or rise to a 4 or maybe even 3.
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #12 and Illinois #60. He makes Wisconsin a 3 or 4-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #4 and Illinois #52. He predicts a 62-58 Badger victory in 60 possessions and gives the Badgers a 69% chance of winning.
Illinois Rotation:
*G – 6’3” JR Demetri McCamey (15.1 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 6.9 APG, 1.3 SPG, 54% 2PT, 37% 3PT, 107.0 OR, 27% Poss, 23% Shot, 23% TO, 1% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 3.7 FTR, 39% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’3” FR D.J. Richardson (10.5 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 2.2 APG, 40% 3PT, 78% FT, 106.3 OR, 18% Poss, 19% Shot, 17% TO, 2% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 2.9 FTR, 56% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” JR Bill Cole (4.0 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 1.1 APG, 59% 2PT, 37% 3PT, 116.9 OR, 11% Poss, 12% Shot, 14% TO, 6% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 2.0 FTR, 56% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” JR Mike Davis (10.4 PPG, 8.8 RPG, 1.0 APG, 98.7 OR, 19% Poss, 22% Shot, 14% TO, 8% OffReb, 23% DefReb, 1.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
*C – 7’1” JR Mike Tisdale (11.5 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 1.7 BPG, 57% 2PT, 83% FT, 115.5 OR, 19% Poss, 20% Shot, 16% TO, 9% OffReb, 16% DefReb, 3.7 FTR, 0.4% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’4” FR Brandon Paul (8.2 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 1.3 APG, 92.4 OR, 27% Poss, 29% Shot, 15% TO, 8% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 2.8 FTR, 47% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’1” JR Jeff Jordan (1.5 PPG, 1.5 RPG, 1.8 APG, 91.4 OR, 11% Poss, 8% Shot, 31% TO, 3% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 1.6 FTR, 16% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’7” SR Dominique Keller (4.8 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 52% 2PT, 99.2 OR, 23% Poss, 25% Shot, 16% TO, 7% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 1.9 FTR, 23% 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 Illinois is really good at:
1. Pump faking. They get blocked slightly less than 1 in 20 two-point attempts. This ranks 1st in the Big Ten.
2. Defending beyond the arc. They allow only 32.8%, second best 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. They are also 9th in percentage when they get there, hitting 69.6%.
2. Forcing turnovers. They only force 1 turnovers every 6 possessions, second worst in the Big Ten.
Relative efficiency:
When Illinois has the ball: Illinois has scored the third worst 1.00 PPP in their first 17 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league leading 0.94 in their first 17.
When UW has the ball: Illinois has the fifth best defensive PPP at 1.00 in their 17 Big Ten games, while UW has scored the conference best 1.10 in their 17 Big Ten games.
Pace: Illinois has played at 65 possessions per game in their 17 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in their 17 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Illinois Good Wins = @Clemson, Vanderbilt, MSU, @Wisconsin
Illinois Bad Losses = (N) Utah, (N) Indiana
UW Good Wins = (N) Maryland, Duke, Marquette, OSU, Purdue, MSU
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB
My expectations:
1. Illinois takes 11 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 Jason Bohannon 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.
4. Jon Leuer gets a double-double. I don’t have a justification for this, just a feeling.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 63-56 in 57 possessions. Despite the Big Ten telling the refs to let the Illini win to get more teams in the NCAA tournament, the Badgers prevail.
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #12 and Illinois #60. He makes Wisconsin a 3 or 4-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #4 and Illinois #52. He predicts a 62-58 Badger victory in 60 possessions and gives the Badgers a 69% chance of winning.
Illinois Rotation:
*G – 6’3” JR Demetri McCamey (15.1 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 6.9 APG, 1.3 SPG, 54% 2PT, 37% 3PT, 107.0 OR, 27% Poss, 23% Shot, 23% TO, 1% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 3.7 FTR, 39% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’3” FR D.J. Richardson (10.5 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 2.2 APG, 40% 3PT, 78% FT, 106.3 OR, 18% Poss, 19% Shot, 17% TO, 2% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 2.9 FTR, 56% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” JR Bill Cole (4.0 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 1.1 APG, 59% 2PT, 37% 3PT, 116.9 OR, 11% Poss, 12% Shot, 14% TO, 6% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 2.0 FTR, 56% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” JR Mike Davis (10.4 PPG, 8.8 RPG, 1.0 APG, 98.7 OR, 19% Poss, 22% Shot, 14% TO, 8% OffReb, 23% DefReb, 1.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
*C – 7’1” JR Mike Tisdale (11.5 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 1.7 BPG, 57% 2PT, 83% FT, 115.5 OR, 19% Poss, 20% Shot, 16% TO, 9% OffReb, 16% DefReb, 3.7 FTR, 0.4% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’4” FR Brandon Paul (8.2 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 1.3 APG, 92.4 OR, 27% Poss, 29% Shot, 15% TO, 8% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 2.8 FTR, 47% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’1” JR Jeff Jordan (1.5 PPG, 1.5 RPG, 1.8 APG, 91.4 OR, 11% Poss, 8% Shot, 31% TO, 3% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 1.6 FTR, 16% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’7” SR Dominique Keller (4.8 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 52% 2PT, 99.2 OR, 23% Poss, 25% Shot, 16% TO, 7% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 1.9 FTR, 23% 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 Illinois is really good at:
1. Pump faking. They get blocked slightly less than 1 in 20 two-point attempts. This ranks 1st in the Big Ten.
2. Defending beyond the arc. They allow only 32.8%, second best 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. They are also 9th in percentage when they get there, hitting 69.6%.
2. Forcing turnovers. They only force 1 turnovers every 6 possessions, second worst in the Big Ten.
Relative efficiency:
When Illinois has the ball: Illinois has scored the third worst 1.00 PPP in their first 17 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league leading 0.94 in their first 17.
When UW has the ball: Illinois has the fifth best defensive PPP at 1.00 in their 17 Big Ten games, while UW has scored the conference best 1.10 in their 17 Big Ten games.
Pace: Illinois has played at 65 possessions per game in their 17 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in their 17 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Illinois Good Wins = @Clemson, Vanderbilt, MSU, @Wisconsin
Illinois Bad Losses = (N) Utah, (N) Indiana
UW Good Wins = (N) Maryland, Duke, Marquette, OSU, Purdue, MSU
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB
My expectations:
1. Illinois takes 11 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 Jason Bohannon 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.
4. Jon Leuer gets a double-double. I don’t have a justification for this, just a feeling.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 63-56 in 57 possessions. Despite the Big Ten telling the refs to let the Illini win to get more teams in the NCAA tournament, the Badgers prevail.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Iowa Box Score Observations (with contributions by FormerlyBIS and GVBadger)
Opening Comments: The Badgers are very good. The Hawkeyes are very bad. I cannot read Iowa’s numbers on their uniforms. Whoever thought putting black numbers on a black uniform was a good idea is an idiot.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW was very efficient in all phases (shooting, protecting the ball, rebounding), Iowa was not.
Pace: The game had 54 possessions, 6th lowest of the season.
Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Both.
Iowa scored at .74 PPP. That is very poor and 7th worst against us this year.
UW lit them up with 1.24 PPP, our 6th best of the year. It nudged our conference average up to 1.10.
Shooting: UW won the quality battles in all phases of shooting against the defenseless Hawkeyes. UW took only 24% of their FGA’s from beyond the arc, our third fewest of the year.
eFG%: UW had a great day shooting. Our eFG% was 61% to Iowa’s 41%.
3 pt shooting: Iowa was 3-15 (20%) from the arc. UW was 6-12, 50% from deep. UW outscored them by 9 points at the arc.
2pt shooting: Iowa was less inept from inside the arc. They scored 13 times on 28 chances, 46% shooting. UW got 22 on 39 chances, 56%. UW picked up another 18 inside the arc.
1pt shooting: UW’s free throw defense has really improved as the season has worn on. Iowa shot 5 of 10 from the line whereas UW was 5 of 6 – a tie despite 67% more opportunities for the Hawkeyes.
Rebounding: UW did well on both their defensive and offensive glass.
UW Defensive end: There were 30 rebounding chances and UW got 25 of them, which is 83% -- 8th best this year.
UW Offensive End: UW shot better and had fewer rebounding chances – 23 compared to Iowa’s 30. UW grabbed 8 of their misses, which is 35% -- slightly higher than the national average and better than average for UW.
That’s +3 in the offensive rebounds category.
Turnovers: Iowa had 12 for 22%, while UW had 7 for 13% -- both numbers are fairly close to average percentages for each respective team. That’s +5 in the turnover category.
Opportunity Index: UW was a +8 (+3 offensive rebounds, +5 turnovers).
Quantity and Quality: UW won both battles handily (and thus the game).
Iowa took 8 fewer FGA’s (51 to 43) but got to the line more (10 to 6) which still favors Bucky. The quality was heavily in UW’s favor: eFG% +20 and FT% +33.
Fouls: Iowa fouled only 6 times (!) and UW only 10 (!). They were lettin’ em’ play out there
Playing time: Bo played 8 more than 10 minutes with RE playing 12; RW 14; and TJ 10. Bruiser played 7 and there was a rare IM on the floor sighting. Iowa played 7 more than 10 with one more playing 9.
Notable Performances: Trevon and JBo, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. Thanks for the memories.
Leuer tried to steal the spotlight though, as Jon ended 10 possessions with 18 points -- plus 5 boards, 4 assists, and 3 blocks. Exploits... campfires... people...
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Keaton and Jon combine for more than 25 points. Iowa’s tiny front-court won’t have a chance against Nankivil and Leuer. Miss. In your typical near miss fashion, they scored 24 but used only 15 possessions to get them.
2. Badgers grab more than 79% of the rebounds on the defensive end and more than 35% on offensive. The Badgers’ size advantage pays dividends here too. Miss. UW got 83% defensive, but in your near miss fashion, they got 35% offensive.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. They’ve been on a roll at threes lately and I think they overcome Iowa’s good defending of it. Hit. UW got 50% (6 of 12).
My Prediction: The Badgers win 68-49 in 59 possessions, making a nice start to March. Hit. 67-40 in 54.
Closing Thoughts: On to Illinois. That game will mean everything to IU. We have a great chance to ruin their party.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW was very efficient in all phases (shooting, protecting the ball, rebounding), Iowa was not.
Pace: The game had 54 possessions, 6th lowest of the season.
Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? Both.
Iowa scored at .74 PPP. That is very poor and 7th worst against us this year.
UW lit them up with 1.24 PPP, our 6th best of the year. It nudged our conference average up to 1.10.
Shooting: UW won the quality battles in all phases of shooting against the defenseless Hawkeyes. UW took only 24% of their FGA’s from beyond the arc, our third fewest of the year.
eFG%: UW had a great day shooting. Our eFG% was 61% to Iowa’s 41%.
3 pt shooting: Iowa was 3-15 (20%) from the arc. UW was 6-12, 50% from deep. UW outscored them by 9 points at the arc.
2pt shooting: Iowa was less inept from inside the arc. They scored 13 times on 28 chances, 46% shooting. UW got 22 on 39 chances, 56%. UW picked up another 18 inside the arc.
1pt shooting: UW’s free throw defense has really improved as the season has worn on. Iowa shot 5 of 10 from the line whereas UW was 5 of 6 – a tie despite 67% more opportunities for the Hawkeyes.
Rebounding: UW did well on both their defensive and offensive glass.
UW Defensive end: There were 30 rebounding chances and UW got 25 of them, which is 83% -- 8th best this year.
UW Offensive End: UW shot better and had fewer rebounding chances – 23 compared to Iowa’s 30. UW grabbed 8 of their misses, which is 35% -- slightly higher than the national average and better than average for UW.
That’s +3 in the offensive rebounds category.
Turnovers: Iowa had 12 for 22%, while UW had 7 for 13% -- both numbers are fairly close to average percentages for each respective team. That’s +5 in the turnover category.
Opportunity Index: UW was a +8 (+3 offensive rebounds, +5 turnovers).
Quantity and Quality: UW won both battles handily (and thus the game).
Iowa took 8 fewer FGA’s (51 to 43) but got to the line more (10 to 6) which still favors Bucky. The quality was heavily in UW’s favor: eFG% +20 and FT% +33.
Fouls: Iowa fouled only 6 times (!) and UW only 10 (!). They were lettin’ em’ play out there
Playing time: Bo played 8 more than 10 minutes with RE playing 12; RW 14; and TJ 10. Bruiser played 7 and there was a rare IM on the floor sighting. Iowa played 7 more than 10 with one more playing 9.
Notable Performances: Trevon and JBo, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. Thanks for the memories.
Leuer tried to steal the spotlight though, as Jon ended 10 possessions with 18 points -- plus 5 boards, 4 assists, and 3 blocks. Exploits... campfires... people...
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Keaton and Jon combine for more than 25 points. Iowa’s tiny front-court won’t have a chance against Nankivil and Leuer. Miss. In your typical near miss fashion, they scored 24 but used only 15 possessions to get them.
2. Badgers grab more than 79% of the rebounds on the defensive end and more than 35% on offensive. The Badgers’ size advantage pays dividends here too. Miss. UW got 83% defensive, but in your near miss fashion, they got 35% offensive.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. They’ve been on a roll at threes lately and I think they overcome Iowa’s good defending of it. Hit. UW got 50% (6 of 12).
My Prediction: The Badgers win 68-49 in 59 possessions, making a nice start to March. Hit. 67-40 in 54.
Closing Thoughts: On to Illinois. That game will mean everything to IU. We have a great chance to ruin their party.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Iowa Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: Tomorrow night, the Badgers take on the Hawkeyes of Iowa. Iowa comes into the game with a record of 10-19 and 4-12 in the Big Ten. They are riding a 1-game winning streak and coming off a 73-57 victory over the hapless Hoosiers, but have lost 6 of their past 8.
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #11 and Iowa #163. He makes Wisconsin a 20-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #4 and Iowa #140. He predicts a 67-49 Badger victory in 55 possessions and gives the Badgers a 97% chance of winning.
Iowa Rotation:
*G – 6’1” FR Cully Payne (8.6 PPG, 3.1 RPG, 3.8 APG, 1.5 SPG, 79% FT, 85.3 OR, 21% Poss, 19% Shot, 29% TO, 1% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 3.3 FTR, 51% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” SO Matt Gatens (12.7 PPG, 4.6 RPG, 3.3 APG, 83% FT, 34% 3PT, 99.2 OR, 22% Poss, 23% Shot, 21% TO, 3% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 3.2 FTR, 52% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” FR Eric May (9.1 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 1.5 APG, 1.2 SPG, 55% 2PT, 94.1 OR, 19% Poss, 21% Shot, 21% TO, 5% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 2.4 FTR, 55% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’6” SO Aaron Fuller (9.3 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 52%, 105.3 OR, 24% Poss, 24% Shot, 16% TO, 15% OffReb, 18% DefReb, 5.3 FTR, 15% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’7” JR Jarryd Cole (8.2 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 40% 3PT, 58% 2PT, 104.8 OR, 19% Poss, 18% Shot, 21% TO, 10% OffReb, 16% DefReb, 4.3 FTR, 3% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’5” SR Devan Bawinkel (3.4 PPG, 1.0 RPG, 38% 3PT, 114.4 OR, 10% Poss, 14% Shot, 10% TO, 0% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 0.7 FTR, 100% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” FR Brennan Cougill (4.3 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 38% 3PT, 53% 2PT, 106.7 OR, 16% Poss, 17% Shot, 19% TO, 10% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 2.2 FTR, 49% 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%
Out with the Old, In with the New (Alford’s Record vs. Lickliter’s Record)
Alford = .589 winning % (.476 Big Ten), 2 Big Ten tournament championships, 3 NCAA tournament appearances, 3 NIT tournament appearances
Lickliter = .408 winning % (.278 Big Ten), no conference championships, no post-season tournaments
What Iowa is really good at:
1. Defending threes. Their opponents shoot 29.7% from 3 in Big Ten play, which is 1st in the conference.
What Iowa is really bad at:
1. Three-point shooting. They shoot 30.8% from 3, which is 11th in the Big Ten.
2. Taking care of the ball. They turn it over 22.3% of their possessions, good for 10th in the Big Ten.
3. Forcing turnovers. The Hawkeyes force a turnover on only 17.8% of their opponents’ possessions, which is 9th in the Big Ten.
Relative efficiency:
When Iowa has the ball: Iowa has scored the second worst 0.96 PPP in their first 16 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league leading 0.95 in their first 16.
When UW has the ball: Iowa has the fifth worst defensive PPP at 1.06 in their 16 Big Ten games, while UW has scored the league leading 1.09 in their 16 Big Ten games.
Pace: Iowa has played at 62 possessions per game so far in their 16 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in their 16 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Iowa Good Wins = … none
Iowa Bad Losses = Texas – San Antonio, Duquesne
UW Good Wins = (N) Maryland, Duke, Marquette, OSU, Purdue, MSU
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB
My expectations:
1. Keaton and Jon combine for more than 25 points. Iowa’s tiny front-court won’t have a chance against Nankivil and Leuer.
2. Badgers grab more than 79% of the rebounds on the defensive end and more than 35% on offensive. The Badgers’ size advantage pays dividends here too.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. They’ve been on a roll at threes lately and I think they overcome Iowa’s good defending of it.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 68-49 in 59 possessions, making a nice start to March.
What the Expert Nerds Say:
Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #11 and Iowa #163. He makes Wisconsin a 20-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #4 and Iowa #140. He predicts a 67-49 Badger victory in 55 possessions and gives the Badgers a 97% chance of winning.
Iowa Rotation:
*G – 6’1” FR Cully Payne (8.6 PPG, 3.1 RPG, 3.8 APG, 1.5 SPG, 79% FT, 85.3 OR, 21% Poss, 19% Shot, 29% TO, 1% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 3.3 FTR, 51% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” SO Matt Gatens (12.7 PPG, 4.6 RPG, 3.3 APG, 83% FT, 34% 3PT, 99.2 OR, 22% Poss, 23% Shot, 21% TO, 3% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 3.2 FTR, 52% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” FR Eric May (9.1 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 1.5 APG, 1.2 SPG, 55% 2PT, 94.1 OR, 19% Poss, 21% Shot, 21% TO, 5% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 2.4 FTR, 55% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’6” SO Aaron Fuller (9.3 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 52%, 105.3 OR, 24% Poss, 24% Shot, 16% TO, 15% OffReb, 18% DefReb, 5.3 FTR, 15% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’7” JR Jarryd Cole (8.2 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 40% 3PT, 58% 2PT, 104.8 OR, 19% Poss, 18% Shot, 21% TO, 10% OffReb, 16% DefReb, 4.3 FTR, 3% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’5” SR Devan Bawinkel (3.4 PPG, 1.0 RPG, 38% 3PT, 114.4 OR, 10% Poss, 14% Shot, 10% TO, 0% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 0.7 FTR, 100% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” FR Brennan Cougill (4.3 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 38% 3PT, 53% 2PT, 106.7 OR, 16% Poss, 17% Shot, 19% TO, 10% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 2.2 FTR, 49% 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%
Out with the Old, In with the New (Alford’s Record vs. Lickliter’s Record)
Alford = .589 winning % (.476 Big Ten), 2 Big Ten tournament championships, 3 NCAA tournament appearances, 3 NIT tournament appearances
Lickliter = .408 winning % (.278 Big Ten), no conference championships, no post-season tournaments
What Iowa is really good at:
1. Defending threes. Their opponents shoot 29.7% from 3 in Big Ten play, which is 1st in the conference.
What Iowa is really bad at:
1. Three-point shooting. They shoot 30.8% from 3, which is 11th in the Big Ten.
2. Taking care of the ball. They turn it over 22.3% of their possessions, good for 10th in the Big Ten.
3. Forcing turnovers. The Hawkeyes force a turnover on only 17.8% of their opponents’ possessions, which is 9th in the Big Ten.
Relative efficiency:
When Iowa has the ball: Iowa has scored the second worst 0.96 PPP in their first 16 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league leading 0.95 in their first 16.
When UW has the ball: Iowa has the fifth worst defensive PPP at 1.06 in their 16 Big Ten games, while UW has scored the league leading 1.09 in their 16 Big Ten games.
Pace: Iowa has played at 62 possessions per game so far in their 16 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 58 in their 16 Big Ten games.
Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:
Iowa Good Wins = … none
Iowa Bad Losses = Texas – San Antonio, Duquesne
UW Good Wins = (N) Maryland, Duke, Marquette, OSU, Purdue, MSU
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB
My expectations:
1. Keaton and Jon combine for more than 25 points. Iowa’s tiny front-court won’t have a chance against Nankivil and Leuer.
2. Badgers grab more than 79% of the rebounds on the defensive end and more than 35% on offensive. The Badgers’ size advantage pays dividends here too.
3. Badgers shoot better than 40% from beyond the arc. They’ve been on a roll at threes lately and I think they overcome Iowa’s good defending of it.
My Prediction: The Badgers win 68-49 in 59 possessions, making a nice start to March.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)