Opening Thoughts: I didn’t like how they let off the gas and allowed a 15-0 run at the end of the game, but hey, we won comfortably regardless. I noticed quite a bit of people questioning the shooting prowess, or lack there of, by the Badgers from 3-point range, citing the past 2 games as evidence. Well, I want to lend some credibility to those blaming the court specs of the gym in Orlando. All 8 teams in the tournament had a combined 34.3% mark from the arc before the start of the tournament, which is just about the national average most seasons. In the tournament, they have combined for 27.5%, just a bit less than 7% lower. It’s the difference between 149th and 292nd in the country. Half the teams (Wisconsin, Manhattan, Notre Dame, and Georgia) dropped their percentage by a number between 15.8 to 19.7 points! Boston College improved by 12.6% and Texas A&M by 8.5%, but the other six teams shot at least 4% worse. But I digress, Notre Dame is on the docket…
Forums: ND Nation, UHND, Irish Illustrated, Irish Eyes
What the expert nerds say: Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 2-point favorite.
I think Ken Pomeroy predicts a 66-62 Badger victory in 61 possessions with a 38% chance of an upset. I hand calculated this myself and it doesn’t seem right to me, especially the number of possessions since it’s below both teams’ averages.
Notre Dame Likely Rotation (First 6 Games Statistics)
*G – 6’3” SR Ben Hansbrough (15.3 PPG, 4.3 APG, 3.8 RPG, 123.7 OR, 21% Poss, 20% Shot, 21% TO, 5.1 FTR, 60% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G/F – 6’8” SR Scott Martin (9.0 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 1.8 APG, 100.5 OR, 19% Poss, 19% Shot, 19% TO, 6.0 FTR, 43% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Tim Abromaitis (17.0 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 2.5 APG, 125.3 OR, 22% Poss, 25% Shot, 8% TO, 6.0 FTR, 54% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Carleton Scott (10.8 PPG, 7.8 RPG, 2.3 APG, 1.7 APG, 112.7 OR, 19% Poss, 23% Shot, 19% TO, 2.3 FTR, 51% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Tyrone Nash (12.7 PPG, 7.2 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.7 BPG, 126.8 OR, 22% Poss, 16% Shot, 14% TO, 13.6 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’2” FR Eric Atkins (7.8 PPG, 3.3 APG, 2.3 RPG, 129.5 OR, 13% Poss, 14% Shot, 17% TO, 2.4 FTR, 42% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” SO Jack Cooley (6.3 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 127.9 OR, 21% Poss, 21% Shot, 14% TO, 5.0 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’6” SO Joey Brooks (2.7 PPG, 1.7 RPG, 92.7 OR, 17% Poss, 17% Shot, 26% TO, 4.0 FTR, 53% of FGAs are 3PT)
PLAYER TRAITS (with revisions from suggestions)
THREE-POINT SHOOTING
Jeff Jordan (<28%)
Carleton Scott = 26%
Scott Martin = 20%
Joey Brooks = 13%
Trevon Hughes (35-38%)
None
Clayton Hanson (+38%)
Ben Hansbrough = 55%
Eric Atkins = 50%
TWO-POINT SHOOTING
Kevin Gullikson (<43%)
Ben Hansbrough = 41%
Marcus Landry (50-54%)
Eric Atkins = 53%
Tim Abromaitis = 50%
Mike Wilkinson (+54%)
Joey Brooks = 71%
Carleton Scott = 65%
Jack Cooley = 63%
Scott Martin = 55%
FREE THROW SHOOTING
Alando Tucker (<65%)
Joey Brooks = 50%
Kam Taylor (75-82%)
Tim Abromaitis = 81%
Tyrone Nash = 76%
Eric Atkins = 75%
Jason Bohannon (+82%)
Carleton Scott = 83%
DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)
Tim Abromaitis = 18%
Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)
Carleton Scott = 25%
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Brian Butch (9-12%)
Tyrone Nash = 11%
Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)
Jack Cooley = 20%
STEALING
Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)
Joey Brooks = 3.6%
Mike Kelley (+4.4%)
None
BLOCKING
Brian Butch (3-7%)
Carleton Scott = 6%
Jack Cooley = 6%
Greg Stiemsma (+7%)
None
ASSISTS
Devin Harris (20-25%)
Eric Atkins = 23%
Tyrone Nash = 20%
Jordan Taylor (25-30%)
Ben Hansbrough = 27%
Demetri McCamey (+30%)
None
POSSESSION USAGE
Jason Chappell (<15%)
Eric Atkins = 13%
Brian Butch (24-28%)
None
Alando Tucker (+28%)
None
This still isn’t set in stone… if you think I should use different players (Badgers or other Big Ten), feel free to suggest them so I don’t have Butch, Kelley, Tucker, and Hughes multiple times. For those questioning, all of the players had numbers in their range for either their entire career or their upperclassmen seasons. For example, Mike Kelley averaged a 4.5% steal rate with a high of 5.9 his junior year and Trevon Hughes shot 36% from three for his career with a high of almost 40% his senior year.
What Notre Dame is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. This season, they have averaged only 3 turnovers per 19 possessions, which is good for 15th in the nation.
2. Shooting. They have shot 51.6% (84th) from inside the arc so far this season, and 35.7% (112th) from the arc, and 74.1% from the line (46th).
3. Contesting shots. They have surrendered a measly 41.1% inside the arc (45th), 30.1% from the arc (100th), and 64.6% from the line (103rd).
4. Keeping the opponent off the charity stripe and getting there themselves. Their opponents attempt about 2 FTAs per 9 FGAs (32nd) and they get there 6 times for every 11 FGAs (19th).
5. Rebounding. They are 51st in offensive rebounding (38.4%) and 9th in defensive (76.5%).
What Notre Dame is really bad at:
1. Forcing turnovers. They have forced only about 2 turnovers per 11 possessions, good for 299th in the nation.
Relative Efficiency:
When Notre Dame has the ball: They have scored a white hot 1.21 PPP this season, while UW has given up a great 0.88 this season.
When UW has the ball: They have given up a great 0.88 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.20 this season.
Pace: Notre Dame has played at 71 possessions per game to UW’s 61.
My expectations:
1. Badgers establish a strong post game with more than 30 points in the paint. The Badgers ruin the Irish's sparkling interior defensive stats.
2. The Badgers knock down less than 3 threes. Come on reverse psychology.
3. Badgers grab more than 36% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. Let it ride against a great rebounding team.
4. The Badgers hold Abromaitis to less than 12 points. We’re got the defenders at the 3 spot to slow this guy.
Badgers eat their Lucky Charms, downing ND 74-68 in 66 possessions.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Boston College Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: Not the prettiest of games yesterday, but a win is a win. Hopefully they got the bad shooting out of their system because up next is Boston College. Their new head coach doesn't bring up good memories for Badger fans... Steve Donahue from last year's Cornell team. And this Boston College team runs the same offense and jacks as many 3s as that team did. Luckily, his roster isn't fit for the style quite yet.
What the expert nerds say: Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 10-point favorite.
Manhattan Likely Rotation (First 4 Games Statistics)
*G – 6’3” JR Reggie Jackson (19.2 PPG, 4.5 APG, 3.8 RPG, 2.2 SPG, 126.7 OR, 28% Poss, 31% Shot, 10% TO, 2.5 FTR, 39% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’1” SR Biko Paris (7.2 PPG, 3.0 APG, 1.8 RPG, 86.0 OR, 17% Poss, 17% Shot, 25% TO, 1.7 FTR, 53% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’6” FR Danny Rubin (9.7 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 122.3 OR, 18% Poss, 25% Shot, 6% TO, 1.9 FTR, 71% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Joe Trapani (13.8 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 1.5 APG, 105.4 OR, 27% Poss, 28% Shot, 29% TO, 5.6 FTR, 35% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Cortney Dunn (2.5 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 1.0 APG, 1.0 BPG, 106.0 OR, 12% Poss, 6% Shot, 27% TO, 12.0 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’6” SR Corey Raji (13.8 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 1.5 APG, 150.2 OR, 22% Poss, 19% Shot, 8% TO, 8.5 FTR, 31% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’5” JR Dallas Elmore (2.0 PPG, 1.5 RPG, 74.6 OR, 12% Poss, 9% Shot, 33% TO, 5.0 FTR, 25% of FGAs are 3PT)
C – 6’10” SR Josh Southern (3.0 PPG, 1.3 APG, 1.0 RPG, 149.9 OR, 13% Poss, 7% Shot, 14% TO, 8.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’2” FR Gabriel Moton (1.5 PPG, 1.2 RPG, 108.1 OR, 12% Poss, 15% Shot, 0% TO, 0.0 FTR, 67% of FGAs are 3PT)
PLAYER TRAITS (with revisions from suggestions)
THREE-POINT SHOOTING
Jeff Jordan (<28%)
Joe Trapani = 27%
Biko Paris = 25%
Dallas Elmore = 0%
Gabriel Moton = 0%
Trevon Hughes (35-38%)
Corey Raji = 38%
Reggie Jackson = 36%
Clayton Hanson (+38%)
Danny Rubin = 47%
TWO-POINT SHOOTING
Kevin Gullikson (<43%)
Biko Paris = 43%
Joe Trapani = 43%
Dallas Elmore = 33%
Marcus Landry (50-54%)
Danny Rubin = 50%
Mike Wilkinson (+54%)
Gabriel Moton = 100%
Cortney Dunn = 80%
Corey Raji = 78%
Josh Southern = 67%
Reggie Jackson = 59%
FREE THROW SHOOTING
Alando Tucker (<65%)
Danny Rubin = 50%
Cortney Dunn = 33%
Kam Taylor (75-82%)
Corey Raji 82%
Joe Trapani = 79%
Jason Bohannon (+82%)
Biko Paris = 100%
Dallas Elmore = 100%
Reggie Jackson = 93%
Josh Southern = 83%
DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)
Corey Raji = 18%
Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)
Joe Trapani = 22%
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Brian Butch (9-12%)
Gabriel Moton = 9%
Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)
Corey Raji = 16%
STEALING
Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)
Reggie Jackson = 4.2%
Mike Kelley (+4.4%)
None
BLOCKING
Brian Butch (3-7%)
Josh Southern = 3.6%
Joe Trapani = 3.1%
Greg Stiemsma (+7%)
Cortney Dunn = 8%
ASSISTS
Devin Harris (20-25%)
Josh Southern = 22%
Jordan Taylor (25-30%)
None
Demetri McCamey (+30%)
Reggie Jackson = 34%
POSSESSION USAGE
Jason Chappell (<15%)
Josh Southern = 13%
Dallas Elmore = 12%
Cortney Dunn = 12%
Brian Butch (24-28%)
Reggie Jackson = 28%
Joe Trapani = 27%
Alando Tucker (+28%)
None
This still isn’t set in stone… if you think I should use different players (Badgers or other Big Ten), feel free to suggest them so I don’t have Butch, Kelley, Tucker, and Hughes multiple times. For those questioning, all of the players had numbers in their range for either their entire career or their upperclassmen seasons. For example, Mike Kelley averaged a 4.5% steal rate with a high of 5.9 his junior year and Trevon Hughes shot 36% from three for his career with a high of almost 40% his senior year.
What Manhattan is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. This season, they have averaged only 3 turnovers per 23 possessions, which is good for 3rd in the nation.
2. Shooting 1s and 2s. They have shot 56.7% (23rd) from inside the arc so far this season and 80% (11th) from the line.
3. Defending the paint. They have surrendered a measly 42% inside the arc, good for 60th in the nation.
4. Keeping the opponent off the charity stripe. Their opponents attempt about 3 FTAs per 10 FGAs. That's 36th lowest in the country.
5. Blocking shots. As shown by the Brian Butchs and Greg Stiemsma in the blocking trait, BC blocks about one out of every eight 2-point attempts by their opponent, good for 83rd in the country.
What Manhattan is really bad at:
1. Offensive Rebounding. They have grabbed only 29% of all the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end, good for 251st in the nation.
2. Shooting 3s. They take 42% of their shots from behind the arc, but only make 29.5% of them (257th). This is similar to John Belein's Michigan teams.
3. Defending the arc. They have surrendered a sizzling 40% outside the arc, good for 293rd in the nation. Wisconsin has given up 40% as well.
Relative Efficiency:
When Boston College has the ball: They have scored a great 1.14 PPP this season, while UW has given up a stingy 0.85 this season.
When UW has the ball: They have given up an average 0.98 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.21 this season.
Pace: Boston College has played at 62 possessions per game to UW’s 62.
My expectations:
1. Badgers establish a strong post game with more than 30 points in the paint. The Badgers ruin the Eagles' sparkling interior defensive stats.
2. The Badgers knock down more than 8 threes. BC isn't good defending the arc and I think the Badgers make up for the bad shooting against Manhattan.
3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. This is becoming more than an early season anomaly. It’s a change in strategy. Granted I'm not sure how much longer it will stay if refs keep calling over the back on Bruiser, Leuer, Nankivil, and Gasser.
4. The Badgers make more free throws than the Eagles attempt. This lovely stat has made a comeback this season and I think it continues.
Badgers clip the Eagles 71-62 in 60 possessions.
What the expert nerds say: Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 10-point favorite.
Manhattan Likely Rotation (First 4 Games Statistics)
*G – 6’3” JR Reggie Jackson (19.2 PPG, 4.5 APG, 3.8 RPG, 2.2 SPG, 126.7 OR, 28% Poss, 31% Shot, 10% TO, 2.5 FTR, 39% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’1” SR Biko Paris (7.2 PPG, 3.0 APG, 1.8 RPG, 86.0 OR, 17% Poss, 17% Shot, 25% TO, 1.7 FTR, 53% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’6” FR Danny Rubin (9.7 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 122.3 OR, 18% Poss, 25% Shot, 6% TO, 1.9 FTR, 71% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Joe Trapani (13.8 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 1.5 APG, 105.4 OR, 27% Poss, 28% Shot, 29% TO, 5.6 FTR, 35% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Cortney Dunn (2.5 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 1.0 APG, 1.0 BPG, 106.0 OR, 12% Poss, 6% Shot, 27% TO, 12.0 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’6” SR Corey Raji (13.8 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 1.5 APG, 150.2 OR, 22% Poss, 19% Shot, 8% TO, 8.5 FTR, 31% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’5” JR Dallas Elmore (2.0 PPG, 1.5 RPG, 74.6 OR, 12% Poss, 9% Shot, 33% TO, 5.0 FTR, 25% of FGAs are 3PT)
C – 6’10” SR Josh Southern (3.0 PPG, 1.3 APG, 1.0 RPG, 149.9 OR, 13% Poss, 7% Shot, 14% TO, 8.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’2” FR Gabriel Moton (1.5 PPG, 1.2 RPG, 108.1 OR, 12% Poss, 15% Shot, 0% TO, 0.0 FTR, 67% of FGAs are 3PT)
PLAYER TRAITS (with revisions from suggestions)
THREE-POINT SHOOTING
Jeff Jordan (<28%)
Joe Trapani = 27%
Biko Paris = 25%
Dallas Elmore = 0%
Gabriel Moton = 0%
Trevon Hughes (35-38%)
Corey Raji = 38%
Reggie Jackson = 36%
Clayton Hanson (+38%)
Danny Rubin = 47%
TWO-POINT SHOOTING
Kevin Gullikson (<43%)
Biko Paris = 43%
Joe Trapani = 43%
Dallas Elmore = 33%
Marcus Landry (50-54%)
Danny Rubin = 50%
Mike Wilkinson (+54%)
Gabriel Moton = 100%
Cortney Dunn = 80%
Corey Raji = 78%
Josh Southern = 67%
Reggie Jackson = 59%
FREE THROW SHOOTING
Alando Tucker (<65%)
Danny Rubin = 50%
Cortney Dunn = 33%
Kam Taylor (75-82%)
Corey Raji 82%
Joe Trapani = 79%
Jason Bohannon (+82%)
Biko Paris = 100%
Dallas Elmore = 100%
Reggie Jackson = 93%
Josh Southern = 83%
DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)
Corey Raji = 18%
Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)
Joe Trapani = 22%
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Brian Butch (9-12%)
Gabriel Moton = 9%
Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)
Corey Raji = 16%
STEALING
Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)
Reggie Jackson = 4.2%
Mike Kelley (+4.4%)
None
BLOCKING
Brian Butch (3-7%)
Josh Southern = 3.6%
Joe Trapani = 3.1%
Greg Stiemsma (+7%)
Cortney Dunn = 8%
ASSISTS
Devin Harris (20-25%)
Josh Southern = 22%
Jordan Taylor (25-30%)
None
Demetri McCamey (+30%)
Reggie Jackson = 34%
POSSESSION USAGE
Jason Chappell (<15%)
Josh Southern = 13%
Dallas Elmore = 12%
Cortney Dunn = 12%
Brian Butch (24-28%)
Reggie Jackson = 28%
Joe Trapani = 27%
Alando Tucker (+28%)
None
This still isn’t set in stone… if you think I should use different players (Badgers or other Big Ten), feel free to suggest them so I don’t have Butch, Kelley, Tucker, and Hughes multiple times. For those questioning, all of the players had numbers in their range for either their entire career or their upperclassmen seasons. For example, Mike Kelley averaged a 4.5% steal rate with a high of 5.9 his junior year and Trevon Hughes shot 36% from three for his career with a high of almost 40% his senior year.
What Manhattan is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. This season, they have averaged only 3 turnovers per 23 possessions, which is good for 3rd in the nation.
2. Shooting 1s and 2s. They have shot 56.7% (23rd) from inside the arc so far this season and 80% (11th) from the line.
3. Defending the paint. They have surrendered a measly 42% inside the arc, good for 60th in the nation.
4. Keeping the opponent off the charity stripe. Their opponents attempt about 3 FTAs per 10 FGAs. That's 36th lowest in the country.
5. Blocking shots. As shown by the Brian Butchs and Greg Stiemsma in the blocking trait, BC blocks about one out of every eight 2-point attempts by their opponent, good for 83rd in the country.
What Manhattan is really bad at:
1. Offensive Rebounding. They have grabbed only 29% of all the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end, good for 251st in the nation.
2. Shooting 3s. They take 42% of their shots from behind the arc, but only make 29.5% of them (257th). This is similar to John Belein's Michigan teams.
3. Defending the arc. They have surrendered a sizzling 40% outside the arc, good for 293rd in the nation. Wisconsin has given up 40% as well.
Relative Efficiency:
When Boston College has the ball: They have scored a great 1.14 PPP this season, while UW has given up a stingy 0.85 this season.
When UW has the ball: They have given up an average 0.98 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.21 this season.
Pace: Boston College has played at 62 possessions per game to UW’s 62.
My expectations:
1. Badgers establish a strong post game with more than 30 points in the paint. The Badgers ruin the Eagles' sparkling interior defensive stats.
2. The Badgers knock down more than 8 threes. BC isn't good defending the arc and I think the Badgers make up for the bad shooting against Manhattan.
3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. This is becoming more than an early season anomaly. It’s a change in strategy. Granted I'm not sure how much longer it will stay if refs keep calling over the back on Bruiser, Leuer, Nankivil, and Gasser.
4. The Badgers make more free throws than the Eagles attempt. This lovely stat has made a comeback this season and I think it continues.
Badgers clip the Eagles 71-62 in 60 possessions.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Manhattan Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: Well losing to UNLV was a disappointing, albeit not unexpected, loss for Wisconsin first foray away from the Kohl. But life goes on, and so Wisconsin will take on a 2-1 Manhattan team in the first round of the Old Spice Classic in Orlando. Manhattan is coming off a 91-80 loss to Long Island and have victories over Penn and the New Jersey Institute of Technology (yes, that exists and has a D1 basketball team). The Jaspers are coming off of a 11-20 season and return one player from their regular rotation on that team. Their new rotation consists of that one returnee, two pine riders from last season, and four freshman/jucos. They were also supposed to receive the services of an Alabama transfer that graduated from ‘Bama in three years, but he isn’t eligible. There are jokes o’ plenty in that ineligibility, but according to Manhattan fans, it’s because the athletic department messed up on his forms. Nonetheless, they are considered the patsy of the tournament, much like Chaminade in Maui.
Forum to Visit: Draddy Gym
What the expert nerds say: Ken Pomeroy predicts a 76-53 Badger victory in 62 possessions, with a 2% chance of upset.
Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 21-point favorite.
Manhattan Likely Rotation (Last Season’s Statistics or First 3 Games Statistics¡)
*G – 6’2” FR Michael Alvarado (16.3 PPG, 4.3 APG, 4.3 RPG, 1.0 SPG, 110.3 OR, 26% Poss, 21% Shot, 22% TO, 7.7 FTR, 23% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*G – 6’1” JR Kidani Brutus (13.7 PPG, 3.7 RPG, 1.3 APG, 140.4 OR, 14% Poss, 18% Shot, 12% TO, 2.6 FTR, 70% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*G/F – 6’4” SO George Beamon (16.7 PPG, 9.3 RPG, 1.0 APG, 109.5 OR, 24% Poss, 26% Shot, 13% TO, 4.8 FTR, 15% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*F – 6’6” SR Andrew Gabriel (11.7 PPG, 5.3 RPG, 1.3 APG, 80.8 OR, 24% Poss, 25% Shot, 29% TO, 2.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*C – 6’9” JR Djibril Coulibaly (1.1 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 68.4 OR, 12% Poss, 13% Shot, 18% TO, 2.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT) = only 8 minutes per game
F – 6’6” FR Rhamel Brown (8.0 PPG, 8.0 RPG, 1.7 BPG, 135.7 OR, 16% Poss, 15% Shot, 16% TO, 4.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
F – 6’8” JR Robert Martina (5.0 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 115.4 OR, 16% Poss, 14% Shot, 14% TO, 8.0 FTR, 20% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
PLAYER TRAITS (with revisions from suggestions)
THREE-POINT SHOOTING
Jeff Jordan (<28%)
George Beamon = 17%
Robert Martina = 0%
Trevon Hughes (35-38%)
None
Clayton Hanson (+38%)
Kidani Brutus = 47%
Michael Alvarado = 43%
TWO-POINT SHOOTING
Kevin Gullikson (<43%)
Michael Alvarado = 42%
Andrew Gabriel = 42%
Djibril Coulibaly = 25%
Marcus Landry (50-54%)
Kidani Brutus = 50%
George Beamon = 50%
Robert Martina = 50%
Mike Wilkinson (+54%)
Rhamel Brown = 71%
FREE THROW SHOOTING
Alando Tucker (<65%)
Andrew Gabriel = 45%
Djibril Coulibaly = 27%
Kam Taylor (75-82%)
None
Jason Bohannon (+82%)
Robert Martina = 88%
Kidani Brutus = 86%
Michael Alvarado = 83%
DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)
Rhamel Brown = 17%
Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)
None
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Brian Butch (9-12%)
Robert Martina = 12%
George Beamon = 13%
Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)
Rhamel Brown = 21%
STEALING
Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)
None
Mike Kelley (+4.4%)
None
BLOCKING
Brian Butch (3-7%)
Robert Martina = 5%
Greg Stiemsma (+7%)
Rhamel Brown = 9%
ASSISTS
Devin Harris (20-25%)
Michael Alvarado = 25%
Jordan Taylor (25-30%)
None
Demetri McCamey (+30%)
None
POSSESSION USAGE
Jason Chappell (<15%)
Kidani Brutus = 14%
Djibril Coulibaly = 13%
Brian Butch (24-28%)
Michael Alvarado = 26%
Andrew Gabriel = 24%
George Beamon = 24%
Alando Tucker (+28%)
None
This still isn’t set in stone… if you think I should use different players (Badgers or other Big Ten), feel free to suggest them so I don’t have Butch, Kelley, Tucker, and Hughes multiple times. For those questioning, all of the players had numbers in their range for either their entire career or their upperclassmen seasons. For example, Mike Kelley averaged a 4.5% steal rate with a high of 5.9 his junior year and Trevon Hughes shot 36% from three for his career with a high of almost 40% his senior year.
What Manhattan is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. This season, they have averaged nearly 1 turnover per 5 possessions, which is good for 102nd in the nation.
2. Shooting threes. They have shot 37.1% from deep so far this season, good for 94th in the country.
3. Offensive Rebounding. They have grabbed 37.2% of all rebounding opportunities on the offensive end, good for 69th. Wisconsin is 1st.
4. Getting to the charity stripe and making them. They must not be a jump-shooting team like Illinois because they take 6 FTAs per 13 FGAs. Wisconsin has averaged 4 per 10.
What Manhattan is really bad at:
1. Defensive Rebounding. They have grabbed only 62% of all the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end, good for 289th in the nation. Wisconsin is a hair below 78%, or 9th in the nation.
2. Forcing turnovers. They have forced only 2 turnovers per 12 possessions, which is 307th in the nation.
3. Defending the paint. They have surrendered a poor 50% inside the arc to 3 bad teams, good for 217th in the nation.
Relative efficiency:
When Manhattan has the ball: They have scored a terrible 0.93 PPP this season, while UW has given up a stingy 0.92 this season.
When UW has the ball: They have given up a terrible 1.06 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.16 this season.
Pace: Manhattan has played at 67 possessions per game to UW’s 64.
My expectations:
1. Badgers re-establish a dominant post game with more than 40 points in the paint. The Jaspers are small and unimposing at the big spots.
2. Bruiser and Evans combine for less than 4 turnovers. I look for a deliberate effort from these two to take better care of the ball this game.
3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. This is becoming more than an early season anomaly. It’s a change in strategy.
4. The Badgers make more free throws than the Jaspers attempt. This lovely stat has made a comeback this season and I think it continues.
Posters at Manhattan’s message board are betting on the over/under of their collective beat down in the three games to be somewhere between 20 and 40 points per game. The Badgers don’t disappoint with 80-49 victory.
Forum to Visit: Draddy Gym
What the expert nerds say: Ken Pomeroy predicts a 76-53 Badger victory in 62 possessions, with a 2% chance of upset.
Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 21-point favorite.
Manhattan Likely Rotation (Last Season’s Statistics or First 3 Games Statistics¡)
*G – 6’2” FR Michael Alvarado (16.3 PPG, 4.3 APG, 4.3 RPG, 1.0 SPG, 110.3 OR, 26% Poss, 21% Shot, 22% TO, 7.7 FTR, 23% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*G – 6’1” JR Kidani Brutus (13.7 PPG, 3.7 RPG, 1.3 APG, 140.4 OR, 14% Poss, 18% Shot, 12% TO, 2.6 FTR, 70% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*G/F – 6’4” SO George Beamon (16.7 PPG, 9.3 RPG, 1.0 APG, 109.5 OR, 24% Poss, 26% Shot, 13% TO, 4.8 FTR, 15% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*F – 6’6” SR Andrew Gabriel (11.7 PPG, 5.3 RPG, 1.3 APG, 80.8 OR, 24% Poss, 25% Shot, 29% TO, 2.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*C – 6’9” JR Djibril Coulibaly (1.1 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 68.4 OR, 12% Poss, 13% Shot, 18% TO, 2.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT) = only 8 minutes per game
F – 6’6” FR Rhamel Brown (8.0 PPG, 8.0 RPG, 1.7 BPG, 135.7 OR, 16% Poss, 15% Shot, 16% TO, 4.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
F – 6’8” JR Robert Martina (5.0 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 115.4 OR, 16% Poss, 14% Shot, 14% TO, 8.0 FTR, 20% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
PLAYER TRAITS (with revisions from suggestions)
THREE-POINT SHOOTING
Jeff Jordan (<28%)
George Beamon = 17%
Robert Martina = 0%
Trevon Hughes (35-38%)
None
Clayton Hanson (+38%)
Kidani Brutus = 47%
Michael Alvarado = 43%
TWO-POINT SHOOTING
Kevin Gullikson (<43%)
Michael Alvarado = 42%
Andrew Gabriel = 42%
Djibril Coulibaly = 25%
Marcus Landry (50-54%)
Kidani Brutus = 50%
George Beamon = 50%
Robert Martina = 50%
Mike Wilkinson (+54%)
Rhamel Brown = 71%
FREE THROW SHOOTING
Alando Tucker (<65%)
Andrew Gabriel = 45%
Djibril Coulibaly = 27%
Kam Taylor (75-82%)
None
Jason Bohannon (+82%)
Robert Martina = 88%
Kidani Brutus = 86%
Michael Alvarado = 83%
DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)
Rhamel Brown = 17%
Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)
None
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Brian Butch (9-12%)
Robert Martina = 12%
George Beamon = 13%
Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)
Rhamel Brown = 21%
STEALING
Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)
None
Mike Kelley (+4.4%)
None
BLOCKING
Brian Butch (3-7%)
Robert Martina = 5%
Greg Stiemsma (+7%)
Rhamel Brown = 9%
ASSISTS
Devin Harris (20-25%)
Michael Alvarado = 25%
Jordan Taylor (25-30%)
None
Demetri McCamey (+30%)
None
POSSESSION USAGE
Jason Chappell (<15%)
Kidani Brutus = 14%
Djibril Coulibaly = 13%
Brian Butch (24-28%)
Michael Alvarado = 26%
Andrew Gabriel = 24%
George Beamon = 24%
Alando Tucker (+28%)
None
This still isn’t set in stone… if you think I should use different players (Badgers or other Big Ten), feel free to suggest them so I don’t have Butch, Kelley, Tucker, and Hughes multiple times. For those questioning, all of the players had numbers in their range for either their entire career or their upperclassmen seasons. For example, Mike Kelley averaged a 4.5% steal rate with a high of 5.9 his junior year and Trevon Hughes shot 36% from three for his career with a high of almost 40% his senior year.
What Manhattan is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. This season, they have averaged nearly 1 turnover per 5 possessions, which is good for 102nd in the nation.
2. Shooting threes. They have shot 37.1% from deep so far this season, good for 94th in the country.
3. Offensive Rebounding. They have grabbed 37.2% of all rebounding opportunities on the offensive end, good for 69th. Wisconsin is 1st.
4. Getting to the charity stripe and making them. They must not be a jump-shooting team like Illinois because they take 6 FTAs per 13 FGAs. Wisconsin has averaged 4 per 10.
What Manhattan is really bad at:
1. Defensive Rebounding. They have grabbed only 62% of all the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end, good for 289th in the nation. Wisconsin is a hair below 78%, or 9th in the nation.
2. Forcing turnovers. They have forced only 2 turnovers per 12 possessions, which is 307th in the nation.
3. Defending the paint. They have surrendered a poor 50% inside the arc to 3 bad teams, good for 217th in the nation.
Relative efficiency:
When Manhattan has the ball: They have scored a terrible 0.93 PPP this season, while UW has given up a stingy 0.92 this season.
When UW has the ball: They have given up a terrible 1.06 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.16 this season.
Pace: Manhattan has played at 67 possessions per game to UW’s 64.
My expectations:
1. Badgers re-establish a dominant post game with more than 40 points in the paint. The Jaspers are small and unimposing at the big spots.
2. Bruiser and Evans combine for less than 4 turnovers. I look for a deliberate effort from these two to take better care of the ball this game.
3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. This is becoming more than an early season anomaly. It’s a change in strategy.
4. The Badgers make more free throws than the Jaspers attempt. This lovely stat has made a comeback this season and I think it continues.
Posters at Manhattan’s message board are betting on the over/under of their collective beat down in the three games to be somewhere between 20 and 40 points per game. The Badgers don’t disappoint with 80-49 victory.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
UNLV Box Score Observations
Here's my pinch hit. I hope turumon had a better time hunting than I did watching this game. At least the football Badgers won.
Opening Comments: I hate games like these. About five minutes into the game, I sensed that this would be one of those games that UW would keep very, very close, but wouldn’t pull out at the end. I’m not happy to say I was right on the money with this, as the Badgers had a one-point lead with 55 seconds remaining, but ended up losing 68-65.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UNLV’s jumpshooting and pressure defense overcame the Badgers’ ability to get to and sink shots at the free throw line.
Pace: As always, you have to know the pace of the game to put everything else in context. This game was at 64 possessions. In the previous three games were at 66, 71, and 63.
Efficiency: Was this a close loss because of bad offense or bad defense? Both. UW scored at 1.02 PPP, which is very below average for the Badgers, as they had put up a ridiculous 1.43 PPP in the previous two games.
UW held UNLV to 1.06 PPP. The previous high this season was 0.94 by UW-LaCrosse in the first exhibtion game.
Shooting: UW had their worst day so far this year outside the arc, inside the arc, and at the line.
eFG%: For those unaware, eFG% is like your regular FG% but it gives a 3Pt basket a weight of 1.5 since it is worth more than a two point shot.
UNLV shot an eFG% of 58%. That is terrible defense by UW, or great marksmanship by UNLV. UW shot 42% for their worst performance of the year.
3 pt shooting: Wisconsin took two extra shots from deep, 20 to UNLV’s 18, but made three fewer, 6 to UNLV’s 9. UNLV hit a sizzling 50% while UW was a cold 30%. UNLV picked up 9 points outside the arc.
2pt shooting: UNLV hit 15 of 31 shots inside the arc for 48%. UW, meanwhile, fizzled out at 41% having made 13 of 32. The Rebels edged UW by 4 points inside the arc.
Most of the inside the arc points were also inside the paint. UNLV outscored UW 18 to 16 in the paint and 12 to 10 on midrange shots.
1pt shooting: UNLV got to the line 17 times and made 11 for 65%. That’s pretty bad considering how well they shot from everywhere else. UW smoked them at the line making 21 of 26 for 81%. This gave UW an extra 10 points from the line.
Rebounding: When UW shot and missed, which they did often, the results were nearly a draw. When UNLV shot and missed, UW cleaned up the misses effectively.
UW Defensive end: UNLV provided 30 rebounding opportunities on their misses and picked up 7, for 23%. Regular readers will note that 33% is the national average, but UW typically holds their opponents to around 26%. So, this was a win for UW, and expected given UNLV’s smaller line-up.
UW Offensive End: UW had 36 chances to follow their misses. UW managed to get 14, or 39%. That is great for a UW team, and with another few games of this sort and I think we can start to say that it isn’t an aberration.
Turnovers: UNLV had 12 TO’s, or 19% while UW had 15 for 23%. UW typically is near the top in the nation at avoiding TO’s and hasn’t been doing too well early on here. This pattern is one Bo may have to address.
Opportunity Index: The OI was a modest +4 for the game. UNLV had 7 offensive rebounds to UW’s 14. But, UNLV had three extra chances via turnovers.
Fouls: UNLV had 23 fouls and UW had 19. Last year, UW average 16 and our opponents 17. The officiating in this game was average at best and made me miss the level of competence in the Big Ten. Two jump balls were whistled within milliseconds of the ball being touched by an opposing player. Over-the-backs were called just because the player getting boxed out got a rebound via being that much taller than the other person. This isn’t loser’s lament, they were inconsistently awful for both sides. You can at least live with consistently bad since you know how the game is going to get called. But these guys would let hacks go on one end, and call a phantom hand check on the other side.
Playing time: Bo went 8 deep (10 or more minutes) with Valentyn getting with 6 minutes. Bruesewitz and Gasser started again. Evans (20) played starter’s minutes.
Notable Performances: UW had 3 players in double figures:
* Taylor – 19 on 4-8 shooting, 8-9 from the line and 3 of 4 from the arc
* Evans – 11 on 4-8 shooting, 3-4 from the line, but unfortunately 4 TOs too
* Leuer – 10 on 3-11 shooting, 3-5 from the line, and 4 fouls
Leuer, who had been a machine, turned out a stinker of a game. He sat the final 10:26 of the first half with 2 fouls and never really got on track offensively in the second. He forced shots over double teams and didn’t establish a presence on the low block at all.
Evans turned it on offensively in the second half, including another rim-rattling dunk, but coughed up 4 of the team 6 first half turnovers. He was also the second-leading rebounder with 6 and played great defense on Tre’Von Willis. Bruiser also had a rough day at the office, matching Evans’ four turnovers.
Gasser had another okay outing with 7 points, 7 boards, and 2 assists, albeit he needed 8 shots to get it, including a 1-6 performance from 3.
Jordan Taylor was basically the only Badger with a relatively flawless game, but he was visibly fatigued at the end due to dealing with full court pressure for 37 minutes and a flu bug bothering him. Jordan, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of turumon's people.
For UNLV, Chace Stanback scored 25 points on 14 FGAs, including 4-7 from three. Oscar Bellfield also dropped 18 points on 11 FGAs and 4-6 from beyond the arc.
Grading My Predictions
1. Leuer continues his tear and scores above 19 again. UNLV doesn’t have a guy to cover him… Not many teams we face will. Miss. Leuer had what may very well end up being his worst performance of the season, scoring 10 on 11 FGAs and 5 FTAs.
2. The Badgers shoot better than 38% from beyond the arc. With the Rebels being concerned about letting Leuer in the paint, they’ll give a few too many open looks from outside that the Badgers bury. Miss. They had many open looks, but could only muster 30%. I blame the hard rims.
3. The Badgers continue their dominance on the offensive glass, grabbing 39% or more of the opportunities. I’ll keep rolling the dice with this one until I’m wrong. Miss. Son of a bit… I missed by 12 one-hundredths of a percent.
4. Badgers hold Willis to 10 points or less. I think the Badgers badger the leading scorer for UNLV into a bad game his first go-around this season after serving his paltry 4-game suspension for a Boo Wade-type incident. Hit. In one of the few bright spots of this game, Ryan Evans made his season debut a forgettable showing.
When the final buzzer sounds on Saturday night, I predict a Badger victory by the score of 70-63 in 64 possessions. Miss. Correct in possessions and pretty close on the score… if I flipped teams.
Closing Thoughts: UW failed their first real test of the season. It’s early and it was a hostile environment so I won’t put much into it, but I hope Bo makes turnovers and post presence focal points in practice this upcoming week.
To continue turumon’s new feature…
Unwarranted Conclusions Based Upon the UNLV Game:
1. Jon Leuer is a fouling machine and will only shoot heavily contested 15-foot jump shots.
2. Inbounding plays are a major concern for this team.
3. UW will cough up the rock as often as Indiana.
4. UW’s defense will greatly contribute to the creation of every team’s 3-point shooting highlight reel
5. Ryan Evans will be the team’s second leading scorer
I think we’ll know a lot more about this team a week from now. Something tells me they’ll be 5-1 on November 29th.
Opening Comments: I hate games like these. About five minutes into the game, I sensed that this would be one of those games that UW would keep very, very close, but wouldn’t pull out at the end. I’m not happy to say I was right on the money with this, as the Badgers had a one-point lead with 55 seconds remaining, but ended up losing 68-65.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UNLV’s jumpshooting and pressure defense overcame the Badgers’ ability to get to and sink shots at the free throw line.
Pace: As always, you have to know the pace of the game to put everything else in context. This game was at 64 possessions. In the previous three games were at 66, 71, and 63.
Efficiency: Was this a close loss because of bad offense or bad defense? Both. UW scored at 1.02 PPP, which is very below average for the Badgers, as they had put up a ridiculous 1.43 PPP in the previous two games.
UW held UNLV to 1.06 PPP. The previous high this season was 0.94 by UW-LaCrosse in the first exhibtion game.
Shooting: UW had their worst day so far this year outside the arc, inside the arc, and at the line.
eFG%: For those unaware, eFG% is like your regular FG% but it gives a 3Pt basket a weight of 1.5 since it is worth more than a two point shot.
UNLV shot an eFG% of 58%. That is terrible defense by UW, or great marksmanship by UNLV. UW shot 42% for their worst performance of the year.
3 pt shooting: Wisconsin took two extra shots from deep, 20 to UNLV’s 18, but made three fewer, 6 to UNLV’s 9. UNLV hit a sizzling 50% while UW was a cold 30%. UNLV picked up 9 points outside the arc.
2pt shooting: UNLV hit 15 of 31 shots inside the arc for 48%. UW, meanwhile, fizzled out at 41% having made 13 of 32. The Rebels edged UW by 4 points inside the arc.
Most of the inside the arc points were also inside the paint. UNLV outscored UW 18 to 16 in the paint and 12 to 10 on midrange shots.
1pt shooting: UNLV got to the line 17 times and made 11 for 65%. That’s pretty bad considering how well they shot from everywhere else. UW smoked them at the line making 21 of 26 for 81%. This gave UW an extra 10 points from the line.
Rebounding: When UW shot and missed, which they did often, the results were nearly a draw. When UNLV shot and missed, UW cleaned up the misses effectively.
UW Defensive end: UNLV provided 30 rebounding opportunities on their misses and picked up 7, for 23%. Regular readers will note that 33% is the national average, but UW typically holds their opponents to around 26%. So, this was a win for UW, and expected given UNLV’s smaller line-up.
UW Offensive End: UW had 36 chances to follow their misses. UW managed to get 14, or 39%. That is great for a UW team, and with another few games of this sort and I think we can start to say that it isn’t an aberration.
Turnovers: UNLV had 12 TO’s, or 19% while UW had 15 for 23%. UW typically is near the top in the nation at avoiding TO’s and hasn’t been doing too well early on here. This pattern is one Bo may have to address.
Opportunity Index: The OI was a modest +4 for the game. UNLV had 7 offensive rebounds to UW’s 14. But, UNLV had three extra chances via turnovers.
Fouls: UNLV had 23 fouls and UW had 19. Last year, UW average 16 and our opponents 17. The officiating in this game was average at best and made me miss the level of competence in the Big Ten. Two jump balls were whistled within milliseconds of the ball being touched by an opposing player. Over-the-backs were called just because the player getting boxed out got a rebound via being that much taller than the other person. This isn’t loser’s lament, they were inconsistently awful for both sides. You can at least live with consistently bad since you know how the game is going to get called. But these guys would let hacks go on one end, and call a phantom hand check on the other side.
Playing time: Bo went 8 deep (10 or more minutes) with Valentyn getting with 6 minutes. Bruesewitz and Gasser started again. Evans (20) played starter’s minutes.
Notable Performances: UW had 3 players in double figures:
* Taylor – 19 on 4-8 shooting, 8-9 from the line and 3 of 4 from the arc
* Evans – 11 on 4-8 shooting, 3-4 from the line, but unfortunately 4 TOs too
* Leuer – 10 on 3-11 shooting, 3-5 from the line, and 4 fouls
Leuer, who had been a machine, turned out a stinker of a game. He sat the final 10:26 of the first half with 2 fouls and never really got on track offensively in the second. He forced shots over double teams and didn’t establish a presence on the low block at all.
Evans turned it on offensively in the second half, including another rim-rattling dunk, but coughed up 4 of the team 6 first half turnovers. He was also the second-leading rebounder with 6 and played great defense on Tre’Von Willis. Bruiser also had a rough day at the office, matching Evans’ four turnovers.
Gasser had another okay outing with 7 points, 7 boards, and 2 assists, albeit he needed 8 shots to get it, including a 1-6 performance from 3.
Jordan Taylor was basically the only Badger with a relatively flawless game, but he was visibly fatigued at the end due to dealing with full court pressure for 37 minutes and a flu bug bothering him. Jordan, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of turumon's people.
For UNLV, Chace Stanback scored 25 points on 14 FGAs, including 4-7 from three. Oscar Bellfield also dropped 18 points on 11 FGAs and 4-6 from beyond the arc.
Grading My Predictions
1. Leuer continues his tear and scores above 19 again. UNLV doesn’t have a guy to cover him… Not many teams we face will. Miss. Leuer had what may very well end up being his worst performance of the season, scoring 10 on 11 FGAs and 5 FTAs.
2. The Badgers shoot better than 38% from beyond the arc. With the Rebels being concerned about letting Leuer in the paint, they’ll give a few too many open looks from outside that the Badgers bury. Miss. They had many open looks, but could only muster 30%. I blame the hard rims.
3. The Badgers continue their dominance on the offensive glass, grabbing 39% or more of the opportunities. I’ll keep rolling the dice with this one until I’m wrong. Miss. Son of a bit… I missed by 12 one-hundredths of a percent.
4. Badgers hold Willis to 10 points or less. I think the Badgers badger the leading scorer for UNLV into a bad game his first go-around this season after serving his paltry 4-game suspension for a Boo Wade-type incident. Hit. In one of the few bright spots of this game, Ryan Evans made his season debut a forgettable showing.
When the final buzzer sounds on Saturday night, I predict a Badger victory by the score of 70-63 in 64 possessions. Miss. Correct in possessions and pretty close on the score… if I flipped teams.
Closing Thoughts: UW failed their first real test of the season. It’s early and it was a hostile environment so I won’t put much into it, but I hope Bo makes turnovers and post presence focal points in practice this upcoming week.
To continue turumon’s new feature…
Unwarranted Conclusions Based Upon the UNLV Game:
1. Jon Leuer is a fouling machine and will only shoot heavily contested 15-foot jump shots.
2. Inbounding plays are a major concern for this team.
3. UW will cough up the rock as often as Indiana.
4. UW’s defense will greatly contribute to the creation of every team’s 3-point shooting highlight reel
5. Ryan Evans will be the team’s second leading scorer
I think we’ll know a lot more about this team a week from now. Something tells me they’ll be 5-1 on November 29th.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
UNLV Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: With the 4 cupcakes played and manhandled, the Badgers have their first real test of the season… a date with an unpleasant memory, the Rebels of UNLV. Since I’m young enough, all I think of when I think of UNLV is a football team were make our whipping boy every few seasons and Lon Kruger’s son, Kevin, and his buddies making clutch 3 after 3 in the United Center against a Brian Butch-less Badger team. This UNLV team is Kruger-less (well, at least Kevin-less), but they are mighty talented, boasting transfers from UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, and Memphis with some jucos and normal recruits filling out the rotation.
Forum to Visit: Rebel Net
What the expert nerd says:
Ken Pomeroy predicts a 66-64 Rebel victory in 63 possessions, with a 40% chance of Badger victory.
Jeff Sagarin has UNLV as a 4-point favorite.
UNLV Likely Rotation (Last Season’s Statistics or First 2 Games Statistics)
*G – 6’2” JR Oscar Bellfield (9.3 PPG, 4.8 APG, 2.5 RPG, 105.2 OR, 21% Poss, 20% Shot, 19% TO, 2.0 FTR, 46% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’3” SO Anthony Marshall (5.3 PPG, 3.1 APG, 1.7 APG, 1.3 SPG, 85.2 OR, 21% Poss, 18% Shot, 26% TO, 3.8 FTR, 14% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’6” SR Derrick Jasper (6.7 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 2.9 APG, 1.1 SPG, 100.3 OR, 17% Poss, 16% Shot, 18% TO, 4.0 FTR, 29% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G/F – 6’8” JR Chace Stanback (10.7 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 1.6 SPG, 1.4 APG, 100.9 OR, 23% Poss, 25% Shot, 17% TO, 2.1 FTR, 34% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SO Quintrell Thomas (7.5 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 1.0 APG, 125.0 OR, 33% TO, 5.0 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’4” SR Tre’Von Willis (17.2 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 3.5 APG, 1.2 SPG, 113.4 OR, 29% Poss, 27% Shot, 17% TO, 5.0 FTR, 36% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’3” SO Justin Hawkins (3.3 PPG, 1.4 RPG, 101.8 OR, 17% Poss, 16% Shot, 13% TO, 4.3 FTR, 30% of FGAs are 3PT)
F/C - 6’10” JR Brice Massamba (4.6 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 93.2 OR, 16% Poss, 16% Shot, 28% TO, 3.0 FTR, 45% of FGAs are 3PT)
F - 6’11” FR Carlos Lopez (6.0 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 3.5 BPG, 2.0 APG, 100.0 OR, 33% TO, 10.0 FTR, 13% of FGAs are 3PT)
G/F - 6’6” FR Karam Mashour (10.0 PPG, 2.0 APG, 2.0 SPG, 1.0 BPG, 1.0 RPG, 166.7 OR, 0% TO, 0.0 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
NEW FEATURE
Tim Locums (>37% 3PT)
Bellfield – 37.2
Rick Olsens (>78% FT)
Willis – 85.8, Stanback – 80.3
Andy Kowskes (>54% 2PT)
Massamba – 73.2, Willis – 58.3, Jasper – 54.2
Alando Tuckers (>10% OReb)
None
Brian Butchs (>15% DReb)
Stanback – 25.0, Jasper – 21.0
Rashard Griffiths (>3.5% Blk)
Stanback – 3.7
Mike Kelleys (>3% Stl)
Marshall – 4.0, Hawkins – 3.6, Stanback – 3.5
Tracy Websters (>20% Ast)
Bellfield – 31.1, Willis -24.5, Jasper – 21.1
Feel free to suggest different names you feel fit better, or if you want me to include to polar opposites (Hack-a-Shaqs, Doug Gottliebs, etc)
What UNLV is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. Last season, they averaged 3 turnovers per 18 possessions, which was good for 28th in the nation.
2. Defensive Rebounding. They grabbed a hair more than 69% of all the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end, good for 89th in the nation. Wisconsin was a hair below 74%, or 2nd in the nation.
3. Shooting FTs and two-pointers. They shot 53.4% inside the arc and 71.8% from the line, which was 15th and 80th respectively.
4. Forcing turnovers. They forced 3 turnovers per 13 possessions, which was 38th in the nation.
5. Defending the paint. They surrendered a measly 43.2% inside the arc, good for 18th in the nation.
What UNLV is really bad at:
1. Shooting threes. I’m so happy to see this, as I’m sure you are too. With the departure of one sharpshooter, and the season-ending injury to another, UNLV’s returning players combined to shoot a poor 30.4% last season with only one shooting above 31%, which ranked them 307th.
2. Offensive Rebounding. They only grabbed 29.6% of all rebounding opportunities on the offensive end, good for 276th. Wisconsin was 249th.
3. Getting to the charity stripe and keeping the other team off it. They must be a jump-shooting team like Illinois because they shot well from 2, but only took 3 FTAs per 10 FGAs. On the contrary, their opponents took almost 5 FTAs per 10 FGAs. Both were 311th in the country.
4. Defending free throws. Apparently MWC opponents can tune out that damn “Reb-bels” chant easily since they knocked down almost 71% of their free throws against them.
Relative efficiency:
When UNLV has the ball: They scored a good 1.10 PPP last season, while UW gave up a stingy 0.89 last season.
When UW has the ball: They gave up a great 0.92 last season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.16 last season.
Pace: UNLV played at 67 possessions per game last season compared to UW’s 60.
My expectations:
1. Leuer continues his tear and scores above 19 again. UNLV doesn’t have a guy to cover him… Not many teams we face will.
2. The Badgers shoot better than 38% from beyond the arc. With the Rebels being concerned about letting Leuer in the paint, they’ll give a few too many open looks from outside that the Badgers bury.
3. The Badgers continue their dominance on the offensive glass, grabbing 39% or more of the opportunities. I’ll keep rolling the dice with this one until I’m wrong.
4. Badgers hold Willis to 10 points or less. I think the Badgers badger the leading scorer for UNLV into a bad game his first go=around this deason after serving his paltry 3-game suspension for a Boo Wade-type incident.
When the final buzzer sounds on Saturday night, I predict a Badger victory by the score of 70-63 in 64 possessions.
Forum to Visit: Rebel Net
What the expert nerd says:
Ken Pomeroy predicts a 66-64 Rebel victory in 63 possessions, with a 40% chance of Badger victory.
Jeff Sagarin has UNLV as a 4-point favorite.
UNLV Likely Rotation (Last Season’s Statistics or First 2 Games Statistics)
*G – 6’2” JR Oscar Bellfield (9.3 PPG, 4.8 APG, 2.5 RPG, 105.2 OR, 21% Poss, 20% Shot, 19% TO, 2.0 FTR, 46% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’3” SO Anthony Marshall (5.3 PPG, 3.1 APG, 1.7 APG, 1.3 SPG, 85.2 OR, 21% Poss, 18% Shot, 26% TO, 3.8 FTR, 14% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’6” SR Derrick Jasper (6.7 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 2.9 APG, 1.1 SPG, 100.3 OR, 17% Poss, 16% Shot, 18% TO, 4.0 FTR, 29% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G/F – 6’8” JR Chace Stanback (10.7 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 1.6 SPG, 1.4 APG, 100.9 OR, 23% Poss, 25% Shot, 17% TO, 2.1 FTR, 34% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SO Quintrell Thomas (7.5 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 1.0 APG, 125.0 OR, 33% TO, 5.0 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’4” SR Tre’Von Willis (17.2 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 3.5 APG, 1.2 SPG, 113.4 OR, 29% Poss, 27% Shot, 17% TO, 5.0 FTR, 36% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’3” SO Justin Hawkins (3.3 PPG, 1.4 RPG, 101.8 OR, 17% Poss, 16% Shot, 13% TO, 4.3 FTR, 30% of FGAs are 3PT)
F/C - 6’10” JR Brice Massamba (4.6 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 93.2 OR, 16% Poss, 16% Shot, 28% TO, 3.0 FTR, 45% of FGAs are 3PT)
F - 6’11” FR Carlos Lopez (6.0 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 3.5 BPG, 2.0 APG, 100.0 OR, 33% TO, 10.0 FTR, 13% of FGAs are 3PT)
G/F - 6’6” FR Karam Mashour (10.0 PPG, 2.0 APG, 2.0 SPG, 1.0 BPG, 1.0 RPG, 166.7 OR, 0% TO, 0.0 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
NEW FEATURE
Tim Locums (>37% 3PT)
Bellfield – 37.2
Rick Olsens (>78% FT)
Willis – 85.8, Stanback – 80.3
Andy Kowskes (>54% 2PT)
Massamba – 73.2, Willis – 58.3, Jasper – 54.2
Alando Tuckers (>10% OReb)
None
Brian Butchs (>15% DReb)
Stanback – 25.0, Jasper – 21.0
Rashard Griffiths (>3.5% Blk)
Stanback – 3.7
Mike Kelleys (>3% Stl)
Marshall – 4.0, Hawkins – 3.6, Stanback – 3.5
Tracy Websters (>20% Ast)
Bellfield – 31.1, Willis -24.5, Jasper – 21.1
Feel free to suggest different names you feel fit better, or if you want me to include to polar opposites (Hack-a-Shaqs, Doug Gottliebs, etc)
What UNLV is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. Last season, they averaged 3 turnovers per 18 possessions, which was good for 28th in the nation.
2. Defensive Rebounding. They grabbed a hair more than 69% of all the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end, good for 89th in the nation. Wisconsin was a hair below 74%, or 2nd in the nation.
3. Shooting FTs and two-pointers. They shot 53.4% inside the arc and 71.8% from the line, which was 15th and 80th respectively.
4. Forcing turnovers. They forced 3 turnovers per 13 possessions, which was 38th in the nation.
5. Defending the paint. They surrendered a measly 43.2% inside the arc, good for 18th in the nation.
What UNLV is really bad at:
1. Shooting threes. I’m so happy to see this, as I’m sure you are too. With the departure of one sharpshooter, and the season-ending injury to another, UNLV’s returning players combined to shoot a poor 30.4% last season with only one shooting above 31%, which ranked them 307th.
2. Offensive Rebounding. They only grabbed 29.6% of all rebounding opportunities on the offensive end, good for 276th. Wisconsin was 249th.
3. Getting to the charity stripe and keeping the other team off it. They must be a jump-shooting team like Illinois because they shot well from 2, but only took 3 FTAs per 10 FGAs. On the contrary, their opponents took almost 5 FTAs per 10 FGAs. Both were 311th in the country.
4. Defending free throws. Apparently MWC opponents can tune out that damn “Reb-bels” chant easily since they knocked down almost 71% of their free throws against them.
Relative efficiency:
When UNLV has the ball: They scored a good 1.10 PPP last season, while UW gave up a stingy 0.89 last season.
When UW has the ball: They gave up a great 0.92 last season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.16 last season.
Pace: UNLV played at 67 possessions per game last season compared to UW’s 60.
My expectations:
1. Leuer continues his tear and scores above 19 again. UNLV doesn’t have a guy to cover him… Not many teams we face will.
2. The Badgers shoot better than 38% from beyond the arc. With the Rebels being concerned about letting Leuer in the paint, they’ll give a few too many open looks from outside that the Badgers bury.
3. The Badgers continue their dominance on the offensive glass, grabbing 39% or more of the opportunities. I’ll keep rolling the dice with this one until I’m wrong.
4. Badgers hold Willis to 10 points or less. I think the Badgers badger the leading scorer for UNLV into a bad game his first go=around this deason after serving his paltry 3-game suspension for a Boo Wade-type incident.
When the final buzzer sounds on Saturday night, I predict a Badger victory by the score of 70-63 in 64 possessions.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
North Dakota Box Score Observations
Opening Comments: UW thumped an inferior North Dakota team 85 to 53. Since ND is just making the jump to D1, we must cut them some slack and wish them well in their quest.
Yet another game that I could not watch on TV. Ugh. I thought the BTN was supposed to fix that. It torques me that ESPN would buy the game rights and then shuffle it off to ESPN3 when we have a perfectly good BTN available.
So, once again, this analysis is strictly from the box score, with the exception of seeing Evan’s dunk on ESPN top ten.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW had our best shooting day of the early season hitting season best percentages beyond the arc, inside the arc, and at the line. Bo will find some “teaching moments” trying to reduce turnovers and improve defensive rebounding.
Pace: As always, you have to know the pace of the game to put everything else in context. This game was at 63 possessions. That is much closer to our usual pace of around 60. The previous two games were at 66 and 71.
Efficiency: Was this blow out win because of good offense or good defense? Both. UW scored at 1.35 PPP, which is excellent, but less than the ridiculous 1.50 of PVA&M.
UW held ND to .84 PPP. PVA&M and Minnesota State each has .83 PPP. So, the defense has been consistent and very good.
Shooting: UW had our best day so far this year outside the arc, inside the arc, and at the line.
eFG%: For those unaware, eFG% is like your regular FG% but it gives a 3Pt basket a weight of 1.5 since it is worth more than a two point shot.
ND shot an eFG% of 43%. That is good defense by UW, or poor marksmanship by ND. UW shot 67% for our best performance of the year.
3 pt shooting: ND took two extra shots from deep, 13 to UW’s 11, but made one fewer, 4 to UW’s 5. ND hit a pedestrian 31% while UW was a robust 41%. UW picked up 3 points outside the arc.
2pt shooting: ND hit only 14 of 34 shots inside the arc for 41%. UW, meanwhile, sizzled at 67% having made 26 of 39, including the aforementioned Evans dunk. This allowed UW to pick up 24 points inside the arc.
Most of the inside the arc points were also inside the paint. UW outscored ND 40 to 22 in the paint and 12 to 6 on midrange shots.
1pt shooting: ND got to the line 19 times and made 13 for 69%. Not very good shooting, but not the worst either. UW smoked them at the line making 18 of 21 for 86%. This gave UW an extra 5 points from the line.
Rebounding: When ND shot and missed, which they did often, the results were a draw. When UW shot and missed, UW cleaned up their own misses effectively.
UW Defensive end: ND provided 32 rebounding opportunities on their misses and picked up 10, for 31%. Regular readers will note that 33% is the national average, but UW typically holds their opponents to around 26%. So, this was more or less a draw, and not up to UW’s typical high standards for glass defense.
UW Offensive End: UW’s excellent marksmanship allowed for fewer rebounding chances. While ND gave themselves 32 chances, UW had only 19 chances to follow their misses. UW managed to get 10, or 53%. That is remarkable for a UW team, although less than the unobtainable standard of 65% against Prairie View.
Turnovers: ND had 16 TO’s, or 25% while UW had 13 for 21%. UW typically is near the top in the nation at avoiding TO’s. This will get Bo’s ire up at practices trying to cut down TO’s, I would think.
Opportunity Index: The OI was a modest +2 for the game. ND had 10 offensive rebounds to UW’s 9. But, UW had three extra chances via turnovers.
This game points out a flaw in OI. It rewards teams that miss shots. In this game, ND missed an extra 13 reboundable shots. They did an inferior job of offensive rebounding (31% to 53%) but scored well in the index through quantity (10 to UW’s 9).
Fouls: Both teams fouled 18 times. Last year, UW average 16 and our opponents 17.
Playing time: Bo went 8 deep (10 or more minutes) with Valentyn almost getting there with 9 minutes. Bruesewitz and Gasser started. Evans (21) and Jarmusz (23) played starter’s minutes.
Notable Performances: UW had 5 players in double figures:
* Leuer – 22 on 10 FGA’s, 8-8 from the line, but 3 unfortunate turnovers
* Keaton – 17 on 7-8 shooting, 2-2 from the line
* Taylor – 10 on 7 FGA, 2-2 from the line
* Evans – 11 on 6 FGA’s, 5-7 from the line
* Jarmusz – 10 on 4-4 field goals, 2-2 from deep
Leuer has been a machine so far, a finely tuned machine that is dominating opponents. Nankivil reminded everyone that he is a threat on offense. Jarmusz was rock solid and highly efficient. Tim, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. Keep that efficiency high.
Evans took the fouling bug and handed it to Valentyn. Brett picked up 4 fouls in 9 minutes. That is reminiscent of my high school career. If I got in a game and the only thing I could reliably do was foul, I wanted to get my money’s worth.
No individual had a particularly good day on the boards, but the team did very well. Leuer, Gasser, and Evans all had 6 boards.
For ND, Troy Huff scored 21 points, which is impressive until you see how he got there. He need to take 15 FGA’s and 13 FTA ( 6-15, 9-13 from the line).
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. The Badgers shoot more than 25 three-pointers. The Sioux are use a terrible zone defense that leaves shooters wide open for easy 3s, much like PVAMU did on Sunday, which resulted in 31 attempts. Miss. UW only took 11, but made 5. But then, why bother when you are hitting 67% of your shots inside the arc?
2. Leuer nets more than 25. He was unstoppable against Prairie View and North Dakota is an even smaller team. Miss. He got 22. But his efficiency was excellent. Maybe Keaton could have loaned him a few shots so he could have met your prediction.
3. Ryan Evans limits his fouls to three or less. He’s been really foul-happy the last two games and I expect him to settle down in this one. Hit. He had one. But, he passed the cursed evil fouling talisman (I think a talisman is supposed to ward off evil, so does anyone know what you call a thing that brings evil upon you?) to Valentyn.
4. The Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. The Badgers destroyed PVAMU on the offensive glass with grabbing a nation-leading 67.5% of the rebounding opportunities. Shirley, it will regress to the norm over the course of the season, but Ginger ‘Fro, Will Smith, and Gasser will assure the numbers stay inflated for at least another few days. Hit. They got a remarkable 53%. I thought this was an aggressive prediction, but they easily topped it. And, my names not Shirley.
The Badgers beat up the Bison-rejects by the score of 93-50 in 65 possessions. Hit, close enough. UW won 85-53 in 63 possessions. And I think they are the Sioux.
Closing Thoughts: UW pounded another low level opponent with ease.
I thought I would try a new feature.
Unwarranted Conclusions Based Upon Playing Inferior Competition Early In the Year:
1. Bo will shuffle his starting lineup every game
2. Bo will go 8 to 10 deep (playing more than 10 minutes a game)
3. UW will routinely score 1.30 + PPP per game and hold opponents to under .90 PPP
4. UW will hit 61% of our shots inside the arc, and 40% from deep
5. Bo will have the team crash the offensive glass and be one of the top offensive rebounding teams in the nation
It is hard to know what to make of these games. The UNLV game may provide some insight.
Yet another game that I could not watch on TV. Ugh. I thought the BTN was supposed to fix that. It torques me that ESPN would buy the game rights and then shuffle it off to ESPN3 when we have a perfectly good BTN available.
So, once again, this analysis is strictly from the box score, with the exception of seeing Evan’s dunk on ESPN top ten.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW had our best shooting day of the early season hitting season best percentages beyond the arc, inside the arc, and at the line. Bo will find some “teaching moments” trying to reduce turnovers and improve defensive rebounding.
Pace: As always, you have to know the pace of the game to put everything else in context. This game was at 63 possessions. That is much closer to our usual pace of around 60. The previous two games were at 66 and 71.
Efficiency: Was this blow out win because of good offense or good defense? Both. UW scored at 1.35 PPP, which is excellent, but less than the ridiculous 1.50 of PVA&M.
UW held ND to .84 PPP. PVA&M and Minnesota State each has .83 PPP. So, the defense has been consistent and very good.
Shooting: UW had our best day so far this year outside the arc, inside the arc, and at the line.
eFG%: For those unaware, eFG% is like your regular FG% but it gives a 3Pt basket a weight of 1.5 since it is worth more than a two point shot.
ND shot an eFG% of 43%. That is good defense by UW, or poor marksmanship by ND. UW shot 67% for our best performance of the year.
3 pt shooting: ND took two extra shots from deep, 13 to UW’s 11, but made one fewer, 4 to UW’s 5. ND hit a pedestrian 31% while UW was a robust 41%. UW picked up 3 points outside the arc.
2pt shooting: ND hit only 14 of 34 shots inside the arc for 41%. UW, meanwhile, sizzled at 67% having made 26 of 39, including the aforementioned Evans dunk. This allowed UW to pick up 24 points inside the arc.
Most of the inside the arc points were also inside the paint. UW outscored ND 40 to 22 in the paint and 12 to 6 on midrange shots.
1pt shooting: ND got to the line 19 times and made 13 for 69%. Not very good shooting, but not the worst either. UW smoked them at the line making 18 of 21 for 86%. This gave UW an extra 5 points from the line.
Rebounding: When ND shot and missed, which they did often, the results were a draw. When UW shot and missed, UW cleaned up their own misses effectively.
UW Defensive end: ND provided 32 rebounding opportunities on their misses and picked up 10, for 31%. Regular readers will note that 33% is the national average, but UW typically holds their opponents to around 26%. So, this was more or less a draw, and not up to UW’s typical high standards for glass defense.
UW Offensive End: UW’s excellent marksmanship allowed for fewer rebounding chances. While ND gave themselves 32 chances, UW had only 19 chances to follow their misses. UW managed to get 10, or 53%. That is remarkable for a UW team, although less than the unobtainable standard of 65% against Prairie View.
Turnovers: ND had 16 TO’s, or 25% while UW had 13 for 21%. UW typically is near the top in the nation at avoiding TO’s. This will get Bo’s ire up at practices trying to cut down TO’s, I would think.
Opportunity Index: The OI was a modest +2 for the game. ND had 10 offensive rebounds to UW’s 9. But, UW had three extra chances via turnovers.
This game points out a flaw in OI. It rewards teams that miss shots. In this game, ND missed an extra 13 reboundable shots. They did an inferior job of offensive rebounding (31% to 53%) but scored well in the index through quantity (10 to UW’s 9).
Fouls: Both teams fouled 18 times. Last year, UW average 16 and our opponents 17.
Playing time: Bo went 8 deep (10 or more minutes) with Valentyn almost getting there with 9 minutes. Bruesewitz and Gasser started. Evans (21) and Jarmusz (23) played starter’s minutes.
Notable Performances: UW had 5 players in double figures:
* Leuer – 22 on 10 FGA’s, 8-8 from the line, but 3 unfortunate turnovers
* Keaton – 17 on 7-8 shooting, 2-2 from the line
* Taylor – 10 on 7 FGA, 2-2 from the line
* Evans – 11 on 6 FGA’s, 5-7 from the line
* Jarmusz – 10 on 4-4 field goals, 2-2 from deep
Leuer has been a machine so far, a finely tuned machine that is dominating opponents. Nankivil reminded everyone that he is a threat on offense. Jarmusz was rock solid and highly efficient. Tim, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. Keep that efficiency high.
Evans took the fouling bug and handed it to Valentyn. Brett picked up 4 fouls in 9 minutes. That is reminiscent of my high school career. If I got in a game and the only thing I could reliably do was foul, I wanted to get my money’s worth.
No individual had a particularly good day on the boards, but the team did very well. Leuer, Gasser, and Evans all had 6 boards.
For ND, Troy Huff scored 21 points, which is impressive until you see how he got there. He need to take 15 FGA’s and 13 FTA ( 6-15, 9-13 from the line).
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. The Badgers shoot more than 25 three-pointers. The Sioux are use a terrible zone defense that leaves shooters wide open for easy 3s, much like PVAMU did on Sunday, which resulted in 31 attempts. Miss. UW only took 11, but made 5. But then, why bother when you are hitting 67% of your shots inside the arc?
2. Leuer nets more than 25. He was unstoppable against Prairie View and North Dakota is an even smaller team. Miss. He got 22. But his efficiency was excellent. Maybe Keaton could have loaned him a few shots so he could have met your prediction.
3. Ryan Evans limits his fouls to three or less. He’s been really foul-happy the last two games and I expect him to settle down in this one. Hit. He had one. But, he passed the cursed evil fouling talisman (I think a talisman is supposed to ward off evil, so does anyone know what you call a thing that brings evil upon you?) to Valentyn.
4. The Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. The Badgers destroyed PVAMU on the offensive glass with grabbing a nation-leading 67.5% of the rebounding opportunities. Shirley, it will regress to the norm over the course of the season, but Ginger ‘Fro, Will Smith, and Gasser will assure the numbers stay inflated for at least another few days. Hit. They got a remarkable 53%. I thought this was an aggressive prediction, but they easily topped it. And, my names not Shirley.
The Badgers beat up the Bison-rejects by the score of 93-50 in 65 possessions. Hit, close enough. UW won 85-53 in 63 possessions. And I think they are the Sioux.
Closing Thoughts: UW pounded another low level opponent with ease.
I thought I would try a new feature.
Unwarranted Conclusions Based Upon Playing Inferior Competition Early In the Year:
1. Bo will shuffle his starting lineup every game
2. Bo will go 8 to 10 deep (playing more than 10 minutes a game)
3. UW will routinely score 1.30 + PPP per game and hold opponents to under .90 PPP
4. UW will hit 61% of our shots inside the arc, and 40% from deep
5. Bo will have the team crash the offensive glass and be one of the top offensive rebounding teams in the nation
It is hard to know what to make of these games. The UNLV game may provide some insight.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Better Know A Badger! Part 2
Swingtown Badger Basketball Blog presents part 2 of a 416,937-part series, Better Know a Badger... this post is about freshman guard Ben Brust, the fightin' #1!
uwbadgers.com interview
uwbadgers.com interview
Better Know a Badger! Part 1
Swingtown Badger Basketball Blog presents part 1 of a 416,937-part series, Better Know a Badger... this post is about freshman center Evan Anderson, the fightin' #32!
uwbadgers.com interview
uwbadgers.com interview
Monday, November 15, 2010
Recruiting News and Other Stuff
Last week, Wisconsin officially inked all four members of the recruiting class of 2011. 6'2" combo guard Traevon Jackson of Ohio, 6'8" forward Jared Uthoff of Iowa, and 6'10" forward/center Frank Kaminsky and 6'0" point guard George Marshall, both of Illinois will join the Badger squad in the fall of 2011.
JSonline Article on 2012 offer J.P. Tokoto
Evan Anderson Decides to Redshirt
Gasser, Brust, and Dukan Didn't
Badgers, 11 Other NCAA Teams, Wear Most Technologically Advanced Uniforms... No, This Isn't an Onion Article
Sharif Chambliss Returns to Program as Video Coordinator
JSonline Article on 2012 offer J.P. Tokoto
Evan Anderson Decides to Redshirt
Gasser, Brust, and Dukan Didn't
Badgers, 11 Other NCAA Teams, Wear Most Technologically Advanced Uniforms... No, This Isn't an Onion Article
Sharif Chambliss Returns to Program as Video Coordinator
North Dakota Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: On to the next one… The Badgers just took down to the 12th worst team in the nation per Ken Pomeroy, and are now taking on the 6th worst team in the nation. The Fighting Sue of North Dakota are starting their 2nd season as a Division 1 team. Last season they played a Princeton-style offense but have apparently changed to a more up-tempo offense. Defensively, their Ken Pom stats point to them employing a very slow-rotating zone. Their opponents shot the third most treys per shot attempt last season, and only 7 teams gave up a higher assist-to-made shot ratio too.
Forum to Visit: Sioux Sports
What the expert nerd says:
Ken Pomeroy predicts an 82-48 Badger victory in 60 possessions, with a 0.2% chance of an upset.
North Dakota Likely Rotation (Last Season’s Statistics or First Game Statistics)
*G – 6’1” FR Jamal Webb (2.0 PPG, 6.0 RPG, 4.0 APG, 2.0 SPG, 100% FT, 40.0 OR, 20% TO, 10.0 FTR, 66% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’2” FR Josh Schuler (7.0 PPG, 2.0 APG, 2.0 SPG, 50% 2PT, 77.8 OR, 11% TO, 0.0 FTR, 50% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’8” JR Patrick Mitchell (9.2 PPG, 3.4 RPG, 38% 3PT, 97.8 OR, 21% Poss, 26% Shot, 16% TO, 5% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 2.9 FTR, 65% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G/F – 6’6” SR Chris Clausen (6.1 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 38% 3PT, 50% 2PT, 94.8 OR, 18% Poss, 20% Shot, 23% TO, 3% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 3.1 FTR, 67% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’5” SO Spencer Goodman (5.1 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 1.1 APG, 82.8 OR, 19% Poss, 17% Shot, 29% TO, 6% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 6.0 FTR, 33% of FGAs are 3PT)
G/F – 6’4” FR Troy Huff (18.0 PPG, 6.0 RPG, 1.0 APG, 1.0 SPG, 50% 2PT, 33% 3PT, 83% FT, 138.5 OR, 8% TO, 4.6 FTR, 23% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 5’10” FR Aaron Anderson (10.0 PPG, 2.0 RPG, 4.0 APG, 100% 2PT, 100% FT, 125.0 OR, 38% TO, 10.0 FTR, 25% of FGAs are 3PT)
G - 6’2” SO Nick Haugen (5.8 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 1.8 APG, 51% 2PT, 93.2 OR, 16% Poss, 16% Shot, 28% TO, 3% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 3.0 FTR, 45% of FGAs are 3PT)
F - 6’7” SR Derek Benter (6.2 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 1.1 APG, 46% 3PT, 77% FT, 95.1 OR, 18% Poss, 19% Shot, 23% TO, 4% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 3.9 FTR, 30% 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%
What North Dakota is really good at:
1. Getting to the free throw line. Last season, they averaged 9 free throw attempts per 20 field goal attempts, good for 28th in the country. Indiana was at 8 and Purdue was about 7.5.
2. Defensive Rebounding. They grabbed a hair less than 70% of all the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end, good for 69th in the nation. Wisconsin was a hair below 74%, or 2nd in the nation.
What North Dakota is really bad at:
1. Taking care of the ball. They coughed it up on offense a bit more than once every four possessions, making them 6th worst in the country. Even Tom Crean’s Cream team couldn’t match that, as they were only at 23%.
2. Offensive Rebounding. They only grab 27.4% of all rebounding opportunities on the offensive end, good for 322nd. Wisconsin was 249th.
3. Defense. Pick a defensive tempo-free stat, and they were bad at it last season. They were 254th in forcing turnovers, 335th in keeping opponents off the free throw line, 285th in defending 3s, 242nd in defending 2s, and 322nd in defending free throws. All of this culminated to create the second worst defense in the nation… defense ain’t easy for a team named Sue.
Relative efficiency:
When North Dakota has the ball: They scored an awful 0.89 PPP last season, while UW gave up the same last season.
When UW has the ball: They gave up a disgusting 1.20 last season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.16 last season.
Pace: North Dakota played at 66 possessions per game last season compared to UW’s 60.
My expectations:
1. The Badgers shoot more than 25 three-pointers. The Sioux are use a terrible zone defense that leaves shooters wide open for easy 3s, much like PVAMU did on Sunday, which resulted in 31 attempts.
2. Leuer nets more than 25. He was unstoppable against Prairie View and North Dakota is an even smaller team.
3. Ryan Evans limits his fouls to three or less. He’s been really foul-happy the last two games and I expect him to settle down in this one.
4. The Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. The Badgers destroyed PVAMU on the offensive glass with grabbing a nation-leading 67.5% of the rebounding opportunities. Shirley, it will regress to the norm over the course of the season, but Ginger ‘Fro, Will Smith, and Gasser will assure the numbers stay inflated for at least another few days.
The Badgers beat up the Bison-rejects by the score of 93-50 in 65 possessions.
PVAMU Box Score Observations
Opening Comments: Once again, I did not see this game. Ugh. Hopefully, this is the last time this year I will say this.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW won all phases of the game; shooting inside the arc, outside the arc and at the line; rebounding and turnovers. The key to the blowout was UW’s offensive rebounding.
Pace: The game had 66 possessions. Regular readers know we were around 60 last year. One might think a team would need more than 66 possessions to score 99 points. Not when you rebound like UW did on the offensive glass.
Efficiency: Points =99, possessions = 66. 99/66=1.5 PPP. That is some outstanding offense. Our best last year was 1.38 against Cal Poly.
Even more impressive was UW scored 1.81 PPP in the second half (a good but less impressive 1.21 in the first half). Yikes!
Meanwhile, PVA&M scored .83 PPP. That is good defense by UW or bad offense on their part.
Shooting: UW took more shots and made a higher percentage from outside the arc, inside the arc, and at the line. In short, we won the quality and quantity battle from all spots on the floor.
eFG%: UW shot a good 60%eFG. You might think they would have done better considering their high PPP. The difference is a lopsided offensive rebounding stat. UW missed 37 shots from the floor, but snared 24 offensive rebounds. An offensive rebound cancels a missed shot from a PPP perspective, but not from an eFG perspective. So, our less than stellar, but still very good, marksmanship was compensated for by excellent offensive rebounding.
3 pt shooting: Both teams shot well from deep. PVA&M hit 39% of their 18 shots, making 7. UW hit 13 of 31, 42%. So, while UW had only a small margin in quality, they won the quantity battle and put up an extra 18 points outside the arc.
2pt shooting: Inside the arc, PVA&M made 44% of their shots, 14 of 32. UW took 5 more shots inside, 37, and made 7 more shots, 21. UW hit 57% inside the arc. UW picked up another 14 points inside. UW took more high quality shots inside the arc outscoring PVA&M 36 to 16 in the paint, according to the UW web site.
1pt shooting: UW went to the line 14 more times and made 12 more points than PVA&M. UW was 18 of 22, 82% while PVA&M was 6 of 8, 75%.
Rebounding: UW crushed PVA&M on the boards – both ends – big time.
UW Defensive end: Thirty rebounding opportunities resulted in 27 defensive boards for UW. UW protected their end by getting a stunning 90% of PVA&M misses. Last year we got 22 of 24, or 92% against Illinois. But, rarely does a team get 90% or better of their rebounding chances.
UW Offensive End: UW really cleaned up their own misses. Of the 37 chances, UW got 24, or 65% of the misses. Wow! The national average is 33% and UW usually does worse than the national average.
Turnovers: PVA&M had 15, or 23% of their possessions end in TO’s. UW had 12, or 18% end in TO’s. While 18% is a good number nationally (21% is the national average), it is high by UW standards. I would guess Bo will concentrate on TO’s next week (which he probably does anyway).
Opportunity Index: UW had an unbelievable plus 24 OI. UW was plus 21 on offensive rebounds and plus 3 on turnovers.
Fouls: PVA&M picked up 22 fouls to UW’s 11.
Playing time: Bo went 9 deep, again (10 or more minutes). Besides the starters, which included Q, Evans got 11, Gasser starter-like 26, Bruesewitz 19 and Berggren 14.
Notable Performances: Leuer got 24 on only 13 FGA’s and 2 FTA’s. Excellent work. I expect to repeat this refrain often this year. Taylor got 20 but need some more shots to do it (16 FGA’s and 3 FTA). Taylor had an uncharacteristic 3 TO’s.
The story of the game was Josh Gasser’s debut. He played 26 minutes, scored 21 points on 5-8 FGA’s and 9-10 from the line, got a team high 9 boards, and but one lonely turnover. Josh, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. Besides long, I think my people look forward to discussing your exploits often, since as a true freshman having played one game, it is reasonable to assume things will get even better.
Bruesewitz had a nice game going 4-4 from the field, 3-3 from deep and grabbing 6 boards in less than half a game (19 minutes). Nice work, Mike. I salute you.
Ryan Evans picked up 4 fouls in 11 minutes. He fouled out of the Mankato game in only 11 minutes. This bears keeping an eye on, but I would not think this is a problem, yet.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. The Badgers grab more than 81% of the rebounding opportunities on the defensive side. Wisconsin stresses defensive rebounding and is taller at every position. PVAMU doesn't stress offensive rebounding. Major hit. UW got 90%. This was a bold prediction, 81%, but UW did even better.
2. The Badgers make more free throws than PVAMU attempts. This is more of a wish, but it's very probably given our great frontcourt. Hit. UW made 18, PVA&M tried 8. Now a prediction that would have been more interesting would have been, “Gasser will make more FT than PVA&M will attempt.”
3. The Badgers hold the Panthers to less than 21 points in the paint. Wisconsin dominates the inside with superior size and skill on the defensive end. Hit. PVA&M had 16.
4. The Badger have less than 11 turnovers. This is a bit gutsy for the start of the year, but I trust Jordan Taylor and Josh Gasser to reward my boldness. Miss. UW had 12.
The Badgers blow the Panthers out of the gym with an ultra efficient 81-52 victory in 65 possessions. Hit. UW did even better: 99-55 in 66 possessions.
Closing Thoughts: I wish I would have seen the game. I know PVA&M is not a good team and hard conclusions should not be drawn from this game. But, Gasser’s performance was truly remarkable.
Gasser would be an interesting choice for my favorite player. For one thing, I would not have to think about it for 4 years, which might be too long to go with one player. I recognize he is not likely to repeat this performance unless we have a lot of PVA&M’s on the schedule. But, what a start.
I plan on delaying making a favorite player decision until the end of December. For one thing, I would like to see the team play a game. I presume someone will emerge by then and the decision will become clear.
I doubt we will see another offensive rebound game like this anytime soon.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW won all phases of the game; shooting inside the arc, outside the arc and at the line; rebounding and turnovers. The key to the blowout was UW’s offensive rebounding.
Pace: The game had 66 possessions. Regular readers know we were around 60 last year. One might think a team would need more than 66 possessions to score 99 points. Not when you rebound like UW did on the offensive glass.
Efficiency: Points =99, possessions = 66. 99/66=1.5 PPP. That is some outstanding offense. Our best last year was 1.38 against Cal Poly.
Even more impressive was UW scored 1.81 PPP in the second half (a good but less impressive 1.21 in the first half). Yikes!
Meanwhile, PVA&M scored .83 PPP. That is good defense by UW or bad offense on their part.
Shooting: UW took more shots and made a higher percentage from outside the arc, inside the arc, and at the line. In short, we won the quality and quantity battle from all spots on the floor.
eFG%: UW shot a good 60%eFG. You might think they would have done better considering their high PPP. The difference is a lopsided offensive rebounding stat. UW missed 37 shots from the floor, but snared 24 offensive rebounds. An offensive rebound cancels a missed shot from a PPP perspective, but not from an eFG perspective. So, our less than stellar, but still very good, marksmanship was compensated for by excellent offensive rebounding.
3 pt shooting: Both teams shot well from deep. PVA&M hit 39% of their 18 shots, making 7. UW hit 13 of 31, 42%. So, while UW had only a small margin in quality, they won the quantity battle and put up an extra 18 points outside the arc.
2pt shooting: Inside the arc, PVA&M made 44% of their shots, 14 of 32. UW took 5 more shots inside, 37, and made 7 more shots, 21. UW hit 57% inside the arc. UW picked up another 14 points inside. UW took more high quality shots inside the arc outscoring PVA&M 36 to 16 in the paint, according to the UW web site.
1pt shooting: UW went to the line 14 more times and made 12 more points than PVA&M. UW was 18 of 22, 82% while PVA&M was 6 of 8, 75%.
Rebounding: UW crushed PVA&M on the boards – both ends – big time.
UW Defensive end: Thirty rebounding opportunities resulted in 27 defensive boards for UW. UW protected their end by getting a stunning 90% of PVA&M misses. Last year we got 22 of 24, or 92% against Illinois. But, rarely does a team get 90% or better of their rebounding chances.
UW Offensive End: UW really cleaned up their own misses. Of the 37 chances, UW got 24, or 65% of the misses. Wow! The national average is 33% and UW usually does worse than the national average.
Turnovers: PVA&M had 15, or 23% of their possessions end in TO’s. UW had 12, or 18% end in TO’s. While 18% is a good number nationally (21% is the national average), it is high by UW standards. I would guess Bo will concentrate on TO’s next week (which he probably does anyway).
Opportunity Index: UW had an unbelievable plus 24 OI. UW was plus 21 on offensive rebounds and plus 3 on turnovers.
Fouls: PVA&M picked up 22 fouls to UW’s 11.
Playing time: Bo went 9 deep, again (10 or more minutes). Besides the starters, which included Q, Evans got 11, Gasser starter-like 26, Bruesewitz 19 and Berggren 14.
Notable Performances: Leuer got 24 on only 13 FGA’s and 2 FTA’s. Excellent work. I expect to repeat this refrain often this year. Taylor got 20 but need some more shots to do it (16 FGA’s and 3 FTA). Taylor had an uncharacteristic 3 TO’s.
The story of the game was Josh Gasser’s debut. He played 26 minutes, scored 21 points on 5-8 FGA’s and 9-10 from the line, got a team high 9 boards, and but one lonely turnover. Josh, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. Besides long, I think my people look forward to discussing your exploits often, since as a true freshman having played one game, it is reasonable to assume things will get even better.
Bruesewitz had a nice game going 4-4 from the field, 3-3 from deep and grabbing 6 boards in less than half a game (19 minutes). Nice work, Mike. I salute you.
Ryan Evans picked up 4 fouls in 11 minutes. He fouled out of the Mankato game in only 11 minutes. This bears keeping an eye on, but I would not think this is a problem, yet.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. The Badgers grab more than 81% of the rebounding opportunities on the defensive side. Wisconsin stresses defensive rebounding and is taller at every position. PVAMU doesn't stress offensive rebounding. Major hit. UW got 90%. This was a bold prediction, 81%, but UW did even better.
2. The Badgers make more free throws than PVAMU attempts. This is more of a wish, but it's very probably given our great frontcourt. Hit. UW made 18, PVA&M tried 8. Now a prediction that would have been more interesting would have been, “Gasser will make more FT than PVA&M will attempt.”
3. The Badgers hold the Panthers to less than 21 points in the paint. Wisconsin dominates the inside with superior size and skill on the defensive end. Hit. PVA&M had 16.
4. The Badger have less than 11 turnovers. This is a bit gutsy for the start of the year, but I trust Jordan Taylor and Josh Gasser to reward my boldness. Miss. UW had 12.
The Badgers blow the Panthers out of the gym with an ultra efficient 81-52 victory in 65 possessions. Hit. UW did even better: 99-55 in 66 possessions.
Closing Thoughts: I wish I would have seen the game. I know PVA&M is not a good team and hard conclusions should not be drawn from this game. But, Gasser’s performance was truly remarkable.
Gasser would be an interesting choice for my favorite player. For one thing, I would not have to think about it for 4 years, which might be too long to go with one player. I recognize he is not likely to repeat this performance unless we have a lot of PVA&M’s on the schedule. But, what a start.
I plan on delaying making a favorite player decision until the end of December. For one thing, I would like to see the team play a game. I presume someone will emerge by then and the decision will become clear.
I doubt we will see another offensive rebound game like this anytime soon.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Prairie View A&M Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: Well, Wisconsin and Marquette are opening up their seasons with a team that couldn’t be confused for anything more than a muffin coated in frosting. The Panthers of Prairie View A&M hail from Texas and the Southwestern Athletic Conference. Last season, they went 16-14 (11-7), although four of those victories were against non-D1 opponents. They only played five teams in Pomeroy’s top 221 teams. They went 0-5 against those teams with an average margin of loss at 20.4 points. This season, they only return 6 of their top 11 players, and lost their leading scorer, rebounder, and shot blocker. He was also the only player that had an efficiency rating that was above the national average. Also, I was feeling a little bipartisan and decided to post the analysis on the MU forum as well. Forgive me for my sin.
What the expert nerds say:
Ken Pomeroy predicts a 75-47 Wisconsin victory with a 0.4% chance of upset.
Prairie View A&M Likely Rotation (Last Season’s Statistics)
*G – 5’8” JR Michael Griffin (9.2 PPG, 3.2 APG, 2.9 RPG, 1.8 SPG, 81.4 OR, 26% Poss, 27% Shot, 22% TO, 3% OffReb, 9% DefReb, 2.3 FTR, 54% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 5’10” SR Trant Simpson (16.1 PPG, 4.2 APG, 2.5 RPG, 2.1 SPG, 95.4 OR, 28% Poss, 26% Shot, 22% TO, 2% OffReb, 6% DefReb, 5.4 FTR, 28% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’2” JR Tim Meadows (7.0 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 1.5 APG, 1.2 SPG, 91.4 OR, 15% Poss, 16% Shot, 19% TO, 4% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 2.8 FTR, 48% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’7” SO Michael Webb (2.6 PPG, 2.0 RPG, 55% 2PT, 89.7 OR, 19% Poss, 17% Shot, 20% TO, 8% OffReb, 17% DefReb, 6.1 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’7” SR Brandon Webb (3.2 PPG, 1.9 RPG, 78.8 OR, 23% Poss, 21% Shot, 22% TO, 8% OffReb, 13% DefReb, 5.2 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’5” SR Duwan Kornegay (6.6 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 83.8 OR, 24% Poss, 27% Shot, 19% TO, 8% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 2.8 FTR, 58% of FGAs are 3PT)
G - 6’0” SO Chris Sights (2.5 PPG, 1.5 APG, 1.3 RPG, 84.7 OR, 16% Poss, 13% Shot, 27% TO, 3% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 4.1 FTR, 19% of FGAs are 3PT)
The rest of the roster are five freshman and transfers/guys that didn’t see time last season.
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%
What Prairie View is really good at:
1. Forcing turnovers. They forced their opponents into turnovers on 23% of their possessions, which was good for 38th in the nation. This is similar to Purdue, Kansas State, Tennessee, Michigan, Louisville, Virginia Tech, and Marquette.
2. Defending the arc. Their opponents shot an icy 30.2% from beyond the three-point line, which was 23rd in the country. Cincinnati, Michigan, UConn, DePaul, and Iowa shot similarly.
3. Defending the charity stripe. Something tells me this was heavily influenced by their terrible conference opponents as with the three-point shooting. Their opponents shot a horrendous 63.3%, which was the 5th worst in the nation. Apparently the Panthers’ student section have more ugly celebrity heads to distract the shooters than Indiana. Maybe they have a bunch of Snooki and The Situation heads.
What Prairie View is really bad at:
1. Pump-faking. They had a bit more than one out of every 10 two-point attempts blocked, which was 261st in the nation. This is similar to Marquette, Villanova, Tennessee, Penn State, and Michigan.
2. Shooting... from everywhere. They shot 27.8% from 3 (341st), 43% from inside the arc (315th), and 61.3% from the line (339th). That made them the 8th worst shooting team in the country last season. Virginia Tech, Indiana, USC, and DePaul were the only BCS conference teams in the bottom 100, with DePaul being the only one in the bottom 65.
3. Offensive Rebounding. The Panthers grabbed 30.8% of all the rebounding opportunities on their offensive end, good for 238th. As talked about, this is probably more a product of scheme, as Marquette and Wisconsin are fractions of a percentage worse than Prairie View.
Relative efficiency:
When Prairie View has the ball: They scored a god awful 0.84 PPP last season, while UW gave up a stingy 0.89 last season.
When UW has the ball: They gave up an average 1.01 last season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.16 last season.
Pace: Prairie View played at 67 possessions per game last season compared to UW’s 60.
My expectations:
1. The Badgers grab more than 81% of the rebounding opportunities on the defensive side. Wisconsin stresses defensive rebounding and is taller at every position. PVAMU doesn't stress offensive rebounding.
2. The Badgers make more free throws than PVAMU attempts. This is more of a wish, but it's very probably given our great frontcourt.
3. The Badgers hold the Panthers to less than 21 points in the paint. Wisconsin dominates the inside with superior size and skill on the defensive end.
4. The Badger have less than 11 turnovers. This is a bit gutsy for the start of the year, but I trust Jordan Taylor and Josh Gasser to reward my boldness.
The Badgers blow the Panthers out of the gym with an ultra efficient 81-52 victory in 65 possessions.
Box Score Observations - Minn State
Opening Comments: Once again I am writing this without having seen a single play of the game nor did I hear it on the radio. So, this is based strictly on the numbers.
As always, please point out those nasty typos. I cannot type this much without major screw ups. I rely on all of you as copy editors.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW destroyed MSU inside the arc scoring a stunning extra 30 points and holding MSU to only 32% shooting inside the arc.
Pace: The game was a zippy 71 possession, at least zippy by UW’s standards. Last year we averaged 60 possessions.
Efficiency: How did our offense and defense compare with the UWL game? UW scored 93 points instead of 84 against UWL, and in both cases our defense gave up 59. But, since we now all know and love tempo free stats, we will be dividing by 71 possessions instead of 63. So, UW’s offense was about the same (UWL- 1.33, MS 1.31) with the UWL game being slightly better. But, our defense improved from .94 to .83.
Most people unaware of tempo free stats would assume the 94 point outburst was our best offensive performance. Not so.
Bottom line, our offense was excellent and on par with the UWL game. Our defense was also excellent, significantly better than the UWL game.
Shooting: UW was lights out inside the arc. The deep ball and free throw lines were more or less equal. UW restrained ourselves and took only 28% of their shots from deep. Why bother launching long shots when the pickings are good inside?
eFG%: MSU hit at 40% eFG% while UW was an excellent 64%.
3 pt shooting: MSU heaved two more deep shots (17 to UW’s 15) and both teams made 6. So, UW ended up with a good 40% make rate while MSU was a good 35%. For scoring, it was a draw at 18 points each.
2pt shooting: Inside, it was the varsity versus the freshmen. MSU made a lowly 10 of 31 shots, or 32%. They would have been better off bombing from three and hitting 35% and scoring one extra point per make.
UW found the pickings easy inside. UW was a stunning 25 of 38 or 66%. Yikes!
Inside, UW took 7 more shots and made 15 extra baskets. That is a stunning plus 30 inside.
1pt shooting: Fouls were plenty and foul shots resulted. MSU went to the line 29 times and hit 21 for a respectable 72%. UW was 25 of 34 for an equally respectable 74%. So, the quality was about the same but the quantity favored UW to the tune of 4 extra points.
Rebounding: Rebounding was a draw. Both teams had comparable offensive rebounding numbers but UW had fewer opportunities since we had fewer misses.
UW Defensive end: When MSU was shooting, 36 rebounds were available and they got 12, or 33% of their misses. While this is on the national average, it was a poor showing my UW’s standards. UW has historically been one of the best in the nation at protecting their glass. Last year, we were second in the nation holding opponents to 26.3%.
UW Offensive End: When UW shot, there were fewer misses (see section on shooting inside the arc). Twenty five shots were available for rebounds and UW grabbed 8, or 32%. By UW standards, that is a pretty good day. Regular readers know that Bo’s strategy is to get back on defense and not press the offensive glass too hard. Last year we grabbed 30.5% of our misses, a lowly 249th in the nation.
Turnovers: UW took advantage of MSU’s giving ways and accepted 20 turnovers while only giving back 11. MSU had a dreadful 28% turnover rate while UW was a sparkling 15%.
Opportunity Index: UW had a plus 5 opportunity index. For those unfamiliar with OI, it adds together offensive rebounds and opponent turnovers for both teams and compares.
Last year we had a discussion about what is worth more – a turnover or an offensive rebound. We (okay, I – I cannot speak for everyone here) concluded they were approximately the same. Each results in a team getting the ball and a fresh shot clock. Since they are of equal (or nearly equal) value, they can be added together. Hence, the opportunity index was born.
The way to interpret this is to think that in a 71 possession game, UW had the ball 5 extra times.
As an aside, I have always had a problem with assist to turnover ratio. They compare two things of wildly different value. Assists are of marginal value at best (a basket made without an assist is just as valuable as one with an assist) while turnovers are clearly a bad thing.
Fouls: Both teams were foul happy. MSU had 24 and UW 21. Last year we had 16 per game and our opponents 17.
Playing time: Bo went 10 deep (I use 10 minutes as a cutoff – arbitrary I know). Smith (21 minutes) and Bruesewitz (23 minutes) got starts and Brust (12), Evans (11), Valentyn (10), Gasser (17), Jarmusz (10), and Berggren (14) all had significant playing time. Perhaps of most importance, Wilson got the day off. It will be interesting to see where he fits in when back in service. He may find himself getting Wally Pipped.
Notable Performances: Leuer picked up an impressive 25-11 dub dub in 25 minutes of action. Jon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
Taylor got 20 in 24 minutes with zero turnovers. Bruesewitz got 9 and 4 boards including 6-6 from the line. Evans had the distinction of fouling out in 11 minutes of play. Let’s hope that is an aberration.
For MSU, Mason got 20 points in 25 minutes, following in Tony Mane’s footsteps. Let’s hope we do not have a perimeter defense issue. We should keep an eye on this as the year unfolds.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
Regular readers know that I hold Shetown’s feet to the fire on his predictions. Yes, everyone makes predictions on message boards, but we normally only hear from people when they got it right. Not here! We have high standards around here J
1. The Badgers score more than 35 points in the paint. Let’s try this again, against a better team. Hit UW scored 40 points in the paint.
2. The freshman combine for more than 15 points. I’m upping the ante on you guys, I hope you come though for me. Miss. Brust (1), Dukan (2), Gasser (4), and Anderson (0) totaled 7.
3. The Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. Mankato is a decent defensive rebounding team, but I like the longer and more athletic Badgers to continue their offensive rebounding assault from Saturday against the Mavs. Miss. UW got 32%. This was a rather aggressive prediction that did not come home.
Closing Thoughts: I look forward to watching the game and seeing the beauty of basketball unfold.
I am thinking about adding “points in the paint” to the analysis. I am not sure what I would do with it, but if it correlates with winning, it might have some value. Fortunately, the number is calculated in the box score. Other things include:
Points off turnovers
Second chance points
Fast break points
Bench scoring
Bench scoring is typically worthless, in my estimation. That has more to do with substitution patterns than some game insight, IMHO. But the others might have some value.
For one thing, I am curious if turnovers have a higher PPP than typical possessions. Points off Turnovers along with second chance points might relate well with opportunity index. We shall see.
As always, please point out those nasty typos. I cannot type this much without major screw ups. I rely on all of you as copy editors.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW destroyed MSU inside the arc scoring a stunning extra 30 points and holding MSU to only 32% shooting inside the arc.
Pace: The game was a zippy 71 possession, at least zippy by UW’s standards. Last year we averaged 60 possessions.
Efficiency: How did our offense and defense compare with the UWL game? UW scored 93 points instead of 84 against UWL, and in both cases our defense gave up 59. But, since we now all know and love tempo free stats, we will be dividing by 71 possessions instead of 63. So, UW’s offense was about the same (UWL- 1.33, MS 1.31) with the UWL game being slightly better. But, our defense improved from .94 to .83.
Most people unaware of tempo free stats would assume the 94 point outburst was our best offensive performance. Not so.
Bottom line, our offense was excellent and on par with the UWL game. Our defense was also excellent, significantly better than the UWL game.
Shooting: UW was lights out inside the arc. The deep ball and free throw lines were more or less equal. UW restrained ourselves and took only 28% of their shots from deep. Why bother launching long shots when the pickings are good inside?
eFG%: MSU hit at 40% eFG% while UW was an excellent 64%.
3 pt shooting: MSU heaved two more deep shots (17 to UW’s 15) and both teams made 6. So, UW ended up with a good 40% make rate while MSU was a good 35%. For scoring, it was a draw at 18 points each.
2pt shooting: Inside, it was the varsity versus the freshmen. MSU made a lowly 10 of 31 shots, or 32%. They would have been better off bombing from three and hitting 35% and scoring one extra point per make.
UW found the pickings easy inside. UW was a stunning 25 of 38 or 66%. Yikes!
Inside, UW took 7 more shots and made 15 extra baskets. That is a stunning plus 30 inside.
1pt shooting: Fouls were plenty and foul shots resulted. MSU went to the line 29 times and hit 21 for a respectable 72%. UW was 25 of 34 for an equally respectable 74%. So, the quality was about the same but the quantity favored UW to the tune of 4 extra points.
Rebounding: Rebounding was a draw. Both teams had comparable offensive rebounding numbers but UW had fewer opportunities since we had fewer misses.
UW Defensive end: When MSU was shooting, 36 rebounds were available and they got 12, or 33% of their misses. While this is on the national average, it was a poor showing my UW’s standards. UW has historically been one of the best in the nation at protecting their glass. Last year, we were second in the nation holding opponents to 26.3%.
UW Offensive End: When UW shot, there were fewer misses (see section on shooting inside the arc). Twenty five shots were available for rebounds and UW grabbed 8, or 32%. By UW standards, that is a pretty good day. Regular readers know that Bo’s strategy is to get back on defense and not press the offensive glass too hard. Last year we grabbed 30.5% of our misses, a lowly 249th in the nation.
Turnovers: UW took advantage of MSU’s giving ways and accepted 20 turnovers while only giving back 11. MSU had a dreadful 28% turnover rate while UW was a sparkling 15%.
Opportunity Index: UW had a plus 5 opportunity index. For those unfamiliar with OI, it adds together offensive rebounds and opponent turnovers for both teams and compares.
Last year we had a discussion about what is worth more – a turnover or an offensive rebound. We (okay, I – I cannot speak for everyone here) concluded they were approximately the same. Each results in a team getting the ball and a fresh shot clock. Since they are of equal (or nearly equal) value, they can be added together. Hence, the opportunity index was born.
The way to interpret this is to think that in a 71 possession game, UW had the ball 5 extra times.
As an aside, I have always had a problem with assist to turnover ratio. They compare two things of wildly different value. Assists are of marginal value at best (a basket made without an assist is just as valuable as one with an assist) while turnovers are clearly a bad thing.
Fouls: Both teams were foul happy. MSU had 24 and UW 21. Last year we had 16 per game and our opponents 17.
Playing time: Bo went 10 deep (I use 10 minutes as a cutoff – arbitrary I know). Smith (21 minutes) and Bruesewitz (23 minutes) got starts and Brust (12), Evans (11), Valentyn (10), Gasser (17), Jarmusz (10), and Berggren (14) all had significant playing time. Perhaps of most importance, Wilson got the day off. It will be interesting to see where he fits in when back in service. He may find himself getting Wally Pipped.
Notable Performances: Leuer picked up an impressive 25-11 dub dub in 25 minutes of action. Jon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
Taylor got 20 in 24 minutes with zero turnovers. Bruesewitz got 9 and 4 boards including 6-6 from the line. Evans had the distinction of fouling out in 11 minutes of play. Let’s hope that is an aberration.
For MSU, Mason got 20 points in 25 minutes, following in Tony Mane’s footsteps. Let’s hope we do not have a perimeter defense issue. We should keep an eye on this as the year unfolds.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
Regular readers know that I hold Shetown’s feet to the fire on his predictions. Yes, everyone makes predictions on message boards, but we normally only hear from people when they got it right. Not here! We have high standards around here J
1. The Badgers score more than 35 points in the paint. Let’s try this again, against a better team. Hit UW scored 40 points in the paint.
2. The freshman combine for more than 15 points. I’m upping the ante on you guys, I hope you come though for me. Miss. Brust (1), Dukan (2), Gasser (4), and Anderson (0) totaled 7.
3. The Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. Mankato is a decent defensive rebounding team, but I like the longer and more athletic Badgers to continue their offensive rebounding assault from Saturday against the Mavs. Miss. UW got 32%. This was a rather aggressive prediction that did not come home.
Closing Thoughts: I look forward to watching the game and seeing the beauty of basketball unfold.
I am thinking about adding “points in the paint” to the analysis. I am not sure what I would do with it, but if it correlates with winning, it might have some value. Fortunately, the number is calculated in the box score. Other things include:
Points off turnovers
Second chance points
Fast break points
Bench scoring
Bench scoring is typically worthless, in my estimation. That has more to do with substitution patterns than some game insight, IMHO. But the others might have some value.
For one thing, I am curious if turnovers have a higher PPP than typical possessions. Points off Turnovers along with second chance points might relate well with opportunity index. We shall see.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Minnesota State-Mankato Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: Bo knew what he was doing in scheduling this exhibition. The Mavs make more free throws than their opponents attempt. They are aggressive on defense, forcing a ton of turnovers. They have a good inside player, who is their highest scoring returnee. They have some decent size at guard. Dare I say a 25-5 MSU-M team is a better game than Praire View A&M? Might be. We’ll found out tomorrow night.
Forums to Visit: I'm not even going to bother to look
What the expert nerds say:
Sagarin doesn’t care about this game.
Ken Pomeroy doesn’t care about this game either.
Vegas odds makers don’t care either.
MSU-Mankato Likely Rotation (Last Season’s Statistics)
*G – 5’9” SR Marcus Hill (11.1 PPG, 2.4 APG, 1.1 RPG, 46% 3PT, 89% FT, 107.8 OR, 15% TO, 4.3 FTR, 43% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’3” SR Taylor Morrow (5.1 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 1.2 SPG, 1.0 APG, 62% 2PT, 121.6 OR, 15% TO, 3.4 FTR, 31% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” SR Cameron Hodges (6.5 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 1.1 APG, 35% 3PT, 103.0 OR, 17% TO, 5.9 FTR, 28% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’6” SR Jefferson Mason (15.9 PPG, 8.1 RPG, 2.1 APG, 1.9 SPG, 1.0 BPG, 65% 2PT, 137.5 OR, 17% TO, 7.8 FTR, 10% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’7” FR Connor O’Brien (13 pts, 5 rebs, 2 stls, 1 blk on 5/9 shooting in first exhibition game)
G - 6’2” SR Joe Drapcho (6.2 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 1.5 APG, 1.2 SPG, 80% FT, 97.4 OR, 15% TO, 2.6 FTR, 35% of FGAs are 3PT)
G - 6’5” JR Stephen Kirschbaum (2.6 PPG, 1.4 RPG, 1.0 APG, 44% 3PT, 93% FT, 146.2 OR, 4% TO, 2.7 FTR, 66% of FGAs are 3PT)
C - 6’10” JR Mitch Grundman (1.9 PPG, 1.6 RPG, 106.9 OR, 20% TO, 8.0 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
F - 6’9” JR Mike Bisenius (2.5 PPG, 1.5 RPG, 57% 2PT, 168.8 OR, 19% TO, 1.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
Key:
OR = offensive rating, or personal points per possession (100.8 is average)
TO = percentage of personal possessions ending in turnover (20.4% is average)
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%
What MSU-Mankato is really good at:
1. Protecting the ball. They only turned it over 15.1% (4th best if in D1) of their possessions last season, or about one every 7 possessions.
2. Forcing turnovers. Their opponents coughed up the ball 22.7% of their possessions and had it stolen 12.2% of the time. Those are 46th and 27th in D1 respectively.
3. Shooting inside the arc. Last season, the Mavs shot 54.5% inside the arc, 73.8% from the line, and had only 6.9% of their two-pointers blocked. These would rank them 7th, 32nd, and 31st respectively if they were in D1.
4. Rebounding. MSU-M grabbed 35.2% (82nd) of the rebounding opportunities on offense and 70.3% (50th) on defense.
5. Getting to the free throw line and keeping their opponents off it. They attempted 4.4 (49th) free throws per 10 field goal attempts while their opponents only attempted 2.8 (15th).
What MSU-Mankato is really bad at:
1. Defending the arc. MSU-M surrendered a poor 35.6% shooting percentage outside the arc last season, which would have been 254th in D1.
2. Free throw defense. Apparently the Stomper mascot painted on the wall behind the basketball in Mankato isn’t intimidating enough, as their opponents shot a hot 73.5% from the free throw line last season. That would be 339th in D1.
Relative efficiency:
When MSU-Mankato has the ball: They scored an impressive 1.18 PPP last season, while UW gave up a stingy 0.89 last season.
When UW has the ball: They gave up a great 0.86 last season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.16 last season.
Pace: Mankato played at 73 possessions per game last season compared to UW’s 60. 73 is about what Washington, Texas, BYU, and Villanova were last season.
My expectations:
1. The Badgers score more than 35 points in the paint. Let’s try this again, against a better team.
2. The freshman combine for more than 15 points. I’m upping the ante on you guys, I hope you come though for me.
3. The Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. Mankato is a decent defensive rebounding team, but I like the longer and more athletic Badgers to continue their offensive rebounding assault from Saturday against the Mavs.
Mankato lost several starters but return a decent core of players. They seem to like to play a run and gun style with a full court press, forcing turnovers and but giving up open looks from outside due to over-aggressiveness and playing the passing lanes. It’s a good test for the Badgers, but I still think they come away with a 72-48 victory.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Box Score Observations - the UWL kick the tires version
Opening Comments: This is truly a box score observation. I did not go to the game, see it on TV (maybe tonight), or listen on the radio.
It was great that the University scheduled a few exhibition games so I can get the kinks out of the system – which in my case is my spreadsheet. Very thoughtful. Please point out any errors so I can be ready to go when the real bullets are flying.
My comments and observations must be tempered by the fact that this is a game against a D3 opponent, obviously. Here goes ...
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW beat UWL in all phases of the game: Shot better, shot more often, got to the line more, fouled less, and turned the ball over less.
Pace: The game had 62 possessions, which is about normal for UW. Last year we averaged 60, 58 in conference games.
Efficiency: UW put up a most impressive 1.33 PPP. Last year we averaged a stellar 1.11, 1.09 in conference. UW held UWL to .94 PPP. That was pretty normal for UW, who held opponents to .95 last year, .97 in conference.
Shooting: UW won the quantity and quality battle inside the arc and at the line.
eFG%: UWL shot an eFG% of 49%, not bad. UW was at 57%. Last year, we held opponents to 46% and hit at 52%. UW restrained themselves and took only 28% of their shot attempts outside the arc.
3 pt shooting: Three point shooting was pretty even with UW getting a small edge. UWL made 38% (9 of 24) while UW was marginally better with 41% (7 of 17). UWL got 6 extra points outside.
2pt shooting: UW won the quantity and quality battle inside the arc. UWL was 14 of 32, 44%. UW took an extra 12 shots, 44, and made 10 extra baskets, 24 hitting 55%. UW picked up 20 points inside.
1pt shooting: UW got to the line 14 more times (UW 18, UWL only 4) and made a nice 15, or 83%. UWL hit all four of their shots. Will this be the year UW gets back the “we make more FT’s than our opponents attempt” crown back? UW picked up 11 points at the line.
Rebounding:
UW Defensive end: When UWL was shooting, there were 33 rebounding opportunities and UW got 26, or 79% leaving UWL with 21% of their misses. That is very good and a Bo Ryan trademark.
UW Offensive End: When UW was shooting, there were 31 opportunities for caroms and UW snared 15, or 48%. Regular readers will note that offensive rebounding is not something Bo stresses. So, getting 48% is highly unusual.
Turnovers: UWL had 12 turnovers for a good 19% turnover rate. UW topped that and only let 9 go for a very good 14%.
Opportunity Index: UW had a plus 11 Opportunity index (Plus 3 turnover margin and plus 8 offensive rebounding margin). That gave UW 11 extra chances in a 62 possession game.
Fouls: UWL was only whistled for 14 fouls while UW had but 6. Imagine, 6 fouls the whole game. Those 8 extra fouls translated into 14 extra free throw attempts and 10 extra points for UW.
Playing time: Bo played 9 ten or more minutes. Besides the starters, Smith got 14, Gasser an impressive 20, Bruesewitz 17, and Berggren 11. Obviously, an exhibition game.
Notable Performances: Leuer got a 15-10 dub dub, but needed 12 FGA and 5 FTA to get there. Nankivil scored 15 on 9 shots, 2-3 from deep and added three boards. Taylor hit double figures with 12 on 8 shots, two FGA’s. Since this was an exhibition game, it is sad to say that the Badger’s exploits will probably not be told around the campfires of my people for very long.
For UWL, Mane and Hanson did the damage scoring a combined 41 on 15 of 30 shooting, 7 of 16 from deep. That was the bulk of their offense.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. The Badgers score more than 35 points in the paint. The Eagles are small and poor at defending it anyway. Jon and Keaton should have a field day. Miss. UW had 32 in the paint.
2. The freshman combine for more than 10 points. I like the newbies to use their size and athletic advantages to show what they can do offensively. Hit. The freshmen combined for an impressive 19 on only 11 FGA’s.(Brust 4, Dukan 6, Gasser 9, and Anderson 0).
3. The Badger shoot better than 36% from 3. I think LAX will try to limit points in the paint by collapsing on the post. This should make for some great looks from downtown. Hit. UW made 41% from deep.
4. The Badgers grab more than 79% of the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end. LaCrosse does not have a proficiency at offensive rebounding and are at a significant height disadvantage. This adds up to domination by the Badgers on the defensive boards. Miss. UW got 79%. Just to be sure, I expanded the cell and it was 78.8%. As is Shetown’s custom, he says “more than” and when an equal to or greater comment would have worked. Okay, I’m a tough grader. Shetown, you have an amazing knack for this.
Closing Thoughts: I look forward to watching the replay tonight if for no other reason than it has been 7+ grueling months since last the basketball team laced ‘em up.
On a side note, I need to pick a new favorite player. Last year it was Bohannon. Before that Krabbenhoft, Flowers, Tucker, Wilk, Danny Jones and a bunch more. This is an important decision that will undoubtedly be a heavy responsibility for whomever is anointed. Any thoughts would be helpful.
It was great that the University scheduled a few exhibition games so I can get the kinks out of the system – which in my case is my spreadsheet. Very thoughtful. Please point out any errors so I can be ready to go when the real bullets are flying.
My comments and observations must be tempered by the fact that this is a game against a D3 opponent, obviously. Here goes ...
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW beat UWL in all phases of the game: Shot better, shot more often, got to the line more, fouled less, and turned the ball over less.
Pace: The game had 62 possessions, which is about normal for UW. Last year we averaged 60, 58 in conference games.
Efficiency: UW put up a most impressive 1.33 PPP. Last year we averaged a stellar 1.11, 1.09 in conference. UW held UWL to .94 PPP. That was pretty normal for UW, who held opponents to .95 last year, .97 in conference.
Shooting: UW won the quantity and quality battle inside the arc and at the line.
eFG%: UWL shot an eFG% of 49%, not bad. UW was at 57%. Last year, we held opponents to 46% and hit at 52%. UW restrained themselves and took only 28% of their shot attempts outside the arc.
3 pt shooting: Three point shooting was pretty even with UW getting a small edge. UWL made 38% (9 of 24) while UW was marginally better with 41% (7 of 17). UWL got 6 extra points outside.
2pt shooting: UW won the quantity and quality battle inside the arc. UWL was 14 of 32, 44%. UW took an extra 12 shots, 44, and made 10 extra baskets, 24 hitting 55%. UW picked up 20 points inside.
1pt shooting: UW got to the line 14 more times (UW 18, UWL only 4) and made a nice 15, or 83%. UWL hit all four of their shots. Will this be the year UW gets back the “we make more FT’s than our opponents attempt” crown back? UW picked up 11 points at the line.
Rebounding:
UW Defensive end: When UWL was shooting, there were 33 rebounding opportunities and UW got 26, or 79% leaving UWL with 21% of their misses. That is very good and a Bo Ryan trademark.
UW Offensive End: When UW was shooting, there were 31 opportunities for caroms and UW snared 15, or 48%. Regular readers will note that offensive rebounding is not something Bo stresses. So, getting 48% is highly unusual.
Turnovers: UWL had 12 turnovers for a good 19% turnover rate. UW topped that and only let 9 go for a very good 14%.
Opportunity Index: UW had a plus 11 Opportunity index (Plus 3 turnover margin and plus 8 offensive rebounding margin). That gave UW 11 extra chances in a 62 possession game.
Fouls: UWL was only whistled for 14 fouls while UW had but 6. Imagine, 6 fouls the whole game. Those 8 extra fouls translated into 14 extra free throw attempts and 10 extra points for UW.
Playing time: Bo played 9 ten or more minutes. Besides the starters, Smith got 14, Gasser an impressive 20, Bruesewitz 17, and Berggren 11. Obviously, an exhibition game.
Notable Performances: Leuer got a 15-10 dub dub, but needed 12 FGA and 5 FTA to get there. Nankivil scored 15 on 9 shots, 2-3 from deep and added three boards. Taylor hit double figures with 12 on 8 shots, two FGA’s. Since this was an exhibition game, it is sad to say that the Badger’s exploits will probably not be told around the campfires of my people for very long.
For UWL, Mane and Hanson did the damage scoring a combined 41 on 15 of 30 shooting, 7 of 16 from deep. That was the bulk of their offense.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. The Badgers score more than 35 points in the paint. The Eagles are small and poor at defending it anyway. Jon and Keaton should have a field day. Miss. UW had 32 in the paint.
2. The freshman combine for more than 10 points. I like the newbies to use their size and athletic advantages to show what they can do offensively. Hit. The freshmen combined for an impressive 19 on only 11 FGA’s.(Brust 4, Dukan 6, Gasser 9, and Anderson 0).
3. The Badger shoot better than 36% from 3. I think LAX will try to limit points in the paint by collapsing on the post. This should make for some great looks from downtown. Hit. UW made 41% from deep.
4. The Badgers grab more than 79% of the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end. LaCrosse does not have a proficiency at offensive rebounding and are at a significant height disadvantage. This adds up to domination by the Badgers on the defensive boards. Miss. UW got 79%. Just to be sure, I expanded the cell and it was 78.8%. As is Shetown’s custom, he says “more than” and when an equal to or greater comment would have worked. Okay, I’m a tough grader. Shetown, you have an amazing knack for this.
Closing Thoughts: I look forward to watching the replay tonight if for no other reason than it has been 7+ grueling months since last the basketball team laced ‘em up.
On a side note, I need to pick a new favorite player. Last year it was Bohannon. Before that Krabbenhoft, Flowers, Tucker, Wilk, Danny Jones and a bunch more. This is an important decision that will undoubtedly be a heavy responsibility for whomever is anointed. Any thoughts would be helpful.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
UW-LaCrosse Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: Here's to the start of hopefully another successful season with Bo Ryan at the helm. We lose two starters in Trevon Hughes and Jason Bohannon, and Ian Markolf, but gain an excellent class of freshman including Josh Gasser, Duje Dukan, Ben Brust, and Evan Anderson. From early indications, only three starting spots are solidified... Jordan Taylor at the point, and Jon Leuer and Keaton Nankivil in the frontcourt. Junior Rob Wilson and true freshman Josh Gasser seem to be vying for the off guard spot and it's a three-way race for the small forward spot amongst Ryan Evans, Tim Jarmusz, and Mike Bruesewitz. My guesses are that seniority wins out with Wilson and Jarmusz getting the nods, even if their competitors get more playing time over the course of the season.
Wisconsin tips off the pre-season this Saturday with a meeting against the Eagles of UW-LaCrosse.
Forums to Visit: I'm not even going to bother to look
What the expert nerds say:
Sagarin doesn’t care about this game.
Ken Pomeroy doesn’t care about this game either.
Vegas odds makers don’t care either.
UW-LaCrosse Likely Rotation (Last Season’s Statistics)
*G – 6’0” JR Tony Mane (22.3 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 1.9 APG, 40% 3PT, 92% FT, 103.9 OR, 8% TO, 3.5 FTR, 35% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’0” SO Jeff Heiden (2.9 PPG, 1.5 RPG, 1.2 APG, 38% 3PT, 82% FT, 107.5 OR, 16% TO, 2.0 FTR, 82% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’2” SR Trevor Stratton (15.0 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 1.5 APG, 37% 3PT, 82% FT, 107.1 OR, 11% TO, 3.4 FTR, 36% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’6” SO Kurt Kincaid (8.2 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 1.0 APG, 60% 2PT, 87% FT, 118.1 OR, 16% TO, 3.2 FTR, 37% of FGAs are 3PT)
*C – 6’9” SR Andy Merklein (5.3 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.1 BPG, 53% 2PT, 70.9 OR, 15% TO, 3.2 FTR, 12% of FGAs are 3PT)
F - 6’5” SR Andrew Haass (5.8 PPG, 3.4 RPG, 1.0 APG, 57% 2PT, 39% 3PT, 83% FT, 158.2 OR, 5% TO, 5.1 FTR, 14% of FGAs are 3PT)
G - 6’1” SR Austin Scott (5.5 PPG, 1.7 RPG, 1.0 APG, 44% 3PT, 93% FT, 116.4 OR, 14% TO, 2.7 FTR, 66% of FGAs are 3PT)
F - 6’4” SO Al Chery (5.4 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 1.1 BPG, 1.0 SPG, 51% 2PT, 106.9 OR, 20% TO, 4.6 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G - 6’0” SO Cory Degner (4.3 PPG, 2.0 RPG, 1.0 APG, 96.6 OR, 26% TO, 11.0 FTR, 16% of FGAs are 3PT)
F - 6’5” SO Jordan Rumpel (3.2 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 50% 3PT, 53% 2PT, 131.5 OR, 19% TO, 0.7 FTR, 7% 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%
What UW-LaCrosse is really good at:
1. Protecting the ball. They only turned it over 14.3% (2nd best if in D1) of their possessions last season, or about one every 7 possessions. Wisconsin turned it over at 14.9% rate (3rd in D1).
2. Pump-faking. Their opponents only blocked 4.9% of their two-point attempts (2nd if in D1). Wisconsin had 7% of theirs blocked, good for 34th.
3. Shooting from anywhere. Last season, the Eagles shot 49.8% inside the arc, 38.7% outside of it, and 74.1% at the charity stripe. These would rank them 90th, 21st, and 27th respectively if they were in D1. Wisconsin 50% (83rd), 35.7% (100th), and 73.2% (38th) themselves.
4. Keeping their opponents off the charity stripe. UW-L only sent their opponents to the line 7 times for every 20 field goal attempts (113th), The Badgers were above average at this last season, allowing 5 FTAs per 14 FGAs, or 140th.
What UW-LaCrosse is really bad at:
1. Rebounding offensively. If they were a Division 1 team last season, they would be in 324th in the category, grabbing slightly more than 1 offensive rebound per 4 opoprtunities. Wisconsin is poor at this also, having been 249th at it last season.
2. Forcing turnovers. Their defense forced about 2 turnovers per 11 possessions, which would have bee good for 289th in D1. The Badgers were below average at this last season, forcing a turnover once every five possessions, or 201st in the nation.
3. Getting to the free throw line. The Eagles didn’t get to the line much, as they only attempt one free throw for every three FGAs. That would qualify for 302nd in Division I. Wisconsin wasn’t much better, only 3 tenths of a percent better and 296th.
4. Defending the paint. UW-LX surrendered a poor 50.7% shooting percentage inside the arc last season, which would have been 291st in D1. Wisconsin was significantly better at 45.2%, or 72nd.
5. Free throw defense. Apparently the Eagle painted on the wall behind the basketball in LaCrosse isn’t intimidating enough, as their opponents shot a white hot 75.6% from the free throw line last season. That would be second last in D1.
Relative efficiency:
When UW-LaCrosse has the ball: They scored an impressive 1.11 PPP last season, while UW gave up a stingy 0.89 last season.
When UW has the ball: They gave up a horrible 1.07 last season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.16 last season.
Pace: LaCrosse played at 66 possessions per game last season compared to UW’s 60.
My expectations:
1. The Badgers score more than 35 points in the paint. The Eagles are small and poor at defending it anyway. Jon and Keaton should have a field day.
2. The freshman combine for more than 10 points. I like the newbies to use their size and athletic advantages to show what they can do offensively.
3. The Badger shoot better than 36% from 3. I think LAX will try to limit points in the paint by collapsing on the post. This should make for some great looks from downtown.
4. The Badgers grab more than 79% of the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end. LaCrosse does not have a proficiency at offensive rebounding and are at a significant height disadvantage. This adds up to domination by the Badgers on the defensive boards.
UW-LaCrosse lost no significant players from last season’s 17-9 squad and the Badgers lost their starting backcourt. If LAX was mid-major D1 team I might be a little concerned. Alas, they are not, so I predict a thumping by the Badgers, 75-45.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)