Opening Comments: UW strolled to a 61-40 victory over UW-Milwaukee. This is the same UWM team that lost by three to Marquette, or is it?
I was able to go to the game and the game was on BTN. If they are going to put the game on ESPN3, they should call or email me and ask whether I have tickets or not. If not, move it to BTN. If I have tickets, then they can put it on ESPN3 if they must. It is the right thing to do.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW played outstanding defense, dominated both boards, and scored inside the arc well enough to get a blow out win, despite an unusually high number of turnovers.
Pace: The game had 58 possessions.
Efficiency: Was it good offense or good defense? Definitely good defense – or bad UWM offense (stats can’t tell the difference).
UW scored 1.05 PPP. That is less than our yearly average of 1.17 (after 9 games). But, the defense posted .69 PPP, which is outstanding (second only to Manhattan’s .63 PPP).
KenPom (Link) has us #15 in the nation on offense (he adjusts for strength of schedule in his offensive rating). Our defense is now giving up .87 PPP for the year. Pomroy has us #16 in the nation.
Shooting: UW destroyed UWM offensively and defensively inside the arc.
eFG%: UW was a so-so 51% while our defense held UWM to 35%, which is excellent defense by UW (or poor marksmanship by UWM – take your pick).
3 pt shooting: UWM had superior quality, UW superior quantity. UWM was 3 of 7 for a great 43%. UW was 5 of 15 for 33%. UW scored an extra 6 points from deep, but needed 8 shots to get them, not a good bargain.
2pt shooting: UWM could not hit inside the arc. They were 9 of 32 for 28%. I do not recall seeing a team shoot that poorly inside the arc. If you hit 43% outside the arc and 28% inside the arc, you have something haywire going on.
UW was 18 of 35 for 51%. While good, it is only average for UW this year. We have done better in 4 of 9 games.
UW gained 18 points inside the arc. We outscored them 18-8 in the paint.
1pt shooting: At the line, UWM won in quantity but UW in quality. UWM got to the 21 times and made only 13 for 62%. UW got there but 12 times and made 10 (83%).
UW’s free throw accuracy has been outstanding this year. UW is fourth in the nation hitting 79.7% of our free throws. That’s the good news. The bad news is we are not getting there very often. UW‘s FTA/FGA ratio is only 27, #327 in the nation.
The “We Make More Free Throws Than Our Opponents Attempt” Scoreboard
UW Makes: 110 Opponent Attempts: 134 Difference: -24
Despite the blow out win, we went backwards 11 on this metric. Unless something changes quickly, this will not be worth tracking.
Floor Location:
Location UW Opp.
Arc 25% 23%
Mid Range 30% 25%
Paint 30% 20%
FT Line 16% 33%
For the year, UW is getting 31% from the arc, 16% midrange, 35% from the paint, and 17% from the line. So, in this game, we scored more midrange and less from the arc and paint on a percentage basis.
Rebounding: UW pressed our height advantage on both ends of the floor for a resounding rebounding edge.
UW Defensive end: UWM had 31 rebounding opportunities on their misses, and UW got 26, thus holding UWM to 16%. That is outstanding.
UW Offensive End: UW’s misses created 25 rebounding opportunities and UW picked up 11 or 44%. That, too, is outstanding.
Turnovers: What can you say? Ugh. UWM gave it up 15 times or 26%. UW puked it up 13 times or 22%. Most of those were traveling calls, as I recall (I wish the game recap would say the type of turnover, but, alas, it does not). This is a blemish on an otherwise good effort by UW. That is 15 empty trips with 0 PPP’s.
UW took UWM’s turnovers and scored 19 points to Milwaukee’s 6 from UW giveaways.
Opportunity Index: UW was a plus 8 on the OI. UW had 6 extra offensive rebounds and two extra possessions from turnovers. They used these to score 21 points (+13 off turnovers and +8 second chance points).
Fouls: UW fouled 17 times to UWM’s 15. At half time, UWM had 9 and UW 5. So, in the second half of a blow out win, UW out-fouled the opponent 12 to 6. I am sure Bo is wondering why.
Playing time: Bo went 7 deep with the starters and Evans (17) and Jarmusz (19) getting 10 or more. Smith played 9 and Berggren 9.
Jeter played 8 ten or more.
Notable Performances: Leuer scored 20 points in a variety of ways (one three ball, a collection of drives and midrange moves and moves in the paint) to go with 7 boards and two turnovers. At his point, I have officially declared Leuer to be my favorite player for this year. I love his overall game. Plus, he has that unflappable demeanor that makes me think he can handle the added pressure that comes with being my favorite player. Jon, keep up the good work.
Keaton Nankivil had a great box score line. He scored 10 on 5-6 FGA’s, no FTA’s and added 9 boards, 3 offensive. He blocked 3 shots and held Anthony Hill to 0-8 shooting (along with others). His efficiency numbers should skyrocket with a day like this. Keaton, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
Jared Berggren had a forgettable day. He played but 9 minutes and scored no points. He picked up 5 fouls (including the strange intentional foul) and had four turnovers. Jared, better days are ahead. Hang in there …
Taylor had 14 with one turnover in 36 minutes of work. His protecting the ball is amazing. Bo must love this guy.
For UWM, McCallum scored 12 on 12 FGA’s and was tagged with 2 turnovers. McCallum appeared to be a forward in their offense, despite being considerably shorter than Jordan Taylor. He seemed to have a larger defender on his most of the game.
Hill scored only 3, and was 0-8 from the line. Nankivil’s defense was more than he could take.
Tony Meier scored 10 on 3-4 FGA’s, 2-2 from deep and 2-2 from the line. That is fine marksmanship.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Badgers shoot better than 40% outside the arc. I think Tim, Josh, and Keaton get back on track from the arc, with Jon, Mike, and Jordan keep on keeping on. Miss. UW was 5-15, 33%.
2. Josh Gasser explodes for more than 12 points. He has cooled off considerably since his 21-point performance in the season opener. I like him to take advantage of the bad 3-point D and smaller front court challenging his drives. Miss. Gasser got 8
3. Badgers grab more than 38% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end and 74% of the opportunities on defense. I scaled these back a bit. Hit and hit. UW was a robust 44% on their offensive side and 84% on the defensive end. Job well done.
4. The Badgers get back the “make more free throws than their opponents attempt” stat back for the season. If I recall correctly, it’s currently at -13, and I think they can get half of that back at +6 or better. Miss. We lost another 11.
The Badgers edge the Panthers 65-52 in 58 possessions. Hit. 61-40 in 58 possessions.
Closing Thoughts: UW’s offense was spotty but the defense was stellar.
Now it is on to Marquette. This is UW’s one big chance for a notable non conference win this year. That, and the bragging rights that go with it.
I expect W’Q to be a pivotal player against MU. He will probably need to come in and lock down on one of MU’s guards if Bo must go with a smaller line up.
UW looks to me like the usual UW team: tough defense, efficient offense. Sure, people will complain about dry spells, certain players not shooting enough, others shooting too much. But, all teams experience those same problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment