Purdue Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Comments: Well, that game sucked. The Badgers just surrendered their ability to control their own destiny in terms of winning the Big Ten championship. And the Big Ten isn't letting up on them easy, with a gauntlet stretch over the next few weeks. They take on Purdue twice, MSU, and Ohio State in the next 5 games. But first things first. The Badgers take on Purdue for a battle for second place. Some observations from the stats on Purdue bring up some interesting questions... How does JaJuan Johnson foul less often than Tim Jarmusz while blocking 2.1 shots per game? Senior/all-star treatment? Where did Ryne Smith come from all of a sudden? What happened to E'Twaun Moore? He improved his offensive rating this season via a drastic reduction of turnovers and upping his assists a bit, but his two-point shooting, free throw shooting, and free throw rate have all taken a substantial dive.


What the Expert Nerds Say: Ken Pomeroy predicts a 63-59 Badger victory in 57 possessions, with a 32% of upset.

Jeff Sagarin predicts a 3-point Wisconsin victory.


Purdue Rotation:

Position	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %	Fouls/40
* G	5'9"	Lewis Jackson	27.2	10.1	3.7	4.0	0.7	0.1	121.2	20.7	24.3	74.3%	56.8%	71.4%	13.7%	6.86	6.3	9.9	28.0	0.4	1.5	2.61
* G	6'3"	Ryne Smith	28.0	11.0	2.9	1.9	0.6	0.2	169.0	11.8	6.2	85.7%	75.0%	56.8%	91.7%	4.38	2.3	10.2	12.5	0.8	1.2	3.49
* G	6'4"	E'Twaun Moore	34.7	15.4	5.4	4.2	1.2	0.7	111.3	25.4	7.8	60.7%	38.8%	37.0%	40.3%	2.09	5.7	13.3	25.1	1.9	2.1	2.56
* F	6'9"	Travis Carroll	10.3	1.3	2.1	0.3	0.0	0.3	122.3	8.0	9.6	-	54.5%	-	0.0%	0.00	9.0	15.7	5.5	3.2	0.0	3.87
* F/C	6'10"	JaJuan Johnson	36.0	21.3	7.7	0.8	0.8	2.1	118.7	26.6	10.7	89.5%	50.4%	45.5%	8.1%	4.19	6.6	19.2	4.9	5.9	1.3	1.73
G	6'5"	Kelsey Barlow	18.4	5.1	2.7	1.9	0.7	0.4	100.8	19.4	23.0	69.6%	45.5%	0.0%	5.7%	6.57	5.8	11.8	18.3	2.4	2.2	4.58
G	6'2"	Terone Johnson	18.0	5.7	2.8	1.8	0.3	0.1	100.6	21.0	20.0	43.8%	59.1%	27.3%	36.4%	3.64	8.1	10.5	18.6	0.6	1.1	4.44
G/F	6'5"	D.J. Byrd	17.3	3.3	1.8	1.3	0.2	0.1	108.1	11.9	13.3	40.0%	50.0%	30.0%	66.7%	1.67	3.0	9.4	13.3	0.6	0.7	4.36
F	6'8"	Patrick Bade	8.8	0.5	2.5	0.3	0.3	0.5	72.9	14.1	25.0	-	14.3%	-	0.0%	0.00	20.6	13.9	4.6	5.8	1.7	5.71

Wisconsin Rotation:

Position	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %	Fouls/40
* G	6'1"	Jordan Taylor	38.0	20.3	4.8	4.1	0.9	0.1	130.6	28.4	6.6	88.5%	50.0%	40.0%	42.1%	4.86	3.1	14.1	27.8	0.0	1.6	3.16
* G	6'3"	Josh Gasser	22.3	3.1	3.4	2.9	0.4	0.0	116.4	13.6	14.7	66.7%	56.3%	11.1%	36.0%	2.40	6.1	14.8	26.1	0.0	1.2	4.04
* F/G	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	29.4	4.4	2.3	1.8	0.4	0.1	132.8	8.8	6.8	100.0%	50.0%	36.0%	92.6%	2.22	2.3	8.2	11.7	0.5	0.9	2.04
* F	6'10"	Jon Leuer	34.9	18.1	6.0	1.5	0.3	0.6	112.1	29.7	9.4	90.3%	50.0%	35.5%	27.0%	2.70	4.9	18.9	11.9	2.1	0.5	2.58
* F	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	31.1	12.8	5.6	0.8	0.6	1.5	139.5	18.3	9.3	88.2%	48.0%	55.3%	60.3%	2.70	8.2	16.7	5.7	5.8	1.4	3.86
F	6'6"	Mike Bruesewitz	18.3	3.6	1.5	0.5	0.4	0.3	106.6	14.7	10.0	80.0%	57.1%	20.0%	51.7%	1.72	8.4	2.8	5.7	1.6	1.4	2.74
G/F	6'4"	Rob Wilson	9.4	0.9	0.4	0.4	0.1	0.0	47.2	16.2	13.3	100.0%	22.2%	0.0%	43.8%	1.25	0.0	6.3	8.7	0.0	1.0	5.45
F/C	6'10"	Jared Berggren	7.8	1.5	1.5	0.3	0.0	0.8	92.5	17.3	6.6	50.0%	45.5%	0.0%	21.4%	2.86	8.8	17.9	6.8	11.7	0.0	7.1
G/F	6'6"	Ryan Evans	5.5	0.8	0.8	0.1	0.0	0.1	58.9	16.2	50.0	-	50.0%	-	0.0%	0.00	3.1	15.7	4.7	2.7	0.0	6.36

Purdue Big Ten Team Stats:

Purdue	Turnover %	Rebounding %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	14.5 (#2)	34.4 (#3)	36.5 (#3)	41.8 (#3)	47.7 (#8)	74.2 (#5)	8.3 (#9)	8.1 (#7)
Defense	18.4 (#3)	71.1 (#3)	27.9 (#5)	42.0 (#11)	46.9 (#5)	66.7 (#1)	8.1 (#3)	7.6 (#6)

Wisconsin Big Ten Team Stats:

Wisconsin	Turnover %	Rebounding %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	10.4 (#1)	26.3 (#10)	30.5 (#7)	36.1 (#7)	48.9 (#7)	85.7 (#1)	3.9 (#1)	5.1 (#1)
Defense	15.4 (#9)	70.1 (#4)	39.6 (#9)	32.4 (#3)	46.6 (#3)	75.3 (#7)	7.1 (#4)	5.5 (#11)

Big Ten PPP Aerial:
See Photo

Relative Efficiency:

When Purdue has the ball: Purdue has scored 1.160 PPP, second best in the conference. Wisconsin surrenders 1.037 PPP, the second best defense in the conference.

When Wisconsin has the ball: Wisconsin has scored 1.170 PPP, the best offense in the conference. Purdue surrenders 1.038 PPP, the third best defense in the conference.

Purdue's Good Wins:
Oakland (#69), @-Virginia Tech (#31), Alabama (#41), @-Michigan (#61), Northwestern (#52), @-Penn State (#46), Penn State (#46), Michigan State (#38), Minnesota (#43)


Purdue's Losses:
N-Richmond (#57), @-Minnesota (#43), @-West Virginia (#16), @-Ohio State (#1)


Wisconsin's Good Wins:
N-Boston College (#67), @-Marquette (#25), Minnesota (#43), Michigan (#61), Illinois (#18), Indiana (#60), @-Northwestern (#52)


Wisconsin's Losses:
@-UNLV (#26), N-Notre Dame (#23), @-Illinois (#18), @-Michigan State (#38), @-Penn State (#46)


My Expectations:

1. Badgers drain more than 40% of their threes. Purdue has the worst three-point defense in the conference and the familiar confines of the Kohl should combine for a lights-out performance.

2. Keaton is the leading scorer for the Badgers. He's a Boiler killer, shooting 75% from beyond the arc against Purdue, and having both of his two +20-point games against them.

3. Wisconsin grabs more than 73% of the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end. They neutralize one of the better offensive rebounding teams in the Big Ten.


My Prediction: The Badgers rebound, escaping with a 66-64 victory in 58 possessions.

Penn State Box Score Obseervations

Opening Comments: Congratulations to PSU on an important 56-52 home win. It is tough to play on the road, the last game with NU notwithstanding. This one went the wrong way.

PSU made their shots, UW did not. Sometimes the game is that simple. There was a stretch in the second half where Bruesewitz, Jarmusz, Gasser, and Nankivil all missed good threes. Meanwhile, PSU made their looks. Oh, well. Give them credit.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW played well enough in the first half to win, but could not buy a shot in the second half and lost the game at the line when forced to foul.

Pace: The game had 53 possessions. We have been averaging 58 on the year, 57 in conference.

Efficiency: Was it bad offense or bad defense? Mostly poor offense. UW gave up 1.06 PPP, slightly more than the 1.03 we have been giving up in conference this year. But, we only scored .98 PPP, much less than the 1.18 we have been averaging in conference. Life sucks when your shots do not drop.

In the first half, UW scored a so-so 1.07 PPP while PSU was a bad .74PPP. Then, they switched sides of the floor. That one basket must be smaller or something. PSU opened it up for 1.33 PPP in the second half to UW’s .85 PPP.

BTW, if we played like we did the second half the entire game, we would have been in a dead heat with Indiana the other day when they beat Illinois. I doubt that anyone will win a game this year scoring .86 PPP in conference like Indiana did – and cut down the nets.

I am not backing off the clain that UW has a blue ribbon offense. We had a bad shooting day. These things happen. One day does not a trend make.

Shooting: PSU got to the line and made enough freebies to secure a victory.

eFG%: UW was an anemic 45% eFG%. PSU was much better at 55%. We have been at 48% and we typically hold our opponents to 47%.

3 pt shooting: Each team made 6 treys. UW tried 20 (30%) while PSU tried three fewer (35%). Leuer got the collar going 0-4 from deep.

2pt shooting: UW tried 32 two-pointers and made 16 for 50%. Not bad. PSU made 13 of 23 for 57%. That gave UW a 6 point advantage from the floor after taking 3 extra treys and 9 extra two point attempts.

1pt shooting: PSU went to the line for 20 attempts and hit 12 for 60%. For a fine free throw shooting team, that is a major off day. UW failed to capitalize. UW made 2 of their 3 attempts. That gave PSU a plus ten from the line, enough to overcome the 6 they lost from the floor.

The “We Make More Free Throws Than Our Opponents Attempt” Scoreboard

UW Makes: 256 Opponent Attempts: 313 Difference: -78

We are seriously sliding backwards and will not catch up this year.

The Trevor Mbakwe Challenge:

Trevor has missed 55 free throws and UW has missed 57. We are within two! But, Trevor has played one more game than UW. Also, if you only go to the line 3 times like UW did against PSU, it is a rather shallow victory to gain on him. But, let’s take this as a positive sign.

Floor Location:

Location UW Opp

Arc 35% 32%

Mid Range 23% 4%

Paint 38% 43%

FT Line 4% 21%

UW simply did not get to the line enough. If not, those threes had better be dropping.

Rebounding: Neither team had a decided rebounding advantage, although PSU did somewhat better.

UW Defensive end: Of the 26 rebounding opportunities, PSU got 8 or 31% of their misses. That is below the national average of 33% but better than UW’s usual 29% for all games, 28% in conference games.

UW Offensive End: UW provided 28 rebounding opportunities and grabbed 7 of their misses for 25%. That is not very good, well below our 35% for the year, but close to our 26% for conference games. UW started out the year as an offensive rebounding juggernaut, but that has reversed since B1G play began.

Turnovers: PSU had 10 for 18% while UW was at 8 for 15%. Both are good numbers and about what one might expect. UW had some very strange turnovers, at least by UW standards. Leuer got picked in mid court and Taylor made some goofy passes, as did Jarmusz with a rare turnover.

Opportunity Index: UW had a plus one OI (Minus one on offensive rebounds, plus two on turnovers). PSU had 10 second chance points to UW’s 8 and UW outscored PSU by 3 off turnovers (11 to 8). That gave UW a net one point from OI events.

Fouls: Fouling was a big part of the game. UW had 20 to PSU’s 10. Those fouls led to 10 extra made FGA’s, the difference in the game.

Playing time: Bo shrunk his bench to 6 players getting double digit minutes. The starters all played at least 28 minutes and Bruesewitz got 15. Evans got 7. Bo played 11 players in total.

PSU went with 7 players getting 10 or more and 8 players total.

Notable Performances: All but 7 points were scored by Leuer, Taylor and Nankivil. Leuer scored 18 on 16 FGA’s (0-4 from deep, ugh), Taylor got 16 on 13 shots, 2-4 from deep but 2 regrettable turnovers. Keaton scored 11 on 10 shots, and grabbed 7 boards, Keaton, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. Keaton is putting up one of the most efficient campaigns in Badger history, I believe. Keep it going.

Besides Jarmusz’s 5 on 4 shots (one offensive rebound and one turnover), the team really struggled. Gasser, Brust, Evans, and Bruesewitz were a combined 1 of 9 for two points and 3 turnovers. Ugh.

For PSU, Battle got 22 on 16 shots and 4 trips to the line. He was 3-9 from deep, not really great, but the shot over Nankivil was most memorable.

Brooks got 12 on 6 shots. Jackson scored 10 on 9 shots, a trip to the line, and a couple of turnovers.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Gasser follows up his triple double with a solid outing, scoring 10 or more points. The Lions defense is awful on the perimeter and that should open up opportunities for Josh. Miss. Gasser got two.

2. The Badgers shoot better than 44% from beyond the arc. The Badgers are decent 3-point shooters and PSU sucks at defending the 3. Miss. They hit 30%. They certainly had enough open looks to get to 44%, however.

3. Wisconsin grabs more than 29% of the rebounding opportunities on offense. Yes, I'm calling for a Badger weakness to overtake a Lion strength, so? Miss. We got 25%.

My Prediction: Wisconsin methodically dismantles Penn State, winning 68-54 in 55 possessions. Miss on the score. PSU 56-52 in 53 possessions.

Closing Thoughts: I was reminded of Dick Bennett defense in this game. Apparently, the man guarded by Nankivil was not a threat to score so he implemented the Dick Bennett “No One Crosses The Lane Without Getting Jostled” rule. UW knew PSU’s cuts well enough that Nank could step in front of all the cutters. A lot of bruises ensued.

Games like this happen. Some days you get the bear and some days the bear gets you. That is what makes sports fun.

I will not read the board for a day or two while people vent their frustrations. Then, we have a chance to erase this bitterness with a win over PU.

Penn State Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Comments: With thrilling upsets of Michigan State and Illinois, by arch rivals Michigan and Indiana respectively, the Badgers, Boilermakers, and Buckeyes gained some separation from the rest of the Big Ten. The Buckeyes remain undefeated, and Purdue and Wisconsin sit at 2 losses each. But with Minnesota at 3 losses and the rest of the Big Ten at 4 or more, the Badgers have complete control over their ability to win the Big Ten... something only Ohio State can also claim. Normally a game against an 11-8 PSU team wouldn't strike any kind of fear into the hearts of Wisconsin fans, as Bo owns Ed DeChellis, having won all 12 of their head-to-head matchups. Wisconsin even enjoys as average margin of victory of 18.5 points at Penn State's Bryce-Jordan Center. However, this season Penn State has defeated Illinois and Michigan State in Happy Valley, and have a 3-point loss at Ohio State and a 1-point loss at Purdue (in heart-breaking fashion).


What the Expert Nerds Say: Ken Pomeroy predicts a 62-57 Badger victory in 53 possessions, with a 29% of upset.

Jeff Sagarin predicts a 5-point Wisconsin victory.

Vegas has Wisconsin as a 4.5-point favorite.


Penn State Rotation:

Position	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %	Fouls/40
* G	6'0"	Talor Battle	39.3	19.9	3.6	3.8	1.1	0.0	108.9	29.3	13.0	82.2%	52.5%	28.2%	54.6%	3.46	0.9	11.3	22.8	0.0	1.9	2.04
* G	6'1"	Tim Frazier	30.3	4.3	3.9	5.1	1.3	0.1	93.0	16.0	32.7	76.9%	46.2%	0.0%	18.8%	4.06	1.7	15.2	31.8	0.4	2.7	3.64
* F	6'7"	David Jackson	33.6	11.9	5.3	0.6	0.6	0.1	114.0	18.1	17.8	87.0%	46.9%	42.9%	52.2%	3.43	5.8	15.2	3.9	0.4	1.2	3.27
* F	6'8"	Jeff Brooks	37.6	16.3	7.6	2.5	0.6	2.1	131.1	20.8	9.6	80.0%	63.2%	57.1%	17.1%	3.05	10.9	16.6	16.1	6.6	1.1	1.99
* F	6'10"	Andrew Jones	31.9	7.8	5.3	0.9	0.3	0.1	112.6	13.8	20.7	50.0%	63.6%	-	0.0%	2.73	9.5	12.9	5.8	0.4	0.5	4.24
F	6'8"	Billy Oliver	12.9	1.5	1.4	0.4	0.0	0.3	76.5	14.2	18.1	71.4%	20.0%	12.5%	44.4%	3.89	11.0	3.8	5.2	2.2	0.0	7.77
G	6'4"	Jermaine Marshall	11.0	4.3	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.0	104.8	21.2	14.2	62.5%	54.5%	33.3%	45.0%	4.00	0.0	6.0	10.2	0.0	2.0	6.06
G	6'5"	Cammeron Woodyard	7.0	0.7	0.5	0.3	0.2	0.2	100.4	7.9	0.0	-	50.0%	0.0%	42.9%	0.00	3.4	6.2	8.9	2.8	1.5	0.00

Wisconsin Rotation:

Position	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %	Fouls/40
* G	6'1"	Jordan Taylor	37.9	20.9	4.9	4.3	0.7	0.0	132.7	28.9	5.5	90.2%	49.1%	39.0%	43.6%	5.43	3.1	14.4	28.8	0.0	1.3	2.87
* G	6'3"	Josh Gasser	21.4	3.3	3.4	3.0	0.4	0.0	127.4	13.7	10.3	66.7%	61.5%	12.5%	38.1%	2.86	7.3	14.6	28.4	0.0	1.4	3.47
* F/G	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	29.0	4.3	2.1	1.7	0.4	0.1	137.4	8.3	4.1	100.0%	0.0%	36.4%	95.7%	2.73	2.0	8.0	11.5	0.5	1.0	2.17
* F	6'10"	Jon Leuer	34.4	18.1	6.3	1.6	0.3	0.7	113.9	29.7	9.9	89.7%	47.2%	40.7%	27.3%	2.93	5.6	19.3	12.5	2.4	0.5	2.32
* F	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	30.3	13.0	5.4	0.6	0.7	1.7	139.2	18.4	10.9	88.2%	55.0%	54.5%	62.3%	3.21	7.1	17.4	4.5	6.5	1.6	4.34
F	6'6"	Mike Bruesewitz	18.7	4.1	1.7	0.6	0.4	0.3	117.5	14.6	7.4	80.0%	61.5%	23.1%	50.0%	1.92	9.4	3.1	6.5	1.7	1.6	2.44
G/F	6'4"	Rob Wilson	10.8	1.0	0.5	0.5	0.2	0.0	47.3	16.3	15.3	100.0%	22.2%	0.0%	43.8%	1.25	0.0	6.3	8.8	0.0	1.0	5.54
F/C	6'10"	Jared Berggren	8.7	1.7	1.7	0.3	0.0	0.7	93.0	17.4	6.6	50.0%	45.5%	0.0%	21.4%	2.86	8.9	17.9	6.9	9.5	0.0	5.9
G/F	6'6"	Ryan Evans	5.3	0.9	0.6	0.1	0.0	0.1	63.5	17.2	50.0	-	50.0%	-	0.0%	0.00	3.7	11.1	5.7	3.1	0.0	7.57

Penn State Big Ten Team Stats:

	Turnover %	Rebounding %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	18.0 (#6)	33.0 (#5)	33.2 (#6)	32.2 (#10)	54.5 (#1)	77.4 (#3)	6.5 (#5)	7.9 (#6)
Defense	15.9 (#8)	72.3 (#1)	30.5 (#5)	41.8 (#9)	46.7 (#5)	69.8 (#4)	5.6 (#8)	7.1 (#8)

Wisconsin Big Ten Team Stats:

	Turnover %	Rebounding %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	9.7 (#1)	26.4 (#10)	34.1 (#5)	36.9 (#6)	48.8 (#6)	86.2 (#1)	3.9 (#1)	4.5 (#1)
Defense	15.0 (#9)	70.2 (#5)	38.3 (#8)	31.9 (#2)	45.7 (#3)	77.7 (#8)	7.7 (#4)	5.7 (#11)

Relative Efficiency:
When Penn State has the ball: Penn State has scored 1.09 PPP, 0.004 above the Big Ten average. Wisconsin surrenders 1.035 PPP, the second best defense in the conference.

When Wisconsin has the ball: Wisconsin has scored 1.195 PPP, the best offense in the conference. Penn State surrenders 1.084 PPP, the seventh best defense in the conference, but slightly above average.


Penn State's Good Wins:
Duquesne (#36), @-Indiana (#65), Michigan State (#33), Illinois (#17)


Penn State's Losses:
@-Ole Miss (#75), Maryland (#14), @-Virginia Tech (#31), Maine (#135), @-Michigan (#61), Purdue (#10), @-Ohio State (#1), @-Purdue (#10)


Wisconsin's Good Wins:
N-Boston College (#60), @-Marquette (#28), Minnesota (#43), Michigan (#61), Illinois (#17), Indiana (#65), @-Northwestern (#54)


Wisconsin's Losses:
@-UNLV (#27), N-Notre Dame (#26), @-Illinois (#17), @-Michigan State (#33)


My Expectations:

1. Gasser follows up his triple double with a solid outing, scoring 10 or more points. The Lions defense is awful on the perimeter and that should open up opportunities for Josh.

2. The Badgers shoot better than 44% from beyond the arc. The Badgers are decent 3-point shooters and PSU sucks at defending the 3.

3. Wisconsin grabs more than 29% of the rebounding opportunities on offense. Yes, I'm calling for a Badger weakness to overtake a Lion strength, so?


My Prediction: Wisconsin methodically dismantles Penn State, winning 68-54 in 55 possessions.

Northwestern Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: Yikes! UW crushed NU 78-46 at Evanston. This was a stat-stuffing game of Biblical proportions.

The oddsmakers had this one close going either way (UW a slight advantage). That surely did not materialize.

I was genuinely worried about this game. I have seen UW lay eggs in Evanston before, and NU was scoring well this year. But, for some reason, the wheels fell off for Carmody’s bunch.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW shot very well from the arc and inside the arc, dominated rebounding on both ends, and protected the ball very effectively to come up with a ridiculously effective offensive performance. UW shut down NU effectively – it would have been worse but for some late pity-points.

Pace: The game had 50 possessions. Wow. 50. That is the lowest for the year. Yet, UW still put up 78 points.

Efficiency: Was it good offense or good defense? Good defense and fantastic offense (or poor versions of each by NU – probably both).

UW had our best day of the year with 1.56 PPP. This is the highest PPP of the year and the highest I can remember. On the other end, NU scored .92 PPP, significantly less than 1.05 we had been bleeding this year and the 6^th fewest for an opponent this year.

Shooting: UW took more shots and made more shots, with the exception of the free throw line.

eFG%: UW scored at 66% EFG%. Our usual is 53%. NU scored at 44%, about on our opponent’s average of 45%, 46% in conference. Some were pity points given up in the last 4 minutes when Bo cleared his bench.

3 pt shooting: NU was 2 for 10, 20% from deep. Not good.

UW lit up the nets hitting 12 of 26 for 46%. Excellent. UW outscored NU by 30 from beyond the arc.

2pt shooting: Despite the lopsided shooting outside the arc, UW also outperformed NU inside the arc. NU took 31 shots and made 15, for a decent 48%. UW took one less shot, 30, and drained a ridiculous 19 for 63%. UW picked up another 8 inside the arc. UW outscored NU in the paint 20 to 18.

1pt shooting: NU won the quantity battle but lost the quality battle at the line, barely. NU was 10 of 13, 77% while UW was a low 4 of 5, 80%. NU retrieved 6 points at the line, not enough to overcome the 38 they lost in the field.

The “We Make More Free Throws Than Our Opponents Attempt” Scoreboard

UW Makes: 254 Opponent Attempts: 302 Difference: -48 (lost 8)

Trevor Mbakwe Challenge:

Mbakwe misses: 76 of 125, 49 misses

UW: 254 of 310, 56 misses

Trevor has us by 7. He is still within our sights.

Floor Location:

Location UW Opp

Arc 46% 13%

Mid Range 23% 26%

Paint 26% 39%

FT Line 5% 22%

Rebounding: UW destroyed NU at both ends of the floor.

UW Defensive end: Of the 25 opportunities, NU got 3 offensive rebounds or 12% (national average – 335).

UW Offensive End: There were also 25 opportunities on UW’s offensive end, and UW got 10, or 40%. That is excellent rebounding by UW.

Turnovers: The good news for NU is they only had 5 turnovers, or 10% turnover rate. They have been at 17%, tenth in the nation.

UW did even better with only 3 turnovers or a scant 6% turnover rate. That should bolster our nation-leading 13% rate.

Opportunity Index: UW won the OI by 9. We bettered NU by 7 offensive rebounds and 2 turnovers. From a points perspective, UW had a plus 13 second chance points, and plus 11 off turnovers.

Fouls: UW out-fouled NU 15 to 10. This lead to 8 more free throw attempts and 6 more points for NU.

Playing time: Bo only played 6 players 10 or more minutes. Besides the starters, which included Jarmusz and Gasser, Bruesewitz got starter-like 24 minutes. Eight other players got between 3 and 6 minutes.

NU played 7 ten or more including Alex Marcotullio’s 22. I mention this because I think Alex Marcotullio is the coolest name in the big ten and I wanted to work him into the write-up.

Notable Performances: The list of notables is lengthy, to say the least. Let me start with Josh Gasser. He got a much chronicled triple double 10 points, 12 rebounds, and 10 assists. Besides that, he had a steal to offset his lone turnover. Josh, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Leuer had a highly-efficient day with 19 points on 10 FGA’s, 1-1 from the line, in only 21 minutes.

Taylor lit them up with 14 on 9 FGA’s, 1-1 from the line, and no turnovers in 32 minutes.

As I always seem to say, Keaton was ultra-efficient scoring 16 on only 10 FGA’s, 5 boards – two offensive, no turnovers and a block and steal for good measure. Jon, Jordan, and Keaton, I salute you!

Shurna and Mirkovic each scored in double digits – but who cares?

Alex Marcotullio score one on three shots.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Badgers shoot better than 39% shooting from 3. The perimeter D for the Nerds is terrible. Hit. UW got to 46%. Nice call.

2. Keaton scores more than 15. I think he has a strong game after a relatively quiet 9 and 7 showing against Indiana. Hit. Keaton got 16.

3. Badgers grab more than 35% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end and 74% on the defensive. They are worse than us at rebounding. Hit and Hit. UW grabbed 40 of their misses and 88% of NU’s misses.

The state of Wisconsin sweeps the day, with the Badgers grinding out a 70-62 victory in 60 possessions. Hit, sort of. UW scored more, 78 (not 70), gave up fewer (46 to your projected 62) and did it in only 50 possessions (not 60). Packers won and UW women beat Illinos.

Closing Thoughts: Poor Carmody. Just when he thinks he has a team that can make some noise, UW pees on his cornflakes. I would love to see NU make the NCAA’s, but not at UW’s expense.

UW needed a road win. In fact, we could use four more. There is a good chance we lose a home game or two with Ohio State, PU, and MSU on the slate. To get to 11 or 12 wins, some road wins are needed, and all road wins must be cherished. Sneaking one out at PSU Saturday would be huge.

To continue the theme from the IU game, UW has a blue ribbon offense. So, you can trust your eyes and complain about the offense and the low production spots on the floor, or you can sit back and enjoy the results. It might be as simple as a style versus substance argument. I will take results (substance) and not quibble about style points.

Northwestern Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: Quite the doubleheader for the states of Wisconsin and Illinois tomorrow, although I suppose not many people care about Nerdwestern compared to the Bears. The Badgers enter the game tied for third in the Big Ten at 4-2, and the Mildcats come in at 3-4, tied for 7th with Penn State.


What the expert nerds say: Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 0.5-point underdog.

Ken Pomeroy predicts a 66-65 Badger victory in 58 possessions with a 44% chance of upset.

The boys in the desert have the Badgers as a 2-point favorite.


Tradition of Excellence:
In the past 71 years, the NCAA Tournament Committee has extended 2.749 invitations to the Big Dance. Northwestern is the only high-major conference team to not receive one.
In past 72 years, the NIT has extended 1,572 invitations to their post-season tournament. Northwestern has been invited five times.

Indiana: 40 bids (35 NCAAs, 4 NITs, 1 CCAT)
Purdue: 32 bids (23 NCAAs, 8 NITs, 1 NCIT)
Illinois: 31 bids (27 NCAAs, 4 NITs)
Ohio State: 31 bids (23 NCAAs, 8 NITs)*
Michigan State: 29 bids (24 NCAAs, 5 NITs)
Iowa: 27 bids (22 NCAAs, 5 NITs)
Michigan: 26 bids (17 NCAAs, 9 NITs)*
Wisconsin: 20 bids (16 NCAAs, 4 NITs)
Minnesota: 18 bids (7 NCAAs, 11 NITs)*
Penn State: 17 bids (8 NCAAs, 9 NITs)
Northwestern: 5 bids (0 NCAAs, 5 NITs)

Northwestern averages one post-season appearance every 14.4 years. The next worst Big Ten team in that regard, Penn State, averages an appearance every 4.2 years!


Northwestern Likely Rotation:

Position	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %	Fouls/40
* G	5'10"	Michael Thompson	39.4	14.7	2.1	4.6	1.9	0.0	108.8	20.5	17.0	72.0%	47.2%	38.6%	55.0%	3.13	0.8	6.1	22.9	0.0	2.8	2.9
* G	6'5"	JerShon Cobb	30.6	10.1	3.4	2.3	0.9	0.1	111.9	17.7	6.3	75.0%	51.4%	28.6%	43.1%	1.85	4.2	9.7	14.8	0.5	1.6	1.68
* G/F	6'5"	Drew Crawford	28.6	10.4	4.7	1.3	0.6	1.1	93.5	21.4	16.9	62.5%	33.3%	45.2%	44.3%	1.14	4.5	16.2	9.1	4.5	1.2	4.8
* F	6'8"	John Shurna	31.6	14.1	3.9	2.7	1.4	1.0	113.9	22.6	9.6	70.3%	41.5%	41.9%	43.1%	5.14	3.0	12.3	17.4	3.6	2.7	1.99
* F/C	6'11"	Luke Mirkovic	25.0	10.7	5.0	1.9	0.3	0.3	104.6	23.8	18.8	65.2%	55.1%	33.3%	10.9%	4.18	6.4	18.5	16.0	1.3	0.6	4.57
G	6'3"	Alex Marcotullio	20.1	5.0	2.3	2.1	0.9	0.1	115.7	13.7	28.1	50.0%	62.5%	47.1%	68.0%	0.80	4.0	10.1	19.8	0.8	2.5	3.97
F	6'9"	Davide Curtelli	15.0	4.4	2.3	1.1	0.3	0.6	108.7	17.2	13.3	75.0%	31.3%	44.4%	36.0%	4.80	4.3	14.8	14.0	4.3	1.1	6.1
F	6'6"	Mike Capocci	8.9	2.1	1.4	0.6	0.4	0.3	140.5	11.6	8.3	71.4%	62.5%	0.0%	11.1%	7.78	7.3	12.5	11.7	3.6	2.9	4.52

Wisconsin Likely Rotation:

Position	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %	Fouls/40
* G	6'1"	Jordan Taylor	38.8	22.0	4.8	4.3	0.8	0.0	129.4	30.3	5.9	90.0%	49.0%	36.1%	42.4%	5.88	3.4	13.2	31.3	0.0	1.5	2.92
* G	6'3"	Josh Gasser	20.0	2.2	2.0	1.8	0.3	0.0	112.2	11.0	10.5	60.0%	55.6%	0.0%	35.7%	3.57	6.6	6.6	19.3	0.0	1.1	3.67
* F/G	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	29.5	4.5	2.3	1.5	0.3	0.2	142.6	7.9	5.0	100.0%	-	38.9%	100.0%	3.33	2.2	8.3	10.7	0.6	0.7	1.81
* F	6'10"	Jon Leuer	36.7	18.0	7.0	1.7	0.3	0.8	106.3	30.2	11.6	89.3%	43.8%	36.0%	28.1%	3.15	5.4	20.0	13.1	2.5	0.6	2.18
* F	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	30.2	12.5	5.5	0.7	0.7	1.8	135.8	18.5	12.5	88.2%	42.9%	55.2%	67.4%	3.95	6.6	17.7	5.6	6.9	1.5	4.86
F	6'6"	Mike Bruesewitz	17.8	3.2	1.5	0.3	0.3	0.3	96.5	14.3	9.0	80.0%	54.5%	10.0%	47.6%	2.38	7.5	3.7	4.1	2.1	1.3	2.99
G/F	6'4"	Rob Wilson	11.8	1.2	0.6	0.6	0.2	0.0	53.9	15.4	15.3	100.0%	25.0%	0.0%	38.5%	1.54	0.0	6.8	10.5	0.0	1.1	5.42
F/C	6'10"	Jared Berggren	9.7	1.8	2.0	0.3	0.0	0.8	99.4	15.6	7.6	50.0%	50.0%	0.0%	23.1%	1.54	9.2	18.4	8.0	9.8	0.0	4.83
G/F	6'6"	Ryan Evans	5.2	0.7	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.2	51.4	13.5	50.0	-	50.0%	-	0.0%	0.00	0.0	12.9	0.0	3.6	0.0	7.74

What Northwestern is really good and bad at :

	Turnover %	Rebounding %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	15.5 (#3)	26.7 (#9)	32.5 (#7)	39.4 (#4)	46.9 (#8)	69.9 (#9)	9.3 (#8)	7.4 (#6)
Defense	20.3 (#3)	64.4 (#10)	40.7 (#10)	39.4 (#7)	52.6 (#9)	69.3 (#2)	6.9 (#6)	10.4 (#1)

What Wisconsin is really good and bad at :

	Turnover %	Rebounding %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	10.3 (#1)	24.6 (#10)	38.7 (#4)	35.1 (#8)	46.2 (#10)	86.4 (#1)	3.9 (#2)	4.6 (#2)
Defense	15.7 (#7)	67.8 (#8)	39.3 (#9)	33.3 (#3)	45.3 (#4)	77.8 (#8)	8.4 (#3)	5.4 (#10)

Relative Efficiency:

When Northwestern has the ball: They have scored an average 1.097 PPP in the Big Ten season, while UW has given up a good 1.054.

When UW has the ball: They have given up an average 1.097 PPP in the Big Ten season, while UW scored a great 1.146 this season.


Pace: Northwestern has played at 67 possessions per game to UW's 58.


Northwestern's Good Wins (Top 75):
Georgia Tech (#74), Indiana (#64), Michigan (#66)

Northwestern's Losses:
@ St. John's (#53), @ Purdue (#8), Michigan State (#23), @ Illinois (#15), @ Michigan State (#23)

Wisconsin's Good Wins (Top 75):
N-Boston College (#56), @ Marquette (#27), Minnesota (#45), Michigan (#66), Illinois (#15), Indiana (#64)

Wisconsin's Losses:
@ UNLV (#20), N-Notre Dame (#31), @ Illinois (#15), @ Michigan State (#23)


My Expectations:

1. Badgers shoot better than 39% shooting from 3. The perimeter D for the Nerds is terrible.

2. Keaton scores more than 15. I think he has a strong game after a relatively quiet 9 and 7 showing against Indiana.

3. Badgers grab more than 35% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end and 74% on the defensive. They are worse than us at rebounding.

The state of Wisconsin sweeps the day, with the Badgers grinding out a 70-62 victory in 60 possessions.