Saturday, January 22, 2011

Indiana Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: UW won a satisfying 69-60 home game against a good-shooting Indiana Hoosier team. IU lost the game for the same reason Crean has lost most of his games: He did not have Dwayne Wade. But wait, you should see the recruiting class he has coming in …

Summarizing the game in a few words: IU avoided turnovers (a rare event), protected the defensive glass, shot very well in the first half, not so well in the second half, and came up short. UW ground them down by running the offense, deferring to their stars, avoiding turnovers, protecting the defensive glass, and hitting their free throws.

Pace: The game had 56 possessions. That was the 13th most in 18 games. There were 26 in the first half, 30 in the second, if anyone cares.

Efficiency: Indiana scored a healthy 1.07 PPP. Our Big Ten defense has been bleeding at 1.05 PPP in conference, not good.

On the other end, UW kept up the scoring parade with a sizzling 1.23 PPP. Outstanding. In conference, we are scoring at 1.15 PPP. It may come as a shock to some that a team with so many non-scorers can be so good offensively. But, look at the numbers. Bo has a great offense.

The game was a tale of two halves for IU. In the first half, IU scored 34 on 26 possessions, or 1.31 PPP. The second half was not as kind. They scored 26 on 30 possessions or .87.

UW scored 30 on 26 possessions in the first half for a good 1.15 PPP. In the second half, UW scored 39 on 30 possessions for 1.30 PPP. It is very productive to go the line when you hit 94% of your free throws.

Shooting: Shooting from deep was off, but pickings were good inside and ultra-effective free throw shooting were key. IU excelled at the oft forgotten art of the mid range jump shot while UW cleaned up at the line.

eFG%: Both teams shot pretty well, but not great, from the floor. IU hit at 53% eFG% while UW matched them with 54%. Our opponents have been at 45% for the year and 47% in conference. UW has been at 52% for the year and 46% in conference.

3 pt shooting: Both teams were off from deep. IU made 2 of 7 for 29%. UW had about the same percentage, 31%, but took more shots, 16 and had more makes, 5 to IU’s 2. That gave UW an extra 3 makes or 9 points from deep.

2pt shooting: IU was 23 of 42 inside the arc for 55%. That is good shooting. UW matched them in quality (19 of 33 for 58%) but not quantity (33 attempts, 9 fewer than IU).

IU scored 22 in the paint and UW got 24. IU scored 24 midrange and UW 14.

That gave IU 4 extra makes or a plus 8 points inside the arc. UW had a net plus one from the floor.

1pt shooting: UW continued our uncanny marksmanship from the line. UW was a sparkling 16 of 17 for 94%. As the number one free throw shooting team in the nation, we come to expect excellence from the line. But this is outstanding.

IU was a more conventional 8-11 for 73%. UW picked up 8 points at the line, which meant we did not have to sweat out the end of the game as our free throws clanked out.

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

UW Makes: 250 Opponent Attempts: 289 Difference: -39 (but picked up 5)

Trevor Mbakwe Missed Free Throws Index:

Our friend Tevor has been shooting FT’s better, but I think we can still catch the lad.


Made 250 of 305, Misses: 55


Made 73 of 120, Misses: 47

Difference: -8

Floor Location:

Location UW Opp

Arc 22% 10%

Mid Range 20% 40%

Paint 35% 37%

FT Line 23% 13%

IU took few three pointers but a lot of mid range jump shots. That is kind of odd, I would think.

Rebounding: Rebounding was basically a draw. Each team successfully protected their defensive glass.

UW Defensive end: Of IU’s 27 rebounding opportunities, they got 6 or 22%. That is good work by UW, and not unexpected since Bo has traditionally stressed defensive rebounding.

UW Offensive End: UW offered two fewer rebounding opportunities, 25, and got one fewer offensive rebound, 1, or 20% of our misses. We started the year with offensive rebounding as a strength, but that strength has diminished as the B10 season has progressed. UW likes to get back on defense and avoid the fast break.

Turnovers: IU did unusually well at avoiding turnovers. They had 7 for only 13%. This is highly unusual for a Crean team, and IU in 2011 in particular. For the year, IU has a 21% turnover rate. For a state that is basketball crazy, they seem to turn a blind eye towards turnovers. Anyway, they avoided them in this game.

UW had only 5 for an even better 9%. We are best in the nation at 13.1% for the year.

Each team scored 5 points off of turnovers.

Opportunity Index: UW eked out a positive OI. UW was plus 2 on turnovers and minus one on offensive rebounds. From a points perspective, UW tied IU with 5 off of turnovers, but was a plus one on second chance points, UW had 10 to IU’s 9.

Fouls: IU had 17 to UW’s 12. We usually have 15 and out opponents 18. In conference, UW has been at 17 and our opponents 19. The important thing was the 5 extra fouls lead to 8 extra points from the line, a critical difference in a 9 point game.

Playing time: Bo went 7 deep (10 or more minutes). He started Gasser (21 minutes) and Jarmusz (35 minutes). Taylor was an iron man playing 39. Off the bench, Smith had 12 and Bruesewitz 27. Evans, Wilson and Berggren each had fewer than 4.

I cannot help but wonder how Bo would assign playing time if he would take the wisdom of this board into consideration and play the 5 guys that score the most.

Crean played 8 ten or more and no one had more than 32.

Notable Performances: It was the Leuer and Taylor show again. They scored 48 out of 69 points for UW.

Leuer scored 20 on 18 FGA’s, 3-3 from the line, and one turnover. He added a low 4 boards.

Taylor scored 28 on 15 FGA’s, 7-7 from the line, 8 boards, and one lonely turnover (he stole the ball, was heading out of bounds, and threw it back in to IU – a tough turnover). Jordan, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. Mrs. Turomon has anointed Taylor her favorite player – a fine choice.

Keaton was his ultra efficient self – per usual. He scored 9 on 4 FGA’s and had 7 rebounds.

Jarmusz scored 3 on 3 shots, but negated two of those with offensive rebounds and played 35 more minutes without a turnover. He added a block and took a charge as well. We may never see a player again that is as good at maximizing his skills and avoiding his shortcomings. Tim, I salute you.

BTW, I think they should consider giving a steal to a player that takes a charge. It is a turnover that is directly assignable to an individual.

Smith had a very productive 12 minutes. He made his only shot, had a few excellent assists, grabbed a steal, and had no turnovers. But his main contribution was to come in and slow down IU’s guard play. W’Q, my people salute you, too!

For IU, Hulls looked really good. He scored 10 points in the first five minutes. He scored 16 on a variety of drives, deep shots, and quick release mid range jump shots. Jones got 15 on 12 FGA’s and two trips to the line. He chipped in two turnovers, which is actually pretty good for a guy with a turnover problem.

Jeremiah Rivers played under control. He had no turnovers, which is remarkable for a player with a 32% turnover rate. I always thought he would never get off Bo’s bench, or he would have to morph into a different player. In this game, he did fine so I must give him credit.

Watford scored in double figures, 10 points, but used 13 possessions to get them. Not very efficient.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1.. Badgers shoot better than 40% shooting from 3. The perimeter D for the Tanned One is awful, so I like the Badgers to rain from deep. Miss. UW hit 31%.

2. The Badgers shoot better than 55% inside the arc. With Indiana's frontcourt, I like UW to help out their 2-point stats immensely. Hit. UW got 58%. Nice job, Badgers, and gutsy prediction.

3. Badgers grab more than 36% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end and 70% on the defensive. They aren't great at rebounding and I hope this game can turn around the pitiful numbers posted so far. Miss and Hit. UW got 20% of their misses but 78% on the defensive end.

Closing Thoughts: I am thinking that UW officially has a problem on defense. We have an elite offense and a so-so defense, I think. Now, that will not stop posters for ripping a lack of scoring by certain players, but the numbers point to the defensive end as a place for improvement. Krabbenhoft and Flowers would really help this team.

IU got a moral victory, of sorts, by playing UW tough on the road. How many moral victories can Crean count on to justify his enormous salary? The bottom line is IU is 10-9, and have lost 7 of 8 games. His chances at an NIT bid are slipping away. It is hard to give them slack for being a young team because of all the players Crean has driven off, or more kindly, have left the program. With his long contract and generous severance terms, IU has him for the foreseeable future in any case. Better them than us.

I know there are plenty of IU fans that think Crean was the right hire and will turn around the program. Look at his record sans Dwayne Wade. Now, how long are you willing to wait for another Dwayne Wade to come around?

Here are UW’s games against Crean in his career:


Date Loc Res Score Coach

12/23/1999 H W 86-74 Bennett

12/23/2000 A W 52-47 Soderberg

12/22/2001 H W 86-73 Ryan

12/14/2002 A L 54-63 Ryan

12/20/2003 H W 63-59 Ryan

12/11/2004 A L 54-63 Ryan

12/10/2005 H W 77-63 Ryan

12/9/2006 A W 70-66 Ryan

12/8/2007 H L 76-81 Ryan

Record 6-3: Home: 4-1; Away: 2-2


Date Loc Res Score Coach

2/19/2009 A W 68-51 Ryan

3/8/2009 H W 85-61 Ryan

2/13/2010 H W 83-55 Ryan

2/25/2010 A W 78-46 Ryan

1/20/2011 H W 69-60 Ryan

Record: 5-0; Home: 3-0; Away: 2-0

Bennett: 1-0

Soderberg: 1-0

Ryan: 9-3

Based upon all the evidence, as a Badger fan, I hope they keep him. I like our chances for the rest of his lengthy contract. If he gets the program rolling, he might win half his games against Bo. As a Big Ten fan, I think he will paralyze a storied program and hurt the overall league. But that is just my opinion.

No comments:

Post a Comment