Saturday, January 22, 2011

MSU Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: MSU won a tough OT game by overcoming a 9 point deficit late and surviving an OT to win 64 to 61. Credit goes to MSU for grinding out a difficult win despite UW having them by the throat.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW developed butter fingers in the last two minutes of regulation to puke away their lead and lose in OT. UW outshot MSU from deep, MSU outshot UW from inside the arc – mid range in partiular, and MSU outscored UW at the line thanks to taking more shots.

Pace: The game had 63 possessions, and 7 were in the Over Time. In case you were wondering, there were 26 in the first half and 29 in the second.

Efficiency: UW scored .97PPP and MSU 1.02. That was our second poorest output of the year (Manhattan .89 PPP and ND .91 PPP).

In the first half, UW scored .89 PPP to MSU’s .75 PPP. In the second half, MSU upped their production to 1.14 PPP while UW came in at 1.02 PPP. In OT, MSU scored at 1.55 PPP (11 points, 7 possessions) to UW’s 1.08 PPP.

Shooting: UW held a slight advantage from the floor, MSU won the game from the stripe by pressing a quantity of shots advantage.

eFG%: neither team shot well. MSU hit an eFG% of 44% and UW 45.5%.

3 pt shooting: UW won the quantity and quality battle from deep. MSU hit 5 of 16 for 31% while UW took 4 more shots, 20, and made 3 more, 8. That gave UW 9 extra points from deep.

2pt shooting: MSU returned the favor and won the quantity and quality battle inside the arc. MSU was 16 of 37 for 43%. UW was only 13 of 35 for 37%. MSU got 6 points back inside. Both teams scored 18 points in the paint. Therefore, MSU outscored UW 14 to 8 from mid range. I do not know the attempts from midrange versus paint.

Of particular interest, MSU actually had fewer points off turnovers than UW. UW scored 18 and MSU 13. Coach Izzo loves to push and get cheapies off of turnovers. Bo took that away from MSU.

1pt shooting: From the line, UW had superior quality and MSU superior quantity. In this case, quantity trumped quality. MSU hit 17 of 25 for 68% while UW was 11 of 12 for 92%.

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

UW Makes: 200 Opponent Attempts: 242 Difference: -42

On the other hand, we have taken 247 attempts and our opponents have made 175, for a plus 72 for UW. In straight makes, UW had outscored our opponents at the line by 25 despite taking 5 fewer shots from the line.

Regarding our favorite felon Trevor Mbakwe, Trevor has now missed 43 and UW has missed 47. Trevor was a scorching 8-10 the other day or we would have caught him. Trevor, get out of jail soon, we need you back at the line practicing your new career as a brick layer, assuming this basketball things will not work out.

Floor Location:

Location UW Opp

Arc 39% 23%

Mid Range 13% 22%

Paint 30% 28%

FT Line 18% 27%

Rebounding: MSU held a predictable advantage in rebounding by doing well on the offensive boards and adequately protecting the defensive boards.

UW Defensive end: MSU crashed the offensive glass and grabbed 38% of their misses (13 of 34).

UW Offensive End: UW got 9 of their 35 misses, or 26%. UW had been doing this year at offensive rebounding, but not so in this one.

Turnovers: Each team had 11 turnovers for 17%. That is high for UW and low for MSU.

Opportunity Index: MSU won the OI by 4. They grabbed 4 extra offensive rebounds and it was a wash on turnovers. From a scoring perspective, MSU outscored UW by 4 on second chance points but were outscored by 5 on points off turnovers. So, UW actually had one extra point from OI events.

Fouls: UW fouled 20 times to MSU’s 16. That was our second highest total of the year.

Playing time: Bo played 7 ten or more minutes including Gasser 19 and Bruesewitz 12. All the starters had 30 plus minutes, including Wilson’s 32.

Bo went with some extreme substitutions in the game with 4 reserves on the floor at the same time for a few minutes.

Izzo played 9 ten or more minutes with no one getting more than 38.

Notable Performances:

Keaton Nankivil had another highly efficient day scoring 17 on 8 FGA’s (no free throws). He had 4 boards and 3 blocks, one of which made the sports center top ten list (#2) on Lucas late in the game. The blemish on his night was that he got credited with 2 turnovers. Keaton, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Taylor scored 21 but needed 20 shots to get there. He had two turnovers in 40 minutes. He chipped in 7 rebounds. Jordan, I salute you!

Leuer had a quiet 10 points on 9 shots and 7 boards. Gasser had 5 on two shots and a free throw. Wilson scored 4 but was only 1-8 from the floor. His defense was tough. Jarmusz added another 33 minutes to his total without a turnover.

For MSU, Green canceled out Nankivil’s day by scoring 26 on only 17 shots including an uncharacteristically good 7-9 from the line. Lucas scored 17, but needed 17 shots and three turnovers to do it.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Jordan, Jon, and Keaton score a combined 50 points. I think we end up leaning heavily on these three in this one. Miss, but close. They had 48.

2. The Badgers shoot better than 46% inside the arc. I think MSU will force a lot of perimeter shooting by the Badgers, but I like them to shoot much better than MSU's average opponent when they get their chances. Miss. They hit only 37%.

3. The Badgers grab at least 37% of the offensive rebounding opportunities and at least 73% of the defensive. They are finally able to beat up on MSU on the boards for the first time in a while. Miss. They got 26%.

The Badgers come up short, losing 65-62 in 61 possessions. Hit. Very close. 64 to 61 in 63, with an OT.

Closing Thoughts: We really need to take out Illinois this weekend to make this week a success.

Last year an MSU fan came over and talked about how they win because they have Kalin Lucas who can be counted on to make the big shot. He went on to say how stats are not particularly meaningful because they are trumped by heart and big plays. Well, we see on Sports Center the shots that go in, and this morning we saw one that did not, thanks to Keaton Nankivil. This all gets me to thinking whether Lucas actually is a good clutch performer. Someone would have to go back and look at his shooting in all games, not just the ones where he hit the big shot. My guess is he is average, but I cannot prove that one way or the other. So, I think stats can even be applied to clutch shooting. It would be fun for someone to do the leg work on this one.

No comments:

Post a Comment