Swingtown Badger Basketball Blog

SORRY!!!

2011-11-12T14:18:00.001-06:00

I also forgot. I have now relocated to Swingtown Basketball. Some content will be added and I believe the layout and site design is much, much improved.

Belmont Pre-Game Analysis

2011-03-14T05:27:00.000-05:00

Opening Comment: It's that time of year again! Wisconsin enters the 2011 NCAA Tournament with a 23-8 record, earning a 4 seed from the committee. Their first round opponent in Tucson are the Bruins of Belmont, the 30-4 Atlantic Sun Conference champions. If they are able to advance to the second round, they will face a 5 seed Kansas State squad or a 12 seed Utah State squad. If they were to advance to the Sweet 16 after that, they would likely face 1 seed Pitt, or maybe 8 seed Butler or 9 seed Old Dominion. Nevertheless, Wisconsin's opponent of Belmont, while sporting a rather weak schedule, dominated their conference. As such, Ken Pomeroy ranks them as the 18th best team in the country, or having the ability of a 5 seed. So that's pretty lame for us. It's along the same lines of Florida State getting us in 2009, as we were actually considered marginally better than them by Pomeroy despite our seed being a 12 seed and FSU being a 5 seed. Or Pitt and us meeting as 3 and 6 seeds in the second round despite being ranked #4 and #5 in Pomeroy's rankings.

Forum to Visit: Atlantic Sun Team Talk - Belmont

What the Expert Nerds Say:
Ken Pomeroy predicts a 66-63 Badger victory in 59 possessions, with a 39% chance of upset.

Jeff Sagarin predicts a 4-point Badger victory.

Belmont's Style of Play:
Offense = When Belmont has the ball, they are a rather equal opportunity offense. Only a player, Scott Saunders, uses more than 24% of the possessions when they are on the court, and only one, Adam Barnes, uses less than 15.7% of them. Comparatively, Wisconsin has two guys, Jordan Taylor and Jon Leuer, who use more than 24%, and five guys that use less than 15.7% of them. No one on the Bruins roster scores more than 13 points a game, but they have three double-digit scorers and six guys that score between 5 and 10 points a game. Their offense is up-tempo (9th fastest team in the tournament), resulting in easy transition scores from attacking the basket and spot-up threes. Belmont attempts five three-point attempts for every seven two-point attempts, which is a tad more often than Wisconsin's four to every six. The primary ballhandlers for Belmont are Drew Hanlen and Kerron Johnson. Each brings their own unique style as Hanlen is a three-point bomber, attempting nearly four triples a game and knocking down a respectable 34.6% of them, but has substantial trouble in the land of trees, making a putrid 37.5% of his twos. On the other hand, Johnson attempts only one three a game, but is very aggressive attacking the basket. He makes more than half of his twos and has attempted more free throws than field goals. Unfortunately for Belmont, this aggressiveness has resulted in a sub-1.00 assist-to-turnover ratio and a turnover rate near 30%. Sophomore shooting guard Ian Clark (6'3") is the leading scorer on the team, taking a nearly equal amount of shots on each side of the arc, shooting 55% inside and 44% outside. This isn't to say that the team is completely perimeter-oriented though. The second- and third-leading scorers are forwards 6'9" Mick Hedgepeth and 6'10" Scott Saunders. The two of them combine to shoot 238 of 451(52.8%) inside the arc, have only attempted 11 threes all season, both have attempted more free throws than Jon Leuer on the season, and both are fantastic offensive rebounders. Collectively, they are one of the best shooting teams in the tournament, as they are the sixth best two-point shooters, 13th at the charity stripe, and 14th beyond the arc. Interestingly enough, they get their shots blocked the most out all the teams in the tournament despite their great two-point numbers. They are below average at taking care of the ball (50th), average at getting to the line (38th), and good at offensive rebounding (12th).

Defense = When Belmont is on defense, they like to pester the hell their opponent. They are the best team in the tournament at forcing turnovers, especially via steals (#1 as well). They are exactly average at defending threes (#34) for a tournament team, above average defending the paint (#25), and below average at blocking shots (#42). However, with this extremely aggressive system, they foul like mad. Only one team in the tournament sends the other team to the line as more often than the Bruins and seven of the 12 guys in their rotation would foul out or come close, on average, if they played 40 minutes. They also slightly suffer at rebounding defensively, being 49th best in the tournament.

Belmont's Resume:
KenPom = #18
Sagarin = #34
Record vs. Ken Pom Top 160 = 1-3 (0-2 vs. #55 Tennessee, 0-1 vs. #32 Vanderbilt, 1-0 vs. #112 East Tennessee State)

A Match-Up of Contrasts:
Wisconsin Lack of Turnovers = best in the tourney
Belmont Forcing Turnovers = best in the tourney

Wisconsin's Tempo = slowest in the tourney
Belmont's Tempo = 9th fastest in the tourney

Wisconsin's Defensive Rebounding = 4th in the tourney
Belmont's Offensive Rebounding = 12th in the tourney

Wisconsin's Offensive Free Throw Rate = 2nd worst in the tourney
Belmont's Defensive Free Throw Rate = 2nd worst in the tourney

Wisconsin's Stealing Ability = worst in the tourney
Belmont's Abilty to Avoid Steals = 13th worst in the tourney

Wisconsin's Ability to Avoid Steals = 3rd best in the tourney
Belmont's Stealing Ability = best in the tourney

Belmont Rotation:

Position	Year	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	Shot %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %	Fouls/40
* G	Junior	5'11"	Drew Hanlen	23.3	6.4	1.8	4.0	0.7	0.0	118.0	16.3	15.1	20.8	86.4%	37.5%	34.6%	72.6%	3.37	1.1	7.6	28.6	0.0	1.8	1.97
* G	Sophomore	6'3"	Ian Clark	24.6	12.4	2.4	1.8	1.3	0.2	121.8	20.4	24.8	17.1	81.3%	55.4%	43.9%	54.1%	2.11	2.2	8.9	15.0	0.8	2.9	3.53
* G/F	Senior	6'6"	Jon House	19.0	5.4	3.4	1.6	0.9	0.2	111.2	16.3	14.0	23.3	68.3%	51.9%	39.3%	21.2%	4.55	9.0	11.8	15.0	1.4	2.6	3.41
* F	Sophomore	6'7"	Trevor Noack	14.9	5.3	3.2	0.5	0.5	0.3	104.1	18.4	22.8	17.9	76.2%	54.2%	30.2%	57.1%	1.25	8.0	17.4	6.5	2.0	1.8	4.28
* F/C	Junior	6'9"	Mick Hedgepeth	21.9	10.6	6.0	0.7	0.6	0.6	115.7	22.6	22.4	15.6	71.5%	53.8%	40.0%	4.1%	5.61	12.8	19.3	5.8	3.3	1.5	4.67
G/F	Senior	6'5"	Jordan Campbell	21.3	8.4	3.2	2.1	1.4	0.4	133.6	16.0	18.5	17.8	66.7%	64.7%	46.0%	82.6%	1.38	5.8	11.6	18.5	2.2	3.8	3.49
G	Sophomore	6'1"	Kerron Johnson	18.1	7.7	1.4	2.7	1.9	0.1	109.0	24.0	15.5	28.9	74.5%	52.0%	46.2%	28.1%	10.14	2.8	6.3	26.3	0.1	6.2	5.41
F/C	Junior	6'10"	Scott Saunders	17.4	10.0	5.4	0.3	0.3	1.2	112.7	26.8	25.3	15.6	73.6%	51.6%	0.0%	0.5%	7.29	12.0	24.0	3.8	7.7	1.0	5.08
G/F	Freshman	6'6"	J.J. Mann	15.6	6.1	2.3	1.0	0.9	0.1	106.8	20.0	25.5	15.6	65.2%	48.9%	32.7%	55.6%	1.16	6.7	10.5	11.7	0.2	3.3	3.23
F	Sophomore	6'6"	Brandon Baker	12.2	3.2	2.0	0.8	0.7	0.4	101.3	15.7	17.8	21.2	64.3%	54.3%	28.8%	67.6%	1.30	5.9	13.0	11.6	3.3	3.4	6.28
F	Freshman	6'7"	Blake Jenkins	10.4	3.9	2.2	0.6	0.3	0.2	97.9	22.2	18.9	26.3	68.6%	50.0%	31.0%	30.5%	5.37	9.8	15.0	10.4	1.6	1.6	6.62
G	Sophomore	6'2"	Adam Barnes	3.8	1.1	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.0	110.9	13.7	14.3	28.0	66.7%	58.8%	60.0%	22.7%	1.36	3.3	4.4	10.3	0.0	2.7	4.58

Wisconsin Rotation:

Position	Year	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	Shot %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %	Fouls/40
* G	Junior	6'1"	Jordan Taylor	36.2	18.1	4.1	4.7	0.7	0.1	131.1	26.7	26.7	8.1	84.9%	50.4%	43.3%	37.5%	3.98	3.1	12.2	30.3	0.4	1.4	2.53
* G	Freshman	6'3"	Josh Gasser	28.0	5.9	4.0	2.3	0.5	0.1	127.1	13.3	11.5	15.0	85.1%	60.0%	30.5%	44.0%	3.51	5.8	13.2	15.7	0.2	1.1	3.36
* F/G	Senior	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	22.9	3.6	2.1	1.2	0.5	0.1	127.7	9.7	10.0	10.1	90.5%	38.5%	34.1%	86.3%	2.21	4.9	7.5	9.3	0.1	1.6	1.80
* F	Senior	6'10"	Jon Leuer	33.6	18.6	7.3	1.7	0.5	0.9	118.2	29.3	32.2	11.0	84.7%	47.4%	37.8%	30.2%	2.64	6.5	22.8	12.8	3.1	1.0	2.46
* F	Senior	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	28.4	10.0	4.4	0.7	0.5	1.2	128.6	17.2	19.3	12.4	84.8%	54.6%	46.2%	52.4%	1.45	8.7	12.1	5.3	5.0	1.2	2.63
F	Sophomore	6'6"	Mike Bruesewitz	19.2	4.2	2.8	1.0	0.3	0.1	116.3	14.5	13.5	17.7	72.7%	60.0%	30.8%	48.6%	2.06	8.9	10.3	10.5	0.7	1.0	3.83
G/F	Sophomore	6'6"	Ryan Evans	11.9	2.9	2.4	0.5	0.2	0.4	83.3	21.8	20.1	20.0	77.1%	32.3%	0.0%	3.0%	3.54	6.7	20.3	8.5	3.4	1.1	3.79
F/C	Sophomore	6'10"	Jared Berggren	7.0	2.3	1.1	0.3	0.1	0.4	99.2	22.4	20.3	24.1	61.5%	61.3%	27.8%	46.2%	2.65	7.2	13.5	9.6	6.4	0.3	7.03
G	Senior	5'10"	Wquinton Smith	5.3	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.1	0.0	101.7	12.1	9.4	18.1	33.3%	36.4%	20.0%	31.3%	3.75	8.2	4.3	17.0	0.0	0.5	3.78
G/F	Junior	6'4"	Rob Wilson	7.6	1.6	1.0	0.4	0.1	0.0	92.5	17.3	18.7	14.2	87.5%	52.0%	5.9%	40.5%	1.90	5.4	12.9	9.2	0.0	0.8	3.33
G	Senior	6'4"	Brett Valentyn	5.3	1.2	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.0	105.5	13.2	15.5	19.0	50.0%	------------	34.8%	100.0%	0.87	2.3	7.3	5.1	0.0	0.6	3.97

Belmont Team Statistics:

	Efficiency	Pace	TO %	Reb %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	112.6 (#26)	69.1 (#9)	20.0 (#50)	37.9 (#12)	38.0 (#38)	38.1 (#14)	52.4 (#6)	73.6 (#13)	13.2 (#68)	9.9 (#56)
Defense	90.7 (#15)	69.1 (#9)	27.6 (#1)	67.5 (#49)	45.9 (#67)	32.8 (#34)	44.1 (#25)	67.5 (#17)	9.8 (#42)	13.9 (#1)

Wisconsin Team Statistics:

	Efficiency	Pace	TO %	Reb %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	123.6 (#2)	57.6 (#68)	13.1 (#1)	34.6 (#34)	28.0 (#67)	37.1 (#20)	49.5 (#36)	82.4 (#1)	6.0 (#1)	6.5 (#3)
Defense	95.6 (#47)	57.6 (#68)	16.9 (#66)	72.6 (#4)	31.4 (#21)	37.5 (#68)	45.1 (#38)	75.0 (#68)	9.1 (#51)	6.0 (#68)

My Expectations:
1. Wisconsin turns it over less than 16% of the time. The best team at protecting the ball they've faced turns it over 19.1% of the time, the Badgers are unbelievably better than that.

2. Keaton and Jon combine for more than 35 points. Both shake off the ice from deep and make the Belmont bigs uncomfortable on the perimeter.

3. Wisconsin makes more free throws than Belmont attempts. Belmont fouls like mad in their attempts for steals.

4. Wisconsin grabs more than 74% of the defensive rebounding opportunities. Bo emphasizes the defensive boards to make sure Belmont doesn't get extra chances.

My Prediction: The Badgers shock the world, beating the sexy Cinderella pick, 72-60 in 58 possessions.

Indiana Pre-Game Analysis

2011-03-02T22:52:00.001-06:00

Opening Comments: Thank you seniors. We'll miss you. The rest are on the road now, with 12-17 Indiana on the docket. With OSU's victory over Penn State last night, Wisconsin no longer has a chance at the Big Ten regular season title, so now the Badgers are playing for seed. If they win out, they could got a 2 seed, if they go 0-3, they could limp in with about a 5 or 6 seed.

What the Expert Nerds Say: Ken Pomeroy predicts a 67-60 Badger win in 57 possessions, with a 21% chance of upset.

Jeff Sagarin predicts a 6-point Badger victory.

Wait Until Crean Gets His Guys:
Verdell Jones = Scout - #32 PG... Rivals - #26 PG, #126 overall

Nick Williams = Scout - #36 SG... Rivals - #34 SG, #145 overall... RSCI - #88

Maurice Creek = Scout - #11 SG... Rivals - #14 SG, #56 overall... RSCI - #58

Derek Elston = Scout - #24 PF... Rivals - #22 SF, #103 overall

Jordan Hulls = Scout - #8 PG... Rivals - #19 PG, #107 overall... RSCI - #74

Bawa Muniru = Rivals - #16 C, #112 overall

Christian Watford = Scout - #12 SF... Rivals - #6 SF, #41 overall... RSCI - #45

Will Sheehey = Scout - #45 SF... Rivals - #40 SG, #141 overall

Victor Oladipo = Rivals - #41 SG, #144 overall

So, what kind of players are Indiana fans waiting for? Remember kids, Tannin' Tom has only won 53% of his games without D-Wade.

Indiana 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"	Jordan Hulls	33.7	12.8	2.4	2.7	0.7	0.1	114.6	19.7	17.1	100.0%	55.4%	36.8%	47.8%	1.82	1.1	8.2	17.7	0.2	1.2	2.52
* G	6'5"	Verdell Jones III	29.7	12.8	3.3	3.2	0.5	0.4	102.5	26.2	18.6	71.7%	43.7%	43.3%	22.6%	3.98	0.9	13.5	24.9	1.6	1.1	3.11
* G	6'5"	Jeremiah Rivers	23.8	4.1	2.8	2.1	1.1	0.1	86.9	15.2	30.4	71.4%	46.2%	12.5%	13.3%	3.50	3.8	11.3	16.6	0.6	2.9	4.74
* F	6'8"	Christian Watford	29.3	14.6	5.3	0.6	0.6	0.4	101.8	27.9	15.3	83.1%	36.7%	40.4%	36.8%	3.81	5.8	17.4	4.8	1.6	1.3	3.88
* F	6'9"	Tom Pritchard	19.8	3.4	4.1	0.6	0.3	0.4	133.9	9.3	14.8	54.5%	66.7%	-	0.0%	3.06	11.6	14.7	5.5	2.7	0.7	6.69
G	6'5"	Victor Olapido	19.2	7.9	3.4	0.8	0.8	0.3	112.1	22.1	18.5	70.6%	58.5%	33.3%	18.8%	6.38	8.0	14.8	8.7	1.6	2.4	4.95
F	6'9"	Derek Elston	16.3	4.0	3.9	0.1	0.4	0.1	83.7	18.6	24.6	72.7%	48.3%	0.0%	12.1%	1.67	9.8	20.9	0.8	0.9	1.6	6.13
G/F	6'6"	Will Sheehey	16.1	5.5	1.9	0.4	0.5	0.2	101.7	20.1	15.8	68.4%	48.4%	33.3%	19.5%	2.47	7.1	8.1	6.0	1.4	1.9	6.23
G	6'3"	Matt Roth	8.7	3.5	0.6	0.3	0.1	0.0	119.4	18.1	2.5	100.0%	0.0%	36.0%	94.3%	0.38	1.7	7.4	6.3	0.0	0.4	2.59
G	5'10"	Daniel Moore	6.3	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.0	63.7	10.7	42.8	100.0%	50.0%	0.0%	50.0%	2.50	1.4	7.9	13.0	0.0	4.6	6.83
F	6'9"	Bobby Capobianco	5.9	0.1	0.6	0.1	0.1	0.1	63.6	4.6	33.3	0.0%	25.0%	-	0.0%	2.50	2.9	11.1	4.2	1.5	1.5	9.27

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	37.6	19.9	4.3	5.1	0.7	0.1	130.8	28.8	7.4	83.9%	48.8%	42.1%	37.4%	4.58	2.8	13.4	33.9	0.2	1.2	2.77
* G	6'3"	Josh Gasser	28.1	4.9	4.1	2.5	0.4	0.1	129.0	11.7	15.7	76.9%	58.1%	37.5%	43.6%	2.36	5.4	14.9	18.0	0.2	1.0	3.22
* F/G	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	25.9	4.0	2.1	1.2	0.5	0.1	130.4	9.6	9.4	100.0%	40.0%	34.1%	89.1%	3.04	5.5	5.8	8.8	0.3	1.2	1.75
* F	6'10"	Jon Leuer	35.3	18.5	7.6	1.6	0.4	0.5	110.8	30.6	11.4	92.6%	51.2%	31.1%	26.9%	2.38	6.3	24.0	12.3	1.5	0.8	2.42
* F	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	32.0	11.7	4.5	0.6	0.5	1.1	131.0	17.1	9.4	85.7%	45.8%	49.4%	62.6%	1.71	6.7	13.1	4.2	4.1	1.0	2.92
F	6'6"	Mike Bruesewitz	15.8	3.2	1.9	0.7	0.3	0.1	109.1	14.9	16.0	85.7%	54.5%	26.1%	51.1%	1.56	9.1	7.2	8.6	0.9	1.4	3.88
G/F	6'6"	Ryan Evans	10.3	2.4	1.4	0.2	0.3	0.2	91.7	17.4	18.4	83.3%	39.4%	-	0.0%	3.64	4.3	14.7	4.0	2.2	1.8	4.39
G/F	6'4"	Rob Wilson	8.1	0.7	0.6	0.3	0.1	0.0	50.1	15.1	15.7	100.0%	22.2%	0.0%	55.0%	2.00	1.5	9.6	6.2	0.0	0.7	4.94
F/C	6'10"	Jared Berggren	6.9	1.0	1.0	0.2	0.0	0.6	77.6	15.3	11.1	50.0%	41.7%	0.0%	33.3%	2.22	6.6	13.6	4.7	9.7	0.0	7.71
G	5'10"	Wquinton Smith	4.0	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.0	101.8	8.8	25.0	0.0%	33.3%	-	0.0%	3.33	4.2	4.4	17.7	0.0	2.2	3.75

Indiana Big Ten Stats:

	Efficiency	Pace	TO %	Reb %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	102.8 (#9)	63.6 (#4)	19.0 (#8)	30.8 (#6)	30.5 (#7)	34.4 (#7)	48.4 (#9)	76.4 (#3)	13.1 (#11)	9.3 (#9)
Defense	112.2 (#10)	63.6 (#4)	17.8 (#5)	68.3 (#9)	54.8 (#11)	39.4 (#10)	49.4 (#6)	70.3 (#2)	5.8 (#11)	8.3 (#7)

Wisconsin Big Ten Stats:

	Efficiency	Pace	TO %	Reb %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	119.1 (#1)	56.2 (#11)	12.1 (#1)	30.1 (#9)	29.4 (#8)	37.1 (#5)	49.8 (#5)	85.3 (#1)	7.0 (#1)	6.0 (#1)
Defense	105.5 (#4)	56.2 (#11)	15.2 (#9)	73.3 (#1)	31.9 (#6)	36.3 (#6)	48.4 (#5)	76.8 (#10)	7.1 (#7)	5.5 (#11)

My Expectations:
1. The Badgers grab more than 33% of the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end. The Hoosiers suck at defensive rebounding.

2. The Badgers shot better than 35% from deep. They generally are terrible from deep on the road, but Indiana is terrible at defending threes.

3. The Badgers have a free throw rate higher than 4 FTAs per 10 FGAs. Indiana fouls a lot.

My Prediction: The Badgers win 63-54 in 58 possessions.

Northwestern Pre-Game Analysis

2011-02-26T23:32:00.000-06:00

Opening Comments: The Badgers escaped a terrible shooting day in Ann Arbor with great/lucky shot from Josh Gasser. Just today, Gasser's 3 was overtaken on the ESPN Top 10 by a Kobe highlight after a two-day reign as the top play. Why I know this despite not watching Sportscenter often? One of my high school friends was celebrating it, as he is a Marquette fan and hated a Badger highlight being #1. Within minutes, Sam Dekker defended the Badgers' honor. Atta boy, Sam! The Badger have their final home game of the season against Northwestern, who are limping into the game at 16-11 (6-10 Big Ten) after having NCAA Tournament aspirations mere weeks ago.

What the Expert Nerds Say: Ken Pomeroy predicts a 72-58 Badger victory in 56 possessions, with an 8% chance of upset.

Jeff Sagarin predicts a 13-point victory.

Northwestern 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	38.3	15.7	1.9	4.3	1.5	0.0	111.9	22.5	15.3	81.6%	53.7%	36.9%	57.5%	2.54	0.9	6.0	25.2	0.0	2.5	2.42
* G	6'5"	JerShon Cobb	28.6	8.8	3.4	1.6	0.8	0.1	103.0	18.0	8.5	75.0%	49.3%	27.6%	44.3%	2.14	2.8	13.7	11.7	0.2	1.8	2.71
* G	6'5"	Drew Crawford	30.5	10.3	4.6	1.7	0.9	0.7	97.3	21.0	14.3	57.1%	39.7%	38.7%	49.0%	1.83	4.9	15.4	12.1	2.6	1.8	3.61
* F	6'8"	John Shurna	32.1	12.7	3.9	2.3	1.0	0.9	104.1	23.1	13.7	71.4%	43.5%	36.9%	43.3%	4.20	3.4	13.0	15.6	3.3	1.9	2.32
* F/C	6'10"	Luka Mirkovic	25.3	8.5	4.8	1.8	0.4	0.5	103.2	21.2	18.6	68.6%	50.0%	40.0%	13.8%	3.21	7.6	17.6	15.4	2.2	0.9	4.54
G	6'3"	Alex Marcotullio	20.9	4.8	2.1	2.2	0.8	0.1	107.6	14.9	21.7	44.4%	52.9%	39.1%	73.0%	1.43	3.9	9.3	20.9	0.6	2.4	4.18
F	6'9"	Davide Curletti	14.4	3.2	1.8	1.0	0.1	0.4	103.6	14.7	13.2	75.0%	38.7%	35.7%	31.1%	3.56	3.6	12.9	13.7	3.0	0.5	7.27
F	6'6"	Mike Capocci	9.6	1.8	1.4	0.6	0.5	0.2	123.0	11.3	18.5	77.8%	56.3%	33.3%	15.8%	4.74	7.0	13.0	12.7	2.2	3.3	4.44

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	37.6	19.9	4.3	5.1	0.7	0.1	130.8	28.8	7.4	83.9%	48.8%	42.1%	37.4%	4.58	2.8	13.4	33.9	0.2	1.2	2.77
* G	6'3"	Josh Gasser	28.1	4.9	4.1	2.5	0.4	0.1	129.0	11.7	15.7	76.9%	58.1%	37.5%	43.6%	2.36	5.4	14.9	18.0	0.2	1.0	3.22
* F/G	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	25.9	4.0	2.1	1.2	0.5	0.1	130.4	9.6	9.4	100.0%	40.0%	34.1%	89.1%	3.04	5.5	5.8	8.8	0.3	1.2	1.75
* F	6'10"	Jon Leuer	35.3	18.5	7.6	1.6	0.4	0.5	110.8	30.6	11.4	92.6%	51.2%	31.1%	26.9%	2.38	6.3	24.0	12.3	1.5	0.8	2.42
* F	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	32.0	11.7	4.5	0.6	0.5	1.1	131.0	17.1	9.4	85.7%	45.8%	49.4%	62.6%	1.71	6.7	13.1	4.2	4.1	1.0	2.92
F	6'6"	Mike Bruesewitz	15.8	3.2	1.9	0.7	0.3	0.1	109.1	14.9	16.0	85.7%	54.5%	26.1%	51.1%	1.56	9.1	7.2	8.6	0.9	1.4	3.88
G/F	6'6"	Ryan Evans	10.3	2.4	1.4	0.2	0.3	0.2	91.7	17.4	18.4	83.3%	39.4%	-	0.0%	3.64	4.3	14.7	4.0	2.2	1.8	4.39
G/F	6'4"	Rob Wilson	8.1	0.7	0.6	0.3	0.1	0.0	50.1	15.1	15.7	100.0%	22.2%	0.0%	55.0%	2.00	1.5	9.6	6.2	0.0	0.7	4.94
F/C	6'10"	Jared Berggren	6.9	1.0	1.0	0.2	0.0	0.6	77.6	15.3	11.1	50.0%	41.7%	0.0%	33.3%	2.22	6.6	13.6	4.7	9.7	0.0	7.71

Northwestern Big Ten Stats:

	Efficiency	Pace	TO %	Reb %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	105.0 (#7)	62.8 (#6)	16.0 (#3)	25.1 (#10)	28.4 (#10)	36.0 (#6)	47.9 (#11)	71.7 (#7)	12.8 (#10)	7.5 (#5)
Defense	113.7 (#11)	62.8 (#6)	18.9 (#3)	65.6 (#10)	40.4 (#10)	38.6 (#9)	55.9 (#11)	70.0 (#3)	8.5 (#6)	9.7 (#2)

Wisconsin Big Ten Stats:

	Efficiency	Pace	TO %	Reb %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	117.8 (#1)	56.2 (#11)	12.1 (#1)	30.4 (#8)	28.6 (#9)	36.9 (#5)	48.7 (#8)	85.8 (#1)	7.2 (#1)	5.9 (#1)
Defense	105.0 (#4)	56.2 (#11)	15.5 (#9)	72.5 (#1)	32.4 (#6)	34.6 (#3)	48.7 (#5)	77.0 (#11)	7.5 (#7)	5.5 (#11)

My Predictions:
1. The Badgers attempt more than 14 free throws. Northwestern fouls a lot.

2. The Badgers turn the ball over less than 10% of the possessions. Wisconsin overachieves against Northwestern decent turnover-producing ability.

3. Leuer scores more than 20. Luka Mirkovic may drain a 17 footer in the first 2 minutes of the game and act like the shot just won the national championship, but Jon easily dominates in the match-up.

My Expectations: The Badgers blowout Northwestern by a score of 73-52 in 57 possessions.

Penn State Pre-Game Analysis

2011-02-20T00:19:00.001-06:00

Opening Comments: I'm making this quick and short. I honestly almost forgot to make this, as my attention has been squarely focused on something else going on in Madison.

What the Expert Nerds Say: Ken Pomeroy predicts a 64-53 Badger victory in 52 possessions, with a 10% chance of upset.

Jeff Sagarin predicts a 13-point Badger victory.

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	38.7	20.7	3.8	3.2	1.0	0.0	115.5	28.7	9.6	76.3%	53.8%	34.1%	57.5%	3.65	1.2	12.1	22.0	0.0	1.7	1.99
* G	6'1"	Tim Frazier	30.7	5.4	3.7	5.4	0.9	0.1	97.6	18.2	26.9	74.3%	37.7%	23.1%	19.7%	5.30	2.5	14.0	35.7	0.5	2.0	3.63
* G	6'4"	David Jackson	34.0	10.7	5.1	0.6	0.5	0.2	109.1	17.5	14.7	84.8%	43.9%	40.0%	51.3%	2.82	5.2	15.5	3.7	0.7	1.0	2.94
* F	6'8"	Jeff Brooks	34.8	14.0	5.9	2.0	0.9	1.6	126.8	20.4	14.8	81.1%	65.6%	38.5%	21.8%	3.11	9.1	14.2	14.7	5.6	1.8	2.12
* F	6'10"	Andrew Jones	36.7	6.5	5.5	0.7	0.2	0.1	104.5	14.5	21.3	50.0%	58.2%	-	0.0%	3.88	9.9	15.4	5.2	0.2	0.4	4.12
F	6'8"	Billy Oliver	14.8	2.1	1.6	0.4	0.1	0.3	81.6	14.2	20.9	61.5%	31.6%	20.0%	44.1%	3.82	7.9	6.6	5.7	2.3	0.6	7.15
G	6'5"	Cammeron Woodyard	10.9	2.1	1.6	0.3	0.1	0.1	99.4	13.0	4.0	100.0%	58.3%	16.7%	60.0%	0.67	4.2	15.6	6.4	0.9	0.5	0.92

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	20.4	4.5	4.9	0.6	0.1	132.1	28.5	8.0	83.7%	50.5%	42.6%	39.3%	4.97	2.4	14.2	32.7	0.2	1.1	2.76
* G	6'3"	Josh Gasser	27.1	4.4	4.2	2.5	0.4	0.0	128.6	11.4	12.2	66.7%	53.6%	36.8%	40.4%	1.91	5.7	16.0	18.1	0.0	1.0	3.3
* F/G	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	26.5	4.2	2.2	1.3	0.5	0.1	137.6	9.2	8.8	100.0%	33.3%	36.1%	92.3%	3.59	4.7	6.5	9.4	0.3	1.2	1.98
* F	6'10"	Jon Leuer	35.0	18.7	7.1	1.4	0.5	0.5	110.0	30.9	12.0	91.5%	49.7%	34.6%	26.1%	2.36	6.2	21.9	10.9	1.7	0.9	2.37
* F	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	31.8	10.8	4.6	0.6	0.5	1.2	127.1	17.1	10.0	89.5%	44.7%	46.2%	63.1%	1.84	7.5	12.5	4.3	4.1	1.1	3.28
F	6'6"	Mike Bruesewitz	16.8	3.5	1.9	0.7	0.4	0.2	109.2	15.2	12.7	85.7%	54.5%	22.7%	50.0%	1.59	9.2	6.4	8.4	1.0	1.6	3.1
G/F	6'6"	Ryan Evans	9.5	2.5	1.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	97.7	17.8	19.3	87.5%	46.4%	-	0.0%	2.86	3.3	14.8	5.3	1.8	1.1	5.2
G/F	6'4"	Rob Wilson	8.5	0.8	0.7	0.3	0.1	0.0	50.2	15.8	15.7	100.0%	22.2%	0.0%	52.6%	2.11	1.5	9.9	6.5	0.0	0.8	4.71
F/C	6'10"	Jared Berggren	7.2	1.1	1.1	0.2	0.0	0.6	77.4	16.1	11.1	50.0%	41.7%	0.0%	33.3%	2.22	6.8	14.2	5.0	10.0	0.0	8.1

Penn State Stats:

	Efficiency	Pace	TO %	Reb %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	108.0 (#4)	58.4 (#10)	16.2 (#4)	30.8 (#6)	35.0 (#5)	32.8 (#9)	52.2 (#1)	73.0 (#5)	10.3 (#9)	6.4 (#3)
Defense	108.1 (#6)	58.4 (#10)	16.0 (#8)	71.2 (#3)	28.9 (#4)	37.8 (#7)	49.0 (#7)	70.4 (#4)	7.0 (#9)	7.1 (#9)

Wisconsin Stats:

	Efficiency	Pace	TO %	Reb %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	117.7 (#1)	56.4 (#11)	12.3 (#1)	30.2 (#8)	29.4 (#7)	36.9 (#5)	48.5 (#8)	85.6 (#1)	8.1 (#3)	6.0 (#1)
Defense	104.5 (#4)	56.4 (#11)	14.9 (#11)	71.3 (#2)	34.5 (#7)	31.2 (#2)	48.4 (#5)	79.0 (#11)	7.5 (#8)	5.5 (#11)

My Expectations:
1. The Badgers hold Penn State to less than 49% shooting inside the arc. The Badgers shut down PSU's inside game.

2. Keaton shoots better than 49% from deep. He's had a few rough outings (comparatively to his average) lately and I think he comes back with a bang.

3. Talor Battle scores less than 15 points. I think Jordan et al. shut him down.

My Predictions: The Badgers avenge their loss, trouncing Penn State to the tune of 66-51 in 54 possessions.

Big Ten Aerial 2

2011-02-15T21:36:00.002-06:00

Inbounds Plays

2011-02-14T12:24:00.002-06:00

Ohio State Box Score Observations

2011-02-13T13:30:00.001-06:00

Opening Comments: Wisconsin won a most important 71-67 home game against Ohio State. This was a major resume builder for the seeding committee to consider, not to mention the staff of the Cousy Award.

Summarizing the game in a few words: Both teams played good offense, but Bo’s strategy of taking the three worked this game.

Pace: The game had 57 thrilling possessions. That was about on par for a UW game.

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? UW clearly had superior offense today. OSU scored at 1.18 PPP. That should win most games, but not this one. Our opponents had been scoring at 1.03 in conference. So, this was a good day for OSU’s offense, or a bad day for UW’s defense. But, when you play the #1 team, you would expect them to score well, and they did.

UW scored an excellent 1.25 PPP. UW has the #1 rated offense in the nation, and proved it. We have been at 1.19PPP in both conference and non conference play.

Shooting: Both teams made 25 FGA’s. UW had the good fortune of making more from deep – 12 to OSU’s 3. Those 9 extra points could not be overcome from the free throw line.

eFG%: OSU posted a 58% eFG%. That is very good. UW out shot them with an even healthier 63%.

3 pt shooting: UW won the game at the arc. UW outshot OSU in both quantity and quality. OSU was 3 of 9 for 33%. UW was 12 of 24, 50%. I like it when both teams keep the math easy. That gave UW an extra 27 points from the arc.

2pt shooting: Inside, OSU did well, as one might expect. OSU was 22 of 37 for 59%. They scored 24 points in the paint, 20 from mid range. UW was 13 of 25 for 52%. Not bad. UW got 16 points in the paint. OSU outscored UW 44 to 26 inside the arc, or by 18 points. That gave UW a net +9 from the floor.

1pt shooting: OSU shot well at the line. They were 14 of 16 for 88%. UW missed 4. Ugh. UW was 9 of 13 for 69%. But, OSU could not profit from the line enough to defeat our superior shooting from deep.

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

UW Makes: 309 Opponent Attempts: 372 Difference: -63

Trevor Mbakwe Challenge:

Having missed 4 FTA today, UW is not behind Trevor by 3 this year. I have faith in UW’s ability to catch him.

Floor Location:

Location UW Opp

Arc 51% 13%

Mid Range 14% 30%

Paint 23% 36%

FT Line 13% 21%

UW killed from deep.

Rebounding: Both teams defended the defensive glass effectively, but UW somewhat better.

UW Defensive end: When OSU shot, there were 22 rebounding opportunities and OSU got 4 for 18%. Excellent work by UW.

UW Offensive End: When UW shot, there were 26 caroms and UW got 6 for 22%. Not good for UW, but not unexpected. UW had two memorable offensive rebounds – One that lead to a Bruesewitz put back and Leuer’s rebound late.

Turnovers: OSU had 7 turnovers for an excellent 12% turnover rate. UW did well with 9 for a 16% rate. That would be good for most teams, but not UW who is typically around 13%.

Opportunity Index: The OI was a wash. UW had two extra offensive rebounds and OSU had two fewer turnovers. OSU had 3 extra second chance points (8 to 5) but UW had one extra point off turnovers – 11 to 10.

Fouls: OSU had the advantage – 14 for OSU, 17 for US. I guess the refs did not find the unmarked envelope behind the trash can with the bills. Someone must look into this oversight.

Playing time: Besides the starters, Evans had 11 minutes and Bruesewitz a life-saving 22.

OSU played their typical short bench. Matta went small and stayed small. Lauderdale only played 6 and Craft 34.

Notable Performances: What can you say about Jordan Taylor. Jordan scored 27 on 13 FGA’s. He had but one lonely turnover but 7 assists. He was 6-9 from the line and grabbed 4 boards. Jordan, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Leuer scored 12 but need 14 FGA’s. He was able to avoid the turnover bug today. Jon, I salute you!

Gasser and Bruesewitz were fantastic. Gasser scored 11 on 5 shots, grabbed 7 boards, and had one turnover. Bruesewitz was also 4-5. He was 2-2 from deep, the last one being one for Badger lore. Josh and Mike, my people are thrilled to know we will be discussing your exploits for years to come. Great job!

For OSU, Sullinger got a 19-12 dub dub. That is a typical outstanding performance this beast. Buford scored 21 on 18 shots and one turnover. Craft was tough. Unfortunately for him, he will largely be remembered as the guy that could not stop Taylor. But, he is a fine looking player.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Keaton has a Purdue game-like performance, draining more than 3 threes. I think OSU's concern for Jordan and Jon combined with their bigs being uncomfortable on the perimeter makes for a great night for Keaton. Miss. Keaton was 1-6 from deep

2. The Badgers grab more than 77% of the defensive rebounding opportunities. No one that plays more than 15 minutes a game for the Buckeyes other than Sullinger grabs a lot of boards, especially on the offensive end. Hit. Got 78%.

3. Jared Sullinger scores less than 20 points or has an efficiency below 1.00 PPP if he has +20. The Badgers formally welcome the "diaper dandy" to the Kohl Center... where winning streaks go to die. Hit and miss. He scored 19, but only needed 12 possessions to do it (12 FGA’s, 4 FTA’s, -3 off rebounds, and one TO).

My Prediction: The Badgers ruin another Buckeye team's hope for a perfect season, willing their way to a 65-63 win in 55 possessions. Hit. 71-67 in 57.

Closing Thoughts: Whew! What a game. Great job by all.

Ohio State Pre-Game Analysis

2011-02-11T18:15:00.000-06:00

Opening Comments: Well, the Badgers survived the trap game at Iowa that I was uncharacteristically wrong about. I predicted a blowout of sorts. But I’ll fall back on asserting that it would have been a blowout if Wisconsin actually made some of the wide open shots Iowa was giving up left and right in the first half. So now the Badgers will take on the Buckeyes of Ohio State, a team that I would love to hate, but I generally can’t find any reasons why. Wisconsin has had a fair amount of success against them, Thad Matta doesn’t seem to be a bad or annoying person, and former walk-on Mark Titus’ Club Trillion blog and general antics certainly helped. Nonetheless, the Buckeyes enter the game as the only remaining undefeated team in Division 1, sitting with a record of 24-0, 11-0 in the Big Ten. But like the Badgers on Wednesday night, Ohio State has had struggles with Big Ten foes. They had close calls with a 5-point vitctory at Iowa, 3-point victory at home against Minnesota, 4-point victory at Michigan, 1-point victory at Northwestern, 3-point victory at home against Penn State, and a 5-point victory at Illinois. Somehow in the middle of all those grind-it-out wins was a 23-point drubbing of Purdue. We’ll see what happens Saturday afternoon.

What the Expert Nerds Say: Ken Pomeroy predicts a 61-60 Badger loss, with a 49% chance of upset. In other words, his formulas suggest flipping a coin.

Jeff Sagarin predicts a 0.75-point Ohio State victory. Keep in mind that home court only gives an extra 3.91 points to the Badgers, or any other team, in his calculations. Again, flip a coin.

Ohio State Idol:
Aaron Craft, Jared Sullinger, and Jon Diebler
Steven: Dream On! Dream On! Dream Ooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn... about going to Los Angeles for the next round.
Jennifer: Hello, my name is Hennifer Lopez and I eat tacos and burritos.
Randy: Yo dog, you should dump this Craft kid. He's dragging you down. I love the enthusiasm from you though, Jared. JLo, why are you the hand of some fat kid?

Dallas Lauderdale
Steven: Were your parents in Texas 9 months before you were born? Cuz your name is Dallas. They probably named you after the city they bumped uglies in.
Jennifer: Taco, taco.
Randy: Yo, that was way better than the last group that was in here, but I can't tell if it's because you're decent or they were that bad. I'm not sure if you're marketable though. You look to be about 45, and the kids these days aren't going to buy a 45-year old's album.

Ohio 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	6'5"	William Buford	33.1	13.8	2.9	2.5	0.5	0.4	117.3	20.7	15.9	84.6%	40.0%	53.1%	43.0%	2.28	2.5	9.0	15.8	1.2	1.0	3.08
* G	6'6"	Jon Diebler	38.4	10.0	2.5	2.5	1.1	0.1	136.1	11.2	12.0	78.6%	42.9%	47.5%	81.3%	1.87	1.5	6.8	12.1	0.2	1.8	1.14
* G/F	6'5"	David Lighty	32.9	12.0	3.7	3.1	1.4	0.6	110.4	21.9	18.4	66.7%	50.0%	37.5%	34.0%	5.43	5.8	9.0	18.4	2.1	2.6	2.98
* F	6'8"	Dallas Lauderdale	14.5	3.8	2.3	0.3	0.1	1.0	112.7	12.7	21.8	16.7%	80.0%	-	0.0%	4.80	8.3	12.4	3.7	7.8	0.3	6.04
* F	6'9"	Jared Sullinger	35.6	18.5	10.4	1.8	0.8	0.5	118.2	27.0	11.3	65.5%	55.8%	20.0%	3.7%	6.49	11.7	26.5	11.5	1.7	1.4	2.86
G	6'2"	Aaron Craft	30.2	8.5	2.7	4.4	1.5	0.1	101.8	19.8	30.7	69.7%	51.5%	44.4%	42.9%	5.24	0.7	11.1	26.7	0.3	3.2	4.70
F	6'6"	Deshaun Thomas	12.1	5.3	2.6	0.3	0.3	0.2	97.5	27.6	17.2	75.0%	48.8%	21.4%	25.5%	2.18	14.9	13.8	4.9	1.7	1.4	3.61

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	38.2	20.3	4.5	4.7	0.7	0.0	128.9	29.1	7.5	86.3%	47.8%	40.7%	39.1%	4.83	2.9	13.7	31.6	0.0	1.3	2.99
* G	6'3"	Josh Gasser	25.6	3.9	3.6	2.6	0.4	0.0	133.3	11.1	11.3	62.5%	61.9%	28.6%	40.0%	2.29	5.8	13.9	20.8	0.0	1.0	3.3
* F/G	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	28.6	4.7	2.3	1.5	0.5	0.1	138.9	9.4	7.1	100.0%	33.3%	36.4%	91.7%	3.89	4.7	6.2	9.9	0.3	1.3	2.03
* F	6'10"	Jon Leuer	35.4	18.9	7.5	1.6	0.5	0.5	109.3	31.6	13.2	93.0%	49.2%	35.6%	26.9%	2.57	6.3	23.1	12.9	1.7	0.9	2.16
* F	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	31.8	11.7	4.8	0.5	0.6	1.4	134.8	16.8	9.6	89.5%	50.0%	52.8%	62.4%	2.24	7.3	13.6	3.9	4.9	1.4	3.31
F	6'6"	Mike Bruesewitz	16.7	2.8	1.7	0.7	0.5	0.2	105.2	13.9	8.8	80.0%	52.9%	17.6%	50.0%	1.47	8.8	5.3	8.9	1.2	1.9	2.83
G/F	6'4"	Rob Wilson	8.8	0.9	0.6	0.3	0.1	0.0	49.4	16.2	11.1	100.0%	22.2%	0.0%	52.6%	1.05	0.0	8.8	7.1	0.0	0.9	5.06
F/C	6'10"	Jared Berggren	7.6	1.3	1.3	0.2	0.0	0.7	88.4	16.7	6.2	50.0%	41.7%	0.0%	25.0%	2.50	8.3	16.7	6.0	10.6	0.0	7.06
G/F	6'6"	Ryan Evans	7.6	1.8	0.9	0.2	0.1	0.2	90.7	16.9	25.0	100.0%	47.4%	-	0.0%	1.05	3.2	13.3	5.3	2.7	0.8	6.19

Ohio State Big Ten Stats:

Ohio State	Efficiency	Pace	TO %	Reb %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	114.6 (#2)	63.0	17.6 (#6)	32.7 (#4)	42.0 (#2)	43.8 (#1)	51.6 (#3)	66.7 (#11)	6.2 (#5)	6.9 (#4)
Defense	99.3 (#1)	63.0	21.9 (#1)	69.5 (#7)	23.2 (#1)	32.7 (#3)	50.6 (#8)	77.0 (#7)	5.5 (#8)	9.1 (#3)

Wisconsin Big Ten Stats:

Wisconsin	Efficiency	Pace	TO %	Reb %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	117.2 (#1)	56.8	11.1 (#1)	28.5 (#9)	30.4 (#7)	37.3 (#5)	47.7 (#9)	86.9 (#1)	4.3 (#1)	5.7 (#1)
Defense	102.1 (#3)	56.8	15.8 (#8)	71.9 (#1)	34.5 (#7)	31.0 (#2)	47.4 (#4)	77.2 (#8)	6.0 (#7)	6.0 (#11)

Big Ten Aerial:

The Big Ten has had a very defensive-oriented past few days, as the equilibrium efficiency has dropped from 108.7 to 108.0. The axes have been moved accordingly. Even with the Badgers' rough day shooting, they still have a commanding lead in offensive efficiency and improved on defensive, lowering by 1 point. If things hold true, we may only see Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Purdue, and Minnesota in the big dance. Not the MSU missing it is a disappointment. Quite the contrary.

My Expectations:
1. Keaton has a Purdue game-like performance, draining more than 3 threes. I think OSU's concern for Jordan and Jon combined with their bigs being uncomfortable on the perimeter makes for a great night for Keaton.

2. The Badgers grab more than 77% of the defensive rebounding opportunities. No one that plays more than 15 minutes a game for the Buckeyes other than Sullinger grabs a lot of boards, especially on the offensive end.

3. Jared Sullinger scores less than 20 points or has an efficiency below 1.00 PPP if he has +20. The Badgers formally welcome the "diaper dandy" to the Kohl Center... where winning streaks go to die.

My Prediction: The Badgers ruin another Buckeye team's hope for a perfect season, willing their way to a 65-63 win in 55 possessions.

Big Ten Aerial

2011-02-11T17:50:00.002-06:00

Iowa Pre-Game Analysis

2011-02-10T15:53:00.000-06:00

Opening Comments: Does it ever get old beating the crap out of Michigan State? I'm gonna go with no. Although I was disappointed that Izzo stayed in his chair for the last 7 minutes or so minutes of the first half and all of the second. I didn't get my money's worth in yelling at him. But I did get in a "Get that midget off the court" and a "Izzo, why don't you go shoot some free throws". It'll have to do until next year. Up next is Iowa in Iowa City. They are 10-13 and 3-8 in the Big Ten, riding their first winning streak since the week before their first semester finals, as they beat MSU by 20 at home last Wednesday and then took down Indiana by 1 in Bloomington on Saturday. As you may notice, I have retooled the player bad/average/great colors. It was readjusted to Big Ten averages, hence an offensive rating of 118 isn't considered great anymore because average is 108.7 and a 16% turnover rate isn't considered great anymore because the Big Ten average is 17.5%.

What the Expert Nerds Say: Ken Pomeroy predicts a 65-57 Badger victory in 59 possessions, with an 18% chance of upset.

Jeff Sagarin predicts 7-point Badger victory.

Be Careful What You Wish For:
Tom Davis = 13 seasons with a 0.658 winning percentage, 0.543 in the Big Ten; nine NCAA Tournament appearances with a 13-9 record, two Sweet 16s, and one Elite 8; two NIT appearances; 24 All-Big Ten selections
After a Sweet 16 appearance, Iowa did not renew his contract because they wanted more success from the program

Steve Alford = 8 seasons with a 0.589 winning percentage, 0.477 in the Big Ten; three NCAA Tournament appearances with a 1-3 record; three NIT appearances; 14 All-Big Ten selections
After a 4th place finish in the Big Ten and a 17-14 record, Iowa chased him out of Iowa City because they wanted more success from the program

Since = 3.5 seasons with a 0.407 winning percentage, 0.277 in the Big Ten; no postseason appearances; 1 All-Big Ten selection

Iowa 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"	Bryce Cartwright	33.3	11.5	2.0	6.6	1.1	0.0	93.2	26.5	25.0	72.0%	44.1%	26.1%	18.4%	2.00	1.0	6.7	41.6	0.0	1.9	1.75
* G	6'5"	Matt Gatens	35.5	14.1	1.8	1.6	1.5	0.3	114.4	18.5	14.2	93.5%	40.7%	43.3%	50.4%	2.61	1.3	5.3	9.4	0.8	2.6	1.44
* G	6'5"	Eric May	23.5	7.0	2.0	0.6	0.7	0.4	92.0	17.5	17.8	63.2%	42.5%	47.1%	29.8%	3.33	3.7	7.1	4.9	1.9	1.8	2.38
* F	6'7"	Jarryd Cole	23.7	6.4	4.8	0.6	0.8	0.5	112.7	13.7	18.6	63.2%	60.4%	-	0.0%	3.96	8.2	17.9	5.2	2.1	2.0	5.82
* F	6'7"	Melsahn Basabe	25.4	13.1	7.5	0.4	0.5	1.4	113.0	25.7	21.1	82.4%	57.3%	-	0.0%	5.73	15.4	22.7	3.2	6.0	1.0	3.87
G/F	6'5"	Roy Devyn Marble	19.5	5.7	2.0	1.5	0.8	0.1	87.2	20.6	16.4	33.3%	38.5%	33.3%	25.7%	2.14	3.5	9.6	15.9	0.5	2.5	2.98
F	6'7"	Zach McCabe	19.0	3.8	2.5	0.9	0.5	0.1	72.5	17.4	31.6	87.5%	43.5%	19.2%	53.1%	1.63	3.6	13.6	8.7	0.5	1.7	3.64
F	6'9"	Andrew Brommer	13.2	3.5	2.4	0.8	0.1	0.4	104.8	15.9	28.9	40.0%	68.0%	-	0.0%	4.00	11.4	11.6	12.3	3.1	0.4	6.35
F	6'9"	Devon Archie	7.6	1.0	2.4	0.4	0.2	0.5	87.4	11.9	33.3	0.0%	62.5%	-	0.0%	5.00	11.7	29.0	9.5	7.4	1.5	4.74

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	37.6	20.7	4.6	4.4	0.8	0.0	132.2	29.3	7.0	87.1%	50.0%	41.5%	39.8%	5.26	3.0	14.4	29.9	0.0	1.5	2.98
* G	6'3"	Josh Gasser	24.6	4.1	3.3	2.5	0.4	0.0	134.1	11.5	12.5	62.5%	63.2%	33.3%	38.7%	2.58	5.1	13.9	20.7	0.0	1.1	3.41
* F/G	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	28.1	4.4	2.1	1.5	0.4	0.1	137.6	9.1	8.3	100.0%	50.0%	35.7%	93.3%	4.00	3.5	7.1	10.3	0.4	1.0	2.14
* F	6'10"	Jon Leuer	34.7	18.9	6.7	1.4	0.4	0.5	111.5	31.4	12.4	92.7%	49.5%	37.5%	27.2%	2.79	5.7	21.7	11.2	1.7	0.8	2.31
* F	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	30.8	11.9	4.9	0.6	0.7	1.3	140.4	17.1	10.8	89.5%	44.4%	57.8%	62.5%	2.64	7.8	14.8	4.5	5.1	1.6	3.64
F	6'6"	Mike Bruesewitz	17.5	2.9	1.7	0.7	0.5	0.2	105.5	13.8	8.8	80.0%	50.0%	18.8%	50.0%	1.56	8.9	4.8	8.1	1.3	2.0	2.74
G/F	6'4"	Rob Wilson	9.6	1.0	0.6	0.4	0.1	0.0	52.8	15.7	11.7	100.0%	22.2%	0.0%	50.0%	1.11	0.0	9.2	7.3	0.0	0.9	5.19
F/C	6'10"	Jared Berggren	7.6	1.3	1.3	0.2	0.0	0.7	88.4	16.7	6.2	50.0%	41.7%	0.0%	25.0%	2.50	8.3	16.7	6.0	10.6	0.0	7.06
G/F	6'6"	Ryan Evans	7.3	1.8	0.8	0.1	0.1	0.1	85.5	17.5	27.7	100.0%	50.0%	-	0.0%	1.25	1.9	13.6	3.0	1.6	0.9	6.58

Iowa Big Ten Team Stats:

Iowa	Efficiency	Pace	TO %	Reb %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	100.3 (#11)	65.8	22.4 (#11)	33.2 (#3)	30.8 (#9)	35.8 (#8)	49.0 (#7)	70.5 (#7)	7.6 (#8)	10.4 (#11)
Defense	111.6 (#8)	65.8	21.8 (#2)	62.8 (#11)	27.2 (#2)	39.1 (#6)	54.1 (#9)	77.1 (#10)	6.4 (#6)	9.5 (#1)

Wisconsin Big Ten Team Stats:

Wisconsin	Efficiency	Pace	TO %	Reb %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	119.5 (#1)	56.8	10.9 (#1)	27.4 (#9)	33.1 (#6)	38.6 (#5)	48.6 (#8)	86.9 (#1)	4.1 (#1)	5.6 (#1)
Defense	103.2 (#3)	56.8	15.8 (#8)	71.8 (#2)	37.0 (#8)	31.9 (#2)	47.8 (#4)	76.6 (#7)	5.9 (#7)	6.2 (#10)

Big Ten Aerial:

The grid axes are set at the Big Ten average PPP. As you can see, all of the teams are either good offense, good defense teams or bad offense, bad defense teams. My circle of mediocrity was supposed to just be a joke, but it actually holds pretty true. All of the 5-6 and 5-5 teams are on or inside the circle, but Indiana and Northwestern are crashing the party as well. Regardless, it really exemplifies how OSU, Purdue, and Wisconsin are running away with the conference by beating up on everyone else. And while I'm sure most of us knew MSU wasn't worthy of their #2 ranking in the preseason, who would have predicted them being this bad? Hell, Ken Pomeroy predicts Wisconsin having a better chance of winning at Iowa than MSU has at beating Iowa in East Lansing. He has them most likely finishing 16-14 and 8-10 in the Big Ten.

My Expectations:

1. Wisconsin turns the ball over less than 11% of the time. Yes, this is their average, but Iowa forces 22% on average.

2. Wisconsin grabs more than 38% of the rebounding opportunities on offense. Iowa has a tiny, tiny frontcourt and I think Bo let's Keaton, Jon, Mike, Jared, and Josh try to take advantage.

3. The Badgers score more than 25 points in the paint. Again... small frontcourt, Jon, Keaton, Jared, etc.

My Prediction: The Badgers win convincingly, 71-55 in 58 possessions.

Iowa Box Score Observations

2011-02-10T15:52:00.000-06:00

Opening Comments: UW won a nail-biting 62-59 overtime game at Carver-Hawkeye arena. Whew! On to OSU Saturday for a big match up.

The box score can be found here.

Summarizing the game in a few words: Defenses dominated on both sides, but UW hit 7 more threes, Iowa 8 more twos, but the extra point one gets making a three was the difference. UW outrebounded Iowa on both ends of the floor and had two fewer turnovers.

Pace: The game had 64 possessions, including the 5 minute over time. I calculated the possessions like this:

Period Possessions

First Half: 29

Second Half: 29

OT: 6

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? This game was the “seek the mean” game to counter the MSU game. Against MSU, everything went in. Here, no so much. We won with defense.

UW scored at .97 PPP and allowed Iowa .92 PPP. We had been scoring at 1.19 PPP and allowing 1.02 PPP in conference. So, this game was a defensive struggle – or perhaps both offenses struggled would say it better.

Here is the efficiency by period:

UW Iowa

First half .62 .79

Second Half 1.21 1.03

OT 1.50 1.00

Game .97 .92

Shooting: UW made 24 shots from the floor and Iowa made 25. But, for UW, 8 were from deep and Iowa only made one from deep. Those extra 7 points offset the one extra made basket and two extra free throws.

eFG%: Iowa hit at 43%, while UW came in at 41%. That was our second worst brickfest of the year (back in November we hit 40.5% against Manhattan). Iowa’s 43% was close to our opponent’s average of 45%, and the 17^th best out of 23 games played.

3 pt shooting: UW hit a miserable 8 of 29 for 28%. Ugh. But, that was better than Iowa’s 1 of 7 for 14%. UW outscored Iowa by 21 outside the arc. That was critical.

2pt shooting: Inside, Iowa was 24 of 53 for 45%. UW made 16 of 39 for 41%. Iowa outscored UW by 10, 32 to 22 in the paint. That was almost fatal. Iowa regained 16 points inside meaning they were a net minus five from the floor.

1pt shooting: Each team missed on FTA and Iowa and two extra chances. Iowa was 8-9 for 89% while UW was 6-7 for 86%. Iowa got two points back at the line, but not enough to overcome the 5 they were down from the field

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

UW Makes: 300 Opponent Attempts: 356 Difference: -56

BTW, UW has attempted 362 free throws and our opponents 356. About even. But, UW has made 300 and our opponents 264.

The Trevor Mbakwe Challenge:

If you are not a loyal reader, we have been tracking who misses more free throws, Trevor Mbakwe or UW’s team. It is a horse race.

UW missed one against Iowa and Trevor did not play. But, both teams now have played 23 games. So, here are the results:

Team Makes. Att Misses

UW: 300 362 62

Trevor: 84 144 60

Diff: 216 218 -2

Another way of looking at this: If Trevor goes on a hot streak and hits 216 of his next 218, he can tie UW.

Floor Location:

This shows how a team’s points are distributed by location on the floor. Let me know if you find this useful – I might drop this feature.

Location UW Opp

Arc 39% 5%

Mid Range 16% 27%

Paint 35% 54%

FT Line 10% 14%

Iowa got 54% of their points in the paint. This Basabe is developing into a nice player. He is going to be a load to deal with for the next 3+ years.

Rebounding: UW did well rebounding this game, on both ends. In the end, Iowa scored 8 second chance points and UW 7.

UW Defensive end: When Iowa shot, there were 36 rebounding opportunities and Iowa got 10, or 28%. That is about on par for a UW conference opponent and better for UW than the national average of 33%.

UW Offensive End: UW grabbed 16 misses. The bad news is we missed a lot. There were 45 rebounding opportunities and UW got 36%.

Turnovers: Iowa had 10 turnovers for 16%. That is doing well protecting the ball. UW did even better puking up only 8 (Leuer had 4 again). UW scored 10 off turnovers to Iowa’s 4.

Opportunity Index: UW ended up with 8 more extra chances. UW had +6 offensive rebounds and +2 on turnovers. UW scored +6 on turnovers and gave one back on second chance points.

Fouls: Neither team fouled much. UW had 11 and Iowa 10. Iowa got to the line more (9 to 7 attempts) and made more (8 to 6).

Playing time: Bo tightened his bench. He only played 8 players, and 6 got double figure minutes. The starters played at least 34 each (Leuer, Taylor and Nankivil all had 42 to 44 minutes) and Evans got 11. Bruesewitz got 9 and Valentyn a surprising 5 crunch time minutes.

Iowa played 8 as well, but all 8 got double digit minutes

Notable Performances: Leuer, my favorite player, had a 19-15 dub-dub. But, he needed 20 FGA and two free throw attempts to get there. He also had 4 turnovers. Ugh. But, such is the life of a high usage player. Jon got 4 offensive rebounds, which acts to negate the four turnovers to some degree. Jon, I salute you!

Taylor, Mrs. Turomon’s favorite player, got 16 on 18 FGA’s and 3 FTA’s. He was awarded 8 assists and had two turnovers.

Keaton hit double figures as well, but needed 13 shots to get there. He was an uncharacteristic 2-8 from deep. This was a blatant attempt to exorcise missed shots before the OSU game on Saturday. Good strategy.

Jarmusz had another efficient game. He scored 8 on 6 shots. He grabbed four offensive rebounds, was credited with an assist, and two steals. He hit an important overtime three that may well have saved the game. From a PPP perspective, he scored 8 on 3 possessions – very efficient. Tim, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Valentyn was 1-1 from the floor, hitting his most important 3 late in the second half. My people will be talking about that for years when we light up a fire. Bo must have had a sense that this was your time to shine.

Gasser got 7 boards, 3 offensive.

For Iowa, Basabe had a 13-11 dub-dub. He needed 11 shots to get there. He also was tagged with two TO’s. Cartwright (I remember, Ben, Adam, Hoss and Little Joe, but not Bryce) left the Ponderosa long enough to knock down 14 on 5-15 shooting.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Wisconsin turns the ball over less than 11% of the time. Yes, this is their average, but Iowa forces 22% on average. Miss. UW turned it over 13%.

2. Wisconsin grabs more than 38% of the rebounding opportunities on offense. Iowa has a tiny, tiny frontcourt and I think Bo let's Keaton, Jon, Mike, Jared, and Josh try to take advantage. Miss, but close. UW had a good 36%.

3. The Badgers score more than 25 points in the paint. Again... small frontcourt, Jon, Keaton, Jared, etc. Miss. UW got 22.

My Prediction: The Badgers win convincingly, 71-55 in 58 possessions. Sort of. 62-59 in 64, with OT.

Closing Thoughts: Iowa seems like they are pointed in the right direction. Fran McCaffery has a team playing well that I did not think could compete before the season started. I guess it should come as no surprise, but the B1G has good coaches. It seems like Bo is going to have to find another gear to keep winning at his amazing pace going forward.

Here is a small lessen on tempo free stats. There was a single possession in the first half that went like this:

17:25 MISSED 3 PTR by Jarmusz, Tim

17:25 REBOUND (OFF) by Leuer, Jon

17:20 MISSED 3 PTR by Gasser, Josh

17:20 REBOUND (OFF) by Nankivil, Keaton

17:16 MISSED JUMPER by Nankivil, Keaton

17:16 REBOUND (OFF) by Taylor, Jordan

17:12 MISSED LAYUP by Taylor, Jordan

17:12 REBOUND (OFF) by Leuer, Jon

17:09 MISSED TIP-IN by Leuer, Jon

17:09 REBOUND (OFF) by Leuer, Jon

17:06 TURNOVR by Leuer, Jon

On this possession, we had 5 missed shots, 5 offensive rebounds and one turnover. The net result was a turnover. If Leuer would have come down the floor and dribbled it off his foot out of bounds, it would have had the same effect. So, when you look at shooting percentage and missed shots, you need to subtract off offensive rebounds. A O-reb is an anti missed shot.

In this game, we shot a miserable 24 of 68 from the field for 35%. But, we got 16 offensive rebounds. That has the effect of negating 16 attempts and brings the shooting down to 24 of 52 – not good, but not so bad. I wish the box score would mention if offensive rebounds came after three point shots, two point shots, or free throws. That would really help the analysis.

UW is going to have to rest up for Saturday. OSU had no mid week game and UW had a road game, in overtime, and a short bench.

UW has that elusive second road win. That is huge. Considering we have a reasonable (50-50?) chance of losing a home game to OSU, we need to bank a few road wins. This game shows how hard road wins are in the B1G, regardless of the opponent.

Big Ten Aerials

2011-02-08T01:33:00.001-06:00

The average PPP is 108.7 so the (0, 0) is set at that.

MSU Box Score Observations 2.0

2011-02-07T02:07:00.000-06:00

Opening Comments: Wisconsin won what turned out to be a laugher 82-56. The question going into the game was which MSU team would show up – the wounded animal cornered and fighting for its life or the dispirited team that Coach Izzo has lost touch with. Apparently it was the later.

[Note: i am taking a chance and doing this game early. I usually wait a few hours in case someone changes the box score, which seems to happen. But, I want to watch the Packers with this in the bank.]

UW scored their 57^th point at 14:29 left in the second half, less than 5 minutes into the second half. That was important because UW could have quit scoring at that point and still won the game.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW had our best shooting day of the year from the floor (see eFG% section), got to the line often, and were deadly when there to further pee in Coach Izzo’s cornflakes, as if he has not had enough of that lately.

Pace: The game had 55 possessions. UW has averaged 58 for the year, 57 in conference.

Efficiency: Was it good offense or good defense? UW played exceptional offense and decent defense.

MSU scored 1.02 PPP. In many years that can win games. Heck, Indiana won one this year scoring .87 PPP against Illinois. MSU’s 1.02 PPP is close to UW’s 1.03 PPP we have given up in conference. Shetown has been tracking conference PPP and they are up this year. So, 1.02 is good defense this year in the B10, not great.

On offense, UW knocked their socks off. UW scored 1.49 PPP. That was our third best performance of the year (1.56 PPP against Northwestern and 1.50 PPP way back in mid November against Prairie View A&M). Yikes! The best any opponent has done against UW this year was 1.19 by Illinois at Illinois.

Shooting: Our shooting was fantastic, as one might expect when scoring 1.49 PPP.

eFG%: UW blew them away with our best performance of the year hitting 73% eFG%. Wow. We are at 50% in conference this year. (Note: eFG% is like a regular FG% except you get 1.5 for a three pointer).

MSU scored at 47%eFG%, about on par with our conference opponents 48% this year.

3 pt shooting: MSU was 3 of 14 for a poor 21%. UW was a stunning 11 of 17 for 65%, our best performance of the year. UW picked up 24 points outside the arc on Sparty.

2pt shooting: Inside the arc, MSU was a tough 17 of 32 for 53%. UW countered that with fewer shots, 22, but about the same percentage, 55%. We made 12. UW outscored MSU in the paint 16 to 14. MSU got back 10 points from the two point range. UW outscored MSU by 14 from the floor.

1pt shooting: MSU was a very good 13 of 16 from the line for 81%. UW was lights out hitting 25 of 26 for 96%. Double yikes! That gave UW another 12 point advantage from the line.

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

UW Makes: 294 Opponent Attempts: 347 Difference: -53

We gained 9 in this game. I doubt we can regain this stat this year. But, I am optimistic about the Trevor Mbakwe Challenge.

Trevor Mbakwe Challenge.

Trevor has missed 60 free throws and UW has missed 61. UW shot 26 today and Trevor 3. Both UW and Trevor missed one.

While I do admire Trevor’s ability to get to the line, his ability to miss is also impressive. UW has shot 355 free throws. Trevor has shot 144. Yet, UW has only missed one more free throw on the year.

Floor Location:

Location UW Opp

Arc 40% 16%

Mid Range 10% 36%

Paint 20% 25%

FT Line 30% 23%

The points from deep were excellent, particularly since we used on 17 shots from deep.

Rebounding: UW outrebounded MSU 24-18 in raw rebounds. But, this game shows why raw rebounding is a misleading stat. In this one, rebounding was more-or-less a draw. That by itself is an accomplishment of sorts for UW, since MSU is known for their rebounding prowess.

UW Defensive end: When MSU shot, there were 26 rebounding opportunities and MSU got 6, or 23%. That is good defensive rebounding by UW. The national average is 33% offensive rebounds. UW usually cedes about 25%.

UW Offensive End: UW shot so well there were few rebounds to be had. There were only 16 offensive rebounding opportunities and UW got 4 or 25%. MSU could have gotten all of them and it would not have mattered much. UW got 9 second chance points to MSU’s 4.

Turnovers: MSU actually won this stat. MSU had 7 to UW’s 8. MSU had 13% TO’s to UW’s 15%. Both good numbers, but we expect good turnover numbers by UW and not MSU. So, I give MSU a victory of sorts on turnovers. UW did a better job of capitalizing on turnovers. UW scored 10 to MSU’s 5.

Opportunity Index: UW lost the OI by 3. MSU got 2 more offensive rebounds and one fewer turnover. But, UW outscored MSU by 5 off turnovers and 5 more on second chance points.

Fouls: MSU was whistled for 20 and UW 16. In conference games, we have been averaging 16 and our opponents 17.

Playing time: Bo emptied his bench and played 13 players. Eight played ten or more minutes. Evans, Bruesewitz and Wilson all hit double figures.

Izzo was searching for the right combination and played 9 ten or more minutes. Nix, a starter, only played 7.

Notable Performances: This could take awhile to do it justice.

Taylor had a fantastic offensive game. He scored 30 on 13 FGA’s and 9-10 from the line (his lone miss causing us to not catch Trevor Mbakwe in the challenge). He had 6 assists and one lonely turnover. Jordan, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people. Mrs. Turomon is holding her head high knowing she made a good choice for favorite players.

My favorite player, Jon Leuer, score 20 on 14 FGA’s, 4-4 from the line. He added 6 rebounds. He had 4 nasty turnovers, which do not seem like a big thing in a 26 point blowout.

Keaton was his usual efficient self – maybe more so. He scored 11 on 3-3 shooting (this must be a mistake because I remember him missing a shot wide left – unless they called that a turnover). Keaton, I salute you.

Jarmusz had another highly efficient game – which is what we expect out of Tim. He scored 9 on 1-1 shooting (a trey), made 6-6 from the line, no turnovers, chipped in the team’s only two offensive rebounds, and basically shut down Summers. My people have a fondness in their hearts for your style of play and will be discussing your exploits for years to come. As said in the past, TJ may do the best job in Badger history at exploiting his strengths and avoiding weaknesses – an admirable trait.

Gasser joined the efficiency parade scoring 5 on two shots, one three. He chipped in two boards as well.

For MSU, Lucas came to play scoring 20 on 14 shots. Appling got 6 on three shots, but will have to deal with severe burn marks from trying to guard Taylor.

Summers scored 7, but needed 12 shots to do it. Jarmusz gets most of the credit defending Summers, if my memory serves me correctly.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Draymond Green scores less than 11 points. With his new found confidence, Ryan assists Keaton in shutting down Draymond. Miss. Green got 13. But, he needed 10 shots and 6 free throws to get there. He also contributed two turnovers – not a winning stat line.

2. The Badgers hit more than 38% of their threes. With the home environment and the quality of deep looks MSU gave up last time, the Badgers will make it rain from beyond the arc. Major Hit. UW hit a stunning 65%.

3. The Badgers grab make than 72% of the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end. MSU fans will call it home cooking from the money hidden in the 3rd trash canister to the left of Gate A, I call it actually blowing the whistle when an over the back occurs. Hit. UW got 77%.

My Prediction: The Badgers make Tom Izzo curl up in a ball on the floor of his hotel shower crying his eyes out like Tobias, with a 73-56 victory in 60 possessions. Hit. UW won 82 to 56 in 55 possessions. Nice job predicting MSU’s score. We may never know what Coach Izzo does in his hotel room.

Closing Thoughts: That was a great win. I know MSU has been reeling, but one never knows what will happen and UW successfully kicked them when they were down. It will be interesting to see if MSU can right the ship or if they will sink below the waves and visit Davey Jones’ locker (NIT?).

This upcoming Iowa game will be interesting. They are coming off a rare road win at Indiana and have been playing well. This is a big chance for UW to get another road win under our belts before OSU comes to town. We will need a few to reach 11 or 12 conference wins. This is one we need to secure.

If UW plays boring basketball, what does that say about MSU and the other 17 teams we beat?

UW was ranked #2 in the nation in offense going into this game, per ken Pomeroy (Link). This game will only help that rating. We do indeed have a blue ribbon offense.

As always, point out those typos and errors.

Your thoughts?

Michigan State Pre-Game Analysis

2011-02-05T14:37:00.000-06:00

Opening Comments: This is quite the doubleheader for Wisconsin sports fans on Sunday... maybe the best ever with the Badgers taking on arch rival Michigan State and the Packers playing in the Super Bowl. Despite my best efforts in protest, my two buddies are going to the game tomorrow in Packers jerseys. I don't think it reflects well when the Badgers are playing a team that will be wearing green. Alas, the Badgers are facing a Michigan State squad that has been reeling since they beat the Badgers in East Lansing. They have gone 2-4 in the weeks following, dropping their record to 13-9 and 5-5 in the Big Ten, with their last game being a 20-point blowout loss at conference doormat Iowa. The team showed absolutely no heart or effort in the game which makes begs the question, will Michigan State make the tournament? At this point, I would say no. It should be interesting to see what kind of team shows up at the Herb Garden... a rapid, wounded animal or one that's dead on arrival.

What the Expert Nerds Say: Ken Pomeroy predicts a 66-55 Badger victory in 57 possessions, with a 12% of upset.

Jeff Sagarin predicts a 10-point Badger victory.

Possible Reasons for MSU's Fall from Grace:
1. Departure of Raymar Morgan and Chris Allen... No, MSU fans hated Morgan and Allen was replaced with Appling
2. Dismissal of Korie Lucious... No, they were playing like #2 before he was ditched, and I don't mean #2 in the nation (pun credited to Gary Parrish)
3.Kalin Lucas Not Recoving to Pre-Injury Form... No, his numbers are roughly the same as the previous two seasons
4. Izzo Not Whining Enough to the Refs... No, he's in top form this season
5. Not Practicing in Football Pads Anymore... No, Draymond Green still excels at pushing other players in the back to get a rebound

They must just suck then.

Michigan 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 %
* G	6'1"	Kalin Lucas	33.8	16.5	2.1	3.7	0.9	0.2	105.6	27.9	14.9	86.0%	42.2%	36.4%	23.2%	3.03	1.7	6.2	27.3	0.6	1.7
* G	6'1"	Keith Appling	24.7	5.2	3.1	1.3	0.6	0.9	93.5	12.4	30.1	100.0%	42.9%	36.4%	70.2%	0.85	3.3	11.0	9.3	3.7	1.4
* G	6'5"	Durrell Summers	31.3	11.9	4.0	0.5	0.7	0.2	97.4	20.7	14.8	72.7%	39.5%	33.8%	61.3%	1.98	3.3	13.0	3.6	0.7	1.4
* F	6'6"	Draymond Green	33.5	14.8	8.2	4.2	1.8	1.2	111.1	26.2	16.7	72.2%	48.3%	37.5%	26.4%	2.98	10.0	20.7	30.7	4.1	3.4
* F	6'8"	Delvon Roe	27.6	7.0	6.1	1.5	1.2	1.4	119.7	14.6	12.6	58.1%	54.2%	-	0.0%	6.46	12.1	15.2	11.3	5.8	2.7
C	6'9"	Derrick Nix	9.3	4.7	2.8	0.4	0.1	0.2	116.2	26.0	17.6	57.1%	62.5%	-	0.0%	8.75	19.2	17.1	12.1	2.7	0.7
G	6'5"	Austin Thornton	8.7	0.6	2.1	0.8	0.4	0.8	63.0	11.0	26.6	66.7%	28.6%	0.0%	41.7%	7.41	7.9	22.6	6.2	0.0	2.2
C	6'10"	Adreian Payne	6.9	1.7	1.4	0.0	0.2	0.5	98.0	14.9	25.0	50.0%	58.3%	-	0.0%	5.00	11.7	13.3	0.0	8.3	1.8
C	6'10"	Garrick Sherman	6.3	0.6	0.9	0.3	0.0	0.3	73.4	9.1	55.5	75.0%	66.7%	-	0.0%	13.33	1.8	16.6	8.8	5.4	0.0
G	6'4"	Mike Kebler	5.4	0.2	0.4	0.3	0.0	0.1	60.4	7.1	33.3	-	20.0%	-	0.0%	0.00	2.1	7.2	10.0	2.1	0.0

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 %
* G	6'1"	Jordan Taylor	37.9	19.7	5.0	4.8	0.9	0.0	127.6	28.5	7.2	86.7%	47.9%	38.8%	40.8%	5.00	3.1	15.3	27.9	0.0	1.6
* G	6'3"	Josh Gasser	23.7	4.0	3.4	2.8	0.4	0.0	129.4	12.6	13.1	62.5%	61.1%	27.3%	37.9%	2.76	5.7	14.6	24.0	0.0	1.3
* G/F	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	28.4	3.9	2.1	1.6	0.4	0.1	126.8	8.6	9.6	100.0%	50.0%	33.3%	93.1%	2.07	2.6	7.7	10.6	0.4	1.1
* F	6'10"	Jon Leuer	35.2	18.8	6.8	1.4	0.3	0.6	112.2	30.5	11.0	91.9%	49.5%	36.1%	27.1%	2.78	5.9	20.9	11.3	1.8	0.6
* F	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	31	12.0	5.3	0.7	0.7	1.4	138.1	17.5	8.6	88.2%	44.4%	54.8%	60.9%	2.46	8.2	15.7	5.0	5.6	1.5
F	6'6"	Mike Breusewitz	17.8	3.2	1.4	0.7	0.6	0.2	102.9	14.6	9.0	80.0%	50.0%	18.8%	50.0%	1.56	8.4	2.6	7.7	1.5	2.2
G/F	6'4"	Rob Wilson	9.4	2.8	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
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%	2.67	8.8	17.9	6.8	11.7	0.0
G/F	6'6"	Ryan Evans	7	1.8	0.8	0.1	1.1	0.1	82.4	18.0	31.2	-	53.3%	-	0.0%	0.00	2.1	13.4	3.7	1.9	1.1
G	5'10"	Wquinton Smith	4.8	0.3	0.2	0.3	0.0	0.0	115.0	7.3	0.0	0.0%	33.3%	-	0.0%	3.33	4.6	0.0	13.2	0.0	0.0

Michigan State Big Ten Stats:

	Efficiency	TO %	Reb %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	102.9 (#10)	18 (#6)	35.9 (#2)	31.2 (#6)	32.7 (#9)	45.9 (#11)	69.3 (#8)	5.4 (#4)	8.1 (#6)
Defense	107.1 (#5)	17.7 (#5)	71.2 (#3)	34.5 (#7)	40.8 (#9)	48.6 (#7)	69.6 (#4)	9.9 (#2)	9.6 (#2)

Wisconsin Big Ten Stats:

	Efficiency	TO %	Reb %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	116.4 (#1)	10.5 (#1)	27.5 (#10)	30.3 (#7)	36.4 (#7)	48.1 (#8)	85.2 (#1)	4.5 (#1)	5.7 (#1)
Defense	103.3 (#3)	16.2 (#8)	71.3 (#2)	37.2 (#8)	33.1 (#3)	47.2 (#4)	76.1 (#7)	6.6 (#5)	6.4 (#10)

Pace: The Badgers have averaged 57 possessions per game in conference play and Michigan State has averaged 65.

My Expectations:

1. Draymond Green scores less than 11 points. With his new found confidence, Ryan assists Keaton in shutting down Draymond.

2. The Badgers hit more than 38% of their threes. With the home environment and the quality of deep looks MSU gave up last time, the Badgers will make it rain from beyond the arc.

3. The Badgers grab make than 72% of the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end. MSU fans will call it home cooking from the money hidden in the 3rd trash canister to the left of Gate A, I call it actually blowing the whistle when an over the back occurs.

My Prediction: The Badgers make Tom Izzo curl up in a ball on the floor of his hotel shower crying his eyes out like Tobias, with a 73-56 victory in 60 possessions.

Purdue Box Score Observations

2011-02-02T15:17:00.001-06:00

Opening Comments: Wisconsin won a hard-fought home victory 66-59 despite a second half surge by Purdue.

Wisconsin won with the basics: Made their free throws, rebounded well, avoided fouls, avoided turnovers, and played good defense. This is a classic example of a Bo win that he will not get much credit for: They did their thing and out executed their opponent.

Summarizing the game in a few words: Although UW did not shoot well, they compensated by getting up more shots thanks to superior rebounding on both ends of the floor and a decided turnover advantage. While the free throw line was good to UW, it was not decisive, UW outscored PU from the floor and the line.

Pace: The game had 59 possessions. Actually, based upon the formula, PU had 61 and UW 58, which is obviously incorrect. So, my habit is to average the two team’s results, which is how I got to 59 and how it might disagree with Pomeroy and others who only do it team-by-team.

Efficiency: Was it good offense or good defense? UW scored at 1.12 PPP and gave PU 1.00 PPP. Since PU was winning during the last minute, the difference in the game occurred during that time period.

In the first half, UW scored 1.14 PPP and PU only .67 PPP. Then, PU hit 9 of their first 10 shots in the second half, or whatever it was. UW absorbed that blow and came back to win.

Shooting: UW had the unusual situation where they put up more shots from each point on the floor: Beyond the arc, inside the arc, and at the line.

eFG%: PU’s eFG% was 53%, fourth best for an opponent this year. UW was at 48%, 14^th best out of 21 games. But, remember that an offensive rebound undoes a missed shot, which is not captured in eFG%. We rebounded well.

3 pt shooting: Both teams shot about the same percentage, but UW put up more shots. PU was 5 of 13 for 38%. UW was 7 of 18 for 39%. That gave UW a plus 6 points from the arc.

2pt shooting: PU was 18 of 35 for 51%. UW took two extra shots, 37 and made two fewer baskets, 16, for a low 43% from inside the arc. PU outscored UW by one in the paint, 11 to 10. This gave PU a plus 4 points inside the arc but UW was plus two from the floor.

1pt shooting: UW kept up the good free throw shooting. UW was 13 of 16 for 81%, very close to our nation-leading 82%. PU hit 8 of 9 for 89%. They needed to make up more than two points they lost from the field, but gave up 5 at the line for the 7 point game margin.

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

UW Makes: 269 Opponent Attempts: 331 Difference: -62

We actually picked up four this game.

The Trevor Mbakwe Challenge:

We have now caught up to Trevor in games played, 21. Here are the number of free throw misses:

UW: 60

Trevor: 57

Behind: 3

Can we catch him?

Floor Location:

Location UW Opp

Arc 32% 25%

Mid Range 18% 17%

Paint 30% 44%

FT Line 20% 14%

Rebounding: UW ruled the boards on both ends of the floor.

UW Defensive end: There were 24 rebounding opportunities and PU got 4 or only 17%. Not good for them, excellent for UW.

UW Offensive End: When UW shot, there were 33 rebounding opportunities and UW snarfed up 12 for 36%. That is very good for a B1G game.

UW shot 23 of 55 from the floor for 42%. Not good. But, they grabbed 12 offensive rebounds thus negating 12 misses and changing the results to 23 of 43 for 53%.

PU was 23 of 48 for 48%. But, after recovering 4 of their misses, they were at 23 of 44, 52%. Or, they got one extra shot and missed it.

Normally I cannot do this analysis because I do not know if there were offensive rebounds off free throws. In this case, PU missed one free throw, which I believe we got the rebound from. UW missed only 3 FTA, and I am quite sure we did not get rebounds off of those misses.

Turnovers: PU turned the ball over 22% of the time (13 TO’s) to UW’s 12% (7 TO’s). PU did better with their fewer TO’s by scoring 11 points to UW’s 10. But, they also had 6 fewer opportunities to press their superior eFG% against UW.

Opportunity Index: UW was a plus 14, second best of the year. We were plus 8 on offensive rebounds and plus 6 on turnovers. From a points perspective, UW outscored PU by 5 on second chance points and gave one back off turnovers for a net plus 4.

Fouls: PU out fouled UW 19 to 11. Those extra 8 fouls lead to UW taking 7 more free throws and making 5 extra shots.

Playing time: Bo played 8 in total, 7 got more than ten minutes (Smith had a quality 6 minutes). Evans had a productive 19 minutes. Taylor, Leuer and Gasser all had more than 35 minutes.

Painter had a similar rotation playing 10 in total and 7 more than 10 minutes. Johnson and Moore played 39 and 38 respectively.

Notable Performances: Leuer and Taylor shouldered the load, per usual. Leuer had a dub dub with 24 points on 18 shots (6-6 from the line), and 13 rebounds. He was tagged for 4 of UW’s 7 turnovers. Taylor got 15 on 13 shots, 6-8 from the line, and 7 boards. He got two of UW’s TO’s (Jarmusz the other). Mrs. Turomon reminded me that she chose Taylor as her favorite player last night. Jon and Jordan, I salute you!

Evans and Gasser came up big. Evans scored 10 on 9 shots, but were they ever timely. He chipped in a rebound and avoided any nasty turnovers. Evans had a major defensive play in the lane late tying up the PU player (was it Moore?), hit a key two pointer from the free throw line to take the lead, and scored on a breakaway dunk to put the game away. Gasser was an ultra productive 4-4 from the field, 11 points, four boards and no turnovers. Ryan and Josh, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Keaton had a quiet day scoring 6 on 6 shots. But, he had two offensive boards and no turnovers along with a block and a steal. Q came in and played a solid game for 6 important minutes.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

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. Miss. They hit 39% of their deep balls. Close, but no cigar.

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. Miss. He was the fifth leading scorer on the team with 6. He passed the Boiler-killer baton to Gasser and Evans.

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. Hit. They got a great 83%.

My Prediction: The Badgers rebound, escaping with a 66-64 victory in 58 possessions. Hit. UW’s 66 was right on, you gave PU more credit with 64 than they deserved (59 actual points), and the possessions was close (I have 59).

Closing Thoughts: Good win. PU is a top ranked team and UW ground out the win by doing what we do – stick to the game plan and win.

I hope we can beat then in West Lafayette so Bo can even his record against the Boilers at 8-8.

We still have a home game against OSU coming up, which we have a decent chance of losing. We only have one road win so far – NU. So, we must start piling up some other road wins against our remaining competition – Iowa, Purdue, Michigan, Indiana and OSU. But first, we must take out MSU Sunday.

I remember when Taylor was a freshman there were threads about how he could not score and was a wasted scholarship. Anyone want to admit to that? Raise your hands. Taylor’s offense was rather poor. He had a Pomeroy o-rating of 81. Now it is 131, one of the best in the nation. In my opinion, posters concentrate on offense too much and focus too much on scoring. Bo expects people to protect the ball and play defense first. Scoring can come later, if at all.

As long as players are efficient, they need to be prolific. If a player disappears for a few games, no problem as long as they are efficient.

When UW drops a game, people come out of the woodwork spewing their pent up venom directed at our players. Ugh. I guess you will need to bottle that up for another game and release it some other time.

Purdue Pre-Game Analysis

2011-01-31T05:07:00.001-06:00

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

2011-01-30T22:49:00.000-06:00

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

2011-01-28T22:42:00.001-06:00

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

2011-01-25T16:53:00.000-06:00

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.