Michigan 2.0 Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: Yet another great resume building win for UW. I guess you can look at it after the fact and say they easily outmatched a dispirited UM team. But, all road wins are great wins and winning 66-44 – by 18 – on their floor is a big win indeed. Doing it on national TV gets style points.

UW’s guards destroyed UM (see notable performances below). Being a perimeter oriented team is not a bad deal when your shots are going down.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW shot lights-out from deep and buried UM.

Pace: The game had 50 possessions, our fewest of the year (tied with @NU).

If you look at Pomeroy’s stats (Link), note that everything has a ranking and a color code to show good versus bad, except pace. You might have a personal preference for the pace you like to watch, but there is no sense of good or bad from a statistical sense. It is simply a descriptor necessary to add context to the game. Try to avoid using words like "better" or "improve" when referring to pace.

Efficiency: Was it offense or defense? It was a major dose of both.

When UM had the ball, they scored at .88 PPP. They average 1.00 in B10 play (#6). UW has given up .93 in B10 play (#1). It was our third best in conference (.81 @PSU, home with Michigan .83).

UW scored a fantastic 1.24 PPP. That matched our output against MSU to cap a great offensive week. We have averaged 1.05 (#4 in conference) and UM tends to bleed at .98 PPP (#6). That is a great offensive day any way you cut it.

Here is a look at the efficiency margins for conference games only (not counting this weekend):

Efficency Margin

Wis 0.12

MSU 0.10

OSU 0.09

PU 0.08

Illini 0.05

Mich 0.02

Minn (0.04)

NU (0.06)

Ind (0.10)

Iowa (0.13)

PSU (0.15)

Shooting: Both teams hit about the same percentage inside the arc and at the line, but UW killed from the arc.

eFG%: UW had a stunning 67%, our second best of the year. UW, in conference, has been shooting at 48.8 eFG% (#7). UM defense has been giving up 48.2.

On the other end, UM had an eFG% of 46%. UW gives their opponents 46.2, #3 in conference. UM hits 48.2%, #6.

3 pt shooting: UM hit 2-11 for 18%. That is really bad, particularly for a typically perimeter oriented team. Although, they normally don’t shoot well hitting 29%. In this game, UM only took 28% of their shots from deep, less than their typical 44% (#11 in nation).

Meanwhile, UW was lights-out from deep. UW hit 11 of 21 for 52% from deep. So, UW invested 10 extra shots from deep and was rewarded with 9 extra baskets or 27 point advantage from deep. Yikes!

2pt shooting: UM was a tough 15 of 28 inside the arc. UW took 8 fewer shots (20) and made 4 fewer (11) giving UM an extra 8 points inside the arc. UW and UM had similar shooting percentages (UW-55%; UM-54%).

1pt shooting: Neither team shot well from the line. UM was 8-14 for 57%. UW 7-12 for 58%.

Rebounding: UW ruled the boards on both sides.

UW Defensive end: When Michigan shot, there were 25 rebounding opportunities and UW got 21 (84%) leaving UM only 4 (16%). That is defensive board domination. In conference play, UW has been grabbing 76% of the misses, which is #1 in conference. UM gets 68%, which is #7.

UW Offensive End: When UW shot, there were 23 rebounding opportunities and UW got 8, or 35%. That is a good day by UW standards. UW gets 24%, worst in conference.

UW had a plus four offensive rebound advantage.

Turnovers: Michigan won the turnover battle 8 to 11.

UW had four shot clock violations. I guess when you win by 18, it is no big deal. UW has been averaging 7.9 per game in conference. That is #1, and by a wide margin. The next best is NU at 10.1.

UM beat their average by 4. UM has been averaging 12.0, which is #4 in conference. UW has actually been pretty good in conference generating 11.9 TO’s/game (#6). Normally, we do not get many and do not offer many turnovers. So, a +4 average is most welcomed.

Opportunity Index: UW had a plus 1 OI. The interesting thing was we got it the wrong way – Plus 4 offensive rebounds and minus 3 turnovers. We usually get more turnovers and fewer offensive rebounds. Oh well …

UW took 2 more FGA’s and had 2 fewer FTA, which translates to 1 trip to the line. So, combining the two concepts, UW had one extra possession that ended on a shot and that was due to offensive rebounds. Make sense?

Fouls: UW picked up 14 fouls and UM 11. In conference, we had been averaging 16 (#4 in conference) and our opponents 17 (#6). The odd thing was that there were only three fouls in the first half – 2 for UW, one for UM. Fouling is not the advantage it was a few years ago (Tucker/Taylor years).

Playing time: Bo went 7 deep with Wilson getting 20 and Evans getting 16. Nankivil played only 25 due to foul trouble that came on fast in the second half.

Meanwhile, Michigan played only 5 ten or more minutes.

Notable Performances: I am feeling good about picking Jason Bohannon as my favorite player. He came up big the second game in a row scoring 18 on 11 shots, four rebounds, 5 assists and one turnover. JBO scored 18 on 12 possessions for 1.5 PPP. JBo, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Trevon got 14 on only 6 shots, four boards, but missed 4 free throws and had one turnover. Hughes had 1.4 PPP.

The third guard had a nice day – Taylor scored 13 on 6 FGA’s, 2-4 from the line, 6 rebounds including two offensive, and an uncharacteristic 2 turnovers. That gave Taylor 1.63 PPP.

Adding the three starting guards together, they scored 45 points on 23 FGA’s, 5 trips to the line, two offensive rebounds, 4 turnovers giving them 45 on 30 possessions for 1.5 PPP.

Keaton scored 9 on 8 shots and had 5 boards in 25 minutes.

Sims got 18 points on 15 FGA’s, two one trip to the line, got two offensive boards and two turnovers giving hit 18 on 16 possessions. That is 1.13 PPP.

Harris scored 11 on 11 shots, two trips to the line, and two turnovers giving his 11 on 13 possessions or .85PPP. Jarmusz and Wilson did a fine job on Harris.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. Manny Harris scores less than 15. Timmy J and Ryan team up to frustrate Harris into a shooting night similar to his last 4 contests against the Badgers, in which he has shot a net-scorching 24.5% from the field. Hit. Harris got 11. Wilson spent some time guarding him effectively.

2. Trevon Hughes scores more than 16. He has been an assassin against Michigan lately, scoring 20, 19, and 16 in his past three games against them. Miss. Hughes got 14. When I saw this prediction I figured the Basketball Gods would give him exactly 16 just to keep your record of near misses going.

3. Badgers grab 78% or more of the defensive rebounding opportunities. Michigan doesn’t focus on offensive rebounding and Wisconsin is 3rd in the nation in defensive rebounding. Hit. UW did even better getting 84%/

4. Badgers hold Michigan to 45% or less inside the arc. This is Wisconsin’s strength and Michigan is too perimeter-oriented. Miss. UM got 54% inside.

Note: I don’t rephrase what I write because I mean what number I write. If I rephrased it, I would change the number accordingly. I just tend to be off by a hair.


Shetown’s Prediction: The Badgers win 63-54 in 60 possessions. Hit. You got the UW part right (62 actually), but UM only got 44. And, they only had 50 possessions.

Closing Thoughts: UW is going to have to play well to beat a resurgent Illinois team on Tuesday. I was torn who to cheer for with MSU and Illinois. My head said Illinois but I have a hard time doing that. Anyway, a win against Illinois will put them firmly in the rear view mirror.

UW keeps finding was to get to done without Leuer. I bet teams get back to the locker room and wonder how they lost by 18 to these guys. But, Bo finds a way. He truly is a hall of fame coach.

Michigan 2.0 Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: Saturday, Wisconsin will complete it’s round-robin with the state of Michigan when they visit the dump of a basketball venue known as the Crisler Arena. In their previous meeting this season, the Badgers had to finish the game on a 24-9 run to win 54-48. Head Coach John Beilein has not been victorious against the Badgers in his tenure at Michigan. Michigan has had some troubles this season, as they started the season ranked and ran out to a 3-0 record, but they followed that up with a 3 game losing streak. They currently sit at 11-11 (4-6) and will be hard-pressed to make the NIT. Hate to gloat, but I did question the reasoning behind their ranking and didn’t think they’d improve much, if at all.


What the Expert Nerds Say:

Jeff Sagarin ranks Wisconsin #11 and Michigan #94. He makes Wisconsin a 5-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy ranks Wisconsin #5 and Michigan #73. He predicts a 58-53 Badger victory in 57 possessions and gives the Badgers a 74% chance of winning.

Note: Sagarin and Pomeroy are unable to objectively calculate UW’s abilities with Jon Leuer out, so they don’t. However Pomeroy weighs his numbers towards more recent games so he is a bit more accurate in that regard.

Michigan Rotation:
*G – 6’3” SO Laval Lucas-Perry (5.9 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 2.0 APG, 97.9 OR, 15% Poss, 14% Shot, 22% TO, 3% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 2.8 FTR, 68% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’3” SO Stu Douglass (6.9 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 2.7 APG, 1.0 SPG, 81% FT, 96.3 OR, 16% Poss, 17% Shot, 17% TO, 1% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 1.4 FTR, 76% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” SO Zack Novak (7.4 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 1.6 APG, 1.0 SPG, 55% 2PT, 105.5 OR, 14% Poss, 16% Shot, 12% TO, 6% OffReb, 12% DefReb, 1.6 FTR, 67% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’5” JR Manny Harris (18.7 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 4.2 APG, 1.9 SPG, 52% 2PT, 79% FT, 109.4 OR, 30% Poss, 28% Shot, 16% TO, 7% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 4.4 FTR, 36% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR DeShawn Sims (17.0 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 1.2 SPG, 1.0 APG, 54% 2PT, 111.6 OR, 27% Poss, 31% Shot, 10% TO, 10% OffReb, 18% DefReb, 2.4 FTR, 18% of FGAs are 3PT)

G – 6’4” FR Darius Morris (4.2 PPG, 2.5 APG, 1.7 RPG, 83.0 OR, 15% Poss, 12% Shot, 30% TO, 2% OffReb, 8% DefReb, 3.4 FTR, 32% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’10” SR Zack Gibson (3.6 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 64% 2PT, 77% FT, 114.6 OR, 21% Poss, 19% Shot, 16% TO, 14% OffReb, 15% DefReb, 5.0 FTR, 19% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’4” FR Matt Vogrich (2.1 PPG, 41% 3PT, 91.2 OR, 17% Poss, 19% Shot, 24% TO, 4% OffReb, 11% DefReb, 0.8 FTR, 65% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’6” JR Anthony Wright (1.6 PPG, 1.2 RPG, 80.0 OR, 16% Poss, 17% Shot, 20% TO, 6% OffReb, 10% DefReb, 1.1 FTR, 65% of FGAs are 3PT)

Key:
OR = offensive rating, or personal points per possession
Poss = possession usage
Shot = share of shots taken
TO = percentage of personal possessions ending in turnover (21% is average)
OffReb = % of offensive rebounding opportunities grabbed by player (anything in double digits is good)
DefReb = % of defensive rebounding opportunities grabbed by player (anything above 15% is good for forwards/center, double digits for guards)
FTR = # of free throws taken per 10 field goal attempts (3.76 is average)

Note: If I don’t list a player’s 2PT%, it’s not above 50%, if I don’t list 3PT%, it’s not above 40%, and if I don’t list FT%, it’s not above 75%


What Michigan is really good at:

1. Not sending opponents to the line. Their opponents only attempt 4 free throws for every 15 field goal attempts. This ranks 1st in the Big Ten and 11th in the nation.

2. Taking Care of the ball. They are 20th in the nation at avoiding turnovers, with a rate of 17.2%. This is 3rd in the Big Ten.

3. Forcing Turnovers. The Wolverines are 38th in the nation, forcing a rate of 23.9%. They are 3rd in the Big Ten.

4. Defending the 3 ball. They allow opponents to shoot only 30.5% from beyond the arc. This is 3rd in the Big Ten and 37th in the nation.

5. Shooting free throws. They are 61st in the nation and 3rd in the Big Ten, shooting 72.5% from the charity stripe. Unfortunately for them, they don’t get there much.

6. Getting steals. They get a steal once every 9 defensive possessions, good for 77th in the nation and 3rd in the Big Ten.


What Michigan is really bad at:

1. Getting to the line. They attempt only 2 free throws to every 7 shot attempts. This is 10th in the Big Ten and 328th in the nation.

2. Shooting threes. They shoot 29.2% from beyond the arc, 325th in the nation and dead last in the Big Ten.

3. Defending inside the arc. They allow opponents to shoot 50.4% from 2. That is good for 276th in the nation and 10th in the Big Ten. They also only block 2 two-point attempts out of 29, which is 271st in the nation and 9th in the Big Ten.

4. Defensive Rebounding. The Wolverines grab 66.3% of all rebounding opportunities, which is 205th in the nation and 10th in the Big Ten.


Relative Efficiency:

When Michigan has the ball: Michigan has scored a slightly below average 1.00 PPP in their first 10 Big Ten games, while UW has given up a league leading 0.93 in their first 10.

When UW has the ball: Michigan has given up an slightly above average 0.98 in their 10 Big Ten games, while UW has scored an above average 1.05 in their 10 Big Ten games.


Pace: Michigan has played at 61 possessions per game so far in their 10 Big Ten games compared to UW’s 59 in their 10 Big Ten games.


Top 50 Wins and Bottom 247 Losses:

UM Good Wins = OSU, UConn
UM Bad Losses = @ Utah, @ Indiana

UW Good Wins = (N) Maryland, Duke, Marquette, OSU, Purdue, MSU
UW Bad Losses = @ UW-GB


My Expectations:

1. Manny Harris scores less than 15. Timmy J and Ryan team up to frustrate Harris into a shooting night similar to his last 4 contests against the Badgers, in which he has shot a net-scorching 24.5% from the field.

2. Trevon Hughes scores more than 16. He has been an assassin against Michigan lately, scoring 20, 19, and 16 in his past three games against them.

3. Badgers grab 78% or more of the defensive rebounding opportunities. Michigan doesn’t focus on offensive rebounding and Wisconsin is 3rd in the nation in defensive rebounding.

4. Badgers hold Michigan to 45% or less inside the arc. This is Wisconsin’s strength and Michigan is too perimeter-oriented.

Note: I don’t rephrase what I write because I mean what number I write. If I rephrased it, I would change the number accordingly. I just tend to be off by a hair.


My Prediction: The Badgers win 63-54 in 60 possessions.