Indiana Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: With every team in the Big Ten having played at least 5 conference games, I'm switching over to statistics from Big Ten games only. Before doom and gloom looking at the numbers the Badgers have put up, keep in mind that they have played the two teams tied for third place three times and the sixth place team. So their numbers aren't going to be as pretty as Ohio State's, who have played the bottom three teams four times, and no one in the top five.


What the expert nerds say: Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 12-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy predicts a 70-58 Badger victory in 59 possessions with a 10% chance of upset.

The boys in the desert have Wisconsin as a 12.5-point favorite.


Where Are They Now?

Name	New School	Year Left
Bawa Muniru	Tennessee State	2010
Nick Williams	Mississippi	2009
Malik Story	Nevada	2009
Armon Bassett	Ohio	2008
Jordan Crawford	Xavier	2008
Jamarcus Ellis	Oklahoma City University	2008
DeAndre Thomas	Robert Morris	2008
Brandon McGee	Georgia State	2008
Eli Holman	Detroit	2008

Indiana Likely Rotation:

Position	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %
* G	6'0"	Jordan Hulls	32.6	12.0	2.4	2.6	0.4	0.2	154.3	13.7	11.4	100.0%	71.4%	50.0%	58.8%	2.94	0.7	8.7	15.5	0.8	0.7
* G	6'5"	Verdell Jones III	33.0	14.2	2.8	4.4	0.2	0.6	108.9	26.0	22.3	68.4%	47.6%	60.0%	19.2%	3.65	2.3	8.6	27.9	2.4	0.3
* G	6'5"	Jeremiah Rivers	22.8	4.4	2.8	2.2	1.4	0.2	115.0	13.4	20.8	66.7%	62.5%	0.0%	15.8%	1.58	6.7	9.1	17.6	3.9	1.1
* F	6'8"	Christian Watford	27.4	11.6	5.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	98.7	26.2	17.8	86.7%	36.4%	36.8%	36.5%	2.88	8.4	18.9	5.8	3.9	1.8
* F	6'9"	Tom Pritchard	12.6	1.2	2.4	0.8	0.2	0.2	157.9	6.1	16.6	66.7%	66.7%	-	0.0%	6.67	8.1	16.4	10.5	2.1	1.0
G	6'5"	Victor Olapido	22.8	11.2	3.8	1.6	0.8	0.6	115.3	26.4	14.8	68.2%	51.6%	42.9%	18.4%	5.79	7.9	13.6	14.9	3.5	2.2
F	6'9"	Derek Elston	13.2	2.8	2.2	0.0	0.2	0.4	83.2	14.5	26.6	100.0%	46.2%	0.0%	7.1%	1.43	3.9	17.7	0.0	4.0	0.9
G/F	6'6"	Will Sheehey	8.6	4.2	1.2	0.0	0.0	0.2	107.8	20.8	28.5	0.0%	66.7%	75.0%	30.8%	1.54	9.0	9.0	0.0	3.1	0.0
F	6'9"	Bobby Capobianco	6.5	0.5	0.8	0.3	0.3	0.0	105.0	4.9	50.0	-	50.0%	-	0.0%	0.00	0.0	15.7	6.7	0.0	2.4
G	6'3"	Matt Roth	4.0	2.4	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	137.4	22.4	0.0	-	-	40.0%	100.0%	0.00	12.9	6.4	0.0	0.0	0.0

Wisconsin Likely Rotation:

Position	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %
* G	6'1"	Jordan Taylor	38.8	20.8	4.2	4.4	0.6	0.0	126.0	29.8	6.0	88.4%	45.0%	33.3%	42.9%	6.14	3.3	10.8	32.0	0.0	1.0
* G/F	6'4"	Rob Wilson	14.0	1.5	0.8	0.8	0.1	0.0	58.7	15.2	16.6	100.0%	28.6%	0.0%	41.7%	1.67	0.0	7.5	11.3	0.0	1.2
* G/F	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	28.4	4.8	2.2	1.6	0.4	0.0	150.5	7.8	6.2	100.0%	-	40.0%	100.0%	4.00	0.9	9.2	12.3	0.0	0.9
* F	6'10"	Jon Leuer	37.4	17.6	7.6	1.6	0.4	0.6	106.8	28.6	11.6	88.0%	42.9%	36.4%	31.0%	3.52	5.5	21.0	12.4	1.9	0.7
* F	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	30.8	13.2	5.2	0.8	0.8	1.8	136.7	18.5	12.1	90.9%	36.4%	57.1%	71.8%	2.82	6.7	15.3	7.0	6.9	1.8
G	6'3"	Josh Gasser	19.8	2.2	2.2	1.6	0.4	0.0	118.1	10.5	6.6	60.0%	57.1%	0.0%	36.4%	4.55	7.8	6.6	17.6	0.0	1.4
F	6'6"	Mike Bruesewitz	16.0	2.8	1.6	0.4	0.4	0.4	93.9	15.6	11.1	75.0%	44.4%	12.5%	47.1%	2.35	9.7	3.2	5.7	2.9	1.7
F/C	6'10"	Jared Berggren	11.2	2.2	2.4	0.4	0.0	1.0	98.0	16.1	7.6	50.0%	50.0%	0.0%	23.1%	1.54	9.2	18.7	8.7	10.6	0.0
G/F	6'6"	Ryan Evans	6.0	0.8	0.6	0.8	0.0	0.2	61.2	11.6	60.0	-	50.0%	-	0.0%	0.00	0.0	13.1	0.0	3.9	0.0
G	6'4"	Brett Valentyn	6.3	1.3	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.0	112.3	14.6	25.0	50.0%	-	33.3%	100.0%	6.67	6.8	0.0	11.8	0.0	0.0

What Indiana is really good and bad at :

Indiana	Turnover %	Rebounding %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	18.9 (#8)	33.5 (#4)	29.7 (#9)	40.2 (#4)	51.7 (#4)	75.9 (#4)	10.5 (#10)	9.3 (#8)
Defense	17.0 (#6)	66.2 (#8)	62.0 (#11)	45.7 (#11)	48.0 (#6)	69.3 (#3)	6.6 (#7)	7.1 (#7)

What Wisconsin is really good and bad at :

Wisconsin	Turnover %	Rebounding %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	10.5 (#1)	25.3 (#10)	39.5 (#4)	35.6 (#8)	43.5 (#11)	85.1 (#1)	4.3 (#2)	4.8 (#2)
Defense	16.3 (#8)	66.0 (#9)	42.6 (#10)	33.8 (#3)	43.0 (#2)	78.3 (#8)	8.0 (#4)	5.4 (#11)

Relative Efficiency:

When Indiana has the ball: They have scored a great 1.12 PPP this season, while UW has given up a bad 1.05 this season.When UW has the ball:They have given up an horrid 1.20 this season, while UW scored a great 1.13 this season.

When Wisconsin has the ball: They have given up an horrid 1.20 this season, while UW scored a great 1.13 this season.


Pace: Indiana has played at 62 possessions per game to UW's 59.


Indiana's Good Wins (Top 75):
@Michigan (#69)


Indiana's Losses:
@Boston College (#57), @Kentucky (#7), N-Northern Iowa (#99), N-Colorado (#61), Penn State (#62), Ohio State (#3), @Minnesota (#45), @Northwestern (#40)


Wisconsin's Good Wins (Top 75):
N-Boston College (#57), @Marquette (#26), Minnesota (#45), Michigan (#69), Illinois (#17)


Wisconsin's Losses:
@UNLV (#15), N-Notre Dame (#34), @Illinois (#17), @Michigan State (#25)


My Expectations:

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

2. The Badgers shoot better than 55% inside the arc. With Indiana's frontcourt, I like UW to help out their 2-point stats immensely.

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

The Badgers make Tom ponder if he should have just stayed in the hotel tanning room, destroying the Creek-less Hoosiers 78-57 in 62 possessions.

Illinois Pre-Game Analysis 2.0

Opening Thoughts: I'd rather not mention the last game, it happens, and hopefully not again this season. Illinois enters the game at 13-4, 3-1 in the Big Ten, coming off a 57-55 loss at Penn State, which was preceded by a three game winning streak against Iowa, us, and Northwestern. They have top 100 wins over Maryland (12), North Carolina (21), Gonzaga (36), Oakland (79), and Iowa (77), Wisconsin (11), and Northwestern (51).


What the expert nerds say: Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 4.5-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy predicts a 64-59 Badger victory in 58 possessions with a 30% chance of upset.



Illinois Likely Rotation:

Position	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %
* G	6'3"	Demetri McCamey	32.8	15.8	3.4	7.1	0.9	0.2	122.2	24.8	21.0	74.2%	48.5%	54.1%	41.8%	3.73	1.3	10.1	40.3	0.7	1.6
* G	6'3"	D.J. Richardson	30.4	11.0	1.8	2.2	0.9	0.2	113.3	16.6	18.9	72.0%	48.3%	44.6%	58.0%	1.75	1.7	5.0	12.5	0.8	1.6
* F	6'9"	Bill Cole	19.1	5.8	2.5	1.3	0.6	0.5	141.4	12.2	8.8	75.0%	63.2%	44.9%	72.1%	1.76	7.0	8.0	11.4	2.9	1.7
* F	6'9"	Mike Davis	30.1	11.0	6.8	1.8	0.7	1.0	110.9	18.3	15.5	63.0%	54.9%	0.0%	0.7%	3.17	6.4	18.9	10.7	3.5	1.3
* C	7'1"	Mike Tisdale	25.2	10.3	7.5	1.2	0.5	1.5	111.6	21.3	19.7	83.7%	52.7%	41.2%	13.2%	3.33	13.5	20.6	8.5	6.5	1.0
G/F	6'7"	Jereme Richmond	20.2	7.5	4.5	1.2	0.4	0.5	97.8	22.5	20.3	62.1%	49.5%	14.3%	6.1%	2.54	11.0	14.5	11.2	2.8	1.1
G	6'4"	Brandon Paul	20.1	7.7	2.8	1.8	1.1	0.4	97.3	22.3	23.6	65.6%	47.5%	36.0%	45.9%	2.94	3.3	12.1	16.1	2.2	3.2
C	7'0"	Meyers Leonard	9.7	3.1	1.5	0.1	0.3	0.4	91.6	16.8	26.6	63.6%	55.3%	0.0%	2.6%	2.82	4.8	12.6	1.1	4.1	1.8
F	6'8"	Tyler Griffey	8.4	2.1	1.4	0.1	0.3	0.2	77.9	17.7	25.5	54.5%	38.5%	30.0%	27.8%	3.06	7.1	12.3	1.1	2.2	2.0

Wisconsin Likely Rotation:

Position	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %
* G	6'1"	Jordan Taylor	35.1	16.7	4.3	4.7	0.9	0.2	129.5	25.2	9.1	86.5%	47.0%	39.7%	40.0%	3.79	3.3	12.2	29.7	0.6	1.6
* G/F	6'4"	Rob Wilson	9.5	2.4	1.4	0.6	0.1	0.0	103.5	17.4	14.7	83.3%	56.5%	9.1%	32.4%	1.76	5.7	12.4	12.0	0.0	1.0
* G/F	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	21.9	4.0	1.9	1.3	0.6	0.0	139.5	9.1	4.2	77.8%	50.0%	37.0%	88.5%	1.73	3.2	7.6	10.4	0.0	1.9
* F	6'10"	Jon Leuer	33.3	18.8	7.3	2.1	0.7	1.5	121.6	28.1	11.8	81.5%	47.6%	46.8%	35.6%	2.93	6.4	21.5	15.7	5.1	1.4
* F	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	24.1	8.9	4.6	0.8	0.8	1.5	129.0	17.4	17.1	92.3%	56.4%	52.3%	44.4%	1.31	10.1	14.1	7.2	7.0	2.2
G	6'3"	Josh Gasser	24.8	5.6	3.6	2.3	0.5	0.1	119.1	15.3	13.4	88.5%	57.1%	18.2%	44.0%	3.47	7.3	11.2	16.8	0.2	1.3
F	6'6"	Mike Bruesewitz	21.3	5.0	2.9	1.1	0.3	0.2	119.9	14.2	16.9	66.7%	60.6%	33.3%	47.6%	2.38	8.9	8.6	10.2	1.0	0.8
G/F	6'6"	Ryan Evans	12.4	3.3	2.8	0.8	0.1	0.4	81.0	24.6	23.6	76.2%	32.1%	0.0%	5.1%	3.56	7.6	21.1	12.7	3.4	0.3
F/C	6'10"	Jared Berggren	9.1	3.8	1.7	0.5	0.1	0.4	108.1	23.0	30.2	66.7%	66.7%	45.5%	31.4%	2.57	7.9	16.0	12.5	5.3	0.5

What Illinois is really good and bad at:

	Turnover %	Rebounding %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	19.7 (#109)	34.0 (#127)	29.9 (#318)	43.4 (#3)	51.2 (#61)	70.0 (#127)	6.9 (#40)	9.0 (#114)
Defense	21.6 (#127)	67.4 (#155)	30.9 (#62)	29.6 (#29)	45.8 (#107)	67.4 (#123)	13.7 (#28)	8.7 (#226)

What Wisconsin is really good and bad at:

	Turnover %	Rebounding %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	14.2 (#1)	35.9 (#71)	28.1 (#331)	37.8 (#54)	48.8 (#134)	81.0 (#1)	6.6 (#22)	7.1 (#12)
Defense	19.3 (#240)	70.8 (#58)	30.4 (#54)	36.2 (#237)	41.3 (#15)	72.3 (#308)	11.8 (#60)	6.9 (#328)

Relative Efficiency:

When Illinois has the ball: They have scored a great 1.10 PPP this season, while UW has given up a great 0.94 this season.

When UW has the ball: They have given up an great 0.94 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.18 this season.


Pace: Illinois has played at 69 possessions per game to UW's 59.


My expectations:

1. Badgers shoot better than 38% shooting from 3. The perimeter D for the Illini is stingy, but I like the Badgers to overcome it.

2. Berggren scores in double figures. With a front-court for Illinois big enough to enable a good deal of playing time, Ice-Berg has a great game off the bench.

3. Badgers grab more than 38% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end and 74% on the defensive. They aren't great at rebounding.

The Badgers avenge the previous match-up, winning 74-65 in 66 possessions.

MSU Box Score Observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Floor Location:

Location UW Opp

Arc 39% 23%

Mid Range 13% 22%

Paint 30% 28%

FT Line 18% 27%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable Performances:

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

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

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

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

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

MSU Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: It's finally here! The first matchup of the season against the Moving Screen University Cryin' Midgets! Whiny Tom's team is pouting its way into the game, having just lost to PSU's Talor Battle, Jeff Brooks, and the champions of last season's competitive rec league on campus in front of a raucous crowd of 53 people. A family of four left at the first TV timeout after realizing the Champions on Ice figure skating show was the next weekend. MSU is currently 10-5, 2-1 in-conference, with losses to the aforementioned #74 PSU team, #14 Texas, #8 Syracuse, #1 Duke, and #29 UConn. They have top 100 wins against South Carolina (#82), Washington (#5), Oakland (#75), Minnesota (#54), and Northwestern (#55).


What the expert nerds say:

Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 1-point underdog.

Ken Pomeroy predicts a 61-60 Badger loss in 59 possessions with a 47% chance of a victory.


Will They Remember That?
November 28, 2010 - Tennessee Tech = MSU's Anthony Ianni attempts a jump shot with the shot clock turned off and a 19-point lead

November 12, 2010 - Eastern Michigan = MSU's Keith Appling attempts a jump shot with the shot clock turned off and a 28-point lead, Adreian Payne rebounds the miss and dunks it home

January 2, 2010 - Northwestern = MSU's Jon Crandell attempts a jump shot with the shot clock turned off and a 21-point lead

December 30, 2009 - Texas-Arlington = MSU's Isaiah Dahlman attempts a 3-pointer with the shot clock turned off and a 21-point lead

November 28, 2009 - UMass = MSU's Mike Kebler attempts a jump shot with the shot clock turned off and a 40-point lead

November 20, 2009 - Toledo = MSU's Delvon Roe throws down an alley-oop with the shot clock turned off and an 11-point lead

November 13, 2009 - Florida Gulf Coast = MSU's Austin Thornton attempts a 3-pointer with the shot clock turned off and a 39-point lead

December 13, 2008 - Alcorn State = MSU's Isaiah Dahlman makes a 3-pointer with the shot clock turned off and a 55-point lead

February 23, 2008 - Iowa = MSU's Durrell Summers attempts a lay-up with the shot clock turned off and a 14-point lead

January 27, 2008 - Michigan = MSU's Durrell Summers dunks with the shot clock turned off and a 17-point lead


Michigan State Probable 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	29.8	14.3	2.1	3.5	1.3	0.1	104.8	24.5	20.1	75.4%	46.7%	42.6%	28.1%	3.41	1.3	5.9	23.9	0.2	2.4
* G	6'1"	Keith Appling	17.5	5.5	1.8	1.3	0.5	0.5	100.0	16.7	26.9	94.1%	45.2%	39.4%	51.6%	2.66	1.3	9.3	13.8	2.7	1.5
* G	6'5"	Durrell Summers	29.7	15.6	4.7	0.6	0.7	0.2	106.1	22.9	13.7	63.4%	44.8%	43.2%	45.6%	2.12	5.8	11.0	4.3	0.7	1.3
* F	6'7"	Draymond Green	27.7	11.7	8.9	4.0	1.9	1.3	106.0	24.7	20.2	56.3%	49.5%	40.0%	26.1%	4.78	9.7	24.0	28.5	4.8	3.9
* F	6'8"	Delvon Roe	23.1	7.2	5.7	1.2	0.8	1.2	106.5	17.0	20.1	73.1%	48.6%	-	0.0%	2.66	8.1	17.7	9.4	5.2	2.0
G	5'11"	Korie Lucious	24.3	7.3	1.6	4.1	1.0	0.1	95.8	20.6	26.5	80.0%	44.1%	30.8%	65.7%	1.52	3.0	4.2	30.3	0.3	2.3
C	6'10"	Garrick Sherman	16.6	4.6	3.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	103.6	13.2	24.0	31.3%	68.1%	-	0.0%	3.40	6.8	15.6	5.3	3.2	1.6
G	6'5"	Austin Thornton	12.4	3.0	2.4	1.1	0.1	0.1	112.1	14.7	18.5	100.0%	47.8%	29.4%	42.5%	2.00	10.9	9.9	15.1	0.5	0.6
C	6'10"	Adreian Payne	8.7	2.6	2.6	0.3	0.5	1.0	83.2	21.2	30.3	42.9%	53.6%	0.0%	3.4%	7.24	13.8	17.9	5.6	11.5	3.4
C	6'9"	Derrick Nix	8.6	1.8	2.5	0.3	0.5	0.4	90.1	16.0	22.2	45.5%	45.5%	-	0.0%	20.00	13.0	18.3	5.2	4.2	3.5

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	34.7	16.4	4.1	4.8	0.9	0.2	131.4	24.6	9.0	87.1%	48.0%	39.7%	41.7%	3.71	3.1	12.2	29.8	0.7	1.7
* G/F	6'4"	Rob Wilson	7.8	2.3	1.4	0.4	0.2	0.0	111.2	17.6	15.2	75.0%	70.6%	11.1%	34.6%	1.60	7.4	15.5	10.2	0.0	1.3
* G/F	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	21.2	4.1	1.9	1.2	0.7	0.0	137.7	9.6	4.4	71.4%	50.0%	38.6%	88.0%	1.04	3.5	7.8	10.3	0.0	2.1
* F	6'10"	Jon Leuer	33.1	19.3	7.3	2.2	0.7	1.5	123.0	28.4	11.0	80.6%	48.5%	46.8%	36.2%	2.93	6.2	22.3	16.3	5.2	1.5
* F	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	23.2	8.4	4.7	0.9	0.7	1.4	126.5	18.0	16.2	92.3%	56.6%	47.4%	41.8%	1.33	10.7	15.0	7.9	6.8	1.9
G	6'3"	Josh Gasser	25.1	5.6	3.6	2.2	0.5	0.1	116.4	15.5	13.8	88.0%	55.0%	18.2%	45.2%	3.57	7.2	11.0	16.2	1.0	0.6
F	6'6"	Mike Breusewitz	21.9	5.2	3.0	1.2	0.2	0.2	120.0	14.2	17.4	66.7%	59.4%	37.0%	45.8%	2.68	8.3	9.1	10.5	3.5	0.4
G/F	6'6"	Ryan Evans	13.0	3.5	2.9	0.9	0.1	0.4	81.8	24.8	22.3	76.2%	32.1%	0.0%	5.1%	3.68	7.6	21.4	12.8	5.6	0.6
F/C	6'10"	Jared Berggren	9.3	4.1	1.8	0.5	0.1	0.5	109.7	23.5	28.4	66.7%	69.6%	45.5%	32.4%	2.65	8.2	17.2	13.2	0.3	1.3

What Michigan State is really good and really bad at (out of 347 teams):

	Turnover %	Rebounding %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	21.9 (#228)	36.6 (#50)	37.1 (#192)	37.5 (#65)	48.8 (#136)	65.0 (#270)	8.8 (#139)	10.1 (#223)
Defense	20.1 (#205)	68.3 (#140)	36.9 (#150)	34.6 (#179)	40.7 (#11)	61.7 (#10)	13.8 (#25)	11.2 (#73)

What Wisconsin is really good and really bad at (out of 347 teams):

	Turnover %	Rebounding %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	FT%	Block%	Stl%
Offense	13.8 (#1)	36.6 (#53)	28.6 (#327)	37.6 (#57)	49.7 (#103)	80.4 (#2)	6.0 (#13)	7.0 (#10)
Defense	19.5 (#232)	71.6 (#36)	29.2 (#41)	36.6 (#254)	41.1 (#16)	72.8 (#318)	11.9 (#60)	6.7 (#333)

Relative Efficiency:

When Michigan State has the ball: They have scored a good 1.05 PPP this season, while UW has given up a good 0.94 this season.

When UW has the ball: They have given up a good 0.94 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.19 this season.


Pace: Michigan State has played at 70 possessions per game to UW’s 59.


My Expectations:

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

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

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

The Badgers come up short, losing 65-62 in 61 possessions.

Michigan Box Score Observations

Opening Comments: UW ground down a feisty Michigan team to win 66 to 50.

I took off the Illinois game because I had an emergency run to the Rose Bowl. I just got in at 1:30 am, today, January 6. I don’t know if anyone pinch hit for me for the Illinois game or not, but if someone did, thanks. If not, perhaps you appreciate these posts a little more.

Summarizing the game in a few words: UW outshot Michigan from all places on the floor and won with excellent defensive rebounding, free throw shooting, ball protection, and defense.

Pace: The game had 55 possessions, the second fewest of the year.

Efficiency: UW was our typically excellent 1.20 PPP. We have been at 1.19 PPP for the year, 1.15 in conference play.

Michigan scored .91 PPP, close to our opponents typical .94 PPP, 1.05 PPP, in conference play.

Shooting: UW simply outshot Michigan from all points on the floor.

eFG%: Michigan shot well hitting 49% eFG%. UW did even better at 58%, better than our typical 52%, 47% in conference play.

3 pt shooting: Michigan was 8 for 21, 38%. UW hit an excellent 9 of 19 for 47%. Great shooting. UW picked up 3 from deep despite taking two fewer shots.

2pt shooting: Michigan hit 9 of 22 for 41% inside the arc. UW was 12 of 25 for 48%. UW got another 6 inside for a plus 9 from the field.

1pt shooting: Michigan had a great day at the line hitting 8-8, for 100%. UW was our typical excellent 15 of 18 for 83%. It will be hard to beat this team if the free throws keep dropping like this. That gave UW a plus 7 from the line, many coming in the closing minutes when Michigan needed to extend the game.

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

UW Makes: 189 Opponent Attempts: 217 Difference: -28

I am going to drop this scoreboard unless someone thinks I should keep it going. We just don’t get to the line like we did during the Tucker years.

The We have missed fewer free throws as a team than Trevor Mbakwe scoreboard is more interesting. UW has missed 46 and Trevor has missed 41. I hope we can make up the difference.

Floor Location:

Location UW Opp

Arc 41% 48%

Mid Range 3% 12%

Paint 33% 24%

FT Line 23% 16%

Rebounding: Both teams successfully defended their defense boards, but UW had complete domination on their end.

UW Defensive end: When Michigan shot, they had 26 rebounding opportunities and grabbed but 2 or 8%. Yikes! The national average is 33%.

UW Offensive End: When UW shot there were 24 rebounding opportunities, and UW got a scant 5 or 21%. While not good, it was much better than Michigan.

Turnovers: Michigan had only 10 turnovers for a good 18%. UW did even better with 8 for 15%. But what a memorable 8 they were, particularly Leuer’s 4. Ugh.

Opportunity Index: UW won the OI by 5. UW had +3 offensive rebounds (+7 second chance points) and +2 turnovers (resulting in +5 points off turnovers).

Fouls: Michigan committed 18 to UW’s 11. Many came late in the game to increase possessions. UW took the extra 7 fouls and got ten extra FTA’s, outscoring Michigan by 7 at the line.

Playing time: Bo broke his pattern and started Wilson and Jarmusz. Eight played double digits including the starters plus Valentyn (11), Gasser (12), and Bruesewitz (13).

Notable Performances: Taylor had a fantastic offensive day. He scored 20 on 8 FGA’s (7-8 from the line). Taylor also chipped in 8 boards and had but one lonely turnover in 39 minutes. Jordan, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.

Leuer got 17, but needed 15 shots to do it. He added 8 boards and had four uncharacteristic turnovers.

Keaton had a Keaton-like efficient game. He scored 13 on 8 FGA’s, 3-5 from deep. Great job per usual. Keep the efficiency going.

Jarmusz had a Jarmusz-like day. He only scored 2 points and missed to two three point attempts. But, he had 4 assists and a steal without a turnover and chipped in two boards. He played 35 minutes. He also spent a lot of time on Morris, which struck me as an odd matchup. He gave up one layup, but in general did an excellent job defensively. Morris only scored 8 points and had 4 TO’s. Tim, I salute you.

Brett Valentyn got 11 minutes when Michigan decided to zone up. He dropped in a three and added a free throw. Good job. Brett has been doing all the practices, and now he gets some of the rewards.

Grading Shetown’s Predictions

1. The Badgers knock down more than 40% of their threes. Home rims + 1-3-1 zone = blazing nets. Hit. UW scored at an excellent 47%, but many did not come against the zone.

2. Gasser hits double digits for the first time since the Manhattan game. He likes to attack the basket from the left corner/wing, which is an easy thing to do against a 1-3-1. Miss. Gasser got 2 and only played 12 minutes.

3. The Badgers make more free throws than the Wolverines attempt. They also are terrible at getting to the line, and I like the Badgers refocusing their efforts at attacking the basket. Hit. UW made 15 and Michigan tried 8

The Badgers destroy the Wolverines 70-52 in 56 possessions. Hit. 66 to 50 in 55.

Closing Thoughts: Michigan was up against the machine. Bo changed his minutes, but kept with the standard Badger approach. UW ground them down and won going away despite being down at half time.

I like the idea that Bo has two reliable players – Leuer and Taylor – that score day in and day out. The rest of the scoring comes from whomever has the hot hand or the defense allows to be productive. There is no reason, IMHO, that the same guy is the “third” threat. Often, Nankivil is the guy. Other times, matchups will dictate others step up. In this game, Berggren was not a good match up and did not see the court much. Against other teams, he will be the guy. Don’t worry if a player disappears for a game or two. No big deal.

Michigan Pre-Game Analysis

Opening Thoughts: After the cold shooting that doomed the Badgers in the Illinois game, they hope to rebound against the Wolverines of Michigan. Michigan enters the game with a record of 11-3 (1-1), just like the Badgers. They have top 100 wins against #51 Clemson, #80 Penn State, and #87 Oakland. Their losses are close ones to Syracuse and UTEP on a neutral court, and a blowout loss to Purdue on their home court.


What the expert nerds say:

Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 11-point favorite.

Ken Pomeroy predicts a 62-53 Badger victory in 55 possessions with a 13% chance of an upset.


Michigan Likely Rotation:

Position	Height	Name	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	Off Rating	Poss %	TO %	FT%	2PT%	3PT%	3FGA Rate	FT Rate	Off Reb%	Def Reb%	Ast %	Blk %	Stl %
G	6'4"	Darius Morris	34.4	15.6	3.5	7.6	1.4	0.0	118.6	26.8	16.8	75.0%	55.6%	34.3%	23.5%	4.03	1.2	10.3	48.3	0.0	2.6
G	6'5"	Tim Hardaway, Jr.	26.1	10.9	3.6	1.5	0.6	0.1	102.4	23.7	12.2	78.6%	47.5%	28.8%	55.3%	3.18	4.1	11.4	11.7	0.3	1.5
G/F	6'4"	Zack Novak	32.3	8.1	7.1	1.4	0.3	0.3	109.1	13.9	12.8	82.9%	45.5%	31.6%	63.3%	3.89	3.3	21.4	8.0	1.0	0.6
F	6'9"	Evan Smotrycz	18.8	7.2	2.6	1.1	0.3	0.3	106.0	20.4	17.2	78.6%	46.9%	39.2%	61.4%	1.69	4.4	11.6	11.6	1.8	0.9
F	6'8"	Jordan Morgan	22.9	9.5	6.7	0.7	0.8	0.3	110.1	22.9	19.4	61.3%	59.4%	-	0.0%	3.23	15.0	18.3	7.0	1.5	2.1
G	6'3"	Stu Douglass	26.3	8.4	2.6	1.3	0.3	0.2	106.5	16.0	17.9	16.7%	48.6%	45.0%	61.9%	0.62	2.2	8.9	9.7	1.0	0.7
G	6'4"	Matt Vogrich	15.1	4.1	1.6	0.4	0.3	0.1	107.3	13.8	12.7	71.4%	57.1%	34.3%	71.4%	2.86	3.3	9.1	5.4	0.6	1.2
F	6'9"	Jon Horford	9.2	3.5	3.5	0.2	0.1	0.8	109.4	21.9	17.9	75.0%	60.0%	16.7%	19.4%	3.87	15.6	27.7	3.8	9.6	0.6
F	6'6"	Colton Christian	7.0	0.2	2.3	0.0	0.1	0.0	48.9	13.5	38.1	0.0%	10.0%	-	0.0%	2.00	16.4	20.1	0.0	0.0	0.7

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	34.2	15.9	4.0	4.9	0.8	0.2	129.6	24.7	9.0	87.1%	48.0%	37.7%	41.3%	3.71	3.0	11.2	30.6	0.7	1.7
G	6'3"	Josh Gasser	26.9	6.3	3.8	2.3	0.5	0.1	116.7	15.4	14.3	88.0%	55.3%	18.8%	45.7%	3.57	6.7	11.3	16.6	0.3	1.3
F	6'6"	Mike Breusewitz	22.8	5.5	3.3	1.2	0.2	0.2	119.5	13.9	16.8	66.7%	55.2%	37.0%	48.2%	2.68	8.5	9.4	10.6	1.1	0.6
F	6'10"	Jon Leuer	32.5	19.5	7.5	2.2	0.8	1.8	125.6	27.8	9.9	81.0%	49.6%	46.6%	36.9%	2.93	6.1	22.1	15.9	5.5	1.5
F	6'8"	Keaton Nankivil	21.8	7.8	4.5	0.8	0.7	1.5	125.8	18.1	16.5	90.9%	58.0%	45.5%	39.8%	1.33	11.6	14.7	7.9	7.0	1.9
G/F	6'6"	Tim Jarmusz	19.8	4.2	2.0	1.1	0.6	0.0	137.8	9.9	4.8	60.0%	50.0%	40.5%	87.5%	1.04	3.9	7.7	9.0	0.0	2.1
G/F	6'6"	Ryan Evans	13.8	3.7	3.3	1.0	0.1	0.5	81.3	24.8	22.9	76.2%	31.5%	0.0%	5.3%	3.68	7.7	21.1	13.0	3.5	0.4
F/C	6'10"	Jared Berggren	9.7	4.7	1.8	0.5	0.1	0.5	108.7	23.7	28.8	66.7%	69.6%	45.5%	32.4%	2.65	8.2	16.3	11.5	5.6	0.6
G/F	6'4"	Rob Wilson	7.3	2.5	1.5	0.5	0.1	0.0	113.6	19.0	15.7	75.0%	75.0%	12.5%	32.0%	1.60	8.1	17.1	11.7	0.0	1.5

What Michigan is really good and really bad at (out of 347 teams):

	Turnover %	Rebounding %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	Free Throw %	Block %	Steal %
Offense	17.5 (#33)	30.1 (#247)	28.1 (#324)	34.2 (#158)	51.7 (#57)	72.6 (#63)	9.5 (#187)	7.0 (#13)
Defense	19.2 (#249)	72.2 (#29)	25.4 (9th)	31.3 (#76)	44.1 (#68)	65.2 (#66)	7.2 (#247)	6.5 (#337)

What Wisconsin is really good and really bad at (out of 347 teams):

	Turnover %	Rebounding %	FTA/FGA	3PT%	2PT%	Free Throw %	Block %	Steal %
Offense	13.7 (#1)	37.1 (#45)	27.9 (#326)	37.1 (#79)	49.8 (#96)	80.2 (#2)	6.3 (#23)	7.1 (#15)
Defense	19.5 (#235)	70.5 (#65)	29.9 (#48)	36.5 (#243)	41.1 (#20)	71.8 (#293)	12.2 (#58)	6.6 (#331)

Relative Efficiency:

When Michigan has the ball: They have scored a great 1.08 PPP this season, while UW has given up a good 0.94 this season.

When UW has the ball: They have given up a great 0.92 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.19 this season.


Pace: Michigan has played at 64 possessions per game to UW’s 59.


My Expectations:

1. The Badgers knock down more than 40% of their threes. Home rims + 1-3-1 zone = blazing nets.

2. Gasser hits double digits for the first time since the Manhattan game. He likes to attack the basket from the left corner/wing, which is an easy thing to do against a 1-3-1.

3. The Badgers make more free throws than the Wolverines attempt. They also are terrible at getting to the line, and I like the Badgers refocusing their efforts at attacking the basket.

The Badgers destroy the Wolverines 70-52 in 56 possessions.