Opening Comments: UW beat Boston College 65 to 55. BC is not expected to do well in the ACC this year, but beating an ACC team always feels good.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW got extra shots due to a ridiculously low 3 turnovers and two extra offensive rebounds and made enough inside the arc to compensate for a terrible long range shooting day.
Pace: The game had 55 possessions, the fewest this year. We started out with zippier games, but things have become more deliberate in Florida. The first three games were in the mid 60’s, now we are in the mid 50’s.
I do not assign a “quality” to pace. There is not good pace or bad pace. It is what it is. But, it is important to know the pace to determine how the game went.
Efficiency: Was it good offense or good defense? UW displayed excellent offense (or poor BC defense) by scoring 1.18 PPP. UW gave up 1.00 PPP to BC. We are usually closer to .90, so that was mediocre defense, I would think. BC’s late run really helped their PPP.
Shooting: UW continued our abysmal three point shooting hitting a season low 19%, but more than made up inside the arc.
eFG%: UW hit 48% to our opponent’s 43%. Our opponents have been at 46% and we have been at 51%.
3 pt shooting: UW lost the quantity and quality battle to BC. BC took 8 more threes (24 to UW’s 16) and made an extra 4 (BC made 7 and UW made only 3). That gave BC plus 12 outside the arc.
2pt shooting: BC hit a reasonable 47% of their two point shots – 14 of 30. But, UW took more, 41, made a higher percentage, 56%, and netted an extra 9 baskets (UW made 23, BC 14). [When I say “netted,” I mean netted like an accountants “net” as in totaled. Nankivil “netted” another one, but it did not go through the net, the basketball net, remarkably.] That gave UW an extra 18 points inside the arc. Of the 46 points UW scored inside the arc, 32 were in the paint and 14 midrange. UW outscored BC by 14 points inside the paint.
1pt shooting: BC hit 6 of 7 free throws for an excellent 86%. But, UW tried 13, 6 more, and made 10, 4 more. BC had better quality, but was trumped by UW’s superior quantity.
Rebounding: Rebounding was more or less a draw, with UW having only a slightly better day.
UW Defensive end: UW gathered 68% of BC’s misses, thus giving BC 32%. That is a lot for a Bo Ryan coached team, but close to the national average of 33%.
UW Offensive End: UW did well on the offensive boards, getting 36% of our misses. Crashing the boards has been good this year, although the Manhattan game not so much. The trend to date is that UW is more aggressive on the offensive glass than previous years. The Manhattan 31% is the low water mark during the first 5 games.
Turnovers: The good news for BC was they protected the ball well giving it up only 9 times, or16% of the time. The national average is about 21%. The bad news for BC is UW only gave it up 3 times, or 5%. So, the turnover margin went heavily in UW’s favor with a plus 6.
Opportunity Index: UW had a healthy plus 8 OI margin. UW had 2 extra offensive rebounds and plus 6 turnovers. UW had plus four points off turnovers (10 to 6) and plus 5 second chance points (16 to 11). That is about the margin in the game.
Fouls: BC fouled 17 times to UW’s scant 9. Those 8 extra fouls translated ultimately into only 4 points at the line. So, fouling was hardly the main story.
Playing time: Bo played 8 players and they all had double digit minutes. Taylor (36), Leuer (35) and Gasser (31) had the most minutes. Jarmusz chipped in starter-like 24 from the bench. Berggren and Brust did not make it into the game.
In my Manhattan write up I incorrectly said they would be playing 3 games in three days. They get tomorrow off and will play again on Sunday. So, they should get some rest for tired legs.
Notable Performances: Leuer had a nice line (no surprise). He scored 18 on 12 FGA’s and 4 FTA’s. Throw in 7 rebounds, 3 blocked shots and no turnovers and you have one great player. Jon, once again, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
Taylor scored 14 after an off day with Manhattan. But, his main contribution was defense on Reggie Jackson. Jackson outscored Taylor 18 to 14, but Jackson needed 21 shots and 4 FTA’s to get his 18 points. Jackson also had three turnovers to Taylor’s rock-solid one. Jackson used 24 possessions to get 18 points while Taylor got 14 with 14 possessions.
It was nice to see Rob Wilson make an offensive contribution. He scored 8 on 6 shots and snared two rebounds (one turnover) in 13 minutes. My people are discussing your exploits and are hoping for more opportunities.
Nankivil got 6 points and 7 rebounds.
The most impressive thing about Gasser is how I hardly notice him. He had a quiet 8 points. It is hard to imagine he is a freshman. One might think a freshman would stand out as being mistake prone or lost on the court. He played 31 minutes without a turnover. Remarkable.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Badgers establish a strong post game with more than 30 points in the paint. The Badgers ruin the Eagles' sparkling interior defensive stats. Hit. UW got 32.
2. The Badgers knock down more than 8 threes. BC isn't good defending the arc and I think the Badgers make up for the bad shooting against Manhattan. Miss. UW was 3-16. Ugh. I fully believe the shots will start falling.
3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. This is becoming more than an early season anomaly. It’s a change in strategy. Granted I'm not sure how much longer it will stay if refs keep calling over the back on Bruiser, Leuer, Nankivil, and Gasser. Miss. UW got 36%, which is very good. Forty percent was an aggressive prediction, however. I admire your moxie.
4. The Badgers make more free throws than the Eagles attempt. This lovely stat has made a comeback this season and I think it continues. Hit. UW made 10 and BC tried 7. For the year, we are making our drinking game goal of making more free throws than our opponents attempt. I have us a at a plus 9.
Badgers clip the Eagles 71-62 in 60 possessions. Hit, but scaled back 7%. UW won 65-55 in 55 possessions.
Closing Thoughts: I was hoping to make a bad pun about BC (school and time period) and the stone age (maybe laying bricks) but nothing really jumped out.
The end of the game was quite frustrating, but we still had a nice win.
Beating a BE team, ND, on Sunday would put a nice cap on a successful weekend.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Manhattan Box Score Observations
Opening Comments: UW thumped a shorter Manhattan team 50 to 35 that featured a first half brickfest followed by a more traditional second half.
This was a game that UW will not get many style points for. But, what happens before December 31 is ancient history come January. What happens in November is harder to remember, unless a loss is involved. The first half of this game will be long forgotten.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW had a terrible shooting first half, scoring 17 points, but still had a 7 point lead due to outstanding defense. Things returned to normal in the second half.
Pace: The game had only 56 possessions.
Efficiency: UW scored only .89 PPP. But, they held Manhattan to a miserly .63PPP.
Shooting: The game was a tale of two halves. Nothing went in the first half, and things returned to normal in the second, at least for UW.
eFG%: Manhattan was at 31% to UW’s 41%. Rarely will 41% win a game. Even rarer will it be a blowout.
3 pt shooting: Manhattan was 2-7, 29%. That percentage looks good compared to UW’s 24% (5 of 24). But, UW had the quantity advantage, taking three times the shots from deep (21 shots to 7) and made an extra 3 shots for a plus 9 points from deep.
The first half brickfest featured UW going 1-7 and Manhattan 0-4 from deep. Then, things returned to normal and UW was 4-8 and Manhattan 2-3.
2pt shooting: Manhattan hit an incredibly low 12 of 42 shots inside the arc, 29%. Wow.
UW hit a poor 16 of 37 for 43%. Of those 16 baskets, 8 were in the paint and 8 from midrange. Despite some not-so-good shooting, UW still picked up 8 points inside the arc.
In the first half, UW was 6-17 (35%) and Manhattan 5-21, 24%.
1pt shooting: Manhattan got to the line 10 times to UW’s 5. They made 5 to UW’s 3. So, they were able to get back 2 points with their 5 extra free throw attempts.
Rebounding: UW did well defending the glass and average attacking the offensive glass.
UW Defensive end: When Manhattan shot, they got 26% of their misses. That is about on UW’s historical excellent defensive glass percentage. 33% is normal. Of the 38 misses, Manhattan got 10, UW 28.
UW Offensive End: When UW missed, we got 31% (12 of 39). That is about average, historically, for UW but way below this year’s pace. Regular readers will remember we are tracking offensive rebounding to see if there is a change is strategy with UW crashing the boards more frequently. This game would say “probably not.” We need to keep watching this.
The good news was that the 12 offensive rebounds lead to 12 second chance points. Manhattan grabbed two fewer, 10, offensive rebounds but only got 3 second chance points.
Turnovers: Manhattan had 12 for 21% (on the national average). UW normally does not stress steals so this is a good day for UW (or bad day for Manhattan).
Meanwhile, UW gave up a stingy 14%. So, UW protected the ball well.
UW scored 13 points off turnovers to Manhattan’s 6.
Opportunity Index: UW had an extra 6 opportunities (two extra offensive rebounds and 4 extra turnovers from Manhattan).
Fouls: Neither team fouled much. UW was whistled for 12 and Manhattan 13. But, Manhattan was able to get 10 FTA’s to UW’s 5.
Playing time: Bo went 7 deep with the starters (including Bruesewitz and Gasser) plus Jarmusz (21 minutes) and Evans (12).
Notable Performances: Leuer had a 16-13 dub-dub. He was 7-16 (yes, the shooting bug hit him in the first half going 4-11) and no turnovers. Jon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
Taylor had an off day shooting going 1-7, 1-5 from deep for 3 points. He also had two turnovers, on consecutive plays if I remember. But, he played 36 minutes of stellar defense and two TO’s over that span is not bad for your primary ball handler.
Gasser scored 12 on 5-9 shooting and added a rebound to match his lone turnover. He played a remarkable 35 minutes. He is solid. There is already a lot of talk around the campfire about Josh.
Tim Jarmusz hit 2-4 deep shots, grabbed four boards, and played great defense. I hope he can keep his high efficiency up the rest of the year. That will make this team much more dangerous.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Badgers re-establish a dominant post game with more than 40 points in the paint. The Jaspers are small and unimposing at the big spots. Miss. They got 22, not even close.
2. Bruiser and Evans combine for less than 4 turnovers. I look for a deliberate effort from these two to take better care of the ball this game. Hit, they got two. But, they only played a combined 34 minutes. By the way, Evans picked up 3 fouls in 12 minutes. I think we can consider this an official problem that needs correcting.
3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. This is becoming more than an early season anomaly. It’s a change in strategy. Miss. 31%. Hopefully they get back on the boards against BC.
4. The Badgers make more free throws than the Jaspers attempt. This lovely stat has made a comeback this season and I think it continues. Miss. Jaspers 10 attempts, UW made 3.
Posters at Manhattan’s message board are betting on the over/under of their collective beat down in the three games to be somewhere between 20 and 40 points per game. The Badgers don’t disappoint with 80-49 victory. Hit, sort of. UW won by 15 in only 56 possessions.
Closing Thoughts: Onwards to BC. In my opinion, the first half was a case of shots simply not dropping. Coaches can only do things to maximize the probability of shots being made, but someone has to take the shot and make it. That did not happen in the first half. I see nothing to panic about and nothing to cause a change in strategy or personnel.
On a side note, this is the first game I have watched in awhile (off at deer camp for the UNLV game, the others were often on ESPN3). So, I have made little progress picking a favorite player. Taylor and Gasser are looking good to me, despite Taylor’s game yesterday. Leuer may win out by his overwhelming presence. It is still too early to tell.
I will be curious if Gasser will play 35+ minutes in the next two games. That would be a lot of basketball in 3 straight days.
This was a game that UW will not get many style points for. But, what happens before December 31 is ancient history come January. What happens in November is harder to remember, unless a loss is involved. The first half of this game will be long forgotten.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UW had a terrible shooting first half, scoring 17 points, but still had a 7 point lead due to outstanding defense. Things returned to normal in the second half.
Pace: The game had only 56 possessions.
Efficiency: UW scored only .89 PPP. But, they held Manhattan to a miserly .63PPP.
Shooting: The game was a tale of two halves. Nothing went in the first half, and things returned to normal in the second, at least for UW.
eFG%: Manhattan was at 31% to UW’s 41%. Rarely will 41% win a game. Even rarer will it be a blowout.
3 pt shooting: Manhattan was 2-7, 29%. That percentage looks good compared to UW’s 24% (5 of 24). But, UW had the quantity advantage, taking three times the shots from deep (21 shots to 7) and made an extra 3 shots for a plus 9 points from deep.
The first half brickfest featured UW going 1-7 and Manhattan 0-4 from deep. Then, things returned to normal and UW was 4-8 and Manhattan 2-3.
2pt shooting: Manhattan hit an incredibly low 12 of 42 shots inside the arc, 29%. Wow.
UW hit a poor 16 of 37 for 43%. Of those 16 baskets, 8 were in the paint and 8 from midrange. Despite some not-so-good shooting, UW still picked up 8 points inside the arc.
In the first half, UW was 6-17 (35%) and Manhattan 5-21, 24%.
1pt shooting: Manhattan got to the line 10 times to UW’s 5. They made 5 to UW’s 3. So, they were able to get back 2 points with their 5 extra free throw attempts.
Rebounding: UW did well defending the glass and average attacking the offensive glass.
UW Defensive end: When Manhattan shot, they got 26% of their misses. That is about on UW’s historical excellent defensive glass percentage. 33% is normal. Of the 38 misses, Manhattan got 10, UW 28.
UW Offensive End: When UW missed, we got 31% (12 of 39). That is about average, historically, for UW but way below this year’s pace. Regular readers will remember we are tracking offensive rebounding to see if there is a change is strategy with UW crashing the boards more frequently. This game would say “probably not.” We need to keep watching this.
The good news was that the 12 offensive rebounds lead to 12 second chance points. Manhattan grabbed two fewer, 10, offensive rebounds but only got 3 second chance points.
Turnovers: Manhattan had 12 for 21% (on the national average). UW normally does not stress steals so this is a good day for UW (or bad day for Manhattan).
Meanwhile, UW gave up a stingy 14%. So, UW protected the ball well.
UW scored 13 points off turnovers to Manhattan’s 6.
Opportunity Index: UW had an extra 6 opportunities (two extra offensive rebounds and 4 extra turnovers from Manhattan).
Fouls: Neither team fouled much. UW was whistled for 12 and Manhattan 13. But, Manhattan was able to get 10 FTA’s to UW’s 5.
Playing time: Bo went 7 deep with the starters (including Bruesewitz and Gasser) plus Jarmusz (21 minutes) and Evans (12).
Notable Performances: Leuer had a 16-13 dub-dub. He was 7-16 (yes, the shooting bug hit him in the first half going 4-11) and no turnovers. Jon, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of my people.
Taylor had an off day shooting going 1-7, 1-5 from deep for 3 points. He also had two turnovers, on consecutive plays if I remember. But, he played 36 minutes of stellar defense and two TO’s over that span is not bad for your primary ball handler.
Gasser scored 12 on 5-9 shooting and added a rebound to match his lone turnover. He played a remarkable 35 minutes. He is solid. There is already a lot of talk around the campfire about Josh.
Tim Jarmusz hit 2-4 deep shots, grabbed four boards, and played great defense. I hope he can keep his high efficiency up the rest of the year. That will make this team much more dangerous.
Grading Shetown’s Predictions
1. Badgers re-establish a dominant post game with more than 40 points in the paint. The Jaspers are small and unimposing at the big spots. Miss. They got 22, not even close.
2. Bruiser and Evans combine for less than 4 turnovers. I look for a deliberate effort from these two to take better care of the ball this game. Hit, they got two. But, they only played a combined 34 minutes. By the way, Evans picked up 3 fouls in 12 minutes. I think we can consider this an official problem that needs correcting.
3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. This is becoming more than an early season anomaly. It’s a change in strategy. Miss. 31%. Hopefully they get back on the boards against BC.
4. The Badgers make more free throws than the Jaspers attempt. This lovely stat has made a comeback this season and I think it continues. Miss. Jaspers 10 attempts, UW made 3.
Posters at Manhattan’s message board are betting on the over/under of their collective beat down in the three games to be somewhere between 20 and 40 points per game. The Badgers don’t disappoint with 80-49 victory. Hit, sort of. UW won by 15 in only 56 possessions.
Closing Thoughts: Onwards to BC. In my opinion, the first half was a case of shots simply not dropping. Coaches can only do things to maximize the probability of shots being made, but someone has to take the shot and make it. That did not happen in the first half. I see nothing to panic about and nothing to cause a change in strategy or personnel.
On a side note, this is the first game I have watched in awhile (off at deer camp for the UNLV game, the others were often on ESPN3). So, I have made little progress picking a favorite player. Taylor and Gasser are looking good to me, despite Taylor’s game yesterday. Leuer may win out by his overwhelming presence. It is still too early to tell.
I will be curious if Gasser will play 35+ minutes in the next two games. That would be a lot of basketball in 3 straight days.
NC State Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: I don't think a home game could have come at a better time. The Badgers couldn't hit the broad side of the barn in Orlando, especially from deep. Tomorrow night they will face the Wolfpack of NC State. NC State used to be a lot like Wisconsin with Herb Sendek at the helm. But he was chased away to ASU because their fanbase seemingly values high tempo over success. In Sendek's final 3 seasons, they went 64-34 and had 3 tournament appearances. Sidney Lowe's tenure is starting year five, and has resulted in no tournament appearances and a 51-46 record the last 3 seasons. But they are signing 4- and 5-star recruits now, so I guess they can lose in style.
Forums: PackPride Sports
What the expert nerds say: Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 12-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy predicts a 67-60 Badger victory in 61 possessions with a 20% chance of an upset.
NC State Likely Rotation (First 5 Games Statistics)
*G – 6’0” SR Javier Gonzalez (6.0 PPG, 2.8 APG, 2.6 RPG, 1.2 SPG, 137.1 OR, 12% Poss, 12% Shot, 17% TO, 2.1 FTR, 79% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’4” FR Lorenzo Brown (12.6 PPG, 5.2 RPG, 4.2 APG, 1.8 SPG, 1.0 BPG, 104.0 OR, 22% Poss, 21% Shot, 21% TO, 4.1 FTR, 29% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’6” SO Scott Wood (11.6 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 1.6 SPG, 1.2 APG, 123.4 OR, 15% Poss, 19% Shot, 13% TO, 2.1 FTR, 81% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SO Richard Howell (9.6 PPG, 7.4 RPG, 1.4 SPG, 122.3 OR, 24% Poss, 23% Shot, 12% TO, 5.9 FTR, 3% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” SO DeShawn Painter (7.6 PPG, 5.2 RPG, 1.2 BPG, 107.4 OR, 19% Poss, 20% Shot, 12% TO, 5.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 5’11” FR Ryan Horrow (10.8 PPG, 3.6 APG, 98.6 OR, 25% Poss, 28% Shot, 16% TO, 3.2 FTR, 24% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’8” FR C.J. Leslie (9.8 PPG, 4.6 RPG, 2.0 BPG, 84.6 OR, 27% Poss, 24% Shot, 21% TO, 7.9 FTR, 13% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’5” JR C.J. Williams (4.6 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 1.2 APG, 131.5 OR, 12% Poss, 15% Shot, 6% TO, 2.4 FTR, 6% of FGAs are 3PT)
C – 7’1” SO Jordan Vandenburg (2.0 PPG, 1.4 RPG, 1.2 BPG, 105.9 OR, 13% Poss, 9% Shot, 25% TO, 8.6 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
PLAYER TRAITS
THREE-POINT SHOOTING
Jeff Jordan (<28%)
Lorenzo Brown = 21%
Ryan Horrow = 17%
Richard Howell = 0%
C.J. Leslie = 0%
C.J. Williams = 0%
Trevon Hughes (35-38%)
None
Clayton Hanson (+38%)
Scott Wood = 41%
Javier Gonzalez = 40%
TWO-POINT SHOOTING
Kevin Gullikson (<43%)
Jordan Vandenburg = 43%
Marcus Landry (50-54%)
C.J. Leslie = 52%
Scott Wood = 50%
Mike Wilkinson (+54%)
Javier Gonzalez = 100%
C.J. Williams = 63%
Richard Howell = 58%
Lorenzo Brown = 54%
FREE THROW SHOOTING
Alando Tucker (<65%)
Richard Howell = 63%
C.J. Leslie = 50%
Kam Taylor (75-82%)
Lorenzo Brown = 80%
C.J. Williams = 75%
Jason Bohannon (+82%)
Scott Wood = 89%
Ryan Horrow = 88%
DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)
Richard Howell = 18%
C.J. Leslie = 17%
Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)
None
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Brian Butch (9-12%)
DeShawn Painter = 11%
Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)
Richard Howell = 21%
STEALING
Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)
Richard Howell = 4.0%
Javier Gonzalez = 3.2%
Lorenzo Brown = 3.1%
Scott Wood = 3.0%
Mike Kelley (+4.4%)
None
BLOCKING
Brian Butch (3-7%)
Carleton Scott = 6%
DeShawn Painter = 5%
Greg Stiemsma (+7%)
Jordan Vandenburg = 10%
C.J. Leslie = 8%
ASSISTS
Devin Harris (20-25%)
Javier Gonzalez = 24%
Jordan Taylor (25-30%)
Ryan Horrow = 29%
Lorenzo Brown = 25%
Demetri McCamey (+30%)
None
POSSESSION USAGE
Jason Chappell (<15%)
Scott Wood = 15%
Jordan Vandenburg = 13%
Javier Gonzalez = 12%
C.J. Williams = 12%
Brian Butch (24-28%)
C.J. Leslie = 27%
Ryan Horrow = 25%
Richard Howell = 24%
Alando Tucker (+28%)
None
What NC State is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. This season, they have averaged only 1 turnover per 6 possessions, which is good for 23rd in the nation.
2. Shooting and defending 2s. They have shot 51.2% (83rd) from inside the arc so far this season, and allowed 42.9% (71st).
3. Blocking shots. They block nearly one of every seven 2PT FGAs their opponents take, good for 32nd in the nation.
4. Keeping the opponent off the charity stripe and getting there themselves. Their opponents attempt about 4 FTAs per 13 FGAs (67th) and they get there 7 times for every 15 FGAs (61st).
5. Picking pockets. They steal the ball from their opponents once every 9 possessions (86th).
What NC State is really bad at:
1. Defensive rebounding. They only grab 60.4% of the defensive rebounding opportunities, which is 319th in the nation.
2. Shooting threes. They have 30.5% from beyond the arc, or 253rd and worse than the Badgers.
3. Defending free throws. Their opponents have shot 71.1% from the line, which is 249th in the nation.
Relative Efficiency:
When NC State has the ball: They have scored a great 1.09 PPP this season, while UW has given up a great 0.90 this season.
When UW has the ball: They have given up an okay 0.97 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.16 this season.
Pace: NC State has played at 71 possessions per game to UW’s 60.
My expectations:
1. The Badgers re-establish their dominance on the offensive boards, grabbing at least 40%. The Badgers are good at them and NCSU is terrible at stopping them.
2. The bench, Gasser, and Bruesewitz score at least 40% of the team’s points. I think the friendly confines help the role players find their stroke again. FYI, they currently score 30.8% of the points.
3. The Badgers get their 3-point shooting ability back, and shoot better than 35%. The team shot 42% in the Kohl Center and 17% in Orlando. I think the Kohl Center shooting returns.
The Badgers take out their disappointment from Orlando on the Wolfpack, Cesar Milan-ing them 75-62 in 64 possessions.
Forums: PackPride Sports
What the expert nerds say: Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 12-point favorite.
Ken Pomeroy predicts a 67-60 Badger victory in 61 possessions with a 20% chance of an upset.
NC State Likely Rotation (First 5 Games Statistics)
*G – 6’0” SR Javier Gonzalez (6.0 PPG, 2.8 APG, 2.6 RPG, 1.2 SPG, 137.1 OR, 12% Poss, 12% Shot, 17% TO, 2.1 FTR, 79% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’4” FR Lorenzo Brown (12.6 PPG, 5.2 RPG, 4.2 APG, 1.8 SPG, 1.0 BPG, 104.0 OR, 22% Poss, 21% Shot, 21% TO, 4.1 FTR, 29% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’6” SO Scott Wood (11.6 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 1.6 SPG, 1.2 APG, 123.4 OR, 15% Poss, 19% Shot, 13% TO, 2.1 FTR, 81% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SO Richard Howell (9.6 PPG, 7.4 RPG, 1.4 SPG, 122.3 OR, 24% Poss, 23% Shot, 12% TO, 5.9 FTR, 3% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’9” SO DeShawn Painter (7.6 PPG, 5.2 RPG, 1.2 BPG, 107.4 OR, 19% Poss, 20% Shot, 12% TO, 5.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 5’11” FR Ryan Horrow (10.8 PPG, 3.6 APG, 98.6 OR, 25% Poss, 28% Shot, 16% TO, 3.2 FTR, 24% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’8” FR C.J. Leslie (9.8 PPG, 4.6 RPG, 2.0 BPG, 84.6 OR, 27% Poss, 24% Shot, 21% TO, 7.9 FTR, 13% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’5” JR C.J. Williams (4.6 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 1.2 APG, 131.5 OR, 12% Poss, 15% Shot, 6% TO, 2.4 FTR, 6% of FGAs are 3PT)
C – 7’1” SO Jordan Vandenburg (2.0 PPG, 1.4 RPG, 1.2 BPG, 105.9 OR, 13% Poss, 9% Shot, 25% TO, 8.6 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
PLAYER TRAITS
THREE-POINT SHOOTING
Jeff Jordan (<28%)
Lorenzo Brown = 21%
Ryan Horrow = 17%
Richard Howell = 0%
C.J. Leslie = 0%
C.J. Williams = 0%
Trevon Hughes (35-38%)
None
Clayton Hanson (+38%)
Scott Wood = 41%
Javier Gonzalez = 40%
TWO-POINT SHOOTING
Kevin Gullikson (<43%)
Jordan Vandenburg = 43%
Marcus Landry (50-54%)
C.J. Leslie = 52%
Scott Wood = 50%
Mike Wilkinson (+54%)
Javier Gonzalez = 100%
C.J. Williams = 63%
Richard Howell = 58%
Lorenzo Brown = 54%
FREE THROW SHOOTING
Alando Tucker (<65%)
Richard Howell = 63%
C.J. Leslie = 50%
Kam Taylor (75-82%)
Lorenzo Brown = 80%
C.J. Williams = 75%
Jason Bohannon (+82%)
Scott Wood = 89%
Ryan Horrow = 88%
DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)
Richard Howell = 18%
C.J. Leslie = 17%
Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)
None
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Brian Butch (9-12%)
DeShawn Painter = 11%
Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)
Richard Howell = 21%
STEALING
Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)
Richard Howell = 4.0%
Javier Gonzalez = 3.2%
Lorenzo Brown = 3.1%
Scott Wood = 3.0%
Mike Kelley (+4.4%)
None
BLOCKING
Brian Butch (3-7%)
Carleton Scott = 6%
DeShawn Painter = 5%
Greg Stiemsma (+7%)
Jordan Vandenburg = 10%
C.J. Leslie = 8%
ASSISTS
Devin Harris (20-25%)
Javier Gonzalez = 24%
Jordan Taylor (25-30%)
Ryan Horrow = 29%
Lorenzo Brown = 25%
Demetri McCamey (+30%)
None
POSSESSION USAGE
Jason Chappell (<15%)
Scott Wood = 15%
Jordan Vandenburg = 13%
Javier Gonzalez = 12%
C.J. Williams = 12%
Brian Butch (24-28%)
C.J. Leslie = 27%
Ryan Horrow = 25%
Richard Howell = 24%
Alando Tucker (+28%)
None
What NC State is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. This season, they have averaged only 1 turnover per 6 possessions, which is good for 23rd in the nation.
2. Shooting and defending 2s. They have shot 51.2% (83rd) from inside the arc so far this season, and allowed 42.9% (71st).
3. Blocking shots. They block nearly one of every seven 2PT FGAs their opponents take, good for 32nd in the nation.
4. Keeping the opponent off the charity stripe and getting there themselves. Their opponents attempt about 4 FTAs per 13 FGAs (67th) and they get there 7 times for every 15 FGAs (61st).
5. Picking pockets. They steal the ball from their opponents once every 9 possessions (86th).
What NC State is really bad at:
1. Defensive rebounding. They only grab 60.4% of the defensive rebounding opportunities, which is 319th in the nation.
2. Shooting threes. They have 30.5% from beyond the arc, or 253rd and worse than the Badgers.
3. Defending free throws. Their opponents have shot 71.1% from the line, which is 249th in the nation.
Relative Efficiency:
When NC State has the ball: They have scored a great 1.09 PPP this season, while UW has given up a great 0.90 this season.
When UW has the ball: They have given up an okay 0.97 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.16 this season.
Pace: NC State has played at 71 possessions per game to UW’s 60.
My expectations:
1. The Badgers re-establish their dominance on the offensive boards, grabbing at least 40%. The Badgers are good at them and NCSU is terrible at stopping them.
2. The bench, Gasser, and Bruesewitz score at least 40% of the team’s points. I think the friendly confines help the role players find their stroke again. FYI, they currently score 30.8% of the points.
3. The Badgers get their 3-point shooting ability back, and shoot better than 35%. The team shot 42% in the Kohl Center and 17% in Orlando. I think the Kohl Center shooting returns.
The Badgers take out their disappointment from Orlando on the Wolfpack, Cesar Milan-ing them 75-62 in 64 possessions.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Notre Dame Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: I didn’t like how they let off the gas and allowed a 15-0 run at the end of the game, but hey, we won comfortably regardless. I noticed quite a bit of people questioning the shooting prowess, or lack there of, by the Badgers from 3-point range, citing the past 2 games as evidence. Well, I want to lend some credibility to those blaming the court specs of the gym in Orlando. All 8 teams in the tournament had a combined 34.3% mark from the arc before the start of the tournament, which is just about the national average most seasons. In the tournament, they have combined for 27.5%, just a bit less than 7% lower. It’s the difference between 149th and 292nd in the country. Half the teams (Wisconsin, Manhattan, Notre Dame, and Georgia) dropped their percentage by a number between 15.8 to 19.7 points! Boston College improved by 12.6% and Texas A&M by 8.5%, but the other six teams shot at least 4% worse. But I digress, Notre Dame is on the docket…
Forums: ND Nation, UHND, Irish Illustrated, Irish Eyes
What the expert nerds say: Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 2-point favorite.
I think Ken Pomeroy predicts a 66-62 Badger victory in 61 possessions with a 38% chance of an upset. I hand calculated this myself and it doesn’t seem right to me, especially the number of possessions since it’s below both teams’ averages.
Notre Dame Likely Rotation (First 6 Games Statistics)
*G – 6’3” SR Ben Hansbrough (15.3 PPG, 4.3 APG, 3.8 RPG, 123.7 OR, 21% Poss, 20% Shot, 21% TO, 5.1 FTR, 60% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G/F – 6’8” SR Scott Martin (9.0 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 1.8 APG, 100.5 OR, 19% Poss, 19% Shot, 19% TO, 6.0 FTR, 43% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Tim Abromaitis (17.0 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 2.5 APG, 125.3 OR, 22% Poss, 25% Shot, 8% TO, 6.0 FTR, 54% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Carleton Scott (10.8 PPG, 7.8 RPG, 2.3 APG, 1.7 APG, 112.7 OR, 19% Poss, 23% Shot, 19% TO, 2.3 FTR, 51% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Tyrone Nash (12.7 PPG, 7.2 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.7 BPG, 126.8 OR, 22% Poss, 16% Shot, 14% TO, 13.6 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’2” FR Eric Atkins (7.8 PPG, 3.3 APG, 2.3 RPG, 129.5 OR, 13% Poss, 14% Shot, 17% TO, 2.4 FTR, 42% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” SO Jack Cooley (6.3 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 127.9 OR, 21% Poss, 21% Shot, 14% TO, 5.0 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’6” SO Joey Brooks (2.7 PPG, 1.7 RPG, 92.7 OR, 17% Poss, 17% Shot, 26% TO, 4.0 FTR, 53% of FGAs are 3PT)
PLAYER TRAITS (with revisions from suggestions)
THREE-POINT SHOOTING
Jeff Jordan (<28%)
Carleton Scott = 26%
Scott Martin = 20%
Joey Brooks = 13%
Trevon Hughes (35-38%)
None
Clayton Hanson (+38%)
Ben Hansbrough = 55%
Eric Atkins = 50%
TWO-POINT SHOOTING
Kevin Gullikson (<43%)
Ben Hansbrough = 41%
Marcus Landry (50-54%)
Eric Atkins = 53%
Tim Abromaitis = 50%
Mike Wilkinson (+54%)
Joey Brooks = 71%
Carleton Scott = 65%
Jack Cooley = 63%
Scott Martin = 55%
FREE THROW SHOOTING
Alando Tucker (<65%)
Joey Brooks = 50%
Kam Taylor (75-82%)
Tim Abromaitis = 81%
Tyrone Nash = 76%
Eric Atkins = 75%
Jason Bohannon (+82%)
Carleton Scott = 83%
DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)
Tim Abromaitis = 18%
Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)
Carleton Scott = 25%
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Brian Butch (9-12%)
Tyrone Nash = 11%
Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)
Jack Cooley = 20%
STEALING
Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)
Joey Brooks = 3.6%
Mike Kelley (+4.4%)
None
BLOCKING
Brian Butch (3-7%)
Carleton Scott = 6%
Jack Cooley = 6%
Greg Stiemsma (+7%)
None
ASSISTS
Devin Harris (20-25%)
Eric Atkins = 23%
Tyrone Nash = 20%
Jordan Taylor (25-30%)
Ben Hansbrough = 27%
Demetri McCamey (+30%)
None
POSSESSION USAGE
Jason Chappell (<15%)
Eric Atkins = 13%
Brian Butch (24-28%)
None
Alando Tucker (+28%)
None
This still isn’t set in stone… if you think I should use different players (Badgers or other Big Ten), feel free to suggest them so I don’t have Butch, Kelley, Tucker, and Hughes multiple times. For those questioning, all of the players had numbers in their range for either their entire career or their upperclassmen seasons. For example, Mike Kelley averaged a 4.5% steal rate with a high of 5.9 his junior year and Trevon Hughes shot 36% from three for his career with a high of almost 40% his senior year.
What Notre Dame is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. This season, they have averaged only 3 turnovers per 19 possessions, which is good for 15th in the nation.
2. Shooting. They have shot 51.6% (84th) from inside the arc so far this season, and 35.7% (112th) from the arc, and 74.1% from the line (46th).
3. Contesting shots. They have surrendered a measly 41.1% inside the arc (45th), 30.1% from the arc (100th), and 64.6% from the line (103rd).
4. Keeping the opponent off the charity stripe and getting there themselves. Their opponents attempt about 2 FTAs per 9 FGAs (32nd) and they get there 6 times for every 11 FGAs (19th).
5. Rebounding. They are 51st in offensive rebounding (38.4%) and 9th in defensive (76.5%).
What Notre Dame is really bad at:
1. Forcing turnovers. They have forced only about 2 turnovers per 11 possessions, good for 299th in the nation.
Relative Efficiency:
When Notre Dame has the ball: They have scored a white hot 1.21 PPP this season, while UW has given up a great 0.88 this season.
When UW has the ball: They have given up a great 0.88 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.20 this season.
Pace: Notre Dame has played at 71 possessions per game to UW’s 61.
My expectations:
1. Badgers establish a strong post game with more than 30 points in the paint. The Badgers ruin the Irish's sparkling interior defensive stats.
2. The Badgers knock down less than 3 threes. Come on reverse psychology.
3. Badgers grab more than 36% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. Let it ride against a great rebounding team.
4. The Badgers hold Abromaitis to less than 12 points. We’re got the defenders at the 3 spot to slow this guy.
Badgers eat their Lucky Charms, downing ND 74-68 in 66 possessions.
Forums: ND Nation, UHND, Irish Illustrated, Irish Eyes
What the expert nerds say: Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 2-point favorite.
I think Ken Pomeroy predicts a 66-62 Badger victory in 61 possessions with a 38% chance of an upset. I hand calculated this myself and it doesn’t seem right to me, especially the number of possessions since it’s below both teams’ averages.
Notre Dame Likely Rotation (First 6 Games Statistics)
*G – 6’3” SR Ben Hansbrough (15.3 PPG, 4.3 APG, 3.8 RPG, 123.7 OR, 21% Poss, 20% Shot, 21% TO, 5.1 FTR, 60% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G/F – 6’8” SR Scott Martin (9.0 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 1.8 APG, 100.5 OR, 19% Poss, 19% Shot, 19% TO, 6.0 FTR, 43% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Tim Abromaitis (17.0 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 2.5 APG, 125.3 OR, 22% Poss, 25% Shot, 8% TO, 6.0 FTR, 54% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Carleton Scott (10.8 PPG, 7.8 RPG, 2.3 APG, 1.7 APG, 112.7 OR, 19% Poss, 23% Shot, 19% TO, 2.3 FTR, 51% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Tyrone Nash (12.7 PPG, 7.2 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.7 BPG, 126.8 OR, 22% Poss, 16% Shot, 14% TO, 13.6 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’2” FR Eric Atkins (7.8 PPG, 3.3 APG, 2.3 RPG, 129.5 OR, 13% Poss, 14% Shot, 17% TO, 2.4 FTR, 42% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’9” SO Jack Cooley (6.3 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 127.9 OR, 21% Poss, 21% Shot, 14% TO, 5.0 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’6” SO Joey Brooks (2.7 PPG, 1.7 RPG, 92.7 OR, 17% Poss, 17% Shot, 26% TO, 4.0 FTR, 53% of FGAs are 3PT)
PLAYER TRAITS (with revisions from suggestions)
THREE-POINT SHOOTING
Jeff Jordan (<28%)
Carleton Scott = 26%
Scott Martin = 20%
Joey Brooks = 13%
Trevon Hughes (35-38%)
None
Clayton Hanson (+38%)
Ben Hansbrough = 55%
Eric Atkins = 50%
TWO-POINT SHOOTING
Kevin Gullikson (<43%)
Ben Hansbrough = 41%
Marcus Landry (50-54%)
Eric Atkins = 53%
Tim Abromaitis = 50%
Mike Wilkinson (+54%)
Joey Brooks = 71%
Carleton Scott = 65%
Jack Cooley = 63%
Scott Martin = 55%
FREE THROW SHOOTING
Alando Tucker (<65%)
Joey Brooks = 50%
Kam Taylor (75-82%)
Tim Abromaitis = 81%
Tyrone Nash = 76%
Eric Atkins = 75%
Jason Bohannon (+82%)
Carleton Scott = 83%
DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)
Tim Abromaitis = 18%
Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)
Carleton Scott = 25%
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Brian Butch (9-12%)
Tyrone Nash = 11%
Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)
Jack Cooley = 20%
STEALING
Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)
Joey Brooks = 3.6%
Mike Kelley (+4.4%)
None
BLOCKING
Brian Butch (3-7%)
Carleton Scott = 6%
Jack Cooley = 6%
Greg Stiemsma (+7%)
None
ASSISTS
Devin Harris (20-25%)
Eric Atkins = 23%
Tyrone Nash = 20%
Jordan Taylor (25-30%)
Ben Hansbrough = 27%
Demetri McCamey (+30%)
None
POSSESSION USAGE
Jason Chappell (<15%)
Eric Atkins = 13%
Brian Butch (24-28%)
None
Alando Tucker (+28%)
None
This still isn’t set in stone… if you think I should use different players (Badgers or other Big Ten), feel free to suggest them so I don’t have Butch, Kelley, Tucker, and Hughes multiple times. For those questioning, all of the players had numbers in their range for either their entire career or their upperclassmen seasons. For example, Mike Kelley averaged a 4.5% steal rate with a high of 5.9 his junior year and Trevon Hughes shot 36% from three for his career with a high of almost 40% his senior year.
What Notre Dame is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. This season, they have averaged only 3 turnovers per 19 possessions, which is good for 15th in the nation.
2. Shooting. They have shot 51.6% (84th) from inside the arc so far this season, and 35.7% (112th) from the arc, and 74.1% from the line (46th).
3. Contesting shots. They have surrendered a measly 41.1% inside the arc (45th), 30.1% from the arc (100th), and 64.6% from the line (103rd).
4. Keeping the opponent off the charity stripe and getting there themselves. Their opponents attempt about 2 FTAs per 9 FGAs (32nd) and they get there 6 times for every 11 FGAs (19th).
5. Rebounding. They are 51st in offensive rebounding (38.4%) and 9th in defensive (76.5%).
What Notre Dame is really bad at:
1. Forcing turnovers. They have forced only about 2 turnovers per 11 possessions, good for 299th in the nation.
Relative Efficiency:
When Notre Dame has the ball: They have scored a white hot 1.21 PPP this season, while UW has given up a great 0.88 this season.
When UW has the ball: They have given up a great 0.88 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.20 this season.
Pace: Notre Dame has played at 71 possessions per game to UW’s 61.
My expectations:
1. Badgers establish a strong post game with more than 30 points in the paint. The Badgers ruin the Irish's sparkling interior defensive stats.
2. The Badgers knock down less than 3 threes. Come on reverse psychology.
3. Badgers grab more than 36% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. Let it ride against a great rebounding team.
4. The Badgers hold Abromaitis to less than 12 points. We’re got the defenders at the 3 spot to slow this guy.
Badgers eat their Lucky Charms, downing ND 74-68 in 66 possessions.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Boston College Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: Not the prettiest of games yesterday, but a win is a win. Hopefully they got the bad shooting out of their system because up next is Boston College. Their new head coach doesn't bring up good memories for Badger fans... Steve Donahue from last year's Cornell team. And this Boston College team runs the same offense and jacks as many 3s as that team did. Luckily, his roster isn't fit for the style quite yet.
What the expert nerds say: Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 10-point favorite.
Manhattan Likely Rotation (First 4 Games Statistics)
*G – 6’3” JR Reggie Jackson (19.2 PPG, 4.5 APG, 3.8 RPG, 2.2 SPG, 126.7 OR, 28% Poss, 31% Shot, 10% TO, 2.5 FTR, 39% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’1” SR Biko Paris (7.2 PPG, 3.0 APG, 1.8 RPG, 86.0 OR, 17% Poss, 17% Shot, 25% TO, 1.7 FTR, 53% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’6” FR Danny Rubin (9.7 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 122.3 OR, 18% Poss, 25% Shot, 6% TO, 1.9 FTR, 71% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Joe Trapani (13.8 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 1.5 APG, 105.4 OR, 27% Poss, 28% Shot, 29% TO, 5.6 FTR, 35% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Cortney Dunn (2.5 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 1.0 APG, 1.0 BPG, 106.0 OR, 12% Poss, 6% Shot, 27% TO, 12.0 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’6” SR Corey Raji (13.8 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 1.5 APG, 150.2 OR, 22% Poss, 19% Shot, 8% TO, 8.5 FTR, 31% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’5” JR Dallas Elmore (2.0 PPG, 1.5 RPG, 74.6 OR, 12% Poss, 9% Shot, 33% TO, 5.0 FTR, 25% of FGAs are 3PT)
C – 6’10” SR Josh Southern (3.0 PPG, 1.3 APG, 1.0 RPG, 149.9 OR, 13% Poss, 7% Shot, 14% TO, 8.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’2” FR Gabriel Moton (1.5 PPG, 1.2 RPG, 108.1 OR, 12% Poss, 15% Shot, 0% TO, 0.0 FTR, 67% of FGAs are 3PT)
PLAYER TRAITS (with revisions from suggestions)
THREE-POINT SHOOTING
Jeff Jordan (<28%)
Joe Trapani = 27%
Biko Paris = 25%
Dallas Elmore = 0%
Gabriel Moton = 0%
Trevon Hughes (35-38%)
Corey Raji = 38%
Reggie Jackson = 36%
Clayton Hanson (+38%)
Danny Rubin = 47%
TWO-POINT SHOOTING
Kevin Gullikson (<43%)
Biko Paris = 43%
Joe Trapani = 43%
Dallas Elmore = 33%
Marcus Landry (50-54%)
Danny Rubin = 50%
Mike Wilkinson (+54%)
Gabriel Moton = 100%
Cortney Dunn = 80%
Corey Raji = 78%
Josh Southern = 67%
Reggie Jackson = 59%
FREE THROW SHOOTING
Alando Tucker (<65%)
Danny Rubin = 50%
Cortney Dunn = 33%
Kam Taylor (75-82%)
Corey Raji 82%
Joe Trapani = 79%
Jason Bohannon (+82%)
Biko Paris = 100%
Dallas Elmore = 100%
Reggie Jackson = 93%
Josh Southern = 83%
DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)
Corey Raji = 18%
Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)
Joe Trapani = 22%
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Brian Butch (9-12%)
Gabriel Moton = 9%
Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)
Corey Raji = 16%
STEALING
Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)
Reggie Jackson = 4.2%
Mike Kelley (+4.4%)
None
BLOCKING
Brian Butch (3-7%)
Josh Southern = 3.6%
Joe Trapani = 3.1%
Greg Stiemsma (+7%)
Cortney Dunn = 8%
ASSISTS
Devin Harris (20-25%)
Josh Southern = 22%
Jordan Taylor (25-30%)
None
Demetri McCamey (+30%)
Reggie Jackson = 34%
POSSESSION USAGE
Jason Chappell (<15%)
Josh Southern = 13%
Dallas Elmore = 12%
Cortney Dunn = 12%
Brian Butch (24-28%)
Reggie Jackson = 28%
Joe Trapani = 27%
Alando Tucker (+28%)
None
This still isn’t set in stone… if you think I should use different players (Badgers or other Big Ten), feel free to suggest them so I don’t have Butch, Kelley, Tucker, and Hughes multiple times. For those questioning, all of the players had numbers in their range for either their entire career or their upperclassmen seasons. For example, Mike Kelley averaged a 4.5% steal rate with a high of 5.9 his junior year and Trevon Hughes shot 36% from three for his career with a high of almost 40% his senior year.
What Manhattan is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. This season, they have averaged only 3 turnovers per 23 possessions, which is good for 3rd in the nation.
2. Shooting 1s and 2s. They have shot 56.7% (23rd) from inside the arc so far this season and 80% (11th) from the line.
3. Defending the paint. They have surrendered a measly 42% inside the arc, good for 60th in the nation.
4. Keeping the opponent off the charity stripe. Their opponents attempt about 3 FTAs per 10 FGAs. That's 36th lowest in the country.
5. Blocking shots. As shown by the Brian Butchs and Greg Stiemsma in the blocking trait, BC blocks about one out of every eight 2-point attempts by their opponent, good for 83rd in the country.
What Manhattan is really bad at:
1. Offensive Rebounding. They have grabbed only 29% of all the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end, good for 251st in the nation.
2. Shooting 3s. They take 42% of their shots from behind the arc, but only make 29.5% of them (257th). This is similar to John Belein's Michigan teams.
3. Defending the arc. They have surrendered a sizzling 40% outside the arc, good for 293rd in the nation. Wisconsin has given up 40% as well.
Relative Efficiency:
When Boston College has the ball: They have scored a great 1.14 PPP this season, while UW has given up a stingy 0.85 this season.
When UW has the ball: They have given up an average 0.98 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.21 this season.
Pace: Boston College has played at 62 possessions per game to UW’s 62.
My expectations:
1. Badgers establish a strong post game with more than 30 points in the paint. The Badgers ruin the Eagles' sparkling interior defensive stats.
2. The Badgers knock down more than 8 threes. BC isn't good defending the arc and I think the Badgers make up for the bad shooting against Manhattan.
3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. This is becoming more than an early season anomaly. It’s a change in strategy. Granted I'm not sure how much longer it will stay if refs keep calling over the back on Bruiser, Leuer, Nankivil, and Gasser.
4. The Badgers make more free throws than the Eagles attempt. This lovely stat has made a comeback this season and I think it continues.
Badgers clip the Eagles 71-62 in 60 possessions.
What the expert nerds say: Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 10-point favorite.
Manhattan Likely Rotation (First 4 Games Statistics)
*G – 6’3” JR Reggie Jackson (19.2 PPG, 4.5 APG, 3.8 RPG, 2.2 SPG, 126.7 OR, 28% Poss, 31% Shot, 10% TO, 2.5 FTR, 39% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’1” SR Biko Paris (7.2 PPG, 3.0 APG, 1.8 RPG, 86.0 OR, 17% Poss, 17% Shot, 25% TO, 1.7 FTR, 53% of FGAs are 3PT)
*G – 6’6” FR Danny Rubin (9.7 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 122.3 OR, 18% Poss, 25% Shot, 6% TO, 1.9 FTR, 71% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Joe Trapani (13.8 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 1.5 APG, 105.4 OR, 27% Poss, 28% Shot, 29% TO, 5.6 FTR, 35% of FGAs are 3PT)
*F – 6’8” SR Cortney Dunn (2.5 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 1.0 APG, 1.0 BPG, 106.0 OR, 12% Poss, 6% Shot, 27% TO, 12.0 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
F – 6’6” SR Corey Raji (13.8 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 1.5 APG, 150.2 OR, 22% Poss, 19% Shot, 8% TO, 8.5 FTR, 31% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’5” JR Dallas Elmore (2.0 PPG, 1.5 RPG, 74.6 OR, 12% Poss, 9% Shot, 33% TO, 5.0 FTR, 25% of FGAs are 3PT)
C – 6’10” SR Josh Southern (3.0 PPG, 1.3 APG, 1.0 RPG, 149.9 OR, 13% Poss, 7% Shot, 14% TO, 8.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)
G – 6’2” FR Gabriel Moton (1.5 PPG, 1.2 RPG, 108.1 OR, 12% Poss, 15% Shot, 0% TO, 0.0 FTR, 67% of FGAs are 3PT)
PLAYER TRAITS (with revisions from suggestions)
THREE-POINT SHOOTING
Jeff Jordan (<28%)
Joe Trapani = 27%
Biko Paris = 25%
Dallas Elmore = 0%
Gabriel Moton = 0%
Trevon Hughes (35-38%)
Corey Raji = 38%
Reggie Jackson = 36%
Clayton Hanson (+38%)
Danny Rubin = 47%
TWO-POINT SHOOTING
Kevin Gullikson (<43%)
Biko Paris = 43%
Joe Trapani = 43%
Dallas Elmore = 33%
Marcus Landry (50-54%)
Danny Rubin = 50%
Mike Wilkinson (+54%)
Gabriel Moton = 100%
Cortney Dunn = 80%
Corey Raji = 78%
Josh Southern = 67%
Reggie Jackson = 59%
FREE THROW SHOOTING
Alando Tucker (<65%)
Danny Rubin = 50%
Cortney Dunn = 33%
Kam Taylor (75-82%)
Corey Raji 82%
Joe Trapani = 79%
Jason Bohannon (+82%)
Biko Paris = 100%
Dallas Elmore = 100%
Reggie Jackson = 93%
Josh Southern = 83%
DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)
Corey Raji = 18%
Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)
Joe Trapani = 22%
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Brian Butch (9-12%)
Gabriel Moton = 9%
Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)
Corey Raji = 16%
STEALING
Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)
Reggie Jackson = 4.2%
Mike Kelley (+4.4%)
None
BLOCKING
Brian Butch (3-7%)
Josh Southern = 3.6%
Joe Trapani = 3.1%
Greg Stiemsma (+7%)
Cortney Dunn = 8%
ASSISTS
Devin Harris (20-25%)
Josh Southern = 22%
Jordan Taylor (25-30%)
None
Demetri McCamey (+30%)
Reggie Jackson = 34%
POSSESSION USAGE
Jason Chappell (<15%)
Josh Southern = 13%
Dallas Elmore = 12%
Cortney Dunn = 12%
Brian Butch (24-28%)
Reggie Jackson = 28%
Joe Trapani = 27%
Alando Tucker (+28%)
None
This still isn’t set in stone… if you think I should use different players (Badgers or other Big Ten), feel free to suggest them so I don’t have Butch, Kelley, Tucker, and Hughes multiple times. For those questioning, all of the players had numbers in their range for either their entire career or their upperclassmen seasons. For example, Mike Kelley averaged a 4.5% steal rate with a high of 5.9 his junior year and Trevon Hughes shot 36% from three for his career with a high of almost 40% his senior year.
What Manhattan is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. This season, they have averaged only 3 turnovers per 23 possessions, which is good for 3rd in the nation.
2. Shooting 1s and 2s. They have shot 56.7% (23rd) from inside the arc so far this season and 80% (11th) from the line.
3. Defending the paint. They have surrendered a measly 42% inside the arc, good for 60th in the nation.
4. Keeping the opponent off the charity stripe. Their opponents attempt about 3 FTAs per 10 FGAs. That's 36th lowest in the country.
5. Blocking shots. As shown by the Brian Butchs and Greg Stiemsma in the blocking trait, BC blocks about one out of every eight 2-point attempts by their opponent, good for 83rd in the country.
What Manhattan is really bad at:
1. Offensive Rebounding. They have grabbed only 29% of all the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end, good for 251st in the nation.
2. Shooting 3s. They take 42% of their shots from behind the arc, but only make 29.5% of them (257th). This is similar to John Belein's Michigan teams.
3. Defending the arc. They have surrendered a sizzling 40% outside the arc, good for 293rd in the nation. Wisconsin has given up 40% as well.
Relative Efficiency:
When Boston College has the ball: They have scored a great 1.14 PPP this season, while UW has given up a stingy 0.85 this season.
When UW has the ball: They have given up an average 0.98 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.21 this season.
Pace: Boston College has played at 62 possessions per game to UW’s 62.
My expectations:
1. Badgers establish a strong post game with more than 30 points in the paint. The Badgers ruin the Eagles' sparkling interior defensive stats.
2. The Badgers knock down more than 8 threes. BC isn't good defending the arc and I think the Badgers make up for the bad shooting against Manhattan.
3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. This is becoming more than an early season anomaly. It’s a change in strategy. Granted I'm not sure how much longer it will stay if refs keep calling over the back on Bruiser, Leuer, Nankivil, and Gasser.
4. The Badgers make more free throws than the Eagles attempt. This lovely stat has made a comeback this season and I think it continues.
Badgers clip the Eagles 71-62 in 60 possessions.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Manhattan Pre-Game Analysis
Opening Thoughts: Well losing to UNLV was a disappointing, albeit not unexpected, loss for Wisconsin first foray away from the Kohl. But life goes on, and so Wisconsin will take on a 2-1 Manhattan team in the first round of the Old Spice Classic in Orlando. Manhattan is coming off a 91-80 loss to Long Island and have victories over Penn and the New Jersey Institute of Technology (yes, that exists and has a D1 basketball team). The Jaspers are coming off of a 11-20 season and return one player from their regular rotation on that team. Their new rotation consists of that one returnee, two pine riders from last season, and four freshman/jucos. They were also supposed to receive the services of an Alabama transfer that graduated from ‘Bama in three years, but he isn’t eligible. There are jokes o’ plenty in that ineligibility, but according to Manhattan fans, it’s because the athletic department messed up on his forms. Nonetheless, they are considered the patsy of the tournament, much like Chaminade in Maui.
Forum to Visit: Draddy Gym
What the expert nerds say: Ken Pomeroy predicts a 76-53 Badger victory in 62 possessions, with a 2% chance of upset.
Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 21-point favorite.
Manhattan Likely Rotation (Last Season’s Statistics or First 3 Games Statistics¡)
*G – 6’2” FR Michael Alvarado (16.3 PPG, 4.3 APG, 4.3 RPG, 1.0 SPG, 110.3 OR, 26% Poss, 21% Shot, 22% TO, 7.7 FTR, 23% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*G – 6’1” JR Kidani Brutus (13.7 PPG, 3.7 RPG, 1.3 APG, 140.4 OR, 14% Poss, 18% Shot, 12% TO, 2.6 FTR, 70% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*G/F – 6’4” SO George Beamon (16.7 PPG, 9.3 RPG, 1.0 APG, 109.5 OR, 24% Poss, 26% Shot, 13% TO, 4.8 FTR, 15% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*F – 6’6” SR Andrew Gabriel (11.7 PPG, 5.3 RPG, 1.3 APG, 80.8 OR, 24% Poss, 25% Shot, 29% TO, 2.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*C – 6’9” JR Djibril Coulibaly (1.1 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 68.4 OR, 12% Poss, 13% Shot, 18% TO, 2.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT) = only 8 minutes per game
F – 6’6” FR Rhamel Brown (8.0 PPG, 8.0 RPG, 1.7 BPG, 135.7 OR, 16% Poss, 15% Shot, 16% TO, 4.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
F – 6’8” JR Robert Martina (5.0 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 115.4 OR, 16% Poss, 14% Shot, 14% TO, 8.0 FTR, 20% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
PLAYER TRAITS (with revisions from suggestions)
THREE-POINT SHOOTING
Jeff Jordan (<28%)
George Beamon = 17%
Robert Martina = 0%
Trevon Hughes (35-38%)
None
Clayton Hanson (+38%)
Kidani Brutus = 47%
Michael Alvarado = 43%
TWO-POINT SHOOTING
Kevin Gullikson (<43%)
Michael Alvarado = 42%
Andrew Gabriel = 42%
Djibril Coulibaly = 25%
Marcus Landry (50-54%)
Kidani Brutus = 50%
George Beamon = 50%
Robert Martina = 50%
Mike Wilkinson (+54%)
Rhamel Brown = 71%
FREE THROW SHOOTING
Alando Tucker (<65%)
Andrew Gabriel = 45%
Djibril Coulibaly = 27%
Kam Taylor (75-82%)
None
Jason Bohannon (+82%)
Robert Martina = 88%
Kidani Brutus = 86%
Michael Alvarado = 83%
DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)
Rhamel Brown = 17%
Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)
None
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Brian Butch (9-12%)
Robert Martina = 12%
George Beamon = 13%
Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)
Rhamel Brown = 21%
STEALING
Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)
None
Mike Kelley (+4.4%)
None
BLOCKING
Brian Butch (3-7%)
Robert Martina = 5%
Greg Stiemsma (+7%)
Rhamel Brown = 9%
ASSISTS
Devin Harris (20-25%)
Michael Alvarado = 25%
Jordan Taylor (25-30%)
None
Demetri McCamey (+30%)
None
POSSESSION USAGE
Jason Chappell (<15%)
Kidani Brutus = 14%
Djibril Coulibaly = 13%
Brian Butch (24-28%)
Michael Alvarado = 26%
Andrew Gabriel = 24%
George Beamon = 24%
Alando Tucker (+28%)
None
This still isn’t set in stone… if you think I should use different players (Badgers or other Big Ten), feel free to suggest them so I don’t have Butch, Kelley, Tucker, and Hughes multiple times. For those questioning, all of the players had numbers in their range for either their entire career or their upperclassmen seasons. For example, Mike Kelley averaged a 4.5% steal rate with a high of 5.9 his junior year and Trevon Hughes shot 36% from three for his career with a high of almost 40% his senior year.
What Manhattan is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. This season, they have averaged nearly 1 turnover per 5 possessions, which is good for 102nd in the nation.
2. Shooting threes. They have shot 37.1% from deep so far this season, good for 94th in the country.
3. Offensive Rebounding. They have grabbed 37.2% of all rebounding opportunities on the offensive end, good for 69th. Wisconsin is 1st.
4. Getting to the charity stripe and making them. They must not be a jump-shooting team like Illinois because they take 6 FTAs per 13 FGAs. Wisconsin has averaged 4 per 10.
What Manhattan is really bad at:
1. Defensive Rebounding. They have grabbed only 62% of all the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end, good for 289th in the nation. Wisconsin is a hair below 78%, or 9th in the nation.
2. Forcing turnovers. They have forced only 2 turnovers per 12 possessions, which is 307th in the nation.
3. Defending the paint. They have surrendered a poor 50% inside the arc to 3 bad teams, good for 217th in the nation.
Relative efficiency:
When Manhattan has the ball: They have scored a terrible 0.93 PPP this season, while UW has given up a stingy 0.92 this season.
When UW has the ball: They have given up a terrible 1.06 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.16 this season.
Pace: Manhattan has played at 67 possessions per game to UW’s 64.
My expectations:
1. Badgers re-establish a dominant post game with more than 40 points in the paint. The Jaspers are small and unimposing at the big spots.
2. Bruiser and Evans combine for less than 4 turnovers. I look for a deliberate effort from these two to take better care of the ball this game.
3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. This is becoming more than an early season anomaly. It’s a change in strategy.
4. The Badgers make more free throws than the Jaspers attempt. This lovely stat has made a comeback this season and I think it continues.
Posters at Manhattan’s message board are betting on the over/under of their collective beat down in the three games to be somewhere between 20 and 40 points per game. The Badgers don’t disappoint with 80-49 victory.
Forum to Visit: Draddy Gym
What the expert nerds say: Ken Pomeroy predicts a 76-53 Badger victory in 62 possessions, with a 2% chance of upset.
Jeff Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 21-point favorite.
Manhattan Likely Rotation (Last Season’s Statistics or First 3 Games Statistics¡)
*G – 6’2” FR Michael Alvarado (16.3 PPG, 4.3 APG, 4.3 RPG, 1.0 SPG, 110.3 OR, 26% Poss, 21% Shot, 22% TO, 7.7 FTR, 23% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*G – 6’1” JR Kidani Brutus (13.7 PPG, 3.7 RPG, 1.3 APG, 140.4 OR, 14% Poss, 18% Shot, 12% TO, 2.6 FTR, 70% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*G/F – 6’4” SO George Beamon (16.7 PPG, 9.3 RPG, 1.0 APG, 109.5 OR, 24% Poss, 26% Shot, 13% TO, 4.8 FTR, 15% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*F – 6’6” SR Andrew Gabriel (11.7 PPG, 5.3 RPG, 1.3 APG, 80.8 OR, 24% Poss, 25% Shot, 29% TO, 2.9 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
*C – 6’9” JR Djibril Coulibaly (1.1 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 68.4 OR, 12% Poss, 13% Shot, 18% TO, 2.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT) = only 8 minutes per game
F – 6’6” FR Rhamel Brown (8.0 PPG, 8.0 RPG, 1.7 BPG, 135.7 OR, 16% Poss, 15% Shot, 16% TO, 4.3 FTR, 0% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
F – 6’8” JR Robert Martina (5.0 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 115.4 OR, 16% Poss, 14% Shot, 14% TO, 8.0 FTR, 20% of FGAs are 3PT)¡
PLAYER TRAITS (with revisions from suggestions)
THREE-POINT SHOOTING
Jeff Jordan (<28%)
George Beamon = 17%
Robert Martina = 0%
Trevon Hughes (35-38%)
None
Clayton Hanson (+38%)
Kidani Brutus = 47%
Michael Alvarado = 43%
TWO-POINT SHOOTING
Kevin Gullikson (<43%)
Michael Alvarado = 42%
Andrew Gabriel = 42%
Djibril Coulibaly = 25%
Marcus Landry (50-54%)
Kidani Brutus = 50%
George Beamon = 50%
Robert Martina = 50%
Mike Wilkinson (+54%)
Rhamel Brown = 71%
FREE THROW SHOOTING
Alando Tucker (<65%)
Andrew Gabriel = 45%
Djibril Coulibaly = 27%
Kam Taylor (75-82%)
None
Jason Bohannon (+82%)
Robert Martina = 88%
Kidani Brutus = 86%
Michael Alvarado = 83%
DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Mike Wilkinson (17-20%)
Rhamel Brown = 17%
Brian Butch/Joe Krabbenhoft (+20%)
None
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
Brian Butch (9-12%)
Robert Martina = 12%
George Beamon = 13%
Mike Bruesewitz (+12%)
Rhamel Brown = 21%
STEALING
Trevon Hughes (3-4.4%)
None
Mike Kelley (+4.4%)
None
BLOCKING
Brian Butch (3-7%)
Robert Martina = 5%
Greg Stiemsma (+7%)
Rhamel Brown = 9%
ASSISTS
Devin Harris (20-25%)
Michael Alvarado = 25%
Jordan Taylor (25-30%)
None
Demetri McCamey (+30%)
None
POSSESSION USAGE
Jason Chappell (<15%)
Kidani Brutus = 14%
Djibril Coulibaly = 13%
Brian Butch (24-28%)
Michael Alvarado = 26%
Andrew Gabriel = 24%
George Beamon = 24%
Alando Tucker (+28%)
None
This still isn’t set in stone… if you think I should use different players (Badgers or other Big Ten), feel free to suggest them so I don’t have Butch, Kelley, Tucker, and Hughes multiple times. For those questioning, all of the players had numbers in their range for either their entire career or their upperclassmen seasons. For example, Mike Kelley averaged a 4.5% steal rate with a high of 5.9 his junior year and Trevon Hughes shot 36% from three for his career with a high of almost 40% his senior year.
What Manhattan is really good at:
1. Taking care of the ball. This season, they have averaged nearly 1 turnover per 5 possessions, which is good for 102nd in the nation.
2. Shooting threes. They have shot 37.1% from deep so far this season, good for 94th in the country.
3. Offensive Rebounding. They have grabbed 37.2% of all rebounding opportunities on the offensive end, good for 69th. Wisconsin is 1st.
4. Getting to the charity stripe and making them. They must not be a jump-shooting team like Illinois because they take 6 FTAs per 13 FGAs. Wisconsin has averaged 4 per 10.
What Manhattan is really bad at:
1. Defensive Rebounding. They have grabbed only 62% of all the rebounding opportunities on the defensive end, good for 289th in the nation. Wisconsin is a hair below 78%, or 9th in the nation.
2. Forcing turnovers. They have forced only 2 turnovers per 12 possessions, which is 307th in the nation.
3. Defending the paint. They have surrendered a poor 50% inside the arc to 3 bad teams, good for 217th in the nation.
Relative efficiency:
When Manhattan has the ball: They have scored a terrible 0.93 PPP this season, while UW has given up a stingy 0.92 this season.
When UW has the ball: They have given up a terrible 1.06 this season, while UW scored a sizzling 1.16 this season.
Pace: Manhattan has played at 67 possessions per game to UW’s 64.
My expectations:
1. Badgers re-establish a dominant post game with more than 40 points in the paint. The Jaspers are small and unimposing at the big spots.
2. Bruiser and Evans combine for less than 4 turnovers. I look for a deliberate effort from these two to take better care of the ball this game.
3. Badgers grab more than 40% of the rebounding opportunities on the offensive end. This is becoming more than an early season anomaly. It’s a change in strategy.
4. The Badgers make more free throws than the Jaspers attempt. This lovely stat has made a comeback this season and I think it continues.
Posters at Manhattan’s message board are betting on the over/under of their collective beat down in the three games to be somewhere between 20 and 40 points per game. The Badgers don’t disappoint with 80-49 victory.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
UNLV Box Score Observations
Here's my pinch hit. I hope turumon had a better time hunting than I did watching this game. At least the football Badgers won.
Opening Comments: I hate games like these. About five minutes into the game, I sensed that this would be one of those games that UW would keep very, very close, but wouldn’t pull out at the end. I’m not happy to say I was right on the money with this, as the Badgers had a one-point lead with 55 seconds remaining, but ended up losing 68-65.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UNLV’s jumpshooting and pressure defense overcame the Badgers’ ability to get to and sink shots at the free throw line.
Pace: As always, you have to know the pace of the game to put everything else in context. This game was at 64 possessions. In the previous three games were at 66, 71, and 63.
Efficiency: Was this a close loss because of bad offense or bad defense? Both. UW scored at 1.02 PPP, which is very below average for the Badgers, as they had put up a ridiculous 1.43 PPP in the previous two games.
UW held UNLV to 1.06 PPP. The previous high this season was 0.94 by UW-LaCrosse in the first exhibtion game.
Shooting: UW had their worst day so far this year outside the arc, inside the arc, and at the line.
eFG%: For those unaware, eFG% is like your regular FG% but it gives a 3Pt basket a weight of 1.5 since it is worth more than a two point shot.
UNLV shot an eFG% of 58%. That is terrible defense by UW, or great marksmanship by UNLV. UW shot 42% for their worst performance of the year.
3 pt shooting: Wisconsin took two extra shots from deep, 20 to UNLV’s 18, but made three fewer, 6 to UNLV’s 9. UNLV hit a sizzling 50% while UW was a cold 30%. UNLV picked up 9 points outside the arc.
2pt shooting: UNLV hit 15 of 31 shots inside the arc for 48%. UW, meanwhile, fizzled out at 41% having made 13 of 32. The Rebels edged UW by 4 points inside the arc.
Most of the inside the arc points were also inside the paint. UNLV outscored UW 18 to 16 in the paint and 12 to 10 on midrange shots.
1pt shooting: UNLV got to the line 17 times and made 11 for 65%. That’s pretty bad considering how well they shot from everywhere else. UW smoked them at the line making 21 of 26 for 81%. This gave UW an extra 10 points from the line.
Rebounding: When UW shot and missed, which they did often, the results were nearly a draw. When UNLV shot and missed, UW cleaned up the misses effectively.
UW Defensive end: UNLV provided 30 rebounding opportunities on their misses and picked up 7, for 23%. Regular readers will note that 33% is the national average, but UW typically holds their opponents to around 26%. So, this was a win for UW, and expected given UNLV’s smaller line-up.
UW Offensive End: UW had 36 chances to follow their misses. UW managed to get 14, or 39%. That is great for a UW team, and with another few games of this sort and I think we can start to say that it isn’t an aberration.
Turnovers: UNLV had 12 TO’s, or 19% while UW had 15 for 23%. UW typically is near the top in the nation at avoiding TO’s and hasn’t been doing too well early on here. This pattern is one Bo may have to address.
Opportunity Index: The OI was a modest +4 for the game. UNLV had 7 offensive rebounds to UW’s 14. But, UNLV had three extra chances via turnovers.
Fouls: UNLV had 23 fouls and UW had 19. Last year, UW average 16 and our opponents 17. The officiating in this game was average at best and made me miss the level of competence in the Big Ten. Two jump balls were whistled within milliseconds of the ball being touched by an opposing player. Over-the-backs were called just because the player getting boxed out got a rebound via being that much taller than the other person. This isn’t loser’s lament, they were inconsistently awful for both sides. You can at least live with consistently bad since you know how the game is going to get called. But these guys would let hacks go on one end, and call a phantom hand check on the other side.
Playing time: Bo went 8 deep (10 or more minutes) with Valentyn getting with 6 minutes. Bruesewitz and Gasser started again. Evans (20) played starter’s minutes.
Notable Performances: UW had 3 players in double figures:
* Taylor – 19 on 4-8 shooting, 8-9 from the line and 3 of 4 from the arc
* Evans – 11 on 4-8 shooting, 3-4 from the line, but unfortunately 4 TOs too
* Leuer – 10 on 3-11 shooting, 3-5 from the line, and 4 fouls
Leuer, who had been a machine, turned out a stinker of a game. He sat the final 10:26 of the first half with 2 fouls and never really got on track offensively in the second. He forced shots over double teams and didn’t establish a presence on the low block at all.
Evans turned it on offensively in the second half, including another rim-rattling dunk, but coughed up 4 of the team 6 first half turnovers. He was also the second-leading rebounder with 6 and played great defense on Tre’Von Willis. Bruiser also had a rough day at the office, matching Evans’ four turnovers.
Gasser had another okay outing with 7 points, 7 boards, and 2 assists, albeit he needed 8 shots to get it, including a 1-6 performance from 3.
Jordan Taylor was basically the only Badger with a relatively flawless game, but he was visibly fatigued at the end due to dealing with full court pressure for 37 minutes and a flu bug bothering him. Jordan, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of turumon's people.
For UNLV, Chace Stanback scored 25 points on 14 FGAs, including 4-7 from three. Oscar Bellfield also dropped 18 points on 11 FGAs and 4-6 from beyond the arc.
Grading My Predictions
1. Leuer continues his tear and scores above 19 again. UNLV doesn’t have a guy to cover him… Not many teams we face will. Miss. Leuer had what may very well end up being his worst performance of the season, scoring 10 on 11 FGAs and 5 FTAs.
2. The Badgers shoot better than 38% from beyond the arc. With the Rebels being concerned about letting Leuer in the paint, they’ll give a few too many open looks from outside that the Badgers bury. Miss. They had many open looks, but could only muster 30%. I blame the hard rims.
3. The Badgers continue their dominance on the offensive glass, grabbing 39% or more of the opportunities. I’ll keep rolling the dice with this one until I’m wrong. Miss. Son of a bit… I missed by 12 one-hundredths of a percent.
4. Badgers hold Willis to 10 points or less. I think the Badgers badger the leading scorer for UNLV into a bad game his first go-around this season after serving his paltry 4-game suspension for a Boo Wade-type incident. Hit. In one of the few bright spots of this game, Ryan Evans made his season debut a forgettable showing.
When the final buzzer sounds on Saturday night, I predict a Badger victory by the score of 70-63 in 64 possessions. Miss. Correct in possessions and pretty close on the score… if I flipped teams.
Closing Thoughts: UW failed their first real test of the season. It’s early and it was a hostile environment so I won’t put much into it, but I hope Bo makes turnovers and post presence focal points in practice this upcoming week.
To continue turumon’s new feature…
Unwarranted Conclusions Based Upon the UNLV Game:
1. Jon Leuer is a fouling machine and will only shoot heavily contested 15-foot jump shots.
2. Inbounding plays are a major concern for this team.
3. UW will cough up the rock as often as Indiana.
4. UW’s defense will greatly contribute to the creation of every team’s 3-point shooting highlight reel
5. Ryan Evans will be the team’s second leading scorer
I think we’ll know a lot more about this team a week from now. Something tells me they’ll be 5-1 on November 29th.
Opening Comments: I hate games like these. About five minutes into the game, I sensed that this would be one of those games that UW would keep very, very close, but wouldn’t pull out at the end. I’m not happy to say I was right on the money with this, as the Badgers had a one-point lead with 55 seconds remaining, but ended up losing 68-65.
Summarizing the game in a few words: UNLV’s jumpshooting and pressure defense overcame the Badgers’ ability to get to and sink shots at the free throw line.
Pace: As always, you have to know the pace of the game to put everything else in context. This game was at 64 possessions. In the previous three games were at 66, 71, and 63.
Efficiency: Was this a close loss because of bad offense or bad defense? Both. UW scored at 1.02 PPP, which is very below average for the Badgers, as they had put up a ridiculous 1.43 PPP in the previous two games.
UW held UNLV to 1.06 PPP. The previous high this season was 0.94 by UW-LaCrosse in the first exhibtion game.
Shooting: UW had their worst day so far this year outside the arc, inside the arc, and at the line.
eFG%: For those unaware, eFG% is like your regular FG% but it gives a 3Pt basket a weight of 1.5 since it is worth more than a two point shot.
UNLV shot an eFG% of 58%. That is terrible defense by UW, or great marksmanship by UNLV. UW shot 42% for their worst performance of the year.
3 pt shooting: Wisconsin took two extra shots from deep, 20 to UNLV’s 18, but made three fewer, 6 to UNLV’s 9. UNLV hit a sizzling 50% while UW was a cold 30%. UNLV picked up 9 points outside the arc.
2pt shooting: UNLV hit 15 of 31 shots inside the arc for 48%. UW, meanwhile, fizzled out at 41% having made 13 of 32. The Rebels edged UW by 4 points inside the arc.
Most of the inside the arc points were also inside the paint. UNLV outscored UW 18 to 16 in the paint and 12 to 10 on midrange shots.
1pt shooting: UNLV got to the line 17 times and made 11 for 65%. That’s pretty bad considering how well they shot from everywhere else. UW smoked them at the line making 21 of 26 for 81%. This gave UW an extra 10 points from the line.
Rebounding: When UW shot and missed, which they did often, the results were nearly a draw. When UNLV shot and missed, UW cleaned up the misses effectively.
UW Defensive end: UNLV provided 30 rebounding opportunities on their misses and picked up 7, for 23%. Regular readers will note that 33% is the national average, but UW typically holds their opponents to around 26%. So, this was a win for UW, and expected given UNLV’s smaller line-up.
UW Offensive End: UW had 36 chances to follow their misses. UW managed to get 14, or 39%. That is great for a UW team, and with another few games of this sort and I think we can start to say that it isn’t an aberration.
Turnovers: UNLV had 12 TO’s, or 19% while UW had 15 for 23%. UW typically is near the top in the nation at avoiding TO’s and hasn’t been doing too well early on here. This pattern is one Bo may have to address.
Opportunity Index: The OI was a modest +4 for the game. UNLV had 7 offensive rebounds to UW’s 14. But, UNLV had three extra chances via turnovers.
Fouls: UNLV had 23 fouls and UW had 19. Last year, UW average 16 and our opponents 17. The officiating in this game was average at best and made me miss the level of competence in the Big Ten. Two jump balls were whistled within milliseconds of the ball being touched by an opposing player. Over-the-backs were called just because the player getting boxed out got a rebound via being that much taller than the other person. This isn’t loser’s lament, they were inconsistently awful for both sides. You can at least live with consistently bad since you know how the game is going to get called. But these guys would let hacks go on one end, and call a phantom hand check on the other side.
Playing time: Bo went 8 deep (10 or more minutes) with Valentyn getting with 6 minutes. Bruesewitz and Gasser started again. Evans (20) played starter’s minutes.
Notable Performances: UW had 3 players in double figures:
* Taylor – 19 on 4-8 shooting, 8-9 from the line and 3 of 4 from the arc
* Evans – 11 on 4-8 shooting, 3-4 from the line, but unfortunately 4 TOs too
* Leuer – 10 on 3-11 shooting, 3-5 from the line, and 4 fouls
Leuer, who had been a machine, turned out a stinker of a game. He sat the final 10:26 of the first half with 2 fouls and never really got on track offensively in the second. He forced shots over double teams and didn’t establish a presence on the low block at all.
Evans turned it on offensively in the second half, including another rim-rattling dunk, but coughed up 4 of the team 6 first half turnovers. He was also the second-leading rebounder with 6 and played great defense on Tre’Von Willis. Bruiser also had a rough day at the office, matching Evans’ four turnovers.
Gasser had another okay outing with 7 points, 7 boards, and 2 assists, albeit he needed 8 shots to get it, including a 1-6 performance from 3.
Jordan Taylor was basically the only Badger with a relatively flawless game, but he was visibly fatigued at the end due to dealing with full court pressure for 37 minutes and a flu bug bothering him. Jordan, long will the tales of your exploits be told around the campfires of turumon's people.
For UNLV, Chace Stanback scored 25 points on 14 FGAs, including 4-7 from three. Oscar Bellfield also dropped 18 points on 11 FGAs and 4-6 from beyond the arc.
Grading My Predictions
1. Leuer continues his tear and scores above 19 again. UNLV doesn’t have a guy to cover him… Not many teams we face will. Miss. Leuer had what may very well end up being his worst performance of the season, scoring 10 on 11 FGAs and 5 FTAs.
2. The Badgers shoot better than 38% from beyond the arc. With the Rebels being concerned about letting Leuer in the paint, they’ll give a few too many open looks from outside that the Badgers bury. Miss. They had many open looks, but could only muster 30%. I blame the hard rims.
3. The Badgers continue their dominance on the offensive glass, grabbing 39% or more of the opportunities. I’ll keep rolling the dice with this one until I’m wrong. Miss. Son of a bit… I missed by 12 one-hundredths of a percent.
4. Badgers hold Willis to 10 points or less. I think the Badgers badger the leading scorer for UNLV into a bad game his first go-around this season after serving his paltry 4-game suspension for a Boo Wade-type incident. Hit. In one of the few bright spots of this game, Ryan Evans made his season debut a forgettable showing.
When the final buzzer sounds on Saturday night, I predict a Badger victory by the score of 70-63 in 64 possessions. Miss. Correct in possessions and pretty close on the score… if I flipped teams.
Closing Thoughts: UW failed their first real test of the season. It’s early and it was a hostile environment so I won’t put much into it, but I hope Bo makes turnovers and post presence focal points in practice this upcoming week.
To continue turumon’s new feature…
Unwarranted Conclusions Based Upon the UNLV Game:
1. Jon Leuer is a fouling machine and will only shoot heavily contested 15-foot jump shots.
2. Inbounding plays are a major concern for this team.
3. UW will cough up the rock as often as Indiana.
4. UW’s defense will greatly contribute to the creation of every team’s 3-point shooting highlight reel
5. Ryan Evans will be the team’s second leading scorer
I think we’ll know a lot more about this team a week from now. Something tells me they’ll be 5-1 on November 29th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)