This is what we've been waiting for: a matchup between two Big Ten heavyweights. Indiana and Wisconsin face off tonight in Madison with both teams coming off of tough losses this past weekend. This game should tell us a lot, as both teams seem to be lacking much data in the quality win category, although the Badgers' win at Texas was quite impressive.
I said this was a matchup of heavyweights, and it certainly is, as the game features two of the conference's top 3 offenses and defenses. Indiana has gotten a lot of national pub because of super-frosh Eric Gordon (who hurt his non-shooting wrist in practice this week), but Wisonsin has been a bit under the radar, despite being #13 in both polls. As Ken Pomeroy pointed out, given the Badgers' stellar defense, they might be undervalued and under-rated.
But let's not be too abstract. Let's talk about how these teams stack up against each other.
When Wisconsin has the Ball
The Badger O is no slouch (and now I have Caddyshack quotes in my head) on its own merits, being the 3rd most efficient O in the conference. They are a team that seems to be pretty good, but not excellent, in almost every statistical category offensively. The one place where they do excel is in getting offensive rebounds. That big front line of theirs hits the glass hard on missed baskets, and they come up with a lot of them. Ultimately, they make most of their hay inside the arc, as they attempt very few 3-pointers.
Those qualities collide with Indiana's strengths on defense, which are defending 2-pointers and keeping teams off of the offensive glass.
So the battle of the boards could prove critical to Wisconsin's offense, given that Indiana is likely to force a good number of missed Wisconsin shots. It seems like the fact that Indiana's opponents make only 62% of their free throws feeds their defensive efficiency, which might give Wisconsin a slight edge, given that the Badgers don't go to the line a whole lot.
When Indiana has the Ball
Indiana comes in with a slightly more efficient offense than Wisconsin's. The Hoosiers are good at making shots from all over, but they excel inside the arc. They also get a ton of their offense from the free throw line, getting there more than all but 12 teams in the country. Indiana is also pretty adept at grabbing their own misses.
Unfortunately for the Hoosiers, the Badgers's D is even more stingy than their own, ranking 3rd in the country overall. Even worse news for IU is that Wisconsin's players play that good D by contesting lots of shots, keeping their opponents off the glass, and not sending their opponents to the line.
So, much like in the UConn-Indiana game, Wisconsin's defensive strengths stand directly opposed to Indiana's offensive strengths, espeically when it somes to defending 2-pointers and not fouling, ranking 12th and 9th nationally in those categories, respectively.
What it all Means
I think it means that Indiana will be hard-pressed to win this game. That's not a surprise, as it's pretty hard to win road games all over the country (just ask Kansas). The Hoosiers might be looking to "right a lot of wrongs tonight," and the need to make up for a tough home loss to UConn might help them, but I don't think it will be enough.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The mess that is the Washington Redskins (or business as usual)...
Growing up in Indiana, I was always indifferent about the Redskins. The Colts and the AFC were of primary interest, while the NFC... not so much. Sure, I'd watch their great rivalry with Dallas and I enjoyed it. Those were always compelling games. And I watched their two Super Bowl wins in the 80's, as well as their third in the early 90's. Throughout all of that, I found that I remained completely disinterested in them. I neither liked nor disliked them.
Then in the late 90's, I moved east to the greater Washington D.C. area. In short time, a hatred was born. We did not have DirecTV and therefore no Sunday Ticket. And so we were subjected to the Redskins every Sunday, a particularly painful prospect when the local market blackout of other games applied. They were terrible that first year I lived there. It was 1998, and they finished a fortunate 6-10.
The games were brutal, but it wasn't the terrible play that turned me against them... after all I'm a Colts fan and I remember how terrible they had been throughout the 80's and much of the 90's. No, it was the local media. They were insufferable. With each loss, they'd bemoan the end of days... truly this must be Armageddon! And with each win, they'd breathlessly gush about playoffs, even if there remained only distant mathematical chances by week 10.
"Surely this team has turned the corner this very week! They just may win out, and get some help!"
Alas, the following week, back to doom and gloom. And so, my list of enemies grew.
Along comes Daniel Snyder in 1999, buying the team with what was then an obscene purchase price of $800 million.
Napolean? No, it's Danny Boy!
That same year, they turned it around and won the NFC East. The glory of the old franchise was restored. He brought immediate buzz (which of course brought the previously unbearable media coverage to a new level of hell that only Dante, Hitler, and perhaps Belichick knew existed.) In 2000, he courts Deion Sanders and a great host of big name, big money busts. Irving Fryar didn't know how prophetic he was:
"We're definitely the "Who's Who' of the NFL now," receiver Irving Fryar said after a morning practice. "We've got a lot of great names who carry a lot of great talent with them. Yeah, on paper, we're the team."
They were the pre-season pick for the Super Bowl, but Brad Johnson was hurt in the second half of the season. They struggled to 7-6, fired Norv Turner, promptly lost their last two games and missed the playoffs.
This is hell...
Along comes Marty Schottenheimer, who takes them to 8-8... and is promptly canned.
I deserved more!!!
Why not add more flux to the franchise? Let's bring in Steve Spurrier... the 'ol ball coach. Spurrier plays his starters longer in the preseaon, runs more complex plays than the typical "show nothing" vanilla you typically see, and runs up the score. Good times. The media suggests this could be a breath of fresh air to the NFL, after all he's an offensive genius. Then the real season starts. The genius takes them to an "offensive" 7-9.
Pure Genius!
How can Snyder restore the Redskins to greatness? Why look back to the glory days, of course! It's working for Al Davis and the Raiders, right? Let's bring back Joe Gibbs. He's a god to Redskins fans. Now, I won't pile on Joe Gibbs. I find him a class act. However, he should have known better to work under a meddling owner. Sadly, for them, he was also a bust.
I miss NASCAR!
And so here we are... looking for a new coach. Synder is keen to get this franchise pointed in the right direction. This is a terrific opportunity to meddle. The team finished strong, was 9-7 overall, and seemed to have really come together in the wake of the tragic slaying of Sean Taylor. Of course there will be some transition after Gibbs goes, but Synder takes this to the extreme.
The natural play would have been to turn it over to Greg Williams, but Snyder botches that hire. We also hear that Pete Carroll had interviewed. Does Snyder not remember the Spurrier Experiment? Jim Mora was a candidate before withdrawing his name. Tennessee Titans defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz is a candidate. Jim Fassel interviews twice and is still a candidate. Ron Meeks is coming back for a second interview. Steve Spagnuolo is oft-mentioned as a likely interview. And perhaps Josh McDaniels, the wunderkind of the Patriots, might be a possibility. And for good measure, let's hype a rumor about Bill Cowher being the next head coach.
These would all be fine hires, but for this problem. Snyder has proceed to hire assistant coaches already. Already waiting are newly-hired offensive coordinatior Jim Zorn, newly-hired defensive line coach Larry Brooks, and Greg Blache who was promoted to defensive coordinator. Snyder has effectively handcuffed whatever candidate he hires to work with a staff they've had no voice in hiring. How successful can you be in that situation? Ron Meeks, pass on this. Josh McDaniels, stay with the Patriots and wait for a better opportunity. Follow the lead of Jason Garrett. Your time is not now... not here anyway.
I found this on the Redskins home page. Where are the choices for Owner and Coach?
I feel for Redskins fans. It must be brutal to see the ship sinking and knowing you can't avoid being pulled down with it. And yet, it gives me great glee to see it happen. I'm sorry... but, as always, blame the media!
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Can Randy Moss be a Cancer by Succeeding?
When the Patriots signed Randy Moss, I thought it was genius. Evil genius, mind you, but genius nonetheless. The stock for Randy Moss was a bargain, trading at an all-time low. I figured he might not be what he was in Minnesota, but he couldn't possibly play the way he did in Oakland and see the field.
Have some of this, Oakland Randy!
He'd be relegated to the bench, then released, only to be signed by a loser franchise and fade into oblivion in offensive purgatory... somewhere like Baltimore. It's where Oakland would fit the bill if they hadn't already had him. Then again, it might be just like Oakland to go and re-sign him anyway.
Just win baby!
And as a Colts fan, I feared Moss could be the difference in the AFC, as homefield advantage would be almost assured in their weak division. I cursed Oakland for shipping him to a contender, although not nearly with the same venom to which I cursed the Dolphins for dealing Wes Welker for a pack of gum (to a team in their division no less!) Hapless.
My worst fears realized, he exceeds all expectations. Consider that by all accounts, the Patriots are a pass-first / pass-always team. Then look at Moss' TDs compared to the team:
46% of Brady's TDs were to Moss!
As Mike Tyson would say... ludicrisp! He breaks the single-season receiving TD mark by one, albeit in more games than Rice (just like Brady needed 81 more attempts than Manning... I know, I know... count rings).
Of course, you can't understate the importance of Wes Welker... he's the perfect foil to Moss. When teams take away the stinky bomb, Welker will gash them all day long. It's death by a thousand papercuts, but it's still death. But the scoring clearly goes through Moss.
Moss' season was so bountiful that his market value may exceed what the Patriots are willing to pay. Are 46% of your TD passes worth top WR money? I think so, but the Patriots have shown... shall we say "reluctance" to pay top dollar to unrestricted free agents not named Tom Brady. So, will they re-sign him at market value or let him go? Can they get him to come back for less and play for a winner? Is winning enough for Randy Moss? They've avoided the on-field and locker room cancers, but what about a front-office cancer?
Whereas the Patriots have greatly succeeded in getting Moss to toe the company line, they are now faced with the prospect of having to pay big money and declare that all players are equal, but some players are more equal than others. How fitting that an allegory of Soviet totalitarianism can be used when discussing the Patriots.
For what it's worth, I think he signs below market value.
On a Roll
I suggested in my post-UConn post that perhaps Indiana fans shouldn't be too distraught about the loss to the Huskies, given the quality of their 2-point defense and how it matches up against IU's preferred offense. I even went so far as to suggest that Connecticut didn't miss suspended players Jerome Dyson and Doug Wiggins very much. One blogger I read took it a step further, suggesting that UConn is actually better off without Dyson in the starting lineup. I'm not sure about that, but he makes some interesting points.
Last night, the Huskies traveled to Louisville, their roster still "depleted" or "short-handed," as they were without the two still-suspended players. Once again, UConn came away with a very good victory, winning 69-67. I wondered ahead of time if the missing back court players might be more significant in the face of the Rick Pitino press, thinking fatigue might make the difference down the stretch. It seemed that the UConn players were indeed gassed toward the end, but they managed to gut it out. Louisville also seemed to go with the strategy I advocate for Indiana, launching 33 3-pointers (out of 60 total shots) in the game. Unfortunately for the Cardinals, they only hit 11 of those trifectas, although those shots still provided a better effective field goal percentage than their shots inside the arc. Just a tiny bit better shooting from the bonusphere means a victory for Louisville.
Regardless of their opponents disparate strategeries, UConn is on an excellent 4-game, beating Marquette and Louisville at home, with road victories at Cincinnati and Indiana in between. Three out of those four teams are currently in the top 20 in the Pomeroy ratings. I don't believe there are many, if any, better stretches in the country this season. If the Huskies keep playing excellent defense, I'm thinking they may figure more in the national picture by the end of the season.
Last night, the Huskies traveled to Louisville, their roster still "depleted" or "short-handed," as they were without the two still-suspended players. Once again, UConn came away with a very good victory, winning 69-67. I wondered ahead of time if the missing back court players might be more significant in the face of the Rick Pitino press, thinking fatigue might make the difference down the stretch. It seemed that the UConn players were indeed gassed toward the end, but they managed to gut it out. Louisville also seemed to go with the strategy I advocate for Indiana, launching 33 3-pointers (out of 60 total shots) in the game. Unfortunately for the Cardinals, they only hit 11 of those trifectas, although those shots still provided a better effective field goal percentage than their shots inside the arc. Just a tiny bit better shooting from the bonusphere means a victory for Louisville.
Regardless of their opponents disparate strategeries, UConn is on an excellent 4-game, beating Marquette and Louisville at home, with road victories at Cincinnati and Indiana in between. Three out of those four teams are currently in the top 20 in the Pomeroy ratings. I don't believe there are many, if any, better stretches in the country this season. If the Huskies keep playing excellent defense, I'm thinking they may figure more in the national picture by the end of the season.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Georgetown vs. West Virginia HD Box Score 1-26-08
Georgetown Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF PPWS
Sapp, Jessie 33:22 + 1 15/52 1- 3 3- 7 4- 5 10/38 2/28 1/47 1/47 2/21 0/20 1/30 3 1.21
Freeman, Austin 32:15 - 4 8/48 4- 6 0- 2 0- 0 8/36 1/28 0/43 1/45 0/21 1/19 6/26 1 1.00
Hibbert, Roy 26:52 +10 12/43 4- 6 0- 0 4- 4 6/32 1/26 0/39 4/36 4/17 3/18 7/24 2 1.52
Ewing, Patrick 26:44 +14 5/39 0- 2 1- 2 2- 4 4/30 4/26 2/35 3/36 1/17 2/18 4/25 3 0.85
Wallace, Jonathan 24:18 + 4 6/43 2- 4 0- 3 2- 2 7/32 2/25 0/34 0/35 0/16 1/17 0/18 2 0.75
Rivers, Jeremiah 21:57 - 3 2/21 1- 1 0- 1 0- 0 2/20 0/18 1/27 1/28 0/14 0/13 2/18 2 1.00
Summers, DaJuan 20:33 - 8 8/27 4- 5 0- 2 0- 0 7/23 0/16 2/29 0/28 0/13 1/12 2/15 3 1.14
Macklin, Vernon 8:58 - 7 2/11 1- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/10 1/ 9 0/11 2/13 0/ 4 1/ 5 0/ 5 1 2.00
Crawford, Tyler 4:14 0 0/ 6 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 4 0/ 4 0/ 4 0/ 5 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 4 2 --
TOTALS 40:00 58 17-28 4-17 12-15 45 11/21 6/54 12/56 7/25 9/25 23/33 19 1.11
.607 .235 .800 .524 .111 .214 .280 .360 .697
West Virginia Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF PPWS
Ruoff, Alex 37:30 - 1 13/50 2- 3 3- 8 0- 0 11/43 3/32 2/51 1/49 0/26 0/31 1/25 4 1.18
Nichols, Darris 36:58 - 1 16/55 1- 2 4- 6 2- 5 8/42 2/34 0/50 0/49 0/25 2/30 4/23 1 1.54
Butler, Da'Sean 34:22 - 2 12/52 3- 9 0- 2 6- 8 11/44 1/33 0/46 0/47 0/25 2/31 2/19 2 0.81
Alexander, Joe 26:04 + 4 7/42 2- 4 0- 1 3- 4 5/31 2/26 0/37 2/36 1/21 1/17 2/20 4 1.01
Smalligan, Jamie 22:15 -10 6/27 0- 1 2- 2 0- 0 3/24 1/21 0/29 0/31 0/16 0/21 0/11 4 2.00
Flowers, John 20:45 - 2 0/28 0- 3 0- 1 0- 0 4/28 3/24 1/28 1/28 0/15 4/22 2/14 1 0.00
Smith, Wellington 14:54 + 2 3/24 1- 2 0- 1 1- 6 3/11 0/ 8 0/22 1/19 0/ 8 0/ 7 1/ 9 0 0.51
Mazzulla, Joe 10:28 - 1 0/12 0- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/12 1/11 1/16 1/15 0/ 7 0/11 2/ 6 1 0.00
Brown, Jarrett 2:05 0 0/ 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 3 0/ 3 0/ 4 0/ 3 0/ 2 1/ 2 0/ 1 0 --
West, Jonnie 0:28 0 0/ 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 0 0/ 0 0/ 0 0/ 0 0/ 0 0/ 0 0/ 0 0 --
TOTALS 40:00 57 9-25 9-21 12-23 46 13/18 4/56 8/54 1/28 10/33 16/25 17 1.00
.360 .429 .522 .722 .071 .148 .036 .303 .640
Efficiency: Georgetown 1.036, West Virginia 1.056
Substitutions: Georgetown 41, West Virginia 31
2-pt shot selection
Dunks: Georgetown 1-1, West Virginia 0-0
Layups/Tips: Georgetown 12-16, West Virginia 4-8
Jumpers: Georgetown 4-11, West Virginia 5-17
The HD Box Score is something created by Ken Pomeroy, which I've tried to duplicate for my own purposes. kenpom explains the data here. The only thing different here is the Points Per Weighted Shot (PPWS) column, which John Gasaway (the erstwhile Big Ten Wonk) told me about here.
Thoughts on UConn - IU 1-26-08
This game didn't work out very well for the Hoosiers or their fans, with the Huskies becoming the first non-Hoosier team to win in Bloomington in the last 30 games, pulling out a 68-63 victory. A look at the HD box score shows a few things. First it shows me that the defenses once again were the story, but the Connecticut D was particularly parsimonious, holding the Hoosiers to 0.955 points per possession. Since the Connecticut D is what ruled the day, and since it seems that the Husky guards are not the drivers of that excellent defense, I submit that they didn't miss the suspended Dyson and Wiggins very much.
Despite the good advice given in our preview, the Hoosiers decided to test their strength (shooting inside the arc) against the Huskies' strength (defending inside the arc). Predictably, the UConn D, ranked number 2 in the nation in that category, proved to be the more resistable force (or the less movable object, if you prefer). While the Husky big men only blocked 3 shots on the day, they altered numerous others, causing the Indiana shooters to offer up several off-balance and double-clutched layups and floaters. Perhaps most illustrative is that DJ White, who, though he is having an excellent and very efficient season, posted a PPWS of 0.87. Or, if you prefer the offensive rating metric, his was 87.9 for this game, while using a near average 22% of the team's possessions. What it all added up to was Indiana hitting just 28.6% of their two point shots, bringing their effective field goal percentage down to 45.9% despite hitting a very nice 11 of 20 3-pointers.
Since we're talking about trifectas, I can't help but wonder where Eric Gordon's shot has gone. He has been struggling from behind the arc of late, and this game was no different, with him making just 1 of 5 threes, helping him to an offensive rating of 80.1 for this game. When you couple that with him using a hefty 35% of IU's possessions, you can see that as a rather large chunk of Indiana's offensive struggles. In fact, it seems that the lone bright spots (yes, I said "lone" along with a plural "spots" -- you can handle it) for Indiana offensively were Jordan Crawford and Armon Bassett. Crawford might be learning to pick his spots, as he used only 18% of the offensive possessions while he was on the floor, but he was blery efficient with them, posting an O rating of 141.3. That efficiency might also be the result of him playing less with the ball in his hand and more as a catch and shoot guy, but it's goodness either way. If he is learning to pick his spots, he might well be under the tutelage of Bassett, who continued his torrid shooting and quality play against UConn, hitting 6 of 8 3's (although even he couldn't hit 2's against the Huskies, going 0 for 2 on those shots), and posting an impressive O rating of 184 while using a typical 13% of the team's possessions. With numbers like that, Mr. Bassett might need to start taking a more active role in the offense.
This game didn't quite turn into the foul shooting contest I thought it might, but Connecticut did still get to the free throw line quite a bit, shooting 26 freebies, hitting on 69% of them. While the game wasn't a foul shooting contest, one could certainly argue that it played a big part in UConn's offense, and that's typical for them. No one person had an especially good offensive game for the Huskies, save perhaps Hasheem Thabeet, who posted an O rating of 155.2, although that was using only 11.4% of their possessions. That lack of stellar Husky offensive play suggests once again that it was the UConn D that ruled this game.
All in all, I think this game will serve as one of those "lesson games" for the Hoosiers, and, luckily for them, it's a lesson that doesn't affect their standing in the conference race. In a way, I don't think it's worth getting too worked up about, since there are precious few defenses in the country that play as well as UConn's, and there are even fewer who are so well-equipped to thwart the way the Hoosiers like to play on O. There just aren't many 7-footers in the country, much less those of the athletic, shot-blocking variety, and even that is to say nothing of him being bookended by two additional quality shot-swatters.
Despite the good advice given in our preview, the Hoosiers decided to test their strength (shooting inside the arc) against the Huskies' strength (defending inside the arc). Predictably, the UConn D, ranked number 2 in the nation in that category, proved to be the more resistable force (or the less movable object, if you prefer). While the Husky big men only blocked 3 shots on the day, they altered numerous others, causing the Indiana shooters to offer up several off-balance and double-clutched layups and floaters. Perhaps most illustrative is that DJ White, who, though he is having an excellent and very efficient season, posted a PPWS of 0.87. Or, if you prefer the offensive rating metric, his was 87.9 for this game, while using a near average 22% of the team's possessions. What it all added up to was Indiana hitting just 28.6% of their two point shots, bringing their effective field goal percentage down to 45.9% despite hitting a very nice 11 of 20 3-pointers.
Since we're talking about trifectas, I can't help but wonder where Eric Gordon's shot has gone. He has been struggling from behind the arc of late, and this game was no different, with him making just 1 of 5 threes, helping him to an offensive rating of 80.1 for this game. When you couple that with him using a hefty 35% of IU's possessions, you can see that as a rather large chunk of Indiana's offensive struggles. In fact, it seems that the lone bright spots (yes, I said "lone" along with a plural "spots" -- you can handle it) for Indiana offensively were Jordan Crawford and Armon Bassett. Crawford might be learning to pick his spots, as he used only 18% of the offensive possessions while he was on the floor, but he was blery efficient with them, posting an O rating of 141.3. That efficiency might also be the result of him playing less with the ball in his hand and more as a catch and shoot guy, but it's goodness either way. If he is learning to pick his spots, he might well be under the tutelage of Bassett, who continued his torrid shooting and quality play against UConn, hitting 6 of 8 3's (although even he couldn't hit 2's against the Huskies, going 0 for 2 on those shots), and posting an impressive O rating of 184 while using a typical 13% of the team's possessions. With numbers like that, Mr. Bassett might need to start taking a more active role in the offense.
This game didn't quite turn into the foul shooting contest I thought it might, but Connecticut did still get to the free throw line quite a bit, shooting 26 freebies, hitting on 69% of them. While the game wasn't a foul shooting contest, one could certainly argue that it played a big part in UConn's offense, and that's typical for them. No one person had an especially good offensive game for the Huskies, save perhaps Hasheem Thabeet, who posted an O rating of 155.2, although that was using only 11.4% of their possessions. That lack of stellar Husky offensive play suggests once again that it was the UConn D that ruled this game.
All in all, I think this game will serve as one of those "lesson games" for the Hoosiers, and, luckily for them, it's a lesson that doesn't affect their standing in the conference race. In a way, I don't think it's worth getting too worked up about, since there are precious few defenses in the country that play as well as UConn's, and there are even fewer who are so well-equipped to thwart the way the Hoosiers like to play on O. There just aren't many 7-footers in the country, much less those of the athletic, shot-blocking variety, and even that is to say nothing of him being bookended by two additional quality shot-swatters.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Connecticut vs. Indiana HD Box Score 1-26-08
Connecticut vs Indiana
1/26/08 1:05 at Assembly Hall, Bloomington, Ind.
Connecticut Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF PPWS
Thabeet, Hasheem 37:17 + 8 12/65 6- 7 0- 0 0- 2 7/48 0/41 1/60 0/59 2/39 4/28 1/36 2 1.51
Price, A.J. 35:34 + 5 14/63 3-12 2- 2 2- 2 14/46 6/32 1/60 7/60 0/37 4/27 4/36 0 0.94
Adrien, Jeff 34:40 + 2 11/61 4- 9 0- 0 3- 5 9/44 1/35 0/55 3/55 0/34 0/25 11/33 2 0.97
Austrie, Craig 28:40 - 7 15/46 3- 6 0- 1 9-12 7/36 1/29 0/50 2/50 0/36 1/24 2/32 2 1.18
Robinson, Stanley 25:33 + 4 11/60 2- 8 1- 2 4- 5 10/46 1/36 0/59 1/61 1/39 2/27 9/37 2 0.89
Beverly, Donnell 16:56 +12 3/29 0- 4 1- 1 0- 0 5/25 1/20 0/23 0/23 0/12 1/14 0/13 0 0.60
Kelly, Curtis 7:48 - 2 0/11 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 9 0/ 9 0/14 0/12 0/ 6 0/ 5 1/ 7 0 --
Edwards, Gavin 4:44 - 1 2/ 6 1- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/ 8 0/ 7 0/11 0/10 0/ 6 0/ 5 1/ 6 1 2.00
Mandeldove, Jonathan 2:27 0 0/ 3 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 5 0/ 5 0/ 4 1/ 5 0/ 3 0/ 4 0/ 3 2 --
TOTALS 40:00 68 19-47 4- 6 18-26 53 10/23 2/66 14/68 3/42 13/32 31/40 11 1.04
.404 .667 .692 .435 .030 .206 .071 .406 .775
Indiana Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF PPWS
White, D.J. 38:52 - 3 13/63 5-13 0- 0 3- 4 13/59 1/46 1/64 1/64 2/46 1/37 9/32 4 0.87
Bassett, Armon 36:39 - 1 18/60 0- 2 6- 8 0- 0 10/58 3/48 2/60 0/61 0/43 0/36 2/27 2 1.80
Gordon, Eric 35:04 - 4 14/51 4-11 1- 5 3- 4 16/54 4/38 2/59 4/59 0/44 3/35 0/29 4 0.78
Ellis, Jamarcus 29:02 -11 3/38 0- 5 1- 2 0- 0 7/42 2/35 2/45 3/45 0/35 0/31 5/22 4 0.43
Crawford, Jordan 21:47 - 1 10/41 2- 4 2- 4 0- 0 8/32 3/24 0/39 0/38 0/24 0/17 0/17 4 1.25
White, Mike 15:05 + 4 0/20 0- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/25 0/24 0/23 1/22 0/21 3/18 0/16 1 0.00
Stemler, Lance 13:41 - 3 5/30 1- 2 1- 1 0- 0 3/25 0/22 1/25 0/26 0/13 1/13 0/ 9 1 1.67
Thomas, DeAndre 5:00 - 4 0/ 3 0- 4 0- 0 0- 0 4/ 8 0/ 4 0/ 9 0/ 9 0/ 6 0/ 8 0/ 5 0 0.00
Ratliff, A.J. 4:46 - 2 0/ 9 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 7 0/ 7 0/ 6 0/ 6 0/ 3 0/ 5 2/ 3 1 --
TOTALS 40:00 63 12-42 11-20 6- 8 62 13/23 8/68 9/66 2/47 9/40 19/32 21 0.96
.286 .550 .750 .565 .118 .136 .043 .225 .594
Efficiency: Connecticut 1.000, Indiana 0.955
Substitutions: Connecticut 31, Indiana 24
2-pt shot selection
Dunks: Connecticut 6-7, Indiana 0-0
Layups/Tips: Connecticut 8-16, Indiana 7-21
Jumpers: Connecticut 6-24, Indiana 5-21
The HD Box Score is something created by Ken Pomeroy, which I've tried to duplicate for my own purposes. kenpom explains the data here. The only thing different here is the Points Per Weighted Shot (PPWS) column, which John Gasaway (the erstwhile Big Ten Wonk) told me about here.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Preview: Connecticut vs. Indiana
Tempo
While we don't like for a team's tempo to cloud our view of the team's numbers, it's good to be aware of how fast teams like to play. When they play at vastly different paces, it can make one team or the other play differently than it likes. However, in this case, both teams play at a similar, and reasonably fast, pace, with UConn averaging an adjusted 71.9 possessions per 40 minutes and Indiana clicking along at an adjusted 70.5.
When the Huskies have the ball
UConn doesn't shoot the ball particularly well overall, posting an above average but middling 51.1 effective field goal percentage (ranked number 131 in the country). The pieces behind that shooting are hitting 51.5% of their two-point shots (good for 86th in the country) but only 34.1% of their 3's (210th nationally). That below-average 3-point shooting is probably why a full 328 teams take more three pointers than does UConn, as only 25% of the shots that UConn launches are trifectas. Still, the Huskies offense is the 19th most efficient offense in the country, scoring 115.8 points per 100 possessions. Given mediocre shooting, what drives that efficiency? I'm glad you asked, because, while the Huskies eFG% isn't particularly impressive, the other 3 of the Four Factors are pretty daggone good. They only turn the ball over on 19.4% of their posssessions (57th in the country), and they grab almost 39% of their own missed shots, good for 25th in the country. But the real engine to the O seems to be free throws. While UConn makes 70.4% of their freebies, which is about average but again not stellar, they shoot more free throws than anyone else in the country. As Ken Pomeroy pointed out in his article yesterday, a team that shoots 70% from the stripe will average a gaudy 140 points per 100 posssessions where they earn two free throws. If you tend to get a lot of those types of possessions, you're going to score some points.
Now let's take a look at how all that fits in with IU's defense. Indiana's opponents only post a 44.9 eFG%, which makes the Hoosiers 30th best in the country at defending the basket. The Hoosiers are right around the middle of the pack in forcing turnovers on 21.6% of opponents' possessions, and they're somewhat above average when it comes to fouling, allowing an 89th-ranked free throw rate of 31.7. What the Hoosiers do especially well is keep the opposing team off of the offensive glass, allowing their opponents to grab only 27.6% of their missed shots.
So it looks like there will be a real battle on the boards on Connecticut's end. It also looks like Connecticut might make their customary bazillion trips to the free throw line. However, in the Hoosiers favor there is that their opponents shoot only 61.5% from the strip for some reason. I don't know if that means that IU has faced poor-shooting teams, that Assembly Hall (where IU has played 12 of their 18 game this year) is a tough place to shoot FT's, or that the Hoosiers are smart about whom they send to the line. Possibly all three things are in play.
When the Hoosiers have the ball
Unlike UConn, IU is quite good at putting the ball in the basket, posting an 18th best in the country 55.3 eFG%. The Hoosiers do just fine from bonus-land, hitting 37.5% of their 3's (85th nationally), but they excel at hitting their 2's, netting 54.8% of them, and only 15 teams in the land can boast a better number there. IU is pretty middle of the road in handling the ball, turning it over on 21.1 % of their possessions (136th in the country). Like UConn, the Hoosiers are pretty good on the offensive glass, grabbing a 47th best 37.3% of their own misses. Also like the Huskies, IU gets to the line a lot, posting a 6th-ranked free throw rate of 33.7. Most of that is driven by DJ White, who gets to the line regularly, as effective big men are wont to do, and by Eric Gordon, who gets to the line even more often, which is highly unusual for a shooting guard. Indiana also shoots quite well as a team once they get to the FT line, converting nearly 75% of the free ones.
Defensively, the Huskies are pretty good team with a 51st-ranked adjusted effiency of 92.4. They only force turnovers on 18.2% of opponents possessions, which is a lowly 324th in the country. They also allow their opponents to rebound 33.5% of their misses, making UConn the 191st ranked defensive rebounding team. So how is their defense any good? It's all about eFG% and fouls, as UConn is ranked 14th in the nation in both categories. The Huskies opponents only have a FT rate of 25.0, and their eFG% is only 43.7. Interestingly, UConn is either not effective at or not interested in stopping 3-pointers, as they allow their opponents to hit 37.1% of their 3's (253rd in the nation). That might be because they are intensely focused on stopping the two-point shots, limiting their opponents to 37.8% of those. In this land of ours, only Nebraska defends two-pointers better than UConn. The reason it's so hard to hit 2's against UConn: they block a full 20.2% of those shots, and only Mississippi St. can claim to block shots more frequently. It is apparently exceedingly hard to shoot over or around the likes of 7'3" center Hasheem Thabeet, Stanley Robinson, and Jeff Adrien, who are all accomplished shot blockers, unless one takes those shots from way out at the 3-point line.
Putting those numbers head to head makes me think that the Hoosiers are in for a long day offensively unless they can manage to turn those shot blockers into foulers, or take more than their customary 32.3% (ranked 212th in the country) of their shots from beyond the arc. Also, I think this is going to be a slow-moving game for the fans, given how often both of these teams tend to get to the free throw line. However, Jim Calhoun has suspended his top two off-guards for unspecified reasons, and they didn't even make the trip to Indiana, which might free up the Hoosier back court to do some of that damage. Eric Gordon and Armon Bassett could have a huge day if they can manage to dial it in from long distance. We may even seen Lance Stemler chuck it from deep more than once or twice this game.
While we don't like for a team's tempo to cloud our view of the team's numbers, it's good to be aware of how fast teams like to play. When they play at vastly different paces, it can make one team or the other play differently than it likes. However, in this case, both teams play at a similar, and reasonably fast, pace, with UConn averaging an adjusted 71.9 possessions per 40 minutes and Indiana clicking along at an adjusted 70.5.
When the Huskies have the ball
UConn doesn't shoot the ball particularly well overall, posting an above average but middling 51.1 effective field goal percentage (ranked number 131 in the country). The pieces behind that shooting are hitting 51.5% of their two-point shots (good for 86th in the country) but only 34.1% of their 3's (210th nationally). That below-average 3-point shooting is probably why a full 328 teams take more three pointers than does UConn, as only 25% of the shots that UConn launches are trifectas. Still, the Huskies offense is the 19th most efficient offense in the country, scoring 115.8 points per 100 possessions. Given mediocre shooting, what drives that efficiency? I'm glad you asked, because, while the Huskies eFG% isn't particularly impressive, the other 3 of the Four Factors are pretty daggone good. They only turn the ball over on 19.4% of their posssessions (57th in the country), and they grab almost 39% of their own missed shots, good for 25th in the country. But the real engine to the O seems to be free throws. While UConn makes 70.4% of their freebies, which is about average but again not stellar, they shoot more free throws than anyone else in the country. As Ken Pomeroy pointed out in his article yesterday, a team that shoots 70% from the stripe will average a gaudy 140 points per 100 posssessions where they earn two free throws. If you tend to get a lot of those types of possessions, you're going to score some points.
Now let's take a look at how all that fits in with IU's defense. Indiana's opponents only post a 44.9 eFG%, which makes the Hoosiers 30th best in the country at defending the basket. The Hoosiers are right around the middle of the pack in forcing turnovers on 21.6% of opponents' possessions, and they're somewhat above average when it comes to fouling, allowing an 89th-ranked free throw rate of 31.7. What the Hoosiers do especially well is keep the opposing team off of the offensive glass, allowing their opponents to grab only 27.6% of their missed shots.
So it looks like there will be a real battle on the boards on Connecticut's end. It also looks like Connecticut might make their customary bazillion trips to the free throw line. However, in the Hoosiers favor there is that their opponents shoot only 61.5% from the strip for some reason. I don't know if that means that IU has faced poor-shooting teams, that Assembly Hall (where IU has played 12 of their 18 game this year) is a tough place to shoot FT's, or that the Hoosiers are smart about whom they send to the line. Possibly all three things are in play.
When the Hoosiers have the ball
Unlike UConn, IU is quite good at putting the ball in the basket, posting an 18th best in the country 55.3 eFG%. The Hoosiers do just fine from bonus-land, hitting 37.5% of their 3's (85th nationally), but they excel at hitting their 2's, netting 54.8% of them, and only 15 teams in the land can boast a better number there. IU is pretty middle of the road in handling the ball, turning it over on 21.1 % of their possessions (136th in the country). Like UConn, the Hoosiers are pretty good on the offensive glass, grabbing a 47th best 37.3% of their own misses. Also like the Huskies, IU gets to the line a lot, posting a 6th-ranked free throw rate of 33.7. Most of that is driven by DJ White, who gets to the line regularly, as effective big men are wont to do, and by Eric Gordon, who gets to the line even more often, which is highly unusual for a shooting guard. Indiana also shoots quite well as a team once they get to the FT line, converting nearly 75% of the free ones.
Defensively, the Huskies are pretty good team with a 51st-ranked adjusted effiency of 92.4. They only force turnovers on 18.2% of opponents possessions, which is a lowly 324th in the country. They also allow their opponents to rebound 33.5% of their misses, making UConn the 191st ranked defensive rebounding team. So how is their defense any good? It's all about eFG% and fouls, as UConn is ranked 14th in the nation in both categories. The Huskies opponents only have a FT rate of 25.0, and their eFG% is only 43.7. Interestingly, UConn is either not effective at or not interested in stopping 3-pointers, as they allow their opponents to hit 37.1% of their 3's (253rd in the nation). That might be because they are intensely focused on stopping the two-point shots, limiting their opponents to 37.8% of those. In this land of ours, only Nebraska defends two-pointers better than UConn. The reason it's so hard to hit 2's against UConn: they block a full 20.2% of those shots, and only Mississippi St. can claim to block shots more frequently. It is apparently exceedingly hard to shoot over or around the likes of 7'3" center Hasheem Thabeet, Stanley Robinson, and Jeff Adrien, who are all accomplished shot blockers, unless one takes those shots from way out at the 3-point line.
Putting those numbers head to head makes me think that the Hoosiers are in for a long day offensively unless they can manage to turn those shot blockers into foulers, or take more than their customary 32.3% (ranked 212th in the country) of their shots from beyond the arc. Also, I think this is going to be a slow-moving game for the fans, given how often both of these teams tend to get to the free throw line. However, Jim Calhoun has suspended his top two off-guards for unspecified reasons, and they didn't even make the trip to Indiana, which might free up the Hoosier back court to do some of that damage. Eric Gordon and Armon Bassett could have a huge day if they can manage to dial it in from long distance. We may even seen Lance Stemler chuck it from deep more than once or twice this game.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Thoughts on Iowa - IU 1-23-08
So the Hoosiers continue a winning streak that is becoming impressive for its length, if not necessarily for the quality of its opponents. Still, it seems that few teams in the country are managing to pull out any road wins, so you have to like a streak that includes 4 road wins, 3 of them in conference. It's good times.
That said, this game (HD Box score here) was not one to impress those who like efficient offenses, with both teams checking in at under a point per possession (per kenpom.com the national average for the season is 1.008 points per possession). Still, DJ White and Eric Gordon turned in admirably efficient offensive outings given the overall slugfest that was this game. Also, take a look at Armon Bassett's PPWS. That's what happens when you don't take very many shots but all of them are good. That he is willing to embrace the seldom-used but deadly sniper role is one of the reasons I love having him run the point.
As for Iowa, it's pretty hard to overcome such a dreadful shooting night. And you're not going to win many games when you turn it over on 31% of your possessions (Indiana's home win over Minnesota notwithstanding). But add those two performances together, and there's pretty much no chance.
Yes, defense definitely ruled this game. What really stands out to me is that Iowa only managed to convert 4 of the 15 layups and tips they took. That seems shocking to me. However, I do remember 3 of those missed layups, as they were put up by Tony Freeman (1 for 4 on layups). Freeman had been on a hot shooting streak of late, and the Hawkeyes were setting a bunch of high screens for him, theoretically allowing him to get a drive to the basket, an open 3, or perhaps creating a shot for someone else. Indiana was apparently ready for this strategy, though. After Freeman went around one of those screens and in for an easy layup on Iowa's first possession, the Hoosier big men did an excellent job of taking most any drives or shots by hedging hard. Still, Freeman was thrice able to use that rub to get a step on his man, and he took it quickly toward the hole all three times. Unfortunately for him, "his man" was Eric Gordon, who followed Freeman toward the basket and rejected the proffered layup not one or two, but three times. Marvelous back-checking from the All-Universe freshman from Indy.
Good times, and good W. I suspect we'll see some more strong D played on Saturday when UConn comes to town.
That said, this game (HD Box score here) was not one to impress those who like efficient offenses, with both teams checking in at under a point per possession (per kenpom.com the national average for the season is 1.008 points per possession). Still, DJ White and Eric Gordon turned in admirably efficient offensive outings given the overall slugfest that was this game. Also, take a look at Armon Bassett's PPWS. That's what happens when you don't take very many shots but all of them are good. That he is willing to embrace the seldom-used but deadly sniper role is one of the reasons I love having him run the point.
As for Iowa, it's pretty hard to overcome such a dreadful shooting night. And you're not going to win many games when you turn it over on 31% of your possessions (Indiana's home win over Minnesota notwithstanding). But add those two performances together, and there's pretty much no chance.
Yes, defense definitely ruled this game. What really stands out to me is that Iowa only managed to convert 4 of the 15 layups and tips they took. That seems shocking to me. However, I do remember 3 of those missed layups, as they were put up by Tony Freeman (1 for 4 on layups). Freeman had been on a hot shooting streak of late, and the Hawkeyes were setting a bunch of high screens for him, theoretically allowing him to get a drive to the basket, an open 3, or perhaps creating a shot for someone else. Indiana was apparently ready for this strategy, though. After Freeman went around one of those screens and in for an easy layup on Iowa's first possession, the Hoosier big men did an excellent job of taking most any drives or shots by hedging hard. Still, Freeman was thrice able to use that rub to get a step on his man, and he took it quickly toward the hole all three times. Unfortunately for him, "his man" was Eric Gordon, who followed Freeman toward the basket and rejected the proffered layup not one or two, but three times. Marvelous back-checking from the All-Universe freshman from Indy.
Good times, and good W. I suspect we'll see some more strong D played on Saturday when UConn comes to town.
Iowa vs. Indiana HD Box Score 1-23-08
Iowa Hawkeyes vs Indiana
1/23/08 9:06 at Assembly Hall, Bloomington, Ind.
Iowa Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF PPWS
Kelly, Jake 34:04 -14 6/36 3- 6 0- 2 0- 0 8/40 1/32 1/53 2/54 0/27 0/30 0/22 3 0.75
Johnson, Justin 33:00 -18 6/37 0- 2 1- 4 3- 4 6/38 2/32 2/56 3/54 0/27 0/26 4/20 1 0.76
Gorney, Seth 30:41 -18 2/25 1- 3 0- 0 0- 1 3/24 1/21 0/40 5/38 0/21 1/16 4/14 2 0.58
Tate, Cyrus 30:11 -16 8/37 3- 5 0- 0 2- 4 5/31 0/26 0/50 1/51 1/29 0/20 5/21 3 1.16
Freeman, Tony 28:52 -11 14/35 1- 5 4- 8 0- 0 13/35 1/22 2/45 6/47 0/23 1/23 1/18 3 1.08
Peterson, Jeff 20:26 -22 3/18 1- 3 0- 1 1- 1 4/15 1/11 0/33 2/31 0/20 0/13 1/15 0 0.67
Looby, Kurt 14:09 - 6 4/15 1- 1 0- 0 2- 2 1/18 0/17 0/21 1/22 0/11 2/15 2/10 4 2.05
Angle, J.R. 6:34 - 3 0/ 4 0- 2 0- 2 0- 0 4/12 0/ 8 0/11 0/11 0/ 2 2/12 2/ 5 0 0.00
Bohall, Dan 3:36 - 1 0/ 3 0- 0 0- 0 0- 2 0/ 4 0/ 4 0/ 5 0/ 6 0/ 2 0/ 4 0/ 3 1 0.00
TOTALS 40:00 43 10-27 5-17 8-14 44 6/15 5/66 20/65 1/33 7/32 21/26 17 0.85
.370 .294 .571 .400 .076 .308 .030 .219 .808
Indiana Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF PPWS
White, D.J. 34:00 +19 19/57 8-13 0- 0 3- 5 13/40 0/27 0/52 0/53 0/22 1/22 3/28 2 1.24
Ellis, Jamarcus 33:19 +17 12/54 3- 5 0- 2 6- 7 7/37 4/30 2/52 4/53 0/21 1/20 7/26 3 1.16
Gordon, Eric 32:00 +16 17/52 7- 8 0- 3 3- 4 11/35 3/24 4/51 2/50 3/22 0/19 2/25 2 1.32
Bassett, Armon 30:15 +22 8/50 1- 1 2- 2 0- 0 3/36 3/33 2/47 0/49 0/19 0/20 3/26 1 2.67
Crawford, Jordan 20:48 + 9 5/33 1- 3 1- 2 0- 0 5/23 2/18 0/35 4/33 0/15 0/14 2/18 0 1.00
Thomas, DeAndre 18:53 +19 2/35 1- 2 0- 0 0- 2 2/26 1/24 1/32 4/33 0/11 0/13 2/11 3 0.68
Stemler, Lance 18:32 + 1 0/25 0- 0 0- 3 0- 0 3/20 0/17 1/30 0/29 0/10 1/11 2/13 4 0.00
Ratliff, A.J. 6:21 + 7 0/11 0- 0 0- 2 0- 0 2/ 9 0/ 7 0/11 0/10 0/ 6 0/ 6 1/ 7 2 0.00
White, Mike 1:29 0 0/ 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 1 0/ 1 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 1 1/ 1 0/ 2 0 --
McGee, Brandon 1:04 0 2/ 2 1- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/ 2 0/ 1 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 1 0/ 1 0 2.00
Taber, Kyle 1:04 0 0/ 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 1 1/ 1 0 --
Finkelmeier, Brett 1:04 0 0/ 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 1 0/ 1 0 --
Ahlfeld, Adam 1:04 0 0/ 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/ 1 0/ 1 0 --
TOTALS 40:00 65 22-33 3-14 12-18 47 13/25 10/65 14/66 3/27 5/26 25/32 17 1.17
.667 .214 .667 .520 .154 .212 .111 .192 .781
Efficiency: Iowa 0.662, Indiana 0.985
Substitutions: Iowa 22, Indiana 26
2-pt shot selection
Dunks: Iowa 3-3, Indiana 5-6
Layups/Tips: Iowa 4-15, Indiana 8-10
Jumpers: Iowa 3-9, Indiana 9-17
The HD Box Score is something created by Ken Pomeroy, which I've tried to duplicate for my own purposes. kenpom explains the data here. The only thing different here is the Points Per Weighted Shot (PPWS) column, which John Gasaway (the erstwhile Big Ten Wonk) told me about here.
Tortoise vs. Hare
This is a bit more background on the way we look at basketball. Last year, we stumbled across the stylings of Ken Pomeroy and the Big Ten Wonk (a.k.a. John Gasaway) out there on the Internets, and they opened our eyes to a new way of thinking about basketball: a tempo-free way. The wonk does a much better job of explaining it than we can hope to, but the idea is to look at basketball stats without an eye to how fast the teams play, to normalize the numbers per possession (or, more commonly, per 100 possessions). So whether you play as fast as North Carolina last year (the proverbial hare) or at a more tortoise-like, Georgetown-oriented pace (at least last year), we can compare the efficiency of your offense and defense on equal footing (recognizing that both were outstanding O's last year, and UNC's D was excellent), despite the number of points scored or allowed per game.
One upshot of viewing things through a tempo-free lens is that numbers we've known for a long time, things like points per game, rebounds per game, and the dreaded rebound margin are, if not tossed out the window, then at least put in a trunk at the foot of the bed, to be brought out only rarely. Instead, we'll talk of things like offensive and defensive efficiency, effective field goal percentage, and rebound percentages.
Much of this talk is inspired by Dean Oliver's book Basketball on Paper, which suggests there are four main factors used to evaluate team play. Pomeroy's site allows us all to jump into those numbers for all Division 1 NCAA men's basketball teams, and we love it. So we will frequently refer to that site.
There's more we could write, but we think kenpom and Gasaway really do an excellent job of providing background on this stuff. If you like what they have to say, you can find them at their new home over at Basketball Prospectus.
One upshot of viewing things through a tempo-free lens is that numbers we've known for a long time, things like points per game, rebounds per game, and the dreaded rebound margin are, if not tossed out the window, then at least put in a trunk at the foot of the bed, to be brought out only rarely. Instead, we'll talk of things like offensive and defensive efficiency, effective field goal percentage, and rebound percentages.
Much of this talk is inspired by Dean Oliver's book Basketball on Paper, which suggests there are four main factors used to evaluate team play. Pomeroy's site allows us all to jump into those numbers for all Division 1 NCAA men's basketball teams, and we love it. So we will frequently refer to that site.
There's more we could write, but we think kenpom and Gasaway really do an excellent job of providing background on this stuff. If you like what they have to say, you can find them at their new home over at Basketball Prospectus.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Indiana vs. Iowa HD Box Score 1-2-08
Indiana Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF PPWS
Gordon, Eric 37:37 + 3 25/72 5- 7 2- 5 9-11 12/51 2/39 0/68 4/70 0/27 0/36 1/37 2 1.45
Ellis, Jamarcus 35:38 - 1 15/71 6- 8 0- 2 3- 4 10/48 7/38 5/66 1/66 1/31 3/33 4/40 1 1.26
White, D.J. 34:10 + 9 16/68 6-13 0- 0 4- 6 13/44 1/31 0/61 2/60 0/25 1/31 14/36 3 1.01
Crawford, Jordan 30:02 - 3 12/54 3- 5 1- 2 3- 5 7/32 0/25 1/52 3/53 1/23 1/23 3/32 2 1.28
Stemler, Lance 26:41 +10 5/60 0- 0 1- 2 2- 4 2/31 1/29 1/48 0/49 0/21 1/23 4/33 2 1.28
Ratliff, A.J. 14:03 + 5 2/31 1- 1 0- 2 0- 0 3/21 0/18 1/25 0/25 0/12 0/13 1/18 5 0.67
White, Mike 13:18 - 7 0/19 0- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/22 1/21 1/24 1/24 0/10 0/13 1/10 3 0.00
Thomas, DeAndre 5:41 - 2 4/11 1- 4 0- 0 2- 2 4/ 9 1/ 5 0/11 0/12 0/ 6 1/ 5 0/ 7 4 0.81
Bassett, Armon 2:46 + 1 0/ 9 0- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1/ 7 0/ 6 0/ 5 0/ 6 0/ 0 0/ 3 0/ 2 1 0.00
TOTALS 40:00 79 22-40 4-13 23-32 53 13/26 9/76 11/74 2/31 7/33 29/43 23 1.16
.550 .308 .719 .500 .118 .149 .065 .212 .674
Iowa Min +/- Pts 2PM-A 3PM-A FTM-A FGA A Stl TO Blk OR DR PF PPWS
Freeman, Tony 39:23 - 7 12/67 1- 8 2- 6 4- 8 14/54 9/40 0/68 5/68 0/40 1/42 0/33 5 0.67
Johnson, Justin 37:09 0 29/73 2- 2 8-13 1- 1 15/56 3/41 1/69 2/68 3/39 1/42 5/35 2 1.87
Peterson, Jeff 32:43 - 5 6/61 2- 7 0- 2 2- 2 9/50 4/41 1/59 2/59 0/31 0/39 2/30 3 0.60
Gorney, Seth 30:03 - 4 7/58 2- 6 0- 0 3- 4 6/45 3/39 0/54 1/53 1/28 3/34 7/25 4 0.89
Angle, J.R. 24:10 - 3 5/53 1- 1 1- 6 0- 0 7/39 2/32 0/48 0/47 0/23 0/27 2/24 3 0.71
Tate, Cyrus 20:17 - 6 8/29 3- 3 0- 0 2- 5 3/24 0/21 0/31 1/31 0/19 4/19 3/14 2 1.49
Looby, Kurt 10:20 + 4 9/21 3- 4 0- 0 3- 5 4/13 0/ 9 0/22 1/22 2/13 0/ 8 4/11 1 1.41
Kelly, Jake 5:15 + 3 0/12 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 6 0/ 6 0/ 9 0/ 9 0/ 7 0/ 3 1/ 5 0 --
Palmer, David 0:35 + 3 0/ 6 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0/ 3 0/ 3 0/ 5 0/ 3 0/ 0 0/ 1 2/ 3 3 --
TOTALS 40:00 76 14-31 11-27 15-25 58 21/25 2/74 13/76 6/40 10/39 26/36 23 1.09
.452 .407 .600 .840 .027 .171 .150 .256 .722
Efficiency: Indiana 1.068, Iowa 1.000
Substitutions: Indiana 26, Iowa 24
2-pt shot selection
Dunks: Indiana 5-5, Iowa 5-5
Layups/Tips: Indiana 13-19, Iowa 4-13
Jumpers: Indiana 4-16, Iowa 5-13
The HD Box Score is something created by Ken Pomeroy, which I've tried to duplicate for my own purposes. kenpom explains the data here. The only thing different here is the Points Per Weighted Shot (PPWS) column, which John Gasaway (the erstwhile Big Ten Wonk) told me about here. Both of them now write for Basketball Prospectus.
About SaWA
We're not really Statler and Waldorf, we're Abs and Lawton. Why did we name this blog like we did, you ask? Well, coming up with a name is tough. But we liked the muppet reference because we often have conversations with lots of sentences that start with, "Well, gahdam," and we also often aspire to becoming septa- or octogenarians who heckle people in the park, perhaps while playing checkers. But we're not playing checkers here. The "Arena" part of the blog's name is supposed to indicate that we're talking about sports. Like our curmudgeonly title inspirations, we watch, criticize, and comment. We considered a few other things (like "Vicariously Active"), but SaWA is what we ended up with.
We're hoping we have enough to say to make it worthwhile, although we may tend to be a bit quiet during the Sports Doldrums, which runs from the end of March Madness to the start of the NFL season. We tend to love college hoop and the NFL and have a passing interest in some college football. We are otherwise only casually aware of other sports, and, while we may comment on them, we probably don't have a clue what we're talking about. We may jolly well not know what we're talking about when it comes to the stuff we're more actively interested in like, either, but we don't want to admit it.
Bias-wise, we should tell you up front that we are Indiana Hoosier basketball fans, and we both root for the Colts (one of us not caring enough to be a real fan). One of us is also a University of Virginia football and basketball fan, and that same one has found himself rooting for Georgetown since the arrival of JT3 and his mellifluous offense. There are probably other things worth mentioning, but I think most of our biases will be pretty obvious from the things we write and focus on.
We hope you find the stuff we put up here entertaining or at least mildly interesting. We also hope you'll join in discussions with us via the comments if you have something to say about what we put up here.
We're hoping we have enough to say to make it worthwhile, although we may tend to be a bit quiet during the Sports Doldrums, which runs from the end of March Madness to the start of the NFL season. We tend to love college hoop and the NFL and have a passing interest in some college football. We are otherwise only casually aware of other sports, and, while we may comment on them, we probably don't have a clue what we're talking about. We may jolly well not know what we're talking about when it comes to the stuff we're more actively interested in like, either, but we don't want to admit it.
Bias-wise, we should tell you up front that we are Indiana Hoosier basketball fans, and we both root for the Colts (one of us not caring enough to be a real fan). One of us is also a University of Virginia football and basketball fan, and that same one has found himself rooting for Georgetown since the arrival of JT3 and his mellifluous offense. There are probably other things worth mentioning, but I think most of our biases will be pretty obvious from the things we write and focus on.
We hope you find the stuff we put up here entertaining or at least mildly interesting. We also hope you'll join in discussions with us via the comments if you have something to say about what we put up here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)