For the Traditional Box Score Stats, Marquette was better at:
- FGM (40 vs. 22) ; and FGA (74 vs. 56)
- 3FG (9 vs. 4)
- Rebounding (Offensive, Defensive, and Total of 39 vs. 33)
- Assists (26 vs. 10)
- Turnovers (7 compared to 14)
- Blocks (6 vs. 0)
- Steals (8 vs. 3)
This was a beatdown. Good.
For the Ken Pomeroy Prospectus-Type Stats, it's a similar story:
- Marquette had 82 possessions tonight (UWM - 77, Season Avg 70.6)
- 1.22 Points / Possession (UWM - 0.85, Season Avg 1.13)
For Dean Oliver's Four Factors (eFG%, OR%, TO%, and FT Rate):
- eFG% of 0.601 (UWM - 0.429, Season Avg 0.555)
- OR% of 0.205 (UWM - 0.212, Season Avg 0.313)
- TO% of 0.085 (UWM - 0.182, Season Avg 0.172)
- FT Rate of 0.149 (UWM - 0.304, Season Avg 0.253)
UWM can take consolation of getting to the line and making shots, but Marquette's percentage was probably down because the effective FG% was so high.
Finally, on the Efficiency approach:
- Marquette's Offensive Efficiency (Total Points / 100 Possessions) was 121.9* (UWM - 84.6 ; Season Average of 113.2)
- The NBA Efficiency Rating was 130! (UWM - 51 ; Season Average of 71.3)
- Using Efficiency Per Min we had a team average of 0.650** (UWM - 0.255 ; Season Average of 0.357)
There you have it. Let's see how things look for the next game. Frankly, a game that wasn't that close isn't that interesting to analyze for the stats. I'm sure that the Wisconsin game will give us more to talk about.
*Note that this is not the same as Dean Oliver's Offensive Rating that is used by folks like Pomeroy/etc.
**I made this stat up and I have no idea how valid it is. Frankly, I haven't wanted to take the time to understand Hollinger's PER rating yet. However, I like this stat because it also measures the impact of a stat-stuffer that collects blocks, steals, assists, etc.
[edit] - turns out I was calculating OR% incorrectly, so I deleted the comments that followed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment