GhostOfJoeMcCray

Maybe not broken but being 0-3 in a stretch where we are *that* close to being 2-1 can also be the difference in being in the tournament and not. We will now really need to do some work on the road to compensate for this Q3 home loss. However there are some more troubling things going on than just "we lost a couple close games"... -In the month of January our effective field goal defense % ranks 356 out of 364. Our 2pt % defense is 342. Our 3pt % defense is 352. Simply put our opponents are finding it very easy right now to make shots against us. -We blew a 15-point second half lead against a mediocre team. -We didn't compete at all in our next game after that. -We came home to a place we always win at and blew a 76-72 lead with 4:30 left with the ball getting two possessions basically and coming up empty. Two minutes later we were down 81-76. There is plenty of time left, but our margin of error just got extremely thin. We are big underdogs in 4 of our next 5 games and with the way USC is playing right now, that is no gimme. We are staring at 3-8 or 2-9 in the Big Ten unless we get our **** together. Last night was one that was supposed to be a win.

Williams and Gary are almost always going to have a +/- that somewhat reflects the final score because they're on the court nearly the entire game if not in foul trouble. However, yes they both have regressed on defense from last year in my opinion.

In November-December our defensive rank was 9. In January it's 191.

+/- at Rutgers Worster +14 Berke +10 Meah +9 Gary 0 Grace -2 Williams -3 Ulis -8 Essegian -10 Morgan -11 Hoiberg -14 Season +/- Per Game Worster +5.8 Essegian +5.6 Gary +5.2 Williams +4.6 Berke +4.4 Hoiberg +3.3 Meah +3.3 Jacobsen +2.8 Morgan -0.1 Ulis -1.6 Interesting disparity from this one. Wasn't a good night for smaller guards against that team.

I've been thinking about this too. We are trapping the post/baseline just like we did last year. So what was the point of getting a 7-1 statue to protect the rim only to play the same way? Our 2pt FG% allowed right now is 48.3% and 3pt FG% allowed is 32.6%. Last year those numbers were 45.2% and 32.5%. So our opponents are shooting the 3 at the same efficiency as last year but are actually shooting better inside the arc. At the end of the day, we were 309 out of 362 teams in 3-point attempts allowed last year and this year we are 358. If our opponent is hitting 3s, we are toast. I wish it didn't have to be that way and we had an alternative plan for teams like Iowa and Purdue, but it seems like we are who we are and we're content with trying to win our home games and hope our strategy works in a road game or two against someone who goes cold (like Creighton did). However as was posted above, Purdue (7) and Iowa (10) are elite 3pt shooting teams. Rutgers (223), Maryland (60) and USC (321) have not been. In fact, the next closest 3pt% teams behind Purdue (7) and Iowa (10) are Ohio State (33), Michigan (33) and Maryland (60). Perhaps it was just a horrible week against two horrible matchups for us, both on the road. Let's go out and win some.

I did a little research because it feels like this team doesn't get off to good starts and we're playing a lot of catch-up with our bench. I just used the first under-4 media timeout as a barometer for how we start the game (Fred usually makes his first subs then). Here's what I found: -We have outscored our opponents by +126 points this season. -In the first four minutes before the media timeout, we are -1 (131-132). The regular starting lineup we use is -11 (103-114) in the first four minutes. The three times we've deviated from it we are +10 (28-18). Small sample size, but those games were FDU, UNF and Michigan State. -Away from PBA it's really bad. In road/neutral games we are outscored -22 (56-78) before the first media timeout. We've trailed in 6 of 8 road/neutral games at the first break. In the other 36 minutes of neutral/road games, we are only a combined -10. -We're 12-4 overall so winning is great and our bench depth is very good, but this has overshadowed some red flags, in my opinion. Remember in some of our more competitive games, St. Mary's had us down 23-9 at one point. Bethune-Cookman had us down 10-4. Hawaii had us down 17-9. Oregon State was up 17-13 midway through the first half. UCLA 7-0. Iowa 13-6. Purdue...let's not even go there and that one obviously turned out uncompetitive. -Yes it's not how you start, it's how you finish. But constantly playing from behind out of the gate cannot mathematically set you up for sustained success in the long run. The only 2 games against real competition that we started well were at Creighton (12-8) and vs. Indiana (17-10). Could that be because Meah had a clearly defined role out there guarding a very good big man? Not sure. I don't think there's any one player to blame or any one player who would fix it. But something about the chemistry of that first 5 seems way off. We do not seem to come out with much intensity or execution at the start.

Warning: Viewer discretion advised. +/- at Purdue Grace -1 Jacobsen -2 Griffiths -4 Ulis -13 Meah -14 Essegian -15 Hoiberg -17 Worster -19 Morgan -21 Berke -23 Williams -24 Gary -27 Season +/- Per Game Essegian +6.6 Gary +5.5 Worster +5.3 Williams +5.1 Hoiberg +4.4 Berke +4.0 Meah +2.9 Jacobsen +2.8 Morgan +0.6 Ulis -1.1

Last 2 opponents are 36-68 from 3 (53%).

The fact that Griffiths isn't in this game yet tells me a lot about what the staff thinks of him.

But they don't shut the other team down.

Line change!

I would love to see the advanced metrics of lineup combinations we use. There is no way that this group of 5 is our best offensive or defensive unit.

10 minutes played for Hoiberg that half was not enough.

All true, but Brice is disinterested in playing defense today so he doesn't have a lot of room to pout.