In my infinite hubris, I thought “ain’t no way this game is going to overtime,” and only set the DVR for 2 hours. The shot charting, therefore, only includes regulation. The differentials do include overtime, however. The raw data is available in .xls format here. Newly added: shot clock info for each shot.
NOTE: The total differentials don’t quite add up correctly. If you want to go through and check all my work, please feel free (I’m coming up with Michigan as having 3 points to many, and Indiana having 3 points too few).
Half 1
| 1st half differential | |||
| Lineup | Time on Floor | Score | Differential |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Sims | 6:50 | 8-17 | -9 |
| Grady, Douglass, Harris, Novak, Gibson | 1:59 | 0-4 | -4 |
| Merritt, Douglass, Harris, Gibson, Sims | 1:37 | 0-2 | -2 |
| Douglass, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Gibson, Sims | 1:14 | 1-0 | +1 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Gibson, Sims | :10 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Lee, Gibson, Sims | :22 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Lee, Novak, Sims | 1:46 | 2-2 | 0 |
| Grady, Douglass, Harris, Novak, Sims | 1:04 | 3-4 | -1 |
| Douglass, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Sims | 1:56 | 4-3 | +1 |
| Douglass, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Gibson | 2:17 | 7-4 | +3 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Gibson | :45 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Total | 20:00 | 22-39 | -17 |
Half 2
| 2nd half differential | |||
| Lineup | Time on Floor | Score | Differential |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Sims | 6:29 | 13-9 | +4 |
| Grady, Douglass, Harris, Novak, Sims | 4:29 | 6-5 | +1 |
| Douglass, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Sims | :28 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Douglass, Lucas-Perry, Lee, Novak, Sims | 2:36 | 5-2 | +3 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Lee, Novak, Sims | 4:21 | 5-2 | +3 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Sims | :15 | 2-0 | +2 |
| Grady, Lee, Harris, Novak, Sims | 1:15 | 6-2 | +4 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Sims | :07 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Total | 20:00 | 37-20 | +17 |
Overtime
| Overtime differential | |||
| Lineup | Time on Floor | Score | Differential |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Sims | 4:19 | 8-4 | +4 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Gibson | :01 | 2-0 | +2 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Lee, Novak, Gibson | :07 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Gibson | :05 | 1-0 | +1 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Douglass | :14 | 0-3 | -3 |
| Grady, Douglass, Harris, Novak, Gibson | :07 | 2-0 | +2 |
| Lucas-Perry, Lee, Harris, Novak, Wright | :07 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Total | 5:00 | 13-7 | +6 |
Game totals
| Lineup Totals | |||
| Lineup | Time on Floor | Score | Differential |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Sims | 18:00 | 31-30 | +1 |
| Grady, Douglass, Harris, Novak, Gibson | 2:06 | 2-4 | -2 |
| Merritt, Douglass, Harris, Gibson, Sims | 1:37 | 0-2 | -2 |
| Douglass, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Gibson, Sims | 1:14 | 1-0 | +1 |
| Douglass, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Sims | 2:24 | 4-3 | +1 |
| Douglass, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Gibson | 2:17 | 7-4 | +3 |
| Douglass, Lucas-Perry, Lee, Novak, Sims | 2:36 | 5-2 | +3 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Gibson, Sims | :10 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Lee, Gibson, Sims | :22 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Lee, Novak, Sims | 6:07 | 7-4 | +3 |
| Grady, Douglass, Harris, Novak, Sims | 5:33 | 9-9 | 0 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Gibson | :51 | 3-0 | +3 |
| Grady, Lee, Harris, Novak, Sims | 1:15 | 6-2 | +4 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Lee, Novak, Gibson | :07 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Douglass | :14 | 0-3 | -3 |
| Lucas-Perry, Lee, Harris, Novak, Wright | :07 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Total | 60:00 | 72-66 | +6 |
Individual players:
| Manny Harris | |||||
| Location | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 | 1 | |
| Midrange | 0/1 | ||||
| 3-point | 0/4 | 2/4 | |||
Way too many inadvisable shots (especially from three) early in the shot clock. Manny wasn’t making a huge effort to slice into the lane.
| Laval Lucas-Perry | |||||
| Location | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | 0/1 | 2/2 | 1 | ||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-point | 0/3 | 2/4 | |||
LLP was inconsistent from 3, and took nary a midrange jumper.
| Zack Novak | |||||
| Location | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | |||||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-point | 2/5 | 0/2 | |||
It seemed like Novak was doing a hell of a lot more than it looks like he did just by checking his shot chart. He made a ton of hustle plays (including getting a key deflection leading to a steal and fast-break bucket late in regulation, in addition to a whiteboy block) that really helped Michigan win.
| DeShawn Sims | |||||
| Location | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | 2/3 | 0/1 | |||
| Midrange | 5/7 | ||||
| 3-point | 0/3 | ||||
DeShawn was money from midrange in the second half, when the team really needed something from inside to steady them.
| Kelvin Grady | |||||
| Location | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | 0/1 | 1 | |||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-point | 0/1 | 1/3 | |||
Grady got much more time than he did in the previous game, and though he took a couple ill-advised shots, he was a catalyst for the rest of the offense (4 assists, 2 more assist opportunities missed). He also made the lane shot on which he was fouled.
| Zack Gibson | |||||
| Location | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | 1/1 | ||||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-point | 0/1 | ||||
Zack was pretty quiet, especially considering Indiana’s defense was locking down on the three-pointers. you’d think he would get some more looks inside.
| David Merritt | |||||
| Location | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | |||||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-point | 0/1 | ||||
Quiet day for Merritt. More on how I think he should be used is below.
| Stu Douglass | |||||
| Location | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | 0/1 | 1 | |||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-point | 0/1 | 1/3 | |||
Stu had a crappy day, but he did nail one big shot. I still think he’s the far inferior of the freshmen.
| CJ Lee | |||||
| Location | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | 0/1 | 1 | |||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-point | 0/1 | 1/3 | |||
The timing of Lee’s shots means more than the shots themselves. He also came up with key defensive plays (including a steal with 40 seconds in regulation and Indiana up 3) and rebounds.
What This Says…
I re-watched the game (the first half, particularly) with a keen eye on how Indiana shot the lights out. In all honesty, I can’t figure it out. Offensive rebounding has something to do with it, and maybe momentum plays a role (though some might question that, I think in college basketball momentum is at least something of a factor). Maybe Michigan, frustrated on the offensive end, was letting their effort on the other end of the court suffer. However, looking at the actual shots themselves, rather than just the final number, there was no explanation for Devan Dumes and this Roth fella in particular having the first half that he did. He would airball a wide open three (which may something negative about Michigan’s defensive effort overall, but doesn’t explain the final stats), and then turn right around and nail one from 5 feet behind the line with Novak right in his face. It appears to me that the hot shooting (in this game, at least; I didn’t UFR the Savannah State or Eastern Michigan games) may be, in large part (or at least SOME part) a ridiculously unlikely statistical anomaly.
Even if you concede the defense was bad, which it may have been at some times, though not all, it was the offense that would have done the Wolverines in. If you allow the other team to score, the offensive output for your own team can’t absolutely sputter. That is what leads to huge runs like Indiana so frequently had in this game. Michigan can play poorly on one end of the court, but this team certainly isn’t good enough to struggle offensively AND defensively if they want to win games. To Indiana’s credit, they were at least playing very well on defense, and deserve some credit for Michigan’s players feeling they had to force things.
That said, I really like Kelvin Grady as a player. However, I think I’d prefer to see Merritt get the start over him, if only to be a calming force should a shellacking at the hands of the worst team in the conference just so happen to break out. Grady is a better player, Merritt is a better leader. Bringing Grady off the bench also can help spark the team with another offensive option (certainly in terms of drawing the defense and dishing it out). I prefer Merritt preventing damage with his leadership in the first place, rather than coming in as damage control later, when the momentum is out of reach. It just seems like those two roles should be reversed, no?
Gibson’s travel midway through the first half was a terrible call. His left foot is anchored, he pivots, pivots again, and suddenly a travel is called. This sounds like a ridiculously small refereeing point to get worked up over, but it happened to occur right at the moment Indiana really started taking off with all their momentum.
My apologies if you happened to see the draft of this that I accidentally published earlier today. It should be done now, sans the issue with the differentials.
Posted under Analysis, Basketball
Tags: indiana, ufr
In case you didn’t get to see the whole thing it’s seeded at Mgovideo. Gotta see the last 2 minutes of OT if you missed it on Tivo.
I watched it live, but couldn’t do the titular “further review” on the DVR. Not sure IU missing tons of free throws was all that interesting the first time around, to be honest.
Tim/Paul,
Perhaps this seems a bit too simple, but isn’t it just possible that Michigan is a bad man-to-man defensive team? Think about this…in the first half, Michigan missed A LOT of shots, forcing them out of the 1-3-1, and into the man-to-man defense, where they struggled (and have in many games). Conversely, in the second half, Michigan made a lot of shots, allowing them to play the 1-3-1 and voila, the defense appeared to be much better.
Perhaps this has been mentioned before, but it just seems to me that if Michigan is going to struggle shooting the ball, they are also going to struggle on the defensive end. Is there any way you could do a statistical analysis of how Michigan performs defensively after a made basket? Or, perhaps an easier task, how do they perform when they are in the 1-3-1 vs man-to man?
Just a thought…
In Big Ten play home court advantage equates to about 10 points for the home team in my mind. The calls are poor for the visiting team and all in all it averages to about a 10 point swing.
That’s certainly a distinct possibility (likelihood?), but at least in this particular game, Indiana wasn’t making shot because they were wide open, they were making the toughest ones they took.
Interesting theory on the difference between man and 1-3-1, and I think there may be something to it. I’ll definitely look for that in upcoming games.
I agree with your points on Grady coming off the bench. But I’m thinking the reason he started this game is because Merritt was sick, correct?