Shooting data can be found in .xls format here.
Half 1
| 1st Half | |||
| Lineup | Time | Score | Differential |
| Lee, Douglass, Harris, Novak, Sims | 7:21 | 12-7 | +5 |
| Merritt, Douglass, Harris, Novak, Sims | :19 | 2-0 | +2 |
| Merritt, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Gibson | :55 | 3-2 | +1 |
| Merritt, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Sims | :57 | 5-0 | +5 |
| Merritt, Lucas-Perry, Lee, Shepherd, Sims | 2:13 | 3-6 | -3 |
| Lee, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Gibson | :29 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Merritt, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Gibson | 1:22 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Merritt, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Sims | 1:01 | 3-2 | +1 |
| Merritt, Douglass, Harris, Novak, Sims | 4:04 | 12-0 | +12 |
| Merritt, Douglass, Harris, Wright, Sims | 1:19 | 0-2 | -2 |
| Totals | 20:00 | 40-19 | +21 |
Half 2
| 2nd Half | |||
| Lineup | Time | Score | Differential |
| Lee, Douglass, Harris, Novak, Sims | 3:56 | 7-7 | 0 |
| Merritt, Douglass, Harris, Novak, Sims | 2:07 | 7-2 | +5 |
| Merritt, Douglass, Harris, Wright, Gibson | 2:23 | 2-4 | -2 |
| Merritt, Lucas-Perry, Wright, Novak, Sims | :09 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Lee, Lucas-Perry, Wright, Novak, Sims | :52 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Lee, Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Sims | 6:07 | 11-6 | +5 |
| Merritt, Douglass, Harris, Novak, Gibson | 1:03 | 2-2 | 0 |
| Grady, Douglass, Wright, Shepherd, Gibson | 2:36 | 4-3 | +1 |
| Grady, Lucas-Perry, Wright, Shepherd, Puls | :47 | 0-2 | -2 |
| Totals | 20:00 | 33-26 | +7 |
Individual Players
| Stu Douglass 25min +21 | |||||
| Quality | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | |||||
| Midrange | 0/1 | ||||
| 3-pt | 1/1 | 0/2 | 2/2 | ||
On a day when Michigan blows out the opponent on the strength of ridiculous performances from the big 2, Stu wasn’t noticeable.
| Zack Gibson 9min 0 | |||||
| Quality | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | 2/3 | ||||
| Midrange | 0/1 | ||||
| 3-pt | 0/1 | ||||
On a day where Michigan wins running away, a non-positive differential would typically be a bad sign. However, Sims was the main reason for the blowout victory, so Gibson can’t really be knocked.
| Manny Harris 34min +32 | |||||
| Quality | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | 0/1 | 1/2 | 1/1 | 1/1 | |
| Midrange | 1/1 | ||||
| 3-pt | 1/3 | 2/2 | |||
Dude. Look at that differential number. Manny was on fire from the field, particularly from 3. Of course, most of his attempts came after the game was well in hand, but… dude.
| CJ Lee 21min +7 | |||||
| Quality | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | 1/1 | ||||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-pt | 0/1 | ||||
Very good defense, and made a bunch of good plays on offense, despite not shooting very much. I credit him with 7 assists (or unconverted assists). Maybe he wasn’t quite as good as I remembered (his making an offensive play could have shocked me into thinking he was doing very well), because his differential isn’t the greatest, but I’ll take it.
| Laval Lucas-Perry 15min +9 | |||||
| Quality | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | |||||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-pt | 0/1 | 1/1 | 2/2 | ||
He didn’t do much slashing to the hole (which he’s been very good at of late), but I’ll take this LLP every game, especially considering he made bunch of good drive and kick plays.
| Zack Novak 31min +36 | |||||
| Quality | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | 1 | ||||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-pt | 1/1 | 0/1 | |||
OMFG look at that differential. He didn’t get a ton of usage, but playing against taller players every game, you’d expect him to be at a slight disadvantage in terms of differential. He didn’t participate in a single negative shift.
| Jevohn Shepherd 5min -4 | |||||
| Quality | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | |||||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-pt | |||||
No shots, and a very small sample size prevent me from criticizing Shepherd. I didn’t even get to type “Very good athleticism and very bad basketball skills” in the shot chart once. What a disappointment.
| DeShawn Sims 30min +30 | |||||
| Quality | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | 3/4 | 4/4 | |||
| Midrange | 4/6 | ||||
| 3-pt | 1/2 | ||||
Easily the player of the game. Started out unstoppable, scoring Michigan’s first few buckets. Dominated Cyrus Tate inside.
| David Merritt 18min +19 | |||||
| Quality | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | |||||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-pt | 1 | 1/1 | |||
Nothing truly noteworthy. It’s more his steady presence than anything tangible that Merritt helps being to the team.
| Kelvin Grady 3min -1 | |||||
| Quality | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | |||||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-pt | |||||
Tiny sample size and no shots = no conclusion drawn.
| Anthony Wright 8min -5 | |||||
| Quality | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | |||||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-pt | |||||
Played few enough minutes that his differential isn’t troubling, especially considering much of his time came when the game was already decided (i.e. after the first 5 minutes)..
| Eric Puls 1min -2 | |||||
| Quality | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | F |
| Lane | |||||
| Midrange | |||||
| 3-pt | 0/1 | ||||
OMG he missed a three. YANK HIS SCHOLLIE. uninteresting junk time appearance for Eric.
Jerry’s Final Thoughts
During Football season, Dr. Saturday came up with a method of determining whether Oklahoma was running up the score to pass Texas in the BCS. The general idea was as follows:
- Figure out how many points losing team scores.
- Figure out when winning team reaches this score.
- Determine from game margin and time left whether winning team was running up the score.
Iowa scored 45 points in this game. Michigan reached 45 points (passed it actually, reaching 47 on a 3-pointer from Stu Douglass) with 16:15 left in the game, leading 47-26. So yeah, this was a certified blowout. I don’t believe quite as much in “running up the score” in college basketball as I do in football, especially when the winning team is on the bubble and making its case for the tournament. But still, this was dominating in every way.
Posted under Analysis, Basketball
Tags: iowa, ufr
Really interesting stuff!