***OFFICIAL MINNESOTA AT IOWA IN-GAME THREAD!!!***

manderson1984

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
2,214
Reaction score
869
Points
113
People can complain about the offense and so many do but hardly anyone complains about giving up 86. You can win a ton of games scoring 71 if you take good shots and play great defense.
Correct, people want to whine about our poor shooting. Look how good theirs was. Sure that's part because they are a good shooting team, but more so that the shots were comfortable and open. That's something that can be controlled and what lost us this game more than us "shooting bad". Iowa had so many open layups that were not even in transition it was pathetic.
 

Zeppelin Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,255
Reaction score
139
Points
63
Nothing unhinged about it. Non competitive against Iowa. This will be the 4th straight year Richard Pitino has finished below Iowa in the standings. Why is the hope (not the expecation) to not "roll over" in a basketball game?
Non competitive? I guess we have different opinions on what constitutes a competitive game. We were down 5 points with 4 minutes left.

The only teams to beat Iowa so far this season are Gonzaga and Minnesota...this isn't some run of the mill Hawkeye team. It's the best team they've ever had (or since 1987 probably) and a legit top 10 squad.
 
Last edited:

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
13,239
Reaction score
1,352
Points
113
Correct, people want to whine about our poor shooting. Look how good theirs was. Sure that's part because they are a good shooting team, but more so that the shots were comfortable and open. That's something that can be controlled and what lost us this game more than us "shooting bad". Iowa had so many open layups that were not even in transition it was pathetic.
Whining about MN poor shooting? Hardly whining. They are, and have been, a poor, poor shooting team. GABE had the most open 3 in all of history and airmailed it!!!!!!!!

IIRC, you are saying all the teams that Iowas has beaten the snot out of are poor defensive teams. MN is in that category.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
7,384
Reaction score
1,984
Points
113
Correct, people want to whine about our poor shooting. Look how good theirs was. Sure that's part because they are a good shooting team, but more so that the shots were comfortable and open. That's something that can be controlled and what lost us this game more than us "shooting bad". Iowa had so many open layups that were not even in transition it was pathetic.
Yes, but we had a lot of open looks, too. Fran McCaffery's Iowa teams have never been well regarded for their defense but their offense is enough to get them a good record most years. You need both. You're unlikely to pile up a really good record just by playing consistently good defense. Steve Pikiell's Rutgers teams have been very well regarded for their defense but they didn't achieve a winning record until last year. They should be able to finish with a pretty good record this year but probably not as good as the top teams in this league.

We've been a fair defensive team this year (#5 in the league in defense according to Sports Reference's defensive rating). One of the reasons we give up a lot of points is that we are 3rd in pace among league teams (Unsurprisingly, Wisconsin is dead last in the league by that measure). Unfortunately, we are 10th in the league in offensive rating. Undoubtedly, a big part of that is that we are last in the league in overall field goal percentage and an even poorer last in 3 point field goal percentage (30.3% - the next lowest is 32%) - yet we keep taking a bunch of threes.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,815
Reaction score
2,385
Points
113
Yes, but we had a lot of open looks, too. Fran McCaffery's Iowa teams have never been well regarded for their defense but their offense is enough to get them a good record most years. You need both. You're unlikely to pile up a really good record just by playing consistently good defense. Steve Pikiell's Rutgers teams have been very well regarded for their defense but they didn't achieve a winning record until last year. They should be able to finish with a pretty good record this year but probably not as good as the top teams in this league.

We've been a fair defensive team this year (#5 in the league in defense according to Sports Reference's defensive rating). One of the reasons we give up a lot of points is that we are 3rd in pace among league teams (Unsurprisingly, Wisconsin is dead last in the league by that measure). Unfortunately, we are 10th in the league in offensive rating. Undoubtedly, a big part of that is that we are last in the league in overall field goal percentage and an even poorer last in 3 point field goal percentage (30.3% - the next lowest is 32%) - yet we keep taking a bunch of threes.
No doubt you need both to be elite but one does not have to come at the cost of the other. PPP is the the stat that shows how good you are in both.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,815
Reaction score
2,385
Points
113
What is PPP? Explain....please.
Points per possession. Holy grail as you have to be pretty much top 20 in each to make a final four or to win a power 6 conference. For 70 years because of Naismith people thought that putting the ball in the basket was the object and they were right. What a great coach figured out if that was true then to increase your chances of winning, especially against more talented teams, then stopping them from putting in the basket was at least as important. Many would say more because of the physical and emotional toll it takes on the other team. To do it though takes tremendous work, physically and emotionally, great discipline and the deepest hunger to win. Tons of people simply will not work as hard as someone else. You can not lose if you Winn PPP in a game and for a season it will show in your consistent excellence. Of course you can have a bad PPP in a game and lose but those season averages will reveal who you are.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
7,384
Reaction score
1,984
Points
113
No doubt you need both to be elite but one does not have to come at the cost of the other. PPP is the the stat that shows how good you are in both.
Yes, that is likely the best measure but it isn't calculated for college basketball in the sources I use so I would have to calculate it. Calculating it for the opposing team would be more time consuming because I would have to tally the factors game by game.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
13,239
Reaction score
1,352
Points
113
Points per possession. Holy grail as you have to be pretty much top 20 in each to make a final four or to win a power 6 conference. For 70 years because of Naismith people thought that putting the ball in the basket was the object and they were right. What a great coach figured out if that was true then to increase your chances of winning, especially against more talented teams, then stopping them from putting in the basket was at least as important. Many would say more because of the physical and emotional toll it takes on the other team. To do it though takes tremendous work, physically and emotionally, great discipline and the deepest hunger to win. Tons of people simply will not work as hard as someone else. You can not lose if you Winn PPP in a game and for a season it will show in your consistent excellence. Of course you can have a bad PPP in a game and lose but those season averages will reveal who you are.
OK - thank you.
 

manderson1984

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
2,214
Reaction score
869
Points
113
Whining about MN poor shooting? Hardly whining. They are, and have been, a poor, poor shooting team. GABE had the most open 3 in all of history and airmailed it!!!!!!!!

IIRC, you are saying all the teams that Iowas has beaten the snot out of are poor defensive teams. MN is in that category.
I'm not arguing that we shot poorly. We agree that we had open looks. I think that's a good sign and it's why I don't worry about it more than Iowa having wide open looks after reversals because our rotations were awful.
 

manderson1984

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
2,214
Reaction score
869
Points
113
Yes, but we had a lot of open looks, too. Fran McCaffery's Iowa teams have never been well regarded for their defense but their offense is enough to get them a good record most years. You need both. You're unlikely to pile up a really good record just by playing consistently good defense. Steve Pikiell's Rutgers teams have been very well regarded for their defense but they didn't achieve a winning record until last year. They should be able to finish with a pretty good record this year but probably not as good as the top teams in this league.

We've been a fair defensive team this year (#5 in the league in defense according to Sports Reference's defensive rating). One of the reasons we give up a lot of points is that we are 3rd in pace among league teams (Unsurprisingly, Wisconsin is dead last in the league by that measure). Unfortunately, we are 10th in the league in offensive rating. Undoubtedly, a big part of that is that we are last in the league in overall field goal percentage and an even poorer last in 3 point field goal percentage (30.3% - the next lowest is 32%) - yet we keep taking a bunch of threes.
Good post and points made. I agree we've been the best defensively I've seen out of a Pitino team this year. I do think we were awful defensively against Michigan and Iowa though the last two games. Fixable for sure. I'm not just looking at the amount of points scored either. I'm looking at shooting percentages and watching the game. As built mentioned PPP is a better measure but I don't have access to that currently. I watched the game and our rotations were awful. It's hard when Garza's a beast and I get that, but we got lost a lot and reverted to older Pitino teams. Nice thing is it is all fixable. Richard's offenses have always proven to be pretty solid for the most part in our conference rankings. I've got confidence in him there even though we've been shooting so poorly.
 

jovs

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
3,613
Reaction score
163
Points
63
They don't seem to have the intense needed on defense, you can't just turn up the heat when you need a stop you have to play hard the whole game and I just didn't see it. Shooting will change from game to game but defense has to be there every game.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
7,384
Reaction score
1,984
Points
113
Good post and points made. I agree we've been the best defensively I've seen out of a Pitino team this year. I do think we were awful defensively against Michigan and Iowa though the last two games. Fixable for sure. I'm not just looking at the amount of points scored either. I'm looking at shooting percentages and watching the game. As built mentioned PPP is a better measure but I don't have access to that currently. I watched the game and our rotations were awful. It's hard when Garza's a beast and I get that, but we got lost a lot and reverted to older Pitino teams. Nice thing is it is all fixable. Richard's offenses have always proven to be pretty solid for the most part in our conference rankings. I've got confidence in him there even though we've been shooting so poorly.
It seems to me that they have collapsed on both ends of the floor this year during their lopsided losses. Our four worst shooting games were our four losses (27.5% against Illinois, 31.3% against Wisconsin, 32.4% against Michigan, and 35.2% against Iowa yesterday) AND they have also been the four games where we allowed the highest field goal percentage (53.1% to Illinois, 50.8% to Wisconsin, 56.9% to Michigan, and 55.4% to Iowa). In contrast, the worst we shot in a win was 42.6% in the second Loyola Marymount game and the highest shooting percentage given in a win was 44.2% to St. Louis.

It should be noted that we haven't shot over 50% in a single game this year. Our highest was 47.9% against St. Louis followed by 47.6% against Michigan State. In contrast, we have limited 5 teams to under 40% shooting including 3 Big Ten teams (Michigan State, Ohio State, and Iowa in the first game).
 
Last edited:

UpAndUnder43

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
6,105
Reaction score
1,809
Points
113
It seems to me that they have collapsed on both ends of the floor this year during their lopsided losses. Our four worst shooting games were our four losses (27.5% against Illinois, 31.3% against Wisconsin, 32.4% against Michigan, and 35.2% against Iowa yesterday) AND they have also been the four games where we allowed the highest field goal percentage (53.1% to Illinois, 50.8% to Wisconsin, 56.9% to Michigan, and 55.4% to Iowa). In contrast, the worst we shot in a win was 42.6% in the second Loyola Marymount game and the highest shooting percentage given in a win was 44.2% to St. Louis.

It should be noted that we haven't shot over 50% in a single game this year. Our highest was 47.9% against St. Louis followed by 47.6% against Michigan State. In contrast, we have limited 5 teams to under 40% shooting including 3 Big Ten teams (Michigan State, Ohio State, and Iowa in the first game).
Is this TS%? Cause I find that hard to believe with our propensity (at times) to get to the line. Not sure what site shows per game TS% and I'm pretty busy with work so not going to do it now.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
7,384
Reaction score
1,984
Points
113
Is this TS%? Cause I find that hard to believe with our propensity (at times) to get to the line. Not sure what site shows per game TS% and I'm pretty busy with work so not going to do it now.
No, not True Shooting Percentage - just field goal percentage. Going to the line was our bread and butter for much of the season but we haven't been getting there as much lately.
 
Top Bottom