Well, no one can say KenPom didn't warn us. On one end the game was largely what I expected it to be given Texas' ratings. The Heels' offense has been hot and cold this year, centering largely around the 3 point shot without which it seems to flounder. And last night flounder it did, greatly. There was the all too familiar 4-6 point hump (similar to Butler, couldn't quite get close enough to lead), and if a few more 3's drop (team 3FG% was 16, normally it is 36) Carolina would have briefly seized the lead. As an exercise, just check out the game graph, every UNC player except Brice Johnson under-performed their season offense. Texas is a good defensive team, and those numbers are the evidence to back up Bullock no having open looks at 3 and McAdoo getting bullied out of the post.
The other end of the game was much more troubling. Texas isn't a good offensive team. Much like a teacher who knows which material is going to be on the test, I'm going to repeat that in case you missed it, TEXAS ISN'T A GOOD OFFENSIVE TEAM (98.7 adjusted, 174th after last night). Upcoming on the schedule is UNLV (45th), UVA (104th), Miami (25th), FSU (96th) and Maryland (72nd). These are all teams better than Texas, a bad offensive team that UNC refused to guard at times. To me this is as alarming a problem as the offense, defense is based on communication and effort and should "gel" a lot faster than the offense.
Now, if you've made it through the two doomsday paragraphs above I have some positive notes. In general these problems seem fixable. I wasn't super impressed with Texas' defense, they were good but the Heels gave the ball away multiple times, you remember the ball bouncing off McAdoo's hands, James' hands, through Bullock's leg, off Tokoto's hands out of bounds. Also, the issues overall are more of consistency than ability (which frequently makes it all the more frustrating). Take the 11 minutes spanning halftime, where UNC used a 30-15 run and closed a 39-20 deficit to 54-50, and did it only using 2 3-pointers (of 3 made in the game :-/).
Consistency problems have always plagued Roy Williams' teams, this isn't something that should come as a surprise to no one. Even in 2009 the team had ups and downs (Loss to Boston College anyone?), but no one notices when you're 15 to 20 points better than your opponents. When you're basically even to start with and you under-perform you lose basketball games. I don't think expecting 30-15 runs for 40 minutes is realistic, but somewhere in that 10 minute span exists the Carolina team that the media, coaches and fans went into the season expecting.
-Ryan
Cason, here's some +/- stats for you, that 30-15 run consisted of 10m51s here is the breakdown:
Bullock 10:51
McAdoo 9:01
Strickland 9:01
Paige 7:30
Tokoto 6:53
Hairston 5:19
McDonald 3:46
James 3:15
The name that jumps out to me is Tokoto, the others are all in proportion to their minutes played across the whole game, while Tokoto's minutes are elevated. Roy made the choice to start Tokoto in the second half and it payed off as the run continued.
$`Four Factors`
OPP NAME ORTG perEFG perORB FTR TORATE
1 Texas Total 0.84 0.34 0.39 0.48 0.22
2 Texas oppTotals 1.06 0.45 0.38 0.35 0.16
$`Last Game`
POSS ORTG USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS FTR perEFG ARATE
Bullock 14 1.29 0.23 0.83 0.35 0.25 0.16 0.20 0.46 0.35 0.38 0.13
McAdoo 18 0.78 0.28 0.60 0.36 NaN 0.07 0.16 0.45 0.91 0.36 0.12
Hubert 1 0.00 0.06 NaN 0.00 NaN 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strickland 11 0.82 0.18 0.75 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.51 0.57 0.43 0.06
Paige 12 0.58 0.21 1.00 0.25 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.25 0.31 0.34
James 3 0.00 0.21 NaN NaN NaN 0.11 0.00 NaN NaN NaN 0.00
Hairston 12 0.75 0.27 1.00 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.21 0.09
Johnson 3 1.33 0.25 NaN 0.67 NaN 0.00 0.29 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.00
McDonald 6 0.33 0.17 NaN 0.14 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00
Tokoto 4 1.00 0.11 0.33 1.00 NaN 0.04 0.23 0.55 6.00 1.00 0.00
Davis NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Simmons NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Total 80 0.84 1.00 0.69 0.31 0.16 0.39 0.57 0.41 0.48 0.34 0.52
oppTotals 80 1.06 1.00 0.73 0.41 0.35 0.38 0.55 0.50 0.35 0.45 0.40
$`Season Totals`
NAME POSS ORTG USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS FTR perEFG ARATE
1 Bullock 103 1.36 0.18 0.82 0.48 0.45 0.07 0.13 0.62 0.16 0.59 0.15
2 McAdoo 170 0.99 0.28 0.65 0.47 NaN 0.10 0.18 0.51 0.37 0.47 0.05
3 Hubert 10 1.00 0.05 0.00 0.45 NaN 0.08 0.09 0.36 0.64 0.45 0.02
4 Strickland 109 0.90 0.20 0.59 0.45 0.25 0.03 0.08 0.50 0.41 0.47 0.22
5 Paige 106 0.67 0.22 0.80 0.36 0.28 0.01 0.07 0.44 0.06 0.43 0.20
6 James 31 1.26 0.10 0.58 0.52 NaN 0.10 0.16 0.54 0.39 0.52 0.04
7 Hairston 106 1.08 0.31 0.88 0.36 0.33 0.10 0.13 0.52 0.26 0.46 0.10
8 Johnson 72 1.31 0.25 0.60 0.64 NaN 0.07 0.27 0.64 0.14 0.64 0.03
9 McDonald 91 1.12 0.24 0.69 0.42 0.46 0.06 0.07 0.56 0.15 0.54 0.12
10 Tokoto 43 1.16 0.19 0.33 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.15 0.54 0.38 0.56 0.07
11 Davis 6 1.33 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.03 1.39 1.00 1.50 0.41
12 Simmons 8 1.50 0.08 1.00 0.36 NaN 0.12 0.19 0.47 0.36 0.36 0.05
13 Total 848 1.07 1.00 0.65 0.45 0.36 0.39 0.67 0.53 0.25 0.51 0.61
14 oppTotal 848 0.91 1.00 0.70 0.38 0.34 0.31 0.62 0.48 0.26 0.45 0.51
McNeese St prediction(107.4,90.2,75.7,97.5,104.2,65.3)
$HomePts
[1] 85.78433
$AwayPts
[1] 63.7419
$Pace
[1] 73.45037
$HomeWinP
[1] 0.9681834
No comments:
Post a Comment