Primarily, I'd like to laud the team (as most have already done) for the victory against UNLV. They played cohesively and for the first time all season looked consistently above average on defense all game. On the offensive end, McAdoo (among others) got to the free throw line, and was able to shake off another shaky start. From a less statistical viewpoint, it was impressive to see the team not give up and let a game slip away that was very tenuous in the second half. The ability of 19 and 20 year old kids to maintain focus and play through losing the lead in a tight game is something Tar Heel fans frequently take for granted. Games like this one are what really give me enjoyment out of the "rebuilding years", the ones that you can almost see everyone taking a step forward and growing into a better team.
This game had nearly the opposite trend that I complimented against McNeese St. In that game Strickland and Paige got out of the way, and had elevated efficiency ratings by using fewer possessions. This game was just as positive an outcome in nearly the opposite direction. Both players took more shots than average while improving their rating. I wouldn't have predicted that to be successful, at least in Paige's case but it worked and the more these two perform at this level the better the offense as a whole will look.
Similarly the trips to the foul line improved markedly. As you can see from the pentagon graph, UNC was on a similar level with UNLV in 3 of the 4 factors (perEFG, perORB, TORate) but the Free Throw Rate was much higher. The large advantage there and to a lesser extent the small one in TORate led to the efficiency advantage that won the game.
$`Four Factors`
OPP NAME ORTG perEFG perORB FTR TORATE
1 UNLV Total 1.10 0.54 0.33 0.60 0.17
2 UNLV oppTotal 1.01 0.53 0.38 0.36 0.24
The Heels also did an excellent job forcing turnovers and running the secondary break. This is crucial as it gives the offense the best set of looks (one on an initial break and another in the secondary) possible and yields much better offensive performance than playing against a set half-court.
Speaking of the set half-court, up next is UVA. Tony Bennett's Virginia squad is notoriously slow, playing the 342nd slowest pace in the country. Fast breaks will be few and far between, something that could make things appear quite ugly. KenPom's prediction makes this the slowest game the Heels have played this season (LBSU at 70 holds the current low mark). Looking to that game for clues, offensive rebounding will be big. When the offensive isn't performing well, rebounding can help UNC puts points on the board. As always 3pt shooting is important, but especially so this weekend with UVA's "pack-line" defense. If Bullock can play and he and the other shooters are hot, it could give the offense a little more room to operate. Similarly with the pack-line in operation, the long jumpers of McAdoo and Johnson could prove pivotal. That said, UVA isn't exactly torching the nets themselves, ranking 80th in offense (OE 105.2). With the defense coming off a strong performance (the kind I doubted the existence of after the Texas game) this could be another opportunity for a strong showing.
UVA Prediction:
UVA 68.2, UNC 63.6
67.937 Poss
Home Win % 0.69169
Along with the following breakdown of individual players:
$`Last Game`
POSS ORTG USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS FTR perEFG ARATE
Bullock NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
McAdoo 15 0.87 0.25 0.60 0.38 NaN 0.11 0.19 0.43 0.38 0.38 0.13
Hubert 3 1.00 0.08 0.50 1.00 NaN 0.00 0.17 0.80 2.00 1.00 0.00
Strickland 14 1.14 0.24 0.60 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.65 1.25 0.62 0.09
Paige 14 0.86 0.23 0.75 0.33 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.48 0.89 0.33 0.17
James 3 0.00 0.56 NaN 0.00 NaN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hairston 10 1.50 0.17 0.75 0.50 0.40 0.08 0.07 0.64 0.40 0.60 0.04
Johnson 8 1.50 0.30 0.00 0.75 NaN 0.25 0.07 0.68 0.25 0.75 0.00
McDonald 4 1.25 0.12 NaN 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.06 0.62 0.00 0.62 0.00
Tokoto 2 1.50 0.10 0.50 1.00 NaN 0.11 0.10 0.80 2.00 1.00 0.26
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 72 1.10 1.00 0.61 0.51 0.30 0.33 0.59 0.57 0.60 0.54 0.43
oppTotal 72 1.01 1.00 0.52 0.46 0.47 0.38 0.73 0.53 0.36 0.53 0.56
And the season's stats in total:
$`Season Totals`
NAME POSS ORTG USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS FTR perEFG ARATE
1 Bullock 114 1.38 0.19 0.82 0.49 0.48 0.07 0.13 0.64 0.15 0.62 0.15
2 McAdoo 198 0.97 0.28 0.62 0.46 NaN 0.10 0.18 0.50 0.38 0.46 0.06
3 Hubert 16 0.94 0.06 0.11 0.54 NaN 0.08 0.11 0.44 0.69 0.54 0.02
4 Strickland 131 0.93 0.20 0.59 0.47 0.22 0.02 0.08 0.52 0.45 0.49 0.22
5 Paige 126 0.71 0.21 0.77 0.35 0.30 0.01 0.07 0.45 0.14 0.42 0.21
6 James 34 1.26 0.10 0.64 0.52 NaN 0.10 0.16 0.55 0.42 0.52 0.04
7 Hairston 128 1.16 0.30 0.87 0.38 0.34 0.10 0.12 0.54 0.32 0.48 0.09
8 Johnson 87 1.33 0.26 0.50 0.63 NaN 0.09 0.25 0.63 0.14 0.63 0.03
9 McDonald 106 1.11 0.24 0.69 0.41 0.45 0.05 0.07 0.56 0.16 0.54 0.11
10 Tokoto 48 1.17 0.17 0.35 0.56 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.54 0.47 0.57 0.10
11 Davis 6 1.33 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.03 1.39 1.00 1.50 0.40
12 Simmons 7 2.29 0.07 1.00 0.43 NaN 0.18 0.19 0.51 0.29 0.43 0.05
13 Total 996 1.09 1.00 0.64 0.46 0.37 0.40 0.66 0.54 0.28 0.51 0.61
14 oppTotal 996 0.91 1.00 0.66 0.39 0.34 0.31 0.61 0.48 0.27 0.45 0.51
No comments:
Post a Comment