+/- for the Eye-Opening blowout of Iowa

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Player	Minutes	NU Pts	Iowa Pts	Raw +/-	Player Adjust	Net +/-
Buie	35	73	49	+24	+4.6	+28.6
Berry	35	71	48	+23	-3.1	+19.9
Verhoeven	20	39	25	+14	+2.4	+16.4
Beran	24	54	36	+18	-6.1	+11.9
Nicholson	18	34	28	+6	+2.0	+8.0
Barnhizer	32	60	50	+10	-2.5	+7.5
Audige	18	34	31	+3	+1.3	+4.3
Martinelli	8	10	8	+2	+1.4	+3.4

When Iowa threw in the towel with 1:47 to play, trailing 75-56, I ignored the remaining garbage time stats, so the "minutes played" reflect that.
Northwestern was led for the 3rd consecutive game by Boo Buie, who is enjoying a great run.
Buie and Ty Berry teamed up for a phenomenal 69-39 pummeling of the Hawkeyes in 30 minutes of action.
Chase Audige missed half of the game due to foul trouble and his teammates responded with one of the biggest wins of the year.
Specifically, it was the bigger lineups, with Beran, Barnhizer and occasionally Martinelli in the frontcourt and Buie and Berry in the backcourt that did almost all of the damage.
The 5 man lineup of Verhoeven/Beran/Barnhizer/Berry/Buie won their segments 28-15 in about 10 minutes of action.
Hopefully this made an impression on the coaching staff, who have been extremely reluctant to take Chase Audige off the court at all.
It should also be noted that the starters (Nicholson/Beran/Audige/Buie/Berry) got the Wildcats off to a quick 11-3 lead and finished the game with a 15-5 advantage over a total of only 6 minutes.

Significantly, it appeared that NU did not automatically double the ball in the post (!), paying more attention to defending the 3 point shooters, who went 3 for 24 for the Hawkeyes.

Lastly, "special assistant" Brian James told the radio crew at halftime that the gameplan was to set screens to get switches so that "Payton Sandfort will be guarding our best player." (He was referring to Buie).

Great win for NU!!!! The team continues to improve as the young guys gain confidence and experience.

 

[GatoLouco]

Man, when you are confident it all snow balls. If those +/- were a blind test, no one would ever guess they were for a NU win.

 

[Figrating]

3 point shooters, who went 3 for 24 for the Hawkeyes.

The cowhawks aren't nearly so good when they don't have a great night shooting 3's.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Man, when you are confident it all snow balls. If those +/- were a blind test, no one would ever guess they were for a NU win.

I didn't get to watch the game live. Was driving back from out of town, but listened to WGN as the signal allowed. I got home for the last couple minutes and watched a replay of the entire game.

We looked pretty sharp and it was great to see Buie finding both Verhoeven and Nicholson for easy baskets.

 

[TheC]

I didn't get to watch the game live. Was driving back from out of town, but listened to WGN as the signal allowed. I got home for the last couple minutes and watched a replay of the entire game.

We looked pretty sharp and it was great to see Buie finding both Verhoeven and Nicholson for easy baskets.

Nicholson made multiple non-dunk buckets! That was really encouraging. Maybe the trick is to always have someone hanging on his arms when he shoots!

 

[AdamOnFirst]

It's fairly remarkable that NU absolutely crushed a good opponent at home in a game where Audige was in huge foul trouble, was a complete non-factor on offense during his 2 minutes actually on the court, and was a somewhat less effective defensive weapon on the court as well. Boo and all the other guys had no problem scoring comfortably and playing great defense with our without Chase.

Doesn't take a basketball genius to have noticed this, but a great overall performance by our supporting cast.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Nicholson made multiple non-dunk buckets! That was really encouraging. Maybe the trick is to always have someone hanging on his arms when he shoots!

I did see a couple plays where Iowa was switching and a smaller guy had Nicholson, who just walled the defender off like he was estblishing rebounding position - as Buie drove the lane and floated it over the top for easy "and one" opportunities for Nicholson. Okay, so Matt "forgot" to convert the "and one" part, but still great to see that we can score like that.

 

[pawildcat]

The cowhawks aren't nearly so good when they don't have a great night shooting 3's.

That's true of just about any team. If you have a hot night hitting the 3s and the other team doesn't, it's usually the recipe for a blowout in the three-point era.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

That's true of just about any team. If you have a hot night hitting the 3s and the other team doesn't, it's usually the recipe for a blowout in the three-point era.

It seems to me that NU has gotten more nuanced in how it doubles the guy with the ball.
It looks like we are not doing it so predictably.
But I'm not the best observer - so I'm curious if others have noticed anything like that.

 

[TheC]

It seems to me that NU has gotten more nuanced in how it doubles the guy with the ball.
It looks like we are not doing it so predictably.
But I'm not the best observer - so I'm curious if others have noticed anything like that.

Against Iowa, we were not doubling Ribraca, but every once in a while, it looked like we would double McCaffery (I think that's who it was) if he tried to drive into the paint. Where I think we have improved tremendously compared to earlier in the year is our rotations out of the double. Except for that stretch against Indiana where we weren't covering up the second big man cutting to the basket, we have done a much better job of rotating to the open shooters out of the double team.

 

[Jonny2TheP]

I think I've posted on here enough and for long enough that most know that I am an optimistic poster and in no way a "rain on the parade" guy. I can't tell you how much joy I got from that beatdown of Iowa being that I live in Des Moines and am constantly surrounded by Hawkeyes.

BUT I think any success from the game on Sunday should be taken with a grain of salt. Don't get me wrong, there is NEVER any reason to apologize for another team's crappy performance, but Iowa played horrible on Sunday night and when it got bad, they completely unraveled. They are arguably the best shooting team in the conference and shot 3 for 24 from the arc. Sure, some of those were contested, but many were just misses on good looks. It just wasn't their night, and we did what good teams do - we made them pay for it and ran away with a blowout victory.

My point is that I don't think we should draw any conclusions from a +/- in a game where our opponent played as terribly as they did. I felt lucky that Iowa played such a bad game on the night that Audige couldn't stay on the floor due to foul trouble and Big Matt had to sit on the bench for a good chunk of the first half with foul trouble as well. In most games, if Audige is only playing 20 minutes, we are going to struggle to win against good teams.

The great news from this last month or so is that so many of our role players have become better players. We can win games when Audige has an off night or maybe Buie isn't hitting as many shots. Guys like Beran, Barnhizer, Berry, and even Nicholson have shown the ability to pick up the slack and be that rotating third guy who can score in double figures on any given night.

 

[Deeringfish]

It seems to me that NU has gotten more nuanced in how it doubles the guy with the ball.
It looks like we are not doing it so predictably.
But I'm not the best observer - so I'm curious if others have noticed anything like that.

It makes sense if only from the perspective that experience builds expertise. Lowery's influence and strategic changes should only get better and more natural with every game and every practice.

 

[Deeringfish]

I think I've posted on here enough and for long enough that most know that I am an optimistic poster and in no way a "rain on the parade" guy. I can't tell you how much joy I got from that beatdown of Iowa being that I live in Des Moines and am constantly surrounded by Hawkeyes.

BUT I think any success from the game on Sunday should be taken with a grain of salt. Don't get me wrong, there is NEVER any reason to apologize for another team's crappy performance, but Iowa played horrible on Sunday night and when it got bad, they completely unraveled. They are arguably the best shooting team in the conference and shot 3 for 24 from the arc. Sure, some of those were contested, but many were just misses on good looks. It just wasn't their night, and we did what good teams do - we made them pay for it and ran away with a blowout victory.

My point is that I don't think we should draw any conclusions from a +/- in a game where our opponent played as terribly as they did. I felt lucky that Iowa played such a bad game on the night that Audige couldn't stay on the floor due to foul trouble and Big Matt had to sit on the bench for a good chunk of the first half with foul trouble as well. In most games, if Audige is only playing 20 minutes, we are going to struggle to win against good teams.

The great news from this last month or so is that so many of our role players have become better players. We can win games when Audige has an off night or maybe Buie isn't hitting as many shots. Guys like Beran, Barnhizer, Berry, and even Nicholson have shown the ability to pick up the slack and be that rotating third guy who can score in double figures on any given night.

I disagree a little bit with this. In a couple of recent games one of the announcers pointed out that the tenacious double teams and defenses were causing opponents to hurry 3's that didn't really need to be hurried. So I'm not sure you can simply write this off to Iowa having a bad night. They had a bad night for a reason.
Not to mention the new atmosphere in WR that I think is catching some teams and coaches by surprise. Collins keeps saying that it is true. That the stadium was built with this in mind and that he has dreamed of the possibility all these years. I think he knows better than most of us.

 

[PURPLECAT88]

I would like to attempt to attribute accolades to PWB's awesome, A+, alliterative appellations for these +/- threads.

 

[Figrating]

That's true of just about any team. If you have a hot night hitting the 3s and the other team doesn't, it's usually the recipe for a blowout in the three-point era.

Highlighted here because Iowa hit nearly 50% or so last time NU played them. I didn't think there was much to do against a team that just shoots the lights out, but the coaches adapted.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

I disagree a little bit with this. In a couple of recent games one of the announcers pointed out that the tenacious double teams and defenses were causing opponents to hurry 3's that didn't really need to be hurried. So I'm not sure you can simply write this off to Iowa having a bad night. They had a bad night for a reason.
Not to mention the new atmosphere in WR that I think is catching some teams and coaches by surprise. Collins keeps saying that it is true. That the stadium was built with this in mind and that he has dreamed of the possibility all these years. I think he knows better than most of us.

This. A somewhat down shooting night is what it is, but Northwestern’s defense is what consistently makes opponents look bad and sloppy.

 

[EagerFan]

It seems to me that NU has gotten more nuanced in how it doubles the guy with the ball.
It looks like we are not doing it so predictably.
But I'm not the best observer - so I'm curious if others have noticed anything like that.

Time will tell, but I assumed it was a game specific coaching shift. Purdue and Indiana both have dominant big men who needed a lot more attention. Iowa's guy(s) isn't that kind of threat underneath and both Matt and Tydus handled it pretty well without a lot of help.

That allowed a lot faster close outs to the perimeter and whether Iowa had to hurry their shots more or not, it appeared to me that they did hurry a bunch of them and a few of the shooters reliably tried a pump fake and drive instead of take the shot. And that reliably did not work against our defenders.

So I don't think Iowa really had an 'off shooting night' so much as the defense shook them enough to impact their shooting/decision making more than it might appear.

I haven't been following Illini at all, so I don't know their center situation. I expect the coaches have a plan tho.

 

[Hungry Jack]

Am we’re q

Time will tell, but I assumed it was a game specific coaching shift. Purdue and Indiana both have dominant big men who needed a lot more attention. Iowa's guy(s) isn't that kind of threat underneath and both Matt and Tydus handled it pretty well without a lot of help.

That allowed a lot faster close outs to the perimeter and whether Iowa had to hurry their shots more or not, it appeared to me that they did hurry a bunch of them and a few of the shooters reliably tried a pump fake and drive instead of take the shot. And that reliably did not work against our defenders.

So I don't think Iowa really had an 'off shooting night' so much as the defense shook them enough to impact their shooting/decision making more than it might appear.

I haven't been following Illini at all, so I don't know their center situation. I expect the coaches have a plan tho.

This. The Cats defended the perimeter and refused to let Iowa get out and run. They also ran plays to make Sandfort & Son work on defense to tire him out.

I was surprised Ioa didn’t employ Rebraca more. He’s a tough matchup for Matt, but he was mostly ignored in the post, it seemed.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

My point is that I don't think we should draw any conclusions from a +/- in a game where our opponent played as terribly as they did. I felt lucky that Iowa played such a bad game on the night that Audige couldn't stay on the floor due to foul trouble and Big Matt had to sit on the bench for a good chunk of the first half with foul trouble as well. In most games, if Audige is only playing 20 minutes, we are going to struggle to win against good teams.

No single game tells you that much. There's plenty of luck involved in basketball. Low percentage shots go in, guys miss layups. I use the +/- numbers (and the player adjustments) to

a) identify who has played well or poorly in specific games
b) evaluate what lineups have worked and which haven't.
c) evaluate intangibles on both offense and defense.
d) evaluate how well the coaches are using their roster.

 

[cats_man_too]

No single game tells you that much. There's plenty of luck involved in basketball. Low percentage shots go in, guys miss layups. I use the +/- numbers (and the player adjustments) to

a) identify who has played well or poorly in specific games
b) evaluate what lineups have worked and which haven't.
c) evaluate intangibles on both offense and defense.
d) evaluate how well the coaches are using their roster.

So do you keep a season total/average? If so, what does that reveal in your estimation?

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

So do you keep a season total/average? If so, what does that reveal in your estimation?

I keep every game and the totals. But I don't use games against teams outside the Power 6, unless the team is pretty good. So, I'm using all the Big Ten games, plus the DePaul game (which flatters us), the Pitt game (which insults us), the Liberty game, the Auburn game and the Georgetown game.

The data implies many things. I can detect "chemistry" (or indications thereof) because I have points scored and allowed for every 2 man combination, 3 man combination, etc.

There are indications that Ty Berry brings more to the table than people can easily identify. Thats another way of saying his intangibles are very good.

Based on our results when Julian Roper was playing, one could conclude that he was playing too much and the team actually improved when he got hurt. That one is tough to write, because I like Roper and thought he was going to be very good this year, but it hasn't worked out that way.

Another indication is that Audige should probably not be playing 38 minutes a game. There's not a ton of data when Audige is on the bench, so it isn't definitive, but in the 74 minutes we've played without Audige we have outscored our opponents 142-112. (much of that came from the recent game against Iowa, but if Audige were truly irreplaceable, that +/- would be negative).

 

[cats_man_too]

I keep every game and the totals. But I don't use games against teams outside the Power 6, unless the team is pretty good. So, I'm using all the Big Ten games, plus the DePaul game (which flatters us), the Pitt game (which insults us), the Liberty game, the Auburn game and the Georgetown game.

The data implies many things. I can detect "chemistry" (or indications thereof) because I have points scored and allowed for every 2 man combination, 3 man combination, etc.

There are indications that Ty Berry brings more to the table than people can easily identify. Thats another way of saying his intangibles are very good.

Based on our results when Julian Roper was playing, one could conclude that he was playing too much and the team actually improved when he got hurt. That one is tough to write, because I like Roper and thought he was going to be very good this year, but it hasn't worked out that way.

Another indication is that Audige should probably not be playing 38 minutes a game. There's not a ton of data when Audige is on the bench, so it isn't definitive, but in the 74 minutes we've played without Audige we have outscored our opponents 142-112. (much of that came from the recent game against Iowa, but if Audige were truly irreplaceable, that +/- would be negative).

Have you reviewed the player rating analytics at evanmiya.com? They would seem to align with your insights.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Have you reviewed the player rating analytics at evanmiya.com? They would seem to align with your insights.

I look at Evan Miya regularly.
Great info over there.
However he doesn't allow any filtering, so all his analysis includes the non-conference games.
Thus he badly underrates Buie.

 

[NUCat320]

I keep every game and the totals. But I don't use games against teams outside the Power 6, unless the team is pretty good. So, I'm using all the Big Ten games, plus the DePaul game (which flatters us), the Pitt game (which insults us), the Liberty game, the Auburn game and the Georgetown game.

The data implies many things. I can detect "chemistry" (or indications thereof) because I have points scored and allowed for every 2 man combination, 3 man combination, etc.

There are indications that Ty Berry brings more to the table than people can easily identify. Thats another way of saying his intangibles are very good.

Based on our results when Julian Roper was playing, one could conclude that he was playing too much and the team actually improved when he got hurt. That one is tough to write, because I like Roper and thought he was going to be very good this year, but it hasn't worked out that way.

Another indication is that Audige should probably not be playing 38 minutes a game. There's not a ton of data when Audige is on the bench, so it isn't definitive, but in the 74 minutes we've played without Audige we have outscored our opponents 142-112. (much of that came from the recent game against Iowa, but if Audige were truly irreplaceable, that +/- would be negative).

What were the Berry without Audige and Audige without Berry numbers for Iowa?

The Berry insight is interesting because he’s spent so much of the last three weeks missing shots.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

What were the Berry without Audige and Audige without Berry numbers for Iowa?

The Berry insight is interesting because he’s spent so much of the last three weeks missing shots.

Berry was 71-48 in 35 minutes. He was 30-23 in 15 minutes with Audige. So 41-25 in 20 minutes without Audige.

Audige was 34-31 for the game. He was 4-8 in about 3 minutes without Berry.

Both Berry and Audige are starters and the starters won their 6 minutes 15-5.

I continue to think that playing Beran at the 4, Barnhizer at the 3, Berry at the 2 and Buie at the 1 is a viable "plan B" for this team.