Both!?
After the double-take at the score of the Pittsburgh/New Hampshire (47-32), I dug through the AP story to see if the writer could shed some light. And he did. A little. After declaring that "it didn't resemble a NCAA Division I basketball game, especially during a record-setting first half in which Pitt shot terribly, New Hampshire shot even worse and scoreboard operator Jerry Ferber barely moved a finger..." the writer let me know that the 22 first half points (that's the combined point production of both teams) was the lowest of the shot clock era. The teams had about 28 possessions apiece in the first half. And that was the "fast" half. Pitt led 15-7 at the half. Poor shooting or deliberate pace? Poor shooting was definitely a culprit (Pittsburgh and New Hampshire had eFG%s of 26.3 and 14.0 respectively), but the turnovers also worked to keep the score down as each team lost nearly 35% of their possessions.
Pittsburgh came alive offensively in the second half, but the number of possessions per team declined to 26.6, so the Panthers' 32 points seem less impressive than the 1.21 points per possession would suggest. They hit their 2s at a 56.3% clip, but more impressive was the 42.9% conversion rate for their 3s, equivalent to hitting 64.4% of their 2s. Pittsburgh does not have a reputation for converting 3 point shots, so the 2nd half spurt was unexpected. Ashton Gibbs and Brad Wanamaker combined to score 42 of Pittsburgh's 47 points. The super guards were responsible for 89.4% of Pittsburgh's points. They would have beaten New Hampshire by themselves.
Holding New Hampshire to a 0.57 points per possession for the game is a signature stat for Pitt. Traditionally they are very defense-oriented
After the double-take at the score of the Pittsburgh/New Hampshire (47-32), I dug through the AP story to see if the writer could shed some light. And he did. A little. After declaring that "it didn't resemble a NCAA Division I basketball game, especially during a record-setting first half in which Pitt shot terribly, New Hampshire shot even worse and scoreboard operator Jerry Ferber barely moved a finger..." the writer let me know that the 22 first half points (that's the combined point production of both teams) was the lowest of the shot clock era. The teams had about 28 possessions apiece in the first half. And that was the "fast" half. Pitt led 15-7 at the half. Poor shooting or deliberate pace? Poor shooting was definitely a culprit (Pittsburgh and New Hampshire had eFG%s of 26.3 and 14.0 respectively), but the turnovers also worked to keep the score down as each team lost nearly 35% of their possessions.
| Opponent | New Hampshire | |||||||
| 1st | 2nd | Game | ||||||
| Pace | 28.9 | 26.6 | 55.5 | |||||
| Offense | Defense | |||||||
| 1st | 2nd | Game | 1st | 2nd | Game | |||
| Rating | 51.9 | 120.5 | 84.7 | 24.2 | 94.1 | 57.7 | ||
| eFG% | 26.3 | 58.7 | 44.0 | 14.0 | 40.4 | 27.5 | ||
| TORate | 34.6 | 22.6 | 28.8 | 34.6 | 15.1 | 25.2 | ||
| OR% | 21.4 | 50.0 | 34.6 | 31.8 | 36.8 | 34.1 | ||
| FTA/FGA | 31.6 | 30.4 | 31.0 | 8.0 | 30.8 | 19.6 | ||
| FTM/FGA | 26.3 | 21.7 | 23.8 | 0.0 | 15.4 | 7.8 | ||
| ARate | 80.0 | 66.7 | 70.6 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | ||
| Blk% | 0.0 | 4.3 | 2.4 | 12.0 | 11.5 | 11.8 | ||
| Stl% | 6.9 | 7.6 | 7.2 | 10.4 | 11.2 | 10.8 | ||
| PPWS | 0.69 | 1.22 | 0.98 | 0.27 | 0.84 | 0.57 | ||
| 2FG% | 38.5 | 56.3 | 48.3 | 13.3 | 31.6 | 23.5 | ||
| 3FG% | 0.0 | 42.9 | 23.1 | 10.0 | 42.9 | 23.5 | ||
| FT% | 83.3 | 71.4 | 76.9 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 40.0 | ||
| %2FG | 66.7 | 56.3 | 59.6 | 57.1 | 48.0 | 50.0 | ||
| %3FG | 0.0 | 28.1 | 19.1 | 42.9 | 36.0 | 37.5 | ||
| %FT | 33.3 | 15.6 | 21.3 | 0.0 | 16.0 | 12.5 | ||
Pittsburgh came alive offensively in the second half, but the number of possessions per team declined to 26.6, so the Panthers' 32 points seem less impressive than the 1.21 points per possession would suggest. They hit their 2s at a 56.3% clip, but more impressive was the 42.9% conversion rate for their 3s, equivalent to hitting 64.4% of their 2s. Pittsburgh does not have a reputation for converting 3 point shots, so the 2nd half spurt was unexpected. Ashton Gibbs and Brad Wanamaker combined to score 42 of Pittsburgh's 47 points. The super guards were responsible for 89.4% of Pittsburgh's points. They would have beaten New Hampshire by themselves.
Holding New Hampshire to a 0.57 points per possession for the game is a signature stat for Pitt. Traditionally they are very defense-oriented
No comments:
Post a Comment