Box Score Reviews

[mount187]

I know this is a good exercise, so I want to start a thread where people find interesting box scores, and review them to show how the result of the game didn't really match up with the way the game was played, because of a few key stats.

---

The game that got me thinking about it was UNC/LBST. Not that the result didn't match the box score, but I didn't get to watch the game, so I was looking over the box, and thought I'd go first:

The game played almost equal straight down the statistics, which is probably the reason for the six point margin. The Heels made two more baskets, on two fewer attempts, but gave up one extra three pointer. FT's were an edge to UNC eight makes to five, even though attempts were close 10 to eight respectively. UNC forced three more turnover, but LBST offset that by grabbing four more offensive rebounds (total rebounds were tied at 33 apiece). UNC were miles ahead in assits and blocks (28/16 and 6/1), but as we saw before, that didn't create a huge disparity in makes.

One thing that sticks out to me, just from the box score, is that the Heels must have continued to struggle guarding on the perimeter. Having 12 less assists, and only two less makes makes me think that guards were creating a lot of looks for themselves. That's cemented when you look at the 46 combined points from LBST's starting guards, with only four of those coming from the charity stripe.

On the plus side for UNC, Henson had another double-double, and continues to shoot a very high percentage (12 of 17 from the field). Barnes was right around his average shooting, hitting 8 of 16 from the field, and continued shooting well from deep (3 of 3). Marshall continued to do what he does, pouring in another 16 assists.

My thoughts on this review: the result of the game was almost exactly what you'd expect from the box. LBST's guards ran amuck (cue Daffy Duck, "Amuck, amuck, amuck!"), which continues to be a problem for UNC. It's a big plus for LBST to have stayed even on the boards with the Heels, as well as pulling more offensive boards, considering they don't start anyone that the list as a "center". The rebounding statistics must have really been disappointing for Roy Williams, considering the size advantage. The Heels on offense, however continued with business as usual, tallying in the mid-80's, and shooting over 50% from the field. I'm surprised they only got up 10 FT's attempts, and they'll need more than that per game if they plan on winning the league, the ACC Tournament, and the NCAA's.

[RyanParrill]

This is a great exercise. And something I believe is fun and educational to do. But I have to say Mount, you typed a lot out there and I'm not sure you reached any real conclusion. I know you ended it with that UNC "need more than that [FT's] per game if they plan on winning the league, the ACC Tournament, and the NCAA's."

Is that your conclusion from the boxscore? Is there anything to be said for LBST? Did they "control" what could have been a hostile environment by keeping it close?

Sometimes it can help by seeing some of the game and the boxscore, but the boxscore will be there no matter what. So I hope we continue to dissect some. I'll throw one up shortly.

[mount187]

(12-12-2011 10:09 AM)RyanParrill Wrote:  This is a great exercise. And something I believe is fun and educational to do. But I have to say Mount, you typed a lot out there and I'm not sure you reached any real conclusion. I know you ended it with that UNC "need more than that [FT's] per game if they plan on winning the league, the ACC Tournament, and the NCAA's."

Is that your conclusion from the boxscore? Is there anything to be said for LBST? Did they "control" what could have been a hostile environment by keeping it close?

Sometimes it can help by seeing some of the game and the boxscore, but the boxscore will be there no matter what. So I hope we continue to dissect some. I'll throw one up shortly.

No, as I opened with, I think the box and the game match up pretty well. I just happened to be looking at that particular box score, and thought I'd get the ball rolling. It was surprising/concerning that LBST hung in with the rebounds as well as they did, and I think it's also a bit concerning that UNC only shot 10 FT's. I would think with more size and athleticism that they would be able to get in the paint and draw contact, instead of settling for jumpers. Again, I wasn't trying to draw drastic conclusions here, just setting an example from a review I was doing for my own interest.

You're right though, generally you try to find things like, "Team A upset Team B, but Team A made a remarkable 16 of 22 triples. I wouldn't be down on Team B just yet, they just got unlucky here. Their perimeter defense usually holds teams below 30% from deep, and they just had an off night." Or, "Team A barely escaped with a win over Team B, but they were given 24 more FT attempts (they only average 18 attempts a game and took 32 tonight). If Team B was a team from a bigger conference, Team A wouldn't have gotten all those calls, and the game probably goes the other way. I'll be looking to fade them against bigger schools."

Good eye Ryan, I should have been more clear.

[RyanParrill]

Detroit @ Alabama (-14)

This was a game people expected Alabama to come out and get back to their defensive ways, and they did. I know some people liked the under, and that looked pretty good.

Detroit shot 32%, their lowest of the last few games, by far. They were able to put up more shots (53-50), which is not the typical characteristic for Detroit. Detroit does not shoot well from 3, and this game was the basement, 0-12. They were able to get to the FT line, though, and shot 77% (20/26). This is a team that's able to get to the FT line more consistently than their opponent, and make the opportunities when given them. This is what helped keep them in the game, and cover, in the 2nd half.

Alabama came off a 2-game skid and decided to get back to defense. Because defense is something teams tend to "turn on and off", I believe Alabama started off by showing their defensive ability, and then got away from it a little when building a 20+ point lead. Alabama shot 48% and this is almost par for the course for their season, so far. They shot poorly from 3-pt land (13%, 2-15), but they're only a 25% 3-pt shooting team. Sharing the ball helped Alabama feed their lead, accounting for 10 of their 15 assists in the 1st half.

Conclusion:

I had put a "hold" on Detroit a couple weeks ago as McCallum was struggling and they were losing pieces/trying to fit others. It seems, though, that this team is starting to make a move. They are short-handed, giving only 7 guys over 10+ minutes, playing 8 total. They've had 3 straight ATS wins after starting 0-6.

Alabama is doing the opposite, losing 3 straight ATS after starting 4-0. Alabama doesn't appear to be a team I'd bet on to cover a larger spread, as their "defense 1st" and tend to ensure a victory towards the final minutes. They're 2 ATS losses before that were poor performances.

I'm expecting both of these teams to be strong teams to considering betting in the future. Detroit if they continue to 'click' and work their injured players in the lineup appropriately as they come back. I also expect Alabama to get back to their "defensive" ways and take care of opponents that are more on their level. As I said, don't really know if they're up to covering large spreads (2 spreads of 10+ points have not been covered).

[misinclined]

This is great. I love this. Now let me see if I'm smart enough to come up with some relavent questions.

[The Posse]

(12-12-2011 10:53 AM)RyanParrill Wrote:  I had put a "hold" on Detroit a couple weeks ago as McCallum was struggling and they were losing pieces/trying to fit others. It seems, though, that this team is starting to make a move. They are short-handed, giving only 7 guys over 10+ minutes, playing 8 total. They've had 3 straight ATS wins after starting 0-6.

I've done the same with Akron. Suspensions have really crippled a team that could be a March Madness dark horse.

This is a great thread. If I can find some time, I would like to contribute to this as well.

[Beyond the Bets]

Anybody want to take a crack at the Broncos box scores?

[mount187]

(12-13-2011 12:02 PM)Beyond the Bets Wrote:  Anybody want to take a crack at the Broncos box scores?

I'll take this one:

Box Score:

Irrelevant.

Conclusion:

Tebow is magical.

[Skating Tripods]

VMI and Longwood chucked 71 3-point FGs yesterday. Which, if the Yahoo box score attendance is right, is one 3 pointer attempted per every 4.56 fans.

Also, the game could be seen on Facebook as it took place in Farmville, VA.