BlackSquirrels
2nd String
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 643
- Like
- 2,117
Word is that SWC's computer has ground to a halt like the Bearcat offense during the closing minutes of yesterday's game. Here are some of the numbers he would have posted.
Shooting
Cincinnati: 2s - 8/23 (.347), 3s - 10/32 (.313), FTs - 9/10 (.900), overall points/possession - 1.037
Syracuse: 2s - 17/32 (.531), 3s - 6/18 (.333), FTs - 5/7 (.714), overall points/possession - 1.075
This game was played at the glacial pace of 53 possessions over 40 minutes. This was the slowest game of the season so far for SU (at USF had 55 possessions; all other games have been over 60). Thus, the offenses performed better than you may have thought after a quick glance at the box score.
The focus of Mick Cronin's game plan seemed to be preventing SU from getting into transition after turnovers so he had his guards slow the game down, pass the ball around the perimeter and launch 3s. It was a pretty solid plan, although I'm sure he would have thought his team could have shot better than .347 from 2-pt. range. Their 3-pt. shooting performance was close to their season average (.340).
SU won the battle inside the arc as the Orange were able to convert their opportunities in, or close to, the paint. UC's 2-pt. defense is in the top 10 in the country (.404), so big ups to MCW and Triche for getting buckets in the paint.
Rebounding
Cincinnati: OReb%: .432
Syracuse: OReb%: .241
Cincinnati executed the second part of what I assume to be Cronin's game plan by grabbing about 43% of the available offensive rebounds. Their average for the season is 40.6% (8th in the country), so this is not out of the ordinary for them. IMO a few of these rebounds were long, random bounces, but I thought they also grabbed too many that fell in the paint.
SU has been an even better offensive rebounding team than Cincy this year (41.6%, 4th in the country), but the Bearcats were able to control their defensive boards.
There is not a large disparity in defensive rebounding pct. between both teams so far this season, so Cincy's dominance on the glass was somewhat of a surprise.
Turnovers
Cincinnati: TO% - 18.9%
Syracuse: TO% - 11.3%
Cincinnati did a decent job of protecting the ball, although given how their offensive game plan was to minimize risks, they probably still committed a few too many.
While Cincinnati does not try to create as many turnovers as teams like Louisville, SU's figure of 11.3% is still very good. In fact, this is Syracuse's 2nd best performance of the year (Colgate was the best at 8.8%).
(I consider the upside and downside to be the exclusive domains of SWC, so I can't help you there.)
Shooting
Cincinnati: 2s - 8/23 (.347), 3s - 10/32 (.313), FTs - 9/10 (.900), overall points/possession - 1.037
Syracuse: 2s - 17/32 (.531), 3s - 6/18 (.333), FTs - 5/7 (.714), overall points/possession - 1.075
This game was played at the glacial pace of 53 possessions over 40 minutes. This was the slowest game of the season so far for SU (at USF had 55 possessions; all other games have been over 60). Thus, the offenses performed better than you may have thought after a quick glance at the box score.
The focus of Mick Cronin's game plan seemed to be preventing SU from getting into transition after turnovers so he had his guards slow the game down, pass the ball around the perimeter and launch 3s. It was a pretty solid plan, although I'm sure he would have thought his team could have shot better than .347 from 2-pt. range. Their 3-pt. shooting performance was close to their season average (.340).
SU won the battle inside the arc as the Orange were able to convert their opportunities in, or close to, the paint. UC's 2-pt. defense is in the top 10 in the country (.404), so big ups to MCW and Triche for getting buckets in the paint.
Rebounding
Cincinnati: OReb%: .432
Syracuse: OReb%: .241
Cincinnati executed the second part of what I assume to be Cronin's game plan by grabbing about 43% of the available offensive rebounds. Their average for the season is 40.6% (8th in the country), so this is not out of the ordinary for them. IMO a few of these rebounds were long, random bounces, but I thought they also grabbed too many that fell in the paint.
SU has been an even better offensive rebounding team than Cincy this year (41.6%, 4th in the country), but the Bearcats were able to control their defensive boards.
There is not a large disparity in defensive rebounding pct. between both teams so far this season, so Cincy's dominance on the glass was somewhat of a surprise.
Turnovers
Cincinnati: TO% - 18.9%
Syracuse: TO% - 11.3%
Cincinnati did a decent job of protecting the ball, although given how their offensive game plan was to minimize risks, they probably still committed a few too many.
While Cincinnati does not try to create as many turnovers as teams like Louisville, SU's figure of 11.3% is still very good. In fact, this is Syracuse's 2nd best performance of the year (Colgate was the best at 8.8%).
(I consider the upside and downside to be the exclusive domains of SWC, so I can't help you there.)
