How does this team do it?! Look at the box score for this game (obviously free throws are the reason we won), but just saying we were outrebounded by 13, outshot from the Field and 3, out-assisted, +2 in Turnover Margin..but still win..Amazing for being an undersized team,that we usually win the Free Throw battle..and that is Buzz Ball 101 - make more free throws than the other team attempts..easier said than done, and we did it - 19 makes to 13 attempts by SHU
Seton Hall FG% - 50%
MU - 47.5%
SH 3pt FG% - 40% on 8 makes
MU 3t FG% - 36% on 9 makes
SH Rebounds - 35
MU Rebounds - 22
SH Assitst - 20
MU Assists - 15
SH Turnovers - 14
MU Turnovers - 12
Actually, SH had 15 turnovers for 3 more than MU, difference was we had 3 more steals, 7 to 4.
Missing from your stats is that we had 10 more points on free throws although they only had 4 more fouls than us! We were 19 of 25 on FT's from their 18 fouls while they got ten less points (9) and 12! less FT attempts from only four less fouls. I think that this is a typical advantage that MU has had in close games, a much wider disparity between FT's made and FT's attempted than the other team, especially considering not an especially big difference between the number of fouls committed by each team. I'm not sure how Buzz emphasizes this, but its happens too often to be a coincidence.
Truly amazing, really!
Quote from: LittleMurs on February 28, 2010, 02:49:37 PM
Actually, SH had 15 turnovers for 3 more than MU, difference was we had 3 more steals, 7 to 4.
Missing from your stats is that we had 10 more points on free throws although they only had 4 more fouls than us! We were 19 of 25 on FT's from their 18 fouls while they got ten less points (9) and 12! less FT attempts from only four less fouls. I think that this is a typical advantage that MU has had in close games, a much wider disparity between FT's made and FT's attempted than the other team, especially considering not an especially big difference between the number of fouls committed by each team. I'm not sure how Buzz emphasizes this, but its happens too often to be a coincidence.
How many open layups did they have because we didn't want to foul because of little depth?
I would be interested to see a shot chart
Some have argued that our defense hasn't been as good under Buzz as it was TC - and from a statistical points per game perspective, that may be correct. However, Buzz is a HUGE proponent of playing defense without fouling - so as to not put the other team in the bonus early. The fact we don't foul a lot isn't a function of our lack of depth, as much as it is a main Buzz coaching philsophy. TC teams played hardcore defense, but also did so at the expense of putting the other team in the bonus frequently, and us losing the free throw battle.
Quote from: Ners on February 28, 2010, 03:46:51 PM
Some have argued that or defense hasn't been as good under Buzz as it was TC - and from a statistical points per game perspective, that may be correct. However, Buzz is a HUGE proponent of playing defense without fouling - so as to not put the other team in the bonus early. The fact we don't foul a lot isn't a function of our lack of depth, as much as it is a main Buzz coaching philsophy. TC teams played hardcore defense, but also did so at the expense of putting the other team in the bonus frequently, and us losing the free throw battle.
This makes sense to me, and it explains why Fulce's PT dropped off until recently, even though he was the only real option to sub for Zar and Butler, he had a tendency to foul.
Quote from: LittleMurs on February 28, 2010, 03:52:05 PM
This makes sense to me, and it explains why Fulce's PT dropped off until recently, even though he was the only real option to sub for Zar and Butler, he had a tendency to foul.
Bingo...with Buzz you can miss shots, so long as he sees them as quality shots (see Cooby today..he missed thre, 3 pointers in the last 5 minutes of regultion) and not get benched. But foul foolishly, and you are on the bench - which is also why Eric Williams doesn't play a whole lot at this point.