Return Engagements

[bearheel]

In every case so far this season when UC has played a team twice, the Bearcats have turned defeat in the first game into victory the second game.  The game against West Virginia provides an opportunity for the same kind of comeback.
 
The differences between games 1 and 2 in the other three pairs of games offer a clue about what it might take for UC to prevail this Saturday on Senior Day.
 
First, a quick review of the basics.  Dayton beat UC 75-66 on November 29 at Fifth Third Arena; UC returned the favor on December 22 in Las Vegas by an 81-63 score.  Louisville defeated UC 67-50 on January 25 in Freedom Hall; playing at home, UC won 74-68 on February 6.  Syracuse embarrassed UC 77-58 in Cincinnati on January 14; then UC embarrassed Syracuse 82-65 in the Carrier Dome on February 15.
 
In summary, a 9-point loss was followed by an 18-point victory, a 17-loss was followed by a 6-point win, and a 19-point loss was followed by a 17-point win ? an average swing of almost 29 points.  Home court advantage doesn?t explain it:  two of the losses were at home; the wins were on a neutral court, at home and on the road.  Personnel availability doesn?t either.  In each pair of games the personnel available to play were the same:  Kirkland played in both Dayton games and in none of the Louisville and Syracuse games; Taquan Dean played in both Louisville games, although he was coming off an injury in the first one.
 
So what was different?  Closer observers of the game may point to differences in strategy and tactics that caused differences in performance, but an analysis of game statistics tells at least part of the story, and produces a few surprises.
 
Against UD, UC was abysmal and UD shot well from 3-point range both games.  UD also won the rebounding battle both games by similar margins.  The big swings were in turnovers (UC had 10, UD had 12 in game 1, but UC had 7, UD had 20 in game 2) and in personal fouls and free throw conversions.  In the first game UC scored 14 points off of 14 Dayton personal fouls while UD scored 16 points off of 17 UC fouls.  In the second game, UC scored 25 points off of 24 UD fouls while the Flyers scored only 14 points off of 23 UC fouls.  The reasons for UC?s ?improved? free throw defense aren?t obvious (smile), but the big change in turnovers most likely comes from greater defensive intensity.
 
Against UL, much of the story is the same.  UC shot poorly and UL shot well from 3-point range both games.  UC scored only 9 points from the free throw line on 19 UL fouls in the first game, but 18 points (on 18 shots!) from the free throw line on 17 UL fouls in the second game.  The opposite occurred for UL: 17 points on 20 UC fouls in game 1, 11 points on 18 UC fouls in game 2.  As for turnovers, UL reduced their turnovers from 19 to 14, but UC reduced theirs even more from 25 to 13.  At the same time, UC improved its rebounding margin from 6 to 12.
 
Against Syracuse, the story is a different one.  Shooting from the field and rebounding tell it all.  Syracuse showed very little change in shooting efficiency from game 1 to game 2: 64 points on 63 field goal attempts in game 1; 58 points on 59 attempts in game 2.  But the improvement UC made was enormous: 41 points in 57 shots in game 1; 77 points in 66 shots in game 2!  And the swing in rebounding margin was just as dramatic, from being outrebounded by 24 in game 1 to outrebounding Syracuse by 19 in game 2.
 
There were other differences, of course, but this tells much of the team story.  The individual stories are also interesting.  Probably to no one?s surprise, Hicks was a man throughout, although his scoring and rebounding averages actually declined ? by 3 points (from 14 to 11) and 2 rebounds (from 11 to 9) ? but that?s because he was carrying too much of the burden in the three game one losses and was not getting enough help from his teammates.  The non-starters? statistics don?t show much difference except in garbage time: also not a surprise because the bench is so thin.
 
While McGowan?s rebounds were unchanged (7.3 to 7.7), his scoring average in second games was 5 points higher (7 ppg vs. 12 ppg).  UC?s three starting guards made the most dramatic improvements.  White increased his scoring by 4 ppg (from 13 to 17), Muhammad by 8 ppg (from 6 to 14) and Downey by 11ppg (from 6 to 17)!  At the same time, they nearly doubled their rebounding totals.  The obvious conclusion?  When all five starters contribute, we can come back from embarrassing defeats.  White and Muhammed must play like seniors and Downey and McGowan can't play like newcomers to the team.
 
At look at WVU game 1 statistics shows where the starters? contributions weren?t enough.  Everyone rebounded pretty much as expected ? but UC will have to repeat that effort in game 2.  And we didn?t get the scoring we needed from White (10), Downey (6) and McGowan (2).  Obviously, they will have to improve.
 
I?ll leave to Coach Kennedy and other forum members how UC makes this all happen, but I thought these comparisons were worth sharing.