Interesting stats from the game last night

[CloneAlta]

Here are the stats from the game (per the DMR) which I think are pretty revealing:

2 pt. FG%/Attempts: ISU 39.7/68 & MU 54.7/53 (ISU + 15 attempts)
3 pt. FG%/Attempts: ISU 38.7/31 & MU 33.3/12 (ISU + 19 attempts)
FT %/Attempts: ISU 85.7/7 & MU 69.6/23 (MU +16 attempts!!)
OR/TR: ISU 18/39 & MU 4/28 (ISU +14 OR & + 11 TR)
Assists: ISU 18 & MU 14 (ISU +4)
Blocks: ISU 0 & MU 5 (skewed, IMO, by what the zebras called as a F on ISU vs what they called as a block on MU)
Steals: ISU 9 & MU 7 (ISU +2)
Turnovers: ISU 15 & MU 12

Does this appear to indicate that the zebras had an influence on the outcome of this game??? When you consider that MU is credited with 5 blocks and ISU zero, we all know that our actual blocks were called fouls so when you add that to the mix, it sure looks like our team played well enough for them to be the winners in this game (definitely, I agree that our 2nd half was perhaps our C+ game, not our A game). When you out shoot, out rebound and hit the few FTs you're given, one would think you just chalked up a W.

 

[khaal53]

I don't think the refs cost us the game.

The only real problem I had with how the game was called was Dixon's handchecking and swiping at the ball. Usually the big demonstrative swipes get called as fouls even if the player gets all ball, just because it "looks" like a foul.

 

[ISUCubswin]

I didn't like how they bumped into Babb twice in a minute and he got called for the foul both times, but they would jump all over us and wouldn't get whistled.

 

[Cyforce]

Here are the stats from the game (per the DMR) which I think are pretty revealing:

2 pt. FG%/Attempts: ISU 39.7/68 & MU 54.7/53 (ISU + 15 attempts)
3 pt. FG%/Attempts: ISU 38.7/31 & MU 33.3/12 (ISU + 19 attempts)
FT %/Attempts: ISU 85.7/7 & MU 69.6/23 (MU +16 attempts!!)
OR/TR: ISU 18/39 & MU 4/28 (ISU +14 OR & + 11 TR)
Assists: ISU 18 & MU 14 (ISU +4)
Blocks: ISU 0 & MU 5 (skewed, IMO, by what the zebras called as a F on ISU vs what they called as a block on MU)
Steals: ISU 9 & MU 7 (ISU +2)
Turnovers: ISU 15 & MU 12

Does this appear to indicate that the zebras had an influence on the outcome of this game??? When you consider that MU is credited with 5 blocks and ISU zero, we all know that our actual blocks were called fouls so when you add that to the mix, it sure looks like our team played well enough for them to be the winners in this game (definitely, I agree that our 2nd half was perhaps our C+ game, not our A game). When you out shoot, out rebound and hit the few FTs you're given, one would think you just chalked up a W.

So you're saying we took 99 shots from the field last night?

 

[liljones13]

Wheres Brent Blum when you need his inside knowledge of the stripes?!? Someone use the Bat-Signal to get his take on this topic!

 

[CarolinaCy]

So you're saying we took 99 shots from the field last night?

His first line should be overall FG, not 2pt.

 

[megamanxzero35]

I didn't like how they bumped into Babb twice in a minute and he got called for the foul both times, but they would jump all over us and wouldn't get whistled.

These are really only the calls I had a problem with. Mizzou knows that Babb is our lockdown guy, so going at him like that right at the start of the half was smart, but there didn't seem to be enough contact there for a foul.

 

[baylrballa]

mizzou has won more games with favorable officiating this year than any team i can remember.

amazed at what they get away with every game on the perimeter. (i.e. AJ Walton was guarding one of the Presseys, arm/hand expended keeping a distance and fingers at his chest, pressey slaps the hand away forcefully, ok AJ puts the hand back, gets it slapped away harder, whistle, foul on Walton. wait? what?)
I've lost count how many times a guard gets a step and the mizzou defender grabs his back arm and jersey to get back in position with no call)

 

[Cyforce]

His first line should be overall FG, not 2pt.

Really?

 

[jbhtexas]

Does this appear to indicate that the zebras had an influence on the outcome of this game???

No. Break those stats up into first/second half values, and it will give you a better picture of the game.

The FG attempt differential was about that value at half time. Same for the rebounding differential. Those things were built in the first half, and were a good part of the reason why ISU led at half time.

ISU got a way from the physical game (i.e. pounding the boards) in the second half that was responsible for those first half positive differentials, and did not build on them in the second half. ISU needed those extra FG attempts and rebounds in the second half because of the poor 2nd half shooting. The 2pt FG% dropped from upper 40% in the first half to lower 30% in the second half. The poor shooting also allowed MU to get into the running game.

Furthermore, ISU didn't exploit RW's interior advantage on offense in the second half, but was content to have SC dribble around with little positive result. Ratliffe was in foul trouble, but ISU didn't exploit it.

ISU had a nice first half, but they didn't outshoot and outrebound MU in second half when the game was in the balance, and they didn't have enough of a first half lead to survive.

As far as the FTs, RW only shot one. Given his advantage, he should have had 25-30 shot attempts in that game (instead of the 16 which he ended up with, 4 being 3pt attempts), which would have undoubtedly led to more FT attempts for ISU.

You said yourself ISU brought their C+ game for the second half. Do you really expect to beat a top 10 team at their place playing a C+ game for the second half? Referee conspiracies aren't needed to explain this game.

If ISU plays MU again, the Clones need to exploit RW's physical advantage inside, crash the boards for the whole game, and let MU have their few fast breaks. MU can't run the fast break if they don't get rebounds.

 

[brentblum]

Wheres Brent Blum when you need his inside knowledge of the stripes?!? Someone use the Bat-Signal to get his take on this topic!

:twitcy: I didn't think the refs were awful by any means. Mizzou was allowed to play physical in the paint. And for the most part, so was Iowa State. Keep in mind, Mizzou shot six free throws in the last 40 seconds when the Cyclones were forced to foul. For a game as intense and hard-fought as that one was to only have 23 free throws taken total (until the last 40 seconds) means they were letting them play. Granted, Babb picked up two dicey fouls early in the 2nd half, but other than that it was not for the faint of heart and to get a foul you had to earn it.

I prefer that to the ISU-Texas games in Ames where 69 free throws were taken.

A lot of fans don't like John Higgins (the ref with the fancy hair), but he is widely regarded as one of the best in the biz and has done 3 straight final fours.

Just my two cents, go back to your regular scheduled programming.

 

[MartyFine]

23-7 free throw advantage in that game is just silly with the way Mizzou plays. Last night was simply a make-up by Big 12 officials for them getting screwed at KU.

Now they owe us one.

 

[JustRedman]

I didn't like how they bumped into Babb twice in a minute and he got called for the foul both times, but they would jump all over us and wouldn't get whistled.

I hear ya. That put us with 2 team fouls in less than a minute. Then Scotty would receive the same treatment and wasn't given any love.
Royce's charge was suspect also.

 

[rebecacy]

Here are the stats from the game (per the DMR) which I think are pretty revealing:

2 pt. FG%/Attempts: ISU 39.7/68 & MU 54.7/53 (ISU + 15 attempts)
3 pt. FG%/Attempts: ISU 38.7/31 & MU 33.3/12 (ISU + 19 attempts)
FT %/Attempts: ISU 85.7/7 & MU 69.6/23 (MU +16 attempts!!)
OR/TR: ISU 18/39 & MU 4/28 (ISU +14 OR & + 11 TR)
Assists: ISU 18 & MU 14 (ISU +4)
Blocks: ISU 0 & MU 5 (skewed, IMO, by what the zebras called as a F on ISU vs what they called as a block on MU)
Steals: ISU 9 & MU 7 (ISU +2)
Turnovers: ISU 15 & MU 12

Does this appear to indicate that the zebras had an influence on the outcome of this game??? When you consider that MU is credited with 5 blocks and ISU zero, we all know that our actual blocks were called fouls so when you add that to the mix, it sure looks like our team played well enough for them to be the winners in this game (definitely, I agree that our 2nd half was perhaps our C+ game, not our A game). When you out shoot, out rebound and hit the few FTs you're given, one would think you just chalked up a W.

Let it go!!!!!

 

[CycloneWarning]

I didn't like how they bumped into Babb twice in a minute and he got called for the foul both times, but they would jump all over us and wouldn't get whistled.

This will be my only contribution to the "refs sucked" theme. I pretty much stayed off the subject last night.

(a) Yes, Babb once again did a great job on Denmon (in the first half). In fact, the announcers were very complimentary of Babb as a shutdown defender and kept Denmon "out of the game". Then, Babb gets whistled for two straight fouls guarding Denmon on the dribble. Totally changed the complexion of the game. Legit calls? Maybe, maybe not. But don't call that stuff and then let Scotty and Chris Allen get hacked at continually on our end with nothing called.

(b) I thought the charge call against Royce was complete crap. Again, a big call at a key time. Fatbutt Moore just slid in front of him and went down.

(c) Is it just me, or how many times do other guards get to pick up their dribble and take two giant steps to the hoop with no traveling call? The irony is that I checked out the MU board last night, and they think ISU gets away with a lot of travel no-calls. Eye of the beholder I guess.

That being said, I think we (not the refs) "lost" that game.

(a) In the late second half we started running around like chickens with our heads cut off on offense. I put that on Hoiberg and Scott. The offense should have flowed through RW. He could have found shooters on the perimeter. Scotty driving all over hell and back was worthless.

(b) There was an article in the KC Star a couple of weeks ago about how MU practices taking charges, and takes pride in the stat of leading the conference in getting charge calls. I hope our staff notices. How many times would it have been easy to get some position and let those bullheaded MU guards just run right into us? Shame no one on ISU would step up and take a charge instead of playing matador defense and waving at MU as they drove right into our bodies or around us.

 

[khaal53]

Blummer, I need some feed back.

The block/charge call is obviously one of the most difficult in sports and this is semi-related and bothersome to me. It is what sort of happened on Babb with those two fouls on Denmon last night and Angel Rodriguez pulled it a few times on Saturday.

That is, when the ballhandler just goes as hard as he can at the defender and creating contact, even when it doesn't really change the play much and there isn't a lot of contact. What else can the defender do in that situation? No player will be able to backpedal faster than the opponent is dribbling at him at full speed. Jump out of the way? Flop and hope for a charge?

Assuming a hand check is out of the equation entirely I don't see how you can call that foul on the defense. I'd personally call nothing in these situations.

Drives me batty.

 

[jbhtexas]

23-7 free throw advantage in that game is just silly with the way Mizzou plays.

No it isn't, and would be perfectly expected given the way ISU played second half.

 

[Cloned4Life]

:twitcy: I didn't think the refs were awful by any means. Mizzou was allowed to play physical in the paint. And for the most part, so was Iowa State. Keep in mind, Mizzou shot six free throws in the last 40 seconds when the Cyclones were forced to foul. For a game as intense and hard-fought as that one was to only have 23 free throws taken total (until the last 40 seconds) means they were letting them play. Granted, Babb picked up two dicey fouls early in the 2nd half, but other than that it was not for the faint of heart and to get a foul you had to earn it.

I prefer that to the ISU-Texas games in Ames where 69 free throws were taken.

A lot of fans don't like John Higgins (the ref with the fancy hair), but he is widely regarded as one of the best in the biz and has done 3 straight final fours.

Just my two cents, go back to your regular scheduled programming.

Watch the replay again, Brent. Fouls that were called on us were not called on them. That is the definition of consistently inconsistent. If EVERY TIME MIZZOU DRIVES TO THE LANE, IT IS A FOUL ON US, then you'd have to figure that Scotty or Allen would have gotten a FEW called when they took it strong at the hoop. But they didn't. That right there is proof of the imbalance. And no, the reason is not because "Mizzou's guards are quicker thus we couldn't stay in front of them so we really fouled them and they didn't foul us." - Scotty was getting good angles to the hoop, as was Chris on a few occasions - NONE of them were fouls. Mizzou was sprinting/driving wilding at the hoop fully knowing a foul would be called. And the charge call on Royce was an extremely **** poor call, no defending that one.

While it's true the refs let us play just as physically sometimes, it is not true that it was equally officiated. If we can't get away with the body stuff, you HAVE to call it on the other team.

 

[khaal53]

Watch the replay again, Brent. Fouls that were called on us were not called on them. That is the definition of consistently inconsistent. If EVERY TIME MIZZOU DRIVES TO THE LANE, IT IS A FOUL ON US, then you'd have to figure that Scotty or Allen would have gotten a FEW called when they took it strong at the hoop. But they didn't. That right there is proof of the imbalance. And no, the reason is not because "Mizzou's guards are quicker thus we couldn't stay in front of them so we really fouled them and they didn't foul us." - Scotty was getting good angles to the hoop, as was Chris on a few occasions - NONE of them were fouls. Mizzou was sprinting/driving wilding at the hoop fully knowing a foul would be called. And the charge call on Royce was an extremely **** poor call, no defending that one.

While it's true the refs let us play just as physically sometimes, it is not true that it was equally officiated. If we can't get away with the body stuff, you HAVE to call it on the other team.

That simply isn't true. We won some and we lost some.

 

[nhclone]

23-7 free throw advantage in that game is just silly with the way Mizzou plays.

This is exactly opposite of the truth. We had 6 more fouls than Mizzou and they shot 16 more free throws than us. Those numbers aren't at all surprising when you see that we took 31, 3 point attempts and they were driving to the hoop all night.