NCAA Men's Tournament Preview: Wisconsin vs. Montana
The Badgers and Griz are set to do battle in the Rocky Mountains. A real National Geographic situation is brewing here!
I know that this is mainly a Wisconsin (and Big Ten) women’s basketball newsletter, but the Badgers (WBB) didn’t make the NCAA Tournament (I checked all of the at-large spots) and the Badgers (MBB) did. So, let’s talk some man balls!
Wait…don’t call it that.
Anyways, on to some basketball analysis!
Game Preview
Game: East Region; 3-seed Wisconsin Badgers vs. 14-seed Montana Grizzlies
Date: Thursday, March 20
Time: 12:30 p.m. CT
TV: TNT; Brad Nessler, Brendan Haywood, Dana Jacobson
Location: Denver, Colo.; Ball Arena
The Badgers were hoping to get one of the 3-seed slots in Milwaukee but even a run to the Big Ten Tournament final couldn’t get the terrible taste of that end-of-season Penn State loss out of the committee’s mouth, apparently. UW finished the regular season with a 26-9 record, including going 13-7 in the Big Ten, and then winning three games in Indy for the Big Ten Tournament, before falling to Michigan in the final.
Montana, who has only lost one game since Jan. 20, enters the Big Dance as the Big Sky Tournament champions and co-champions of the regular season, losing out on the top seed in the tourney to Northern Colorado via tiebreaker. The Griz got their revenge, beating Northern Colorado by eight in the tournament final.
The winner of the game will play the winner of 6-seed BYU Cougars and 11-seed VCU Rams.
Wisconsin Resume
Q1-A record: 3-6
Q1 record: 8-8
Q2 record: 10-1
Q3/4 record: 8-0
Record: 26-9 overall, 13-7 Big Ten
Torvik rank: 12th
KenPom rank: 13th
NET rank: 15th
Strength of schedule: 25th
Best wins (Torvik rank listed): No. 9 Arizona, No. 13 Michigan State (neutral site), at No. 18 Purdue, No. 23 Illinois, No. 25 UCLA (neutral site)
Bad losses: No. 64 Penn State
Montana Resume
Q1-A record: 0-3
Q1 record: 0-4
Q2 record: 1-2
Q3 record: 4-3
Q4 record: 17-0
Record: 25-9 overall, 15-3 Big Sky
Torvik rank: 133rd
KenPom rank: 157th
NET rank: 143rd
Strength of schedule: 197th
Best wins (Torvik rank listed): at No. 119 Northern Colorado
Bad losses: No. 205 Idaho State, at No. 193 Portland State
Wisconsin Top-Six (by minutes %)
John Tonje, 6-foot-5, guard, graduate, 77.2%
John Blackwell, 6-foot-2, guard, sophomore, 77.1%
Steven Crowl, 7-foot-0, center, graduate, 63.3%
Max Klesmit, 6-foot-4, guard, senior, 61.3%
Kamari McGee, 6-foot-0, guard, senior, 55.0%
Nolan Winter, 7-foot-0, forward, sophomore, 52.8%
Montana Top-Six (by minutes %)
Brandon Whitney, 6-foot-1, guard, graduate, 74.7%
Joe Pridgen, 6-foot-5, forward, graduate, 69.2%
Malik Moore, 6-foot-5, guard, junior, 68.7%
Money Williams, 6-foot-4, guard, sophomore, 67.6%
Kai Johnson, 6-foot-4, guard, senior, 60.5%
Te’Jon Sawyer, 6-foot-8, forward, senior, 58.5%
Wisconsin Statistical Leaders
PPG: John Tonje, 19.5 ppg
RPG: Nolan Winter, 5.9 rpg
APG: Max Klesmit, 2.7 apg
SPG: Kamari McGee, 0.9 spg
BPG: Steven Crowl, 0.5 bpg
FG%: Nolan Winter, 57.0%
3P%: Kamari McGee, 49.4%
FT%: John Tonje, 91.0%
Montana Statistical Leaders
PPG: Money Williams, 13.3 ppg
RPG: Joe Pridgen, 6.9 rpg
APG: Money Williams, 3.1 apg
SPG: Kai Johnson, 1.3 spg
BPG: Joe Pridgen, 0.7 bpg
FG%: Joe Pridgen, 63.6%
3P%: Te’Jon Sawyer, 41.7%
FT%: Brandon Whitney, 84.1%
Number of Players From Racine Who Transferred to Current Team From Green Bay on Roster
Wisconsin (1): Kamari McGee; Racine St. Catherine’s; played one year at UWGB
Montana (1): Amari Jedkins; Racine Case High School; played two years at UWGB, redshirting one
Wisconsin Four Factors
Offense (national rank)
eFG%: 53.6 (64th)
TO%: 14.1 (17th)
OR%: 28.0 (238th)
FTR: 33.8 (154th)
Defense (national rank)
eFG%: 47.9 (52nd)
TO%: 14.5 (331st)
OR%: 26.6 (43rd)
FTR: 28.1 (56th)
Montana Four Factors
Offense (national rank)
eFG%: 56.4 (12th)
TO%: 16.2 (113th)
OR%: 22.6 (345th)
FTR: 36.2 (86th)
Defense (national rank)
eFG%: 52.2 (247th)
TO%: 15.5 (291st)
OR%: 29.0 (142nd)
FTR: 31.9 (149th)
Most Interesting Statistical Matchup
Montana has shot a fairly insane 65.2% on “close twos” this season, which is good for 19th best in the nation. They attempt 42.8% of their total shots in that range (60th most in the nation), easily the area of the floor where they shoot most.
The Badgers’ defense, on the other hand, has only allowed opponents to attempt 28% of their shots in the “close two” area, which is the 4th lowest rate in the nation. UW will have to focus on not allowing the Griz to get shots up there because their defensive FG% on close twos is 60.3% which is 251st “best” in the country.
Montana’s man to watch here is 6-foot-5 Joe Pridgen. He is shooting 69.2% (144-of-208) on close twos and has made 34-of-38 dunk attempts as well. 6-foot-4 Kai Johnson is also dangerous down there, shooting 59-of-81 (72.8%) on the year. Big Steve and Nolan Winter aren’t exactly the best rim protectors in the universe, but they are both considerably taller than all of Montana’s rotational players so making the Griz shoot over them will be of utmost importance.
Shot Charts
(all shot charts images are from the excellent CBB Analytics site)
In case you are more of a visual learner, these shot charts show that Montana loves to shoot from close range and is very good at making those shots. If Wisconsin can force the Griz out of the paint and get them to attempt mid-range jumpers I think that they should win fairly comfortably. If they can’t do that…well, it’ll be closer than everyone reading this newsletter wants it to be.
Some More Wisconsin Stats
AdjOE: 122.4, 14th
AdjDE: 96.1, 26th
2P%: 54.7%, 50th
2P% def.: 46.8%, 32nd
3P%: 34.9%, 117th
3P% def.: 33.0%, 123rd
Tempo: 67.5, 163rd
Some More Montana Stats
AdjOE: 112.0, 82nd
AdjDE: 109.0, 236th
2P%: 57.3%, 16th
2P% def.: 53.1%, 268th
3P%: 36.5%, 53rd
3P% def.: 33.7%, 172nd
Tempo: 67.0, 198th
Shot Volume Stats
Firstly: you should all subscribe to
’s wonderful college basketball newsletter. While it is statistically focused, he also tells stories about teams that you wouldn’t hear about otherwise. He has info on D-2, D-3, and NAIA teams and has been expanding his women’s hoops coverage this season too. I am biased because Will is my pal, but that doesn’t change the fact that his work is of the highest quality. He is running a March Madness special where an entire year’s worth of content (which you will get plus more in March alone) is only $20. It is literally too cheap not to buy.Secondly! He is a champion of Shot Volume and just wrote an extremely interesting piece about it and how it can help predict who will do well in the Tourney. Will wrote this last year before the Tournament started:
The point is this: shot efficiency, AKA actually making the shots, is great. That’s the first step. The differentiator, especially on nights when your team isn’t shooting well, is shot volume. Can you find a way to make up for poor shooting? If so, you’re going to be harder to put down than a team that doesn’t.
Shot Volume was a thing that John Gasaway thought up back in 2016. The original, quite simple, equation was: Shot Volume = 100 + OREB% - TO%.
Gasaway has since updated the equation to be a bit more complicated to do, but still produce extremely insightful info. There are a number of other “shot volume” metrics, including a proprietary one that Will came up with himself.
Let’s take a look at some of those numbers to see how Wisconsin stacks up and whether or not they’ll be able to survive a game where the shots aren’t falling!
Shot Volume Index
Houston, +11.5 (best in nation)
Average among top-10 teams, +9.5
Wisconsin, +1.1
Montana, -3.8
WHACKS (from Jordan Sperber of Hoop Vision: it basically says does your team get more “whacks at the pinata” than other teams)
Wisconsin, +10.67
Montana, -5.68
Easy Shot Volume (100 - TO% + OREB%)
Wisconsin, 113.9
National avg., 112.5
Montana, 106.4
What these numbers tell me (I think) is that Wisconsin is far better prepared to handle an “off” shooting night than Montana is. The Griz are especially dreadful on the offensive glass, which really limits their chances of getting more whacks at the pinata, as they say.
If you factor in free throw rate, the Griz should have a few opportunities to make up points at the charity stripe, but the Badgers are also adept at defending without fouling. Montana is a good shooting team, but if the shots aren’t falling early this one could get out of hand quickly.
Some Final Thoughts
when you adjust Montana’s stats to look at just games against top-100 competition, their offensive efficiency actually gets slightly better (112.0 —> 112.4) but their defensive efficiency plummets from 109.0 to 113.8. The Griz are also 1-6 in those games with their only win coming at Northern Colorado in a game they shot 10-of-16 from beyond the arc.
in games against top-50 opponents (they are 0-3) their offensive efficiency goes wayyyy down (112.0 —> 102.3) but their defensive efficiency is almost identical to their overall year number. They lost by 31 at Oregon, 35 at Tennessee, and 12 at Utah State.
going by Torvik’s individual player ratings system (PORPAGATU!), Montana’s highest ranked player (Brandon Whitney, 3.0) would slot in fifth on Wisconsin’s roster behind John Tonje (5.3), Nolan Winter (3.5), John Blackwell (3.3), and Steven Crowl (3.2).
using Torvik’s “similar resume” feature, the 10 teams who have made the NCAA Tournament since 2008 with the closest resume to Montana’s are…0-10.
Wisconsin is 3-0 all-time vs. Montana, which includes a victory in the first round of the 2012 NCAA Tournament. UW went to the Sweet 16 that year and “lost” to Syracuse.
Wisconsin is favored by 16.5 points in Vegas, by 16.3 on Torvik, and has a 92% chance to win
Hopefully, the Badgers WBB team is dancing again soon!
What's Q1-A? I haven't seen that one before