Toggle sidebar

Stats

F

FromTheArch

Redshirt
Dec 27, 2025
12
2
3
Since I've seen some great analysis on this and the previous messageboard over the years thought I would make an attempt.
There may be better ways to do this, but for those that want more KJ, this sure points in that direction:

We are poorly ranked at 3s, rebounding and steals.

Who could help with just those 3 things.

I used shooting percentage, rebounding percentage and steals percentage to take playing time out of the picture.

Sports ref didn't have 3s on the advanced tabs so I used shooting percentage.

I ranked all of our players in each category and then added them up:

Player | Overall | Steals | Shooting | Rebounding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arrinten Page | 10 | 5 | 3 | 2
Gus Hurlburt | 14 | 12 | 1 | 1
Justin Mullins | 16 | 3 | 4 | 9
Nick Martinelli | 17 | 10 | 2 | 5
Tre Singleton | 18 | 8 | 7 | 3
Max Green | 20 | 1 | 11 | 8
K.J. Windham | 21 | 2 | 8 | 11
Tyler Kropp | 21 | 4 | 10 | 7
A Ciaravino | 21 | 9 | 6 | 6
Jayden Reid | 27 | 6 | 9 | 12
Phoenix Gill | 30 | 13 | 13 | 4
Jake West | 32 | 7 | 12 | 13
J Clayton | 35 | 11 | 14 | 10
 
F

FromTheArch

Redshirt
Dec 27, 2025
12
2
3
Turns out the ranking that was on the advanced tab was TS%, true shooting percentage. That includes getting to the free throw line, so that is even further from 3 point percentage. Anyway, it gives some idea of shooting ability.
 
AdamOnFirst

AdamOnFirst

All-Conference
Nov 29, 2021
9,750
1,391
113
FromTheArch said:
Was looking at the stats:
www.sports-reference.com

2025-26 Northwestern Wildcats Men's Roster and Stats | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Check out the detailed 2025-26 Northwestern Wildcats Roster and Stats for College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com
www.sports-reference.com www.sports-reference.com

The good:
2P%: 89th
AST: 26th
BLK: 87th
Turnovers: 1st, holy heck


The bad:
3P%: 301st
Rebounding: 300th
Steals: 294th

Seems about right, but still found it interesting.
Click to expand...
Tough to be an offensive based team that doesn’t shoot threes well. Kinda feels like that’s actually like most of the issue right there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hungry Jack
C

Catreporter

Senior
Sep 4, 2007
4,960
441
83
Nebraska shot 42 percent from three yesterday with multiple players contributing. That's a winning formula to be sure.
 
S

Smolmania

Sophomore
Nov 4, 2008
1,357
143
63
At the start of the game on Saturday, when they announced Nebraska's front line as 6'9, 6'10 and 6'11, I thought we were going to get absolutely mashed on the boards. That wasn't close to being a problem. Late in the 2nd half we still had more offensive boards than they did (a stat admittedly skewed by Martinelli's 3 tips and a bucket possession).

Our problem Saturday, and all season, has been our inability to hit open 3 point shots. Time after time we get a good luck, but rim out the shot. In the modern college (or even pro) game, you can't compete that way.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: Hungry Jack, hdhntr1 and CatManTrue
M

macarthur31

Sophomore
Nov 9, 2006
1,597
166
63
Medill '03 said:
Don't take many, don't make many, at a time when the NBA and CBB have been driven by analytics to emphasize the 3 even more.
Click to expand...
Going to the Torvik box

DUNKRIMFAR 22PT3PT
NU0-09-179-2318-405-14
NEB1-114-212-616-2711-26

Hoiball embodies the tenets of modern basketball - out of 53 total FGs, they took only 6 from "FAR 2" (or "Farther 2" a.k.a. midrange) - 11.3% of total takes. Conversely, the Cats took 23 from mid-range - 42% of their total takes.

Tre was 4/7 from FAR 2, and while 57% accuracy is really good it's an anomaly as he came into the night at 36%. As a whole, the team shoots 41.9% of that specific shot. And this is not to critique Tre- that was the open shot, as NEB closed out 3FG really well - that's how they've leveled up this year compared to previous iterations of the Huskers.

While the FAR 2 is the most inefficient shot in hoops, Nick Martinelli LIVES there. Last year he took that shot 275 times, putting him 4th in the country in attempts. (He was accurate 45.5%.). While he has added the 3FG to the arsenal to good effect, he's still taken 112 FAR 2s this season, which puts him tied for 10th individually (He's 47.3% accurate this year).

Anyway, with regards to our offense: do we shoot more 2s because our best player prefers them, or do they let us have more 2s cause that's the way of modern hoops - it's kinda chicken and egg, and ultimately, pretty rough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hdhntr1
H

hdhntr1

All-Conference
Sep 5, 2006
37,330
1,120
113
Smolmania said:
At the start of the game on Saturday, when they announced Nebraska's front line as 6'9, 6'10 and 6'11, I thought we were going to get absolutely mashed on the boards. That wasn't close to being a problem. Late in the 2nd half we still had more offensive boards than they did (a stat admittedly skewed by Martinelli's 3 tips and a bucket possession).

Our problem Saturday, and all season, has been our inability to hit open 3 point shots. Time after time we get a good luck, but rim out the shot. In the modern college (or even pro) game, you can't compete that way.
Click to expand...
We don't even take the open 3pt shots let alone hit them
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smolmania and PurpleFaze
C

Catreporter

Senior
Sep 4, 2007
4,960
441
83
It's all about the 3 in college and pro basketball. Green has been a huge disappointment and the demise of KJ has made this into a gang that can't shoot straight. And the defense without Nicholson in the middle has fallen way off. We have some promising young talent, but you can't close the deal in most games without making some threes. Heck, Martinelli is our most reliable three point shooter and that's not really his game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.