| | | |
PURDUE OHIO ST |
|
| 133.5 | 61 Final 65 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
825 | PURDUE | 135 | 133.5 | 826 | OHIO ST | -9 | -9 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
|
|
All Games | 19-9 | +6.4 | 17-7 | 9-14 | 71.5 | 33.9 | 45.9% | 36.6 | 64.4 | 28.8 | 40.1% | 31.5 | Road Games | 6-6 | +0.6 | 8-4 | 6-6 | 69.3 | 31.4 | 45.6% | 34.0 | 70.8 | 31.5 | 43.7% | 31.0 | Last 5 Games | 4-1 | +2.6 | 4-1 | 2-3 | 68.8 | 31.8 | 44.9% | 39.0 | 63.0 | 24.4 | 39.8% | 30.8 | Conference Games | 11-4 | +7.4 | 12-3 | 4-11 | 67.5 | 29.6 | 45.5% | 35.5 | 63.7 | 27.8 | 39.3% | 31.5 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 71.5 | 33.9 | 25-54 | 45.9% | 5-17 | 32.1% | 16-24 | 67.8% | 37 | 10 | 15 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 5 | vs opponents surrendering | 66.4 | 31 | 24-55 | 42.9% | 6-19 | 34.0% | 13-18 | 68.3% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 69.3 | 31.4 | 24-53 | 45.6% | 5-16 | 31.0% | 16-22 | 71.1% | 34 | 8 | 13 | 20 | 5 | 14 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 64.4 | 28.8 | 22-55 | 40.1% | 6-17 | 35.4% | 14-21 | 69.4% | 31 | 8 | 12 | 21 | 7 | 12 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 69 | 32.3 | 24-55 | 44.2% | 7-19 | 35.7% | 14-20 | 70.4% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 70.8 | 31.5 | 24-55 | 43.7% | 6-16 | 39.6% | 16-23 | 71.8% | 31 | 7 | 12 | 20 | 7 | 11 | 4 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 20-8 | -3.7 | 13-13 | 12-13 | 77.4 | 36.5 | 49.8% | 36.1 | 61.0 | 29.0 | 39.5% | 32.7 | Home Games | 17-1 | +3 | 11-6 | 8-7 | 83.9 | 40.2 | 54.4% | 36.1 | 57.5 | 26.5 | 37.9% | 29.7 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | -2.3 | 3-2 | 2-3 | 69.6 | 34.0 | 47.2% | 37.6 | 59.0 | 29.0 | 39.1% | 32.8 | Conference Games | 9-6 | -2.7 | 8-7 | 4-10 | 70.5 | 33.7 | 47.2% | 34.3 | 63.3 | 31.1 | 41.3% | 33.2 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 77.4 | 36.5 | 29-58 | 49.8% | 7-19 | 38.6% | 13-19 | 67.3% | 36 | 10 | 16 | 16 | 8 | 11 | 5 | vs opponents surrendering | 65.8 | 30.2 | 23-54 | 42.5% | 6-19 | 33.7% | 13-19 | 69.1% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 83.9 | 40.2 | 31-57 | 54.4% | 8-18 | 42.3% | 14-20 | 70.6% | 36 | 9 | 18 | 14 | 9 | 11 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 61.0 | 29.0 | 22-55 | 39.5% | 7-21 | 31.7% | 11-15 | 69.5% | 33 | 10 | 13 | 17 | 5 | 15 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 68.3 | 32 | 24-55 | 44.1% | 7-19 | 35.1% | 13-19 | 69.9% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 57.5 | 26.5 | 21-55 | 37.9% | 7-23 | 32.0% | 8-12 | 70.0% | 30 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 4 | 17 | 1 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: PURDUE 75.6, OHIO ST 76.1 |
| | |
|
|
1/10/2015 | MARYLAND | 60-69 | L | -1.5 | L | 131.5 | U | 21-57 | 36.8% | 38 | 16 | 18-48 | 37.5% | 31 | 10 | 1/17/2015 | @ PENN ST | 84-77 | W | 1 | W | 134 | O | 28-58 | 48.3% | 35 | 16 | 26-56 | 46.4% | 31 | 17 | 1/21/2015 | @ ILLINOIS | 57-66 | L | 2.5 | L | 134 | U | 24-60 | 40.0% | 35 | 10 | 21-60 | 35.0% | 43 | 9 | 1/24/2015 | IOWA | 67-63 | W | -1 | W | 133 | U | 25-53 | 47.2% | 31 | 6 | 21-64 | 32.8% | 46 | 8 | 1/28/2015 | INDIANA | 83-67 | W | -4.5 | W | 148 | O | 27-46 | 58.7% | 31 | 13 | 25-66 | 37.9% | 34 | 11 | 1/31/2015 | @ NORTHWESTERN | 68-60 | W | -2 | W | 129.5 | U | 21-45 | 46.7% | 33 | 8 | 23-55 | 41.8% | 28 | 8 | 2/4/2015 | OHIO ST | 60-58 | W | 1 | W | 137 | U | 19-45 | 42.2% | 33 | 13 | 24-57 | 42.1% | 31 | 12 | 2/7/2015 | @ MINNESOTA | 58-62 | L | 4.5 | W | 134.5 | U | 22-51 | 43.1% | 40 | 23 | 21-53 | 39.6% | 28 | 8 | 2/12/2015 | @ RUTGERS | 61-51 | W | -6 | W | 124.5 | U | 21-52 | 40.4% | 35 | 12 | 18-54 | 33.3% | 42 | 14 | 2/15/2015 | NEBRASKA | 66-54 | W | -7.5 | W | 118.5 | O | 20-52 | 38.5% | 44 | 11 | 22-55 | 40.0% | 29 | 11 | 2/19/2015 | @ INDIANA | 67-63 | W | 4 | W | 145.5 | U | 24-52 | 46.2% | 38 | 15 | 24-55 | 43.6% | 21 | 10 | 2/26/2015 | RUTGERS | 92-85 | W | -14 | L | 124.5 | O | 31-56 | 55.4% | 38 | 12 | 26-62 | 41.9% | 34 | 11 | 3/1/2015 | @ OHIO ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/4/2015 | @ MICHIGAN ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | ILLINOIS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
1/10/2015 | @ INDIANA | 66-69 | L | -2 | L | 146.5 | U | 23-67 | 34.3% | 39 | 5 | 22-55 | 40.0% | 48 | 15 | 1/13/2015 | MICHIGAN | 71-52 | W | -9.5 | W | 129.5 | U | 28-57 | 49.1% | 36 | 9 | 20-59 | 33.9% | 33 | 13 | 1/17/2015 | @ IOWA | 67-76 | L | 1.5 | L | 138 | O | 23-60 | 38.3% | 31 | 9 | 24-47 | 51.1% | 37 | 10 | 1/22/2015 | @ NORTHWESTERN | 69-67 | W | -7.5 | L | 129 | O | 28-53 | 52.8% | 29 | 9 | 24-54 | 44.4% | 32 | 10 | 1/25/2015 | INDIANA | 82-70 | W | -9 | W | 152 | P | 33-53 | 62.3% | 21 | 8 | 26-50 | 52.0% | 26 | 15 | 1/29/2015 | MARYLAND | 80-56 | W | -7.5 | W | 139.5 | U | 28-60 | 46.7% | 51 | 9 | 18-59 | 30.5% | 32 | 9 | 2/4/2015 | @ PURDUE | 58-60 | L | -1 | L | 137 | U | 24-57 | 42.1% | 31 | 12 | 19-45 | 42.2% | 33 | 13 | 2/8/2015 | @ RUTGERS | 79-60 | W | -10.5 | W | 129 | O | 30-59 | 50.8% | 48 | 15 | 20-69 | 29.0% | 40 | 12 | 2/11/2015 | PENN ST | 75-55 | W | -12 | W | 133 | U | 24-54 | 44.4% | 40 | 12 | 19-59 | 32.2% | 38 | 15 | 2/14/2015 | @ MICHIGAN ST | 56-59 | L | 2.5 | L | 138 | U | 23-52 | 44.2% | 31 | 9 | 24-50 | 48.0% | 31 | 11 | 2/22/2015 | @ MICHIGAN | 57-64 | L | -7.5 | L | 128 | U | 22-52 | 42.3% | 36 | 14 | 26-55 | 47.3% | 28 | 9 | 2/26/2015 | NEBRASKA | 81-57 | W | -13.5 | W | 124.5 | O | 28-52 | 53.8% | 33 | 11 | 22-51 | 43.1% | 27 | 12 | 3/1/2015 | PURDUE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/4/2015 | @ PENN ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/8/2015 | WISCONSIN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | PURDUE: For Purdue, everything will begin with the play of C A.J. Hammons (10.8 PPG, 7.4 RPG, 3.1 BPG). He is one of the best defensive players in college basketball, making it very difficult for opponents to score in the lane against the Boilermakers. Last season, he improved on both his shooting from the field (51% FG) and foul line (70% FT), and has shown signs in the offseason of emerging as a legitimate all-conference player. SG Kendall Stephens (8.0 PPG, 1.8 RPG, 37% threes) had a solid freshman campaign, and will be asked to take on more of a scoring role this season. He will need to continue to work on finishing at the rim, as he shot a worse percentage from the field (36% FG) than he did from deep (37% threes). Purdue has the ability to be one of the better defensive teams in the conference, but will have to find more scoring from role players. | | OHIO ST: The Buckeyes saw their season end in disappointing fashion last year, losing in the Round of 64 in the NCAA Tournament to in-state foe Dayton. While Aaron Craft is no longer on the team, there is still a lot of talent remaining on the Buckeyes. PF Sam Thompson (7.9 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 0.9 BPG) has shown glimpses of potential, but has too many games where he is not focused and on top of his game. He is a great athlete, but he will need to develop his ball-handling to help him get to the basket. Fellow senior PG Shannon Scott (7.5 PPG, 3.4 RPG, 3.4 APG) is a high-energy player capable of motivating the team with his effort. However, like Thompson, he needs to develop more of a constant offensive game. Ohio State has a lot of bodies on the inside, as C Amir Williams (7.8 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 1.8 BPG) and transfer PF Anthony Lee (13.6 PPG, 8.6 RPG for Temple last season) are two players that can give the Buckeyes the physical play in the paint. |
| | |
| Last Updated: 3/19/2024 1:59:01 AM EST. |
|
|
| |
|