|
|
RUTGERS First Half Results PURDUE |
|
| 58 | 30 Final 46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
543 | RUTGERS | 57.5 | 544 | PURDUE | -8 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 10-18 | -8.2 | 10-15 | 8-12 | 58.1 | 28.7 | 38.7% | 34.7 | 65.7 | 32.0 | 42.6% | 36.8 | Road Games | 4-9 | +0.8 | 7-6 | 5-4 | 57.6 | 28.3 | 39.8% | 33.4 | 68.7 | 33.8 | 45.0% | 34.8 | Last 5 Games | 0-5 | -4 | 0-5 | 2-2 | 53.2 | 24.0 | 34.4% | 34.8 | 74.2 | 38.0 | 48.9% | 39.0 | Conference Games | 2-13 | -10.6 | 5-10 | 6-8 | 56.0 | 26.7 | 38.0% | 33.9 | 68.9 | 34.4 | 45.2% | 36.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 58.1 | 28.7 | 21-54 | 38.7% | 5-16 | 29.5% | 11-18 | 64.4% | 35 | 9 | 11 | 16 | 6 | 13 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 63.8 | 29.3 | 22-54 | 41.4% | 6-18 | 32.8% | 13-19 | 68.7% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 57.6 | 28.3 | 22-54 | 39.8% | 4-16 | 27.4% | 10-15 | 67.3% | 33 | 10 | 11 | 16 | 6 | 14 | 3 | Stats Against (All Games) | 65.7 | 32.0 | 24-55 | 42.6% | 7-21 | 33.0% | 12-17 | 67.1% | 37 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 68.6 | 32.3 | 24-54 | 44.2% | 7-19 | 34.9% | 14-20 | 69.7% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 68.7 | 33.8 | 25-56 | 45.0% | 7-20 | 36.6% | 11-17 | 68.1% | 35 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 11 | 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 18-9 | +6.4 | 17-6 | 8-14 | 70.8 | 33.4 | 45.6% | 36.6 | 63.7 | 28.7 | 40.0% | 31.4 | Home Games | 12-3 | +5.8 | 9-2 | 2-8 | 71.9 | 35.1 | 45.5% | 38.7 | 57.9 | 26.5 | 37.1% | 31.7 | Last 5 Games | 4-1 | +3.6 | 5-0 | 1-4 | 62.4 | 28.0 | 42.1% | 38.0 | 57.6 | 23.6 | 39.8% | 30.2 | Conference Games | 10-4 | +7.4 | 12-2 | 3-11 | 65.7 | 28.4 | 44.7% | 35.4 | 62.2 | 27.6 | 39.1% | 31.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 70.8 | 33.4 | 25-54 | 45.6% | 5-17 | 31.6% | 16-23 | 68.0% | 37 | 10 | 15 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 5 | vs opponents surrendering | 66.1 | 30.8 | 24-55 | 42.9% | 6-19 | 33.8% | 12-18 | 68.2% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 71.9 | 35.1 | 25-55 | 45.5% | 6-18 | 32.1% | 16-24 | 65.8% | 39 | 12 | 17 | 17 | 6 | 13 | 6 | Stats Against (All Games) | 63.7 | 28.7 | 22-55 | 40.0% | 6-17 | 35.5% | 14-20 | 68.6% | 31 | 8 | 12 | 21 | 7 | 12 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 69.2 | 32.5 | 24-55 | 44.4% | 7-19 | 35.7% | 14-20 | 70.5% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 57.9 | 26.5 | 20-55 | 37.1% | 6-17 | 32.6% | 12-18 | 65.4% | 32 | 10 | 11 | 21 | 6 | 14 | 3 |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: RUTGERS 76.5, PURDUE 75.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
1/8/2015 | @ NEBRASKA | 49-65 | L | 10 | L | 117.5 | U | 17-49 | 34.7% | 39 | 19 | 27-55 | 49.1% | 31 | 9 | 1/11/2015 | WISCONSIN | 67-62 | W | 15 | W | 119 | O | 25-46 | 54.3% | 28 | 7 | 24-56 | 42.9% | 31 | 5 | 1/14/2015 | @ MARYLAND | 65-73 | L | 14 | W | 123.5 | O | 25-55 | 45.5% | 33 | 13 | 21-61 | 34.4% | 46 | 12 | 1/17/2015 | @ MINNESOTA | 80-89 | L | 12.5 | W | 131.5 | O | 30-59 | 50.8% | 39 | 19 | 34-66 | 51.5% | 28 | 8 | 1/20/2015 | MICHIGAN | 50-54 | L | -2.5 | L | 120 | U | 19-52 | 36.5% | 35 | 11 | 17-49 | 34.7% | 34 | 11 | 1/24/2015 | @ PENN ST | 51-79 | L | 7 | L | 127 | O | 21-48 | 43.7% | 28 | 16 | 29-57 | 50.9% | 32 | 9 | 1/29/2015 | MICHIGAN ST | 51-71 | L | 8.5 | L | 130 | U | 16-55 | 29.1% | 28 | 10 | 27-53 | 50.9% | 43 | 17 | 1/31/2015 | @ INDIANA | 64-72 | L | 12 | W | 144.5 | U | 24-54 | 44.4% | 26 | 13 | 25-53 | 47.2% | 34 | 11 | 2/3/2015 | @ ILLINOIS | 54-66 | L | 11 | L | 125 | U | 21-50 | 42.0% | 27 | 14 | 25-52 | 48.1% | 28 | 12 | 2/8/2015 | OHIO ST | 60-79 | L | 10.5 | L | 129 | O | 20-69 | 29.0% | 40 | 12 | 30-59 | 50.8% | 48 | 15 | 2/12/2015 | PURDUE | 51-61 | L | 6 | L | 124.5 | U | 18-54 | 33.3% | 42 | 14 | 21-52 | 40.4% | 35 | 12 | 2/19/2015 | @ IOWA | 47-81 | L | 14.5 | L | 128 | P | 18-55 | 32.7% | 33 | 19 | 30-59 | 50.8% | 39 | 11 | 2/22/2015 | INDIANA | 54-84 | L | 7 | L | 137.5 | O | 20-54 | 37.0% | 32 | 12 | 31-58 | 53.4% | 45 | 13 | 2/26/2015 | @ PURDUE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/3/2015 | MARYLAND | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | @ MICHIGAN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/7/2015 | @ WISCONSIN | 55-62 | L | 16.5 | W | 135 | U | 25-49 | 51.0% | 26 | 12 | 17-39 | 43.6% | 21 | 8 | 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 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/1/2015 | @ OHIO ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/4/2015 | @ MICHIGAN ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | ILLINOIS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| RUTGERS: It figures to be a tough transition season for the Scarlet Knights in their first year in the Big Ten, but C Kadeem Jack (14.3 PPG, 6.8 RPG, 1.3 BPG) is an NBA prospect. He is a fluid athlete who can get out and run the floor well for a 6-foot-10 player. With a chance to compete in the Big Ten, fans across the country are going to get to see his talent. PG Myles Mack (14.9 PPG, 4.3 APG, 2.9 RPG) also has the ability to put up a lot of points in a hurry. For Rutgers to improve on its meager 12 wins last season, it has to get some scoring from some other players. | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: 5/19/2024 12:50:01 AM EST. |
|
|