| | | |
PITTSBURGH First Half Results WAKE FOREST |
|
| 65.5 | 35 Final 37 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
829 | PITTSBURGH | -1 | 830 | WAKE FOREST | 64.5 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
|
|
All Games | 19-10 | -5.6 | 8-16 | 12-7 | 68.1 | 31.2 | 45.2% | 33.1 | 65.2 | 30.7 | 44.9% | 31.3 | Road Games | 5-8 | -10.2 | 3-8 | 4-6 | 64.3 | 28.3 | 42.0% | 35.0 | 67.2 | 31.5 | 46.0% | 31.7 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | +2.2 | 2-2 | 2-3 | 66.0 | 30.2 | 48.2% | 27.2 | 66.4 | 28.2 | 46.6% | 33.0 | Conference Games | 8-7 | +0.3 | 5-9 | 10-5 | 67.0 | 29.5 | 44.7% | 31.2 | 69.2 | 32.1 | 46.8% | 33.1 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 68.1 | 31.2 | 25-55 | 45.2% | 5-14 | 34.4% | 14-20 | 69.1% | 33 | 10 | 17 | 17 | 5 | 10 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 66.5 | 30.7 | 23-55 | 42.5% | 6-19 | 33.4% | 13-19 | 69.0% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 64.3 | 28.3 | 24-57 | 42.0% | 5-15 | 34.8% | 11-17 | 67.3% | 35 | 12 | 15 | 17 | 5 | 11 | 2 | Stats Against (All Games) | 65.2 | 30.7 | 23-52 | 44.9% | 6-16 | 34.4% | 13-18 | 72.0% | 31 | 8 | 13 | 17 | 5 | 11 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 69.1 | 32.3 | 24-56 | 44.0% | 6-18 | 34.0% | 14-20 | 68.1% | 35 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 7 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 67.2 | 31.5 | 24-53 | 46.0% | 6-17 | 36.7% | 13-17 | 73.7% | 32 | 8 | 13 | 16 | 5 | 11 | 4 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 12-16 | -3.4 | 12-10 | 13-6 | 69.6 | 33.9 | 41.9% | 38.7 | 71.0 | 31.5 | 44.2% | 34.1 | Home Games | 10-7 | -0.3 | 6-5 | 7-2 | 72.6 | 35.9 | 43.8% | 39.0 | 70.7 | 31.5 | 44.6% | 32.9 | Last 5 Games | 1-4 | -1.8 | 2-3 | 3-2 | 60.0 | 30.2 | 37.2% | 33.8 | 72.4 | 34.0 | 45.2% | 36.4 | Conference Games | 4-11 | -4.8 | 8-7 | 11-4 | 68.7 | 33.0 | 41.6% | 36.3 | 75.7 | 33.1 | 45.8% | 37.0 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 69.6 | 33.9 | 24-57 | 41.9% | 6-19 | 33.3% | 16-24 | 64.5% | 39 | 10 | 14 | 18 | 7 | 14 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 65 | 29.9 | 23-55 | 41.9% | 6-18 | 33.2% | 13-19 | 68.7% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 72.6 | 35.9 | 24-56 | 43.8% | 6-18 | 34.5% | 18-27 | 64.6% | 39 | 11 | 15 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 71.0 | 31.5 | 25-57 | 44.2% | 6-20 | 32.0% | 14-21 | 67.5% | 34 | 8 | 13 | 20 | 8 | 12 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 69.4 | 32.4 | 25-56 | 44.4% | 7-19 | 34.7% | 14-20 | 68.3% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 70.7 | 31.5 | 26-57 | 44.6% | 7-22 | 33.1% | 12-19 | 66.9% | 33 | 7 | 13 | 22 | 8 | 13 | 4 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: PITTSBURGH 77, WAKE FOREST 77.7 |
| | |
|
|
1/10/2015 | CLEMSON | 62-71 | L | -7 | L | 113.5 | O | 21-53 | 39.6% | 22 | 3 | 24-51 | 47.1% | 39 | 9 | 1/14/2015 | FLORIDA ST | 73-64 | W | -6.5 | W | 126.5 | O | 24-55 | 43.6% | 39 | 6 | 21-51 | 41.2% | 31 | 7 | 1/17/2015 | GEORGIA TECH | 70-65 | W | -6 | L | 121 | O | 24-55 | 43.6% | 29 | 6 | 21-53 | 39.6% | 39 | 15 | 1/19/2015 | @ DUKE | 65-79 | L | 13.5 | L | 137.5 | O | 27-60 | 45.0% | 32 | 11 | 24-52 | 46.2% | 36 | 9 | 1/25/2015 | LOUISVILLE | 68-80 | L | 6 | L | 124 | O | 22-59 | 37.3% | 34 | 12 | 30-46 | 65.2% | 28 | 15 | 1/27/2015 | @ VIRGINIA TECH | 67-70 | L | -5 | L | 129.5 | O | 27-61 | 44.3% | 45 | 11 | 23-60 | 38.3% | 34 | 9 | 1/31/2015 | NOTRE DAME | 76-72 | W | 2.5 | W | 136 | O | 31-53 | 58.5% | 27 | 9 | 26-49 | 53.1% | 23 | 10 | 2/2/2015 | BRYANT | 72-67 | W | | - | | - | 27-59 | 45.8% | 30 | 6 | 26-51 | 51.0% | 29 | 14 | 2/7/2015 | SYRACUSE | 83-77 | W | -3.5 | W | 129 | O | 29-60 | 48.3% | 35 | 10 | 26-52 | 50.0% | 33 | 14 | 2/11/2015 | @ LOUISVILLE | 56-69 | L | 11 | L | 131 | U | 20-53 | 37.7% | 29 | 10 | 27-54 | 50.0% | 39 | 10 | 2/14/2015 | N CAROLINA | 89-76 | W | 3.5 | W | 146.5 | O | 37-57 | 64.9% | 27 | 5 | 29-59 | 49.2% | 31 | 4 | 2/16/2015 | @ VIRGINIA | 49-61 | L | 12 | T | 119.5 | U | 17-44 | 38.6% | 29 | 12 | 20-47 | 42.6% | 31 | 7 | 2/21/2015 | @ SYRACUSE | 65-61 | W | 4.5 | W | 136 | U | 26-52 | 50.0% | 22 | 7 | 21-49 | 42.9% | 35 | 10 | 2/24/2015 | BOSTON COLLEGE | 71-65 | W | -8 | L | 132 | O | 22-47 | 46.8% | 29 | 8 | 20-42 | 47.6% | 29 | 14 | 3/1/2015 | @ WAKE FOREST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/4/2015 | MIAMI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | @ FLORIDA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
1/10/2015 | GEORGIA TECH | 76-69 | W | -3 | W | 132.5 | O | 25-51 | 49.0% | 41 | 17 | 28-61 | 45.9% | 29 | 12 | 1/13/2015 | @ SYRACUSE | 83-86 | L | 9.5 | W | 133.5 | O | 30-62 | 48.4% | 43 | 13 | 30-72 | 41.7% | 39 | 8 | 1/21/2015 | N CAROLINA | 71-87 | L | 8 | L | 147.5 | O | 24-60 | 40.0% | 34 | 14 | 35-58 | 60.3% | 36 | 12 | 1/24/2015 | @ CLEMSON | 57-59 | L | 5 | W | 127 | U | 19-61 | 31.1% | 45 | 10 | 20-57 | 35.1% | 43 | 7 | 1/28/2015 | @ FLORIDA ST | 76-82 | L | 4.5 | L | 139 | O | 24-70 | 34.3% | 44 | 10 | 27-58 | 46.6% | 39 | 11 | 1/31/2015 | VIRGINIA TECH | 73-70 | W | -8 | L | 136.5 | O | 25-55 | 45.5% | 36 | 9 | 22-51 | 43.1% | 32 | 11 | 2/3/2015 | NC STATE | 88-84 | W | 1 | W | 142.5 | O | 29-51 | 56.9% | 35 | 13 | 31-75 | 41.3% | 42 | 11 | 2/7/2015 | @ GEORGIA TECH | 59-73 | L | 5.5 | L | 133.5 | U | 19-64 | 29.7% | 33 | 9 | 27-59 | 45.8% | 41 | 10 | 2/11/2015 | MIAMI | 72-70 | W | 2.5 | W | 135 | O | 26-56 | 46.4% | 37 | 14 | 24-53 | 45.3% | 29 | 8 | 2/14/2015 | @ VIRGINIA | 60-61 | L | 18 | W | 117.5 | O | 19-44 | 43.2% | 31 | 11 | 24-53 | 45.3% | 32 | 9 | 2/17/2015 | @ NOTRE DAME | 75-88 | L | 11.5 | L | 145.5 | O | 29-63 | 46.0% | 39 | 14 | 25-62 | 40.3% | 35 | 8 | 2/25/2015 | VIRGINIA | 34-70 | L | 7.5 | L | 122 | U | 12-55 | 21.8% | 29 | 13 | 28-56 | 50.0% | 45 | 11 | 3/1/2015 | PITTSBURGH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/4/2015 | @ DUKE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | @ BOSTON COLLEGE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | PITTSBURGH: Pittsburgh saw some success in its first season in the ACC, making the NCAA Tournament before losing to Florida in the Round of 32. SF Durand Johnson (8.8 PPG, 3.0 RPG in 19.8 MPG) is coming back from a torn ACL early last season, and if he is healthy, gives the Panthers a terrific long-range shooter (36% threes in career). The tandem of SG Cameron Wright (10.5 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 2.6 APG) and PG James Robinson (7.6 PPG, 4.1 APG, 3.1 RPG, 1.5 SPG) has a chance to be an excellent backcourt. The Panthers lost 30 points and nearly 14 rebounds from forwards Lamar Patterson and Talib Zanna last season, and the backcourt has the ability to make up a lot of those points. A return trip to the NCAA's could hinge on the play of two sophomores, C Michael Young (6.0 PPG, 4.1 RPG, 36% threes) and PF Jamel Artis (4.9 PPG, 2.9 RPG in 15.4 MPG). | | WAKE FOREST: One advantage for the Demon Deacons is that they have their top two scorers back from last season's team. PG Codi Miller-McIntyre (12.6 PPG, 4.2 APG, 3.0 RPG) and C Devin Thomas (11.1 PPG, 7.5 RPG) are a very good inside-outside duo, allowing Wake Forest to play many different styles of games. For Miller-McIntyre, he must improve on his shooting from the outside, as he knocked down only 20% from the three-point line. Thomas is relentless on the glass, and he will have to continue to do that against some of the top ACC post players. This is a team that will really look for those two to score, with redshirt freshman SF Greg McClinton hopefully being the third leading scorer on the team led by new head coach Danny Manning. |
| | |
| Last Updated: 5/4/2024 1:08:06 PM EST. |
|
|
| |
|