| STAT | VALUE | PCTLE | HISTORICAL COMPARISON |
| Base Stats | |||
| FG% | 52 | 78 |
|
| 3FG% | 33 | 43 | 
|
| 2FG% | 59 | 80 |
|
| FT% | 73 | 58 | 
|
| fg% | 36 | 81 | 
|
| 3fg% | 15 | 95 | 
|
| 2fg% | 46 | 49 | 
|
| ft% | 76 | 30 | 
|
| PTS/POSS | 1.06 | 83 |
|
| pts/poss | 0.83 | 55 | 
|
| TOTPOSS | 157 | 23 | 
|
| POSDIF | 3 | 55 |
|
| %LOB | 10 | 89 | 
|
| %lob | 8 | 5 | 
|
| SmithIdx | 0.1313 | 77 |
|
| Interesting Stats | |||
| ast/poss | 0.04 | 99 |
|
| AST/FG | 0.25 | 0 |
|
| OR% | 0.21 | 8 | 
|
| or% | 0.11 | 94 | 
|
| %FROM3 | 24.6 | 32 | 
|
STAT = Statistic being reported
VALUE = Value of reported stat from the current game
PCTLE = Percentile When Compared to All UNC Games since 1996
Historical Comparison = Graphic Portrayal of PCTLE. Marks depict 20% quintiles, as well as 50%.
FG% = UNC Total Field Goal Percentage (47.0% avg since 1996)
3FG% = UNC 3-point Field Goal Percentage (35.6%)
2FG% = UNC 2-point Field Goal Percentage (51.4%)
FT% = UNC Free Throw Percentage (70.0%)
fg% = Opponent Total Field Goal Percentage (41.6%)
3fg% = Opponent 3-point Field Goal Percentage (33.8%)
2fg% = Opponent 2-point Field Goal Percentage (45.9%)
ft% = Opponent Free Throw Percentage (68.2%)
PTS/POSS = UNC Points Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.934)
pts/poss = Opponent Points Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.846))
POSS = UNC Total Possessions (Smith Method, 85.6)
POSDIF = UNC Advantage in Total Possessions (Smith Method, 2.03)
%LOB = UNC Percentage Loss of Ball (TO/POSS, 15.9)
%lob = Opponent Percentage Loss of Ball (to/poss, 16.4)
MOV = Margin of Victory (9.43)
%FROM3 = UNC Percentage of FG Attempts Taken From 3 (35.6%)
AST/POSS = UNC Assists Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.20)
AST/FG = UNC Assists Per Field Goal (0.59)
AST/TO = UNC Assists Per Turnover (1.4)
OR% = UNC Percentage of Missed Shots that are Rebounded (0.344)
%from3 = Opponent Percentage of Shots Taken From 3 (33.8)
ast/poss = Opponent Assists Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.16)
ast/fg = Opponent Assists Per Field Goal (0.52)
ast/to = Opponent Assists Per Turnover (1.1)
or% = Opponent Percentage of Missed Shots that are Rebounded (0.241)
poss = Opponents Total Possessions (Smith Method) (83.6)
TOTPOSS = Total Possessions in the Game(Smith Method, 169.3)
SmithIdx = UNC Total of Pts/Poss minus Offensive Goal (0.95) + Defensive Goal (0.85) minus Opponent Pts/Poss (avg: -0.01)
VALUE = Value of reported stat from the current game
PCTLE = Percentile When Compared to All UNC Games since 1996
Historical Comparison = Graphic Portrayal of PCTLE. Marks depict 20% quintiles, as well as 50%.
FG% = UNC Total Field Goal Percentage (47.0% avg since 1996)
3FG% = UNC 3-point Field Goal Percentage (35.6%)
2FG% = UNC 2-point Field Goal Percentage (51.4%)
FT% = UNC Free Throw Percentage (70.0%)
fg% = Opponent Total Field Goal Percentage (41.6%)
3fg% = Opponent 3-point Field Goal Percentage (33.8%)
2fg% = Opponent 2-point Field Goal Percentage (45.9%)
ft% = Opponent Free Throw Percentage (68.2%)
PTS/POSS = UNC Points Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.934)
pts/poss = Opponent Points Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.846))
POSS = UNC Total Possessions (Smith Method, 85.6)
POSDIF = UNC Advantage in Total Possessions (Smith Method, 2.03)
%LOB = UNC Percentage Loss of Ball (TO/POSS, 15.9)
%lob = Opponent Percentage Loss of Ball (to/poss, 16.4)
MOV = Margin of Victory (9.43)
%FROM3 = UNC Percentage of FG Attempts Taken From 3 (35.6%)
AST/POSS = UNC Assists Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.20)
AST/FG = UNC Assists Per Field Goal (0.59)
AST/TO = UNC Assists Per Turnover (1.4)
OR% = UNC Percentage of Missed Shots that are Rebounded (0.344)
%from3 = Opponent Percentage of Shots Taken From 3 (33.8)
ast/poss = Opponent Assists Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.16)
ast/fg = Opponent Assists Per Field Goal (0.52)
ast/to = Opponent Assists Per Turnover (1.1)
or% = Opponent Percentage of Missed Shots that are Rebounded (0.241)
poss = Opponents Total Possessions (Smith Method) (83.6)
TOTPOSS = Total Possessions in the Game(Smith Method, 169.3)
SmithIdx = UNC Total of Pts/Poss minus Offensive Goal (0.95) + Defensive Goal (0.85) minus Opponent Pts/Poss (avg: -0.01)
UNC welcomed an up-and-coming WFU team on Monday night and walked away the clear winner. It was a game of two halves, with UNC entering the locker room down 1 at half, but blistering the Deacs in the second half.
Because of the dichotomy of the halves, the overall game numbers mean a bit less. Nevertheless the Heels scored an impressive 1.06 points per possession while keeping Wake at 0.83[/b] overall.
Offensively UNC shot a respectable 33% from behind the arc, but was an excellent 59% inside the arc. UNC took care of the ball, too, turning it over on only 10% of their possessions.
Defensively UNC is getting much praise, and much of it is warranted. Wake Forest, however, stands as another team that shot just awfully from behind the arc. This time the opponent was 15%, a performance only more pitiful by 48 of UNC's last 1009 opponents. The staggering Wake Forest stat, however, was their assists per possession, which is the 3rd worst performance by an opponent in the last 28 years.
Was UNC the reason for Wake Forest's poor offensive night? Consider that Wake Forest only turned the ball over on 8% of their possessions. For the night it was the 33rd cleanest performance by a team in the last 1009 games. Wake Forest shot a very average 46% from inside the arc, though. Hmmmm. So I'm supposed to believe that UNC went out and frustrated Wake Forest only in shooting behind the arc? Offensive frustration by a hawking defense can only affect a team's 3-point shooting ... in 4 of our last 6 games? How does that work?
Let's dig into some of the numbers behind each half:
1st Half
Pts/Poss: UNC 0.89 WFU 0.94
%LOB: UNC 0.05 WFU 0.11
2nd Half
Pts/Poss: UNC 1.21 WFU 0.73
%LOB: UNC 0.14 WFU 0.05
In the first half, UNC allowed WFU to score 0.09 pts per possession more than the defensive goal, while in the second half they kept WFU 0.18 below that goal. That's a large halftime shift from poor defense to great defense...or was it? UNC forced Wake to turn it over on just under 5% of their possessions in the second half. In the last 1009 games we've only had TWO opponents that played that cleanly for an entire game, just so you know how unusually low 5% is.
Qualitatively the game took a significant turn about 5 minutes into the second half. RJ Davis had just hit two 3s, the tempo of the game took a significant uptick, and Wake Forest's demeanor completely changed. To me Wake Forest simply quit at that point. In the second half Wake did not have a single assist, went 0-9 from 3, and only got 13 rebounds to UNC's 25. Yes, Wake's points per possession collapsed in the second half. However this was a collapse of effort. In the face of RJ's heat checks, Wake Forest turned into Syracuse and just wanted to get out of there.
Offensively UNC scored 0.26 points per possession more than the goal in the second half. Defense wasn't bad. Don't get me wrong. However Wake really wilted in the face of dominant offense more than it did to suffocating defense.
When RJ Davis is hitting, UNC is a very, very tough team to beat. That he wasn't on the preseason All-ACC teams is a giant black eye on the ACC media. This guy is 1st Team All-America, and will have his jersey hanging in the rafters, more than likely. It will be interesting to see upcoming foes try to stymie him. It is imperative that Cormac Ryan settles in and releases that pressure from RJ.
UNC's Assist/FGM tally was only 0.25 in this game. We've only seen 10 me-ball games in the last 1009 games. This point is skewed a bit, however, because Wake repeatedly gave UNC lanes to the basket, and UNC rightfully took those lanes.
Wake Forest has some good pieces and has little experience with these pieces, considering the recent roster improvements. They will likely be an NCAA-quality team come Selection Sunday, but at this point, they have a lot of work to do to get to that point.
