I don’t watch it, but the television drama 24 returned last week for yet another season of Jack Bauer beating up bad guys. The Bluejays premiered their own 24 last night, although it probably wasn’t as dramatic as whatever zany terrorist plot Bauer must break up now. Nope, Creighton led Illinois State by 12 in the first half, then trailed the Redbirds by a dozen in the game’s waning moments. Yet, after watching the first 19 games of the Bluejays’ seasons, Creighton’s version of 24 destined to happen.
What happens when the usually unthinkable becomes almost inevitable?
Take away blowouts against Xavier and Wichita State and a failed comeback attempts against Northern Iowa, and 6 of Creighton’s first 9 losses followed the same recipe — claim a lead (often sizeable) and cough it up (often considerably):
- Creighton led Dayton by 10 in the first half, then trailed the Flyers by 10 in the second half (20-point swing).
- Creighton led Michigan by 6 before trailing by 11 (17-point swing).
- Creighton led Iona by 8 before trailing the Gaels by 10 (18-point swing).
- Creighton led George Mason by 7 before trailing by 5 (12-point swing).
- Creighton led New Mexico by 16 before facing a 6-point deficit (22-point swing).
- Creighton led Indiana State by 3 at one point before trailing the Sycamores by 10 midway through the second half (13-point swing).
I honestly didn’t think the Bluejays could throw away a bigger lead than they did on the road in December at New Mexico. And while they never led by 16 points last night, to be the victim of a 24-point turnaround in conference play at a venue where you’ve lost four straight games is, in my opinion, exponentially worse than what happened against the Lobos.
In short, the good feelings and fuzzy warmth of two straight home wins (albeit by the slimmest of margins) were erased by one of the most important choke jobs in recent Creighton hoops history. Just when it seemed the Bluejays might turn a corner, they head the wrong way and careen off the side of a cliff. And as is usually the case during these types of games, a lot of the damage was self-inflicted:
- Creighton shot 48% in the first half, then 28% in the second half.
- Creighton allowed Illinois State to shoot 36% in the first half, then 52% in the second half.
- Creighton made 40% of 3s in the first half, then 13% in the second half.
- Creighton made 67% from the free throw line in the first half, then 57% in the second (including misses on the front ends of one-and-one opportunities).
- Creighton committed 5 turnovers in the first half, then 9 in the second.
- Creighton forced 10 Redbirds turnovers in the first half, then just 3 in the second.
Last week I wrote about the recipe for a rivalry. The points above constitute another recipe, but this time it is instructions for a mind-boggling road loss in what was a winnable game.
—
The turnovers and missed rebounds are bad, and they play a large part in every loss, no matter the score. But unless I missed it, the point of playing basketball is to score more than your opponent. And to that end, the precipitous plunge of Creighton’s shooting percentages to levels not recently reached by Dana Altman’s squads is perhaps the plague most in need of remedy.
Creighton currently posts a 52.9% true shooting percentage so far during the entire 2009-2010 season, which joins the 2005-2006 team’s true shooting percentage (52.6%) as the lowest such percentages since 1996-1997 (50.9%). Don’t believe me? Follow the blue line on the chart.
But things are even worse through 8 games of the Missouri Valley Conference schedule, during which Creighton’s true shooting percentage is 48.6%. As the black line on the chart indicates, through 8 games, the Jays are experiencing the school’s worst shooting percentage since 1996-1997. This year’s conference true shooting percentage is almost a full 9 percentage points lower than the 57.2% posted by last year’s team. Again, check the historical trends to be truly horrified.
Why sub your hottest shooters out and replace them with players who aren’t scoring?
After Justin Carter started the scoring for Creighton with a layup, Darryl Ashford scored the Bluejays’ next 9 points, pacing CU to an 11-0 lead within the first four minutes of the game. Ashford also made Creighton’s first field goal of the second half. And then mysteriously, he didn’t take another shot the entire game.
I’ve got a feeble basketball mind, but please explain to me how your hottest shooter doesn’t attempt a shot as a 7-point lead (40-33 Jays at the time of his last basket) evaporates into a 9-point loss? And please don’t tell me it is because of Ashford’s defense: it isn’t like whoever was on the court played outstanding, lock-down D on the Redbirds — ISU shot a scorching 52% in the second half, with 11 Bluejays logging court time during that time.
The same argument can be made, to some degree, for Ethan Wragge. He is Creighton’s best shooter: you don’t need to be a coach to understand that. And after subbing in for the second time in the game at the 3:58 mark of the first half, Wragge promptly buried 2 3-pointers before the break. Then, in the second 20 minutes of play, Wragge attempts only one more shot. What? The Bluejays couldn’t get any shots to fall, yet your best outside shooter only gets one more shot in the air during the pivotal stretch of action? Meanwhile, Casey Harriman, who again brought a lot of energy to the court for the Bluejays, goes 1-5 (slightly worse than his 27% 3FG shooting percentage) and P’Allen Stinnett goes 0’fer from 3-point range.
That’s arguably two of your best offensive threats going 1-2 in the second half, while the rest of the team goes 6-23. Hmmm.
If scoring is contagious, in a good way, is heaving bricks also infectious? Stinnett made 2 3-pointers in Creighton’s win against Wichita State. But in his past five games, the junior guard is 2-18 from outside — 11.1%. For the season, Stinnett is shooting 28.8% from long range, a few percentage points lower than his career average of 31%. But he is hardly the only culprit guilty of cold shooting.
- Kaleb Korver 09-10 FG% = 30%; career FG% = 40.1% (minus-10.1)
- Casey Harriman 09-10 FG% = 34.2%; career FG% = 40.3% (minus-6.1)
- Stinnett 09-10 FG% = 39.2%; career FG% = 43.7% (minus-4.5)
- Antoine Young 09-10 FG% = 37.6%; career FG% = 38.3% (minus-0.7)
- Kenny Lawson 09-10 FG% = 52.2%; career FG% = 52.7% (minus-0.5)
- Justin Carter 09-10 FG% = 49%; career FG% = 46.3% (plus-2.7)
- Cavel Witter 09-10 FG% = 40.8%; career FG% = 39.6% (plus-1.2)
- Chad Millard 09-10 FG% = 42.9%; career FG% = 40.2% (plus-2.7)
But even two guys posting improvements in their field goal percentages aren’t doing better than their best seasons of college hoops. Witter is up slightly compared to last year, but down 4.7 percentage points from his sophomore season. Millard is up for his career, but down 3.8 percentage points compared to last season and 4.4 percentage points compared to his one season at Louisville.
Sure, the Bluejays played lousy defense in the second half against Illinois State. But fans were assured from the start of fall practice that this team would score, and that rebounding and defense were the areas needing the most attention and improved effort. Right now, this team is failing to score. And in the big scheme of things, points provide wins. Sure, defense wins championships — the top three teams in scoring defense during MVC play are Northern Iowa, Wichita State, and Illinois State; mirroring the current standings — but hitting some shots has a way of getting players pumped to play defense.
Creighton failed to do either in the last 20 minutes against Illinois State, and it cost them dearly. And now the Bluejays sit squarely at .500 in MVC play, fitting for a team that can’t seem to establish any positive momentum. They’re in neutral, with only a few weeks to rev the engine we as fans keep hearing exists.