What the heck is that story title? A win was impressive because it basically WASN’T impressive? What does THAT mean?
It’s not as contradictory or mysterious as it might seem. Let’s get right into this part of the discussion of the Wisconsin Badgers’ massive 64-63 win over the Michigan State Spartans on Saturday in the Kohl Center, which quieted bubble talk and restored confidence throughout the UW program.
This idea that Wisconsin’s win was impressive precisely because of its flaws comes from the reality that UW was shorthanded. This game was not supposed to be easy. Wisconsin was not supposed to thrive in the latter stages of a game in which it had a shorter rotation with players playing more minutes than they were used to. Not having Kobe King or Brad Davison virtually assured UW that it would have to labor through the second half, especially crunch time.
It seemed hard to think this game was going to be won without real adversity. More precisely, it seemed hard to think this game was going to be won, period.
Yet, in the first half, everyone’s expectations were turned upside down. Wisconsin was 15 of 26 from the field, 5 of 11 from 3-point range, and 8 of 8 from the foul line, a 43-point masterpiece with the kind of field goal shooting one saw against Nebraska. That was a remarkable display of basketball… and it certainly doesn’t represent anything close to this team’s normal level of performance. It was great, but it was aberrational.
Let’s imagine that Wisconsin had scored 43 more points in the second half and finished at 50 percent from the field for the game, winning 86-63 instead of 64-63. It would have been impressive, yes, but no one would have viewed it as sustainable. It would have been a one-off, hardly a realistic model or template for this team in the next six weeks plus the NCAA Tournament.
It would have been a fluke.
The way Wisconsin actually won is so much more real. It is more true to this team’s identity. It is more in line with UW’s weaknesses, not just its strengths. Wisconsin didn’t hit a single field goal attempt in the final 7:32 of this game. The Badgers scored just four points in those seven and a half minutes. That is the struggle bus this team was expected to ride without Davison on the floor. That drought embodied the adversity this team went through the past week, on and off the floor. That prolonged period of agony was consistent with this limited team’s characteristics.
The fact that Wisconsin overcame such a stressful, ragged, hard-to-watch ending sequence to this game magnifies what the Badgers achieved, rather than detract from it.
You might be skeptical, and that skepticism is warranted. Here is the simple nuance: If Wisconsin had King and Davison, I wouldn’t be writing about this. I wouldn’t spend any time praising a team for grinding to a halt on offense in the final 7:32. That wouldn’t be something to spotlight and praise — not to this extent, at any rate.
However, because Wisconsin was so shorthanded — because circumstances were so suboptimal, and because adversity was EXPECTED, not merely considered as a possibility — this defensive stand by UW strikes me as heroic, not merely avoiding another bad collapse.
If UW had a full roster, this win would have been a mere relief, an avoidance of something catastrophic. Because UW was playing in the face of severe limitations, however, due to the King exit and the Davison suspension, this one-point win — as nerve-wracking as it might have been for everyone — feels like a big triumph, not just a relief.
The defense — for Wisconsin and myself — rests its case on why the flaws of this win magnified the moment for the Badgers.