The Wisconsin Badgers had an up-and-down regular season culminating in them being awarded a No. 9 seed in the NCAA Tournament.

Of course, a few weeks ago, the Badgers were being projected by most bracketologists as a 4 seed.

What exactly went right — and wrong — for Wisconsin this season? Lets take a look at the team through some advanced stats.

POINTS PER POSSESSION (PPP)

A key metric for any team. Anything over a 1.100 is good. A 1.200 is elite. In 2014-15, when the Badgers made the national championship game, they led the nation with a 1.191 PPP. Gonzaga, this tournaments top-seeded team, is tops in the NCAA with a 1.201 PPP (No. 1 seed Baylor, a potential second-round matchup for Wisconsin, is second at 1.172).

The Badgers finished with a 1.027 PPP this season (tied for 93rd), although just 0.985 in road/neutral games. Wisconsin went through a late stretch where it was under a 1.000 PPP in seven of eight games (see chart below) but finished with over a 1.100 PPP in three of its last four contests.

North Carolina, the Badgers first-round opponent Friday, has a 1.026 PPP.

On the flip side, the Badgers are tied for 65th in the country with an opponent points per possession of 0.948. A big caveat here — much of the teams defensive success occurred early in the season. Wisconsin allowed 1.100 PPP or higher in nine of its last 14 games.

North Carolina had a 0.941 opponent PPP and Baylor 0.923.

SHOOTING

Effective field-goal percentage takes into account 3-pointers accounting for more points — thus those shots count more and thus adjusts it accordingly. This is not an area in which Wisconsin excelled this season.

The Badgers are tied for 198th in the nation with a 49.4 eFG% (47.2% on the road).

Things might be looking up, however. Prior to the loss to Iowa in the Big Ten tournament, the Badgers had put together three consecutive games of 54+ efG%. Thats notable because Wisconsin had only five other games all season of 54+% and went through a six game stretch of under 50% right before that three-game streak.

Wisconsin was 9-2 this season when recording an eFG% of 51% or higher.

More good news: the Tar Heels are even worse, with a 48.5% eFG% and 48.8% in their last three games. Baylor, however, is third in the nation at 57.5%. (Wisconsins national runner-up was at 55.0%, for what its worth.)

REBOUNDING

Forget raw numbers like Wisconsin had X number of offensive rebounds while its opponent had Y. Percentages tell the true story — what percent of the possible offensive (or defensive) rebounds did a team have?

This also has been a season-long struggle for the Badgers.

Wisconsin is tied for 303rd in the nation — with such luminaries as Niagara, Oral Roberts and Western Carolina — with a 20.7% offensive rebounding percentage. North Carolina is allowing opponents to grab offensive boards at a 23.3% rate, tied for 70th in the country.

The Badgers are better on the other end, with a 77.4% defensive rebounding percentage. Of course, North Carolina kills on the offensive glass, leading the nation with a 40.0 ORB%.

TURNOVERS

Not giving away the ball is of course one of the most important factors in any game. Again, dont go by raw numbers. Turnovers by possession are more important — eight turnovers in 70 possessions (11.4%), for example, is better than seven in 60 (11.7%).

Believe it or not, but Wisconsin is second in the nation in turnover percentage at 13.2%. For comparison sake, the 2013-14 Badgers were at 12.5% and the 2014-15 edition led the nation at 12.2% (and the next best was 13.8%!).

Meanwhile, North Carolina is one of the worst teams in the country when it comes to turning the ball over, tied for 251st with a 20.0 TO% (Baylor is at 17.2%).

If youre looking for a key factor in a potential Badgers win, this could be it.

Of course, it wouldnt hurt to shoot well and step up the rebounding as well.

Heres a game-by-game look at Wisconsins advanced stats:

GAME RES PPP OPP PPP eFG% OR% DR% TO%
Eastern Illinois W, 77-67 1.120 0.949 48.2% 22.9% 69.0% 10.1%
Arkansas-Pine Bluff W, 92-58 1.336 0.826 62.1% 21.9% 81.1% 8.7%
Green Bay W, 82-42 1.269 0.639 63.1% 36.0% 83.7% 15.5%
Marquette L ,65-67 1.059 1.058 43.8% 34.2% 71.9% 16.3%
Rhode Island W, 73-62 1.045 0.886 45.2% 20.0% 80.0% 12.8%
Loyola W, 77-63 1.182 0.920 52.6% 17.6% 78.8% 6.1%
Louisville W, 85-48 1.295 0.747 68.4% 25.0% 79.3% 15.4%
Nebraska W, 67-53 1.006 0.822 47.3% 19.4% 85.0% 16.5%
at Michigan State W, 85-76 1.284 1.101 59.6% 25.0% 71.9% 10.6%
Maryland L, 64-70 1.039 1.101 50.9% 20.0% 84.6% 11.4%
Minnesota W, 71-59 1.118 0.920 55.9% 25.9% 63.6% 14.2%
Indiana W, 80-73 1.099 0.954 48.5% 23.1% 93.8% 9.6%
at Michigan L, 54-77 0.823 1.208 37.7% 26.1% 73.3% 15.2%
at Rutgers W, 60-54 0.934 0.856 40.7% 21.1% 57.4% 14.0%
Northwestern W, 68-52 1.100 0.866 52.7% 20.7% 87.5% 12.9%
Ohio State L, 62-74 0.931 1.106 46.5% 18.9% 82.1% 15.0%
at Maryland W, 61-55 0.952 0.888 48.2% 20.6% 88.6% 18.7%
at Penn State L, 71-81 0.993 1.157 49.2% 26.3% 80.1% 16.8%
Penn State W, 72-56 1.161 0.912 56.7% 44.4% 64.9% 24.2%
at Illinois L, 60-75 0.813 1.083 45.0% 5.4% 60.7% 13.5%
at Nebraska W, 61-48 0.904 0.733 39.5% 23.3% 77.7% 11.9%
Michigan L, 59-67 0.947 1.110 44.4% 21.9% 69.4% 16.1%
Iowa L, 62-77 0.980 1.215 35.0% 33.3% 74.1% 7.9%
at Northwestern W, 68-51 1.104 0.816 49.1% 26.5% 83.9% 13.0%
Illinois L, 69-74 0.950 1.015 42.0% 23.4% 73.1% 11.0%
at Purdue L, 69-73 1.109 1.208 54.4% 27.8% 60.7% 9.6%
at Iowa L, 73-77 1.131 1.207 54.2% 18.8% 68.8% 10.8%
vs. Penn State (B10) W, 75-74 1.179 1.161 57.4% 17.2% 66.7% 12.6%
vs. Iowa (B10) L, 57-62 0.882 0.963 44.7% 26.5% 73.5% 21.7%