Kentucky Basketball 2008: What have two exhibition games told us?
Now that the exhibition season is in the books, it's time to take a look at what we have learned about the 2008 version of the Wildcats. Most people would agree that you can't learn a great deal in games against strongly over-matched opponents, but I would argue that there are quite a few lessons to be learned, and trends to be uncovered.
The main thing we can look at is offense. Here are how Kentucky's offensive stats look, per half, in the first two games, compared with two of our weaker early-season opponents last year:
| Opponent | UMSL | OBU | Avg | UCA (2007) | Liberty (2007) | Avg | Delta |
| FG% 1st half | 0.63 | 0.59 | 61.00% | 0.4 | 0.56 | 47.80% | 13.20% |
| FG% 2nd half | 0.47 | 0.5 | 48.70% | 0.56 | 0.54 | 54.90% | -6.20% |
| 3-pt% 1st half | 0.43 | 0.5 | 46.45% | 0.38 | 0.5 | 43.75% | 2.70% |
| 3-pt% 2nd half | 0.4 | 0.5 | 45.00% | 0.5 | 0.11 | 30.55% | 14.45% |
| FG% game | 0.55 | 0.54 | 54.20% | 0.47 | 0.55 | 51.00% | 3.20% |
| 1st half points | 63 | 43 | 53 | 34 | 36 | 35 | 18 |
| 2nd half points | 48 | 51 | 49.5 | 33 | 44 | 38.5 | 11 |
| Total Points | 111 | 94 | 67 | 80 | 29 |
So what conclusions can we draw from this? Well, more than you might think, and some of them are fairly obvious. The most glaring difference is in the number of points scored -- UK has scored an average of 29 more points per game this year than last against roughly similar competition. Keeping in mind that a) Jodie Meeks was more or less healthy at this point last year and b) the conventional wisdom is that we had more scoring punch last year with Crawford and Bradley, it seems unlikely that we should be able to put up all those extra points.
The first part of the explanation for these apparently contradictory facts seems pretty clear to me, and probably to most in the Big Blue Nation -- the Kentucky coach was in transition last year trying to install a new system, and this year has no such mountain to climb. The returning players are familiar with what the coach wants to do, and so are more comfortable, confident and efficient running it. Not only that, Gillispie himself is much more comfortable at the helm of Kentucky, and it shows.
But that can't be all. Let's face it, there are many new players on this year's team and none of them was familiar with Gillispie's system prior to coming to Kentucky. Based solely on the foregoing explanation, we would expect to see the first team operate efficiently and the second team struggle, but that hasn't been the case. That fact leads me to the conclusion that the overall talent level on this team is superior to the overall talent level last year, even accounting for player improvement and the two experienced and skillful guards UK lost to graduation and the one (Derrick Jasper) lost to transfer.
Clearly, the additional 29 ppg would seem to lie athwart the assertions of those who have been parroting the conventional wisdom that wonders who will make up Bradley and Crawford's points. The answer, at this point at least, appears to be the "everyone else" that was largely missing from last year's squad.
Now, some of you might wonder why I didn't evaluate the defensive stats, and the reason is that defensive play early in the year is very hard to judge. As we saw against Ouachita, you wind up getting a lot of blocked shots against smaller teams that make the defense look better than it really is. If we examine Ouachita's 3-point shooting stat, (46.4% on 13-28 shooting) we can clearly see that team defense has a way to go in that area, and that particular statistic tends to be a harbinger of a team that has not developed good defensive cohesion. Rebounding stats similarly are misleading, since the exhibition teams tend to be very small. One valuable defensive stat would be deflections, but that statistic isn't publicly available.
The one other statistic worth examining would be turnovers, so let's do so:
| Opponent | UMSL | OBU | Avg | UCA (2007) | Liberty (2007) | Avg | Delta |
| Turnovers | 14 | 20 | 17 | 16 | 13 | 14.5 | 2.5 |
| Assists | 24 | 17 | 20.5 | 11 | 18 | 14.5 | 6 |
| Assist/TO | 1.71 | 0.85 | 1.21 | 0.69 | 1.38 | 1 | 0.21 |
I consider this a bit less valuable than scoring, but it is still instructive. We are doing somewhat better in the area of turnovers on average, although I would argue that the OBU game is more valuable on that point than any of the others, because they played a very tough man-to-man defense that clearly gave Kentucky some trouble. Even then, however, we see a rather dramatic improvement in the number of assists, if not much change in the area of turnovers. That tells me this team is very much a pass-first team, and that Gillispie's lessons about working the ball for good shots has hit home.
In conclusion, despite the conventional wisdom we have seen spouted from such luminaries as Rivals and CBS Sportsline and many other places around the Internet, in this writer's opinion the exhibition season has dispelled doubts that Kentucky will be the plodding, low-scoring, depth-challenged team of last year. The 'Cats may not challenge North Carolina for national supremacy in the 2008-09 season, but it is clear on just the bare evidence of two "unimportant" exhbition games that, barring injury, this UK team will likely contend for the SEC championship and be a dangerous team well into March.
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Combination....
is correct. I believe that Joe and Ramel’s superior talent was negated somewhat in the early part of the season, due to the fact that they were learning a new system, and the personal basketball philosophy of a new coach. Sure, there was some individual improvement over the past year, PS in particular. But our overall depth, and the talent level of that depth has increased significantly.
Leadership
I think the big difference in the new comers this year may be leadership. While Ramel and Joe were trying to lead last year, they were learning a new system themselves and trying to purge an old system from there memories. Pat, Jody, Porter and others that have been in the system for a year and know what’s expected can be better “coaches on the floor” for the new comers.
Am I reading this wrong?
That more turnovers this year is somehow better? Are those forced turnovers? If so, why are they used in the Assist/TO ratio?
Confused.
UK Is More Talented And Deeper Than 2008 Team
More experienced, too.
Gaps include the lack of “go-to” scorers like Crawford and Bradley.
by FortyYearCatFan on Nov 11, 2008 1:22 PM EST reply actions
Don't you think it's highly difficult to ascertain if UK has a 'go-to' guy before they've played a real game.
I think there are two outstanding possible ‘go-to’ guys in Patterson and Meeks.
by Ken Howlett on Nov 11, 2008 10:42 PM EST up reply actions
No
It’s pretty clear that UK will miss the experience of Crawford and Bradley.
by FortyYearCatFan on Nov 13, 2008 11:05 AM EST up reply actions
Heh.
Man, I’d love to go to Vegas with that line and about $5,000. :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Offense should be better than last year
I don’t know that is completely accurate to say that Bradley and Crawford were more “talented” than anybody else on this year’s roster, but I do think it is accurate to say they were more “developed” in addition to being quite talented.
The team certainly has the ability to replace what Ramel and Joe brought to the court last season if you look at their contributions being spread out among many players rather than just two.
1. Meeks will make up for a lot of the scoring with the difference made up by improvements by other players (Harris and Stevenson in particular).
2. Ball handling will handled by Porter and while he’s not going to be as good as Ramel, he probably won’t turn the ball over quite as much. As a group, this team should be better at holding onto the ball than last year’s team so I would expect a decline in turnovers even if assists don’t necessarily go up. The big improvement here will depend on how quickly Liggins adapts to the college game.
3. Rebounding should be better just for the simple fact that UK has more big bodies to use. Joe and Ramel were pretty good at rebounding from the guard position, but a lot of that was out of necessity. The guards this year won’t need to rebound as much thanks to improvements/additions of Patterson, Stevenson, and Harrelson.
This team will definitely be better offensively than last years team, it would be really hard for them not to. Defensively they will eventually be just as good – if not better – once everyone learns and becomes comfortable with the system. That should happen much faster than it did last year. If Perry continues his upward developement arc and some of the freshman (Miller and Liggins) become consistent, solid contributors then UK will have a really good team.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
Developed Talent.....
may be a better way to word what I was trying to say. Tru’s article was comparing what was available last year, to this year. I agree that Joe and Ramel’s talent was more “developed”.
And I would quickly conceed, that if we could move ahead to the senior year of most of our current guards (should they stay that long), we would find that they are likely to have developed “superior” talent compared to last year’s guards. It may happen by the end of this year. I hope so. Meeks certainly has a very good shot at it. By saying that, I mean no disrespect at all to Joe or Ramel.
"Developed" ...
… is a good way to look at it. In the end, for the year in question, it amounts to the same thing. Whether the talent is natural or acquired through development, it ultimately only means something at the next level, where more natural talent gives a player a higher ceiling.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Developed vs Talent
I didn’t really mean to imply that these were two different things. To my mind “talent” is a sort of inherent physical quality that both Ramel and Joe had, but they had the benefit of four years to develop it. I think Meeks and Liggins are just as, if not more, talented than Joe and Ramel, but obviously they are not as developed. To put it another way, I think Ramel and Joe were just as talented last year as they were as freshmen, but they were better players because of 4 years of development.
So in the end, I think you can make the case that this years team is just as talented at the two guard positions, in that they have two players at those positions that have the inherent physical ability comparable to Joe and Ramel, but they are not as developed and thus it might take a while for that to come through, and it might not even happen this season.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
Upperclass are important
Last year we only had two upperclassmen (defined as either a junior or senior) that were major contributors on the team, ie Bradley and Crawford. This year we have 6 that will probably contribute, ie Meeks, Carter, Galloway, Harris, Porter, and Stevenson. I don’t think you can over emphasize the importance of upperclassmen. This year we will be stronger and probably even more so next season.
Having ...
… a deep and talented (if not experienced) bench is a very valuable thing.
I also think Gillispie’s huge team size is a big benefit in practice.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
20
Looks like 15 is not tops on this team.
by kentuckygirl0724 on Nov 13, 2008 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
Upperclassmen who obviously worked very hard during the off season.
I hardly recognized Porter, Harris, Meeks, Patterson with only gaining one percent body fat. Even Carter looks much better. These guys have lived in the weight room and it shows. Add to this hard working group two strong JUCO recruits and a huge transfer in Pilgrim and you have added to the upperclassmen. Even walk-on transfer Jarvis Walker is an upperclassman.
It seems to me that all 20 players, including the freshmen, are physically stronger than in the previous years.
by Blueobsessed on Nov 11, 2008 10:34 PM EST up reply actions

by 











