Kentucky 64, Vanderbilt 77: What Happened?
Losing is always tough. Whether UK falls short against a nationally ranked opponent, or a middle-of-the-road Vandy squad, it's never easy to swallow a Kentucky loss. For some of us: The fact that Kentucky's magnificent big man Patrick Patterson was serving time as an assistant coach, instead of taking A.J. Ogilvy to task, doesn't ease the frustration of losing: The fact that Bizer's Vision World should have given the officiating crew a free initial consultation visit prior to the start of the game, doesn't ease the frustration of losing. No. Losses of this caliber are special.
You know the type of loss I'm talkin' about: After the game is over, you're sitting on your couch, thinking (or maybe yelling), "We should have won that game." Tuesday night's 77-64 setback was one of those losses, because there was so much more that UK could have done to win the game: If UK would have gotten only average performances out of Perry Stevenson, and Josh Harrellson, Kentucky wins the game: If Billy Gillispie's offense would have produced as many well-set screens for Jodie Meeks, as turnovers committed, they would have won the game. The list goes on. So ...
I've scrutinized the seriously sad stats from UK's loss to Vandy, which revealed a plethora of unpleasantness. I'll begin with the whistles ...
- Let's get the obvious out of the way -- Vandy shot 40 free throws (they made 32) to UK's 23 attempts, but four of UK's free throws occurred in the meaningless final 1:15 of the game (two of Vandy's free throw attempts occurred in the same time-frame). So, for the first 38:45 of the game, Vandy shot 66.7% (38-57) of the free throws taken in the game. On the year, Vandy shoots 55.3% of all free throws taken.
- On the season, Vanderbilt averages 22 free throws taken per game.
- From 14:54 to 13:52 of the first half, Kentucky was whistled for FOUR fouls -- From the 14:52 to 14:21 mark of the second half, UK was again called for FOUR fouls: 1:03 of clock-time = Eight UK fouls.
- Vandy entered the bonus (seventh UK team foul) in the first half with 12:07 remaining. Kentucky entered the bonus in the first half with 3:52 remaining courtesy of A. J. Ogilvy's technical foul, which also counts as a common foul.
- Vanderbilt made 45.5% of their three-point attempts. On the year they make an average of 33.0%. In SEC play, the Commodores were making only 30.5%.
- Lance Goulbourne needs to wake-up -- The kid who came in averaging 13.1 minutes, 3.6 points per game (in SEC play), and was shooting 41.0% overall from the field, and 23.1% (3-13) from the three-point line, suddenly fell unconscious at the sight of UK's bright blue unis: In 22 minutes versus the 'Cats he made 4-7 shots (3-5 three-pointers), and 6-8 free throws, for a career high 17 points.
- For the game, Kentucky took nine more shots from the field than did Vandy (52-43).
- Both teams made 20 shots.
- UK recorded eight assists on their made baskets (40.0%), and Vanderbilt dished out only seven assists. UK's assist-to-made shot percentage is 61.5% on the season.
- Coming out of halftime tied at 30, Kentucky proceeded to muck-up the first 5:08 of the second half by shooting 1-7 from the field, and committing two turnovers. Conversely, Vandy made 5-7 shots (two were three-pointers) and extended the lead to 44-38.
- Vanderbilt shot 59.1% in the second half (13-22). UK could only manage making nine of 26 shots in the second stanza (34.6%).
- Of the Commodores 13 second half made shots, seven were either layups of tip-ins.
- In the first 14 minutes of the second half Vanderbilt took 13 shots, only three of which were in the paint. In the final six minutes of the game Vandy took five of nine shots from within the paint, making four. Vandy coach Kevin Stallings deserves kudos for spreading the floor, and driving to the hole; daring UK to defend.
- Of Vanderbilt's nine second half misses, the 'Dores grabbed seven offensive rebounds (77.8%). Kentucky missed 17 second half shots, and only gathered in six offensive rebounds (35.3%).
- Kentucky made 11 baskets (two three-pointers) in the first half to Vandy's seven (one three-pointer), yet the two teams were tied. Oh, Vandy took 18 free throws to UK's eight.
- Vandy had an 10-2 first half advantage in second chance points (18-8 for the game).
- Of Vandy's 30 first half points, 18 came courtesy of either a UK turnover, or a second chance opportunity. For the half, 50.0% of Vandy's points came from the free throw line.
- For the game, UK nabbed 15 DEFENSIVE rebounds, while Vandy grabbed 13 OFFENSIVE rebounds. That's almost unbelievable.
- Perry Stevenson, Josh Harrellson, and Darius Miller combined to play 54 minutes. In those 54 minutes the three combined for three rebounds (0 offensive boards).
- Vanderbilt's Steve Tchiengang, Festus Ezeli, Darshawn McClellan, and Lance Goulbourne combined to play 58 minutes. In those minutes played they gathered in 10 rebounds (three offensive).
- A. J. Ogilvy and Jeffery Taylor played a combined 60 minutes, and grabbed 16 rebounds (seven offensive).
- Stevenson, Harrellson and Miller need to look in the mirror and commit themselves to rebounding the freakin' basketball.
- Stevenson was particularly offensive -- 23 minutes, three points, two rebounds, and two turnovers. He made 1-3 shots, and was 1-4 from the free throw line.
- Stevenson and Harrellson, in 30 minutes of combined action, totaled three points, and two rebounds. And these are the guys who were being counted on to help replace Patterson's missing 18 & 9 (together the two average 12.4 points and 9.5 rebounds per game).
- Kevin Galloway put together a pretty good ballgame -- 30 minutes played, 4-6 from the field (9 points), three assists and one steal. He also committed three turnovers. I'm tempted to make an argument that Galloway should start at the 3 spot, replacing Ramon Harris -- It's a step down defensively, but at least opposing defenses would have to guard him, which would help open the middle up for Patterson. But hey, what do I know?
- A.J. Stewart played a nice game -- In nine second half minutes, Stewart made 4-4 shots (1-1 threes), scored 11 points, grabbed 2 rebounds, and blocked one shot. He had a rough time defending, but in his defense, he hasn't played much lately, i.e. he's shown himself to be a decent defender in previous games. He's another guy that's a bit more offensive-minded than the player currently in front of him in Gillispie's rotation. Just something to think about.
- Other than Meeks, UK made 14-31 shots (45.2%).
- Continuing a trend -- Once again in a loss, UK failed to get out and run, tallying only four fast-break points (they had 24 in the win in Fayetteville Saturday). Vandy did an excellent job in their transition defense, and they shot over 59% in the second half, so the opportunities to run weren't bountiful for the 'Cats. Plus, it's hard to run after an opponent's made free throw.
- In his last 47 minutes played, Michael Porter has committed nine turnovers, and dished out three assists (he had four turnovers in only 15 minutes of action against Vandy).
For those attending Saturday's game in Rupp Arena versus Tennessee: The team needs raucous support, the season is on the line. Another home loss could prove fatal.
Thanks for reading, and Go 'Cats!
0 recs |
75 comments
|
Comments
It is critical time for these Cats
Nice post… I will be there Saturday and do my best… This could be a fatal loss…
I agree this is a game UK could have won but not one I expected UK to win (I have a problem that I am making such a statement)…
The officiating seemed one sided for sure but I think that UK playing a small lineup and sticking to straight man to man once again against a taller team had allot to do with the foul calls also…
I agree Galloway adds energy, is a good passer and forces the other team to guard him… Razor Ramon is a defensive player and that is about it…
Is UK on the bubble??? Last night when they showed Miami’s tournament resume under key wins they did not list a win at Rupp over UK in December (we are not getting and do not deserve any national respect)… If this team goes 2 and 3 and is bounced from the SEC tourney after one game the bubble will burst…
Don’t count me as someone who thinks that BCG can win three games in three days at the SEC tourney… Mike Pratt has one recurring statement the last two games… This team looks tired…
Go Cats!!!
ShagOnSports - "people should know when they are conquered"
by ShagOnSports on Feb 19, 2009 8:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
In the zone
Playing some zone (or maybe all zone) would have helped the ’Cats defensive cause. At least I think it would have.
If UK gets stuck with third or fourth place in the East, they’ll be looking at winning three games in three days just to get to the championship game.
I don’t think I’ll be there, but have a great time Saturday.
by Ken Howlett on Feb 19, 2009 8:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Cats will get the benefit of the doubt
and squeek in with a 12 seed and summarily get bounced in round 1 of NCAAM Tourney.
Just a guess. :)
by bluecrip on Feb 19, 2009 8:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Okay...okay...enough already.
I know that the game at Vandy was tough to take, but I have been a little surprised how much whining and complaining I have read over the fouls. Interestingly both the players and Gillispie, didn’t comment on the refereeing at all…to their credit.
Maybe I could ‘handle’ the 17 foul shot discrepency gripes on the Vandy game if I heard the same thing…or close to the same…in the following games where the foul shots favored UK: Auburn (26), Georgia (15), and Kansas State (+14).
Also in regards to Gillispies two technicals this year from this Greene guy. I am sure you all recall that Gillispie showed absolutely no displeasure or disagreement on the technical. Don’t you think that he knew he deserved it? Don’t you think he somewhat asked for it? Again, I don’t get the level of complaining.
I’m just saying….
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Feb 19, 2009 11:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
You mean to tell me...
that FANS are not totally neutral and unbiased when evaluating officiating of their team’s games?!? OMG, shocking!!! I enjoy your posts, HozeKing, but your faux outrage about the most run of the mill fan behavior possible (UK fans say they “hate” Duke, how scandalous that we’d use such hurtful language!) is a little silly, imho.
by blue kentucky girl on Feb 19, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't mean to come off as all high and mighty...
…but I am just offering a little bit of perspective here. I think griping about the refs is the refuge of a ‘loser’. It drives me crazy when I hear…‘that was the worse game I have ever seen..’ or ‘…the refereeing has been terrible the last 3 seasons, especially in the _______ conference…’ It’s just weak, in my opinion.
The ‘hate’ comment was a little tongue in cheek….it certainly wouldn’t be fair if I suggested I don’t use the word way too often myself. :)
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Feb 19, 2009 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I totally agree
with you about the utter banality of complaining about officiating, actually. I just think that complaining about people complaining about officiating is just as bad : )
by blue kentucky girl on Feb 19, 2009 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What about complaining about people who complain, then? :)
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Feb 19, 2009 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree for the most part, but
the Vandy game truly was horrendous. Some games are reffed well, others are reffed poorly, but generally the poor calls at least balance out. Not so against Vandy. No, it didn’t lose the game for us, but it did have an effect on the outcome. The number of free throws were an obvious issue, but my problem more than anything was the degree to which is affected UK’s players mentally. It just killed their rhythm and drive. But before you say it, yes, good teams play through that kind of stuff. We let it get to us, and we folded.
BTW, I went to the Louisville game last night (my wife is a Cards fan). It was a very nice second half after a fairly uneventful first.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on Feb 19, 2009 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice to see that you married up!
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Feb 19, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh. It keeps me balanced I guess.
Luckily for us (and our marriage probably) she’s not quite the fanatical fan I am. She didn’t grow up in Louisville, but went there for college. She grew up next to an older sister that was a die-hard UK fan. Her brother-in-law is a UK fan. She’s surrounded, but is a good sport about it all.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on Feb 19, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
same for me!
My husband’s a UL fan, but he’s not nearly as fanatical as I am either—he will actually root for UK for me, and god knows I’d never in a million years do the same for him. I actually don’t know ANY really truly hard-core UL fans, which leads me to believe that it is not my bias, and that there really is just something inherently less awesome about UL as compared to UK : )
by blue kentucky girl on Feb 19, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hard to argue with 'inherently less awsome'....I wouldn't know where to start. :)
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Feb 19, 2009 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My husband
is a UK fan but not nearly as fanatical as me. He is very quick to get down on the team which doesnt bode well in our household. ;) He is also anti-Gillispie which you KNOW how that goes over.
by kentuckygirl0724 on Feb 19, 2009 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh, same here. She'll put on a UK shirt and root for UK when they're playing. I don't return the favor, though
I do restrain from vocally rooting against Louisville (just in my head).
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on Feb 20, 2009 12:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Smart move :)
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Feb 20, 2009 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hozeking
If you are referring to me in your post above: I don’t really care what you think.
by Ken Howlett on Feb 19, 2009 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea what you are referring to....
…I think there may be pills to address your condition, though. In the meantime, I will work on repairing my ego that you have so thoroughly crushed. :)
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Feb 19, 2009 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Words you wrote earlier today ...
“I know that the game at Vandy was tough to take, but I have been a little surprised how much whining and complaining I have read over the fouls.”
Also, “I think griping about the refs is the refuge of a "loser.”
Above you wrote — “I think there may be pills to address your condition, though.” — That juvenile statement is inflammatory and nonsensical. If you ever write anything similar to that again, directed either at me or anyone else, I will purge you forever from this site.
by Ken Howlett on Feb 20, 2009 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was referring to ALL the comments I have seen on this site and others...not your's specifically.
A couple of comments and questions:
1. Does each and every post have to directly refer to the original post?
2. My joking comment regarding the pills was much less offensive than…‘I don’t really care what you think’.
3. Taking oneself too seriously is no fun…especially when it pertains to a sport or posting on fan sites…but maybe that’s just me.
4. Nice threat….friendly of you.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Feb 20, 2009 8:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Adjust.
Just like teams have to adjust to the officiating, you have to adjust to the blog.
Some people find remarks regarding medication personally offensive, and sometimes for good reason. That’s why I encourage members to remember that nobody on this blog is a close enough friend for us to make assumptions about snarky humor.
Many message boards and blogs do not subscribe to this theory, but I do. I want this to be a place where everyone can be comfortable. Keep in mind, too, that if you offend someone, it isn’t always the best answer to defend yourself with escalation. Escalation is what we want to avoid, not create. Sometimes, just an, “Ooops, sorry if I offended,” is the best response, even if you’re not really sorry. Most people do that all the time in real life, especially when they respect the person that they’ve offended. It’s called “conflict management,” and although not everyone is good at it, in most cases it takes only a modicum of good manners to use.
Treat this blog as though you were in a room full of acquaintances you have met only once, or are talking to the host of a party you’ve been invited to that you barely know. That way leads to communication, not escalating unpleasantness.
I think Ken’s rebuke was reasonable and your response was inadequate. People may take themselves too seriously here ( I know I do) but that is simply part of the culture of this blog. Adjust to it, and you will find it more enjoyable.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Feb 20, 2009 9:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
But some may find the comment…‘I don’t really care what you think’…just as offensive, especially if ones comment wasn’t even directed at that individual. At least my response had a basis of humor…obviously a failed attempt obviously.
So, it kinda goes both ways. As always, thanks for your thoughts.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Feb 20, 2009 9:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Truly ...
… you’re welcome. :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Feb 20, 2009 9:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Patience Grasshopper...
when you can snatch the pebble from my hand, then it is time for you (Gillispie) to go.*
Although I am as puzzled as the rest of you regarding his substitution and playing time decisions, I don’t think we can fully and fairly judge Coach G’s coaching abilities until we purge this team of Tubby’s leftovers (i.e. Porter, Harris, Stevenson, and Carter), and replace them with players targeted and recruited specifically by the Gillispie administration for his system (whatever that may be).
(Yes, Forty, I know that Meeks falls within the Tubby leftover category as well. You don’t have to tell me that.)
*Name the TV show.
by tooblue on Feb 19, 2009 11:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
We have a winner!
What’s not to like about a pacifist Monk who kicks serious butt!
by tooblue on Feb 19, 2009 11:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Fouls vs Vandy
I think there were so many fouls on the Cats because Vandy’s whole stategy is to get the ball in the paint and UK countered that with perimeter players who could not stop the pass down low OR the dribble penetration.
by bennyhaha on Feb 19, 2009 1:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
At some point the players have to adjust to how the game is being called and just stop fouling
Of course, adjusting to how the game is being called might be seen as “not playing tough enough” by the coach so what do I know.
I didn’t get to see most of the first half, I got home with about 4 minutes left. But in the 24 minutes I watched, most every foul called was legitimate. Yes some were ticky-tacky and wouldn’t be called in many games, but there were no phantom calls that I remember. The players have to stop bumping guys 30 feet from the basket when those bumps are getting called and they have to stop hitting guys on the arm after the layup has been made (I’m looking at you, AJ). That’s just playing smart basketball and it’s something everybody should be able to do whether they’re an All American or a bench player in a church league.
I like important stuff just as much as the next guy, but please, for a little while, deliver us from meaning, baseball. That's your greatest glory, and we thank you for it very, very much. -- Craig Calcaterra
by JLeverenz on Feb 19, 2009 2:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
agree
but still say part of it is being tired and not moving feet enough. and given the way it was being called, we were just slow enough to get called for a foul
by memphis wildcat on Feb 19, 2009 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But how can that be?
I thought Billy’s magical superhero conditioning program was going to render the Cats invulnerable to everything but Kryptonite and Ashley Judd? I agree, they’re tired and were reaching on defense and slow to react. I’ve been saying it since the three game slide but was told that fatigue wasn’t a factor.
by Danvillecat on Feb 19, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What Happened? Pat Riley Knows
You can never have enough talent.
But you most assuredly can have too little and that’s the answer to the question. For all practical purposes UK’s standard starting lineup has 2 players with the requisite talent to compete at the higher levels of competition. Remove one of those and your talent is cleaved by half (considering that the one missing is the only inside presence the reduction is even greater). Lamentably when Patterson returns UK will remain on the negative side of the talent ledger. That will be especially so Saturday.
Groping for other justification of losing brings to mind another Riley quote:
When a great team loses through complacency, it will constantly search for new and more intricate explanations to explain away defeat.
Not to say that UK is great, far from it. Not to say Cats were complacent. But looking for factors less basic than: the more talented team won, is whistling past the graveyard.
A couple more points:
Crediting Stewart with a nice game is quite a bit overgenerous considering his inept defensive play that contributed mightily to the free throw disparity and his feckless rebounding.
As for Lance Golbourne, I’ve seen him play a few times and, while his performance versus Cats might qualify as a breakout, his potential is quote obvious. In fact I would extend that comment to say that his basketball ability exceeds that of Ramon Harris, Perry Stevenson and AJ Stewart. Of course one could say that about Jeffrey Taylor as well, perhaps others.
by Wild Weasel on Feb 19, 2009 3:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Absurd Comment
Lance Golbourne > Harris, Stevenson, or Stewart?
Your hatred of Tubby Smith goes beyond simple ciriticism.
It’s Something Else-ism.
by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 19, 2009 8:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When a great team loses through complacency, it will constantly search for new and more intricate explanations to explain away defeat.
Can someone say Pistons?
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Feb 19, 2009 3:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Talent
Let’s take a look at the high school ratings from Scout.com on Vandy. Of the players who saw double figures in minutes playing time.
Vandy
4-4 star
2-3 star
1-2 star
KY
5-4 star
3-3 star
1-2 star
The 2 star for Vandy is Ogilvy, for KY it’s Porter.
I realize that high school rankings are hardly perfect but they aren’t useless either. IMHO the talent, or lack of talent, argument is getting old. What we’re seeing is a lack of player development and a team that is not improving as the season goes on. We are seeing players regress before our very eyes as in the case of Stevenson and Porter. They both had some good games early in the conference race yet have been in a complete funk for several games. Porter hit a few threes the other day and it looked like he may be coming out of it but he’s regressed again.
by Danvillecat on Feb 19, 2009 5:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Modicum Of Development
I must disagree and I believe the numbers will provide evidence that Porter and Stevenson have developed about as much as one would expect considering their potential:
Porter — Minutes, Rebounds and, unfortunately, TO’s have increased 50%
FGA, FGM, FTA, FTM and Scoring about doubled; Assists nearly tripled.
Stevenson (not so much) — Minutes about same, FGA/FGM up 30, Pctg down slightly, FTA/FTM up 20-30, Pctg down 12, Rebounds up 30 (all on defense), Blocks up 50, Scoring up 30.
(NOTE: Didn’t run numbers on upperclassmen Harris and Stewart but most likely similar.)
I conclude that both players have shown development but also are appearing near their max as they enter their senior year. It also seems to me that any improvement of team will have to come from Liggins, MIller, Galloway, Harrellson and incoming freshmen. A definition if you will, of a rebuilding program, something all rational fans should have realized when Barnhart understood that a new coach was required.
by Wild Weasel on Feb 19, 2009 6:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A.J. Stewart ...
… isn’t an upperclassman. He is a sophomore.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Feb 19, 2009 6:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hatred Of The Former Coach
Not warranted.
by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 19, 2009 8:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, But It Is...
… but that’s for another discussion on another site — of which there a plethora.
by Wild Weasel on Feb 19, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
NOT Warranted
Hatred is NOT warranted.
by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 20, 2009 6:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just keep it off this one.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Feb 20, 2009 6:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No comment on the coach issue
BUT, as to development, I think there is something there. Look, when Stevenson was a freshman we all saw his potential, but most crossed their fingers that SOMEHOW he could beef up, get better hands, and get stronger. What we see two years later is that, yes, he has improved, he’s learned how to play college basketball to a degree, and he is a useful role player, but I don’t think Stevenson has lived up to his earlier-perceived potential. Early on (and looking at his high school accolades), I think many saw Stevenson become a college stud (or at least a very consistent, 15ppg contributor). It hasn’t happened. We need him, and he has done great things for this team at times (especially his play last season when Patterson went down). Nevertheless, he hasn’t reached the level some thought he would.
I’m not saying it’s because of poor coaching or anything, I just think that perhaps when Stevenson was younger his ceiling seemed a lot higher than where it realistically ended up being. That happens, and is the same thing with Harris. Some players just have a lower ceiling than they appear to have in high school or when they’re freshmen. Some of the current young guys might be the same, or they may have higher ceilings. Only time will tell.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on Feb 20, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
Players arent regressing they just arent producing. With possibly the exception of Stevenson and Harris I would argue that every player on the court is visibly better than they were at the start of the season.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Feb 19, 2009 5:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree, with one caveat ...
… The maddening element in all of this for me is that the players (some, not all) aren’t playing as well as they did only a few weeks ago, just prior to the three game slide.
If I felt UK was overmatched in their losses, that’s what I would write, but I do not feel that is the case because they performed sooo much better in games earlier in the year, against good competition.
Even without Patterson, with a more solid game-plan (both offensive and defensive) and a more focused effort from a particular junior forward, UK would have won the game. So obviously I think the talent is there … it certainly was a few short weeks ago.
“Players aren’t regressing they jsut aren’t producing” — Now that’s the truth, brother.
by Ken Howlett on Feb 19, 2009 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate to argue semantics
….. because I’m a math major and not an English major but if they were producing and now they are not would that not be regressing?
by Danvillecat on Feb 19, 2009 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good question, Danville
The way I look at it — In my view there isn’t enough data, i.e. games played at a subpar level, to put the “regression” tag on the SOME of the players … yet.
Stevenson has always been up and down, but Tuesday he picked a bad time to be “down.”
Porter also runs hot and cold (we knew going into Vandy that he might have a difficult time dealing with Beal).
by Ken Howlett on Feb 19, 2009 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just looked at Stevenson's numbers
In the 5 game win streak he averaged 11.6 points and 7.2 boards. That’s kind of deceptive because the TN game is included and nobody scored much other than Meeks. He had a real strong stretch of 5 games there.
Since then he’s averaged 6.6 points and 6.5 boards.
He only got 2 rebounds in each of the games against Vandy.
by Danvillecat on Feb 20, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no
regression would mean that they are actually becoming worse players of the game. Not producing is not forward movement but they arent becoming a worse ball player.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Feb 19, 2009 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends On How It's Applied
If you apply to term regression to performance and not ability, then regression fits semantically. That is to say, “The players performances are regressing”.
by LyricSmith on Feb 20, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Performance
Disagree
I dont believe their performance has regressed from the start of the season. They are clearly performing better than they were in november. That doesnt mean however that they are performing better than their competition.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Feb 20, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And
they’re performing worse than they did in the early part of the conference season. I clearly stated that they had regressed since the start of the conference race in my original post. Of course they haven’t regressed since the first of the season since they looked pretty bad to start, got better, and now look pretty bad again. They were 5-0 in conference play, had cracked the top 25, and the loonies over at Wildcatnation were talking 16-0 in the conference. THAT is the level of performance from which they have regressed.
by Danvillecat on Feb 20, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget the SOS early in the season.
Some of those ‘impressive’ victories were against far inferior competition….fool’s gold, if you will.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Feb 20, 2009 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Early conference season
I would agree with that except possibley Miller.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Feb 20, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not Making Any Statement
That performance has or has not regressed. I was simply stating that if the term regression was applied to performance then it is semantically correct. :-)
by LyricSmith on Feb 20, 2009 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmmmm
Porter, started kind of shaky, got a bit better, back to shaky.
Miller, started decently, regressed, getting better lately
Harrelson, started OK, showed some positive signs against the cupcakes, hit or miss ever since, who knows?
Galloway, didn’t see much action early, hard to judge, breakout game against FL, 3 minutes the next game.
Liggins, who know, he’s been up and down all season. His PT has gone way down lately. Played well in stretches in some games and totally out of control at times in the same game.
I find it hard to see a pattern of players looking visibly better as the season has gone on.
by Danvillecat on Feb 19, 2009 7:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would hope so since the start of the season began with a loss to VMI...it had to get better from there.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Feb 19, 2009 9:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I will partially agree
I do think the team is not progressing at the rate I would otherwise expect them to.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Feb 19, 2009 5:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
kind of like
………..progressing backwards?
by Danvillecat on Feb 19, 2009 7:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Josh Harrellson
In your opening post you lump Stevenson and Harrellson together in reviewing their play. Hardy fair to Josh who played 7 minutes vs 23 for Perry. I missed the first maybe 3-4 minutes tuned in just as Harrellson scored on a feed from Galloway. Nice play by both. Harrellson shorty after shot a bad 3 point shot. Was taken out and saw no further action.
BCG sais he didn’t play hard enough in the 7 minutes to start the game. In the second half we were killed under the boards yet the biggest best option available to handle Olivy sat on the bench…How about a chewing out a challenge to rebound and take to Olivy? Is BCG willing to lose to prove a point in a game we needed to win….If so I question weather or not he is the coach we need…..
by PaCatFan on Feb 19, 2009 8:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you pa.
I felt like we would have been better off with some more mass and height in the paint. Many of the fouls were caused by our small lineup. Pulling him for playing lazy is ok, but after that BG needed to do some one-on-one with josh and then get him back in there. BG is a weird guy. I’m just hoping there’s a method to his madness and all us doubters get proved wrong.
by DrZoom on Feb 20, 2009 5:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why lump Stevenson and Harrellson together in reviewing game performance? Stevenson played 23 minutes, Harrellson 7. Don’t understand BCG, if he thought Josh was not playing hard enough, chew him out and challenge him to do better. He was needed in 2nd half but didn’t play. All need to be allowed to make some mistakes, BCG gives Harrellson no room at all. Is he trying to get Josh to transfer?
by PaCatFan on Feb 19, 2009 8:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Re: PaCatFan
You have a valid point.
What I was doing was showing the lack of production from UK’s big men.
The fact that Harrellson did literally nothing except commit two fouls in those seven minutes is not in line with his previous performances, which I think is worthy of noting.
I, like many others, would have loved to have seen Josh get more time in the Vandy game; your point about G “motivating” him, instead of sitting him, is a good one.
by Ken Howlett on Feb 20, 2009 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree.
A lot of big men disappear for one half, but make their presence known in the other. It was folly, in my opinion, to not give Harrelson the chance to make himself known in the second half.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on Feb 20, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Stevenson, Harrellson On Different Planets
Perry plays good defense, great shotblocker, decent scorer, good rebounder.
Harrellson good scorer, none of the rest.
by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 19, 2009 8:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Looking for Team Chemistry
We only have one player, Meeks, who has the full set of basketball skills. He is superb at some; needs improvement on others; but he has them all.
Miller is almost there. Porter can do it all, but just not very well against all competition. Galloway can do everything but shoot a jump shot.
The rest of our players — including Patterson — are very good at one or two skills but very poor at others. Our better teams historically — the Runts for example (Kron, Conley, Thad J., Dampier, Riley) and the Fiddlers (Hatton, Smith, Crigler, Beck, Cox) and Pitino’s teams have been composed of four or more players with the full range of skills. Not to mention the Issel/Pratt teams. We had 5 guys on the floor who knew what to do with the ball under any situation on the floor. They were average or above on all the basic basketball skills: playing with your head up, passing, shooting one or more shots well, transition, defense, being where you need to be on the court.
The question all of us need to focus on is which 5 guys work best together on the floor (most of the time)? Which players are most consistent in their performance?
The answer is Patterson, Meeks, Stephenson, Porter, Harris/Galloway. Miller is getting there. But when you look at the skills and execution levels of this group, it is not hard to see how opposing coaches game plan against us.
We need more players with all-around skills and who excel at one or two; what we have now are players who excel at one skill but can’t perform adequately on any of the other 8 or 10 that are needed on a good team.
We need to start recruiting players who can play the game — defend, pass, score.
by Fortunatus on Feb 19, 2009 10:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
So Let It Be Written
So let it be done. Everyone say, Amen to Brother Fortunatus.
by Wild Weasel on Feb 19, 2009 10:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I Have A Friend Who Played SEC Basketball 3 Years In Early 1970's
He’s a native KY-ian from Lexington and remains a big UK fan.
He sees the major problem not with the players but rather the coach.
The Runts, yes. The Fiddlers, no. SOME of Pitino’s teams, yes. But ALSO some of Hall’s teams. Some of Tubby’s teams. And some of Sutton’s team’s, too.
by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 20, 2009 6:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
More detail?
Has he mentioned specifically what he thinks the problems might be?
by Danvillecat on Feb 20, 2009 8:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, Private (Sorry I Can't Share)
Generalizing, he sees inconsistency (by the coach) as one problem. And effort expended in practices that is better kept for games.
I think (like most) he sees Gillispie as unproven at UK level.
by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 20, 2009 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course
Ofcourse. Its Gillispie. A super secret source said so. It must be Gillispie.
by kentuckygirl0724 on Feb 20, 2009 11:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not At All
He’s a 40 year friend from the late 1960’s.
by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 21, 2009 7:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ahhh
So it MUST be Gillispie.
by kentuckygirl0724 on Feb 21, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not So
Gillispie never played basketball in SEC.
Read, then comprehend.
by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 21, 2009 5:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not what I meant.
I meant because your friend says its the coaching, then it must be so. “So it must be Gillispie” refers to the fault NOT the friend. YOU read then comprehend.
by kentuckygirl0724 on Feb 21, 2009 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with one caveat
You are spot on with these comments. I used to play a bit of pickup ball with Terry Mills, Cameron’s father, who was a good but not great player at UK under Rupp. He almost never made mistakes. He never forgot to block out, he never threw bad passes, never took bad shots. It was as if the fundamentals were coded into his DNA. I don’t think that applies to a lot of today’s players and not just this group at KY.
I think part of the problem is the AAU circuit, these kids spend so much time playing games they don’t spend time developing their fundamentals. Today’s game has changed as well to where kids can get by on athleticism to a great extent. The refusal to call walking and palming of the ball has allowed quick point guards to make dribble penetration into their only weapon. The increased amount of contact has made it to where low post play is more like wrestling than what we older guys can remember from the Issel days. Compare Issel and Patterson in the low post. Patterson has one move, Issel had all of the moves.
Now for the caveat. Even though I agree about the lack of all around basketball skills with this group I think the coaching could be improved. It’s too easy to dismiss the problems as related to talent. I keep seeing signs that Gillispie is a bit of a martinet and stubborn to the point of cutting his nose off to spite his face. It appears at times that he makes emotional decisions and he’s too stubborn to back up.
But then I could be wrong………………………..
by Danvillecat on Feb 20, 2009 8:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 













