Statistical Comparison: '08-'09 UK to '08-'09 Memphis
With the University of Kentucky releasing the official men's basketball roster for the 2009-2010 season, I thought this might be a good time to do a statistical comparison between UK and Memphis' 2008-2009 stats (and for those who spout-off about the pungent odor emanating from Conference USA, remember this while reading the statistics below; UK played the 61st toughest schedule last year, and Memphis' slate was rated 62nd). So yes, a statistical comparison is relevant, although not completely flawless.
But regardless, the question to be answered is this: Is Calipari capable of urging on his young-gun group of Wildcats, to at least perform as well as his team last year at Memphis?: Last year Cal led Antonio Anderson, super freshman Tyreke Evans, Robert Dozier, Shawn Taggert, and Doneal Mack. I believe that group of Tigers compares fairly to Patrick Patterson, John Wall, Darius Miller, DeMarcus Cousins, Eric Bledsoe, Daniel Orton, and Darnell Dodson.
Another similarity, last year Memphis ended the season ranked in the lower half of the top-10, and this year's UK squad will begin the season ranked somewhere in that highly desirable upper-crust neighborhood (finally), but the 'Cats will be relying heavily on unproven youth.
The one major difference is that the SEC should be much tougher than last year. The entire SEC East (except Georgia) has a legitimate claim to being a top-30 team, as do SEC West leaders LSU and Mississippi State. So, I think it's reasonable to assume this years Kentucky team will at least play a moderately stiffer schedule than Memphis challenged last year.
But, hey, it's July, what else are we gonna do? Strap in, mucho information to follow:
Kentucky Memphis UK Opponents Memphis Opponents
Possessions Per 40 Min -- 70.2 68.6 70.2 68.6
Comment: Anyone surprised by those numbers? Most would assume Memphis would have averaged more possessions per 40 minutes. Not so, though.
Points Per Game -- 74.1 75.1 66.3 58.8
Comment: Allowing under 60 points per game, in any league, is impressive.
Points Per Possession -- 1.06 1.09 .94 .86
Field Goal Attempts -- 1938 2176 2080 2031
Comment: UK took 142 less shots than their opponents, while Memphis took 145 more shots than their opponents. Has their ever been a team that was roundly considered to be a "good team," which didn't take more shots than their opponents?
Field Goals Made -- 933 979 820 755
Comment: Wait, UK made 113 more shots than their opposition (more on that later), but that doesn't compare to Memphis' 224 made shot advantage.
Field Goal % -- 48.1 45.0 39.4 37.2
Comment: Stellar shooting by the 'Cats on-the-whole, but when a team fails at so many other aspects of the game, it renders solid shooting a lonely highlight.
3-Point FG Att's -- 573 681 715 574
Comment: Allowing 715 three-point attempts would be acceptable if the opponents made a low percentage, but as you will see below, UK allowed 35.5% from beyond the arc. A huge reason Kentucky didn't go dancin'. Raise your coffee mug if you thought Memphis shot 108 more 3-pointers than UK.
3-Point FG's Made -- 202 222 254 172
Comment: That's a point difference of -156 for UK, and +150 for Memphis (and a "win" difference of 33 to 22).
3-Point % -- 35.3 32.6 35.5 30.0
Comment: Sadly, there simply is no comparison between the type of perimeter defense the two teams played last year. UK's three-point defensive performance was the most abysmal effort since the '89-'90 season.
Free Throw Att's -- 777 868 718 720
Comment: Memphis' +91 over UK in free throw attempts is at least partly due to Cal's DDMO, along with having superior athletes. Lots of one-on-one, and when one is clearly a better athlete, one will be shooting more freebies.
Free Throw Att's Per Game -- 21.6 23.5 19.9 19.5
Free Throws Made -- 601 599 494 494
Free Throw % -- 77.3 69.0 68.8 68.6
Comment: Jodie Meeks' 90.2% free throw shooting certainly helped UK's number is this department. Unfortunately, I expect to see a stout statistical drop this upcoming season.
Rebounds Per Game -- 39.8 42.2 35.5 36.6
Comment: Even with a beast like Patterson patrolling the paint, UK only managed a +3.2 rebounding edge. That fact might be why I heard Billy Gillispie plead numerous times for someone, anyone, to help PPat down low.
Offensive Reb's Per Game -- 10.6 13.5 11.9 11.2
Offensive Rebound % -- 34.4 38.0 31.2 30.4
Comment: A weakness all year for UK, was the polar opposite for the Tigers. On the year, Memphis sported a +3.9 offensive rebounds per game advantage over UK -- Memphis averaged 2.3 more offensive boards than their opponents, and UK averaged 1.3 fewer offensive rebounds than their foes.. That's four more possessions per game from simply not giving up offensive position, and hitting the boards like you mean it.
Defensive Reb's Per Game -- 26.3 25.8 20.2 21.9
Defensive Rebound % -- 68.8 69.6 65.6 62.0
Assist % -- 60.7 53.7 46.3 48.2
Comment: Memphis' low assist rate is probably due to the DDMO. But, UK's 60.7% is impressive for a team without a natural point guard. Kentucky's ability to snuff out the assist was admirable, but with opponents running down the floor shooting uncontested 3's, a team's defensive assist numbers tend to look better than the reality.
Assists Per Game -- 15.7 14.2 10.6 9.8
Assist to Turnover -- .93 1.13 .71 .64
Total Turnovers -- 608 464 532 570
Comment: UK committed 144 more turnovers than Memphis, while playing roughly the same pace. UK was a +38 versus their opponents, while Memphis was -106. That's an average of four more possessions per game for Memphis, and yet another primary reason for UK's sub-par year. Committing 76 more turnovers than one's opponents is unacceptable if a team has any designs on winning.
Turnovers Per Game -- 16.9 12.5 14.8 15.4
Steals Per Game -- 6.6 8.9 7.7 5.9
Comment: Yet another major defensive difference in UK and Memphis. The inexperience of UK's guards last year is the primary culprit for UK's low steal number, but whatever the reason, the boys in blue lose another 4.1 possessions per game to the Tigers.
Blocks Per Game -- 6.6 6.0 3.8 2.8
Comment: The shot blocking was impressive last season for Kentucky. With both Patterson and Perry Stevenson coming back, along with the addition of Daniel Orton and DeMarcus Cousins, UK will not be absent at any time, the presence of at least two shot blockers on the floor.
Final Thoughts
So the question isn't, "Can Calipari teach these guys his offensive system in a timely fashion," rather it's, "Can Calipari get these guys to rebound and play defense with purpose?"
That's the way I see it. Last year Memphis didn't blow opponents off the floor with offensive explosions, instead they beat their foes with great defense, solid rebounding, and mindful ball-handling. All areas of weakness for Kentucky.
Now, is Calipari capable of delivering a defensive team which will be vastly improved over last season's sporadic efforts? Well, one thing I keep hearing about our man Cal is that his teams always play hard for him. And one of the by-products of such an arrangement is generally a solid defensive team, because defense is mostly about effort; I don't care which type of "D" one is playing, playing with effort is the key element to defensive competence.
Of course, a modicum flexibility in a coach's defensive philosophy is also an ingredient which should be liberally sprinkled into any successful defensive potion. At least THAT, should not be a problem this year.
Thanks for reading, and Go 'Cats!
0 recs |
48 comments
|
Comments
Good Morning Ken!
Good article. I had to check twice to make sure Forty wasn’t sharing your by-line. Lots of good and yes surprising stats. Well I just wanted you to know that you weren’t the only one still up. Good Night!
Happy Days are here again The sky is all ways BLUE again Happy days are here again !
by oldcat70 on Jul 8, 2009 5:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
One More Stat To Remember
Memphis had 33 W albeit in a MUCH easier conference to only 22 W for UK.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 8, 2009 7:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Granted the SEC was still better overall than CUSA last year
If ever the gap was narrowed, it was last season. The SEC was as bad last year as I can remember (20 years or so).
by Ontherocks on Jul 8, 2009 8:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looking at the last 2 seasons...
UM was 71-6 and UK was 40-27. Ewwwwwwww.
by mrmondaynite on Jul 8, 2009 8:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, but...
UK’s non-conference schedule was generally easier than Memphis’. As Ken notes, it all balances out to a roughly equivalent schedule.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Jul 8, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Forty
As I noted, the strength of schedule for UK and UM were nearly identical.
by Ken Howlett on Jul 10, 2009 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Said Easier CONFERENCE
Not easier SOS.
C-USA < SEC.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 10, 2009 6:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last year it was pretty darn close though
But I don’t see why their conference matters when the body of work was similar.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Jul 10, 2009 8:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Part Of The Reason For Memphis' 4 Straight 30 W Seasons
C-USA became much weaker starting in 2006 when UC, Louisville, and Marquette left for B-East.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 10, 2009 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting post
More offensive rebounds, more shots, fewer turnovers = more wins… Seems simple enough…
"You are what you are and you ain't what you ain't"
by iam4ukintn on Jul 8, 2009 10:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Heck
Even simpler:
Score more points than your opponent and you win
by Dini-D-Alum on Jul 8, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: iam4
This is an easy game, isn’t it? :)
by Ken Howlett on Jul 10, 2009 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this "no more last 10 games" stance the NCAA has
adopted will fit well into Calipari’s plans. By giving equal weight to every game throughout the year, they will change the approach by some of these coaches to their schedules
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on Jul 8, 2009 11:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I actually ...
… think that cuts both ways, but I believe it is more fair to schools that have a tough OOC schedule.
Overall, I see it as a positive for coaches who schedule aggressively, and a negative for those (like a certain school way down south in the Sunshine State) who schedule really soft in the non-conference part.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Jul 8, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
10 games
Is stupid. The last 10 games are the most important, as it’s a pressure-packed run. Acting like a senior day game when you’re fighting to get in the tournament is the same as a Thanksgiving tourney in the middle of football season is ignorant, but what else would you expect from the NCAA?
I think our D and rebounding will be fine, not so sure about shooting.
by daniel81 on Jul 8, 2009 11:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think ...
… that the NCAA put too much emphasis on the last 12 games. They were losing sight of teams that had big wins early in the year, effectively discounting them. They decided that was unfair, and I think a strong argument can be made that it is.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Jul 8, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
stats showed last 10 game performance
had LEAST correlation with tourny success of all other factors committee was using…..
only one rule in my house - uk has to be your favorite college bball team
by memphis wildcat on Jul 8, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
10 games
Im not so sure.
I agree that in each team’s mind the last 10 games may have more pressure BUT I dont see how the committee can objectivley juge every team’s last 10 games. What if you played all your tough opponents prior to the last 10 and only have patsies left. Theoretically every last 10 games is not equal but by viewing each teams entire body of work you should get a more accurate picture. Im not sold on the concept but am mulling it over.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Jul 8, 2009 12:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well yeah
But subjectively that could be factored in. I would still say that in most cases, the last 10 tell more about your team than any other run throughout the season.
by daniel81 on Jul 8, 2009 1:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You are both right to a point
the last 10 games tell a lot about your team if you were not set to begin with at the beginning of the year. But only if you played a tough pre-conference schedule where a few games may have caught you off guard. Playing patsies wont get you to where you need to be either, but winning those games makes the last 10 look tougher than they should be if you have a team that is playing well. This will all come down to the approach that Cal takes with the kids as far as their pre-conference schedule plays out. Does anyone know when the schedule will be finalized?
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on Jul 8, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1978, 1996, And 1998 Teams Were 9-1 In Their Last 10 Games (Prior To NCAA Tournament)
The only UK teams to go 10-0 before postseason play are 1948, 1949, and 1954.
The 1958 team was 7-3 prior to NCAA tourney. I’d rather win the last 6 games of the season.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 8, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only UK teams to go 10-0 before postseason play are 1948, 1949, and 1954
I believe you are forgetting the Suffocats of 2003. Unless I am mistaken, they were at least 16-0 headed into postseason play following their undefeated romp through the SEC.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Jul 8, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I Forget Them
But I was really just looking over the NCAA champion teams.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 8, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't necessarily agree.
A lot has to do with the landscape, the context, if you will, of the season. I think the NCAA was putting too much emphasis on the last ten games, and not enough on the rest of the season.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Jul 8, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
A “quality” win matters regardless at the beginning or the end of the regular season.The problem with the last 10 games,Team A may play zero ranked opponents,whereas Team B could play,say 5 ranked oppponents down the stretch.You must include the total body of work.
by -Zoso- on Jul 8, 2009 2:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
Teams fall off or improve a lot over the season. The last 10 games, roughly 25 percent of the season, seem to show how on point a team is heading to the tourney. I mean, if UK say went 5-5 down the stretch in a tough SEC but beat UNC, Indiana on a normal year and Louisville in the preseason, then yes, those out of conference wins early in the season should rank highly.
by daniel81 on Jul 8, 2009 3:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think the final 10 games will be ignored
While it is no longer an explicit criterion, I think a team’s performance in its last 10 games will still have great import when the selection committee makes its final decisions. No matter how they run the numbers, the committee invariably ends up with a few teams that look the “same” on paper.
Ultimately, who gets in (and who gets left out) comes down to a subjective “eye test” – does this team look like an NCAA tournament team? A team that has laid a giant egg the last couple weeks of the season, while another team has clearly improved, will likely fail that test.
The King is dead! Long live the King!
by NYCCats on Jul 8, 2009 3:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And to Ken's post. . .
Nicely done. Interesting follow up question: with the players here last year, what do we think UK’s record/stats would have been had Cal been the coach? That is, did UM have better 3-pt defensive stats (to pick one) because it had better players (probably part of it), or because it taught/used those players more efficiently than BCG would have? Could Calipari have gotten PPat that help down low?
The King is dead! Long live the King!
by NYCCats on Jul 8, 2009 3:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks NYCCats
I have no doubt what-so-ever that if Cal had been coaching last year’s UK team that they would have had several more wins.
by Ken Howlett on Jul 10, 2009 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't that what they said about Gillispie approximately 2 years ago????
Well, one thing I keep hearing about our man Cal is that his teams always play hard for him.
Trying the same over and over again, and expecting different results. There is a name for that, isn’t there?
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Jul 8, 2009 5:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
yep, cardinalosis
so why do you keep arguing the same points over and over? expecting different results? ;)
by hoboat33 on Jul 8, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha, now Calipari and Gillispie are the same coach.
No negative angle, no matter how absurd, goes uncovered by Hoze.
I guess we should’ve hired a coach who is renowned for having teams that play half-hazardly for them. Great point!
by BBallSophist on Jul 9, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess that is the point.
Care to offer up a coach whose players don’t play hard for him? It’s kind of like a defensive football coach standing up and telling the press he likes to coach an aggressive, quick, hard hitting defensive team. It just ain’t that unique.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Jul 9, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, if that was your point, you would've said so to begin with.
Instead, you suggested that it was crazy to hire another coach who is known for having teams who play hard for him. To reiterate: it was an great point, and one that has me very concerned about the future of our program.
by BBallSophist on Jul 9, 2009 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hoze
I think you will agree that Gillispie was very different this year than last. I don’t know what happened, but I think a lot of the change was losing his good friend at UK, Mr. Bill. I have heard a lot of rumors on how he treated the players None of that would have happened with Keightley on the watch….believe me. Whatever was going on…it was bad. The players supported him…but something was not right.
by kykat51 on Jul 8, 2009 6:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Whatever Happened, It Was The Same Both Years
It was just a terrible fit for both, the school and the coach.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 8, 2009 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Diasgree - not the same both years.
I know you’re going to keep playing the anti-Gillispie fiddle, but kykat51 nailed it pretty well, I think. Gillispie was tough his first year, but well respected and liked by guys like Crawford and Bradley. Further, he was the darling of college basketball after overcoming the terrible OOC. If he was that terrible of a fit from day one, I don’t see SEC COY honors being bestowed on him.
Something changed, be it Keightley, frustration, pressure, or something else. Regardless, he wasn’t the same man he was during the first season. Yes, he remained stubborn, inflexible, and made mind-boggling lineup changes all along, but his demeanor and attitude changed.
Remember during the first season when he left practice, went to the Big Blue Dance fundraier uninvited, and on the spot donated $10K? And cried? As a refresher: http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/10674223
That simply wasn’t the same man that showed up last season. I don’t know what happened to him, but Gillispie during the first year was admired, respected, and came across as a simple, tough, but good-hearted human being.
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 Jul 10, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not So
I know some folks who were there (not players) both years.
It may have gotten WORSE the second year, but it was BAD both years.
Gillispie didn’t win SEC COY in 2008 all by himself. He shared the award.
First year “incidents” included Alex Legion, Kerry Benson, and Dusty Mills.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 10, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All three of whom likely would have been shown the door by any coach
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Jul 10, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mills, Yes
Not the other two.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 10, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dusty told it like it was when he left
none of us believed him at the time but if you look back on it now he was right on.
Billy G wouldnt have had to make the turnaround in SEC play that he did if he hadnt royally screwed up the OOC slate.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Jul 10, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quintessential Ken
A great deal of work and much to analyze, muchas gracias. Two thoughts come quickly to my mind (I reserve the right to extend and modify my remarks): The numbers confirm that last season’s Cats were athletically challenged and at times overmatched thus the discrepancies in ball handling, rebounding and defending the perimeter. Such explains the roster adjustments and had Calipari not been beholden to Stevenson and Harris there likely would have been and should have been more. Two, as for the last 10 games emphasis, nearly every coach with which I’m familiar subscribes to the theory that their team should be playing its best in March, ergo March’s performance should earn extraordinary consideration.
"The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of its political cares."
--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 12, 27 November 1787
by Wild Weasel on Jul 8, 2009 6:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why, you're welcome WW.
And I must say that I agree with everything you wrote.
by Ken Howlett on Jul 10, 2009 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Disagree About Harris And Stevenson
Neither deserved to be booted off the roster.
Their only “crime” is that they are defensive stalwarts with lesser offensive skills.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 10, 2009 6:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OUTSTANDING POST. I greatly enjoyed reading it.
I can’t understand why so many fans still speak of our success in the coming year as hinging on how well our boys can pick up the DDMO, when it’s not the DDMO that has been responsible for Memphis’ recent success (outside of recruiting). It is apparent that Cal’s success lies exactly where these stats show it does — with having consistently exemplary defense (this year it was tops in the country). I have no doubt that our guys will play outstanding defense this coming year, and live up to the reputation Cal has earned for producing top defensive teams. (Our defense was actually not bad this year, with the obvious exception of our 3 pt. defense.)
On the other hand, Cal’s offensive squads, DDMO or not, have not been top notch, and he still wins. In short, our guys can bungle and fumble through the DDMO a little bit in their first year and we can still have an outstanding year where a Final Four berth is a possibility. It’s not going to be so much about DDMO as it is about “Cal-D.”
As Tru has put it before, the principal utility of the DDMO lies in recruiting.
If our guys DO flourish in the DDMO this year, it’s Katie-bar-the-door.
by Ken Pomeroy on Jul 10, 2009 12:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 
















