Kentucky Basketball: Playing "What If" -- Suffocats vs. 2009-10 Wildcats
One of my all-time favorite Kentucky teams is the Suffocats (2002-03), despite the fact that they fell to Dwyane Wade and the Marquette Golden Eagles in the Elite Eight. They may not have won the national championship, or even made a Final Four, but they played some of the prettiest offensive and most determined defensive basketball I have ever witnessed in a Kentucky team.
The Suffocats had no superstar, and only one five star recruit on the entire roster -- Keith Bogans. Despite that fact, they blasted the SEC, running through the conference undefeated, and winning the SEC tournament on the way to a #1 seed in the 2003 NCAA Tournament.
Everyone knows the story about Keith Bogans suffering a high ankle sprain in the Sweet Sixteen game versus the Wisconsin Badgers. Absent a season-ending knee injury, the high-ankle sprain is one of the very worst injuries a basketball player can suffer because of its long healing time. Bogans played against Marquette, but he was only a shell of himself, unable to move laterally and lacking any lift on his jump shot. He essentially played the game one-legged, and Wade memorably went off for 29 points and sent the favored Wildcats home early.
Another team that got sent home unexpectedly early was the 2009-10 Wildcats. After most of the favorites lost in the first three rounds, Kentucky entered the Elite Eight game against the West Virginia Mountaineers heavily favored to win the 2010 NCAA Tournament championship. Like the Suffocats before them, they fell just short of the Final Four by losing to the Mountaineers, primarily due to loathsome shooting by the 'Cats from behind the arc.
I wondered who would win a game between these two powerful Wildcat teams that had an unexpectedly early end to their respective tournament runs. It's a the five star Cadillac team of John Wall, Eric Bledsoe, DeMarcus Cousins and Patrick Patterson against the working-man's Ford pickup of Keith Bogans, Gerald Fitch, Eric Daniels and Chuck Hayes. Who wins a seven-game series between these two teams? Think about it, pick your winner, and follow me past the jump.
Through the magic of WhatIfSports.com, we can play this series in almost unlimited detail. Just to make it easy on yours truly, and to keep the post length reasonable, we have performed this exercise using just the summary stats. Here were my results:
| 2002-03 vs. 2009-10 | ||||||||||||
| GAME | TEAM | MIN | FGM-A | 3PM-A | FTM-A | REB | ASST | BLK | STL | TO | PF | TP |
| 1 | 2002-03 | 200 | 30-62 | 5-14 | 9-14 | 33 | 19 | 6 | 10 | 15 | 14 | 74 |
| 48.4% | 35.7% | 64.3% | ||||||||||
| 2009-10 | 200 | 25-55 | 2-11 | 17-21 | 33 | 15 | 5 | 11 | 17 | 18 | 69 | |
| 45.5% | 18.2% | 81.0% | ||||||||||
| 2 | 2002-03 | 200 | 28-55 | 7-16 | 17-22 | 38 | 19 | 3 | 10 | 16 | 18 | 80 |
| 50.9% | 43.8% | 77.3% | ||||||||||
| 2009-10 | 200 | 26-58 | 5-17 | 18-28 | 32 | 15 | 8 | 12 | 14 | 19 | 75 | |
| 44.8% | 29.4% | 64.3% | ||||||||||
| 3 | 2002-03 | 200 | 33-63 | 7-21 | 13-18 | 35 | 22 | 9 | 14 | 13 | 18 | 86 |
| 52.4% | 33.3% | 72.2% | ||||||||||
| 2009-10 | 200 | 27-61 | 7-23 | 15-20 | 37 | 16 | 2 | 9 | 17 | 16 | 76 | |
| 44.3% | 30.4% | 75.0% | ||||||||||
| 4 | 2002-03 | 200 | 25-59 | 6-18 | 14-17 | 36 | 14 | 4 | 15 | 15 | 19 | 70 |
| 42.4% | 33.3% | 82.4% | ||||||||||
| 2009-10 | 200 | 21-58 | 3-19 | 16-19 | 37 | 13 | 6 | 10 | 16 | 17 | 61 | |
| 36.2% | 15.8% | 84.2% | ||||||||||
| 5 | 2002-03 | 200 | 30-64 | 6-15 | 17-18 | 43 | 21 | 3 | 8 | 18 | 23 | 83 |
| 46.9% | 40.0% | 94.4% | ||||||||||
| 2009-10 | 200 | 29-60 | 7-16 | 22-33 | 27 | 19 | 6 | 14 | 10 | 12 | 87 | |
| 48.3% | 43.8% | 66.7% | ||||||||||
| 6 | 2002-03 | 200 | 27-58 | 4-12 | 16-22 | 42 | 15 | 3 | 13 | 17 | 18 | 74 |
| 46.6% | 33.3% | 72.7% | ||||||||||
| 2009-10 | 200 | 26-53 | 4-11 | 11-17 | 26 | 17 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 17 | 67 | |
| 49.1% | 36.4% | 64.7% | ||||||||||
| 7 | 2002-03 | 200 | 29-57 | 6-12 | 14-19 | 32 | 17 | 4 | 10 | 15 | 16 | 78 |
| 50.9% | 50.0% | 73.7% | ||||||||||
| 2009-10 | 200 | 24-49 | 4-18 | 17-23 | 26 | 16 | 7 | 11 | 16 | 18 | 69 | |
| 49.0% | 22.2% | 73.9% | ||||||||||
| Overall Shooting Percentages | ||||||||||||
| 2002-03 | 52.1% | 37.6% | 76.9% | |||||||||
| 2009-10 | 44.6% | 28.9% | 71.7% | |||||||||
| Final series winner: 2002-03 6-1 | ||||||||||||
Surprised? I'm not. The Suffocats were a dominant defensive team -- take a gander at the shooting percentages that the 2009-10 team were able to muster. That team shot almost 48% from the field, but the Suffocats held them to an average of 44.6% in this hypothetical series.
But the main problem for the 2009-10 team was the same thing that gave them trouble all year long -- the 3-point shot. That was the big difference, although not the only one -- the only game they managed to win in this series was one in which the Suffocats had major ballhandling problems and turned the ball over 23 times.
We'll be performing this exercise with other teams periodically throughout the summer.
Mandatory disclaimer: I am unable to accurately evaluate the efficacy or realism of WhatIfSports' algorithm. It is what it is, and if you run the same test, you will likely get somewhat different results, although I expect them to be similar over a seven-game series -- I ran several series that gave me substantially the same results. This isn't reality, this is fantasy, and just for fun and comment while we wait for Big Blue Madness over a long summer.
53 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I cant remember the year but the team lost to UAB was one of my favorites...
Fitch, Daniels, Hayes…those guys played great team ball and were suffocating as well. Will never forget when Florida came to Rupp ranked #1and UK flat ran them out of the gym in the first half. Dickie V even said it was over at the end of the first half. They were one of the best interior passing teams i ever aw at UK.
That loss to UAB still stings.
Slower Traffic Keep Right!
2004 Cats
The # 1 overall seed in NCAA but got “hosed” by refs in UAB game (2nd round).
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 3, 2011 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
That was 2003-04
But it was the 2002-03 team that crushed Florida when they were #1.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
I got to see them play in Atlanta in the SECT
The only conference tournament I’ve been able to go to. Got to see the semis and final of that one – a lot of fun.
3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.
2010 Cats W Easily
7-8 maybe 10-12 points.
2003 was good team but 2010 better.
I don't think so.
I think the program is right. I believe 2002-03 wins.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
I Don't Agree With The Computer
The 2010 had more talent and would W most games.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 3, 2011 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
They may have had more talent in a kind of Platonic sense
But the 02-03 team wasn’t exactly the Bad News Bears and they played together longer and more effectively which allowed that team to use their talents much better than the ’10 team did.
3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.
Like A Horse Race
The horses just seem to know who has the talent.
Sometimes the more talented horse loses but more often not, talent wins.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 4, 2011 8:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Really?
Is that why that 35-1 shot won the Stephen Foster just a couple of weeks back? Somebody forgot to tell him he wasn’t the most talented horse. :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Yes
Not always but usually.
Stakes winners > allowance > claimers regardless if similar times at the distance.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 4, 2011 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
That's fair enough.
The 2010 team had more talent, but 2002-03 was a better team, and had been playing together for a year or two. That’s my opinion, anyway.
But you’re certainly right about the talent.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
2010 Cats almost lost several games to not very much tallent teams.
They were, frankly, underachievers given their talent. It is not hard to see the 2003 team win this game.
It Is For Me
2003 would W some but not many against 2010.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 5, 2011 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Forty, I'm forced to agree with you
As Glenn says, the algorithm is unknown, but the stats above are significantly under the season averages of the 2010 team. They averaged 33% 3P FG, 42 RB, and 79 PPG. In only one game above did the stats reach the 33% 3P FG and the scoring average. In RB, they never did. The 2010 team was just too dominating on the glass to get beat like that by a significantly shorter 2003 team
Yes, but ...
… you have to remember that the 2003 team was statistically better than the 2010 team both offensively and defensively.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
MU's Robert Jackson...
…pounded the Suffocats for 24 and 15 in that regional final. Boogie and Patrick would destroy them.
I doubt it.
The Suffocats were down a major player. That impacts more than just his position.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
If nothing else ...
… Chuck Hayes has proven he can defend the big guys in the NBA. He would have handled either Cousins or Patterson well enough.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
That's true now, but maybe not so much then
No doubt that current Hayes, or even Senior Hayes could handle Pat and Cousins, but I’m not sure about Sophomore Hayes. OTOH, Camara would also be available to help. He probably couldn’t guard Cousins, but he might have been able to deal with Patrick around the basket.
3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.
One reason for that though was Estill was exhausted
One Bogans left the Wisconsin game, Estill had to carry the offensive load and could never get any rest. That carried over to the next game where he just wasn’t the same. Given a more regular rotation in the UW game, I think we would have seen a different Estill in the UM game.
3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.
One other interesting factoid.
The SEC was ranked (by Ken Pomeroy, at least) the toughest conference in the land in 2003.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Finally ...
… the program acknowledges that 2009-10 would have shot well from 2. It is the 3-point shooting that does them in, and neither Boogie nor Patterson could have helped substantially with that.
I would also point out that the 2002-03 team was better offensively and defensively than 2009-10 on the season, according to Kenpom.com.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Kenpom may be true
but the 2010 team averaged 2 more points per game than the 2003 team and held opponents to nearly the same average (64.9 vs. 64.1).
Well, but ...
The argument then becomes that the 2010 team did not play as tough a schedule. And that is borne out by the conference and OOC ratings, comparatively.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Cool stuff, Glenn
I’m not sure I think the ’03 team would so dominate the ’10 team, but I do think ’03 would win more than they lost. The ’03 team was such a great defensive team, I think OTS would have found a way to keep the ball out of the middle and force the perimeter guys to beat him (something he did with regularity).
Where's the poll?!
Goodness gracious Glenn, if ever there was a post that demanded a poll, this would be it!
My vote is for the 03 Cats, but if the ’10 team played a second year together they would almost surely be the winners.
3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.
All-Firecracker Team
Yahoo uses an opportunity for a space filler, time killer. Players with a flash last year and likely to explode this year: Doron Lamb qualifies.
"Statistics are no substitute for judgment" — Henry Clay (my namesake)
Gotta go with '09-'10
too much talent and I’d take them against WVU again.
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
Huggins
Has Calipari’s number. He’s 8-2 lifetime against Cal.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 4, 2011 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions
don't believe in numbers
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jul 4, 2011 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions
What a question!
I have to go with 09-10 Cats! John Wall/ Bledsoe/ Patterson/ Cousins . I don’t know if any college team can beat them in seven games !
We will never know.
This is all just an exercise in statistical manipulation, after all. You can’t actually compare them.
But statistically, the 2003 team is better, although not by very much. They also played a significantly tougher schedule and ran roughshod over an SEC that was #1 in the nation, conference-wise, that year.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
I never put a lot of faith in stats
Just go to statsheet.com and see why your team is better than any other team………..statistically.
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jul 4, 2011 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I go there all the time ...
… and the stats don’t say that. Perhaps you should look closer.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
You might look closer, Glenn
You might look at STATSMACK and see why, using historical stats, UL is better than UK. Or why UK is better than FL, or UNC better than pUKe. Those are just a few examples. Just for fun, I ran Appalachian State better than UK. Look it up, as Yogi would say.
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jul 4, 2011 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions
No need to look closer. Either you misunderstood, or you are trying to confuse me. :-)
Did you actually click the links, and see why?
All criteria that tend to argue against the premise “X is better than Y” are deliberately ignored.
The statistics do not objectively defend all those premises, because you cannot just take the ones in your favor and ignore the rest. And “better” is a highly subjective and time-dependent term. For example, the “Louisville has more Final Four appearances over the last 10 years than Kentucky (1 vs 0).” (which is no longer true, by the way). That is dependent on a 10-year window and ignores things like the records of the two schools overall in that same period, the records with each other, etc. ad nauseum.
This sort of thing tortures statistics for fun, and unapologetically so — it is meant to be for amusement, not as a rigorous argument for or against one side, or about the validity of statistics. Think of how silly that would be for a site that is based on using compiling and using statistics for analysis!
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Glenn,
I think anyone that visits the ‘SMACK’ knows that it’s tongue-in-cheek. But, it DOES point out some of the failings of ‘stats’. We tend to see in them what we want to see and ignore the rest. If we beat Little Sisters by 49 pts and Little Brothers by 1, our average margin of victory is 25. I’m sure you get the point.
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jul 5, 2011 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions
It does not point out any failings in statistics.
It points out how people can fail to properly use them. That’s it.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
stats don't "say" anything
They are just a record of what happened. To win, you have to score more points than your opponent which is why point differential is such a big deal in evaluating how good a team is – it doesn’t say everything but it does say a lot and shouldn’t be ignored.
Likewise with other stats.
3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.
What it does say
is why you can point to certain stats that would support an argument that your team is better than another. I have as much fun with stats as anyone. I enjoy their entertainment value. We all know that stats are manipulated, at least in an argument, to support a certain argument/viewpoint. I could say a guy is averaging 5 REBs his last 3 games, but if he had 15 in one game and zero the next 2, what did that average tell us without more insight? Same with a batter’s average. If he has averaged .333 his last 3 games and had 5 hits in 1 game and ohfer his last 2. Stats are great for conversation but never win an NC, that’s decided on the court/field. Stat-wize, we were a decent FT shooting team last yr. Didn’t mean much against Uconn,
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jul 4, 2011 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes.
But it would mean more against uconn in a series of seven games. In single games, statistics are less valuable as predictors than in a series of games. Of course, they are not always right, but believe it or not, they are right more often than not.
For an example, just look here. This compared the performance of the Log5 formula against seeding, and the statistical formula outperformed the seeds by nearly 2-1.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
As a former Mechanical Engineer
that designed many checking fixtures and gages, I understand a little about statistics and what you’re saying. In the real world it doesn’t work that way all the time. And certainly in the NCAAT you can’t afford a ‘hiccup’. While an historical average may give some insight, a single event stands on it’s own. We all know that when the game starts, you can throw all the stats out the window. That’s why we invented the word ‘upset’. For the 1st 20 yrs. or so, the winner of the Super Bowl was deemed to be a predictor of the stock market. Where’s the relevant correlation? Realistically, there wasn’t one.
My original statement that I don’t put a lot of faith in stats was a personal opinion. Your mileage may vary, as they say.
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jul 5, 2011 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions
In the real world, what doesn't work what way?
You can never throw the stats out the window. They are relevant, but not necessarily dispositive. If the stats tell you that a particular guy is a 40% 3-point shooter, you cannot just ignore that fact in your defensive or offensive strategy. If the statistics say that another guy is the best offensive rebounder in the land, you have to make adjustments accordingly.
Coaches use statistics to help plan their strategy, so your suggestion that they go “out the window” is just not right. You may not put a lot of “faith” in statistics, but statistics don’t require faith. You can’t always use statistics to reliably predict outcomes, but that’s partially because the statistics themselves are used to affect the outcome, as I have just described above, something like the “observer effect” in physics.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
And
because the stats themselves are mostly suspect. How does one arrive at a certain stat? The best offensive rebounder in the land has only played against weak/small teams, is he truly the best? Statistically maybe. As we know, the player with the highest scoring average doesn’t always come from a top rated school. Does that make him the best scorer in the land if he hasn’t faced top defenses?
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jul 6, 2011 1:58 AM EDT up reply actions
There is nothing "suspect" about them.
They are records of past performances. They are intrinsically immutable facts beyond any dispute. Their utility toward predicting the future is what you are trying to get at, and that does depend upon a certain quantity of available data.
At the end of the day, though, the stats do tell the tale. Kenneth Faried was the best rebounder in the nation last year, and guess what — his level of competition did not matter. He was great against good teams and bad teams.
All I have to do to demonstrate how valuable statistics are is to point you toward the #1 statistics user in the world — Las Vegas. They base 100% of their odds on statistical models of games. If the stats were as unreliable as you say, they would be out of business. Instead, they are wildly successful. The Vegas line is one of the most reliable predictors of outcomes of contests in the world, and they don’t get to those by trying to read the tea leaves about who has more “talent.”
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Really fun article, Glenn
I still remember watching that UK-Marquette game and being amazed at the Dwayne Wade show. I’m still convinced a healthy Keith Bogans would have made a difference.
I think it would have made the difference ...
… but it would have been a close game that could have gone either way. Wade was unconscious.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Wade Had The Game Of His Life
Nothing left when Marquette lost to Kansas by 30 points in the FF semi-final game.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 5, 2011 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, that's right.
Amazing performance. It certainly was a harbinger of things to come, just not against the Jayhawks.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by 









