Sports and Numbers

Newsletter

 

Bulletin

Early editions of previews and recaps are often emailed to newsletter subscribers in advance.  If you'd like to receive advance copies, click on "Newsletter" above or enter email on menu to the left to sign up.
 
Recap: Kansas at Iowa State Print E-mail
Feb 28, 2008

Kansas 75 - Iowa State 64

 cPSAN
"Total Impact" Ratings

PSAN ratings adjusted for quality of opponent

cPSAN70
"Efficiency" Ratings

cPSAN ratings expressed as "per 70 possessions"

Ratings on the Court

Highest: Mario Chalmers
Lowest: Craig Brackins

 

 

PLAYER cPSAN
Mario Chalmers 7.39
Brandon Rush 4.27
Sasha Kaun 3.13
Darrell Arthur 3.02
Russell Robinson 1.45
Darnell Jackson 0.51
Sherron Collins 0.40
Cole Aldrich* -0.17

 

 

 

PLAYER cPSAN
  W. Johnson 3.64
  J. Hubalek 3.57
  D. Garrett 2.95
  R. Clark 1.63
  S. Haluska 1.10
  B. Petersen 0.49
  C. Johnson* -0.28
  A. Thompson* -2.14
  C. Brackins -2.50

  

*Rating not based on enough data.

 

 Ratings on the Court

Highest: Mario Chalmers
Lowest: Craig Brackins

   

 

PLAYER cPSAN70
Mario Chalmers 8.52
Sasha Kaun 8.13
Brandon Rush 4.79
Darrell Arthur 4.05
Russell Robinson 2.08
Sherron Collins 0.91
Darnell Jackson 0.73
Cole Aldrich* -1.75

  

  

 

PLAYER cPSAN70
  J. Hubalek 4.49
  D. Garrett 4.38
  W. Johnson 4.20
  R. Clark 2.51
  S. Haluska 1.75
  B. Petersen 0.85
  C. Johnson* -3.92
  C. Brackins -6.11
  A. Thompson* -14.84

 

*Rating not based on enough data.

 

 

Comments and Observations

It wasn't a thoroughly dominating performance by the Jayhawks, but most KU fans can breathe a sigh of relief after a conference road victory.  This is especially in true in light of ISU's better-than-usual 3FG shooting, particularly during a short stretch in the second half.  It was mostly a workmanlike performance for Kansas, with the team's leading scorer doing just that.  It helped that KU finally shot well from behind the arc.  Now let's see if they can take that into their next game, which happens to be a rematch against bitter rival, Kansas State. 

 

 

Offensive and Defensive Performance

 

Using the outcome of the game and the adjusted offensive and defensive efficiencies for each team, performance indicates (in PTS per 100 Possessions) how each team would have fared against an average team.  That is, KU's offensive performance is how many points per 100 possessions KU would have scored against an average defense.  This provides a standard performance we can compare across teams.

 

 

 (pts per 100 poss) Kansas Iowa State
Offensive Performance
121.5 116.3
Defensive Performance 93.7
93.0

 Comments

KU was a better offensive team than ISU, and that was the main difference.  Although, KU's performance was exactly at its season average level, while ISU's was significantly higher than its average.  Both teams played pretty good defense, with KU not doing as well as usual, but still essentially the same this game as ISU.

 

 

 

Four Factor Analysis

(Actual statistics moved to Game Projections table below)

 

What did the difference in this
statistic mean to each team?

Scoring Margin Advantage Gained
(not necessarily supposed to add up to final margin)

Statistic MeasuredKansasIowa State
eFG%10.0 
TO Rate 5.2
O-Reb%5.1
 
FreethrowsFT Pct2.0
 
FT Attempts--
-- 

 

Player Performance Analysis


He was the MVP by my analysis going into the game, and I doubt that he'll be replaced after this game.  Mario Chalmers put on an impressive display from the field (81 eFG%, 3-of-4 from 3FG), with 2 STL and just 1 TO in 31 minutes of play.  It makes you wonder why Self doesn't draw up more plays for Mario to take some deep treys.  Sasha Kaun didn't have nearly the same total impact, but he was essentially as efficient as Chalmers.  He made 4-of-5 shots, with 2 REB and 3 BLK in just 16 MIN.  Brandon Rush put in one of his better performances of late, with 55 eFG% shooting (3-of-4 from deep), 3 REB, 3 AST, 1 STL, 1 BLK and 2 TO in a team-high 37 MIN.

 

The obvious choice for MVP for many was Darrell Arthur by virtue of his 18 PTS, 10 REB (5 OREB) in 31 MIN.  Even though he made 50 eFG%, it meant that he missed 9 shots on a night when KU did score fairly well (1.11 pts/poss).  In addition, he committed 4 PF.  Those negatives aren't nearly enough to proclaim his game to be bad ... not at all.  It was a very good game for Arthur, just not as efficient or impactful as those of Chalmers and Rush.

 

Robinson was largely ineffective on offense, particularly when he was driving to the basket.  It has become a frustrating event for KU fans when Robinson drives but fails to finish.  He redeemed himself with a whopping 10 REB and 5 AST with only 2 TO.  Plus, he made 5-of-6 from the foul line.  Darnell Jackson struggled to shoot only 42 eFG%, although he picked up 8 REB (2 OREB) in his 29 MIN of action.  Collins continues to be bothered by his injury, as evidenced by his 4 TO in just 18 MIN.  Fortunately, he still shot 50 eFG% and did a couple of other things to offset the turnovers.  Still, he has really not been effective on any level lately.

 

For ISU, three guys basically played about the same level (Hubalek, W. Johnson and Garrett).  Only Johnson shot particularly well (59 eFG%), while Hubalek did a lot of his damage on the offensive glass.  Garrett did a great job dishing 6 AST against 0 TO. It was a rough night for Brackins, who shot only 40 eFG% with 2 TO in just 17 MIN.

 

 

 

Game Projections

 

 
Projection
Actual 
Comments

 OVERALL RESULTS

 Final Score  KU 75-62  KU 75-64
 This score should not have surprised anyone.
 Tempo (# poss)
 69 67 

 FOUR FACTORS ADVANTAGES

 eFG%  KU 51-44%  KU 53-44%
 KU really did a great job against an ISU team that doesn't give up high shooting percentages.
 TO Rate (lo better)  KU 22-17%  ISU 19-12%
 Major surprise here that ISU controlled the ball so well.  KU didn't do much worse than expected. 
 O-Reb% KU 34-26%
 KU 35-21%
 
 FT Rate ISU 26-23% KU 24-20%
 
 Four Factors Overall
 eFG% shooting advantage should be reinforced by small gains in OREB% and TO.  With OREB% and TO% cancelling each other out, it was KU's shooting advantage that made the difference.
 
 

PLAYER PROJECTIONS (10+ min played)

 Leading Scorers

 KU - Jackson, Arthur/Chalmers

 Opp - Hubalek, W. Johnson

 KU - Arthur, Chalmers/Rush

 Opp - W. Johnson, Hubalek

 
 Highest cPSAN
(game impact)

 KU - Jackson

 Opp - Hubalek

 KU - Chalmers

 Opp - W. Johnson

 
 Highest cPSAN70
(efficiency)

 KU - Kaun

 Opp - Hubalek

 KU - Chalmers

 Opp - Hubalek

 Kaun finished ever so slightly behind Chalmers for #2.
 Highest efficiency vs season-to-date

 KU - Kaun, Jackson

 Opp - Hubalek, Thompson

 KU - Kaun, Chalmers

 Opp - Garrett, Haluska

 Most surprisingly positive performance had to be Haluska.
 Lowest efficiency vs season-to-date

 KU - Rush, Arthur

 Opp - Petersen, Haluska

 KU - Jackson, Robinson

 Opp - Brackins, Clark

 Jackson had the most disappointing performance.

 

 

 

 

Pre-Game Keys to Watch For

Keys to Watch For

Metric

Result

Edge (Comments)

 KU's ability to avoid TO's should correlate to its own offense as well as to ISU's defensive efficiency.  As an added "bonus" it also correlates to ISU's offensive efficiency.  Kansas to limit TO Rate to 19% or lower KU held it right at 19%
 KANSAS - Helped their other advantages come to fruition.
 ISU's offense and KU's defense correlate to ISU's FT Rate.  There are three major threats at the FT line for ISU. Hubalek, Garrett and Brackins to combine for at least 15 free throw attempts The trio managed to shoot only 9 FT
 KANSAS
 KU has had a tendency to go cold from behind the arc in road games recently, while its opponents have shot well there.  ISU is not a good perimter shooting team, which makes it imperative that KU's advantage there materialize properly. KU to shoot better 3FG% than ISU Boy, did KU shoot better than ISU (64-35%)
 KANSAS