Comments and ObservationsThe way Damion James was playing, if he hadn't been in foul trouble, this could have looked very ugly for the Jayhawks. Still, there is no guarantee he would have been just as effective the entire game. More than anything, it felt that everytime KU had a chance to start a fast break, something went wrong. Against a team like Texas, who rarely turns it over, you have to make the most of those opportunities. Once that happened, and the Texas big guys (what is it with KU opponents' bigs making 3FG's so well?) starting raining 3FG's, it looked like another one of "those nights" for KU. Still, you can't ask for more than a chance at the end of the game, which is exactly what Kansas got. Unfortunately, they ran the play to the wrong side, which is something they will learn from in time for March. 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 | Texas | Offensive Performance
| 115.4 | 137.0
| | Defensive Performance | 92.7
| 88.2
| Comments The Longhorns' superb offensive efficiency was more a product of their strong offense than KU's poor defense. When KU had the ball, it was essentially an even battle, as both teams performed about equal levels above the average NCAA team. | 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 Measured | Kansas | Texas | | eFG% | | 1.6 | | TO Rate | | 1.1
| | O-Reb% | | 2.7
| | Freethrows | FT Pct | 1.5
| | | FT Attempts | | 10.5 |
Player Performance Analysis
It won't happen very often that two players from one team could play significant minutes and have an efficiency over +15.00 but have their team lose. It was conceivable this game, if Chalmers had hit that last 3FG and KU had won in overtime. I say this only to show how strange a game it was in terms of player performance. On the one hand, everybody's pick as one of the nation's best point guards (Augustin) was having one of his worst games ever. Meanwhile, the Texas bigs were making 6-of-8 from 3FG, shooting an eye-popping 93 eFG% and combining for 17 REB in just 52 minutes total. Atchley and James played as well as they'll probably play in their careers. Abrams didn't shoot well from 3FG (2-of-8) but did finish with 14 PTS on 46 eFG% shooting. Poor Gary Johnson had 4 of his team's 8 TO's and had the worst showing of any player on court.
For Kansas, it was Arthur and Kaun with the strongest showing of the night. Arthur had 22 PTS on 63 eFG% shooting and 6 REB (2 OREB). Kaun shot 2-of-4 FG and grabbed 7 REB (4 OREB) with 2 AST and 1 BLK in 21 MIN. Unfortunately, Darnell Jackson didn't carry his load on the boards. He had just 4 REB (1 OREB) in 29 MIN. Thankfully, he didn't shoot poorly (50 eFG%) but did commit 2 TO's. Rush and Chalmers' performances were also in the "medicore" category. Rush shot well (55 eFG%) but didn't show up too often in the other categories in his 30 MIN, while Chalmers shot a measly 35 eFG%. His saving grace was his 6-of-7 performance from the FT line and 5 AST against just 1 TO. Russell Robinson followed up his strong performance against Baylor with a weak showing in Texas. Poor shooting (25 eFG%), no FT attempts despite several penetrating drives, 4 REB, 2 AST, 2 STL and 2 TO. Many KU fans want to see Collins replace Robinson in the starting lineup. That may well be a good idea given Collins' performance on the season when starting. But if you just look at his overall performance, it has been one of the worst on the team. This game was no exception, with 17 eFG% shooting. Interestingly, he had 2 BLK to go with his 4 AST and 2 TO. Game Projections | | Projection | Actual | Comments | OVERALL RESULTS | | Final Score | KU 80-72 | UT 72-69 | Texas score was spot on, like that matters. | Tempo (# poss)
| 67 | 64 | | FOUR FACTORS ADVANTAGES
| | eFG% | KU 54-48% | UT 48-47%
| UT shot as expected, but KU didn't. Biggest culprits there were little guys: Collins, Robinson, Chalmers. | | TO Rate (lo better) | UT 18-15% | UT 14-12%
| Both teams did even better than expected at hanging on to the ball. | | O-Reb% | KU 39-33%
| UT 41-33%
| Just think if James hadn't been in foul trouble. This may not have been the biggest deciding factor (official boxscore shows UT had only 3 more second-chance points), but it was psychologically devastating to KU's defensive effort. | | FT Rate | KU 27-23% | UT 37-18%
| Purely by numbers, this was the biggest factor in deciding the game. In particular, it was UT's FT attempts being so much higher that gave them the biggest boost. | Four Factors Overall
| With most factors fairly even, KU's expected eFG% advantage is projected as the difference. | Pretty much everything was tipped in UT's favor, but the only one that was huge was FT attempts. |
| PLAYER PROJECTIONS (10+ min played) | | Leading Scorers | KU - Rush, Arthur/Chalmers Opp - Augustin, Abrams
| KU - Arthur, Chalmers/Jackson Opp - Atchley, James/Abrams | | Highest cPSAN
(game impact)
| KU - Jackson Opp - Abrams | KU - Arthur (Jackson #5) Opp - Atchley (Abrams #4) |
| Highest cPSAN70
(efficiency)
| KU - Jackson Opp - James | KU - Arthur (Jackson #5) Opp - James |
| | Highest efficiency vs season-to-date | KU - Rush, Stewart Opp - Mason, Johnson | KU - Arthur, Kaun Opp - James, Atchley | Lots of frontcourt people in this group. Atchley was projected to struggle, so it's even more impressive for him. | | Lowest efficiency vs season-to-date | KU - Robinson, Chalmers
Opp - Atchley, Augustin
| KU - Jackson, Collins Opp - Augustin, Johnson | Johnson clearly disappointed. |
Pre-Game Keys to Watch For | Keys to Watch For | Metric | Result | Edge (Comments) | | Texas has one of the lowest % of FG's assisted in the country. This suggests more one-on-one play than average. Thus, KU's ability to defend will depend even more than usual on who is matching up with the hot UT player. | No quantifiable metric here. Look to see how well KU defender is playing one-on-one defense against the hottest UT players. | Two very hot players (Atchley, James) could not be stopped.
| TEXAS | | One of the more peculiar correlations for UT is that its offensive efficiency is significantly affected by its opponents' TO Rate. Although this makes intuitive sense, there are very few teams whose numbers actually pan out this way. Thus, one of KU's best defenses in this game could be its ability to hang on to the ball. | KU to limit its TO Rate to 18% or lower | KU had TO rate of only 14%
| KANSAS - Kept them in the game.
| | The projected difference in the game is KU's advantage in eFG%. For that to materialize, the most prolific shooters on both teams must perform to KU's advantage. | UT's Abrams and Augustin to combine for below 50 eFG%. KU's Arthur and Rush to combine for at least 54 eFG%. | Abrams/Augustin = 27 eFG% Arthur/Rush = 60 eFG% | MIXED - The overall key was correct (eFG% advantage needs to materialize for KU), but the metric didn't capture it correctly. It was the little guys for KU who shot so poorly that the team's eFG% suffered.
|
|
