|
Recap: Kansas vs Memphis (NCAA Tournament) |
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2008 |
Kansas 75 - Memphis 68 (Overtime) cPSAN
"Total Impact" RatingsPSAN ratings adjusted for quality of opponent | cPSAN70
"Efficiency" RatingscPSAN ratings expressed as "per 70 possessions" | Ratings on the CourtHighest: Darrell Arthur
Lowest: Shawn Taggart | PLAYER | cPSAN | | Darrell Arthur | 9.24 | | Darnell Jackson | 6.72 | | Mario Chalmers | 6.21 | | Brandon Rush | 3.73 | | Sherron Collins | 3.48 | | Russell Robinson | 0.77 | | Cole Aldrich* | 0.00 | | Sasha Kaun | -0.37 | | PLAYER | cPSAN | | R. Dozier | 6.22 | | D. Rose | 4.99 | | A. Anderson | 3.43 | | J. Dorsey | 3.19 | | C. Douglas-Roberts | 2.18 | | W. Kemp* | 0.27 | | P. Niles* | 0.00 | | D. Mack* | -0.69 | | S. Taggart | -0.89 | *Rating not based on enough data. | Ratings on the CourtHighest: Darrell Arthur
Lowest: Shawn Taggart | PLAYER | cPSAN70 | | Darrell Arthur | 11.72 | | Darnell Jackson | 10.29 | | Mario Chalmers | 6.89 | | Sherron Collins | 4.54 | | Brandon Rush | 3.94 | | Russell Robinson | 1.71 | | Cole Aldrich* | 0.00 | | Sasha Kaun | -0.79 | | PLAYER | cPSAN70 | | R. Dozier | 7.08 | | J. Dorsey | 5.45 | | D. Rose | 4.92 | | A. Anderson | 3.62 | | W. Kemp* | 3.00 | | C. Douglas-Roberts | 2.30 | | P. Niles* | 0.00 | | S. Taggart | -1.65 | | D. Mack* | -15.26 | *Rating not based on enough data. |
|
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 | Memphis
| Offensive Performance
| 128.3 | 117.9 | | Defensive Performance | 80.5
| 85.9 | Comments The game was fairly evenly matched. So, when KU slightly outperformed its season average on both ends of the court, and Memphis slightly underperformed, the outcome was going to be a close KU victory. It was obviously a classic when you look at the spectacular performance numbers for both teams. This was a battle of two Goliaths, and in the end, the team rated #1 overall in efficiency for most of the season was the victor. | 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 | Memphis
| | eFG% | 12.0
| | | TO Rate | | 4.0
| | O-Reb% | 2.5
| | | Freethrows | FT Pct | 5.1
| | | FT Attempts | | 3.1
|
FOUR FACTORS ADVANTAGES
| | eFG% | KU 55-45% | | TO Rate (lo better) | MU 24-18% | | O-Reb% | KU 36-28%
| | FT Rate | KU 25-19% | Bottom Line
| As usual, KU puts the opponent in a tough spot by shooting much better. Memphis did what it could by forcing turnovers and even attempting more FT's. But as it has been well documented, they did not convert enough at the FT line, while KU made the most of its late-game opportunities. But the biggest overall factor in this game was that KU shot better than Memphis. | | |