Sports and Numbers

Newsletter

 
Recap: Cornell at Kansas Print E-mail
Jan 8, 2010

Kansas 71 - Cornell 66

 PSAN
"Total Impact" Ratings

All ratings are adjusted for quality of opponent

PSAN70
"Efficiency" Ratings

PSAN ratings expressed as "per 70 possessions"

 

Ratings on the Court

Highest Composite: Sherron Collins
Lowest Composite: Tyshawn Taylor

 

 (PSAN-O = Offensive impact, PSAN-D = Defensive impact.
For PSAN-D, lower ratings are better.)

 

PLAYER PSAN-O PSAN-D PSAN-Comp
Sherron Collins 8.42 -1.53 9.95
Cole Aldrich 2.21 -2.38 4.58
Tyrel Reed 1.14 -0.24 1.39
Brady Morningstar 0.44 -0.08 0.51
C.J. Henry* 0.37 -0.11 0.48
Thomas Robinson* -0.25 -0.29 0.04
Markieff Morris -2.04 -1.32 -0.72
Xavier Henry -3.77 -2.74 -1.03
Marcus Morris -3.23 -2.04 -1.19
Tyshawn Taylor -1.54 0.57 -2.10

 

 

 

For PSAN-D, lower ratings are better

 

PLAYER PSAN-O PSAN-D PSAN-Comp
Ryan Wittman 7.32 -2.13 9.45
Mark Coury 2.22 -2.73 4.95
Geoff Reeves 1.38 -1.57 2.95
Jeff Foote 0.65 -2.05 2.71
Alex Tyler 1.72 0.17 1.55
Louis Dale 1.92 0.83 1.09
Chris Wroblewski -0.08 -0.99 0.91
Jon Jaques -0.26 -1.16 0.90
Adam Wire* -0.75 -0.83 0.08
Errick Peck* -0.35 0.00 -0.35

 

 

*Rating not based on enough data.

 

 

 

 Ratings on the Court

Highest Composite: Sherron Collins
Lowest Composite: Tyshawn Taylor

 

 (PSAN70-O = Offensive efficiency, PSAN70-D = Defensive efficiency.
For PSAN70-D, lower ratings are better.)

 

PLAYER PSAN70-O PSAN70-D PSAN70-Comp
Sherron Collins 9.83 -1.79 11.63
Cole Aldrich 3.92 -4.22 8.15
C.J. Henry* 5.02 -1.48 6.50
Tyrel Reed 3.90 -0.82 4.72
Brady Morningstar 0.71 -0.13 0.84
Thomas Robinson* -3.46 -3.94 0.48
Xavier Henry -4.53 -3.30 -1.23
Markieff Morris -4.39 -2.84 -1.54
Marcus Morris -5.50 -3.47 -2.03
Tyshawn Taylor -2.85 1.06 -3.91

 

  

  

 For PSAN70-D, lower ratings are better

 

PLAYER PSAN70-O PSAN70-D PSAN70-Comp
Ryan Wittman 8.55 -2.49 11.04
Mark Coury 3.78 -4.65 8.44
Alex Tyler 5.84 0.58 5.27
Geoff Reeves 2.17 -2.47 4.64
Jeff Foote 1.03 -3.23 4.26
Louis Dale 4.13 1.78 2.35
Jon Jaques -0.64 -2.79 2.16
Chris Wroblewski -0.10 -1.16 1.07
Adam Wire* -7.69 -8.47 0.78
Errick Peck* -7.16 0.00 -7.16

 

 

*Rating not based on enough data.

 

 

 

Player Performance Analysis

 

Ask pretty much anyone who this game belonged to, and you'll hear "Sherron Collins" almost automatically.  Yet, the numbers give Ryan Wittman almost the same level of credit.  He was absolutely incredible for most of the game.  Imagine what would have happened if he hadn't struggled the last quarter or so.  You have to give credit to Brady Morningstar's defense, something that doesn't show up in the boxscore, and as a result, in the numbers above either.  Collins carried this team on offense, while Morningstar bailed the team out of defense (with much needed help from Aldrich, of course).

 

Collins finished with a career-high 33 PTS on 63 eFG%, a figure that's remarkably impressive if you take into account that he was creating it largely himself and because no one else on the team was able to do much offensively.  He added 2 STL, 4 REB, 3 AST while turning it over just once.  Pretty remarkable stuff for what he was being asked to do.

 

Cole Aldrich didn't look dominant, but in the end his efficiency was right around his season average.  He only took 8 shots, making 4 of them, but he chipped in 3 OREB (9 TREB) and swatted 3 shots to go with his 2 TO in just 23 MIN (1st half foul trouble).  Tyrel Reed was the other guy with a solid offensive night, shooting 1-of-2 from 3FG (75 eFG%), pulling down 3 REB (1 OREB) and 0 TO in just 12 MIN.

 

From a game impact standpoint, that was it as far as players who gave an above average contribution.  Morningstar rated out neutral, but we know what he did with his defensive work on Witmman.  Xavier Henry had an unusual night in that he struggled big time on offense but put in some nice defensive numbers.  X shot a paltry 35 eFG%, made only 5-of-9 FT's (equivalent of 2 TO's basically) and committed 3 outright TO.  The only offensive plus for him was 2 OREB.  On defense, he pulled down 4 DREB and had 4 STL.

 

The Morris twins and Tyshawn Taylor didn't make a single field goal combined.  Taylor was nearly invisible with just one shot, 3 AST, 1 STL and 1 TO in 22 MIN.  Marcus had 3 STL basically in 24 MIN.  Markieff at least pulled down some boards (6 TREB, 1 OREB).

 

Cornell's efforts were clearly spearheaded by the sharpshooting Ryan Wittman.  After cooling off in the latter stages, he finished with 24 PTS on 56 eFG% shooting, 5-of-14 from 3FG, 4 REB (2 OREB), 3 AST, 2 STL and 1 TO in 35 MIN.  Coming in second was not the expected Jeff Foote, but rather Mark Coury who made only 1-of-2 FG but led his team in rebounding (7 TREB, 2 OREB) and chipped in 2 AST, 2 STL with 0 TO in 24 MIN.  On a night when Cornell was turning over the ball with regularity, Coury controlled it well.  Foote didn't fare that well, committing 5 TO, which easily wiped out most of his positive contributions from elsewhere (63 eFG%, 12 PTS, 6 DREB, 1 BLK).

 

It is pretty remarkable that only one Cornell player (Jon Jaques) shot less than 50 eFG% against the nation's #1 eFG% defense.  In addition, every Cornell player with at least 10 MIN played finished with a rating above zero (NCAA average).  Not so with the heavily favored Jayhawks.

 

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 Opponent
Offensive Performance 102.6 120.1
Defensive Performance 85.2 84.7
ANALYSIS: In a baffling display, when KU had the ball, things were clearly in the favor of the visiting Big Red.  KU turned in an essentially average offensive performance, while Cornell had stifling defense.  Cornell had the edge when it had the ball, too, albeit much more slightly.  KU clocked in around 15 points better than average on defense, while Cornell fired away about 20 points above average.  The answer to "Who performed better this game?" is clearly Cornell.  KU won it only because they are the better team by a wide margin.

 

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 MeasuredKansasCornell
eFG% 8.3
TO Rate6.0
 
O-Reb%0.5 
FreethrowsFT Pct3.4 
FT Attempts15.6
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-Game Projected Key Factors

 

At least 75% likely to be important:

  • Kansas TO% - KU really did a great job coming in at only 14.6%.
  • Cornell eFG% - Shocked KU at a 52% clip.

 

Between 50-75% likely to be important:

  • None

 

Between 25-50% likely to be important:

  • Cornell OREB% - The 22% rate was well below projected 29%.
  • Cornell TO% - About as expected, CU turned it over at 23%.

 

 

BOTTOM LINE - KU was projected to win 82-64, which was a 56/44% split of the points, but it actually won with a 52/48% split - kudos to Cornell.  Finally, we have a game where we can evaluate the utility of the regression analysis.   The regression failed to capture KU's FT rate as a key factor, and it turned out to be KU's biggest edge.  However, CU's shocking eFG% edge would have to be considered the biggest game changer (i.e., without it, it would have been a fairly easy KU victory).  However, in this instance, the system thought it would be Cornell's percentage that mattered, when in fact it was really KU's surprisingly cold performance that was more important.  The low TO rate for KU was an important factor but not quite as much as KU's low eFG% and KU's high FT attempts.  Based on this one game, I'd say the regression analysis didn't capture the key factors very well.  Let's see what future games hold.

 


 



 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Game Projections

 

 
Projection
Actual
Comments

 OVERALL RESULTS

 Final Score  KU 82-64  KU 71-66
 
 Tempo (# poss)
 70  69 

 FOUR FACTORS ADVANTAGES

 eFG%  KU 63-46%  CU 52-44%
 Mind boggling result, with KU coming in about 20% under expectation and CU 6% over.
 TO Rate (lo better)  Tie 22%  KU 23-15%  Second most important factor in terms of scoring margin advantage for KU.
 O-Reb%  KU 35-29%
 KU 24-22%
 It's becoming common to see KU's numbers low, but at least they're holding most opponents down, too.
 FT Rate  KU 51-26%
 KU 73-25%
 KU took it to Cornell and was rewarded handsomely with free shots.  FT attempts alone were the single biggest edge for KU in scoring margin advantage gained.
 Four Factors Overall
 Better shooting from the field and more cracks at freebies from the line add up to a KU rout.
 Minimizing TO's and shooting better from the FT line were enough to counter CU's unexpected eFG% edge, leaving the wide disparity in FT attempts as the one biggest difference in the game.  
 

PLAYER PROJECTIONS (10+ min played)

 Leading Scorers

 KU - X. Henry, Collins

 Opp - Wittman, Foote

 KU - Collins, X. Henry

 Opp - Wittman, Foote

 
 Highest PSAN-Comp
(game impact)

 KU - Aldrich

 Opp - Foote

 KU - Collins

 Opp - Wittman (Foote #4)

 
 Highest PSAN70-Comp
(efficiency)

 KU - Morningstar

 Opp - Wire

 KU - Collins

 Opp - Wittman (Wire < 10 MIN)

 
 Highest efficiency vs season-to-date

 KU - Taylor, Morningstar

 Opp - Wire, Tyler

 KU - Collins

 Opp - Tyler, Wittman

 Wittman really surprised, considering projected struggle.
 Lowest efficiency vs season-to-date

 KU - Marcus Morris, Reed

 Opp - Dale, Wittman

 KU - Markieff Morris, Marcus Morris

 Opp - Jacques

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Add comment

Security code
Refresh