Recap: Texas Tech at Kansas
Mar 4, 2008

Kansas 109 - Texas Tech 51

 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: Russell Robinson
Lowest: Trevor Cook

 

 

PLAYER cPSAN
Russell Robinson 9.47
Darnell Jackson 7.79
Sasha Kaun 6.70
Darrell Arthur 6.18
Mario Chalmers 6.04
Cole Aldrich 5.71
Jeremy Case 5.15
Rodrick Stewart 5.03
Sherron Collins 4.61
Tyrel Reed 2.02
Brandon Rush 1.00
Chase Buford* 0.91
Matt Kleinmann* 0.68
Brennan Bechard* 0.44
Conner Teahan* -0.03
Brad Witherspoon* -1.25

 

 

 

PLAYER cPSAN
  T. Hoffmeister* 2.20
  R. De Bem* 1.39
  R. Craig* 0.87
  M. Prince* -0.42
  M. Zeno -0.95
  J. Roberson -1.51
  E. Rizvic -2.18
  D. Roberts -2.97
  D. Suljagic -3.36
  M. Singletary -3.83
  C. Burgess -5.43
  A. Voskuil -5.75
  T. Cook -6.79

  

*Rating not based on enough data.

 

 Ratings on the Court

Highest: Russell Robinson
Lowest: Trevor Cook

   

 

PLAYER cPSAN70
Russell Robinson 18.12
Chase Buford* 17.32
Darnell Jackson 16.55
Jeremy Case 16.42
Sasha Kaun 14.24
Rodrick Stewart 13.76
Cole Aldrich 12.86
Darrell Arthur 12.44
Mario Chalmers 11.00
Sherron Collins 8.81
Brennan Bechard* 8.32
Tyrel Reed 7.72
Matt Kleinmann* 4.33
Brandon Rush 3.83
Conner Teahan* -0.24
Brad Witherspoon* -7.98

  

  

 

PLAYER cPSAN70
  T. Hoffmeister* 16.83
  R. De Bem* 8.83
  R. Craig* 6.66
  M. Zeno -1.10
  J. Roberson -1.87
  E. Rizvic -4.63
  A. Voskuil -7.86
  D. Roberts -8.12
  D. Suljagic -9.88
  C. Burgess -12.99
  M. Singletary -13.33
  T. Cook -13.66
  M. Prince* -15.99

 

*Rating not based on enough data.

 

 

Comments and Observations

I will show you the numbers because I have to add them to the season totals.  But I refuse to analyze last night's game.  You don't accept magic potient from Merlin the Wizard that makes the girl fall in love with you, then proceed to the lab to break it down into chemical compounds.  It wasn't a basketball game ... it was a magic show.  The Kansas players were on stage, and the TTU players were (unbeknownst to them) in the audience with the thousands of screaming fans.

 

To those who say the only thing that matters is what Kansas does in the NCAA Tournament, I just say that I wish you could enjoy the journey just as much as knowing what the destination is.  I won't analyze why I fell even deeper head-over-heels in love with KU basketball last night.  I just know that I did.

 

 

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 Tech
Offensive Performance
160.9 86.1
Defensive Performance 65.9
 121.7

 Comments

KU magic on both ends.  And it was more KU magic than TTU curse.

 

 

 

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 MeasuredKansasTexas Tech
eFG%47.8
 
TO Rate 2.2
O-Reb%11.9 
FreethrowsFT Pct2.9
 
FT Attempts2.1
 

 

Player Performance Analysis


No analysis of the magic here.  I just want to point out that the top five eligible efficiency ratings for KU belong to none other than the seniors.  What more could we ask for?  Every single player with enough playing time to analyze had a rating over +3.8!

 

 

 

Game Projections

 

 
Projection
 Actual
Comments

 OVERALL RESULTS

 Final Score  KU 83-65  KU 109-51
 
 Tempo (# poss)
 72 73 

 FOUR FACTORS ADVANTAGES

 eFG%  KU 56-46%  KU 70-33%
 Presto!
 TO Rate (lo better)  KU 24-21%  TTU 18-15%
 
 O-Reb% KU 36-24%
 KU 52-18%
 Change-o!
 FT Rate TTU 38-31% KU 22-16%
 
 Four Factors Overall
 This is projected to be a simple case of KU making more of its shots than TTU.  The other factors will roughly neutralize each other.  Shooting advantage is something I've never seen.  The OREB% just made it ridiculous.
 Poof!
 

PLAYER PROJECTIONS (10+ min played)

 Leading Scorers

 KU - Chalmers/Jackson

 Opp - Zeno/Roberson

 KU - Robinson, Collins

 Opp - Zeno, Roberson

 
 Highest cPSAN
(game impact)

 KU - Jackson

 Opp - Suljagic

 KU - Robinson (Jackson #2)

 Opp - Zeno (Suljagic #5)

 
 Highest cPSAN70
(efficiency)

 KU - Kaun

 Opp - Cook

 KU - Robinson (Kaun #4)

 Opp - Zeno (Cook last)

 
 Highest efficiency vs season-to-date

 KU - Kaun, Jackson

 Opp - Cook, Suljagic

 KU - Case, Robinson

 Opp - None

 Tons of KU players were way better than their averages.
 Lowest efficiency vs season-to-date

 KU - Stewart, Rush

 Opp - Voskuil, Zeno

 KU - Rush

 Opp - Singletary, Cook

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-Game Keys to Watch For

Keys to Watch For

Metric

Result

Edge (Comments)

 Both KU's offensive efficiency and TTU's defensive efficiency are highly correlated to TO Rate.  In a highly-charged atmosphere such as Senior Night, the KU players may be a bit tight, especially at first.  Kansas to limit TO Rate to 20% or lower KU had only 18%
 KANSAS
  It may not make intuitive sense, since the more talented team usually benefits from more possessions, but the numbers show that KU's offense is slightly worse with higher tempo, while TTU is better on offense and defense with higher tempo.  None of those trends are statistically significant, but it bears watching. Tempo over 73 possessions may favor TTU, contrary to conventional wisdom. Tempo was 73
 EVEN 
 TTU relies very heavily on free throws to score points.  The two biggest contributors from the FT strip are Zeno and Voskuil.  If either has a Byron Eaton-esque performance, things could get more interesting than KU fans might want. Zeno and Voskuil to combine for at least 18 FT attempts. They took only 5 FTA
 KANSAS