Recap: Kansas vs Florida

November 26, 2006

Kansas 82 - Florida 80 (Overtime)

My Observations

Given the right circumstances ... my favorite food is crow.  Last night qualifies.

This game is the epitome of what makes sports prediction so difficult!  Almost nothing that happened in this game represents what had been happening for quite some time on both teams.  Florida's backcourt ran its engines, while KU's frontcourt outhustled and outplayed the vaunted Florida big three upfront.  Considering that was probably the most reliable prediction most people felt they could make, that it was reversed in this game essentially nullified any other prediction.  Kansas simply came to play more prepared, more hungry, and more focused.  Both teams scored rather efficiently (KU 1.19 pts/poss, UF 1.12 pts/poss), and there were incredible plays on both sides throughout the night.  The heart-attack-inducing finish in regulation and back-and-forth overtime were the icing on the cake of an instant classic.

Kansas starters had to play through the end of the game the previous night against Ball State because the team was struggling, while Florida rested their best players in a rout of Western Kentucky.  That makes the marathon performances of KU's players even more impressive.  Everyone should hope for a rematch in April.  That would be ... interesting.

Player Performance Analysis

In this game, I feel the need to start by explaining why Brandon Rush and Mario Chalmers rate at the bottom of the PSAN "raw" ratings for the game.  Having read what many KU fans have been saying about performances last night, I'm sure this strikes them as completely invalid and unsupportable.  This is exactly the kind of situation I designed these player ratings for.  When the numbers don't gel with the "feeling" of watching the game, we should look closer.

Here's both players' lines for the night:

First, let's examine the "tangible" contributions they made.  That is, the ones captured by the boxscore.

Rush's shooting numbers from the field and the line were bad all around.  Obviously, one of his baskets was extremely important (and probably deserved a freethrow on top of it), but there's no arguing that he had a bad shooting night.  That leaves his 7 rebounds (only 2 of which were the more valuable offensive kind), 4 AST (very good), 2 TO (average), 3 BLK (excellent), and 0 STL (for 43 minutes, he usually would have at least one).  Fouls don't usually account for too much, so nothing to mention there.  So, Rush basically has a good AST and great BLK rating to counter the really bad shooting night, and has several decent categories to go with it.  End result, his tangible contributions are modestly above zero (+1.80).  His PSAN score includes an "intangibles" portion also, which I'll discuss in a second.

Chalmers had a decent shooting night, mostly because his two 3FG's boost his eFG%, although he missed one of his freethrows.  Other than his 5 AST, that was pretty much all he did on the positive side in "tangible" contributions.  Playing 38 minutes without any steals or hardly any rebounds doesn't translate into a ton of productivity.  End result, his tangible contributions come in barely above zero (+0.37).  His PSAN score includes an "intangibles" portion, which I'll discuss next.

There are numerous things not captured in a boxscore such as picks, screens, charges taken, communication, etc.  Defense is also conspicuously absent in the boxscore, represented only by STL and BLK.  That's hardly enough to capture the ability to stop the other team.  What my ratings are forced to do is allocate the defense and other "intangibles" across the team by playing time.  When the opposition does a good job scoring efficiently, as Florida did last night, there is more "blame" to spread around in the form of intangibles.  Thus, players who spent more time on the court will be getting a bigger portion of the negatives.  Think of it this way - the opponent's efficiency and ability to score is a negative just as committing a TO is a negative.  The only problem is, I can't assign individual accountability for the defense, so it gets divided equally among the players on the court according to their playing time.  In the cPSAN ratings, where I adjust for quality of the opponent, playing time can become a good thing when the opponent is a good one and the team has performed well.

How does this affect Rush and Chalmers?  Both played huge minutes, so they are assigned a large portion of the negatives from the "intangibles" portion of the rating in the PSAN.  If that seems unfair to you, just realize that their significant playing time also gives them more time to have contributed more of the tangibles.  But in this game, neither one did that as much as Arthur, Wright, or Robinson - the only other players with a big chunk of negative intangibles assigned to them.  But when we look at cPSAN, both Rush and Chalmers rise up quite a bit.  Why?  Because Florida is an incredible opponent, and a winning performance against them should result in a positive boost to anyone who played significant minutes.  That's why my comparative ratings are more appropriate when putting the game in context.  But the raw PSAN is more appropriate when looking only at the current game.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Arthur and Wright rated out at the top of the list.  The significant difference between them in the raw PSAN is largely overcome in the cPSAN because playing so long in a win against Florida is actually a good thing.   Interestingly, if you look only at the "tangible" contributions, Wright outperformed Arthur.  JW played a lot more minutes though.  These two players are the reason KU was able to neutralize Florida's frontcourt.  Wright did it in the first half offensively, while Arthur sat out with foul trouble.  In the 2nd half and overtime, Arthur stepped up offensively, while Wright did all the little things that mattered.

Russell Robinson had an excellent game.  His numbers look good in pretty much every category.  It's a little misleading though, because he played 43 minutes, when he'd usually be playing about 35.  That's why his raw PSAN isn't spectacular, but his cPSAN credits him for being so instrumental in such a powerful performance against an elite team.  He didn't have his usual high number of AST and STL, but he made up for it with better shooting and a surprising two blocks.

Sherron Collins struggled to find his groove this game.  Florida did a great job of limiting his looks at the basket and getting him in foul trouble on defense.  In fact, in the boxscore, Sherron has nothing to show for his 7 minutes except for 3 PF's.  But then, it was only 7 minutes, so the overall negative impact was controlled.

Darnell Jackson is one of the players I feel is most undervalued in this particular game.  He took two big charges from Florida big men, putting himself in harm's way.  Those are considered TO's for Florida, but DJ gets no credit (unlike a STL).  I'm not saying his rating should have been up there with the stars, but it probably was slightly above zero, not negative.

Sasha Kaun is clearly struggling.  Obviously, he hasn't had enough practice time or game time to find his rhythm.  He has a track record of not turning it over very often while contributing efficiently on offense.  But right now, he has been a liability.  I'm confident that will turn it around, but with Darrell Arthur firmly entrenched as the starting center, Kaun won't get the spotlight very often.  He will need to adjust to a role player status and flourish there.

On Florida's side, it's interesting to see such little separation among the players' ratings.  Humphrey's line was pretty impressive, shooting 4-9 from 3FG and no turnovers.  But watching the game, it felt like Green was the player putting daggers in KU's heart.  Problem is, Green did miss a ton of shots and had 3 TO's.  Meanwhile, his 44 minutes (out of 45) means he gets a huge portion of the "blame" for KU's offensive efficiency.  Regardless, both players look good when adjusting for how good an opponent Kansas was (cPSAN).

The biggest story is that Noah, Horford, and Brewer are bringing up the rear in ratings.  After adjusting for opponent, they are all slightly above zero, but that doesn't change the fact that they came in with ratings through the roof.  In a game with 45 minutes possible, Noah played 33 - Horford 31 - and Brewer 26.  Probably would have been a different game if they all played 40+ minutes, but then that's the beauty of it.  They probably never could, given the way they like to be aggressive.  In Horford's case, he was simply outplayed by Arthur and whoever else was on him (Jackson?).  With a body like his, when he's on, he should be unstoppable.  Noah seemed extremely frustrated and deflated at times.  He has only himself to blame with 5 TO's, no BLK, and only 4 rebounds.  Brewer had the best game of the three frontcourt guys, mostly because he had six offensive rebounds, which are extremely valuable when your team is scoring over one point per possession.

Email this page to your friend

Copyright © 2006 Sports and Numbers. All Rights Reserved.  Terms of Use  Privacy Policy