06
The Cats Prepare for Second Season Quiz

Against Morehead, the Cats performance on their first Classroom Quiz of the 2009-10 season was a mixed report card. “B” for the defensive effort, and a failing grade for the offense. I would award a “B” for rebounding, and a failing grade for turnovers and protection of possessions. An overall grade of “C-“ to “D+.” The Cats get to take another quiz on Monday against a weak Miami of Ohio team that lost its season opener on the road, and put on two weak performances against the typical exhibition fodder opponents.

The Cats will have their entire team on the floor for the first time Monday too. Wall missed 2 of the first three games, and Bledsoe missed the only game in which Wall did appear. Monday, the Cats will have them both on the floor for the first time. This fact alone provides greater hope for a performance on Monday that should rate at least a “B” overall grade, if not an “A.”

When Coach Calipari arrived in Lexington last April, he proudly proclaimed that he would bring his Dribble Drive Motion Offense [DDMO] with him, and install it at UK. He also explained to all that he would have to stock the roster only with players who could perform within this system because those players who can’t perform in the DDMO would have “no place to hide.” In this system, he said, required each player to have the ability to drive to the basket on the dribble, through the defense with a primary goal of putting it in the basket, and failing that, to put the ball up on the glass where teammates could wrestle the ball into the basket on the rebound. He also explained that when defenders block the player’s path to the hoop, the next option is to pass the ball to a teammate who is already heading toward the basket. The final option in the DDMO would be to kick it back out to the perimeter where another teammate would begin that process again with his own drive on the dribble or an open 3-point shot.

Coach Calipari also has explained that this offense requires players who are very talented, and who are able and willing to drive through traffic. I know some fans, including this fan, expressed some concern that without a legitimate perimeter game, opponents would simply play a compact zone defense, designed to prevent any dribble drive to the basket. These critics argued that opponents would remain in these zone defenses until the Cats demonstrate that the perimeter game is sufficient punishment to force the opponent into a man defense, and to defend the perimeter. In the first show and tell time for the season, Morehead played a tight 2-3 zone for the entire game.

How did that work out for the Cats?

4-19 shooting from the perimeter is clearly not sufficient to pull Morehead out of the zone. Actually, 4-19 shooting from the perimeter is not sufficient to pull any opponents using that strategy from those zone defenses. That is exactly the point about the DDMO. Fans who have been concerned about the perimeter game have made this point repeatedly over the last 6 months in anticipation of real game action. Without a legitimate perimeter scoring ability, no opponent is going to allow players to simply drive through a zone defense to the basket.

The retort to this concern had been that these players are so good that they will be able to penetrate as required against any zone. However, the critics point out that unless players are able to knock down the open 3 pointer with some consistency, the UK’s offense will struggle just as it did against Morehead on Friday night, only scoring 0.83 points per possession, which is substantially below the NCAA D1 average efficiency [0.86 ppp]. Now the retort has changed to “John Wall will be this difference maker.”

Well, perhaps John Wall will be the answer to the ability to penetrate at will against these compact zones. However, John Wall’s presence is not likely to enhance the perimeter shooting percentages for this team. Taking 3-point shots following a series of passes around the perimeter is not going to be the answer. The only answer will come from making the 3 point shot following a penetration into the teeth of the zone. If John Wall is the player who can get inside the teeth of these zones, then he will not be the player who will knock down any 3-pointers. The players we have already seen play must be the ones who make the conversion from the perimeter done. So far, these players have not provided those conversions, e.g. 15-49 [30.6%] against two NAIA Exhibition opponents and Morehead.

This team must solve this part of the puzzle, sooner rather than later. This team must find some players who can, and will present a legitimate outside threat that an opponent must respect rather than site back in the zone and dare the Cats to try to shoot the long ones, in fact hoping that the Cats do simply “jack it up.”

The second area that this team must address is turnovers. Just like the last two editions of Cats, turnover rates are alarmingly high, with 59 turnovers in these first 3 games, which is a turnover on over 21% of all possessions. I concede that in two of the three games, the turnovers have been out of control when Wall has been sitting, and the one game in which Wall played, the turnovers were very manageable. I also concede that Wall’s mere presence on the floor can positively impact the turnover situation, unlike his presence not affecting 3-point shooting percentages. However, until I see several consecutive games with manageable turnover rates, with or without Wall, the only data available will continue to sound an alarm about turnover rates.

The poor protection of possessions, coupled with the poor 3-point shooting has produced an offensive efficiency that is very low, 0.83 ppp against Morehead, when the NCAA D1 average is 0.86 ppp. People have observed, correctly, that if they turnovers are reduced from 24 to 12, that the Cats would have scored more against Morehead, and the margin against Morehead would have been larger. However, that factor alone will not elevate the offensive efficiency from the actual 0.83 ppp to the 0.95 ppp range that will be required for any team intent upon a serious run at a National Championship.

This team must shoot 37% or higher from long range and reduce turnover rates to below 16% to achieve the offensive efficiency it will need. So, the offensive efficiency was pitiful due to poor 3-point shooting and a high turnover rate.

However, the story is not entirely gloom and doom, and there is plenty of “good news” for this team’s early performances.

1. Field goal shooting, despite its poor 3 point shooting, is very strong overall because inside the arc, this team has made over 62% of its shots. Because of this factor, I am much more concerned at this point about the turnovers than the perimeter shooting, and I am hopeful that Wall’s presence in the game will provide the resolution of the turnover woes, as so many DD’ers are suggesting.

2. Offensive Rebounding has been very strong, with the Cats grabbing a very powerful 49.8% of its own misses. The defensive board work has not been as effective because the Cats have permitted its opponents to collectively get 33.5% of their misses for second chance opportunities. The NCAA D1 average is about 33%, and at the defensive end, great rebounding teams will limit opponents to less than 30% second chance opportunities.

3. Overall defensive efficiency has been strong early, and against Morehead, the Cats limited their better than average [by NCAA D1 standards] offense to only 0.711 points per possession.

4. The pace of play has been faster than we have seen around here in many year during these early games, despite a slower than hoped for pace in Exhibition #1. The Cats have averaged 92 possessions per game [90 against Morehead], and opponents have averaged 90 posssessions per game [83 against Morehead], with the difference due to offensive rebounding margins.

Overall, the 16 point win over Morehead was sufficient for me to keep any real caution flags from rising up my front yard flag pole, especially without the contributions of Wall, and I remain very optimistic about the 2009-10 season. My optimism is reinforced by the fact that Coach Calipari is saying all the right things in the face of the turnover, shooting, and general level of effort issues, and I believe that he is determined to get this collection of players to play the game instead of reading their individual and collective press clippings.

After nearly 3 pages of commentary about the Cats, I really have only mentioned the Cats’ next opponent in passing. The issues on the table at this time do not really concern the name of the next opponent, and will not for another week or so. However, Miami does deserve some ink before Monday’s game.

Last year, Miami of Ohio finished 17-13 with a Pomeroy rating of #107. By comparison, Morehead finished with a Pomeroy rating of #150. However, Miami’s post season ended with a 10 point loss in the first round of the MAC tournament to Akron while Morehead won the OVC tournament and was 1-1 in the NCAA.

Early this season, Miami won both of its exhibition games, but was less than impressive in either of these tune up games. In addition, Miami lost its season opener at Towson State 11 points, 82-71. Based on this marginal start for the 2009-10 season, the NGE analysis indicates a 17 point win for the Cats, 75-58 in a game that will be played at a pace of Miami’s preference, 79 possessions for each team. The Cats’ offense should be much more efficient in this game, about 0.95 ppp, and for the second game in a row, the Cats’ defensive efficiency should be well under 0.75, e.g about 0.73 ppp. The pre-game magic number is 68 points.